Swift Fuel Unleaded Avgas Certified

[Guptar]

A 100% drop in replacement for 100LL has apparently been given approval by the FAA.

Home - The Next Generation of Aviation Fuels | Swift Fuels (http://swiftfuels.com/)

[dat581]

How will this stuff work with warbird engines?

[Arnold E]

Is this the stuff you have been on about Jabba.:confused:

[Volumex]

Before you get too excited, just read it again.

ASTM have approved the change of Specification ASTM D7719 from a test fuel specification to a production fuel specification.

The FAA has not (yet) approved Swift fuel.

[Jabawocky]

Volumex is 100% correct.

Much crowing and little substance there.

There is no way on gods green earth SW100 is an economically producible and 100% fungible drop in replacement. It does work in exceeding a 100MON but there is a lot more to the task than that.

I am not at liberty to discuss it further, but you can count on the above.

Arnold, no the one I am on about actually works especially on big warbirds with big turbo charged engines;) and is 100% fungible.

Read my previous comments about what it will take to replace leaded fuels. So far only one does.

[Jabawocky]

The words of George W Braly
When we look at this problem - - we boil down the issues to a set of design requirements for a workable replacement avgas for 100LL.

Design Requirements for a Functional Drop-In Replacement for 100LL Avgas:

1) Detonation - - same-same as 100LL;

2) Material compatibility - - close or same-same as 100LL;

3) Economics - - close to 100LL. Close means ? ~ about 10-15% premium or less;

4) Fungible. Has to be mixable in the FBO tanks and the wing tanks. Otherwise a transition to a new fuel becomes a logistical nightmare.

5) Producible. Has to be able to be made inside the fence of existing refineries. Nobody is going to spend 100’s of millions to build new production facilities. This requirement is related to item 3) above; and,

6) Transparent. Has to be transparent to the pilot, the engine, & the airframe when compared to 100LL.

Frankly - - we can do an assessment of five of those six requirements in two or three days of testing at our facility. The material compatibility testing takes longer, but even that is subject to some pretty straightforward assessments.

But then actually doing all of the formal certification work is challenging.

All of the testing todate continues to demonstrate that G100UL(R) avgas meets each of those six requirements.

Swift decided to pursue an ASTM specification - - hoping then that someone will decided to undertake the expensive and time consuming work to do all of the FAA certification testing to actually get the fuel approved to that it can be added to the limitations section of the engine and airframe type certificates, then legally flown in the aircraft.

GAMI has taken a different approach. We decided to do a parrallel process. We are doing the heavy lifting certification work with the FAA. At the same time we have the ASTM process moving forward. The data we generate for the FAA certification effort can be used for most or virtually all of the ASTM data package. But the ASTM data package does not get you an FAA certification.

We continue to make good progress with the FAA certification effort. At the same time, we continue to move the ASTM specification approval process forward.

Regards, George

[Old Akro]

Avgas is lifeblood of GA, AOPA tells caucus - AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/November/21/avgas-is-lifeblood-of-ga-aopa-tells-caucus.aspx)

[Old Akro]

Interesting summary from AVWEB

Finding a New Avgas May Be the Easy Part - AVweb Insider Article (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Finding-a-New-Avgas-May-Be-the-Easy-Part-221224-1.html)

[T28D]

Over the past few years, we've heard about "green" airliners running on a mixture of jet fuel and biofuels made from things like plants (http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-747-8-biofuel-atlantic-crossing/18940/) and recycled cooking oil (http://www.gizmag.com/air-canada-biofuel-flight/23040/). Now, Boeing is looking at blending jet fuel with green diesel, which is already used to fuel trucks.
Green diesel is derived from oil and fat-based feedstocks, as are the biofuels that have been used in planes before. It differs from biodiesel, however, in that it's not processed in the same fashion, and has a different chemical makeup.
According to studies conducted by Boeing, the blended aviation fuel should produce 50 percent less carbon dioxide than straight petroleum jet fuel. Additionally, green diesel should cost about the same as regular jet fuel, once US government incentives are factored in.
Existing production facilities that are already producing green diesel for ground transportation could conceivably meet up to one percent of the demand for jet fuel.
"We are collaborating with our industry partners and the aviation community to move this innovative solution forward and reduce the industry's reliance on fossil fuel," says Dr. James Kinder, a Technical Fellow in Boeing Commercial Airplanes Propulsion Systems Division.
Source: Boeing (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=128940)

[nomorecatering]

At least we don't have to worry about running out of oil now. It might be a very early call, but I reckon the oil crisis is over after spending the last 2 days reading academic papers on the process. Give it 10-15 years to mature.

Algae converted to crude oil in less than an hour (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101287355)