At this year’s SUN ‘n FUN, visitors saw a fuel truck with Swift Fuels emblazoned on its side.
It was there to promote the company’s unleaded UL94 avgas, the first of the company’s products to make it to market.
“We introduced the 94 fuel two and a half years ago to make it clear that this stuff is doable,” said CEO Chris D’Acosta. “People shouldn’t think, ‘Oh my God, is it going to be some weird thing?’ It’s not. It’s just unleaded fuel, that’s all. Airplanes still perform like airplanes.”
He notes that while some pilots are worried about what the unleaded fuel will do to their engines, he has no “qualms” about the 94 fuel or the other Swift fuel that is going through FAA testing now.
He reports that two fuels — one from Swift and one from Shell — are in Phase Two of the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) Program, which involves a combination of engine testing and flight testing, orchestrated by the FAA.
A few weeks before SUN ’n FUN, D’Acosta reported that the fuels were being tested in about eight locations, including a tech center in Atlantic City, in Williamsport, Pennsylvania with Lycoming, in Mobile, Alabama, with Continental, in Austria with Go Tech, in Duluth, Minnesota, with Cirrus, in Wichita with Textron, and in Torrance, California, with Robinson.
“It’s been tested by the engine makers and the tech center,” he said. “The preliminary reports from those all look solid. In other words, no red flags, which is consistent with earlier tests.”
According to PAFI’s timeline, approval is expected by the end of 2018. That will be followed by about six months while the FAA certifies the fuel and ASTM writes the formal specification.
“The next question is ‘what’s the transition plan,’” he asked. “We expect there will be a program announcement that would call for the hows and the whens.”
He reported there is a team of industry and FAA officials who are working on deployment of the new unleaded fuel. Main questions involve how will deployment work, as well as anticipating what issues there might be.
He notes that he doesn’t have any control over the deployment of the fuel to general aviation.
“Will it be one fuel? Will it be two fuels? What will the implications be to the market? I can’t predict that right this second,” he said. “Pilots don’t know what to expect, and so it’s going to take some direction from the FAA to clarify how it’s going to work. Those are the kind of questions that the deployment team is asking itself, too.”
He’s quick to point out that he has confidence that whatever fuel is rolled out, it will work.
“The FAA is going through painstaking care to make sure that whatever solution enters the market is safe,” he said. “Flight safety is their highest criteria.”
“We’re asking people to be patient, and have trust and confidence in the fact that the FAA is full of bright, intelligent people,” he said. “These people are highly talented, they work hard, and they work as a team. They don’t deserve the generic rap that comes sometimes from people who like to criticize the FAA for being slow or lethargic. They have a lot of regulations to carry in their bag.”
We have managed to connect Swift fuels unleaded avgas to Basic Med.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
I am looking forward to unleaded gas, although if Ben Visser is right about the valve recession problems we may encounter, it will not be so fun. My hat is really of to Swift Fuels for bring the 94 unleaded fuel to market right now. I wish that it was available at an airport near me.
I am really looking forward to seeing unleaded avgas replace 100LL. Thinking of cleaner oil, cleaner plugs, and lower risk of sticking valves thanks to no lead deposits has me really looking forward to the demise of 100LL. It’s long overdue. Every annual I spend an hour cleaning what feels like an endless collection of lead balls from my spark plugs. And my oil starts turning black within 10 hours of operation thanks to this archaic dirty fuel. I would not be surprised if after 100LL goes away, engine manufacturers change their recommendations for oil changes from 50 hours to 100 hours.
It is good that Swift is marketing their UL94. The FAA accepted the ASTM spec. D7592 for 94UL in 2010, this was/is D910 100LL avgas without the lead. The materials compatibility is is assured as it is the same as the current 100LL,just not having the added lead. It is currently listed as UL94 as an add-on to ASTM D7547 UL91. As a listed avgas it is usable in any aircraft certified with avgas of equal or lesser octane, without a STC. My current aircraft was certified with 73 octane avgas,which by the way was unleaded. Most of the 80/87 was unleaded, the spec. allowed the addition of Tet. lead up to .5/gal, there was no minimum required. The last revisions of D910 established a min. required lead content for 100LL, but not for lower grades which are no longer produced in the U.S.
It is very good that another choice has been brought forward for the +80% of us that do not need 100 octane gasoline.
The big question for me is, “How much will it cost?” Will UL94 be cheaper than 100LL, and help revive GA? Or will it be more expensive, and be yet another nail in GA’s coffin?
94 UL is AVgas without the lead. Basically the same alcalyte that you use now without the lead. I don’t see what the big deal with the FAA is approving this fuel.
Cost will depend on how many companies are producing it. Currently only 2 companies supply ALL of the 100LL fuel.
We need more refineries to step up to the plate.
Not that I’m not optimistic about a replacement for leaded fuel but….
“…..have trust and confidence in the fact that the FAA is full of bright, intelligent people,”
Perhaps many are bright but, the FAA has failed pilots for years so, why should we expect anything different. now. A most recent example of this failure is Basic Med, leaving most pilots right where they’ve been all along. All this waste of time and energy forced on the FAA by Congress, all because the FAA fails pilots, day. in – day out!
A successful FAA career is making it to retirement without making a decision you can be held responsible for.
Now that is funny!
Mike,
Can you please elaborate and be more specific regarding your comment, “A most recent example of this failure is Basic Med leaving most pilots right where they’ve been all along”?
In what way is it a failure and to which pilots?
Thanks
Mike,
You sure are correct about the Airman’s Medical failure.