What's new
Van's Air Force

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

AOPA Article on 100LL alternative

A positive article...

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?
 
I Hope It's True

pmccoy said:
It's about a group from Purdue University working on an alternative to 100LL.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
OKAV8r said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
N1593Y said:
... and one person who examined the patent said that the chemical processes were very dangerous.
Click to expand...
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.
 
All speculation aside...

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
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
I purcahsed 20 gal of ethanol free 91 octane mogas at T13 (Dallas South Park) this weekend. If you run a Rotax and are in the Dallas area, I highly recommend this as a fuel stop.

EtOH-free 91 octane mogas might not be the fuel of the future, but it is a great alternative to 100LL.

TODR
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
I purcahsed 20 gal of ethanol free 91 octane mogas at T13 (Dallas South Park) this weekend. If you run a Rotax and are in the Dallas area, I highly recommend this as a fuel stop.

EtOH-free 91 octane mogas might not be the fuel of the future, but it is a great alternative to 100LL.

TODR
Click to expand...

I still work on the principle that if you want reasonably economic fuel you can't beat volume..Therefore figure out what it takes to use the same stuff you put in your car.

10% ETOH although not ideal has been run in my airplane (no mechanical fuel pump mind you) for a couple of hundred hours up to 15.5k ft at well below freezing. So far I have not noticed any difference apart from the fact it won't lean out quite so far as alcohol free mogas.

Seems to me it would be a lot easier to modify the Lycoming to run on this fuel and characterise what the real issues are..If vapour phase seperation is a real issue (not convinced that it is) then characterise this and decide on what basis you can fly with it and simply don't if you can't.

Frank
 
I just pulled the following of of the T 28 forum.

Swift fuel is available NOW for use in experimental a/c. If there
> is a representative for the T28 group that might want to explore/test
> this 104 Octane No Lead Fuel please let me know. We have a round
> engine consultant that is also working with Warbirds Organization I
> believe. I am consulting to Swift for flight testing in GA
> engines,....when they are ready to test. Right now much testing
> done by FAA ...on Lycoming Turbocharged engines at Atlantic
> City....no show stoppers yet except the buerocratic stuff from
> ASTM...which has zero profit motive and takes way too long.
>
> Kent Ewing
> Captain/USN/Ret
> 2000 hours in T28's at VT3/VT5/Lemoore/Pt Mugu/and Pax River
> I probably flew your BuNo...jumped in and out of over 122 different
> Buno's.
>
>
Click to expand...

Anybody here seen this "availability" for experimentals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top