International extreme airshow performer Rick Volker of Rick Volker Airshows will use Swift Enterprises’ unleaded, high-octane aviation gasoline during this year’s air show season.
Volker will test and demonstrate SwiftFuel (100SF), the renewable fuel that is a high-performance, unleaded replacement for 100LL, in his Sukhoi SU26M during the 2011 air show season. 100SF, developed by Swift Enterprises , is produced through a process that can begin with multiple biomass sources and ends with a high-performance aviation product.
“I want to use SwiftFuel to inject some environmentally responsible awareness and behavior into a particularly wasteful industry,” Volker said. “I wish to contribute my efforts to those with a vision that will end dependence on foreign oil.”
Volker’s experience includes unlimited IAC competition in various aircraft, air show performances, Canadian Heritage Flight team pilot and most recently his dogfighting displays in warbirds such as a Messerschmitt Bf109, Spitfire and Hurricane.
“There is a difference in testing fuel during an extreme air show performance compared with standard general aviation flying. Engines are pushed to fly at the limits of their durability at air shows, at maximum levels of rpm, CHT, oil temperature, manifold pressure and gyroscopic forces without regard to outside air temperature,” Volker said. “The penalty of engine failure is much more severe when an aircraft has an unusual attitude so close to the ground. Every performer is walking a finer edge of risk than they would outside the aerobatic box. If there are ever going to be engine problems, they will happen here. The crucible of the air show arena is the perfect testing ground for performance and durability.”
During the 2011 air show season, Volker will use the Swift-fueled Sukhoi SU26M for Unlimited Freestyle aerobatic solos. He also will premiere in the new motorsport, the Aerobatic Race Challenge. Volker will compete against well known performers as they race side-by-side through a 10-maneuver aerobatic sequence.
Mary-Louise Rusek, president of Swift Enterprises, said the affiliation with Rick Volker Airshows will benefit both firms. “We are pleased to work with Rick. He is an excellent pilot, and we look forward to helping him get the most out of SwiftFuel and his plane,” she said. A video of Rick perfecting his routine for this season can be found on Swift’s YouTube
Kent,
It seems as though you keep avoiding my specific and direct question. The only doubt I have is weather you really know what you are talking about regarding your statement:”It will be interesting to see if Mr. Volker’s engine can start on Swift fuel, since my understanding is that engines now must start with 100LL then switch to Swift.” Do you have the ability and integrity to answer that simple question? What data is there to support your specific statement?
Greg, judging from your strong reaction, you too are aware of cold start problems with Swift fuel that the FAA and others have reported. Don’t shoot the messenger. No one expects any new fuel to work perfectly, Avgas and autogas had their share of teething pains as will any new unleaded fuel. But to hide these important aspects, forecast unrealistic prices as Swift has done on numerous occasions, change comments on the biofuels aspects as Swift has, then use the stunt of a special airshow plane/engine to somehow convince the world that the fuel is ready for GA smacks of some serious issues with this effort. These are the tactics of a startup flailing around looking for financial backers, not a serious business. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I prefer new products to be introduced without hype and especially without the green label from the whole renewable/biofuel hoax. Either it makes it on its own, meaning weekend recreational pilots can afford it without any subsidies/mandates (the only thing that keeps most biofuels alive), or it dies. Lashing out at anyone with valid questions can only mean you have your doubts, too.
Kent,
Thanks for the FAA Report. I read it in 2010 when first released as well as the EAA article. Neither of which state: ” engines now must start with 100LL then switch to Swift”. What data supports this procedure you’ve stated? If true, OEM’s operating hand books starting procedures will have some significant changes. All kidding aside… NONE of the major engine manufactures would be continuing testing TODAY, including TCM (just got on board) if your statement were true and if there were still serious cold starting issues. Also, I doubt the ASTM would have just issued (May 12, 2011) Swift the ASTM Certification D7719, now the Standard Specification for High Octane Unleaded Test Fuel, if one must change from 100LL to SwiftFuel to achieve a “cold statâ€. If you believe that, and do you?… That’s kinda scary. Is it possible you’ve created that starting procedure?
Greg, I was actually trying to give Swift the benefit of the doubt, there are many references to cold-start problems on their fuel in the literature and from insiders who have been involved in tests. Cold start does not mean low-temperature, BTW.
See this EAA article:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-08-24_FAA-Swift.asp
“Two issues that will require further testing include cold-starting difficulty and material compatibility. The report states that the cold-starting difficulty occurred when the engine was left to sit overnight, while starting with a warm engine was immediate. In this case “cold starting†does not refer to cold weather operations such as winter temperatures but rather to normal starting of an engine. Traditional remedies for cold start issues in aviation gasoline has included the addition of petroleum components that often result in lowering the octane or anti-knock characteristics of the fuel.”
The fact that the fuel weighs 7 pounds/gallon is well known, for instance in this report from the FAA:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/images/Swift-Study.pdf
“The fuel weighed an average of 1 lb/gal more than traditional aviation gasoline and, therefore, had roughly 13% more energy per gallon of fuel. The consequence of additional fuel weight on an airframe and the potential to affect pilot operating handbook performance curves were beyond the scope of this research and were not addressed.”
Ethanol-free gasoline is available at every fuel terminal in the country, since ethanol may not be pumped through gasoline pipelines. Terminal operators will sell the “clear” ethanol-free to airports even in areas where it is no longer available at gas stations. Several pilots in California have taken the initiative to have it shipped in from Oregon and Nevada and will be selling it at Reid-Hillview (San Jose), Turlock (Central valley) and other places starting this summer. All it takes is a pilot and airport willing to put in a bit of effort and one can enjoy the lower costs and other benefits of lead-free, ethanol-free autogas. But it won’t appear by itself. Smart airports will sell it outside the fence, and a great deal of it since it’s estimated that 450 million engines are damaged by the ethanol now. These smart folks are all ahead of the curve and stand to reap great benefits as we inevitably transition to an autogas/Jet-A future as is the rest of the world.
Swift Fuel is not a “bio-fuel”. As I understand it, it is a binary hydrocarbon fuel, both molecules are found in gasoline. Apparently it is possible to make the very expensive hydrocarbon molecule from a bio-mass process but the last presentations that I attended given by Swift indicated that they had given up on the bio-mass process to make the acetone building block for one of the molecules because it was too expensive. It would be more beneficial to GA for Swift to make the announcements about the basis of their fuel rather than air show performers.
Kent Misegades:
“since my understanding is that engines now must start with 100LL then switch to Swift”
Simply, your understanding is wrong! What current test data do you have to justify that comment regarding aircraft ENGINES (including Rick Volker’s Sukhoi SU26M) using SwiftFuel. Please produce that current data… if it exists. Seems to go against the findings of the ASTM, the FAA and OEMS. Your comment is obviously based on misinformation and unsubstantiated rumors. That comment could cause question to one’s credibility. Or do you just want to make those kind of rumor statements due to the frustrations we all have with ethanol in most all auto fuel in the U.S., i.e.; California.
This is about as relevant to what normal pilots face as running NASCAR on E20 or Indy cars on alcohol – it’s not. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Volker’s engine can start on Swift fuel, since my understanding is that engines now must start with 100LL then switch to Swift. Also, what is the weight of the fuel, still 7 pounds/gallon, a show-stopper for many planes where weight and CG are critical, especially for hot & high altitude operations. What does this statement imply: “…is produced through a process that CAN begin with multiple biomass sources…” sounds like bait-and-switch to me. Please, can we stop with the biofuel claptrap nonsense and just give us the bottom line: what does the fuel weigh per gallon, what will it cost to end users at the pump (with no government subsidies) and when will it be available? Everything else is just a facade, like Greg Poe’s flying an MX on ethanol, all part of the big biofuels hoax perpetrated by the ethanol lobby.