Swift Fuel

[Burtonport]

Swift and Shell are competing to be the supplier of the substitute for 100 LL. I guess that it will be decided soon.
This description is from Swift Fuels:
?These tests show that our fuel is high performance and has a higher fuel density. That means the fuel is typically 0.5 to 0.8 pounds per gallon heavier than 100LL, yet it achieves a 7 to 15% increased range (i.e. flight miles) per gallon due to it higher energy density. This has significant favorable implications for many aviators, because it expands the reach of available refueling hubs during flight, a major flight safety improvement.?
So that means that, if Swift wins the contest, 20 gallons of their UL 102 would weigh 10 to 16 pounds more that 100LL, and 6 to 12 pounds more than mogas. I wonder if that will impact the amount of baggage allowed?
Swift claims a 7 to 15% increased range. Does that mean that the 912iS will burn 7 to 15% less fuel?
I hope to make it to Oshkosh this year and I will quiz the Swift fuel rep.
Regards,
Damien Graham

[Sam Buchanan]

The FAA flight tests for both fuels was discontinued a few weeks ago. OSH should be interesting.....

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

The FAA flight tests for both fuels was discontinued a few weeks ago. OSH should be interesting.....

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/

From that FAA link... I wonder if the weight per gallon is one of the issues/mitigations being resolved?

Differences in the two PAFI fuels as compared to 100LL are being evaluated for impacts and mitigations. While these issues are assessed, PAFI flight testing and some engine testing have been halted. Both fuel producers, Shell and Swift, are currently evaluating options to mitigate the impacts that these differences will present in fuel production, distribution, and operation in the GA fleet. These evaluations will take time and ultimately affect the schedule of the test program. Based on current projected activities and timelines, the testing completion date for the PAFI program will be December 2019 (previously December 2018).

Looks like everything is delayed a year.

[N941WR]

Any idea what the expected impact on price will be?

[rv6ejguy]

Interesting we've heard nothing from Shell over here for almost 2 years now and that Swift has been selling their lower octane fuel for some time at something like 40 locations in the US now.

I can see how the higher specific weight fuel could cause issues with loading and gross weight and that becomes more problematical with a mix of 100LL and their fuel but surely we can hand the responsibility over to pilots to deal with that aspect as they are already responsible to proper and legal loading on their aircraft.

Sending the manufacturers back to the drawing board after all this time seem like a huge waste of time and resources and they'll have to repeat much of the testing already done. The weight issues were known about years ago with the Swift fuel. If it was a problem with the FAA, they should have said so from the start.

Aircraft converted to diesel, burning Jet A, have had to revise their loading data as well due to the fuel weight differences.

[rongawer]

Having read the PAFI update, it doesn’t appear to be a “back to the drawing board” statement, but rather a mitigating the differences between the two fuels to create a common standard.

I expect that once the gap analysis is completed, a common ASTM standard will be produced, followed by validation of that common fuel.

As for Swift fuel, noting the weight is about 10% more, but the BTU content is also about 10% more, it’s just a matter of loading less volume of fuel for the same range.

In reality, it adds the opportunity for additional range; that assumes the actual burn rate validates 10% reduction in GPH for the same performance setting.

As for price, San Carlos (SQL) has Swift - although they were out when I was there a month ago. The price was 20¢ a gallon more than 100LL. My guess is that the final price of UL avgas will be about the same as 100LL if accepted universally - even if it’s less expensive to produce...supply and demand rule.

[Larry DeCamp]

Home base for Swift is Purdue University in Indiana. They are executing a marketing evaluation and recruiting airports to give away 102 just to get user feedback,probably for marketing use. They told me the target price is about $4 which is what 100LL costs at many small Midwest airports

[vlittle]

In a perfect world, the 100LL replacement can be made street legal and the auto industry will embrace it to build higher compression and more efficient engines with longer range. This will lead to higher volumes and lower prices.

One can dream.

V

[rv7charlie]

Originally Posted by vlittle

In a perfect world, the 100LL replacement can be made street legal and the auto industry will embrace it to build higher compression and more efficient engines with longer range. This will lead to higher volumes and lower prices.

One can dream.

V

That really would be nice. But I wonder if it will meet all the *other* pollution standards for cars, when run in existing engines and control systems. No way a/c engines meet automotive standards regardless of fuel, so the refiners might have just ignored everything but lead.

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by rongawer

Having read the PAFI update, it doesn?t appear to be a ?back to the drawing board? statement, but rather a mitigating the differences between the two fuels to create a common standard.

I expect that once the gap analysis is completed, a common ASTM standard will be produced, followed by validation of that common fuel.

As for Swift fuel, noting the weight is about 10% more, but the BTU content is also about 10% more, it?s just a matter of loading less volume of fuel for the same range.

Ahh. That makes more sense. I suppose you'd have to be able to safely mix the 2 formulations also.