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 September 9 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 September 10 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 September 10 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 September 13 by Ibra

[mluvara]

Swift Fuels granted me the opportunity to acquire some 100R to perform the same materials compatibility tests that I applied to G100UL. As part of this, I did expand some testing on fabric systems and compared that test with 4 different fuels.

As I note in the video, I want to dispel any rumors and conspiracy theories that I am connected to any fuel companies or was put up to any of my past or future testing.

The video is quite long (~30 min) and covers a lot of material. 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 02:48 AM by mluvara

[redbaron1982]

You're doing a great contribution to general aviation @mluvara

My biggest concern with 100R is that it seems that Mr Braly is right about it not being able to achieve 100/130 (specifically the 130 rich mixture rating).

I don't like how GAMI and specifically Mr Braly approach to all the documented compatibility issues, and how deceptive their are in regards of G100UL material compatibility issues, but I think in this case, sadly, he is right about 100R.

I'm quite convinced at this point that there will be no "drop-in" replacement for 100LL.

[Shadrach]

On 9/5/2025 at 1:03 PM, GeeBee said:

The hp/cylinder is equally meaning less. Cylinders have different volumes, head designs, piston tops, intake and exhaust efficiencies. There is a reason why "It's a Hemi" actually has meaning in ME terms. 

Agreed, but if we're going to be precise, we should stop referring to the "big bore" engines as being the hurdle. The hurdle is high performance GTSIO/TSIO engines.  As far as bore is concerned, there is a 0.125" difference in bore size between most horizontally opposed aero engines over 200hp, with the exception of the Continental 360 which is smaller by more than a half inch smaller than the others. The issue has nothing to do with "big bore."  I think the point that Rich was making is that the 8:1 CR, 200hp, Lyc IO360's 1.8 horsepower per cubic inch is at the top of the hp/displacement scale as for NA aeroengines. 

Engine         Bore size

Lyc 360        5.125"

Lyc 540        5.125"

Lyc 720        5.125"

Con 360      4.438"

Con 520      5.25"

Con 550      5.25"

[N201MKTurbo]

14 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Agreed, but if we're going to be precise, we should stop referring to the "big bore" engines as being the hurdle. The hurdle is high performance GTSIO/TSIO engines.  As far as bore is concerned, there is a 0.125" difference in bore size between most horizontally opposed aero engines over 200hp, with the exception of the Continental 360 which is smaller by more than a half inch smaller than the others. The issue has nothing to do with "big bore."  I think the point that Rich was making is that the 8:1 CR, 200hp, Lyc IO360's 1.8 horsepower per cubic inch is at the top of the hp/displacement scale as for NA aeroengines. 

Engine         Bore size

Lyc 360        5.125"

Lyc 540        5.125"

Lyc 720        5.125"

Con 360      4.438"

Con 520      5.25"

Con 550      5.25"

To be fair, the Con 360 is a six cylinder and the Lyc 360 is a four cylinder. So, not a fair comparison.

BTW it is 1.8 cu in/HP, otherwise, our engines would make 648 HP! Wa Hoo!

[GeeBee]

16 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Agreed, but if we're going to be precise, we should stop referring to the "big bore" engines as being the hurdle. The hurdle is high performance GTSIO/TSIO engines.  As far as bore is concerned, there is a 0.125" difference in bore size between most horizontally opposed aero engines over 200hp, with the exception of the Continental 360 which is smaller by more than a half inch smaller than the others. The issue has nothing to do with "big bore."  I think the point that Rich was making is that the 8:1 CR, 200hp, Lyc IO360's 1.8 horsepower per cubic inch is at the top of the hp/displacement scale as for NA aeroengines. 

Engine         Bore size

Lyc 360        5.125"

Lyc 540        5.125"

Lyc 720        5.125"

Con 360      4.438"

Con 520      5.25"

Con 550      5.25"

I didn't want to be precise, I was using the current vernacular. Bear Bryant was not really a bear either. 

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, N201MKTurbo said:

To be fair, the Con 360 is a six cylinder and the Lyc 360 is a four cylinder. So, not a fair comparison.

It's a perfectly fair comparison if we're talking bore sizes... Which people frequently use as a proxy for things that have nothing to do with or are completely unconnected to bore size.    

[N201MKTurbo]

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

It's a perfectly fair comparison if we're talking bore sizes... Which people frequently use as a proxy for things that have nothing to do with or are completely unconnected to bore size.    

I suppose,but the Con 360 is a small bore engine. But so what? Your HP/cu in is the real number to look at.

[hazek]

Any of these engines are dinosaurs and are the reason we are in this mess. Lycoming and Continental should be ashamed of themselves. Sitting on their laurels for over 60 years, zero innovation, zero willingness to invest in this market.. just squeezing out as much as possible for as little as possible for as long as possible. Pathetic.

I desperately hope it will be possible in a few years to replace the TIO-540 with a 6 cylinder Rotax or perhaps the Adept engine. The solution is not some new magic fuel, the solution is someone having some balls and investing into a new modern engine design and certifying it.

[N201MKTurbo]

25 minutes ago, hazek said:

Any of these engines are dinosaurs and are the reason we are in this mess. Lycoming and Continental should be ashamed of themselves. Sitting on their laurels for over 60 years, zero innovation, zero willingness to invest in this market.. just squeezing out as much as possible for as little as possible for as long as possible. Pathetic.

I desperately hope it will be possible in a few years to replace the TIO-540 with a 6 cylinder Rotax or perhaps the Adept engine. The solution is not some new magic fuel, the solution is someone having some balls and investing into a new modern engine design and certifying it.

I’ve been in aviation for over 40 years. I’ve been hearing the same thing you just said the entire time. There have been quite a few attempts to do what you said. Porsche and Mercedes both tried and failed. There are actually quite a few certified diesel engines, but few are sold. 
 

We look at our current engines differently. I see engines that have been optimized for 85 years. And you see a stale design. There are few modern engines out there that will do what our aircraft engines will do. Just look at the horsepower most modern high performance auto engines make at 2500 RPM. Few if any will exceed what modern aircraft engines will do. And they will probably use more fuel doing it.

All of our aircraft engines could easily be made to run on any unleaded fuel, but their performance will be a bit less. You can’t take an engine that was designed and tuned to run on 100 octane fuel and wave a magic wand and make it run the same on a lower octane fuel.

If you asked Continental to design a clean sheet 200HP engine that will run on UL94, I would bet it would look just like our current engines except it would be about 400 cu in and weigh about 20 Lbs. More.

[Ibra]

6 hours ago, redbaron1982 said:

I'm quite convinced at this point that there will be no "drop-in" replacement for 100LL.

Me too, I think the current STC candidates (100R or G100UL) are not "drop-in": they either need extra work on airframe (joints, pipes, sealant, paint...) or more work on engine (variable timing, de-rated cruise, extra rop...). By design, one can argue that "STC route" will overfit on specific engines and specific airframes, the ones that were tested until things "looked ok" to FAA, however, they may cause lot of problems elsewhere when such fuel goes into the wild with all variability in fleet, airframes and engine, as well as how they are operated.

VPRacing is going with 100E, this is the real "drop-in" if it ever gets PAFI performance pass while staying within ASTM control parameters, however, they have much slower progress and they may never come out of it one day.

Even when one looks at 100LL, it has it's own problems (or noise): it can also cause leaks on airframes, we see more broken cylinders or valves on some engines, operators have more problems than others. Even if FAA or PAFI says a new 100UL fuel is equivalent to 100LL, it will be really hard to show equivalence in "real world" as the various operators tends to be impacted differently, someone used to flying with 100LL at CHT redline with 499F CHT may feel 100R is not good, while someone who keep CHT under 380F will find it to be ok. Similarly, someone with 45 years original sealant vs someone with new tank reseal job, may have different feelings about G100UL 

Edited Wednesday at 11:03 PM by Ibra

[varlajo]

I hope GAMI survives the G100UL fiasco.. 

[redbaron1982]

57 minutes ago, Ibra said:

 

VPRacing is going with 100E, this is the real "drop-in" if it ever gets PAFI performance pass while staying within ASTM control parameters, however, they have much slower progress and they may never come out of it one day

Does anyone know what's the blend they are using? G100UL high aromatic has compar issues, 100R cannot get the 130 rich mon rating with just ETBE. 

[1980Mooney]

Swift has been diddling around with 100R for a long time.  Have they said anything about the shelf life of it when it sits in fuel and wing tanks baking in 100 F sun? (or hotter in Az...)?