• Welcome to the new Commander Owners Group Forums. Please bear with us as the kinks are worked out and things are tweaked. If you have any questions or issues with the new platform, please post them here.

Swift Fuels

Pat

Pat

Guest
Sturgis, MI
Aircraft Year
1993
Aircraft Type
114B/115
Reg Number
N374JW
Serial Number
14595
The FAA is running a Wings Seminar on Swift Fuels, May 21 in Goshen, IN. Has anyone seen this seminar? I want to know more about this topic but I do think I can get to the seminar.


Jon Ziulkowski and Brian Stirm of Swift Fuels will present an hour-long seminar outlining the coming transition to unleaded avgas for the General Aviation segment of piston aircraft. Swift is the industry leader in this FAA/EPA/industry sponsored effort. Details will be put forward on Swift’s current marketing of UL94 unleaded avgas within the US such that the unleaded transition may begin now for over 65% of the current GA fleet. Additionally, Swift Fuels is one of two companies with high octane alternative fuels going forward into Phase Two of the FAA’s Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) to replace (2018) the embattled 100LL avgas currently used by the US and worldwide fleet of GA piston aircraft. A question and answer session for pilots and maintenance personnel will follow the presentation.
Click to expand...

Added information and appears this is not ethanol:
Is the fuel renewable?
Avgas - No; Renewable Jet Fuel components - Yes

Our fuel components can be derived from a variety of biological sources – including sugars, starches, lignin, bio-waste and other sources, or from petroleum. All of the biological sources require unique and expensive processes to convert the raw material into a liquid hydrocarbon form usable as fuel. There are literally dozens of renewable energy firms seeking to find low-cost pathways to make these biological conversions possible at commercial scale. The renewable fuel market is very challenging and very expensive.

Swift has proven that a biological source can be transformed by our proprietary chemical synthesis into the exact hydrocarbon we need for our aviation gasolines. However, the very same hydrocarbon can also be synthesized from a crude oil fraction for less money, so we have developed alternative production methods, all of which are proprietary, that seek to exploit these various methods to bring our unleaded aviation gasoline to market.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Swift Fuels

I went to G & N Engines Friday, good people but I still like Penn Yan. I talked to them about 94 UL Av Fuel. They not only know about it, they have it on the field, Griffin, IN. They like it for most engines.
100LL - $4.59
94UL - $4.15
I did a Formation Training Day at EKM today and several pilots said Swift was on their field already. I did not know it was in distribution now.
I am looking forward to the Swift FAA Seminar next week.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Wish I could attend! I talked to them at SnF and I know it's about $600 for the 114 stc which is just a placard. But it sure looks promising and the price seems to be right.
Take notes!,!
 
Re: Swift Fuels

For us Turbocharged operators, this whole fuel issue is a nightmare. I believe Lycoming has said the the T0-360 and similar engines MUST HAVE 100 LL. To protect the engines.

In the Collector Car Community, we know from serious motor damages experiences with changing gasoline & motor oil formulations, that Many of ethanol formulated fuels have destroyed seals, gaskets, humming up carburators, clogging fuel lines, etc & no lead have destroyed bearings & Cams.

The reformulated motor oils with Less ZDDP have also destroyed camshafts, and when rebuilding engines, especially high performance engines, it us well documented that one Absolutely MUST Add ZDDP additives to protect the Cam lobes for & during the critical break in period. We Turbo guys who have rebuilt their engines know how critical following Lycoming break in Spectracide u fixations for both oil AND RPM / temperature specs and time us critical for proper ring sealing and overall cylinder breakin health.

Now ironically, even though modern oils have less ZDDP- in the oil, that is exactly what the GM 'Oil life' readout (sensors) measure in their computer generated 'Driver Information' Readouts. (The amount of active ZDDP- left in the oil).

So is the FAA going to 'sacrifice those of us running Hi-Performance Turbo engines for the insanity of Miscalculated Environmental Protection, when we know our collective few hours of operation per year is negligible in comparison to the Automotive and Commercial Aviation Environmental Impacts!
How many T0-360 &112/114 Hot Shots are there in % of the total 'Hi Performance' aircraft fleet the we keep hearing 'will be protected'?
 
Last edited:
Re: Swift Fuels

The 94UL is not ethanol garbage. It is real aviation gas. Yes there is a problem with the TO-360s but I think the IO-360s are covered. I think the reason they are going to market with 94UL now is the testing on the 100UL is not due until 2018 and approvals after that. .? When will the FAA have it done. If the the EPA pulls the plug on lead, there are systems to modify the IOs and TIO-540s.
Europe is already there with UL.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

So Pat, are you implying that if 100UL is approved for the Octane considerations, the FAA would be required by or have worked with Lycoming Engineers to come up with a suitable/ and approve an 'additive' to add to the Fuel or oil to protect the cams / bearings valves/valve guides in our T0-360s??? A ,egal Marvel Mystery Oil (which I BELITE Aviation consumer documented in the 80s to be as effect as Lenkite AVblend additive?
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Sherman
NO
I said that if the EPA required the lead be taken out of all fuel today, our only option would be 94UL or 91UL from Europe. The engines that do not work with those fuels would need an additive or modification to the engine. G & N said there are systems that make that fuel work in high compression engines.
I am going to the seminar to confirm what I have been told and learn more.
I think Swift knows we will not have an alternate fuel approved for a number of years, that is why they are distributing the 94UL.
It is in the hands of the EPA.
Opinion, I do not think the EPA cares about your engine.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

For the airports that now have 94UL- is it an additional fuel or is it in place of 100ll?
This is getting really scary . Since I fly a TO360 am I going to be faced with the possibility that an acceptable fuel might not be available in the future ? I use my plane for transportation and do some long cross country flights . In the not to distant future Will I have to call fuel stops along the way to confirm if they have a compatible fuel. Will there be no more just hop in the plane and fly and stop wherever for fuel.

Not a future that excites me!!!!
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Commander91gm said:
For the airports that now have 94UL- is it an additional fuel or is it in place of 100ll?
This is getting really scary . Since I fly a TO360 am I going to be faced with the possibility that an acceptable fuel might not be available in the future ? I use my plane for transportation and do some long cross country flights . In the not to distant future Will I have to call fuel stops along the way to confirm if they have a compatible fuel. Will there be no more just hop in the plane and fly and stop wherever for fuel.

Not a future that excites me!!!!
Click to expand...

Don't feel like the "Lone Ranger", Joel.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Its time for Carl to start work on the turbine option ;-)
 
Re: Swift Fuels

I was looking at an ADS-B out solution this year (already have in) but given the uncertainty about the availability of a suitable fuel supply, I am putting any upgrades on hold. Not going to do a thing until I am both satisfied and comfortable with the resolution .If I am not then the plane go's and I take up knitting .
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Your questions are what I will be asking in the seminar. I talked to the FAA representative that has organized the seminar and he gave me a little insight on the program. He said the guys from Swift are very open to questions.
To all, if you have any questions for the seminar please list them here or PM me.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

No - the Hot shots should be fine but any older platforms running factory turbo setups probably are at
risk . Some of the more recently engineered platforms like the Cirrus turbo probably planned for the change and wont be affected.

the original intent was for a drop in replacement that would cover the whole fleet . Anything less should be a non starter. The thought of having to flight plan based on who has what fuel is a nightmare. The FAA allowing fuels like 94UL to brought to market has started us down that road. Now sales of 100ll will drop and the agency can show it is taking steps to reduce the use of LL at the peril of the rest of us who need a viable alternative .

They should have done nothing until a true 100ll alternative was ready to go.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Pat said:
The 94UL is not ethanol garbage. It is real aviation gas. Yes there is a problem with the TO-360s but I think the IO-360s are covered. I think the reason they are going to market with 94UL now is the testing on the 100UL is not due until 2018 and approvals after that. .? When will the FAA have it done. If the the EPA pulls the plug on lead, there are systems to modify the IOs and TIO-540s.
Europe is already there with UL.
Click to expand...

If Europe is already using UL 94, are the turbos using it? what about the TO-360's over there, are they using it?
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Joel when you say Late Model Cirrus do you think my 1996 114TC would have been considered in this or no? Are you talking late models Cirrus's in the sense of 2013 models or so?

I'm just as concerned as the other TC guys, this can be a very scary future outlook for some of us with TC's........

Now I will say I just went thru a Major Overhaul that basically took the engine down to pretty much the engine block and went back with all new factory Lyc parts etc , so once again I wonder if the 94UL will be a catastrophe to my engine???




Commander91gm said:
No - the Hot shots should be fine but any older platforms running factory turbo setups probably are at
risk . Some of the more recently engineered platforms like the Cirrus turbo probably planned for the change and wont be affected.

the original intent was for a drop in replacement that would cover the whole fleet . Anything less should be a non starter. The thought of having to flight plan based on who has what fuel is a nightmare. The FAA allowing fuels like 94UL to brought to market has started us down that road. Now sales of 100ll will drop and the agency can show it is taking steps to reduce the use of LL at the peril of the rest of us who need a viable alternative .

They should have done nothing until a true 100ll alternative was ready to go.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Todd
I believe that your engine is probably in the same group as mine. There are some differences like carb vs injection, but I don't think that any of the higher compression turbo engines are safe. We all require 100ll to limit detonation. I think the newer Cirrus's that are FADEC and have computerized engine controls have a better chance with 100UL but I doubt they would ever be approved for 94UL, and if they were I would assume the engine would have to be de-rated.

Just my opinion!!!!

But the nice thing about COG is that if I am wrong , someone (or many) will correct me :-)


And this has nothing to do with old vs newly rebuilt or new parts. It is the basic design of the engine that creates potential issues .
 
Last edited:
Re: Swift Fuels

Count me as ditto in this conversation. [emoji15][emoji1317]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Caution. Let’s not jump too fast on the Lead issue. The EPA has not banned leaded fuel yet. I brought the subject up because Swift is marketing the 94UL and will have a seminar about it.
There are many planes that cannot use 94UL. All the Bonanzas and some of the Mooneys. Many others.
The FAA is late in their testing but there are some options if the EPA does not move too fast.
I want to go to the seminar to learn about the timing as they see it and the options we have now. I thought other people would like to know also.
For years GA had two options for fuel. This should not be considered the death to our aviation. Europe went to two fuels because their market asked for it.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

You guys have nailed what I was trying to say. So far my Info is certain older Turbo designs (like our T0-360 ) require certain formulated additives in fuel&oil to protect the cams & bearings/valves&valve guides.
How are we to plan to protect our engines health if a reformulated non lead fuel is the new normal. What additives exist that we can use or will be 'offered' for us to use.
So Pat -1) Thanks for the update. 2) Thanks for going. 3) Thanks for being tuned in to our concerns.4) Thanks for orig our concerns. 5) Not upset with you as messenger or FAA or EPA --Yet, as I understood we T0-360 operators are not the only old Turbo operators in the GA fleet.Abd,what about 'Historic Rxemptiib'-Radials etc.

However, Craig & others: Just one more example about Tech spec health from my Old Car experience.
Preface by saying we know our engines have a specific timing for Mag /piston cycle ops.

My 63 Imperial (39390 orig miles) has a Chrysler 413. 10.5-1 compression. I have to use 93 octane (94 when I can) and Octane boost to keep it from pinging if I want to experience the 360hp/full 460 ft# torque off the line or kickdown.
I have retarded the timing 2 deg. If I retard more-very lumpy unsmooth idle. But at -2 from book spec, I am OK with 93 octane ethanol AND 2 bottles full 21 gal tank Octane Boost. Oh and,I add ZDDP to protect cams.

What will Lycoming recommend to protect our engines if /when No Lead in fuels??

As Joel summarized so suscinctly, flight planning based on acceptable fuel availability would be a nightmare /impractical.

Thanks Pat
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top