Report Says Swift Fuels 100R Granted First STC

How to turn people off of your product. :wink:

(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.

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.

1 Like

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.

  • It damages the integrity of plastic and rubber in small engines, leading to parts failure, higher running temperatures, and poor reliability.
  • Other issues include phase separation, vapor lock, corrosion, oxidation, and alterations to combustion and compression ratios.
  • Ethanol can cause increased wear on the engine.
  • Using a higher blend than recommended can lead to serious problems.
  • Ethanol corrodes many components used in internal-combustion engines and their fuel systems.

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.