I’m not sure where you’re going with that Tommy. You’re upset with AvWeb for reporting what little story there may be? Or you wish it was a bigger story to tell?
I think it’s weird that Swift obtained a limited STC (rather than an AML STC), and weirder-still that they picked a candidate aircraft/engine that doesn’t need 100 octane fuel in the first place. Seems like not the target audience, and also not a step in the direction of the target audience, which should be the high-power intolerant engines that power airplanes used for business, if we’re talking about their 100R fuel.
I’ll grant that the 172 gives them a population for testing, but the testing won’t tell what needs to be told for the true customers.
2 replies
Wouldn’t this be typical pattern? Get approval on a relatively low threshold, but widely available product for the first approval. Test, use, show progress and then go back to the FAA for more expansion. The first approval is the hardest because there is no precedent. Nobody (at the FAA) wants their name on the approval of something novel. But once that is done, it’s only the expansion of an already approved product. A much smaller approval.
@tommy Thats a little harsh for first thing in the morning. I hope your day goes better than your comment.
1 reply
Sure, it often is the “typical pattern”, but mainly for products that aren’t expected to have a wide-reaching audience for whatever reason (often cost of the product, but sometimes just limited demand). But Swift has been bad-mouthing G100UL for not having an ASTM spec and how they (Swift) are working toward one, so to come out with this as a first step seems rather underwhelming. And it’s not like there isn’t precedent for a wider STC, now that G100UL has received just that.
First to market (G100UL) isn’t necessarily best, but it does set a benchmark that all others need to reach or exceed, and at least at the moment, 100R is neither. I would like to see another unleaded 100-octane fuel reach the market, but if it’s going to be several years (perhaps 6 years…) before more models are added to the STC, that really isn’t good enough.
I’m encouraged by Swift taking this step. I also could fly with a lower octane.
Swift says that the purpose of this fuel is to replace 100ll for all aircraft. This seems, on the surface, to be an odd step, but I’m curious about what the next step is.
I’m still a bit perplexed why we’re still having this discussion. GAMI crossed the finish line first. They have an STC AML for every piston engine in the fleet. I don’t think they would’ve received that from the FAA without this fuel being safe and effective for what is trying to be accomplished. The supposed issue with the leaking bladders they Swift was beating a path back and forth from their booth to the AOPA display is a non-issue; if it was a problem I feel the FAA would’ve already clamped down on it. I know George Braly has been has been vilified for charging folks for an STC but until he’s got another avenue/revenue stream to recoup the tens of millions of dollars he spent developing this fuel, through processors licensing fees, he’s absolutely entitled to it. Why hasn’t the FAA said this is the “winner” and this is the fuel? I think we know why? Someone somewhere is getting their nests feathered, to keep drawing this out. If the other manufacturers want to continue to develop their own fuel, so be it, they just need to make sure it’s compatible with G100UL. If not, that’s the product and it needs to start being processed nationwide and replacing 100LL.
1 reply
Sounds like a cautious first step to broad approval.
Or at least to ASTM acceptance.
(Read the linked Aviation Week article which says “G100UL also was approved incrementally across the fleet, beginning with STC approvals for certain Cessna 172 engines and airframes in 2021.” prior to blanket STC approval.)
Recall that ASTM’s ‘standard’ has gaps and needs updating, according to GAMI which has listed particular items.
I understand that the supposed problem with fuel bladders in the AOPA booth at Airventure was with age of them not fuel. AOPA got a deal to use an old airplane for little money, and got what it paid for - an old airplane.
Swift got egg on its face for pointing to the leaks, perhaps staff were redirected by company owners after that.
Blather in comments, would be nice if people would read history.
Our booth was very close to Swift and AOPA and it was amusing to see those Swift guys trotting back and forth with anyone they could grab ahold of and trying to denigrate GAMI. The friend I was with, a highly experienced IA, immediately took a look and basically said “it’s an old Baron; show me any old Baron and I’ll show you leaks”. Come to find out that’s exactly what it was. We sent one of our A&P mechanics over there to look like he was interested and they ran right over and started telling him and showing him the leaks caused by the GAMI G100UL.
1 reply
Nothing. Next time, say nothing.
I reviewed the Current AVGAS Spec VS the Game commercial spec. the differences are there, They are small mostly the Game fuel has a higher boiling point and a slightly lower Specific heat of combustion the rest is pretty much the same. BOTH of these items are not very important.Theproblem w ASTM specs is they often contain"requirements" that are very very old and are not really a requirement. Now before anyone shoot the messenger. A requirement from an engineering or scientific POV is a value that can be verified by a validated method that must be met to provide minimum performance. (Standard system engineering methodology;ogy.
IN the case of specific heat of combustion…this ONLY (in the case of small changes like the 5 % in their case ). relates to specific fuel consumption . The boiling point a relic and has NO real operational import as long as the fractional vapor tests in the ball park…ie no diesel like properties for SI engines.
This would in any case be seen in the anti knock testing since that is conducted via ASTm spec in both of these documents.
summary the ASTM spec is NOT met .BUT the differences are somewhat meaningless to engine performance. AS TO SYSTEM compatibility that is NOT part of the ASTM spec anyway so no far calling on thatIF GAMI hold their commercial spec as a non changing standard.
1 reply
What’s obscene is that there already are Petersen STC’s for 8 different engine manufacturers and 100 different airframes for unleaded gas for most small GA planes for over 30+ years now… and that’s not news and gets no tanks at airports?
I can see how tommy is also less than gruntled at this “news”.
1 reply
The most important aspect of 100LL replacement is usability in ALL piston aircraft. As a whole, the flying community should not be celebrating UL94 (a 66% solution according to the Swift website), Petersen’s MoGas STC (which isn’t applicable to any Lycoming fuel injected engine), or any other replacement fuel which doesn’t serve the entire fleet.
Operators of lower-octane capable fuels should not be taking an “I’ve got mine, f(orget) you” attitude. We have demonstrable evidence from GAMI and now Swift that 100 octane replacement fuels are achievable. This is the progress that should be celebrated, despite the problems with ASTM approval and limited STC availability, respectively.
I have no problem with lower-octane alternative fuels or MoGas STCs, but we as a community have to realize these are not solutions to the problem of 100LL extinction facing GA.
2 replies
This is a first step to much broader AML/STC and ASTM Spec and likely due to political fallout from conflict between FAA HQ and Kansas City over grant of STC to GAMI… More conservative folks in DC probably want to wait for ASTM spec first before releasing broader STC, but all the testing and flights done for FAA using 172R made issuing this STC a no-brainer… There aren’t going to be any tank cars of 100R shipping soon unless some flight school has a few dozen of them in one place… As Master Kan used to say on Kung Fu series, “Patience Grasshopper!”
OK, You’re right. Let’s wait another 40 years till it’s perfect for all.
How to turn people off of your product. 
(Most marketing people are not sharp, I’ve worked with a few as colleague and customer, there are the scum at bottom, and a huge muddle in the middle.
Couldn’t trust McD-D C-10 sales people, whereas Boeing people want out of their way to correct mis-understandings.
In the muddle were Lockheed sales people, not effective even though they had the best airplane to replace PW’s 707s. Some people thought they were being timid to avoid problems after being nailed bribing potential customers in Japan, but that would have been a misunderstanding of the problem.
A key PW person who strongly favoured the DC-10 was locked out of the offices one weekend, explanation seemed weak.)
It is a significant event in the unleaded avgas circus - another company starting down the STC route.
A company that was badmouthing its competitor several weeks ago is now starting down the route the competitor too with success.
Thankyou for specific information.
It’s also worth noting that Petersen’s MoGas STC isn’t just a “paper STC” depending on aircraft model. For the PA-28s, it requires replacing the standard fuel pumps. And then there’s the requirement that the fuel not contain any alcohol, which is hard to find in my area. Their page also says that mogas can be more volatile (reid vapor pressure) than avgas, which can lead to vapor lock and/or a higher probability of carb icing.
The point being, the mogas STC may be quite valid for some, but for others it may make less sense. This just means that it’s not a replacement for 100-octane avgas, with a somewhat limited market, so it’s no wonder very few airports sell compatible mogas.
1 reply
When autofuel STC’s first came out, many airports still had tanks in the ground which had been left empty when 80/87 was discontinued. Many of them ended up with autogas in them. In 1989 there were 303 airports across the country selling autofuel. Then in the mid 1990’s EPA’s time limit on underground tanks kicked in and those tanks were removed. Given the cost of putting in tanks that were up to EPA standards, it was too expensive for FBO’s to replace those tanks for a fuel that could not be used in all airplanes. Which is not to say that it would have been impossible. The FAA wanted a drop in replacement too, So they poured money into chasing a drop in replacement even though autofuel could have been made possible for a great many more airplanes than are currently approved if we’d only had some of the millions the FAA was quietly giving out. When I tried to obtain some of that money I was told “the FAA didn’t have any money, go to Congress, they have all the money.” As it turns out, the FAA blew through $40 million on a drop in replacement that never saw the light of day.
And of course, it did not help that the EPA-Congress-Politicians loaded up mogas with ethanol for the " farm lobby " that only proved harmful to many internal combustion engines.