VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #1  
Old 07-07-2018, 05:48 PM
Burtonport Burtonport is online now
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Watertown, New York
Posts: 32
Default Swift Fuel

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
__________________
Damien Graham
Watertown, NY
12iS Fuselage on order
Zodiac 601 HDS, bought from builder 6-09
VAF dues paid until 7-19
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-07-2018, 07:18 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is online now
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 3,781
Default

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

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/
__________________
Sam Buchanan
1999 RV-6
1918 Fokker D.VII replica

Last edited by Sam Buchanan : 07-07-2018 at 07:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-07-2018, 10:59 PM
az_gila's Avatar
az_gila az_gila is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 9,555
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan View Post
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.
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-08-2018, 12:19 AM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 11,455
Default

Any idea what the expected impact on price will be?
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-08-2018, 10:08 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 4,716
Default

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.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, Marcotte M-300, IVO, RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 424.4 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi.htm



Last edited by rv6ejguy : 07-08-2018 at 04:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-08-2018, 10:26 AM
rongawer's Avatar
rongawer rongawer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brentwood, CA
Posts: 325
Default

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.
__________________
Ron Gawer

- RV10, N1530G (reserved). Empennage in progress.
- RV12, N975G, Flying
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-08-2018, 12:56 PM
Larry DeCamp's Avatar
Larry DeCamp Larry DeCamp is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Clinton, Indiana
Posts: 645
Default Swift 102 price

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
__________________
Larry DeCamp
RV-3B flying w/ carb & Pmags
RV-4 fastback w/ Superior EXP 0360 /AFP & CPI
Clinton, IN
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-08-2018, 03:56 PM
vlittle's Avatar
vlittle vlittle is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Victoria, Canada
Posts: 2,012
Default

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
__________________
===========
V e r n. ====
=======
RV-9A complete
Harmon Rocket complete
S-21 under construction
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-08-2018, 04:15 PM
rv7charlie rv7charlie is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 3,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vlittle View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-08-2018, 04:37 PM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 4,716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rongawer View Post
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.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, Marcotte M-300, IVO, RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 424.4 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi.htm


Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:24 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.