Just got this little blurb in the AOPA e -letter, Kind of an interesting Idea. Hope they can make something work, sounds like they might have a chance.

I don't know about there defueling and fueling procedures but the product sounds good.

Now I know there seems to be some experts on this subject out there, (from reading the E85 post )What do you guys thing of this type furl?

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot ... c_sect=gan

Thanks GT

Now is a good time to be in chemistry. I think that finding an alternative fuel for aviation is going to be one of the big hurdles that we will have to jump to keep GA alive. A fuel without lead will also be a big advantage for maintenance. Lead is pretty bad for our engines and if we can get it out it will vastly reduce the amount of care required by spark plugs, valves etc. I find it exciting and hopefully it works.

It's called car gas & it works. Available now at selected filling stations. Why fix something that's not broken? At least for low compression engines- like mine.

Eric

Its good that some one is looking for alternatives, but were do they think they are going to grow grass at? On ground that is in production of other crops? Turn food crop acres into grass production? In the swamps where nothing else can be harvested? If swamps were tillable they would already be in production. Doesn't grass need water to grow? Water is already a big issue in many places. Doesn't grass need nutrients (fertilizer) that are made from oil to grow? So is this just more of our tax money being wasted on subsidized programs? or am I just not seeing the big picture?

Grass, or biomass, does not necesarily need fertilzer made from oil to grow. Grass can grow in areas that are not suited to row crops. They could possibly get more bang for their buck from biomass than other sources. It is better to keep our money in country, or send it to foreign countries? We need to keep our minds open to what might be a niche that will keep our planes running. My IO520 does not burn car gas. Steve

Swift fuel is the one to beat of all the alternatives in the running. The fact that it is still using crop land will draw some heat but remember that sorghums and certain other grass crops produce up to six times as much usable bio fuel yield as corn grain, even in ethanol production. This ratio is more comparable to that produced by sugar cane in Brazil. Sugar cane acres could also carry crops for food production.

How is that in a better position than simply removing the lead from 100LL? When you do that you end up with 94UL. Continental is proving that 90-95% of current A/C can use it with no modifications, they flew a 550 powered Bonanza to OSH this year on 94UL. Of the remaining some will require electronic engine controls and some are just screwed.

I guess I would say you answered your own question. Swift is 104 octane or more and most likely also compatible with the ones that will be screwed with 94. It is pipeline compatible and estimated to cost about half of what avgas does. As a bonus it is a green fuel produced domestically where we can spend fuel dollars back into the american economy instead of sending them overseas. Americans, spending US dollars on american produced fuel that is good for the environment and providing US jobs. And what could go wrong with that?

One of the very promising forms of producing bio fuel like this is an algae bio fuel. It can be produced on land that is inhabitable to other crops.

While I'm all for getting some alternatives out there for the aviation market, I've got to see it to believe it. Over the years I've seen too many great ideas that went nowhere for all kinds of reasons. (I wanted a BD5L back in the '70s)
tom

Free gift for Savannah tom. BD 5 Thanks for mentioning it. I know you were young and hopeful once.

http://www.tookytuu.com/

I had to look up the BD 5 since I had not heard of that plane for 20 years or more. It was an eye catcher and unbelievable for its time. How did we get from taking a chance on something new to complete skeptics in those same years. Its great that Burt Rutan, Tom and Jim Poberensky (EAA) and Bob Hoover and others that test flew it in these videos could keep their eye on the prize all these years. Look what they have accomplished while the rest of us just got old.

Yep. That long wing version sounded like the ideal plane to me. I bought the information kit and drooled over it for a couple years. When things didn't seem to be going well for the company I pretty much lost interest. In the meantime, kids and other things prevented me from pursuing aviation. At least I got going five years ago, and am having a blast now. However, my Savannah is a far cry from the BD5L in performance. But, it can land on gravel bars, dry lake beds, two track dirt roads, and farm fields that I couldn't have with the BD. I can also carry my wife and camping equipment. (barely)

tom

dirtstrip wrote:Free gift for Savannah tom. BD 5 Thanks for mentioning it. I know you were young and hopeful once.

http://www.tookytuu.com/

I had to look up the BD 5 since I had not heard of that plane for 20 years or more. It was an eye catcher and unbelievable for its time. How did we get from taking a chance on something new to complete skeptics in those same years. Its great that Burt Rutan, Tom and Jim Poberensky (EAA) and Bob Hoover and others that test flew it in these videos could keep their eye on the prize all these years. Look what they have accomplished while the rest of us just got old.

I had the CH701. Except for the Savannah's standard rudder vs. full flying for the 701 and a longer wingspan there are few other differences. I swapped out my 582 Rotax 65hp and put in the first Simonini Victor 2 92hp for a 701. (Zeniths alternative engine postings.) I had it for nearly six years I could land it anywhere. I'd like to trade stories on that subject sometime. I sold it though and started building a Dream Aircraft Tundra. I got it back from the paint shop 3 weeks ago. Osh next year and maybe the display for the company. I won't go into all of it but I posted some on this forum yesterday. 50 hrs now. Hope to do some traveling, become a nuisance for kids who didn't move far enough away.

is this just more of our tax money being wasted on subsidized programs? or am I just not seeing the big picture?

That argument that we are utilizing every square foot of potential farm ground to the max drives me crazy! There's all kinds of row crop ground in Missouri that's been turned to grassland with the CRP program and I'm sure Missouri is not the only state. That program pays farmers to not produce anything on ground that used to be crop ground. Sounds to me like even if we did subsidize this and used the CRP ground that at least there would be the off chance that the money would go to something useful.

Wirsig
My thoughts exactly.
I get average about $450 dollars a year for not planting wheat on 9 acres, have been growing grass for the locals grass fed beef for about 15 years on it. Paid $600 an acre 15 years ago, that has paid the taxes and has paid for more than 1/2 the price I paid for it. The neighbor comes in and does all the work. And I get a whole beef every year!!
I just wish I could justify a couple of 1000 acres?
But I'm way to lazy to watch someone work that much ground!
GT!

I tried to talk my family into selling most of the machinery, roll our crop ground over to CRP, and keep running cattle but they wouldn't go for it. Instead they split it up and sold alot of it off. Oh, and swift fuel sounds great! I look forward to hearing more about it.

I don't want any more government in farming. We don't have any CRP and I am tired of the USDA
and farm payments for nothing. Why are we farmers so willing to hand over our pride for a government
handout Enough is enough.

The ongoing debate about food vs fuel is simple economics. I don't care if I feed airplanes grass, Mexicans corn
or Africans peas. We will grow whatever brings the most money and simultaneously takes the best care of
our soil and water.

As the price of crude oil and other commodities goes back up, I believe in the next five to ten years a significant number of food acres will shift to growing fuel of some kind.
Government farm subsidies will continue to decrease and farmers will make good money growing fuels that
the public doesn't want.

Bill

Bill, I don't want government in farming, health care, my gun cabinet, or my wallet, as long as they are not listening to us, that pay the country's bills. To your point, they do seem to be backing down on the farm payments, which in my mind also, is a good thing. Why not let supply and demand run it's course and if a farm is not good enough to produce enough crop to make a profit standing on it's own, then maybe it should be used for something else, or just sit idle. This would reduce the supply of grain and in turn increase prices. As you indicated, the poorer soils could start growing switchgrass or what ever for airplane and other fuels, instead of exporting US dollars for foreign oil. Perfect solution, you have my vote. I hope this new fuel pans out, everyone wins. Steve