Tom_Waarne
What can anyone believe?
What can anyone believe?
So will we all need an STC to use this new Swift 100 unleaded fuel. If it is a drop in replacement why would it include an STC. I went to Santa Monica Friday and got some Swift 94UL fuel. There was no one there telling me I needed an STC to use it and the pump took my credit card no questions asked and let me fuel my Skyhawk. I have the STC for the Swift 94 fuel by the way, but I wonder why I really even need it. The fuel cost $7.00 per gallon self serve or I could have gone to Adlantic aviation and got 100LL for $8.60 per gallon.
My question is how much additionally will this new product cost me when I am forced to buy it because some people have aircraft that need this more expensive product, which I really don’t need, but probably will be forced to buy it anyway because they say that the 94UL will be removed from sales when the 100 product comes available.
I now hear that the 91UL product currently used in other locations around the world can be used in my airplane without an STC because my airplane’s engine was originally designed to use 91 octane fuel that according to the FAA.
What happened at OSH?
I have heard the same thing, from Swift when one of my intermediate fuel stops dropped mogas in favor of Swift fuel 91UL. The engine was originally certified on 80, has low compression, and runs just fine on 87 mogas, which we cannot find any more so it runs 91 mogas.
What did happen at OSH?
1 reply
Check past issues of AvwebFlash.
Swift was badmouthing GAMI’s fuel, using leading fuel bladders of a too-old airplane that AOPA was displaying.
Because the current proven route to get approval to use the fuel is by STC - GAMI showed the way, Swift has flipped to copying that.
Note that Swift says the massive pot of molasses called ASTM committee had yahbut questions for Swift.
Read GAMI’s exposition of their G100UL fuel to see some of GAMI’s criticism of the ASTM standard, listing some gaps in the standard and some inappropriate requirements.
There are two rumors which make me suspicious of Swift: First, that they “juiced” a batch of 94UL with ETFE (bad stuff) when a batch didn’t meet octane rating. second, That the 8.5:1 Lycoming engines need greater than100 octane, not 94, to avoid detonation and valve recession. So until detonation tests results are publish for an 8.5:1 Lycoming, i will not use any Swift fuel.