Swift 100R gets ASTM Approval

Racerx said:
You say xylenes plural. I know there's different kinds. But are different xylenes more destructive? Are we just assuming it's the xylenes doing the alleged damage?
Click to expand...
Your question is valid, but I don't know how they specifically affect different paints. I haven't noticed any damage to my car from the occasional gasoline spill, but that is only one type of paint. I was merely responding to the comments about the amount of xylenes and indicating that the percentages aren't unusual for gasoline.

I do know that for some chemical reactions, they do have different reactivity and will produce different products, but I doubt that pertains to this discussion.
 
Racerx said:
You say xylenes plural. I know there's different kinds. But are different xylenes more destructive? Are we just assuming it's the xylenes doing the alleged damage?
Click to expand...
Want my retired chemical engineer dad's number? He could walk you through it. He designed refineries for 35 years. Or go buy him lunch down in Naperville.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Want my retired chemical engineer dad's number? He could walk you through it. He designed refineries for 35 years. Or go buy him lunch down in Naperville.
Click to expand...
Dude, I'm a dumb welder. You know this.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
I'm just saying I have a local resource if you want it. It's fun telling him about this unleaded stuff but I dont know enough to get in deep with him.
Click to expand...
Nor do I. But I do enjoy hearing guys nerd out in their field of expertise while I try to follow along and not sound too dumb.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Gasoline in general can have 10 to 30% xylenes
Click to expand...
The safety sheets in the links appear to be for auto gas, as I don't see Tetraethyllead listed. Given the low volume of planes that run on auto gas, I'd think it would be hard to extrapolate if it was damaging to some planes or not as it is suggested G100UL is.

Modern road vehicles obviously have no paint stripping or seal problems with modern auto gas, but maybe that's because they are all using more compatible modern materials than my 50 year old Cessna.

Or, maybe it's not Xylenes at all. But something is going on I believe.
 
WDD said:
The safety sheets in the links appear to be for auto gas, as I don't see Tetraethyllead listed. Given the low volume of planes that run on auto gas, I'd think it would be hard to extrapolate if it was damaging to some planes or not as it is suggested G100UL is.

Modern road vehicles obviously have no paint stripping or seal problems with modern auto gas, but maybe that's because they are all using more compatible modern materials than my 50 year old Cessna.

Or, maybe it's not Xylenes at all. But something is going on I believe.
Click to expand...
Yes, the links were for automobile gas. I'm sorry for not making that more clear.

As for xylenes interacting with dried paint, it probably depends on the paint or varnish involved as well as the concentration of xylene.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
Cap'n Jack said:
As for xylenes interacting with dried paint, it probably depends on the paint or varnish involved as well as the concentration of xylene.
Click to expand...
And also for seals, hoses, etc. ?

I don't envy the folks trying to create a 100 UL aviation fuel. Unlike auto gas, it has to be compatible with modern materials and paints as well as those from 50, 75 years ago. On top of that, do all the things auto fuel doesn't deal with, such as long shelf life, vapor pressures at low atmospheric pressure, 100 octane rating, etc.

As conservative as the FAA usually is with things, I'm just surprised they aren't doing their own hard core, large scale testing on these new fuels. It will affect every GA plane in the US. Seems like this is what they were made to do.
 
Racerx said:
You say xylenes plural. I know there's different kinds. But are different xylenes more destructive? Are we just assuming it's the xylenes doing the alleged damage?
Click to expand...
There are 3 xylenes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylene
WDD said:
...As conservative as the FAA usually is with things, I'm just surprised they aren't doing their own hard core, large scale testing on these new fuels. It will affect every GA plane in the US. Seems like this is what they were made to do.
Click to expand...
I assume the FAA does not have the in-house expertise. The question I have is why haven't they contracted the expertise?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
WDD said:
And also for seals, hoses, etc. ?
Click to expand...
Yes, different solvents will affect seals as well, but different seals will be susceptible to different solvents.
WDD said:
I don't envy the folks trying to create a 100 UL aviation fuel. Unlike auto gas, it has to be compatible with modern materials and paints as well as those from 50, 75 years ago. On top of that, do all the things auto fuel doesn't deal with, such as long shelf life, vapor pressures at low atmospheric pressure, 100 octane rating, etc.
Click to expand...
Actually, if I read this document correctly, a fuel replacement need not be compatible with the material used in your airplane, nor the ignition timing:
This was cited in another thread on PoA. Unlike some people, I won't make you hunt for the reference nor the text.
Some aircraft in the active fleet may require alterations beyond placarding and flight manual revisions to use a replacement unleaded fuel(s). It is important to align the transition activities in a manner that allows a reasonable timeframe to complete these alterations.
Click to expand...

Here's more detail- I interpret this as meaning that the aircraft may need modifications to use the 100LL replacement:
Aircraft and engine modifications may go beyond using the fuel itself, and may be motivated by other factors such as increased efficiency or lower maintenance. Some examples include changes to ignition timing and replacement of certain materials within the fuel system. The TC/STC process can also be used to install antidetonation injection systems, or even to replace a spark-ignition piston engine with a compression-ignition engine. Compression-ignition can take advantage of the widespread availability of Jet A fuel. Note that for any change that involves a change to the engine, there must be a corresponding change to the aircraft approval to reference the modified engine.
Click to expand...

Your concerns don't only apply to the aircraft, but also the infrastructure for the replacement fuel. Pumps, hoses, and seals may need to be modified for the 100LL replacement. The other regulations mentioned may include HAZMAT training, signage, and how to deliver the fuel.
Any unleaded fuel producer should create a robust production management plan with a timeline and sufficient detail to facilitate production in support of the delivery schedule to meet the end of 2030 (end of 2032 for Alaska) timeline. This plan should include management of change in the transition from 100LL to unleaded fuel(s). Other factors to consider are the modification or addition of production equipment, handling and storage of unleaded fuel, internal process control, training to produce unleaded fuels, and compliance with all other applicable regulations. These processes can take considerable time to bring production online ( >24 months) as producers evaluate market demands, existing production capabilities
Click to expand...



Domenick said:
There are 3 xylenes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylene
Click to expand...
Yes, and this statement I wrote is wrong:
Cap'n Jack said:
I do know that for some chemical reactions, they do have different reactivity and will produce different products, but I doubt that pertains to this discussion.
Click to expand...
The differences between the isomers may apply to this discussion after all. The three different isomers will burn at different rates. Xylenes are, in addition to being fuel, also increase the octane rating. Given that they burn at different rates, the proportion of the isomers may be the "secret sauce" to these fuels. Note that I'm over simplifying a bit. No need to discuss free-radical chemistry here (I hope).
 
Domenick said:
I assume the FAA does not have the in-house expertise. The question I have is why haven't they contracted the expertise?
Click to expand...
Simply because the FAA has never really been in that business as they've always relied on outside standards for certifications. Prior the ASTM it was basically MIL-STD for these specifications. But once the government got out of the standards/specifications business in the 70s, you started to see industry standards become more prevalent even at the regulatory levels like SAE, ASTM and the others. And while the FAA has been more involved with the 100 unleaded projects, it still falls to the TC holder (via a standard like ASTM) or to a 3rd party (via an STC) to initiate the certification change of fuel grade regardless the reason behind the change.

And to add to the Xylene discussion, at the industry level we would use Xylene to remove certain classes of sealants and adhesives on aircraft that MEK, Toluene, etc. would not remove. Will be interesting if Xylene is part of the aircraft issues being experienced or if it is something else.
 
My issue with timing changes to satisfy detonation margins is mag drift. Ok,you've shown power loss is negligible. But after 100 hours and mags timing has advanced....now what
 
A requirement of GA planes and ground infrastructure to have major changes isn’t going to be accepted by the market place.

Thus, if the Swift people come up with a 100UL that is truly fungible with 100LL, they could win with that.
 
WDD said:
A requirement of GA planes and ground infrastructure to have major changes isn’t going to be accepted by the market place.

Thus, if the Swift people come up with a 100UL that is truly fungible with 100LL, they could win with that.
Click to expand...
But the swift fuel as currently proposed will require the same timing changes the vp/lyondell fuel will.
 
Racerx said:
My issue with timing changes to satisfy detonation margins is mag drift. Ok,you've shown power loss is negligible. But after 100 hours and mags timing has advanced....now what
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure any of the timing settings currently on the engine and any new timing settings have margin built in for that variability.

Michael
 
here's another consideration as avgas sunsets ..
we were in process of obtaining a STC for alternative gas piston engine designed as a replacement engine for most 180-350 HP existing aircraft. the engine was flex-fuel certified so it could take different gasoline types including avgas and work with lower octane ratings (elec engine controller had sensors that modify combustion with different fuels properties) and we flew our 2nd test c172 around on different fuels and in different mixed proportions.

because of the flex fuel ability we had a lot of interest from foreign markets, mostly due to ability of burning cheaper and widely available car ga (especially ethanol car gas for environmental reasons). many foreign markets feared AVGAS would become unavailable once USA outlawed it.

they felt other larger nations would follow and the single manufacturer of AVGAS's lead, TEL, would stop producing it (which they said they will), leaving them inability to even make it themselves. moreover, they rightly feared they would not be able to get the approved alternative fuels, at least anytime soon, and it would likely be in barrels shipped in at undoable high cost. which will likely be the case.

so, our concerns here are far less practical to other parts of the world where they may be left dry. some have converted to diesel engines from Continental (at great cost well north of $100k for just a c172 kit), others only using planes that have mogas stc, ect... many areas use small piston planes for essential services so it's a big deal.
 
WDD said:
The safety sheets in the links appear to be for auto gas, as I don't see Tetraethyllead listed. Given the low volume of planes that run on auto gas, I'd think it would be hard to extrapolate if it was damaging to some planes or not as it is suggested G100UL is.

Modern road vehicles obviously have no paint stripping or seal problems with modern auto gas, but maybe that's because they are all using more compatible modern materials than my 50 year old Cessna.

Or, maybe it's not Xylenes at all. But something is going on I believe.
Click to expand...

For G100UL, I believe it is partly the xylene (high boiling point) and the other component m-toluidine (high boiling point), which is an aggressive solvent. They do not evaporate easily, and do their work while exposed to surfaces.

WDD said:
And also for seals, hoses, etc. ?

I don't envy the folks trying to create a 100 UL aviation fuel. Unlike auto gas, it has to be compatible with modern materials and paints as well as those from 50, 75 years ago. On top of that, do all the things auto fuel doesn't deal with, such as long shelf life, vapor pressures at low atmospheric pressure, 100 octane rating, etc.

As conservative as the FAA usually is with things, I'm just surprised they aren't doing their own hard core, large scale testing on these new fuels. It will affect every GA plane in the US. Seems like this is what they were made to do.
Click to expand...

Domenick said:
There are 3 xylenes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylene

I assume the FAA does not have the in-house expertise. The question I have is why haven't they contracted the expertise?
Click to expand...

The FAA's PAFI program uses the FAA Tech Center in New Jersey. A fuel submitted to the PAFI program (like VP/Lyondell UL100E) is tested there. They have quite the laboratory and research center from what I understand, spanning across many disciplines.

www.youtube.com

FAA Technical Center Research & Development

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Racerx said:
But the swift fuel as currently proposed will require the same timing changes the vp/lyondell fuel will.
Click to expand...

So I gas up at home with 100LL, then fly XC and stop for fuel at a field selling Swift. I have to get an A&P to change my ignition timing?! Next I land at my destination, but they sell GamiGas. Change the timing again??!! Head for home a few days later, have to buy Swift again....

This just ain't gonna work.
 
Last edited:
Michael Luvara said:
I'm pretty sure any of the timing settings currently on the engine and any new timing settings have margin built in for that variability.

Michael
Click to expand...
And during the roll out period while waiting for airports to get the new fuel and still running 100ll?
 
Half Fast said:
So I gas up at home with 100LL, then fly XC and stop for fuel at a field selling Swift. I have to get an A&P to change my ignition timing?! Next I land at my destination, but they sell GamiGas. Change the timing again??!! Head for home a few days late, have to buy Swift again....

This just ain't gonna work.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. A timing change is a non starter to me.

Gami has said their paint thinner is fully fungible so no timing changes when going from 100ll to Gami gas. But yeah, if fuels require timing changes it's gonna be a mess unless every airport in the country switches overnight
 
Racerx said:
And during the roll out period while waiting for airports to get the new fuel and still running 100ll?
Click to expand...

Exactly. And what's the timing when we have 1/3 of a fuel load of 100LL and have to top off with Swift?
 
Half Fast said:
Exactly. And what's the timing when we have 1/3 of a fuel load of 100LL and have to top off with Swift?
Click to expand...
I think that's part of the problem with swift and vp. All they're trying to do is make an unleaded 100 octane fuel. Focused on the technical aspects but forgetting the real world dilemma of their non-fungible solution.

Why do they minimize the magnitude of what they are proposing? I think unlike GAMI who fly single engine pistons, they don't quite understand or are just plain ignoring the roll out issue.
 
Half Fast said:
Exactly. And what's the timing when we have 1/3 of a fuel load of 100LL and have to top off with Swift?
Click to expand...
The info from Swift says it can be mixed at any ratio with 100LL, so presumably wherever the timing is set will work with both fuels.
 
Flyhound said:
The info from Swift says it can be mixed at any ratio with 100LL, so presumably wherever the timing is set will work with both fuels.
Click to expand...
On high compression engines?
 
I still have not seen the issue with 100LL

Nothing environmental or health related

www.mercurynews.com

EPA: San Carlos Airport has high levels of lead fuel emissions

EPA: San Carlos Airport has high levels of lead fuel emissions
www.mercurynews.com www.mercurynews.com

www.aopa.org

Colorado lead studies failed to detect measurable aviation pollution

Legislation introduced in Colorado seeks to cripple general aviation, notwithstanding the lack of evidence (despite numerous recent attempts to find it) that airplanes are contaminating local communities.
www.aopa.org


The other argument I hear is the false only one place to get TEL point, this doesn’t hold water since there are like 8 different TEL plants in china alone, same place we get all those EV batteries from

  • Shanghai Rokem (Shanghai, China)
  • ZXCHEM (Hainan, China)
  • Beijing Hua Di Union (Beijing, China)
  • Yishui Jiuhex (Yishui, China)
  • Nanchang Haixu (Nanchang, China)
  • Hua Ya Guo Lian (Dongying, China)
  • Qingdao Hongchi (Qingdao, China)
  • Guangdong Zhongpeng (Guangdong, China)
 
the current avgas TEL supplier in england has been trying to get out of the business for over a decade and would love to have gotten out of supplying it but no one wanted the business due to small market and the numerous law suits, not even importers from China.
 
decalogue said:
I still have not seen the issue with 100LL

Nothing environmental or health related
Click to expand...
While you are likely right that the actual impact of 100LL is little to nothing, that train left the station quite some time ago. Similar to other issues of late, the facts don't really matter. Airport neighbors use Lead as one more reason to get the planes to go away.
decalogue said:
The other argument I hear is the false only one place to get TEL point, this doesn’t hold water since there are like 8 different TEL plants in china alone, same place we get all those EV batteries from

  • Shanghai Rokem (Shanghai, China)
  • ZXCHEM (Hainan, China)
  • Beijing Hua Di Union (Beijing, China)
  • Yishui Jiuhex (Yishui, China)
  • Nanchang Haixu (Nanchang, China)
  • Hua Ya Guo Lian (Dongying, China)
  • Qingdao Hongchi (Qingdao, China)
  • Guangdong Zhongpeng (Guangdong, China)
Click to expand...
The way China works - perhaps 2 of those companies actually sell TEL to anyone. Advertising they "make it" is a classic China business. The the two that perhaps actually sell it are selling it to 3rd world Asian petroleum companies that sell 100LL to countries that just don't give a crap about quality or safety.

The chances of any of those companies being qualified by ExxonMobil or Shell to supply TEL for US and/or EU aviation fuel is pretty darn close to zero. If Innospec drops out, that's likely the end of the US major oil guys participating in the market at all.

Lastly, Lead Bromide deposits are bad for spark plugs and valve guides. The pictures of engines that have been running on G100UL look clean as whistle. I'd gladly start using G100UL if it was available anywhere near me.
 
Hang 4 said:
While you are likely right that the actual impact of 100LL is little to nothing, that train left the station quite some time ago. Similar to other issues of late, the facts don't really matter. Airport neighbors use Lead as one more reason to get the planes to go away.

The way China works - perhaps 2 of those companies actually sell TEL to anyone. Advertising they "make it" is a classic China business. The the two that perhaps actually sell it are selling it to 3rd world Asian petroleum companies that sell 100LL to countries that just don't give a crap about quality or safety.

The chances of any of those companies being qualified by ExxonMobil or Shell to supply TEL for US and/or EU aviation fuel is pretty darn close to zero. If Innospec drops out, that's likely the end of the US major oil guys participating in the market at all.

Lastly, Lead Bromide deposits are bad for spark plugs and valve guides. The pictures of engines that have been running on G100UL look clean as whistle. I'd gladly start using G100UL if it was available anywhere near me.
Click to expand...

1 Facts always matter.



2 So we trust china to make giant batteries for the trendy electric cars, and literally tons of other safety sensitive things, but TEL is a bridge too far? Not sure that makes sense

Per the one active plant, I’d wager if they are honestly the only supplier for making 100LL and are making the worlds 100LL on their own, that’s quite the business
 
Racerx said:
Why do they minimize the magnitude of what they are proposing? I think unlike GAMI who fly single engine pistons, they don't quite understand or are just plain ignoring the roll out issue.
Click to expand...
I think you're spot on. I was at a Q&A session with at Oshkosh last year. I was asking fairly basic marketing and business questions, and their approach is a head scratcher. They are relying on FBO's to sell their version because pilots will be demanding it, and pilots will buy their stuff somewhere else if the FBO doesn't carry it, and pilots will all do STC's although no mechanism for anyone to check if the plane has it, etc. etc. etc. Can't understand why 94 UL isn't catching on, just because 25% or so of the GA fleet can't use it. Shouldn't be a problem for FBO's to install a second tank/second fueling system to carry their fuel.

So yes, I get the feeling that the nice folks at Swift are engineers in need of some business people to guide them.
 
WDD said:
Can't understand why 94 UL isn't catching on, just because 25% or so of the GA fleet can't use it. Shouldn't be a problem for FBO's to install a second tank/second fueling system to carry their fuel.
Click to expand...
Most places, 94UL costs more than 100LL. And do you have any idea how much a tank and fueling system costs with EPA requirements and such?
AV8R_87 said:
Because is more expensive than 100LL?
And even when priced the same (I recall an airport had it at the same price as 100LL a while back), you need an STC for it?
Who in their right mind would buy it?
Click to expand...
I bought 94UL when I could, at the time it was actually cheaper. Not lead fouling my engine is one good reason, and being experimental I don't need the STC.
 
it’s been a long time since I had fouled plugs, how is everyone running their engines?
 
Racerx said:
How about longer oil changes or better oil? Or potentially o2 sensors. Less potential for internal corrosion since we wouldn't have lead oxides
Click to expand...

None of these things are really an issue, internal corrosion is often overblown to sell overhauls, and the most simple way to stop that’s is to take her for a rip more often.

Oil changes are not a big deal, o2 sensors..I would rather less electric stuff to break personally

With the prices of these solution in search of a problem fuels, it’s good they fight internal corrosion, the fleet will probably be doing less flying with super expensive gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top