What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Swift Fuel

D

David-aviator

Well Known Member
This bit of news came off the Avweb Flash network this morning

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...d=news_view&newsId=20080505005358&newsLang=en

The claims are impressive...maybe there is a light at the end of the 100LL tunnel. I think what should concern us very much is that the EPA lead exemption for 100LL expires in less than 2 years. Depending on how the wind is blowing in Washington, it may be a challenge for the industry to get it renewed.
 
Let's keep our fingers crossed about this new development in alternative fuels. Maybe a great place to invest??
 
Here is a link to the company.

http://www.swiftenterprises.net/index.html

They have been testing it but apparently it has not been flown, not sure how they can make the claims they are making until an airplane gets off the ground with the stuff.

The advantages of Swift Bio-Synthetic Fuel are:

* Seamless replacement of 100LL (no engine modifications)
* 15-25% increase in range over 100LL (no oxygenates)
* 20% drop in pollutants over the current 100LL fuel
* 15% more volumetric energy than 100LL
* No need for stabilizers or additives

Sound good, maybe too good.
 
I believe in this so much that I'm gonna make my fuel tanks 15% smaller... ok maybe not. But it does sound promising...
 
Just curious, but what's the definition of "biomass" that they are using? Aren't we already creating potential supply problems with corn-based fuels?
 
Jim P said:
Just curious, but what's the definition of "biomass" that they are using? Aren't we already creating potential supply problems with corn-based fuels?
Click to expand...

I have a friend who works at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. His current project involves looking at biorefinery processes - researching how to take everything from grass clippings to weeds and making fuel out of it. I'm guessing Swift is working on a way to utilize all biomass like this.
 
If those claims are factually correct, the oil companies will buy out the company, patent, and shut it down claiming the fuel is not economically viable or not safe to use in aircraft.
 
Evil oil companies!

asav8tor said:
If those claims are factually correct, the oil companies will buy out the company, patent, and shut it down claiming the fuel is not economically viable or not safe to use in aircraft.
Click to expand...

Just like they did with the 100 MPH carburator! Those those evil oil companies are always up to something! :rolleyes:
 
One has to ask why a startup company would target aviation fuel when we are such a small market?

It would make far more economic sense to target automotive products. Especially if they will only use 5% of their capacity for aviation.
 
Too good to be true

David-aviator said:
.....

The advantages of Swift Bio-Synthetic Fuel are:

* Seamless replacement of 100LL (no engine modifications)
* 15-25% increase in range over 100LL (no oxygenates)
* 20% drop in pollutants over the current 100LL fuel
* 15% more volumetric energy than 100LL
* No need for stabilizers or additives

Sound good, maybe too good.
Click to expand...

Way too good.

The volumetric energy increase they are claiming is roughly the equivalent of diesel over gas. Even their own math doesn't add up since they are simultaneously claiming 15% more volumetric efficiency and 15%-to-25% increase in range.

This is not going to happen.
 
Steve Brown said:
Way too good.

The volumetric energy increase they are claiming is roughly the equivalent of diesel over gas. Even their own math doesn't add up since they are simultaneously claiming 15% more volumetric efficiency and 15%-to-25% increase in range.

This is not going to happen.
Click to expand...

I think they are just using different words to repeat the same thing over again redundantly duplicated.....

:D
 
N395V said:
One has to ask why a startup company would target aviation fuel when we are such a small market?
Click to expand...
Good question Milt.

Could it be because it is a small, low volume market with high margins? They may be thinking that lead additives may not be renewed for use in avfuel there will be a ready market. More so if they keep adding ethanol to MoGas.

(I'm trying to take the high road here.)
 
N395V said:
One has to ask why a startup company would target aviation fuel when we are such a small market?

It would make far more economic sense to target automotive products. Especially if they will only use 5% of their capacity for aviation.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because the cofounder is a professor in Purdue University?s School of Astronautics and Aeronautics Engineering.
 
Money..money...money

ChrisL said:
Perhaps because the cofounder is a professor in Purdue University?s School of Astronautics and Aeronautics Engineering.
Click to expand...

More likely because pilots have higher income on average than the rest of the population, are highly invested in aircraft that need 100LL, and are therefore more likely to invest in this far fetched technology.
 
Invest?

No one wants this technology to suceed more than me, although it sounds kinda farfetched.
Note the $ (investor) icon on the Swift site doesn't work.

Steve
 
Perhaps with this new fuel the moller skycar will finally fly! I hate to be pessimistic, buy this but is smells just like late night infomercials for oil additives.

One question: Why have they not partnered with the EAA to test the fuel? It would provide the path of least resistance to build a market.

500 willing beta testers that would sign a liability release right now on this site alone. (for free test fuel of course, :D)
 
Perhaps with this new fuel the moller skycar will finally fly! I hate to be pessimistic, buy this but is smells just like late night infomercials for oil additives.
Click to expand...

Actually the most far fetched part will be taking the experimental process and converting it to large volume production.

Based on the chemical structure of combustible petroleum products there is no reason a good microbiologist could not genetically engineer bacteria to convert organic garbage and waste into any one of thousands of petro products.

Right now most insulin in use and all of the clot busters are produced by genetically engineered e coli bacteria.

I imagine you could get a bacteria to produce gasoline that would give an appropriate octane rating as well as an increased energy yield with appropriate combustion.

I am just not certain the av market is big enough for an acceptable return on the investment.
 
DMF?

The devil is in the details in all endeavors such as this, but several bio-fuels are being investigated for gasoline replacement. Dimethylfuran, (or DMF) for one has the potential to be a good aviation fuel. I don't think this is the one that Swift is talking about, since DMF is the same BTU per volume as gasoline, not 15% better. Still, equal to av-gas is a lot better than ethanol at -30%.

Making a new synthetic fuel refinery / factory is enormously capital intensive. Probably best to start small, like with the GA marketplace. ;)
 
Ted Johns said:
The devil is in the details in all endeavors such as this, but several bio-fuels are being investigated for gasoline replacement. Dimethylfuran, (or DMF) for one has the potential to be a good aviation fuel. I don't think this is the one that Swift is talking about, since DMF is the same BTU per volume as gasoline, not 15% better. Still, equal to av-gas is a lot better than ethanol at -30%.

Making a new synthetic fuel refinery / factory is enormously capital intensive. Probably best to start small, like with the GA marketplace. ;)
Click to expand...

Pundits are saying we may see oil at $200 barrel soon. Some very good alternative fuels could emerge as a result. They won't be cheap but neither will 100LL.
 
A 'lift' from the EAA webpage:
February 25, 2010 ? Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University announced plans this week to phase in lead-free biofuel produced by Swift Enterprises for use in its training aircraft, the nation?s largest (95 aircraft) collegiate fleet. Swift fuel is a renewable biofuel synthesized from sorghum that has been successfully tested by the FAA Technical ...
It's real and it's comming to an Embry-Riddle near you.
100LL is the highest priced gasoline in the US, the consumption of which SWIFT believes can be met by their planned output.
Now that ethanol is in virtually all mogas, I'd pay full 100LL price for a no lead fuel that has more power or more range, wouldn't you?
Soon we will find out how well it stores, how fuel systems tolerate it, if it causes skin rash, or smells bad. :rolleyes:
 
IIRC, the original sales pitch claimed a fairly lower price than 100LL...
That's what gets my motor going. I would love to be able to fly more.
Hope this stuff works.:rolleyes:

Glenn Wilkinson
 
David Perme, the CEO of Swift Fuels spoke at the EAA Chapter 288 monthly meeting last month. He gave a pretty good picture of where the company is at this time. They have signed the agreement with Embry Riddle and also have test programs going with Cessna, Cirrus, and Lycoming, IIRC. He seems confidant that they will be able to ramp up production utilizing existing facilities, when the product is ready to market. He was cautious about retail cost, but said that they were confident that it will be competitive with 100LL.
The fuel is a bit heavier than 100LL, but puts out more BTU's per gallon. So far, testing has shown no adverse affects on existing engine components, seals, o-rings, etc.
 
Somebody in this thread mentioned that it hadn't flown yet. It has actually. There was an RV (-4 I think?) at Oshkosh last summer that flew in with it. They also flew a bonanza and a couple others in tests. Their formal test program hasn't begun yet. To be a 100LL replacement, the formal test program has to be approved by someone other than Swift - like ASTM or FAA maybe? Don't know for sure, but I get email updates from them occassionally. I am on the list as possible test aircraft when the time comes. I think one way it can be viable as a business is that it should cost less to distribute. It can go through the same underground lines as automotive gasoline. 100LL cannot. They also say they only need about 400 square miles of farmland to produce the biomass necessary for full 100LL replacement. The plant product may be either flax seed oil, or sorghum. Flax was their original crop mentioned in their posts, but I've read that the Canadian flax has been contaminated with some rogue seeds from Europe that have affected production. I also read about another 100LL replacement experimental fuel on the AOPA or EAA website (don't remember) that shows promise, so there's competition. Anyway, until Swift or anybody comes up with a formal test program and a business plan for production/distribution, we don't need to get too excited. What we do need to get nervous about is what will happen if nothing is found.
Scott
 
Last edited by a moderator:
400 sqnm is only 20nm by 20nm. Just a point of reference, Rhode island our smallest state is 1600 sqnm. This is hardly going to make a dint in our food production capacity. Which is why 100LL makes for an attractive market for alternative bio-fuels. Mogas on the other hand is not.

ajay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top