Swift 100R is now ASTM

[Fix]

8 hours ago, Pinecone said:

THE (yes, there is only one) factory will shutdown or burn down. 

There are actually more one more supplier of TEL in Asia according to Shell. (Can be found in their application in EU)
Shell is also buying from that supplier.
(If I didn't read it wrong)

[Ibra]

I remember reading the UK TEL company Innospec wanted to get out of TEL market by 2030

I am sure someone else can fill the void, the question how much they will charge? 

https://avweb.com/air-shows-events/at-some-point-producing-the-lead-in-leaded-avgas-can-become-too-expensive-to-be-worth-it/

TEL price contribution to 100LL is in order of 0.1€/L (it was 0.04€/L 5 years ago), even if they double the price, it is still under 5c per USG of 100LL 

Edited Tuesday at 10:42 PM by Ibra

[IvanP]

2 hours ago, Ibra said:

I remember reading the UK TEL company Innospec wanted to get out of TEL market by 2030

I am sure someone else can fill the void, the question how much they will charge? 

https://avweb.com/air-shows-events/at-some-point-producing-the-lead-in-leaded-avgas-can-become-too-expensive-to-be-worth-it/

TEL price contribution to 100LL is in order of 0.1€/L (it was 0.04€/L 5 years ago), even if they double the price, it is still under 5c per USG of 100LL 

State and federal excise taxes, state sales tax (if applicable), state and local environmental fees, flowage fees, airport fees and surcharges, etc., probably contribute more to the overall price of 100LL than TEL ever did. 

Edited Wednesday at 01:24 AM by IvanP

[Pinecone]

On 9/7/2025 at 4:27 PM, 1980Mooney said:

What good is ASTM if they don't even know if it will work reliably in the Continental and big Lycoming engines? - I mean Seriously?

That is why the ASTM argument against G100UL has been a red herring all along.

[Marc_B]

I gather ASTM spec vs not is more an indicator as to how well the manufacturer plays well with the distribution chain. From refinery to storage and distribution and to FBO.

GAMI went the solo route and had to find a refiner/distribution outside of current existing pathways (Vitol). They report  million gallons but only sell it at a handful of locations. Why?  Heck, Ada, OK doesn’t even have a G100UL tank for public use  

ASTM also speaks to mixing and testing outside of original manufacturer. GAMI doesn’t want anyone outside of GAMI and their limited licensed providers to be able to mix, test and certify conformance.  I don’t think a GAMI certificate of conformance even shares the DHA (detailed hydrocarbon analysis) with the company mixing their fuel. It is just stamped “satisfactory” in the DHA field of the certificate per their FAQ. 
 

“if you wanna go fast, go alone. If you wanna go far, go together.”  Certainly seems applicable with an industry that is so well funded, multinational, and reliant on so many resources within drilling, refining, production and distribution.

Playing the “they don’t play fair” card may get sympathy from some. But it’s not a viable business strategy in the long run. This is why I feel GAMI was so instrumental with the CEH lawsuit in California. It’s their one door outside of their own development…legislation through litigation.   After all, they are a small company that only owns a recipe. (In an industry where jet A, mogas and diesel dwarf AVGAS in comparison…these other companies, pathways, fuels and distribution won’t go away even IF 100LL does)

[Ibra]

VPRacing/LyondellBasell are a relatively new and small player in Avgas, they are mainly into "formula", however, they went for PAFI/ASTM, which is the "slow & together"

As for their 100E, they passed most of serious testing in TSIO550K, and now they are working through ASTM

While 100LL may go away the big  players like Shell, Total...who drive ASTM will be around for a while (they have SAF, JetA, Mogas) 

Edited Wednesday at 07:37 PM by Ibra

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Marc_B said:

I gather ASTM spec vs not is more an indicator as to how well the manufacturer plays well with the distribution chain. From refinery to storage and distribution and to FBO.

Having the refiners and distributors on board means that they had the opportunity to verify materials compatibility with their equipment.   Since engine and airframe manufacturers were also involved, you can bet materials compatibility was addressed for them as well.

So for those still wondering what the difference between the STC and ASTM processes might entail, this is a big one that the STC process can obviously get very wrong that is much more likely to not be an issue with an ASTM-compliant fuel.   I'm a little surprised that it seems like this is still not recognized by some.

[McMooney]

unfortunately, probably going to be another 5 year wait before the product comes to my little mooney,  i really wish they had just stopped selling 100LL back in the 70s

[1980Mooney]

On 9/10/2025 at 1:14 PM, Marc_B said:

I gather ASTM spec vs not is more an indicator as to how well the manufacturer plays well with the distribution chain. From refinery to storage and distribution and to FBO.

ASTM also speaks to mixing and testing outside of original manufacturer. GAMI doesn’t want anyone outside of GAMI and their limited licensed providers to be able to mix, test and certify conformance.  I don’t think a GAMI certificate of conformance even shares the DHA (detailed hydrocarbon analysis) with the company mixing their fuel. It is just stamped “satisfactory” in the DHA field of the certificate per their FAQ. 

 

On 9/10/2025 at 3:18 PM, EricJ said:

Having the refiners and distributors on board means that they had the opportunity to verify materials compatibility with their equipment.   Since engine and airframe manufacturers were also involved, you can bet materials compatibility was addressed for them as well.

So for those still wondering what the difference between the STC and ASTM processes might entail, this is a big one that the STC process can obviously get very wrong that is much more likely to not be an issue with an ASTM-compliant fuel.   I'm a little surprised that it seems like this is still not recognized by some.

 

On 9/10/2025 at 2:32 PM, Ibra said:

As for their 100E, they passed most of serious testing in TSIO550K, and now they are working through ASTM

While 100LL may go away the big  players like Shell, Total...who drive ASTM will be around for a while (they have SAF, JetA, Mogas) 

"Since engine and airframe manufacturers were also involved, you can bet materials compatibility was addressed for them as well."

Really?  Why don't we hear directly from Lycoming, Continental or Rotax about their involvement and approval? Or from the surviving airframe manufacturers that have to warrant their new aircraft certified to use one of these fuels?

And in late July, "Testing will begin later this year on a Continental 550 and d’Acosta said it will take about 18 months."  Swift Fuels Unleaded Update At AirVenture - AVweb

It is fricking 2025 - how can testing on a Continental 550 just be beginning later this year?  The horse is behind the cart.  How can it be ASTM approved with "engine manufacturers involved" if it hasn't even been tested in the high performance engines????

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

"Since engine and airframe manufacturers were also involved, you can bet materials compatibility was addressed for them as well."

Really?  Why don't we hear directly from Lycoming, Continental or Rotax about their involvement and approval? Or from the surviving airframe manufacturers that have to warrant their new aircraft certified to use one of these fuels?

Standards development happens all the time for all sorts of things.   Do you know what companies participated in the development of 5G?   WiFi?  Any of the multitudes of SAE standards?   Announcing standards participation is not done very often, since it's usually not very beneficial to the company to do so.  

I suspect we'll hear some sort of support or limitations statements from various manufacturers once a particular fuel enters the distribution system and becomes available to consumers.   Relevant manufacturers made statements when G100UL came out, but mostly saying that they didn't support use of it.    For a fuel that they participated in acceptance via a standard, a statement may look very different, but I wouldn't expect to see one until the fuel became available or was about to.

 

[1980Mooney]

7 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Standards development happens all the time for all sorts of things.   Do you know what companies participated in the development of 5G?   WiFi?  Any of the multitudes of SAE standards?   Announcing standards participation is not done very often, since it's usually not very beneficial to the company to do so.  

I suspect we'll hear some sort of support or limitations statements from various manufacturers once a particular fuel enters the distribution system and becomes available to consumers.   Relevant manufacturers made statements when G100UL came out, but mostly saying that they didn't support use of it.    For a fuel that they participated in acceptance via a standard, a statement may look very different, but I wouldn't expect to see one until the fuel became available or was about to.

No idea how standards were developed for 5G but I seriously doubt that the standards were set using the "lowest common denominator", the lowest requirement.  If big bore Lycoming and Continentals and other high-performance engines are the critical path, then the standards should be set to meet them.  It shouldn't be "let's get together and set standards for a fuel that we call "100" but really only satisfies the "94 fleet".  i.e. "marketing hype".

Let's all hope that it works for the more demanding high performance engine segment.  But they should have been testing this in 520's. 550's, 540's, 580's Turbo and NA from the get-go.  Not "Announce 100R ASTM - Great Success"....oh but we forgot to test it in engines that actually need 100. - and "Stand by for about 2 years while we begin testing"

[Ibra]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Really?  Why don't we hear directly from Lycoming, Continental or Rotax about their involvement and approval?

We already did..

In one had, the 100R is already "blessed" by Lycoming in IO36, they had no objection to FAA STC for 100R in C172S

In the other hand, G100UL in IO360 is not approved by Lycoming, they have "strong" objection to FAA STC for G100UL in C172S 

Maybe the difference between Lycoming approval for 100R vs objection for G100UL has to do with Swift involvement in ASTM? 

As for 550s, yes Swift seems way behind the curve compared to GAMI, they have challenges with these, they may get something from FAA subject to operational limitation or ignition changes. For "550s", an ASTM drop-in fuel could be very hard to achieve one has to work on formulations within some tight controlled parameters. This may take 18 months or even more: Let's be honest some engines break cylinders and valves every 800h on 100LL, I doubt they will make it past TBO on 100R...

Edited Saturday at 07:13 PM by Ibra