Swift 100R gets ASTM Approval

decalogue said:
For sure

1 It costs less than the new anti 100LL fuels

2 It requires no modifications to engines or airframes of the entire fleet

3 it doesn’t damage paint

4 if doesn’t damage the fuel systems, tanks, seals, etc

5 it doesn’t put money into the pockets of salesmen who were only pushing for the government to ban 100LL to peddle their fuels which can not compete in a real free market (reminds me of ethanol)

6 it has VERY long track record of working and the chance of a “surprise” in airframes is nil

TLDR, it just WORKS and COSTS LESS
Click to expand...
That was only half of the ask. Reminder, the ask was not specific to G100UL, and it appears that the response missed that piece.

Thanks again in advance.
 
JOhnH said:
I would be upset that we missed the chance of extended engine life, extended spark plug life, fewer oil changes and viable FADEC in our old piston planes.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... Looks like somebody is paying attention to the big picture :)
 
JOhnH said:
Do you actually hold out any hope that the anti-lead movement (tsunami) will eventually just give up?

I don't. But even if they did, I would be upset that we missed the chance of extended engine life, extended spark plug life, fewer oil changes and viable FADEC in our old piston planes.
Click to expand...

Yes, thankfully the mindless 100LL ban been pushed back and back, hopefully it becomes a “mandate” with no teeth and soon forgotten.


I hear about all of this extending life stuff, but I have seen no proof, I have seen with my own lying eyes many of these anti 100LL fuels eat up everything from paint to fuel bladders, seals, wet wings, and so on.

As it stands what I spend on plugs (which I often replace more off age related than combustion products and replace VERY seldom), and on oil changes is very very little.

Comparing cleaning plugs at annual or 100hr because I’m in there anyways, or a getting some more hours out of oil, which I’ll probably change at 50hrs ether way, COMPARED to increased fuel expenses, with FUEL ALREADY BEING THE LARGEST EXPENSE FOR MOST GA, that point doesn’t hold financial water in the field
 
JOhnH said:
But even if they did, I would be upset that we missed the chance of extended engine life, extended spark plug life, fewer oil changes and viable FADEC in our old piston planes.
Click to expand...

It'll take a lot of extended engine and spark plug life and oil changes to break even from replacing fuel bladders and O-rings. And FADEC? How does unleaded fuel make that more achievable?

Here's the part no one wants to admit: if it were possible to get 100 octane unleaded fuel in a formulation that was safe and affordable, we'd have it already. Our options going forward are to continue to use leaded fuel, settle for something less, or move to some non-spark form of propulsion.
 
decalogue said:
Yes, thankfully the mindless 100LL ban been pushed back and back, hopefully it becomes a “mandate” with no teeth and soon forgotten.
Click to expand...
While I'm unaware of any delays to the transition from 100LL by the current 2030/2032 mandates, I think any chance to stop its implementation flew the coop first in 1994, then more directly in 2012. Now if you want to make a direct comment to the FAA people behind this transition, here's the link to the Federal Notice of the FAA's plan to do so. Act soon as the comment period ends March 13th.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-plan-to-unleaded-aviation-gasoline#addresses

DRAFT TRANSITION PLAN TO UNLEADED AVIATION GASOLINE
 
AV8R_87 said:
Oxygen sensors allowing closed-loop engine control.
Can't do that with lead fouling the O2 sensor.
Click to expand...

Having flown FADEC aircraft, and enjoyed the FADEC errors, for my personal plane no thank you.

That brings a whole host of complexity, errors, pain the the butt trouble shooting stuff. Sometimes simpler is better.
 
decalogue said:
Oh this “you’re not a expert” thing

Well I can do math and read, and the facts speak for themselves on 100LL not being a real “problem”
Click to expand...
I don't expect expertise, just competency. You measured blood pressure on yourself, N=1, and extrapolate it to a population:
decalogue said:
Sorry but a raise of 1 on my BP, presuming I could even see it on a BP cuff
Click to expand...
So you can't do statistics, probably can't do math.
 
JOhnH said:
Lead destroys or degrades the sensors (Oxygen and Knock) that FADEC requires. Without these, FADEC won't work long.
Click to expand...
Knock sensors allegedly don’t work on aircraft engines. The reason isn’t lead related. I think it has more to do with cylinder volume, engine vibration, and other oddities of our engines.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I don't expect expertise, just competency. You measured blood pressure on yourself, N=1, and extrapolate it to a population:

So you can't do statistics, probably can't do math.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry that there is no 100LL monster under the bed lol


N=a ton more than one.

Have you read any of the like 5-7 or so studies linked in this thread, ALL end up saying that 100LL use in GA doesn’t amount to anything worth note?
 
Am seeing just one reason for keeping leaded fuel: fear from turning the plane into a lawn decoration when the cost to make it compliant / compatible with unleaded fuel is prohibitive for the current owner. And, insurance is not going to cover that loss. Then again, perhaps the politicians will take some of the sting away by allowing this as a write-off against taxes.

Maybe all of this drama will turn into reality. Maybe not.

But, with every new disruptive technology which kills off legacy stuff, there is always opportunity. So look for that new niche sector of converting old planes into life sized sims. Or, boutique dining booths at some popular tourist destination.


Back to the actual topic. OP, thank you for posting, as this is a good step forward. Time will tell when we are actually able to get to the goal.
 
decalogue said:
I’m sorry that there is no 100LL monster under the bed lol


N=a ton more than one.

Have you read any of the like 5-7 or so studies linked in this thread, ALL end up saying that 100LL use in GA doesn’t amount to anything worth note?
Click to expand...
You only cited your own bp measurement: N=1.

Yes, I have, and you said they were debunked- I actually agree with you about the debunked part:
decalogue said:
I linked to the debunked studies which end up proving 100LL is no factor to real world health
Click to expand...

Even AOPA sees a path away from 100LL- AOPA was one of the references you cited:
www.aopa.org

Regulatory Brief - Avgas (100LL) Alternatives

www.aopa.org

Besides, how are you going to stop it? You don't have enough money and that's all USA elected officials care about.

You still haven't found marinas in the middle of Nebraska for ethanol-free autogas.
 
i wonder if burning fuel let off barely perceptible levels of AIDS, would people be like it doesn't really harm things, i'm gonna keep flying it?

seriously, i don't care, i can safely operate on lower octane fuel just by changing my technique, no mods needed; Ban it and move on.

I Don't like living behind a gun
 
Cap'n Jack said:
You only cited your own bp measurement: N=1.

Yes, I have, and you said they were debunked- I actually agree with you about the debunked part:


Even AOPA sees a path away from 100LL- AOPA was one of the references you cited:
www.aopa.org

Regulatory Brief - Avgas (100LL) Alternatives

www.aopa.org

Besides, how are you going to stop it? You don't have enough money and that's all USA elected officials care about.

You still haven't found marinas in the middle of Nebraska for ethanol-free autogas.
Click to expand...

I didn’t cite my own BP dude, I cited the NIH study someone else posted trying to say 100LL was evil, when what it really said is it at worst in GA is going to raise the average BP up 1, which they even said wouldn’t even be noticed
 
OneCharlieTango said:
...Here's the part no one wants to admit: if it were possible to get 100 octane unleaded fuel in a formulation that was safe and affordable, we'd have it already. Our options going forward are to continue to use leaded fuel, settle for something less, or move to some non-spark form of propulsion.
Click to expand...
Here's the part you missed...

The reason we do not already have UL avgas is the avgas market is minuscule. It's not even a rounding error on the books of big oil. If the avgas market vanished tomorrow, big oil would sign in relief. They could stop making all the lead accommodations for pipeline and railroad and trucking use. This i why they are not in the hunt or dropped out of the competition for UL avgas.
 
Domenick said:
Here's the part you missed...

The reason we do not already have UL avgas is the avgas market is minuscule. It's not even a rounding error on the books of big oil. If the avgas market vanished tomorrow, big oil would sign in relief. They could stop making all the lead accommodations for pipeline and railroad and trucking use. This i why they are not in the hunt or dropped out of the competition for UL avgas.
Click to expand...
Good points. One of the points in the 100LL replacement draft transition plan is the training for handling the replacement. There is likely to be less HAZMAT training required if the new fuel(s) are more similar to auto gas and don't have the lead.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Good points. One of the points in the 100LL replacement draft transition plan is the training for handling the replacement. There is likely to be less HAZMAT training required if the new fuel(s) are more similar to auto gas and don't have the lead.
Click to expand...

So a few less slides on the computer based training that everyone just clicks through?
 
Domenick said:
People, people, people, ....

The science and facts about lead exposure are irrelevant. In politics, the truth (whatever it is) is often irrelevant as it is here.
Barring some highly unlikely political action, 100LL is going away.

Period.

Arguing over the science is a fool's errand.
Click to expand...

But, weren't we told to "follow the science", till the real facts debunked the science.
 
Racerx said:
100LL was introduced in the 70's
Click to expand...

And it replaced 100/130 octane green gas, and 115/145 purple gas. There was a refiner that still produced some purple gas for a while for the Reno Air races. Unfortunately it also replaced 80/87 red gas which had a much lower lead content.
 
kyleb said:
Knock sensors allegedly don’t work on aircraft engines. The reason isn’t lead related. I think it has more to do with cylinder volume, engine vibration, and other oddities of our engines.
Click to expand...
What are you going to do with the signal from the sensor? The engines have fixed timing, typically 20-30 degrees BTDC. The new e-mags have variable timing, but they work in the opposite direction basically using a LUT based on an MP port to advance timing, but only at power below about 75%. A 100LL engine running a fuel without TEL but with a sensor would need to retard the timing to avoid detonation, reducing power.

So sensors + timing changes might provide cushion against detonation but at the cost of power, which is a regulatory issue - even if your spam can is safe to depart with say 265 instead of 285 hp, by virtue of actively or permanently reduced timing, it's no longer meeting it's type certificate. A potential solution might be to get an STC to reduce max take-off weight and provide new performance charts at the reduced max power.

Overall, it's mainly the higher performance traveling machines that will be affected. The antiques and simpler aircraft will run on any non-ethanol fuel. Since the market is already bifurcating with the higher performance machines slowly disappearing and harder to maintain anyhow, GA will become fully recreational only at the low end.

TLDR: Won't matter because the aircraft that need 100LL are becoming obsolete or un-maintainable, leaving SETP as the entry level traveling machines and Cubs and experimentals as the recreational machines.
 
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...
As a member of our airport commission, that is absolutely NOT going to happen. Do these folks have any idea how much it costs to install a fuel tank and pump? No small airport is going to add a second avgas system.
 
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...
Well. I guess it begs asking the question “what is the goal?”

Pardon me while I shift my tinfoil hat for comfort.

The government wants us grounded. These old airplanes are a pain in the ass. Better we just go away.
 
Last edited:
Knock sensors would be a reasonable and achievable path from an engineering standpoint (yes, I'm an engineer), but I don't think it will ever happen, at least as a retrofit. There are too many regulatory and financial obstacles for it to be worth anyone's time. Remember, the entire ignition system up to the plugs has to be changed.

A brief change in ignition timing is unlikely to produce a problem performance change. We're not trying to insert a spacecraft into a Mars orbit. How often does anyone fly in a situation where maximum engine performance is critical? How much thrust is produced that Lycoming? There are so many variables that predicting performance gets crazy. It the air filter clean? Is the oil hot, cold, new, old? How much gas is really in the tanks? Bugs on the prop? Runway mowed lately??

I think most of us just want to be able to enjoy flying without worrying if we're going to fragment a piston. Of course, there's always diesel.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
737steve said:
I think most of us just want to be able to enjoy flying without worrying if we're going to fragment a piston.
Click to expand...
This. I fly for fun. Refueling in general, getting an STC to buy gas, one more thing to manage not killing the engine, etc. not in the “why I fly” column.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Well. I guess it begs asking the question “hat is the goal?”

Pardon me while I shift my tinfoil hat for comfort.

The government wants us grounded. These old airplanes are a pain in the ass. Better we just go away.
Click to expand...

^ this times a million
 
GA is not even a freckle on the ass of the government. If they cared that much one way or another something would have been done long ago.
 
737steve said:
A brief change in ignition timing is unlikely to produce a problem performance change. ... How often does anyone fly in a situation where maximum engine performance is critical?
Click to expand...

Here is a perspective. Need to ask this question to folks regularly using short field technique as to whether max power is critical. And then there is pretty much everybody who wants to quickly get above that critical altitude where we can do a glide back if necessary.

Seems like the challenge with 100R is that even after allowing for timing changes to prevent detonation, and ignoring whether it will mix with other fuels, it still comes up short as a "drop-in" replacement given that it reportedly has lower energy density than 100LL.

But, lets play with the idea of burning the lower density fuel and adjusting timing. As others note, lower energy density means we can expect less power, less range, and less payload for the engines which have current certifications to burn 100LL. These are rather important factors for people who do not simply fly for fun all the time. And by reducing three critical performance elements, a bunch of planes are suddenly no longer able to meet their missions.

Seems like the only real "easy path" for approving a lower density fuel is to unilaterally move all current aircraft which truly need 100LL into the Experimental category and revoke their Certified status. This way, revising all the performance tables to adjust for the lower density fuel moves over to the owners.


737steve said:
Of course, there's always diesel.....
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd love either diesel ICE or one of the new turboprops. But am not seeing either getting into the higher performance territory at the moment. Although, this is not perfect either as it trades lead for NOx.
 
decalogue said:
So why the push to ban 100ll?
Click to expand...
Epa gotta gripe about something. And we're reliant on another country to produce a caustic chemical to make the stuff. We've been through this.

Epa would have banned it 30 years ago if not for a bi lateral agreement with the FAA.
 
decalogue said:
So why the push to ban 100ll?
Click to expand...

Because developers want airport land, and banning leaded fuel is the cause celebre. The developers have found some useful idiots to make lots of noise about the horrible dangers we're imposing on the children. It's an easy target because anyone who owns and flies an airplane is one of the hated rich, so the useful idiots can feed their envy while "helping a good cause." Most of which is bu||$hi+, but so what?

It doesn't matter. That battle has been fought and lost. If we want to keep flying our bugsmashers, we'll need an alternative fuel.
 
Half Fast said:
Because developers want airport land, and banning leaded fuel is the cause celebre. The developers have found some useful idiots to make lots of noise about the horrible dangers we're imposing on the children. It's an easy target because anyone who owns and flies an airplane is one of the hated rich, so the useful idiots can feed their envy while "helping a good cause." Most of which is bu||$hi+, but so what?

It doesn't matter. That battle has been fought and lost. If we want to keep flying our bugsmashers, we'll need an alternative fuel.
Click to expand...


T7htS1t.gif


Minus the last part, still much fight left, and other options as long as it’s legal and made somewhere.
 
SkyGazer said:
Seems like the only real "easy path" for approving a lower density fuel is to unilaterally move all current aircraft which truly need 100LL into the Experimental category and revoke their Certified status.
Click to expand...
But you can do that now via Experimental Exhibition. So for those who want to go that route the guidance exists. You can even install any engine you like just as the Corser V8 guy did and a number of others. Perhaps if someone with the knowledge and knowhow of how Exp/Exh works, could put together a package, sell it at a reasonable cost, and help those who want to go this path. Plus have the added benefit of having that aircraft experimental where you could work on it and only need a mechanic for the condition inspection.

decalogue said:
So why the push to ban 100ll?
Click to expand...
As been stated multiple times, in 1970 your congressional representatives voted to ban leaded gasoline, however, there was still a very large owner contingent who used AVGAS which pressured for the AVGAS exemption. Fast forward to 1994, with the AVGAS contingent tanked after 1985, there were no longer the numbers of owners to pressure congress on the exemption, so in 1994 congress authorized the FAA Administrator to make aviation gasoline meet the lead requirements of 1970. So the push has been rolling for 55 years and you're at the downhill, tail end of it. This is no different than the reasons behind why the GARA act, NASA's AGATE Program, etc. all failed to grow this sector of the market for the simple reason there are no longer the numbers who want to fly private, recreational aircraft for various reasons. Regardless, unless Lycoming and TCM want to go belly up come 2032, I think there will be some sort of compromise that be made and they'll both sign off on some alternate fuel option.

Half Fast said:
Because developers want airport land, and banning leaded fuel is the cause celebre.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. There are quite a few airports that have long term environmental issues which developers do not want. Thats why you only see public entities really pushing for airports to close as they are the only ones who could handle any liability issues with the site. For example, several airports that I'm familiar with all city recreational areas with hiking trails, sports facilities, and golf courses. But with FAA restrictions no longer in place, the developers could now build right up to the former airport perimeter fence line.
 
Bell206 said:
But you can do that now via Experimental Exhibition. So for those who want to go that route the guidance exists. You can even install any engine you like just as the Corser V8 guy did and a number of others. Perhaps if someone with the knowledge and knowhow of how Exp/Exh works, could put together a package, sell it at a reasonable cost, and help those who want to go this path. Plus have the added benefit of having that aircraft experimental where you could work on it and only need a mechanic for the condition inspection.


As been stated multiple times, in 1970 your congressional representatives voted to ban leaded gasoline, however, there was still a very large owner contingent who used AVGAS which pressured for the AVGAS exemption. Fast forward to 1994, with the AVGAS contingent tanked after 1985, there were no longer the numbers of owners to pressure congress on the exemption, so in 1994 congress authorized the FAA Administrator to make aviation gasoline meet the lead requirements of 1970. So the push has been rolling for 55 years and you're at the downhill, tail end of it. This is no different than the reasons behind why the GARA act, NASA's AGATE Program, etc. all failed to grow this sector of the market for the simple reason there are no longer the numbers who want to fly private, recreational aircraft for various reasons. Regardless, unless Lycoming and TCM want to go belly up come 2032, I think there will be some sort of compromise that be made and they'll both sign off on some alternate fuel option.


I don't think so. There are quite a few airports that have long term environmental issues which developers do not want. Thats why you only see public entities really pushing for airports to close as they are the only ones who could handle any liability issues with the site. For example, several airports that I'm familiar with all city recreational areas with hiking trails, sports facilities, and golf courses. But with FAA restrictions no longer in place, the developers could now build right up to the former airport perimeter fence line.
Click to expand...

If it was as they claim, it’s such a small thing they would have forgotten about it, many much larger issues have been forgotten about.

With how many airports are in the US, that’s a TON of money and I’m sure more than a few developers are calling their paid for representatives to try to “free up some land”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top