New fuel for vintage Mooneys?

[yvesg]

I just went accross this by accident on another forum...

https://swiftfuels.com/news/swift-fuels-launches-unleaded-94-mon-avgas-at-oshkosh-2015-1-1/

Too bad I did not see this while at Oshkosh. I am home now. If any folks still at Oshkosh could go to their booth and ask them the following questions?

What is the requirement as far as STC (if any) for our Mooneys?

Where and when will this fuel be available?

Will this fuel be cheaper than 100 LL and by how much?

Yves

[Sabremech]

Hi Yves,

I stumbled across them yesterday. From what I understand, they hold the STC for our 4 cylinder Mooneys. The fuel is available at some locations in Indiana and Michigan for about $1.00 per gallon less than Avgas. I have one of their flyers they asked me to give to the airport manager at my home airport (UGN).

David

[Jerry 5TJ]

I visited the booth at OSH:

STC for Mooney A, B, C, D and G models.
Cost said to be "comparable " to 100LL

Gee, when 100LL disappears my "C" may be more valuable than a 252...Or at least more flyable.

EAA newsletter pointed out that only one country in the world still uses leaded automobile gasoline and they will stop that in 2015, reducing worldwide production of leaded gasoline to 1/3 of it's 2014 level. There is only one producer of tetra ethyl lead remaining in the world, too.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Cheaper?  Sure...at what subsidy level?  So it's not cheaper when we're all paying for it

 

I've followed this whole thing for several years.  There seems to be no clear direction with the project or with what the FAA wants to do on the deal.  Avgas keeps getting made.  And we keep chasing this idea of fragmenting GA fuel between "high performance" planes and everything else.  Why even make this product when they know it's not the single replacement solution we need?  Because with grants and subsidies, anything is possible!

 

We need an economy of scale.  Not a boutique fuel within a boutique industry.

 

As I understand it, GAMI has a real potential product that can work in any existing GA engine and isn't taking subsidies.  Hopefully their plan of staying outside the FAA mess works.

 

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/September/08/FAA-selects-four-unleaded-fuels-for-testing

[Shadrach]

This thing is the tail wagging dog... We don't really have a fuel problem. Many of the GA fleet would run fine on 92UL. What we have is an ignition system problem. Variable timing ignitions would eliminate the problem and allow all aircraft recips to run UL. I think it would be far cheaper to subsidize all of those one time upgrades than it would be to subsidize fuel.

[KSMooniac]

This thing is the tail wagging dog... We don't really have a fuel problem. Many of the GA fleet would run fine on 92UL. What we have is an ignition system problem. Variable timing ignitions would eliminate the problem and allow all aircraft recips to run UL. I think it would be far cheaper to subsidize all of those one time upgrades than it would be to subsidize fuel.

Not exactly... the "working" planes in GA that are running high-horsepower turbo engines need 100 octane to prevent detonation as I understand it, and playing with the timing won't necessarily solve that problem.  While these planes are in the minority of the GA fleet, they buy the majority of the 100LL.  

[DaV8or]

Last time I read about Swift fuel, it was supposed to be a drop in replacement for all engines. I hope this hasn't changed. It's seriously lame that they have to get an STC for each different engine. I don't get this fuel problem. There are numerous companies that claim to have fully tested drop in replacements for all engines. Seems to me the FAA could run some independent tests of their own on each fuel, approve them, or reject them and then let the market figure out which one is best. Should take about six months not years and years.

 

They seem to be trying to turn this into big complicated rocket science project like we're going to the Moon or something. I bet the AVGAS we've been using for decades was tested and approved in six months or less. That's how they used to do things.

[MB65E]

I saw them at OSH too... The entire time I was thinking "yea right" no way they can make this work for the angle valve... Sure enough. nope!

Bummer!

Another reason for you guys with your C's. Lol.

-Matt

[KSMooniac]

I saw them at OSH too... The entire time I was thinking "yea right" no way they can make this work for the angle valve... Sure enough. nope!

Bummer!

Another reason for you guys with your C's. Lol.

-Matt

 

That is a good observation... those of us with 200 hp IO-360's are included in the group that need 100 octane, so before you consider advocating for a 94 or 96 UL know that it DOES affect a large portion of the Mooney fleet.

[Shadrach]

Not exactly... the "working" planes in GA that are running high-horsepower turbo engines need 100 octane to prevent detonation as I understand it, and playing with the timing won't necessarily solve that problem. While these planes are in the minority of the GA fleet, they buy the majority of the 100LL.

You have a different understanding than I do. My understanding is that the high horsepower turbo engines need 100LL to prevent detonation with fixed timing ignitions. The discussion I was involved in was long ago, but IIRC one of the commenters was G Braley. The discussion centered around GAlMI's PRISM ignition system. The system was designed around managing cylinder pressure relative to crank angle using timing to keep the peak pressure occurring at the optimal crank angle. Smart ignition systems would do wonders for increasing detonation margins.

[KSMooniac]

That could be correct... been a while since I've read or heard anything about PRISM!  I think it was shelved for the near-term so GAMI could work on their G100UL formulation that would solve all of the problems if not for the FAA bureaucracy.  PRISM will be a very, very expensive retrofit, though, and I think the payback would be thousands of hours which isn't feasible for most of us.  In addition to the wizard box, it also requires cylinder pressure sensors that don't exist at the retail level yet.  GAMI made some for their test cell runs, but commercializing them is another huge hurdle.

 

I'd rather just have G100UL available at the pump today!  It should be noticeably cheaper than 100LL too.

[Shadrach]

From KitPlanes Magazine

 

GAMI demonstrated with an acknowledged “bad boy” engine, the Lycoming TIO-540-J2BD, that even with 40 inches of manifold pressure from turbocharging, at 460° F CHTs, and with an induction air temperature of 300°— yes, three hundred!—there’s no detonation on 95UL avgas... if you make the spark at the right time. 

 

 

 

You may be right about bringing it to market. I am not sure what's going on. I seem to remember Walt Atkinson saying that the goal was to get it to market within 5 years, but I don't remember when that was.

[mike28w]

    Am I the only old fart left, that is old enough to remember this being a topic 20 years ago ??   It's always been "almost ready to release to market ".....kinda like  "the check's in the mail".

 

  Someone wake me when they finally get it researched, developed , marketed and distributed all over the country.....until then it's just unicorns.

 

 Just cynical , I guess...mike 

[Shadrach]

I could show you columns from Flying Mag, Air Facts etc. that were published before I was born that predict the end of GA for many of the same reasons we talk about today.  The thing is, fuel alternative or no fuel alternative, GA is dying a death of a thousand cuts.  

[mike28w]

  The thing is, fuel alternative or no fuel alternative, GA is dying a death of a thousand cuts.  

 

   Unfortunately, you are absolutely right.

[DaV8or]

    Am I the only old fart left, that is old enough to remember this being a topic 20 years ago ??   It's always been "almost ready to release to market ".....kinda like  "the check's in the mail".

 

  Someone wake me when they finally get it researched, developed , marketed and distributed all over the country.....until then it's just unicorns.

 

 Just cynical , I guess...mike 

 

EXACTLY! I don't know why people give GAMI so much credit. As far as I can tell is many, many years ago they made some nice fuel injectors and I guess did some work on a turbo system. Since then... ?? The PRISM seems to be vapor ware and now they claim they have a drop in replacement fuel, but nobody has tested it and it doesn't seem that the industry is taking them seriously and they play the "the man is keeping them down" by claiming the FAA is holding them back.

 

They make nice injectors, other than that, call me unimpressed.

[Mooneymite]

Gee!  You are all waaaay too skeptical.

 

My load of Swift fuel should be delivered any day now.

 

Be patient. 

[mike_elliott]

    Am I the only old fart left, that is old enough to remember this being a topic 20 years ago ??   It's always been "almost ready to release to market ".....kinda like  "the check's in the mail".

 

  Someone wake me when they finally get it researched, developed , marketed and distributed all over the country.....until then it's just unicorns.

 

 Just cynical , I guess...

 

 

 

I just ordered some sawgrass plants and a Mr. Beer kit to make my own

[aviatoreb]

I stopped at the GAMI display.  They had a prism installed on their display engine.  I asked the guy about Prism and if it was still on their to do list.  They said it is, but on a long horizon effort timeline.  They said no one wants to install a $12k solution.  I told them I would, rather than junk my airplane as worthless metal, if 100LL goes away without some other drop in replacement since I have a tsio520 that must have the detonation margin.  at that point, 12k would be a necessary investment.  Its nice that you get easier engine management and better fuel economy too.

 

They said they have been fully tasked working on certification of their fuel.

 

I dont understand what swift is doing.  AN stc for each airframe?  Does this mean one would actually find 94MON available at individual airports?  I think that is unlikely.  I think more likely you buy the stc, and then at just a few airports in the country you actually find their 94 fuel.

[bonal]

It seems like every one thinks GA is the only group using leaded fuels. The vast majority of motor racing are still using a leaded fuel. They do have some unleaded fuels that run close to 100 octane VP has a 99 octane unleaded as just one example.

[RangerJim]

The thousand cuts analogy is spot on.  Sort of like third class medical reform.  Most of us probably won't be around long enough to see it happen.

 

If Swift fuel or something similar does come into general usage how will the STC be verified?  Has anyone ever had to produce proof of an STC to buy mogas?

 

I'm playing devils advocate here since I think my C will do fine on Swift fuel should it become widely available and I will go out of my way within reason to seek it out.  I just don't see it as a viable business for the average FBO.

[RobertGary1]

The numbers I've seen is that less than 25% of the fuel purchased is used in an application that could run these new fuels. As the GA numbers drop its going to be hard to get critical mass when the fuel doesn't work for the majority of the need. Of course the fragmentation of fuels could be far worse than the benefits.

 

-Robert