• 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

Re: Swift Fuels

The last update I had on this subject was that the FAA is moving along close to schedule with testing two 100 octane unleaded drop in replacements; one from Swift and another from Shell. There is no thought of not bringing 100 octane to market.

That being said, there's nothing to stop a manufacturer like Swift from bring along another fuel with a lesser octane sooner. I'm guessing their planning may have assumed a continuation of recently higher fuel prices prior to the current supply environment (which looks very unlikely to fundamentally change for a long time).

I think an FBO would be crazy to either 1) stop selling 100LL and switch to 94, or 2) spend what's probably hundreds of thousands of dollars to add another fuel farm which only a limited number of aircraft can use.

So no need to worry about any of this at this time. As Pat mentioned, this is just Swift doing some marketing.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Im also a member of the Cessna twin owners society. They have a very large group of owners that have a big voice with aviation community. Most all the big twins fly behind large bore turbocharged power plants. They have quite a bit going on as I understand it to be able to keep flying them for a long time to come. I'm sure between them and the piper guys a solution will be available.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Thanks for calming my nerves some!!!!!!!:):)
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Thanks Glenn & Elliot!!! Nice to wake up, see Clear skys, and and see the Leaves on the Trees blowing more gently, Then read 'Fuel vapors blowing in our direction'!! :)
Looking forward to Pat's report!!
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Notes from Swift Seminar 5-21-2016 with Jon Ziulkowski Speaker

These statements are from my notes. There weren’t any handouts

Why is Swift getting into the 94UL market now? It is a marketing decision because of customer request for better and cheaper fuel. It is at a minimum of $.50 per gallon cheaper than 100LL. The airports set the price and it is much cheaper at many airports.

Is the EPA forcing the issue now? The EPA set the standard for reduction of airborne lead in 2008. That year it was reduced by 90%, 2015 another 20% and in 2020 it will be reduced again. Aviation is 65% of the lead that is airborne at the present time.

Are the airports asking for 94UL? No it is the aircraft owner and mainly flight schools. Many airports still have fuel systems for 80 octane and that is the target for Swift marketing. Swift offers above ground storage tanks for airports that do not have another tank available.

Have any airports stopped selling 100LL? No It not expected that airports will stop selling 100LL until 100UL is approved.

What is 94UL? It is 100LL without the lead, lead scavenge additives and other additives required to put lead in the fuel. It is only hydrocarbons and no ethanol. It has an octane rating of at least 94 MON aviation, some as high as 97. 94 MON is about a 102 auto octane rating. Because it does not have the additives that do not burn, it has more energy.

Can it be used interchangeably with 100LL? Yes

Are there downsides or problems to use it in approved airplanes? No Lead doesn’t have any advantages or aid in lubrication. Current engines have hardened valves so lead is not required. Pictures of combustion chambers and spark plugs of engines at TBO were much cleaner. Lead fouling of spark plugs cannot happen.

What is the storage life of 94UL? Minimum 2 years compared to 100LL that is 18 months and auto fuel that 2 months or less.

Where can I get 94UL? Many airports have started using it and Swift has requested the FAA to list it on the airport data. This is where the web sites get their information. Swift has made the data available and they expect to see the information distributed in a couple week. There many private induvial people buying it directly that will not be on the list. Rutan is one of these people and he only burns 94UL, both in his transportation and test planes.

What do I need to do to burn it in my plane? Commanders You need a STC from Swift. It can be used in the IO-360 and IO-540s. There is not a problem if the plane is Turbonormalize. The other planes must wait for the 100UL.
What is the cost of the STC? Commanders $600 to $780 for each plane. Why is a STC needed to a 114 when the engine is approved for 91 MON. The airframe is certified for 100LL.

What is involved in the STC? No changes are made to the plane except the 100LL decal on the wing is replaced with a decal that has 94UL, 100LL and 130 on it. A log book entry and 337 is done.

That is the status of 100UL? In 2014 the FAA asked for fuels to be tested. 17 were submitted and the FAA reduced that to 4. In March 2016 only two were passed to the next testing phase. They expect testing and approval to be complete in 2018.

What are the requirements for 100UL? It is required to work in all aircraft engines without modification. The target for the cost is to be completive with 100LL and it is #1 on the FAA list of requirements. I think Swift knows it will cost more and that is why they have started marketing 94UL. The 100UL will not require a STC, it is a direct replacement for 100LL.

Has the 94UL slowed the development of 100UL? No it is 100LL without lead additives. And the 94UL market will continue after in introduction of 100UL

What additives are proposed for the 100UL? He did not talk about their formula but it will likely be another metal.

Are there any other advantages or disadvantages for unleaded fuels? The fuel can be transported in regular gasoline fuel trucks if the trucks are empty of ethanol and then they can be reused for ethanol. Trucks that haul leaded fuel cannot be used for auto fuel. This should reduce the cost of transportation. Another point, this is a quote from Swift’s website. “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 its 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.”

Side note: 100LL was not formulated to a standard when it first came on the market but an agreement between the major fuel and engine manufactures. The standard for 100UL was designed to meet or exceed the test of 100LL. We were told that 100LL actual weights are between 5.8 and 7.8 pounds per gal.

Will I buy the STC? The cost more is than I will spend unless 94UL is at most of the airports where I fly. Long term, I will be in.

This is a long posting and will probability raise more question. Swift is willing to attend our Fly In in September if there is interest. They would talk about 94UL and Swift 102UL replacement for 100LL.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Good info. Thanks Pat!
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Pat

Thanks for taking the time and your comments. Very interesting stuff and belays some of the fear of 100LL going away without an alternative for the engines that still need the higher octane.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Thanks Murph, great info.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Good info.., thanks for posting!
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Pat- Once again you have taken an initiative on our collective behalf and Again I thank you for the post and eliminating some of our 'fears'.

Very Very interesting information, and yes does raise more questions. However, this time I think questions more of a technical and legal nature, although some of the information raises questions of 'What where they thinking'?

Maybe this needs a new thread, and maybe Carl Lee and Jim Richards can best help out here.

For example, Did I understand correctly that they are saying that 94 UL could 'Technically' operate fine for performance in our (T0-360) engines, but because 'The Airframe was certified for 100LL', we need to wait for 100UL or buy the STC?
Where the TC's/TC=-A's (Airframes) Certified for 100LL? An airframe doesn't have an engine. We know the Cowls of 112s, TC's & 114s are different, but I thought I heard Carl say in a seminar that the aerodynamic differences ( as opposed to say 'design differences s for engine cooling') are negligible??? Or(Carl) did I misunderstand?

OK I'll say it for discussion (Kinda like Pat's Beer Question for the Grand Oaks Flyin Event)
So it's now 2025. I fly in somewhere. If 94UL and 100UL are both available- Why should I spend 50c or more a gallon more for 100UL ---- IF---- 94UL has 'acceptable engine operational capabilities' ?

I think the idea of a Swift Representative coming to our Fly-In, and presenting a Seminar is a GREAT IDEA!!!

This is all pretty fascinating. When you look at the history of the 'Petroleum Industry' in this country (or the world) - so many changes, so much politics & Business driven formulations vs Technically based Science //Corporate vs & Government Policy, but I'll leave that alone, give Pat a break :)

I guess I have one other question (right now) Is there going to be a 'Gov't standard' or will AVgas producers have 'some flexibility' in additives /or Marketing- Sure you all remember 'Tony the Tiger' vs the Sinclair Dinosaur vs Shell 'Clean Burn'- and AMoco had some 'additives that others didn't - so they said. In other words is every producers 'product' going to be the same formulation determined by the EPA?
 
Last edited:
Re: Swift Fuels

Sherman

35% of the current aircraft engines in use today require 100 MON octane minimum. The TO360 is one these engines.

The point in the seminar was, if the engine is approved to operate on 94UL, the airframe is also required to be certified for 94UL or a STC is required for the airframe.

Many engines require the higher octane because of the engine compression or other design criteria. Ignition detonation is one of the problems that can cause problems and cause engine failure. Current design automobile engine have knock detection and can detune the engine by adjusting the ignition timing. The auto engine octane rating is more of a recommendation. The octane rating for an aircraft engine is a requirement by physics not certification.

There are other ways to lower the octane requirement of an engine but they are not approved for use on aircraft engines at the current time. Most of them would reduce the power output of the engine. Auto race cars have octane boost available aftermarket and most of them are highly toxic, more toxic than lead. We were told in the seminar than a respirator should be used when they are added to the fuel. These are not approved for use in aircraft.

100LL will be available until an alternate fuel is on the market, 100UL. So there isn’t any problems with your airplane or the other 35% of the planes in operation.

I hope this answers some of your questions. Just as you stated, it will good to have a fuel seminar at the Fly In.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Thanks Pat!!!! Now all very clear compared to b4 you started this thread. Thank you again! Detonation, Certainly don't want ANY of that.

The other question that comes to mind rereading you Repirt was the comments that now -all our Valves,are 'Hardened vs earlier production engines. So the Lead isn't necessary anymore.'

I remember way back in 2000 when rebuilding my Triumph TR4 cylinder head, I changed to hardened valves. In fact my machine shop guru said he used Chevy valves as they were the same specifications.

When I rebuilt the T0-360 during 2011-2012 (Aero Engines of Winchester & Skyline Cylinders (just N of Hagerstown into Pennsylvania ) we obtained new valves from Lycoming., but never discussed whether the actual valve composition from the 1970s production was changed, just that Lycoming doesn't always have them, and we had to wait for a T0-360 'run'. So now I am curious about that technical consideration on the,T0-360. Are the current valves-hardened valves?

Finally stopped raining, so heading to FME shortly to examine the Alternator wiring situation in the other post.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Sherman,
Swift went into detail that lead is of no value today other than octane. Lycoming changed their spec. on valves many years ago and replacements are built to the new spec. Autos have been using unleaded for many years and lead was banned from autos in 1996.
The Swift seminar eased my mind on many things.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

But what is "many years ago?" These planes were built many years ago!
 
Swift Fuels

I was built many years ago...

My intake valves work just fine but I'm happier with a little lubrication for my exhaust system...

Beginning to sound like Ken. [emoji6]
 
Last edited:
Re: Swift Fuels

Dave,
Cars started using unleaded gas in 1974. I would hope the engine manufactures started thinking about the future then. Maybe not
I will ask the question of Swift.

Birdstrike Sherman
Enjoy the lead for 2 more years.

Bill
With your diet, You should worry about your exhaust valve.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

We have had UL91 in the UK for 4 years now and this is a summary of the way it appears to have been accepted in my view. (I Like lists).

1. The product in the UK is manufactured by Air Total, it was introduced as a safe replacement (Ethanol free) for Mogas in Rotax engines.

2. The engine manufacturers began to approve it for 100LL burning engines. Lycoming produced an approval list, which the UK CAA and EASA agreed would form the basis of their approval to use it.

3. The Low compression ratio IO540 engines in the 114 are on the list.

4. The Hi Compression ratio I0360 engines are not on the list.

5. There are no turbo engines on the list.

6. If your engine is on the list then you can use the fuel as an alternative to 100LL without an STC, just a different sticker on the fuel cap.

7. AVGAS UL91 was launched at many general aviation airfields in the UK at a small discount from the 100LL product, however the UL91 is made at a dedicated site in France and transport costs combined with low uptake meant that it came into parity with 100LL in some airfields over time and later became more expensive than 100LL in some places.

8. Mogas prices are low in the UK just now and the benefits of using an AVGAS product doesn't seem to be attractive enough to bring the Rotax community to 100LL in any great numbers at a higher price.

9. Some airfields have dropped UL91 due to poor sales.

10. It has had no impact on the number of airfields offering 100LL.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Lawrence
Thank you for this information.
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Pat, Would this effect my 580 or would I fall into the same category of the 540?
 
Re: Swift Fuels

Pat said:
---
Birdstrike Sherman
Enjoy the lead for 2 more years.---
Click to expand...

Pat- Did I once share that A bird did wack my windshield at 2300 ft, at Night, right after a departure from FDK- in the early 90's?
BS, just doesn't sound right! I'll Pass.

Until your post, I had never heard of 'Swift Fuels'. Kinda interesting they would take the lead over Phillips & Shell in the 94UL ' game'.
Maybe one day I'll visit you and I can 'Be Swift with you'!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top