New GA Fuel Promises Better Range, Lower Cost

"Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry's standard petroleum fuel [100LL], it can outperform it," says John Rusek, a professor at Purdue University and co-founder of Swift Enterprises. The company recently unveiled a new general aviation fuel that it says will be less expensive, more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendlier than any on the market. Unlike other alternative fuels, Rusek said, SwiftFuel is made of synthetic hydrocarbons that are derived from biomass, and it can provide an effective range greater than 100LL, while costing about half as much to produce. "Our fuel should not be confused with first-generation biofuels like E-85 [85 percent ethanol], which don't compete well right now with petroleum," Rusek said. Patented technology can produce the 1.8 million gallons per day of fuel used by GA in the U.S. by using just 5 percent of the existing biofuel plant infrastructure, the company said.

The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient, has no sulfur emissions, requires no stabilizers, has a 30-degree lower freezing point than 100LL, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, Rusek said. In addition, he said, the components of the fuel can be formulated into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels. The company now is working with the FAA to evaluate the fuel.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1113-full.html#197810

If it sounds too good to be true, then ...

a64pilot wrote:If it sounds too good to be true, then ...

It's probably not. Yep, that was my first thought. Time will tell, right.

Rob

Yea, I agree but wouldn't it be typical that while the politicians want to get the government involved in the market place and the agenda driven climate change flim flam scammers are causing a world wide food shortage. An American entrepreneur solves the fuel speculation debacle. I know incurable optimist but I have faith in American ingenuity and capitalism.
Thanks Rob for the news!

It does sound too good to be true, but I am hopeful. Maybe they'll find a crop of super-resilient inedible biomass that grows well vertically.

I'm confused. They claim it's a replacement for 100LL but then talk about "components of the fuel can be formulated into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels."

That sounds like diesel not avgas.

1SeventyZ wrote:It does sound too good to be true, but I am hopeful. Maybe they'll find a crop of super-resilient inedible biomass that grows well vertically.

Its Called Switchgrass, and it works way better than corn.

Sugarcain is also a good option

GroundLooper wrote:I'm confused. They claim it's a replacement for 100LL but then talk about "components of the fuel can be formulated into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels."

That sounds like diesel not avgas.

ive been watiching this pretty closely and I have seen a couple things that are real mind twisters. With enough effort almost any kind of hydrocarbon can be changed into a completely differernt kind of hydrocarbon. They are even finding out ways to turn the foam, plastic and trim from old cars into a diesel like fuel that can reun in any diesel on the road today. I think it is completely plausible that they can refine this new fuel into a kerosine-like substance that turbines can easily run on.

Most of this synthetic fuel technology has been around since WWII. The Germans got pretty good at it. The reason it hasn't been used is just basic economics. Oil is / was cheaper. The cheapest energy has always been oil. Maybe not true anymore?

I worked for Ingersoll-Rand in the Rock Drill Division back in the 70's. When the so-called fuel shortage hit the streets and the prices went up there was a lot of capital going into building equipment to mine the oil shale reserves in the U.S. Those reserves are huge. As soon as the price per barrel went back down the projects were shut down. You can bet there is a lot of money flowing in that direction again right now.

The real issue is where we are at this moment. We are hammered by the press with the problems and the potential consequences. What the press, and most people, don't take into consideration is those problems don't exist in a vacumn. Positive market forces are already acting in a manner that will provide solutions. We are just at an "in between" state that makes it hard for most people to retain a positive outlook.

Will things be the same as before again? No they won't. But that doesn't mean that they will be worse. In fact, they will probably be better in the long run.

They have videos on youtube of them running a 0-360 (?) on the synthetic fuel. Looks good to me but they need to get someone who knows how to run an airplane engine to run the controls.

Here's what Ed Kollin (developer of CamGuard) says about it:
From the patent:

"4-cycle engine fuel
17.5 grams of ethyl acetate were mixed with 17.5 grams of 2-methyl furan. 60 grams of mesitylene were then added, followed by 5 grams of corn oil, to form 100 grams of fuel of the present invention. The mixture was stirred until all components were dissolved. The resulting solution was then analyzed, and found to have an effective MON of 142, and an optimum "

If you think acetone or alcohol are good solvents they are nothing compared to furan or ethyl acetate. (mesitylene is 1,3,5 trimethyl benzene)

You could not run through a single tankful of this "fuel" without dissolving every hose, sealant and elastomer in the fuel system.

It would take just two tankfuls to accumulate enough in the crankcase to destroy every seal in the engine.

There are no replacement gaskets or seals for aircraft that could be used with these chemicals.

Using furan and esters for octane has been tried but it destroys fuel systems.
Y'all run it for a few hundred hours and let me know how it all goes.
JR

Just got a email back from Swift in response to my question about the fuel and what it was made of. Course you have to expect them to put their fuel in the best light possible but they said it is not made of what the patent says, it is made of hydrocarbons derived from biomass. Both them and the FAA are currently testing the fuel to see how the elastomers in fuel systems and engines respond.

I'm real interested to see how this pans out.

I attended the SwiftFuels presentation at Oshkosh:

The proposed fuel is a bio-fuel with more energy content than gasoline.

It is not ethanol based.

Closely emulates ASTM D 910 avgas using a renewable feed stock, without sacrificing range and cost.

No alcohol, no oxygenates, it is only a synthetic binary hydrocarbon (whatever that is?) that are already components of 100 LL, but only a small subsection of the components, they didn't say which ones.

The process to make it is based on bio-mass production, but not the cycle for ethanol, all they use are the sugar byproducts of ethanol production. The demonstration fuel production is going to be made in abandoned ethanol plants that were not commercially successful.

It is not the Fischer-Tropes process.

It will be compatible with 100 LL during the phase in process. It will be transparent to the aircraft owner. It will completely replace 100 LL.

They claim they are making it now for $1.80 / gallon and that price will decline.

They claim they are working with the FAA and the "Big six avgas distributors" to use this renewable fuel to replace 100 LL avgas. They will license the Big Six distributors to build plants that will make and distribute the fuel. They will not be a producer. They are a closely held private company with no intent to sell this product or sell the patents to big oil. They intend to make their fortune from production license fees.

With minor changes to the production process they can make jet fuel.

You can learn a little bit more from their web site: http://www.swiftenterprises.com/ although it really doesn't give much information. However you will notice that they are also developing a type of fuel cell for automotive applications.

Thanks for the info N1593Y! Sounds too good to be true. Hope that is not the case. Did they give you any horizon or odds on it becoming availabe?

Thanks for the skinny- even if a lot of it was way over my head.

I'm curious if they said whether it will work in the cold and not congeal, like so many biofuels seem to do. Even if it's too cold to fly the plane, I might want to transfer it, or use some for emergency fire starter.

Thanks, -DP

Skystrider wrote:Thanks for the info N1593Y! Sounds too good to be true. Hope that is not the case. Did they give you any horizon or odds on it becoming availabe?

Horizon: 2 years or so.

Odds: Todd Petersen said "I wouldn't hold my breath." I think he is right.

The presentation had a Jim Bede aura to it ... just my observation.

denalipilot wrote:Thanks for the skinny- even if a lot of it was way over my head.

I'm curious if they said whether it will work in the cold and not congeal, like so many biofuels seem to do. Even if it's too cold to fly the plane, I might want to transfer it, or use some for emergency fire starter.

Thanks, -DP

The result is NOT a bio-fuel, it is a hydrocarbon fuel. The starting chemical is sugar from bio-mass, but the result is two hydrocarbons that are already in 100 LL avgas. Their claim is that there will be no apparent difference between 100 LL and SwiftFuel.

You need to understand that if this stuff works, 100 LL will immediately disappear.

As I read their announcements and the AVweb interview, it sounds as if they are using Ethanol and/or sugars as a starter stock and building the hydrocarbon chains required for the energy in 100LL.

If you think of it as taking a bunch of tinker toys ( hopefully either they still exist or ya'll are old enough to remember them ) and hooking up the carbon backbone in such a way to construct a long enough chain of "C"s and "H"s to provide sufficient energy when ignited to drive a piston down.

The chemistry is understandable, but the economics is a bit unclear since this is not as straight forward as boiling off ( simplified ) the volatile components of petroleum to get the lighter hydrocarbons we burn in our 100LL engines.

Granted the feed stock is cheaper, but the process would have to be very efficient to keep the cost down and feed grains would not be the choice for this.

In the AvWeb interview, switch grass and corn plants (other than the grain) were cited as feed stock for the process but this is the "Holy Grail" of alcohol fuel production today. If they have the answer, why would they limit their procedure to our paltry consumption and not go for the billions of gallons burned in automobiles every year?

It would be great if this is the way to petroleum independence. We could then start using our valuable petroleum reserves for durable goods like plastic, asphalt, and other products rather than blowing it out our tail pipes.

Stepping off soap box now.

TD

N1593Y wrote:

Skystrider wrote:Thanks for the info N1593Y! Sounds too good to be true. Hope that is not the case. Did they give you any horizon or odds on it becoming availabe?

Horizon: 2 years or so.

Odds: Todd Petersen said "I wouldn't hold my breath." I think he is right.

The presentation had a Jim Bede aura to it ... just my observation.

"Jim Bede aura" Boy! That brings back some memories! First time I have heard it used that way. Nobody outside the build-it-yourself airplane community would understand that reference! Points for language linguistics!