Swift 100R gets ASTM Approval

If any Midwesterners want to heckle the Swifties (no, not those Swifties) they're giving a preso at the Marshall County Airport (C75- Lacon IL) on 9/9/25
marshallcountyairport.com

Office 309-246-2870 Cell 309-863-5216 UNICOM 122.8 AWOS 119.425

100LL 6.30/GAL SS Swift UL94 6.00/GAL SS Hangar Space Available Fuel Discounts for Tenants
marshallcountyairport.com marshallcountyairport.com

Chris D’Acosta, CEO of Swift Fuels​

September 9th 5:30 PM

Marshall County Airport​

We’re excited to welcome Chris D’Acosta, CEO of Swift Fuels, who will discuss:
  • Swift Fuels 100R and UL 94
  • Certification progress and benefits
  • The future of general aviation fuel
Food and drinks will be provided, and there will be a Q&A session following the presentation.RSVP or Learn More:
309-863-5216
[email protected] look forward to seeing you for an informative and engaging evening!Hosted by:
EAA Chapter 1642
Marshall County Airport – C75
 
baboss said:
If any Midwesterners want to heckle the Swifties (no, not those Swifties) they're giving a preso at the Marshall County Airport (C75- Lacon IL) on 9/9/25
marshallcountyairport.com

Office 309-246-2870 Cell 309-863-5216 UNICOM 122.8 AWOS 119.425

100LL 6.30/GAL SS Swift UL94 6.00/GAL SS Hangar Space Available Fuel Discounts for Tenants
marshallcountyairport.com marshallcountyairport.com

Chris D’Acosta, CEO of Swift Fuels​

September 9th 5:30 PM

Marshall County Airport​

We’re excited to welcome Chris D’Acosta, CEO of Swift Fuels, who will discuss:
  • Swift Fuels 100R and UL 94
  • Certification progress and benefits
  • The future of general aviation fuel
Food and drinks will be provided, and there will be a Q&A session following the presentation.RSVP or Learn More:
309-863-5216
[email protected] look forward to seeing you for an informative and engaging evening!Hosted by:
EAA Chapter 1642
Marshall County Airport – C75
Click to expand...
Tempting, but I'll be up in Chicago.
 
UL is a turtle race. You can watch it if you have nothing else to do or just wait for a winner to be declared.
 
Luigi said:
Is it also a paint remover???
Click to expand...

Good question.

As smart as Braly and the GAMI folks are, I’m surprised they’re not hard at work developing a wax coating that protects paint from their fuel.
 
They haven't had problems with paint stripping so far.

They are currently going the STC route to sell the fuel, which IMHO will hold them back. Some STC's are available, and more to come I would predict.

Sometimes (maybe often) engineering driven companies are not really successful because they just don't have and value business, sales, and marketing skills. Henry Ford didn't invent the car, he just was a cut throat businessman who knew how to go to market.

Unless leaded fuel is outlawed, why would an FBO spend any money to change to unleaded?

Then again, aviation fuel isn't that big - maybe the business value of a large chain of White Castle franchises? :D
 
Just to be very clear, ASTM did not "Approve" Swift's fuel. It approved a specification for the fuel. Two very different things. There is an ASTM specification for 100LL. G100UL meets it in every way except one. The ASTM spec for 100LL requires there to be lead in the fuel. Since G100UL doesn't have lead, it doesn't meet the spec. As much as people get on GAMI's case about marketing, the Swift folks are just masters of burying the lead (news lead, not Pb). As an aside, the Swift fuel does not yet have the capability to run in higher compression engines without detonation.

ASTM is a standards setting organization, not a fuel testing one.
 
Swift unleaded 100R probably would be just fine in engines requiring 100 octane fuel. But it hasn’t been tested.

Swifts approach is to have FBOs have a third fuel system - 100LL, JetA, and add the third 100R unleaded. I asked at Oshkosh why they thought the FBO would do that. They said pilots ails demand it, FBOs would react, etc.

That’s not going to happen.
 
WDD said:
Swift unleaded 100R probably would be just fine in engines requiring 100 octane fuel. But it hasn’t been tested.

Swifts approach is to have FBOs have a third fuel system - 100LL, JetA, and add the third 100R unleaded. I asked at Oshkosh why they thought the FBO would do that. They said pilots ails demand it, FBOs would react, etc.

That’s not going to happen.
Click to expand...
Agreed. All 100r will do is replace 94ul. IIRC 94ul wasn't meeting 94 octane in some tests and that's what caused the valve recession issues due to detonation. Swift blamed operating at peak per engine manufacturer.

Swift thinking pilots are going to clamor to be a beta tester is a fool's errand. They can't even get 94ul at most airports. Without being tested on high octane engines, there is zero demand for this fuel except for at places that already have 94ul.
 
Hang 4 said:
Just to be very clear, ASTM did not "Approve" Swift's fuel. It approved a specification for the fuel. Two very different things. There is an ASTM specification for 100LL. G100UL meets it in every way except one. The ASTM spec for 100LL requires there to be lead in the fuel. Since G100UL doesn't have lead, it doesn't meet the spec. As much as people get on GAMI's case about marketing, the Swift folks are just masters of burying the lead (news lead, not Pb). As an aside, the Swift fuel does not yet have the capability to run in higher compression engines without detonation.

ASTM is a standards setting organization, not a fuel testing one.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Most people clamoring for the astm don't understand it would not have done what they think it does. They seem to think the astm would have prevented paint or gasket issues. It wouldn't.
 
Hang 4 said:
As an aside, the Swift fuel does not yet have the capability to run in higher compression engines without detonation.
Click to expand...
Swift has not yet demonstrated the capability to run in higher compression engines without detonation.
WDD said:
Swifts approach is to have FBOs have a third fuel system - 100LL, JetA, and add the third 100R unleaded. I asked at Oshkosh why they thought the FBO would do that.
Click to expand...
How many FBOs still have an unused 80/87 tank sitting empty?
 
ASTM is precise documentation of the process/product/ingredients. Helpful if other companies are making the product.

BTW - is Swift refining and transporting the eventual product, or will they just license the formula to Phillips, etc?
 
Dana said:
Swift has not yet demonstrated the capability to run in higher compression engines without detonation.

How many FBOs still have an unused 80/87 tank sitting empty?
Click to expand...

If they could demonstrate true 100 octane, I’m sure they would have done so, and to great fanfare.

Based on the few fuel farms I’ve given much attention, I suspect any extra tank is being used to dispense mogas.
 
Half Fast said:
If they could demonstrate true 100 octane, I’m sure they would have done so, and to great fanfare.

Based on the few fuel farms I’ve given much attention, I suspect any extra tank is being used to dispense mogas.
Click to expand...
That would make sense, but don’t assume what they choose to do is based on things that make sense.
 
FWIW: from a certification point, obtaining an ASTM specification approval is an important step in the big picture as it opens up another approval path for its use. For example, once the FAA grants a fleet wide approval for a fuel, an STC will no longer be required as the ASTM will provide the specification just 100LL which does not need an STC. Aviation multi-grade oils went through a similar process with the 1st oils requiring an STC then the ASTM was revised and the FAA gave a fleet approval dropping the STC requirement. I believe Swifts 94UL is on the fleet approval path as it is now listed as an approved fuel by some OEMs like Cessna and Lycoming.
 
Any old unused tank is junk by now, unless the owners continued to maintain it routinely ($$$) in the hopes that it would be reused in the future. If it’s deteriorated then a refurb to put it back into service is going to demand some sort of financial payback period. I don’t see it.

Question for the older aviators - were fuel tanks all above ground in the past, or were GA FBOs using underground storage tanks?
 
Hang 4 said:
There is an ASTM specification for 100LL. G100UL meets it in every way except one. The ASTM spec for 100LL requires there to be lead in the fuel. Since G100UL doesn't have lead, it doesn't meet the spec.
Click to expand...

True, but I'll bet the ASTM spec does not say, "The fuel shall not dissolve aircraft paint." ASTM probably left out that part, assuming it went without saying.
:devil:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: WDD
455 Bravo Uniform said:
were fuel tanks all above ground in the past, or were GA FBOs using underground storage tanks?
Click to expand...
At a number of former Army Air Corp airports that went civilian there were underground AVGAS tanks. However, I imagine all have been removed by now like the ones at a couple airports in my area.
 
Half Fast said:
True, but I'll bet the ASTM spec does not say, "The fuel shall not dissolve aircraft paint." ASTM probably left out that part, assuming it went without saying.
:devil:
Click to expand...
Astm doesnt do anything for material compatibility.
 
I have a lot of experience doing ASTM tests on transformer insulating/cooling oils.

Every sample received the same tests, to the same degree of accuracy.

We, as a company had 4 pass profiles, depending on the status of the source.

1. New oil, in a truck or rail tanker, very high readings, or rejected.
2. In house reprocessed, nearly as high.
3. Oil removed to do annual internal inspection, lower yet. Determines replace with reprocess or not.
4. Oil sample from a transformer getting new gaskets to stop a leak, even lower, and subject to opinion based on months until annual inspection.

Additionally, the different parts of the tests are evaluated differently, according to which of the 4 conditions are evaluated. Electrical breakdown voltage becomes more important as you go from 1 to 4.
 
Michael Luvara said:
Hi All,

I thought I'd drop in here and add an update to my previous set of materials compatibility tests with unleaded fuels. Swift offered me a 100R sample to do materials compatibility testing with.

Michael

Click to expand...
Great video. Thanks for putting that together.
 
That was a pretty significant video of testing. I would agree that G100UL may have an issue when it comes to compatibility. I have a wet wing sealed with a polysulfide material. I hope someone looks at the compatibility of these various fuels with that sealant. Last thing I want to be forced to do is reseal wing tanks and covers. $$$$$$
 
Nice video, thanks for posting.

First two thoughts:
1) There seems to be something going on with G100UL. Hate to say it, but this guy on his own might be doing the only independent testing where as I would expect this from the FAA.

2) Highly suggest a playback speed of 1.65. Normal speed is hard to follow IMHO.
 
Rcmutz said:
That was a pretty significant video of testing. I would agree that G100UL may have an issue when it comes to compatibility. I have a wet wing sealed with a polysulfide material. I hope someone looks at the compatibility of these various fuels with that sealant. Last thing I want to be forced to do is reseal wing tanks and covers. $$$$$$
Click to expand...

A lot of us have wet wings with minor seeps too- the kind that are just enough to leave a little residue but not enough to really call a 'leak'. Combine that with the whole paint peeling/staining issue and it seems like a big problem. And sure I'll have to re-seal the tanks someday but I'd sure like to know the sealant that's used is going to be compatible with the fuel that's going into those tanks in the future before going through the downtime and expense.
 
I used the ul 94 when it was available .very hard to find and the latest price was 8,10 a gallon. Don’t see any benefit formylittle 150.
 
frfly172 said:
I used the ul 94 when it was available .very hard to find and the latest price was 8,10 a gallon. Don’t see any benefit formylittle 150.
Click to expand...
The "benefit" would be that you could continue to fuel and fly your plane after 100LL is no longer available.
 
If g100ul has been so destructive, why have the airframe stc's not been suspended or revoked
 
Racerx said:
If g100ul has been so destructive, why have the airframe stc's not been suspended or revoked
Click to expand...
Same reason the FAA hasn’t done the comprehensive testing on G100UL perhaps. They’re just behind the curve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top