Swift 100R is now ASTM

[Hank]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

 a final diverse set of moderate compression, large bore, turbocharged and radial engines planned for completion by the end of 2027. These dates may depend upon the availability of FAA and Tech Center resources.

I'm guessing that the 4-cylinder Mooneys are all in this group? Compressions of 8.5:1 are hardly high, and our bores are in the 4½" diameter range. My "little" O-360 has 1.475 liters per cylinder, larger than the total capacity of some smaller cars [i.e., Chevy Sprint has a 1.3 liter engine].  Fingers crossed!

[varlajo]

34 minutes ago, Hank said:

I'm guessing that the 4-cylinder Mooneys are all in this group? 

That's my read as well

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

I'd guess the middle part of their graph.

 

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

I'd guess the middle part of their graph.

So even a moderately boosted turbo charged engine counts as moderate compression ratio I guess.  My TSIO520NB is boosted to 38'' of MP (but it goes to 40'' in other installations like the twin Cessnas), but the compression ratio is 7.5:1.  I guess precisely to prevent detonation.  Even if it looses some efficiency its nice to have your engine not melt down.

[N201MKTurbo]

They should go by max cylinder pressure not CR

[1980Mooney]

The whole problem with Swift and this ASTM debate is that it has the process backwards.  Look at how other aviation fuels are certified - CAAFI and ASTM.  

Fuel Qualifications | CAAFI | Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative

Engine operability/testing and FAA Approval is done BEFORE ASTM process approval.  Not after like Swift have announced.  Engine testing/operability is done with the engine manufacturers.  All Swift says is "proprietary testing".  That doesn't sound very transparent.  

What the hell has Swift been doing the last 7 years since they dropped out of PAFI?  The FAA said that engine testing was about 30% complete when Swift pulled out (see Gen Aviation News article below).  Why didn't they continue engine testing to prove it was a viable product before ASTM review and approval (which is just basically supply chain approval)?

From 2018:

• Completion of unleaded avgas testing pushed up another year — General Aviation News
• Swift Fuels’ Unleaded Avgas Certification

Here is a graphic of how other aviation fuel is approved from "Use of Sustainable Fuels in Aviation—A Review" 2022

 

[mluvara]

6 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

The whole problem with Swift and this ASTM debate is that it has the process backwards.  Look at how other aviation fuels are certified - CAAFI and ASTM.  

Fuel Qualifications | CAAFI | Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative

Engine operability/testing and FAA Approval is done BEFORE ASTM process approval.  Not after like Swift have announced.  Engine testing/operability is done with the engine manufacturers.  All Swift says is "proprietary testing".  That doesn't sound very transparent.  

What the hell has Swift been doing the last 7 years since they dropped out of PAFI?  The FAA said that engine testing was about 30% complete when Swift pulled out (see Gen Aviation News article below).  Why didn't they continue engine testing to prove it was a viable product before ASTM review and approval (which is just basically supply chain approval)?

From 2018:

• Completion of unleaded avgas testing pushed up another year — General Aviation News
• Swift Fuels’ Unleaded Avgas Certification

 

My understanding is that the fuel Swift was testing in the PAFI program during the 2018 timeframe was an entirely different composition than 100R. The PAFI program was suspended partly due to Shell and Swift's entrants at that time needing more work. So, it seems that Swift essentially started over and created 100R.

2018 article https://aviationconsumer.com/aircraft-ownership/whither-100ul-tested-fuels-fall-short/

I would surmise that Swift has tested other larger engines in their facility with 100R, but the certification process is different than lab testing. Thus, the smaller engines start first in the 'for credit' testing.

Michael

Edited yesterday at 04:12 AM by mluvara

[mluvara]

11 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

 

So even a moderately boosted turbo charged engine counts as moderate compression ratio I guess.  My TSIO520NB is boosted to 38'' of MP (but it goes to 40'' in other installations like the twin Cessnas), but the compression ratio is 7.5:1.  I guess precisely to prevent detonation.  Even if it looses some efficiency its nice to have your engine not melt down.

The PAFI testing might be a good comparison for looking at what engines would be used to set the bar for the certification testing and then compare to engines you might be running. This is for VP/LyondellBasell's fuel (which appears to be similar to Swifts in many respects).

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZjg3Y2ExY2EtODY4ZC00ODA4LWEwOGQtMDAyNWJkOTViMTRmIiwidCI6IjRiYjdlYzcwLWJjOTAtNDI5Ni05NTUxLWQ4ZGY1MDg0MDllMyJ9

 

Edited yesterday at 04:27 AM by mluvara

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, mluvara said:

My understanding is that the fuel Swift was testing in the PAFI program during the 2018 timeframe was an entirely different composition than 100R. The PAFI program was suspended partly due to Shell and Swift's entrants at that time needing more work. So, it seems that Swift essentially started over and created 100R.

2018 article https://aviationconsumer.com/aircraft-ownership/whither-100ul-tested-fuels-fall-short/

I would surmise that Swift has tested other larger engines in their facility with 100R, but the certification process is different than lab testing. Thus, the smaller engines start first in the 'for credit' testing.

Michael

 

3 hours ago, mluvara said:

The PAFI testing might be a good comparison for looking at what engines would be used to set the bar for the certification testing and then compare to engines you might be running. This is for VP/LyondellBasell's fuel (which appears to be similar to Swifts in many respects).

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZjg3Y2ExY2EtODY4ZC00ODA4LWEwOGQtMDAyNWJkOTViMTRmIiwidCI6IjRiYjdlYzcwLWJjOTAtNDI5Ni05NTUxLWQ4ZGY1MDg0MDllMyJ9

 

The point is that Engine testing and Operability should be established BEFORE ASTM certification, not after.  There should be NO ASTM Certification until it has been shown to the satisfaction of the engine manufacturers, the aircraft manufacturers and the FAA that a new fuel can safely power the fleet.  As it stands now, ASTM for GA aviation fuel is nothing more than a standard for supply chain purposes.

[aviatoreb]

6 hours ago, mluvara said:

The PAFI testing might be a good comparison for looking at what engines would be used to set the bar for the certification testing and then compare to engines you might be running. This is for VP/LyondellBasell's fuel (which appears to be similar to Swifts in many respects).

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZjg3Y2ExY2EtODY4ZC00ODA4LWEwOGQtMDAyNWJkOTViMTRmIiwidCI6IjRiYjdlYzcwLWJjOTAtNDI5Ni05NTUxLWQ4ZGY1MDg0MDllMyJ9

 

That is very useful to see.   And the Conty TSIO520VB is very very similar to my TSIO520NB.

[Schllc]

This thread, like the gami thread, is getting difficult to read.

We can squawk and bray all we want but the problem is simple and the blame lays in once single place. 
The regulatory environment is the only reason we are flying on 1930’s technology. 
There is no incentive for anyone to innovate when it is not possible to recover the cost of development. 
Either flying is a fundamental right, or it is not.  
So either take off the chokehold on the certification process, or admit that they are trying to kill GA in a war of attrition. 
The FAA has reached the inevitable destination of any bureaucracy, which is a self serving organization that could care less about its subjects, and only cares about preserving its monopoly. There is zero desire for the FAA to improve our fleet, because they do not care and their existence is secure regardless of what happens to the piston fleet. 
I don’t believe it’s fixable under the current disaffected fiefdom.

If someone doesn’t parse our sector out of the current set of rules, piston GA will die a slow painful death. 
 

Just to be clear, I am not impugning FAA individuals that many of us have had to interface with, but they are all bound by the onerous and stupid rules that are ruining our genre. 

[mluvara]

8 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

The point is that Engine testing and Operability should be established BEFORE ASTM certification, not after.  There should be NO ASTM Certification until it has been shown to the satisfaction of the engine manufacturers, the aircraft manufacturers and the FAA that a new fuel can safely power the fleet.  As it stands now, ASTM for GA aviation fuel is nothing more than a standard for supply chain purposes.

It seems like any prudent manufacturer would theorize development of a fuel, test its capabilities (internal R&D), apply for specifications like ASTM and enter the certification process. Swift appears to have been developing 100R for some time, and from what I can tell, an ASTM spec takes a couple of years. So, perhaps they only applied for an ASTM spec when they felt internal R&D (i.e. testing on engines in lab) showed they had a viable fuel. And now they are going through the STC process, which appears to be iterative. My point is that I feel like they know what the fuel’s capabilities are and have previously tested it. Now they are going after the formal certification process.

Michael

Edited yesterday at 04:30 PM by mluvara

[EricJ]

Standards are typically developed before products, with as much testing as the standards participants deem necessary in order to develop the standard.   The science and engineering are known well enough to do that.   My understanding is that engine and airframe manufacturers participate in the ASTM standards, which can accelerate acceptance downstream.   Contrast that with engine and airframe manufacturers publishing "don't use that" letters for other products.

[hazek]

4 hours ago, Schllc said:

If someone doesn’t parse our sector out of the current set of rules, piston GA will die a slow painful death.

This is true in Europe where we have the nanny state but you have this because of your litigious culture. To us Europeans it's downright crazy the lawsuits you have. You just sue over anything to get a payday. And you can just file frivolous lawsuits as just the mere threat of having to pay to defend is sometimes enough to get a settlement because the loser doesn't have to pay the legal costs. Crazy. It's this that did you in. It's this that your regulators tried to solve to at least keep some of the companies alive that got sued into oblivion by greedy widows.

[hazek]

4 hours ago, mluvara said:

My point is that I feel like they know what the fuel’s capabilities are and have previously tested it. Now they are going after the formal certification process.

Reading everything they released recently they do indeed sound confident they have something that works for the entire fleet. It has brought back some cautious optimism for my Bravo, I have to say.