Swift fuel for sale at KSQL

[Bennett]

Rabbit Aviation at San Carlos airport has dedicated one of their fuel trucks to Swift UL-84 (corrected).The price is about the same as their 100LL aviation fuel. I was at a Wings seminar last night at San Carlos, where we learned about the process for using the new Swift unleaded fuel. Anyone who has the old Petersen/EAA auto gas STC can use this Swift fuel without further paperwork, while others can buy the Swift STC IF if their aircraft is on their STC listing. Early Mooneys up to the G series are listed. Apparently there is a company in Sweden that is producing a 100 unleaded fuel, and Lycoming will extend their TBO interval to 3000 hours if this fuel is used exclusively. We heard that Swift is also working on a 100 Ul fuel for the near future.

The Swift 84 (corrected) Ul is colorless at this point, and except for the smell could be confused with Jet A. The fuel is pungent, to say the least, and we heard that there are plans to add a dye to the fuel.

We also heard about a Shell unleaded 102 octane fuel in development. It weighs about 7 pounds a gallon, but has more "power" per gallon. Aircraft type certificates would have to be revised to use this fuel, if Shell decides to market it.

We heard how few refiners are currently manufacturing 100 LL, and how the distribution methods have changed. Consumption of 100 LL is declining, and one day we will see its demise, or very sizable price increases. We were told that Swift fuel is far easier to produce than the current 110 LL, and that virtually any existing refinery could produce it without much change to their operations. p>

The Swift STCs are not cheap: $350 is not an uncommon number. It's too bad that neither EAA or AOPA is involved in these STCs. If they were I would hope that they could negotiate lower costs.

[aviatoreb]

Wow - that is really cool!

[carusoam]

The IO550 is already lead-free capable but it is listed as 100 octane.

the TBO extension sound interesting.  3000?

Best regards,

-a-

[Bennett]

One of the mechanics at the seminar just installed two new Lycoming engines and he confirmed the factory increase to 3000 hours for exclusive operation with unleaded fuel. He said the paperwork for installation was clear and unambiguous. There was a lot of discussion afterwards about operations with and without lead at the same octane rating. The unleaded fuel that Shell is working on adds a bit higher octane, although it weighs more (about 7 pounds a gallon), and would require changes to type certificates.

[Mark89114]

The Swift STCs are not cheap: $350 is not an uncommon number. It's too bad that neither EAA or AOPA is involved in these STCs. If they were I would hope that they could negotiate lower costs.

 

$350 is cheap barely registers on the aviation scale.  My opinion only. 

 

[DXB]

I love this and really do hope it takes hold, but I think the OP might mean UL94, not UL80?   The swift fuels website describes UL94, which is identical  chemically to 100LL but without the tetraethyl lead, and UL102, which is functionally equivalent to 100LL.  Supposedly UL94 is $1/gal cheaper than 100LL per this recent AOPA article:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/september/13/swift-fuels-94ul-put-to-the-test

I fail to grasp why one needs an STC for something that requires nothing done to my plane to use other than changing the decal next to my tank, but I'm sure someone here can explain.  The STC for my C model on the Swift site can be purchased right now for $540!  Seems like highway robbery to me, but the break even point would come up pretty fast if it is really a dollar cheaper and also increases life of the engine and the plugs.

https://www.swiftfuels.com/stc/Mooney/M20C/any/any/any

The STCs seem available for the carb'd Mooneys only - not sure why no injected non-turbo engines, but again I'm sure someone here knows. I'm also guessing it will be ok to mix with 100LL, which would be essential to able to do until the stuff is widely available?

Despite my habitual bitching, I really do hope this works out.  Leaded gas  causes abominable harm to plugs, to valves, to people, and to the environment. 

 

Edit: The stuff can be mixed with 100LL- from the Swift website:

UL94 is 100% intermixable with 100LL in lower-octane aircraft.  

UL94 is 100% intermixable with UL102 in lower-octane aircraft.

UL102 is 100% intermixable with 100LL in aircraft fleetwide.

 

 

[Guest]

To get a 3000 hour TBO they must be adding magic camshaft powder to the fuel.

Clarence

[Bennett]

You are right. It is UL 94. I was thinking about the ancient times where we had 80 octane for the Cessna 120s and other low compression, low HP engines.

As for the STCs (other than for the Petersen/EAA auto gas STC holders), we were told that the STC was required to switch from one ASTM standard to another ASTM agreement, but this method avoids re-doing the type certificate. I didn't pay much attention to the explanation (as I was sniffing the various fuel samples).

[INA201]

The pic below comes off of Swift's website. I read on AOPA's site that the 94 costs $1.00 less per gallon. Im thinking less costs, better efficiency, and higher TBO certainly fits our Mooney culture.

 

[1964-M20E]

4 hours ago, Bennett said:

You are right. It is UL 94. I was thinking about the ancient times where we had 80 octane for the Cessna 120s and other low compression, low HP engines.

As for the STCs (other than for the Petersen/EAA auto gas STC holders), we were told that the STC was required to switch from one ASTM standard to another ASTM agreement, but this method avoids re-doing the type certificate. I didn't pay much attention to the explanation (as I was sniffing the various fuel samples).

better watch sniffing the fuels you might have to report that on your next physical.

 

[jetdriven]

You can't really run 94 octane fuel safely in an 8.7:1 IO-360.  That's probably the reason 

I guess the ROP only crowd is going to have a cow when they find out their lead is being taken away.  Lead cushions valves, after all, and LOP burns valves in part because of this. 

[Bennett]

This afternoon I received a voice mail from Swift, followed by an email (shown bellow). I was a bit surprised that he managed to find one of my private cell phone numbers, and one of my business associated emails, but privacy seem to be long gone. I had already corrected my initial post to 94UL, but while they had the original post, perhaps they didn't gave the rest of the thread. My post was simply to alert local pilots that Swift 94UL was available now at KSQL. The rest of the seminar dealt with alternate fuels to the current situation, and the presenter (not me) spoke about a Swedish company producing an alternative fuel that allegedly allowed for an increase in TBO. Shell's efforts for a UL fuel was also discussed. One of the mechanics in the seminar audience said that he had just installed two new Lycoming engines and that the factory paperwork read that if UL fuel was used exclusively, TBO was increased to 3000 hours. I don't know the truth here, and I am not going to research it. In time, there will be a great deal of information available in the aviation press, and I do not intend to be an advocate for any particular fuel. I do think an unleaded fuel would be of advantage, and if a longer TBO results,all the better.
----------------------

Hello Mr. Bibel –

I left you a voicemail earlier this afternoon on your personal cell phone…
Please find below some items for you to consider correcting in your latest blog comments posted on mooneyspace.com.
I spend a lot of time trying to communicate critical facts and messages about unleaded fuel across the industry… so if I see something that could benefit from corrections, then I try to engage…
We all want our industry to have a sustaining future… and keeping the piston-engine owners and pilots well informed of the transition to unleaded is part of that effort.
Here are my suggested fixes to your posted statements:

§ Rabbit Aviation at San Carlos airport has dedicated one of their fuel trucks to Swift Fuel’s unleaded UL-84 UL94 (corrected) Avgas.

§ Apparently there is a company in Sweden that is producing a 100 unleaded fuel, and Lycoming will extend their TBO interval to 3000 hours if this fuel is used exclusively.
Hjelmco does NOT produce a 100 Motor Octane unleaded fuel. Hjelmco produces a 91/96UL grade fuel (3 MON less powerful than Swift Fuels UL94 Avgas) http://www.hjelmco.com/pages.asp?r_id=13963
Lycoming does NOT report an extended TBO of 3,000 hours for any official use http://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1009AY%20TBO%20Schedule.pdf
Lycoming allows the use of Hjelmco’s 91/96UL unleaded avgas (sold in Sweden) on some piston aircraft… http://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1070T%20Specified%20Fuels.pdf
FAA allows OEM/TCDS/STC approved engines/aircraft to use Swift Fuels UL94 (up to 65% of the US fleet)… http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/0/5efaf7b4e35481568625801f00642b6a/$FILE/HQ-16-05R1.pdf

§ The Swift 84 (corrected) Ul UL94 Avgas is colorless at this point

I am happy to visit California to attend forums to discuss the merits of our UL94 avgas, and also discuss our ongoing nationwide transition to unleaded avgas…

Respectfully,
Chris

Chris D’Acosta
CEO - Swift Fuels, LLC
1435 Win Hentschel Blvd, Suite 205, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906
Office: (765) 464-8336 Direct: (765) 237-3195 Cell: (316) 518-9371
www.swiftfuels.com

Description: Description: Description: leftcol-logo

b

[DaV8or]

6 hours ago, Bennett said:

This afternoon I received a voice mail from Swift, followed by an email (shown bellow). I was a bit surprised that he managed to find one of my private cell phone numbers, and one of my business associated emails, but privacy seem to be long gone. I had already corrected my initial post to 94UL, but while they had the original post, perhaps they didn't gave the rest of the thread. My post was simply to alert local pilots that Swift 94UL was available now at KSQL. The rest of the seminar dealt with alternate fuels to the current situation, and the presenter (not me) spoke about a Swedish company producing an alternative fuel that allegedly allowed for an increase in TBO. Shell's efforts for a UL fuel was also discussed. One of the mechanics in the seminar audience said that he had just installed two new Lycoming engines and that the factory paperwork read that if UL fuel was used exclusively, TBO was increased to 3000 hours. I don't know the truth here, and I am not going to research it. In time, there will be a great deal of information available in the aviation press, and I do not intend to be an advocate for any particular fuel. I do think an unleaded fuel would be of advantage, and if a longer TBO results,all the better.
----------------------

Hello Mr. Bibel –

I left you a voicemail earlier this afternoon on your personal cell phone…
Please find below some items for you to consider correcting in your latest blog comments posted on mooneyspace.com.
I spend a lot of time trying to communicate critical facts and messages about unleaded fuel across the industry… so if I see something that could benefit from corrections, then I try to engage…
We all want our industry to have a sustaining future… and keeping the piston-engine owners and pilots well informed of the transition to unleaded is part of that effort.
Here are my suggested fixes to your posted statements:

§ Rabbit Aviation at San Carlos airport has dedicated one of their fuel trucks to Swift Fuel’s unleaded UL-84 UL94 (corrected) Avgas.

§ Apparently there is a company in Sweden that is producing a 100 unleaded fuel, and Lycoming will extend their TBO interval to 3000 hours if this fuel is used exclusively.
Hjelmco does NOT produce a 100 Motor Octane unleaded fuel. Hjelmco produces a 91/96UL grade fuel (3 MON less powerful than Swift Fuels UL94 Avgas) http://www.hjelmco.com/pages.asp?r_id=13963
Lycoming does NOT report an extended TBO of 3,000 hours for any official use http://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1009AY%20TBO%20Schedule.pdf
Lycoming allows the use of Hjelmco’s 91/96UL unleaded avgas (sold in Sweden) on some piston aircraft… http://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1070T%20Specified%20Fuels.pdf
FAA allows OEM/TCDS/STC approved engines/aircraft to use Swift Fuels UL94 (up to 65% of the US fleet)… http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/0/5efaf7b4e35481568625801f00642b6a/$FILE/HQ-16-05R1.pdf

§ The Swift 84 (corrected) Ul UL94 Avgas is colorless at this point

I am happy to visit California to attend forums to discuss the merits of our UL94 avgas, and also discuss our ongoing nationwide transition to unleaded avgas…

Respectfully,
Chris

Chris D’Acosta
CEO - Swift Fuels, LLC
1435 Win Hentschel Blvd, Suite 205, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906
Office: (765) 464-8336 Direct: (765) 237-3195 Cell: (316) 518-9371
www.swiftfuels.com

Description: Description: Description: leftcol-logo

b

That's kind of cool and kind of scary. I mean, it's cool that somebody like that keeps their finger on the pulse of their customers and is willing to engage, but stalking you to the level he did to make corrections on your post is kind of creepy. My suggestion to Mr. D'Acosta is to become a member of Mooneyspace himself and post up. Most of us I think are appreciative of factory reps posting.

I persoanlly have been a supporter of Swift fuels for two reasons. 1) I would really like an unleaded solution for our planes and 2) I would love to see a viable non petroleum based fuel available for our motor fuels in this country. The fuel they produce now is based on refined oil out of practicality, but it could just as easily be made from bio sources. We just don't have the readily available infrastructure to do that now.

Swift fuels plan used to be to use a boutique fuel market like GA to get their fuel and their process off the ground and accepted, then expand into other motor fuels like passenger cars. In time they could get the completely bio-fuel production going with enough money rolling in. I think it's an admirable goal.

[carusoam]

I'm looking forward to a positive discussion regarding UL fuels.  Hopefully Mr. D'Acosta can join us here.

there is so much technical knowledge that needs to be transferred to go with a new fuel.

Best regards,

-a-

[mike28w]

  $540  for the STC for my C....  but nowhere to buy fuel in  Wa.,Id,.MT,WY,Nev,ND,SD,Neb,Colo,AZ, NM,OK,KS,  ....these are just the states that are west of the Mississippi that you can't buy the fuel.

   I think I'll wait a little to buy the STC that they are so proud of.....ymmv.

EDIT:  In more closely looking at their website......There is only ONE location , west of the Mississppi, where you can purchase this  fuel  ( 3 other "private" locations).   $540.....not likely for me.....

[MichaelMcD]

Is Rabbit Aviation still offering Swift UL94? Any idea how has the fuel been working out for the pilots and FBO?

Edited December 1, 2020 by MichaelMcD

[carusoam]

Welcome aboard Michael.

Bennet can’t come to the internet just yet... but...

Swift has a website that details where it is available...

https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com

Best regards,

-a-

[flyboy0681]

8 hours ago, carusoam said:

 

Bennet can’t come to the internet just yet... but...

 

Seeing his avatar up there scared the crap out of me for a second.

[RobertGary1]

I'm not too worried about access to lead for leaded fuels at this point. The market is small but the company has no competition. My bigger fear is airports closing due to lead exposure. We're already seeing this in the fight to close RHV. Local residence say the lead exposure to kids can cause issues. I'm noticing that today many more airports have the mandatory signs on the fence that living near the airport can cause lead exposure.

 

-Robert

[RobertGary1]

On 9/24/2016 at 11:23 PM, DaV8or said:

I persoanlly have been a supporter of Swift fuels for two reasons. 1) I would really like an unleaded solution for our planes and 2) I would love to see a viable non petroleum based fuel available for our motor fuels in this country. The fuel they produce now is based on refined oil out of practicality, but it could just as easily be made from bio sources. We just don't have the readily available infrastructure to do that now.

 

From an environmental point of view bio fuels have their own issues that many would argue exceed the environmental issues caused by dino fuel.

-Robert

[Mark89114]

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

From an environmental point of view bio fuels have their own issues that many would argue exceed the environmental issues caused by dino fuel.

-Robert

Dont confuse me with facts....think of the children man!!!

[aviatoreb]

This thread makes me pause because it was Bennett who started this thread, and Bennett is no longer with us.  Those that don't know, he passed, of natural causes.  So here friends, is to our missing friend Bennett.  He is missed.

Erik

[Missile=Awesome]

Putting this in the “Just shoot me already” category...

Time waster...

Next...

Nothing to see here...

Moving on...

In lighter news: Ford and every other Corporation has “signed on” to support re-joining Paris climate accord Also known as the taxation of fossil fuels to force a reset for no apparent reason other than the government loves to pick winners and losers based on what organization is greasing their palms.

No doubt consumers will “win” with cleaner air/water...

BUT they will lose freedom to move about their towns/country/world because they won’t be able to afford it.

No tears were shed by elites for “the deplorable’s”...

*What could go wrong?

[Danb]

Buckle up and hold on, get ready for that dark winter, and next four years..

[John Mininger]

R.I.P. Bennett

I remember sitting in on a forum at Oshkosh about 3-4 years ago. I don’t recall whether the forum was specifically about Lycoming engines, or a future unleaded avgas replacement. I do remember Michael Kraft, who was general manager of Lycoming Engines at the time saying that there will be some positive results coming from moving to an unleaded fuel. He did not mention a specific number, but he did say that increased TBOs would be one of the benefits. Mainly because without the lead, there would be a lot less corrosive crap ending up in the oil. Without all the corrosive crap ending up in the oil, we wouldn’t need to use a mineral based oil to keep all that crap suspended so it would drain out at the next oil change. We would then be free to use a fully synthetic oil, which has much better lubricating qualities.

I'm old enough to remember leaded car gas, and changing spark plugs every 12,000 miles. Frankly, I don't miss those days at all.