AOPA Article on 100LL alternative

[pmccoy]

Saw this on the AOPA website. It's about a group from Purdue University working on an alternative to 100LL. Looks interesting.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...T.mc_id=ebrief

There is a video and short article explaining what they are working on.

[OKAV8r]

This was written with a positive 'spin', good to hear the stuff is actually being used. But I'm left with the question of long-term suitability...
How does this stuff compare to ethanol as to affinity for water?
How compatible is this fuel considering fuel system components? Will it 'eat' lines, floats, and seals?

[BoilermakerRV]

Originally Posted by pmccoy

It's about a group from Purdue University working on an alternative to 100LL.

I've worked personally with this group from Purdue, and let me just say, I'm reserving judgment. Dr. Rusek is a very enigmatic individual. He was very motivating, and would probably be a great salesman if he weren't an engineer. He was always talking about all the great things we were going to be doing, but none of them came to fruition. At least not in my time.

I hope he (or someone) does invent some great new, renewable fuels. His just sounds a little too good to be true right now.

Edit: I first saw an article about this in Kitplanes, August or maybe July 2009 issue.

[Steve]

Lycoming has supplied Swift with several engines to be used for product test. Raytheon (Beechcraft) has also worked with Swift on development. Swift had their RV4 at OSH this year.

http://swiftenterprises.com/Swift%20Fuel.html

This stuff could be just what the doctor ordered,
Steve

[N1593Y]

Originally Posted by OKAV8r

This was written with a positive 'spin', good to hear the stuff is actually being used. But I'm left with the question of long-term suitability...
How does this stuff compare to ethanol as to affinity for water?
How compatible is this fuel considering fuel system components? Will it 'eat' lines, floats, and seals?

The fuel is not ethanol and has no ethanol in it. It is certain hydrocarbon molecules found in avgas made from bio-mass.

The question is, does the process scale with a resulting fuel that anyone can afford? Time will tell, but the presentation I went to at Oshkosh 2008 reminded me of a Jim Bede tent revival and the interesting thing is that there is no information on their web site about the progress on the process in the last year.

There have been several threads on this forum about the fuel and the process (just search for "swift fuel") and one person who examined the patent said that the chemical processes were very dangerous.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by N1593Y

... and one person who examined the patent said that the chemical processes were very dangerous.

Companies work with dangerous chemical processes all the time. The engineers and scientists know how to work around issues when dealing with both feedstock and the final product.

Having worked in the chemical industry, we had some plants that if they leaked, it would wipe out an entire neighborhood, if not the town. With proper safety controls in place, you don't allow leaks, simple as that.

The big issue with Swift Fuel is the scalability of the process. When you read their web site, fuel prices have to be up around $5/gallon to make the production economically feasible. Below that and dead dinosaurs and melted bullets are the more economical solution.

I suspect that once the economy improves, fuel prices will once again rise, and there will be more incentive to develop a workable production method for Swift Fuel.

[10builder]

It was interesting to read the "Grass for gas" article in the September '09 issue of AOPA Pilot where a fellow RV owner (Dave Hirschman) flew with 20 gallons of Swift fuel in his RV-3 from Indiana to Ohio. His results appeared to be very positive; I hope the progress continues with this alternative.

Brian
RV-10 N104BS
Nashville, TN

[jtop]

I'm just curious to the see the production method and what this magical fuel actually is. From the website it sounds too good to be true; but hopefully its not. They claim its made from biomass but it doesnt contain ethanol (or any alcohol for that matter) so I don't really know what it could be. As far as I understand it, fuels brewed from biomass (grass, corn etc) are alcohol based right?

If it's so good I'd start up my own brewing process just for myself. Who wouldn't want to collect grass clippings to make their own avgas?

[rv7charlie]

I don't know if Swift is actually talking about their formula, but apparently chemists have known about micro 'bugs' that can make butanol for many decades. It just hasn't been financially attractive to use the techniques until recently. Try this link for some info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel

Charlie

[breister]

Swift's fuel is not at all an alcohol, it is an acetate and smells like your wife's nail polish remover.

It is for real; but has two substantial hurdles. One is that the feedstocks degrade rather quickly, so the process will probably not run year-round (or will be substantially less profitable in the winter months). Thus, the investors either need to support a plant which only operates 1/2 of the year or spend much more on feed stocks in the off months. The other is scalability - as demand goes up, more land must be dedicated to feedstocks rather than food crops, driving costs up both for food and for feed stocks.

If we were simply discussing 100LL, this process would make sense (and is currently the only real advantage I see Swift as having over competing biofuel processes, since none of them produce a product with sufficient octane to replace 100LL). In fact, if plants were built around the world it might actually be cheaper in time than 100LL is now. However, Swift (and their competitors) are all eying the JET-A market. The bio-mass necessary for that scope of production is, IMHO, completely impractical.