Swiftfuel 100LL Replacement

Swift Enterprises Ltd. has unveiled a new general aviation fuel that is less expensive, fuel-efficient and environmentally friendlier than any on the market, said co-founder John Rusek.

The general aviation industry includes all flights other than military and scheduled airline flights, both private and commercial. Data on Swift Enterprises' 100 percent renewable general aviation fuel was presented April 28 at an annual meeting of an international committee that oversees aviation fuel standards. Unlike current biomass fuels, SwiftFuel is comprised of synthetic hydrocarbons derived from biomass. Rusek said it can provide an effective range (distance between refueling) greater than petroleum while its projected cost is half the current petroleum manufacturing cost.

The innovation by Swift Enterprises' propulsion and energy researchers meets or exceeds the standards for aviation fuel as verified by nationally recognized laboratories, said Rusek, a professor in Purdue University's School of Astronautics and Aeronautics Engineering.

Swift Enterprises, founded seven years ago at Purdue Research Park, is led by Rusek and his wife, Mary, who have been involved in the field of energy more than two decades. The meeting was held by the Coordinating Research Council of ASTM International in Alexandria, Va. ASTM International is one of the largest voluntary standards development organizations in the world.

"Our fuel should not be confused with first-generation bio-fuels like E-85, which don't compete well right now with petroleum,” Rusek said. "For general aviation aircraft, range is paramount. Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry's standard petroleum fuel, it can outperform it."

The general aviation industry each year uses nearly 570 million gallons of 100LL aviation fuel, which is toxic, increasingly expensive and non-renewable. In contrast, testing has shown SwiftFuel© is 15 percent to 20 percent more fuel efficient, has no sulfur emissions, requires no stabilizers; has a 30-degree lower freezing point, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, John Rusek said. In addition, he said, the components of this fuel can be formulated into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels.

The aviation industry has been the only form of transportation to use leaded fuel (tetraethyl lead) since an Environmental Protection Agency ban went into effect 30 years ago. However, that lead-free exemption will cease in less than two years.

"The general aviation industry, both domestic and foreign, is demanding a solution to this dilemma," said Mary Rusek, Swift Enterprises' president. "Our new, patented technology can provide the 1.8 million gallons per day required by the industry in the U.S. by utilizing only 5 percent of this country's existing bio-fuel plant infrastructure."

"John and Mary Rusek have devoted their lives to coming up with practical, renewable energy," said Joseph B. Hornett, senior vice president, treasurer and chief operating officer of the Purdue Research Foundation, which manages the Purdue Research Park. "This fuel could change aviation history and be an economic boon for the state of Indiana and the Midwest, where we can abundantly grow the resources to produce SwiftFuel©."

Swift Enterprises officials are in discussions with the Federal Aviation Administration, which has initiated a cooperative agreement with the company to evaluate the fuel.

Established in 2001, Swift Enterprises aims to use renewable resources to end the energy crisis. Swift Enterprises works with hydrogen peroxide and novel chemicals as new components in fuel cells and propellants. The scientists at Swift bring a combination of military, academic and private enterprise experience to the fundamental research and development of propulsion, ordnance and power technologies, and hardware. In the mid-1980s, the company founders worked at Edwards Air Force Base in California, where they conducted research on rockets and rocket fuel for the government. Swift Enterprises has completed research for Lockheed-Martin Astronautics, DARPA, the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Navy.

PHOTO CAPTION: Swift Enterprises co-founders Mary and John Rusek, conduct research on SwiftFuel, a lead-free aviation fuel for small aircraft that can provide an effective range (distance between refueling) greater than petroleum at half the manufacturing cost. (Photo provided by Purdue Research Park)

Media contacts: Cynthia Sequin, (765) 494-4192, (765) 413-6013 (mobile), casequin@prf.org

Here's some good background with a brief history of unleaded fuels in ga aircraft engines, specifically to the valve issues:

http://www.eaa.org/autofuel/faqs/engine_overhaul.asp#TopOfPage

Engine Overhaul - Major or "Top"

Field Information Number 308

Use of Unleaded Automobile Gasoline in Freshly Overhauled Engines

The purpose of this bulletin is to explain the procedure for the use of unleaded automobile gasoline in new or freshly overhauled engines where the valves have been refaced. There have been reports from the field of valve sticking or actual valve/valve seat damage when unleaded automobile gasoline was used in some freshly overhauled engines that have previously used automobile gasoline successfully for long periods. Subsequent valve problems occurred in as little as 10 hours of engine operation.

Small engines from the 1940s were designed for fuels with octane ratings of 63 to 73 octane. These fuels contained no lead at that time. There were valve sticking problems in some engines which were resolved by the manufacturer issuing service instructions to change the valve seat angle and to replace soft valve seats with hard seats. This had been done so many years ago that there is little likelihood of an engine still in existence which has the original soft seats and old valve seat angles. Thus aviation gasoline, with its very high lead content (approximately 2.0 grams/gallon) compared to the need for these engines, had caused many problems as outlined in AC 91.33. Note that grade 80 aviation gasoline for which these engines were initially approved, has a maximum allowable lead content of approximately 0.5 grams/gallon and may be supplied with zero lead content.

Engine manufacturers, in order to minimize valve problems caused by the excessive lead content of 100 low lead aviation gasoline, have increased valve stem diameters and added hardened inserts for the valve seats. Both of these changes favored the use of a gasoline with a very low lead content also, and as pointed out above, showed normal wear characteristics in the EAA's 500-hour flight test program.

As indicated in the June 1985 issue of EAA's SPORT AVIATION magazine, a Continental Motors Special Service Bulletin M46-2, dated November 25, 1946, addressed this situation. An investigation by Continental Motors revealed that the "absence of lead from the fuel has resulted in the 'picking up' or 'welding' of the valve seat to the valve." (Remember, at that time, high quality gasoline was "white gasoline" - with no lead content.)

The special bulletin goes on to say that "there is nothing wrong with either the gasoline or valve materials, but that the two will not work together except after a protective coating is deposited on the valve and seat contact surfaces by use of leaded fuel for the first two or three hours of life of the new engine or an engine in which the valves have been refaced, after the initial 'lead treatment,' however, no valve trouble should be encountered and operation should be better with the 73 or 80 octane clear gasoline than with the war and prewar leaded fuels." Since that time, TCM has changed valve and seat angles for further improvement.

308-1 Revised 5/20/96

Although this procedure was not used during our flight test program and none of the above mentioned valve problems were experienced, we recommend operating on leaded fuel immediately after engine service involving the valves.

EAA members report that their experience indicates that 10 hours of operation on leaded fuel (100LL aviation gasoline, not "leaded" regular automobile gasoline, which now has no lead content) is a more conservative program.

Experience has shown greater extended life, and more time between overhauls, with the use of unleaded automobile gasoline. EAA had more than 500 hours of flight test time on each of the following aircraft when EAA's STC's were issued: Cessna 150 with a Continental engine, Cessna 182 with a Continental engine, Piper Cherokee PA-28-140 with a Lycoming engine, and a Cessna 172 with a Lycoming engine. A Cessna 172 in pipeline patrol satisfactorily flew a supervised 1,200 hours observed by the FAA. All aircraft performed very satisfactorily in actual flight tests for EAA and the FAA. Engine teardown inspection by an independent engine shop and witnessed by FAA representatives indicated no adverse wear problems with the use of unleaded automobile gasoline.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.