Swift Fuels announced Thursday that ASTM International had approved a Production Specification for its 100R unleaded avgas. The specification sets standards for the production of the fuel to ensure it performs as expected. This is the culmination of several years of dedicated research by the team from Swift Fuels working in collaboration with the FAA and numerous OEMs from Lycoming, Continental Aerospace, Rotax, Textron Aviation, Piper, and others, plus testing laboratories and various aviation part suppliers. Swift is the first of three candidate unleaded fuels to get an ASTM approval. Lyondell/Basell’s 100E is still going through evaluation by ASTM and GAMI’s G100UL will not be submitted to ASTM.
Swift said it plans to “rapidly expand” access to 100R, which is now being used by five flight schools each in the U.S. and Europe. Swift has a supplemental type certificate for the fuel for use in R and S model Cessna 172s with Lycoming IO-360-L2A engines, and there are plans to add models to that STC but there has been no announcement on that. Once the approved model list for the STC is sufficiently broad, Swift will begin replacing the fuel at retailers now selling Swift 94UL with 100R. Swift said more information on that transition will be forthcoming. The full release is copied below.
Meanwhile, National Air Transportation Association President Curt Castagna, who is also co-chair of the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) organization, said it was an important milestone in the effort to find a high-octane replacement for 100LL leaded avgas. “The approval of 100R for an ASTM International production specification represents another significant step in the transition to unleaded aviation fuel, while strengthening our industry’s commitment to safety.” Both Swift and GAMI are using the STC process for certification while Lyondell/Basel’s fuel is being evaluated through the FAA’s Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative with the goal of earning “fleet authority” as a replacement for 100LL.
Perhaps Shell could throw the production capacity they won’t be using for their SAF project behind the Swift fuel effort now.
Need to ditch the STC process, otherwise, it is NOT a drop-in replacement
So will this fuel work with my IO390?? Otherwise not sure how much this really means to us users of high compression engines..
At this point, Swift’s 100R is only approved for the parallel valve IO360 in some Cessna 172s. That particular engine is approved for the lower octane 94 grade fuel, so running them on 100 octane proves little. Your 390 angle valve engine specifies an FAA APPROVED 100 octane fuel. Please note that having an ASTM standard for production does not qualify 100R as an approved fuel to replace 100LL. It simply provides a standard that allows a third party to produce the fuel according to Swift’s original formulation. ASTM does not approve the fuel for use, only the FAA can do that, which it has so far only done for the 180 HP engine in the 172. To my knowledge, Swift has not yet demonstrated that 100R is totally fungible with 100LL in any concentration, as has GAMI with their G100UL. That is an important step for future full approval of a 100LL substitute. Stay tuned….
Getting an ASTM spec is joke these days. I have served on many ASTM technical committees. Back in the day ASTM committees did real work and produced legitimate industry standards. These days ASTM technical committees are political organizations controlled by a few interested parties with voting rights that find any negative ” non-persuasive ” The interested parties then push their desired specification standard through that benefits their company(ies) or country of origin.
I spoke with the Swift folks at their booth at OSH this year. The problem with this fuel is that right now, they’re only testing it in engines that don’t actually need it. The 172 engines run fine on 94UL. What’s needed is a fuel that runs in high-compression engines like the IO-550 in Cirrus and Bonanza aircraft. As I understand it, the Swift fuel hasn’t even begun testing in these engines.
Meanwhile, the competing fuel from GAMI is approved by STC for every spark-ignition piston engine in the fleet. (Not sure about the current state of the rotorcraft engine STC, but I think that’s a paperwork exercise.) It has had a few teething problems, but is an actually viable fuel for the planes that need 100 octane. I bought the STC and a tank full when they brought it to a nearby airport, and it ran just like 100LL in my Cirrus. If they had it available at my airport, I would be using it.
Developing an unleaded fuel and demonstrating compliance with an ASTM specification is notable if not admirable. It provides clear guidance to how the fuel is to be refined and blended, and details tests to which it must find conformity. If that ASTM specification is accepted by the manufacturer (as in Lycoming’s Service Instruction # 1070AB by way of example), then a truly wonderful achievement has been acquired and they should be congratulated.
If, on the other hand, this is a new ASTM specification, one not formally accepted and approved by Lycoming or Continental among others, then the process of developing a “drop-in replacement” has yet to be found. Either way, Swift has moved the needle.
Paul Why don’t you go read the actual standard, Oh Wait only the voting results have been published, so there is no standard yet. Also they are NOT in compliance with an ASTM standard, they are writing their own new standard to meet their needs and got the senior committee members to go along with it. While you are at it look who the voting members of the committee are and where they work. The only needle Swift is trying to move is the profit needle. Just my opinion.
Paul Why don’t you go read the actual standard, Oh Wait only the voting results have been published, so there is no standard yet. Also they are NOT in compliance with an ASTM standard, they are writing their own new standard to meet their needs and got the senior committee members to go along with it. While you are at it look who the voting members of the committee are and where they work. The only needle Swift is trying to move is the profit needle. Just my opinion.