Swift Fuels is hoping its 100R unleaded fuel will be available to about 75 percent of the piston fuel fleet by the end of this year and ultimately be the only unleaded high octane fuel on the market. "We believe the way the market works is [there is] really only room for one unleaded fuel," CEO Chris d'Acosta told a fuel forum hosted by the FAA in its building on the Sun 'n Fun grounds Wednesday. "We think that one unleaded fuel will be 100R. We thought that all along." AVweb obtained a transcript of d'Acosta's presentation and it's copied in full at the end of this story. Swift was apparently the only fuel company invited to make a presentation. There are two others in the running to supply high octane unleaded, General Aviation Manufacturers Inc. and LyondellBasell.
Unfortunately, George hasn’t figured out how “not” to tick off people when you’re trying to gain their favor. You don’t thumb your nose at people you’re trying to do business with unless you’re the only show in town and he is not. He’s in the process of finding that out and paying the price.
If you have an issue with George (GAMI/G100UL), then you must really have an issue with Chris (Swift/100R - what this article is actually about). He’s the very definition of “pushy”.
So the question is, if Swift keeps saying G100UL is bad because it doesn’t have ASTM approval and went the STC route, when will 100R have ASTM approval? And why are they also going the STC route?
Apparently they do have ASTM approval for the UL94 (according to this transcript), so it’s not a stretch to think they know what they’re doing and will do the same for the 100 octane version. As for why an STC–I assume that’s an artifact of the FAA’s creation of this precedent.
It’s the hypocrisy of them belittling G100UL for its STC approval without an ASTM spec, while they’re doing the same with 100R. Maybe they will get ASTM approval, but then why not wait for that first? Of course, the answer is probably fairly obvious, and applies equally to both fuels.
Assuming both fuels work equally well, then that’s great and may whichever one is best win. But let’s compare the fuels on their actual technical merits rather than on some piece of paper.
I find it interesting that D’Acosta is going to do a “real world” test of his 100R in an engine that Continental says will run fine on 94 octane fuel. He is also confident that his 100R will be approved to run on the 75% of the fleet that only requires 94 octane fuel. Uh, yeah, I would hope so! It’s that other 25% of the engines that matter for commercial operators and people who actually need 100 octane and who consume three quarters of the Avgas sold. By comparison, GAMI has demonstrated to the FAA, on engines that require 100 octane, that their G100UL actually exceeds the ultimate anti-knock resistance of 100LL. I’m not a GAMI booster, but I do have more confidence in their approach to developing a true 100LL replacement - one that is already approved for ALL spark ignition piston engines - over one that might get there eventually. Oh, and I am a little skeptical of a guy who, to my knowledge, has failed to come up with a rational explanation as to why his 94UL caused valve seat recession in the UND fleet.
Did you read the transcript attached to this article in its entirety? Specifically, where UND was apparently operating at peak EGT? See page 8.
"They flight school, they were flying, uh, according to their normal protocol, they fly at what’s called peak EGT. So they, they talk, take off and climb at full ridge. And then they, when they get the cruise, they fly and what he described as peak EGT. And so they flew, uh, almost 400,000 gallons of fuel, 46,000 flight hours. I just said they flew rich, the takeoff climb and also descent. They cruise, they flew peak EGT. Well, peak EGT is the highest temperature, uh, on the range. It’s in the, it’s in the range of best economy, but it’s also the hottest operating temperature from an exhaust standpoint. And a lot of people that I’ve talked to around the country, they don’t typically fly at peak EGT. They might fly lean of peak under various conditions, or they might typically fly rich of peak. Particularly the flight schools where they’re taught to, to fly. But peak EGT a particularly hot thing. I stood before rooms full of, of IA and, and, uh, a and p and IA type mechanics. And when I mentioned they flew this way for long periods of time, 400, 400 flight hours."
“Motor Octane” is one of two common octane ratings for car gasoline, not avgas. Avgas is measured on a “Lean Mixture” and “Rich Mixture” test. According to the Shell Avgas FAQ:
The “Rich Mixture” octane rating doesn’t have an equivalent in the automotive world. The rich mixture octane was the second of two numbers in avgas, such as 80/87 and 100/130.
In other words - 100R does not appear to be equal to 100 octane avgas.
Which raises some questions…
… if 100R is the same octane as avgas “Lean Mixture” rating, then why not say so?
… What is the “Rich Mixture” octane of 100R?
And with regards to the UND problem - if the school didn’t have valve recession issues with 100LL, and they do with 100R using the same leaning practices, then why is the problem the pilot and not the fuel?
This statement alone doesn’t mean anything. Peak EGT is the hottest from an exhaust gas standpoint. But it is NOT the hottest from a CHT standpoint. Approximately 50F rich of peak EGT is peak (hottest) CHT. And, at or below 65% power, peak EGT will do no harm. So, percentage horsepower must be considered when blaming peak EGT on the problems encountered by UND. The C-172S PIM allows leaning to peak EGT for cruise up to and including 75% power. Was UND operating their engines counter to the PIM operating procedures? That’s an important consideration to assigning blame rather than just saying UND cruised at peak EGT.