Swift UL94

GeorgeC

GeorgeC

Administrator
Management Council Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
5,151
Display Name
Display name:
GeorgeC
Anyone tried it?
 
I've run a couple of tanks through my RV-12 on the way to and from Oshkosh. Burns just like gasoline.
 
Wasn't aware any alternative fuels were available, other than mogas. When did the Feds give a blessing?
 
A couple years ago, the folks at Revoulution Aviation (formerly known as Team Tango) filled a couple of my tanks with it on the way back from Oshkosh. I did an unscientific side-by-side test by going up to cruising altitude, running on avgas for an hour, then switching tanks and running on Swift for an hour. I noticed absolutely no change in performance or engine parameters.
 
You are a trusting soul. Is is cheaper than 100LL?
 
Locally, it's $5/gal compared to $5.40. Never having to worry about plugs or valve guides is worth something too...
 
It's just premium unleaded; not a "replacement" for 100LL for anyone who requires 100 octane. You aren't going to have two different fuel options widely-deployed, and 94 octane will never work for the majority of fuel requirements.

Nothing to see here... move along.
 
Yeah, I've filled up with it a few times. Portage, WI has it. And somewhere in MI...maybe Battle Creek...don't recall for sure. In both cases it was cheaper than 100ll and that's why I bought it. As Spike said, it's just high octane unleaded gas. I run 93 oct E0 MoGas all the time so it's pretty much the same difference.

SCCutler said:
It's just premium unleaded; not a "replacement" for 100LL for anyone who requires 100 octane.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but their 102UL is being tested now. Didn't see a projected approval date.
 
Anymouse said:
I believe in places where it's sold side by side with 100LL, it's less expensive.
Click to expand...
That's been my experience, but my experience is quite limited. 50 cents or so IIRC. That's really the only reason I bought it.

I certainly don't know why one would have to be "a trusting soul" to put souped up MoGas in their airplane and it's my understanding that's all it is but @Clark1961 might chime in to confirm/dispel.
 
timwinters said:
That's been my experience, but my experience is quite limited. 50 cents or so IIRC. That's really the only reason I bought it.

I certainly don't know why one would have to be "a trusting soul" to put souped up MoGas in their airplane and it's my understanding that's all it is but @Clark1961 might chime in to confirm/dispel.
Click to expand...

We need to be sure we are putting good stuff in our tanks. I wouldn't fly with a new fuel a salesman from Oshkosh promoted. Maybe that is just me. Also, we know that ethanol free mogas isn't necessarily ethanol free. Many test each fill-up to be sure.
 
timwinters said:
That's been my experience, but my experience is quite limited. 50 cents or so IIRC. That's really the only reason I bought it.

I certainly don't know why one would have to be "a trusting soul" to put souped up MoGas in their airplane and it's my understanding that's all it is but @Clark1961 might chime in to confirm/dispel.
Click to expand...
Swift states that their 94UL meets ASTM standards and is approved by the FAA for engines that require 94 or lower octane rating fuel. It doesn't have alcohol unless somebody screwed up. It's prolly a great fuel for all the unboosted low compression engines out there.
 
Evidently lead free fuel won't work in the Comanche fuel system due to vapor lock. Sooooooo....
 
Filled up with Swift at Sebring a few times. Of course I'm flying a Rotax. Haven't noticed any negative issues. If it was near me, I'd fill up with it exclusively.
 
DanWilkins said:
Many test each fill-up to be sure.
Click to expand...

As do I, it only takes a minute.

DanWilkins said:
We need to be sure we are putting good stuff in our tanks. I wouldn't fly with a new fuel a salesman from Oshkosh promoted.
Click to expand...

Ummm...it's been approved by the FAA and I'm quite confident that their standards are higher than yours or mine.
 
timwinters said:
As do I, it only takes a minute.



Ummm...it's been approved by the FAA and I'm quite confident that their standards are higher than yours or mine.
Click to expand...

I think I'll give the fellow who rebuilt my engine a call. He is the engine guru. Maybe I'll report back.
 
SoonerAviator said:
How does a lead additive prevent vapor lock? Honest question.
Click to expand...

Completely unrelated issues. Vapor lock is driven by vapor pressure, not lead content or octane.

Certain varieties of Mogas are allowed to have higher RVP (Reynolds Vapor Pressure) than Avgas. Put one of the high RVP mogas mixtures in your Comanche and you're probably gonna experience vapor lock at some point.
 
kyleb said:
Completely unrelated issues. Vapor lock is driven by vapor pressure, not lead content or octane.

Certain varieties of Mogas are allowed to have higher RVP (Reynolds Vapor Pressure) than Avgas. Put one of the high RVP mogas mixtures in your Comanche and you're probably gonna experience vapor lock at some point.
Click to expand...

Understood. I thought he was implying that 100LL wouldn’t vapor lock by virtue of being leaded gasoline, as opposed to unleaded. Having the RVP limits significantly different between the two fuels could pose a problem though. What is it about the PA24 system that makes is especially susceptible to vapor lock?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
kyleb said:
Completely unrelated issues. Vapor lock is driven by vapor pressure, not lead content or octane.

Certain varieties of Mogas are allowed to have higher RVP (Reynolds Vapor Pressure) than Avgas. Put one of the high RVP mogas mixtures in your Comanche and you're probably gonna experience vapor lock at some point.
Click to expand...
Reid vapor pressure, not Reynolds.
 
I also used some from Portage, WI in an Apache. Burned like gas. I would use it anytime in the 182, but that is the only place I've ever come across it.
 
kyleb said:
Where in the heck did get Reynolds??? Oh well, long day.
Click to expand...

It's okay. You were right all along. Says it right here on my gauge.

VHY3mB3AALp7AHpZ_gigLUMx57o0osomAGICmvZiqx6SF6SGNTASE5-AVEJmXJdqshCStEs6nQOAd35Qs5-08iacTHrY7X40PXE5urBLiMBkYrp8BVyjlFGGiY6FyR0B3-HemrWz1EYTBpIbRWgrP7uzGtJY6upYVgTqddtORmC1d9Na41PyxUyrhf15GXSJeT0OE7G1jaPu6FAjzdFGgc_P3RNdk9sMphdxEA_zjRXhX9jYsFoeT56Q4ViVCLaeGUT9PwrR_2QysISO5ZOrtMW8DyUBBxeWktBsPe5KsWgNKO6Pa4-KcxlT0HqoP3Cv5D5HtRiG9DVQAqs8lUpZ5jS5nQfq5U1CIcFAVaR6iWy1iw9hAFKD6tlWIFZIBDOPOpLte0GKAjNQeuILSdlTMTwwGmUToG3W8WM0MXdmpCX75o22f6Iw2wrHsG7XrUWd2fo8FuK-Mig8tn8vDR14mz3S8EoYWkEUzpUUDwHDlO0iIVy1r5McDPDgbbSK3l7QOqmgD1WCNisqJye5eME6cw1IK6XxQ-ryeem_haZmQsUQqRlIUrnDm-fexKalzre6ZQzWacWGKxT5sOf-8ntNHUlymsWPwJJutifLfjg=w538-h956-no


Doesn't everybody have an RVP gauge handy?
 
But what’s the Betz limit on the propeller or impeller inside the fuel pump? ;)
 
SoonerAviator said:
Understood. I thought he was implying that 100LL wouldn’t vapor lock by virtue of being leaded gasoline, as opposed to unleaded. Having the RVP limits significantly different between the two fuels could pose a problem though. What is it about the PA24 system that makes is especially susceptible to vapor lock?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not sure exactly, just know that the Pedersen STC for Mogas is a no go due to vapor lock issues - even though other O-360/540 engines in other aircraft are approved.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Consider it done. Where you parking?
Click to expand...

Homebuilt camping. But the important question is "Where will I be drinking?"

Answer: Wherever there is beer. Generally, I'm found under a large yellow balloon.
 
EdFred said:
Not sure exactly, just know that the Pedersen STC for Mogas is a no go due to vapor lock issues - even though other O-360/540 engines in other aircraft are approved.
Click to expand...

Low wings have a harder time with vapor lock because there is little or no "head" to pressurize the fuel between the tank and the pump(s). So you can start getting cavitation (bubbles) in the lines, and it goes downhill from there. If you look at the STC list, you'll find low wings are substantially under represented.
 
EdFred said:
Not sure exactly, just know that the Pedersen STC for Mogas is a no go due to vapor lock issues - even though other O-360/540 engines in other aircraft are approved.
Click to expand...
I'd have to read the ASTM specs to know if vapor pressure would be a problem with the Swift94UL. The vapor pressure specs I've seen for 100LL and mogas are substantially different.
 
kyleb said:
Low wings have a harder time with vapor lock because there is little or no "head" to pressurize the fuel between the tank and the pump(s). So you can start getting cavitation (bubbles) in the lines, and it goes downhill from there. If you look at the STC list, you'll find low wings are substantially under represented.
Click to expand...

I think it's a little more complicated than that in the case of the Comanche than just being a low wing. It has to do with the position of the muffler, the pressure line from the aux pump relative to the pressure line of the engine driven pump and the propensity of a bubble to form in a specific elbow fitting. We are cautioned against running the aux pump on the ground for just that reason. At any rate, PA 24's do not qualify for a mogas stc, where the Cherokee does.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I think it's a little more complicated than that in the case of the Comanche than just being a low wing. It has to do with the position of the muffler, the pressure line from the aux pump relative to the pressure line of the engine driven pump and the propensity of a bubble to form in a specific elbow fitting. We are cautioned against running the aux pump on the ground for just that reason. At any rate, PA 24's do not qualify for a mogas stc, where the Cherokee does.
Click to expand...
The Cherokee qualifies for the STC but it can still get vapor lock when its hot out. I experienced it last summer flying with my instructor on a 95 + degree day so I now mix in some 100LL if i'm going to fly when its that hot.
 
The RVPressure of any typical gasoline will strongly depend on the fuel temperature. My guess is that the RVP doubles for every ~15 degF temperature rise. I don't understand why there isn't more requirement for insulated gascolators and fuel lines, and for keeping above-ground sourced fuel in shaded containers.
 
nrpetersen said:
The RVPressure of any typical gasoline will strongly depend on the fuel temperature. My guess is that the RVP doubles for every ~15 degF temperature rise. I don't understand why there isn't more requirement for insulated gascolators and fuel lines, and for keeping above-ground sourced fuel in shaded containers.
Click to expand...

because that does not help the plane which has been heat soaked sitting in the sun, and is no climbing in altitude....

Tim
 
EdFred said:
Not sure how a MORE expensive option helps.
Click to expand...

No kidding, 100LL is already a rip.

I was kinda ****ed when 87 pump gas was up to $3.10 when I was filling the airplane up.
 
EdFred said:
Not sure how a MORE expensive option helps.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it won't take The Peoples Republic of California long to ban leaded fuel once a viable 100LL replacement is approved by the FAA. That might be all it takes to start the dominos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top