Swift Fuel is moving forward

Some random thoughts...

The biggest problem with mogas in planes today seems to be getting it without ethanol, which invalidates the STC's. Hopefully that will change if the politicians realize that burning food is a dumb idea (but I'm not holding my breath). Or perhaps somebody will do the work on an STC that allows fuels containing ethanol (seems the engine itself should be fine in many cases, just a few rubber seals to worry about or replace, but other parts of the fuel system might be more problematic).

I burn mogas in my ultralight, but I like to switch to agvas around this time of the year... it keeps better during the winter months when I don't fly much.

What do the guys with the big old engines, warbirds and such that need 115/145, do?

There are other options... race gas, for example, is available in a bewildering array of formulations, leaded and otherwise, but you have to buy it in 55 gallon drums... more expensive than avgas. If somebody comes out with an avgas replacement that satisfies most aircraft's requirements, these small suppliers may offer "traditional" avgas to the rest... but it won't be cheap.

-Dana

Freedom means letting other people do things you don't like.

The big engine guys get along ok with 100LL.

I just heard about a little fuel terminal near our local refinery (Memphis) who will sell mogas without the alcohol. You have to buy 55 gal at a time but I am thinking about it. It is about the same price as at the pump with the alcohol. I think some boating guys do it too, they like their alcohol in 12oz cans instead of the gas tank.

I heard this from a fellow EAA member who has a tank in his pickup and as done so.

Wally

Originally Posted by Dana

if the politicians realize [...] dumb idea

Reality check?

I'm astonished nobody takes up the diesel/kerosene comment seriously, maybe because most of you are American and are thus not that familiar with Diesel.
It's cheaper, gives more range, simpler (no ignition), higher performance (turbo-fitted) and most importantly; you can get it everywhere. Kerosene, car/truck-diesel, marine diesel.

As for performance: they're doing very well

Originally Posted by autoreply

Reality check?

I'm astonished nobody takes up the diesel/kerosene comment seriously, maybe because most of you are American and are thus not that familiar with Diesel...

There are a lot of diesel cars here though not nearly as many as in Europe. But it doesn't help all the existing aircraft that don't burn diesel.

-Dana

Fugitive from the law of averages!

Something just stirred my memory synapses - many years ago (80s?) I saw an article about a guy converting a Continental A-65 (I think ) to "Diesel" operation. I beleive the article appeared in Sport Aviation and I don't think it was a pure Diesel in that it used a fairly low compression ratio
and some for form of assistance for ignition; no Continental would survive long at 15:1 compression ratio. I will do some digging.

I am just waiting for the day when I toss my kitchen waste and lawn clippings into a machine and turn the tap to get 100 octane fuel out of it....If only.

I am just waiting for the day when I toss my kitchen waste and lawn clippings into a machine and turn the tap to get 100 octane fuel out of it....If only.

I'm pretty sure someone is working on that....

They could get a lot more biomass if they were downstream when everyone at home flushes during the half time break at the rose bowl. They could get enough fuel to fly a 747 around the globe forty times, with the flaps down. See, math.

We have a composite diesel twin that flies at our airport. I don't know anything about other than it is very quiet. Almost looks Rutan in design. We have a Bio fuel facility next to the airport that is making fuel from algea.

Originally Posted by Dana

There are a lot of diesel cars here though not nearly as many as in Europe. But it doesn't help all the existing aircraft that don't burn diesel.

Isn't that the whole problem with GA. Those existing engines are old, extremely old and we never replace something old:

The first production models of the Cessna 172 were delivered in 1956 and they are still in production.

Not to mention it's actually a 1948 design.

The first O-360 certified was the A1A model, certified on 20 July 1955

That's 54 years ago!

Wouldn't it be time for something better, cheaper, more economically and more reliable? Maybe exchange dangerous (1/3 ounce lead a gallon) fuel for cheaper and better fuel?

Knowing aviation a bit, the answer is most likely no to all questions, and we will kill ourselves in the coming 20 years by lack of fuel, overkill of regulations, too high costs for new products and a completely ruined image because of the refusal to adapt..