-
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
- Thread starter Pat
- Start date
Hamilton, TX
- Aircraft Year
- 1974
- Aircraft Type
- 112/A
- Reg Number
- N1043J
- Serial Number
- 127
Re: Swift Fuels
I may be missing something. The airframe is certified for 100 and cannot use the 94 but if you shell out $700 you can get a piece of paper that says you can use it. No airframe modification?
I may be missing something. The airframe is certified for 100 and cannot use the 94 but if you shell out $700 you can get a piece of paper that says you can use it. No airframe modification?
Sherman
New member
Columbia MD & Goldvein VA
- Aircraft Year
- 1978
- Aircraft Type
- 112TCA
- Reg Number
- N112HT
- Serial Number
- 13254
Re: Swift Fuels
Well, One of our members printed up some Flaps & Fuel Placard Labels awhile back. I doubt anyone will ask you 'Where did you get your Labels'!!
Wait, I'm gonna need new Labels ' 100UL ONLY'. My Computer can do that! Jr., bet yours can too!
Well, One of our members printed up some Flaps & Fuel Placard Labels awhile back. I doubt anyone will ask you 'Where did you get your Labels'!!
Wait, I'm gonna need new Labels ' 100UL ONLY'. My Computer can do that! Jr., bet yours can too!
Georgetown, DE
- Aircraft Year
- 1975
- Aircraft Type
- 112-390
- Reg Number
- N1410J
- Serial Number
- 410
Re: Swift Fuels
If I'm reading the Lycoming fuel chart correctly, stock 112's and my IO-390 are not on the list to accept unleaded fuel. Do others come up with the same thing?
If I'm reading the Lycoming fuel chart correctly, stock 112's and my IO-390 are not on the list to accept unleaded fuel. Do others come up with the same thing?
Pat
Guest
Sturgis, MI
- Aircraft Year
- 1993
- Aircraft Type
- 114B/115
- Reg Number
- N374JW
- Serial Number
- 14595
Re: Swift Fuels
The stock 112s were on the first list and the STC is $600 and includes the turbo normalizing STC.
They had the STC wrong on the 114s and there was a specific question on the IO-580.
The TC turbocharged engines and the IO-390 are not approved. The Lycoming reference in his response, the engines approved for 91UL are approved for 94UL.
I questioned him at the seminar. If the engines are approved for 91UL, why is a STC required? The airframe was certified for 100LL and the STC is for the airframe paper work and a sticker for the wing. FAA requirement
If a plane has an auto fuel STC then they can use 94UL without another STC. None of the Commanders have an auto fuel STC available.
Jon made a note in his letter to state:
Because of the interest in Swift fuels both 94UL and the 100UL, we are looking at a presentation by Swift at Pine Mountain.
The stock 112s were on the first list and the STC is $600 and includes the turbo normalizing STC.
They had the STC wrong on the 114s and there was a specific question on the IO-580.
The TC turbocharged engines and the IO-390 are not approved. The Lycoming reference in his response, the engines approved for 91UL are approved for 94UL.
I questioned him at the seminar. If the engines are approved for 91UL, why is a STC required? The airframe was certified for 100LL and the STC is for the airframe paper work and a sticker for the wing. FAA requirement
If a plane has an auto fuel STC then they can use 94UL without another STC. None of the Commanders have an auto fuel STC available.
Jon made a note in his letter to state:
Because of the interest in Swift fuels both 94UL and the 100UL, we are looking at a presentation by Swift at Pine Mountain.
Georgetown, DE
- Aircraft Year
- 1975
- Aircraft Type
- 112-390
- Reg Number
- N1410J
- Serial Number
- 410
Pat
Guest
Sturgis, MI
- Aircraft Year
- 1993
- Aircraft Type
- 114B/115
- Reg Number
- N374JW
- Serial Number
- 14595
Re: Swift Fuels
Bill
You are right. I called Jon at Swift this morning and asked that question. He said it could be an auto gas STC for the 112 that would qualify it for the 94UL STC. He said he would have an answer this afternoon.
We had a long conversation about the direction of fuels. It was very interesting. As more information becomes available, I will pass it on.
Bill
You are right. I called Jon at Swift this morning and asked that question. He said it could be an auto gas STC for the 112 that would qualify it for the 94UL STC. He said he would have an answer this afternoon.
We had a long conversation about the direction of fuels. It was very interesting. As more information becomes available, I will pass it on.
Georgetown, DE
- Aircraft Year
- 1975
- Aircraft Type
- 112-390
- Reg Number
- N1410J
- Serial Number
- 410
Re: Swift Fuels
Thanks Pat. I really appreciate how you are staying on top of this.
Thanks Pat. I really appreciate how you are staying on top of this.
buchan
New member
Ottawa, Ontario
- Aircraft Year
- 1977
- Aircraft Type
- 114
- Reg Number
- C-GKEB
- Serial Number
- 14273
Re: Swift Fuels
I am not that familiar with the Type Certificate amendment process in the US, but if I am not wrong the Type Certificate holder can request an amendment to TC at any point.
I recall there were many aircraft that were certified to use only 100/130 fuel that were later approved, I think through amendment to the TC, to use either 100/130 or 100 LL.
Right from the FAA website:
AMENDED TYPE CERTIFICATE
The FAA may amend a type certificate when the holder of the type certificate receives FAA approval to modify an aircraft design from its original design. An amended type certificate approves not only the modification, but also how that modification affects the original design.
For information regarding the amended type certificate process, you may contact your certificate management office or the FAA Aircraft Certification Office. We recommend that you follow the Original Design Approval Process. You may also find it helpful to review related order, Order 8110.4, Type Certification.
Based on that, I would think it would be simple for the new TC holder to apply for an amendment to the TC, based on Lycoming approving the use of UL91 fuel in the 114's and there being no different in the fuel composition that would negatively affect any fuel system components.
For the 112 this might be a bit more complex, until Lycoming adds UL94 to their list, and shows this as an appropriate fuel for the IO360-C1D6.
This might be something the COG could try to discuss with the new owner of the Commander factory.
Don
I am not that familiar with the Type Certificate amendment process in the US, but if I am not wrong the Type Certificate holder can request an amendment to TC at any point.
I recall there were many aircraft that were certified to use only 100/130 fuel that were later approved, I think through amendment to the TC, to use either 100/130 or 100 LL.
Right from the FAA website:
AMENDED TYPE CERTIFICATE
The FAA may amend a type certificate when the holder of the type certificate receives FAA approval to modify an aircraft design from its original design. An amended type certificate approves not only the modification, but also how that modification affects the original design.
For information regarding the amended type certificate process, you may contact your certificate management office or the FAA Aircraft Certification Office. We recommend that you follow the Original Design Approval Process. You may also find it helpful to review related order, Order 8110.4, Type Certification.
Based on that, I would think it would be simple for the new TC holder to apply for an amendment to the TC, based on Lycoming approving the use of UL91 fuel in the 114's and there being no different in the fuel composition that would negatively affect any fuel system components.
For the 112 this might be a bit more complex, until Lycoming adds UL94 to their list, and shows this as an appropriate fuel for the IO360-C1D6.
This might be something the COG could try to discuss with the new owner of the Commander factory.
Don
Pat
Guest
Sturgis, MI
- Aircraft Year
- 1993
- Aircraft Type
- 114B/115
- Reg Number
- N374JW
- Serial Number
- 14595
Re: Swift Fuels
Don
Great Information
Dennis Schwieger
Can you add this to the list for the new Commander Company? I will post this on the Survey for Technical Development thread.
Allen
Europe is using 91UL in some places. Lycoming does not show 91UL as approved in the TO-360s or the TIO-540s.
If someone in Europe has first hand knowledge of this fuel and usage, please post how it is handled.
Don
Great Information
Dennis Schwieger
Can you add this to the list for the new Commander Company? I will post this on the Survey for Technical Development thread.
Allen
Europe is using 91UL in some places. Lycoming does not show 91UL as approved in the TO-360s or the TIO-540s.
If someone in Europe has first hand knowledge of this fuel and usage, please post how it is handled.
Lawrence Massachu$etts
- Aircraft Year
- 1975
- Aircraft Type
- 112/A
- Reg Number
- N1226J
- Serial Number
- 226
Re: Swift Fuels
My limited understanding of amending the Type Certificate is that it's possible but does require the underlying engineering work to support the amendment. I'm guessing this would not be trivial.
But all this should be academic with the work continuing toward a unleaded 100 octane replacement. Hopefully we're only a couple years from that solution becoming available.
My limited understanding of amending the Type Certificate is that it's possible but does require the underlying engineering work to support the amendment. I'm guessing this would not be trivial.
But all this should be academic with the work continuing toward a unleaded 100 octane replacement. Hopefully we're only a couple years from that solution becoming available.
Pat
Guest
Sturgis, MI
- Aircraft Year
- 1993
- Aircraft Type
- 114B/115
- Reg Number
- N374JW
- Serial Number
- 14595
Re: Swift Fuels
Glenn
From what I have read, you are right on the money. It should be academic. EASA did a across the board approval of UL91 in 2012, if the engine is approved for the UL91 then it is approved for the aircraft.
The 94UL Swift fuel is 100LL without any additives so there should not be any problems with the airframe.
There were headlines in 2012 about EASA and the FAA said they would do something. In 2014 they announced they would start testing, the test did not start until January of this year.
Of course, the FAA has a reputation to uphold. They are only accountable to themselves.
Glenn
From what I have read, you are right on the money. It should be academic. EASA did a across the board approval of UL91 in 2012, if the engine is approved for the UL91 then it is approved for the aircraft.
The 94UL Swift fuel is 100LL without any additives so there should not be any problems with the airframe.
There were headlines in 2012 about EASA and the FAA said they would do something. In 2014 they announced they would start testing, the test did not start until January of this year.
Of course, the FAA has a reputation to uphold. They are only accountable to themselves.
Lawrence Massachu$etts
- Aircraft Year
- 1975
- Aircraft Type
- 112/A
- Reg Number
- N1226J
- Serial Number
- 226
Re: Swift Fuels
The work that we did for the COG with the 100LL Coalition a few years ago spoke to this issue directly. There ultimately needs to be one 100 octane drop in replacement that works for everything.
The size of the market cannot support multiple fuel types and delivery/storage systems. And de-rating high performance aircraft engines to accommodate lower octane stuff isn't acceptable.
The FAA will get there and until they do, 100LL will stick around.
The work that we did for the COG with the 100LL Coalition a few years ago spoke to this issue directly. There ultimately needs to be one 100 octane drop in replacement that works for everything.
The size of the market cannot support multiple fuel types and delivery/storage systems. And de-rating high performance aircraft engines to accommodate lower octane stuff isn't acceptable.
The FAA will get there and until they do, 100LL will stick around.
Lawrence Rippon
New member
LEICESTER UK
- Aircraft Year
- 1977
- Aircraft Type
- 112B
- Reg Number
- G-BEPY
- Serial Number
- 524
Re: Swift Fuels
You are correct. Here in Europe UL91 is available and does not require an STC provided the engine is listed as approved by the manufacturer. The initial list contained none of the Comnander engines but the second contained the IO540. For the avoidance of doubt, there are no high compression ratio engines on the list, the IO360CID6 is not on the list nor any of the turbo Commander engines.
The thing bothering me in all of this is that if in the whole of Europe there is no STC and hence no fee payable, then why would you have to pay a fee in the USA. Personally, I would want to see an approval from my engine manufacturer before I put anything in my tank.
Also to note that a friend with a Cirrus picked his aircraft up from a 50Hour check to find that his engineers had replaced his fuel sticker with a dual UL91/100LL sticker. There was no fee and all new Cirrus SR22 have that now.
You are correct. Here in Europe UL91 is available and does not require an STC provided the engine is listed as approved by the manufacturer. The initial list contained none of the Comnander engines but the second contained the IO540. For the avoidance of doubt, there are no high compression ratio engines on the list, the IO360CID6 is not on the list nor any of the turbo Commander engines.
The thing bothering me in all of this is that if in the whole of Europe there is no STC and hence no fee payable, then why would you have to pay a fee in the USA. Personally, I would want to see an approval from my engine manufacturer before I put anything in my tank.
Also to note that a friend with a Cirrus picked his aircraft up from a 50Hour check to find that his engineers had replaced his fuel sticker with a dual UL91/100LL sticker. There was no fee and all new Cirrus SR22 have that now.