New fuel for GA?

[Mike Noel]

On AvWeb:

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.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

[[email protected]]

On May 8, 9:47 am, "Mike Noel" > wrote:
> On AvWeb:
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Mike
>
> http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

"But does it make a good mix with Scotch?" - Lt. Cmdr Montgomery
Scott, USS Enterprise.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

wrote:
> On May 8, 9:47 am, "Mike Noel" > wrote:
>> On AvWeb:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
>
> "But does it make a good mix with Scotch?" - Lt. Cmdr Montgomery
> Scott, USS Enterprise.


My question is if the stuff is so great why aren't they trying to sell
it for cars? It seems if the fuel is cheaper as an AvGas replacement
given the size of the fleet that if they made it at the volume required
for automobiles that it would be damn near free.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mike Noel wrote:

> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient

Pardon ? How exactly is one hydrocarbon fuel "more efficient" than another ?
Engines that are optimised to run on 100LL are AFAIK unlikely to run any
'better' on anything else unless 're-tuned' and I'd imagine that has associated
certification issues. Sounds like marketing twaddle to me !

Do you have a link to this article ?

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Mike Noel wrote:
>
>> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient
>
> Pardon ? How exactly is one hydrocarbon fuel "more efficient" than
> another ? Engines that are optimised to run on 100LL are AFAIK
> unlikely to run any 'better' on anything else unless 're-tuned' and
> I'd imagine that has associated certification issues. Sounds like
> marketing twaddle to me !

Sez the planespotter.

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Eeyore > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> Mike Noel wrote:
>>
>>> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient
>>
>> Pardon ? How exactly is one hydrocarbon fuel "more efficient" than
>> another ? Engines that are optimised to run on 100LL are AFAIK
>> unlikely to run any 'better' on anything else unless 're-tuned' and
>> I'd imagine that has associated certification issues. Sounds like
>> marketing twaddle to me !
>
> Sez the planespotter.
>
> Bertie

Says the dumb ass.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:U_GUj.31935$KJ1.24560
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Eeyore > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Noel wrote:
>>>
>>>> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient
>>>
>>> Pardon ? How exactly is one hydrocarbon fuel "more efficient" than
>>> another ? Engines that are optimised to run on 100LL are AFAIK
>>> unlikely to run any 'better' on anything else unless 're-tuned' and
>>> I'd imagine that has associated certification issues. Sounds like
>>> marketing twaddle to me !
>>
>> Sez the planespotter.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Says the dumb ass.
>
>
>

Admittedly, it doesn't take much in the way of brains to keep you going
around in circles...


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:U_GUj.31935$KJ1.24560
> @newsfe19.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Eeyore > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Noel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient
>>>>
>>>> Pardon ? How exactly is one hydrocarbon fuel "more efficient" than
>>>> another ? Engines that are optimised to run on 100LL are AFAIK
>>>> unlikely to run any 'better' on anything else unless 're-tuned' and
>>>> I'd imagine that has associated certification issues. Sounds like
>>>> marketing twaddle to me !
>>>
>>> Sez the planespotter.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Says the dumb ass.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Admittedly, it doesn't take much in the way of brains to keep you going
> around in circles...
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah, Squirty. You do get around, just like Aunt Wilma's puppy dog.

Leave another squirt worthless. We all realize you have nothing better to
do!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:U_GUj.31935$KJ1.24560
>> @newsfe19.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Eeyore > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike Noel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient
>>>>>
>>>>> Pardon ? How exactly is one hydrocarbon fuel "more efficient" than
>>>>> another ? Engines that are optimised to run on 100LL are AFAIK
>>>>> unlikely to run any 'better' on anything else unless 're-tuned'
>>>>> and I'd imagine that has associated certification issues. Sounds
>>>>> like marketing twaddle to me !
>>>>
>>>> Sez the planespotter.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Says the dumb ass.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Admittedly, it doesn't take much in the way of brains to keep you
>> going around in circles...
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah, Squirty. You do get around, just like Aunt Wilma's puppy dog.
>
> Leave another squirt worthless. We all realize you have nothing
> better to do!
>
>
>

Well, at last. I thought you'd never get it fjukkktard.




Bertie

[d$g$s-one-thee-zer0-zer0]

Eeyore wrote:

> Do you have a link to this article ?

It's on www.avweb.com.

And there's also this:
http://www.swiftenterprises.com/Swift%20Fuel%20benefits.html

Make of it what you will.
--
dgs

[WingFlaps]

On May 9, 2:47*am, "Mike Noel" > wrote:
> On AvWeb:
>
> 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.
>

The lower freezing point may imply a higher vapor pressure.

Cheers

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 8, 7:47*am, "Mike Noel" > wrote:
> On AvWeb:
>
> 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.

I've heard of this fuel. I believe its called Ferry Dust.

-Robert

[Mike Noel]

I'm guessing they are measuring fuel efficiency as MPG, so a denser fuel has
better numbers just like the denser diesel fuel has a built in MPG gallon
advantage because it is heavier than relatively light gasoline.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Noel wrote:
>
>> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient
>
> Pardon ? How exactly is one hydrocarbon fuel "more efficient" than another
> ?
> Engines that are optimised to run on 100LL are AFAIK unlikely to run any
> 'better' on anything else unless 're-tuned' and I'd imagine that has
> associated
> certification issues. Sounds like marketing twaddle to me !
>
> Do you have a link to this article ?
>
> Graham
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Mike Noel" > wrote in
:

> I'm guessing they are measuring fuel efficiency as MPG, so a denser
> fuel has better numbers just like the denser diesel fuel has a built
> in MPG gallon advantage because it is heavier than relatively light
> gasoline.

Well, they do mention volume..


Bertie

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mike Noel wrote:

> I'm guessing they are measuring fuel efficiency as MPG, so a denser fuel has
> better numbers just like the denser diesel fuel has a built in MPG gallon
> advantage because it is heavier than relatively light gasoline.

I can see that might be their idea but the possible practical fuels for ICEs are
fairly limited in scope, at least excluding those that don't give poorer
performance (bhp) like ethanol for example.

Butanol which can indeed be made from bio-sources is closest to gasoline in
overall performance but I'm not aware of any supposed 'efficiency' advantage.

Would be interested in hearing more of substance rather than marketing copy.

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Mike Noel wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing they are measuring fuel efficiency as MPG, so a denser
>> fuel has better numbers just like the denser diesel fuel has a built
>> in MPG gallon advantage because it is heavier than relatively light
>> gasoline.
>
> I can see that might be their idea but the possible practical fuels
> for ICEs are fairly limited in scope, at least excluding those that
> don't give poorer performance (bhp) like ethanol for example.
>
> Butanol which can indeed be made from bio-sources is closest to
> gasoline in overall performance but I'm not aware of any supposed
> 'efficiency' advantage.
>
> Would be interested in hearing more of substance rather than marketing
> copy.

Why you running Avgas in your Austin Alegro now?


Bertie

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Eeyore wrote
> > Mike Noel wrote:
> >
> >> I'm guessing they are measuring fuel efficiency as MPG, so a denser
> >> fuel has better numbers just like the denser diesel fuel has a built
> >> in MPG gallon advantage because it is heavier than relatively light
> >> gasoline.
> >
> > I can see that might be their idea but the possible practical fuels
> > for ICEs are fairly limited in scope, at least excluding those that
> > don't give poorer performance (bhp) like ethanol for example.
> >
> > Butanol which can indeed be made from bio-sources is closest to
> > gasoline in overall performance but I'm not aware of any supposed
> > 'efficiency' advantage.
> >
> > Would be interested in hearing more of substance rather than marketing
> > copy.
>
> Why you running Avgas in your Austin Alegro now?

Jealous, Bertie ?
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado67storyf.htm

It's the Quartic steering wheel that really kills me.

Graham

[terry]

On May 9, 12:47*am, "Mike Noel" > wrote:
> On AvWeb:
>
> 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.
>
for those interested , here is a link to the Swift patent. It sounds
pretty complicated with 5 different components. One of the components
used to lower the vapour pressure is ethyl acetate, a solvent used in
nail polish , varnish etc.
This fuel is going to have quite an interesting odour. The
percentage of the various components can apparently be varied to
adjust octane rating for both aviation and auto use.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008013922&IA=WO2008013922&DISPLAY=DESC

Terry
PPL Downunder

[Al G[_1_]]

"terry" > wrote in message
...
On May 9, 12:47 am, "Mike Noel" > wrote:
> On AvWeb:
>
> New GA Fuel Promises Better Range, Lower Cost
>
> "Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry's standard
> petroleum fuel [100LL],

Getting such a fuel FAA certified, may not be "seamless". Can you
imagine how many aircraft/components/configurations you would have to test?

Al G

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote
>> > Mike Noel wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm guessing they are measuring fuel efficiency as MPG, so a
denser
>> >> fuel has better numbers just like the denser diesel fuel has a
built
>> >> in MPG gallon advantage because it is heavier than relatively
light
>> >> gasoline.
>> >
>> > I can see that might be their idea but the possible practical fuels
>> > for ICEs are fairly limited in scope, at least excluding those that
>> > don't give poorer performance (bhp) like ethanol for example.
>> >
>> > Butanol which can indeed be made from bio-sources is closest to
>> > gasoline in overall performance but I'm not aware of any supposed
>> > 'efficiency' advantage.
>> >
>> > Would be interested in hearing more of substance rather than
marketing
>> > copy.
>>
>> Why you running Avgas in your Austin Alegro now?
>
> Jealous, Bertie ?
> http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado67storyf.htm
>
> It's the Quartic steering wheel that really kills me.
>
> Graham


Oh yeah, I really really want to live my life in the open sewer that is
Britain. color me jealous.



Bertie

[Angelo Campanella]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I've heard of this fuel. I believe its called Ferry Dust.

That.s spelled "Fairy Dust"!

Ang.

[Angelo Campanella]

d$g$s-one-thee-zer0-zer0 wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>> Do you have a link to this article ?
> It's on www.avweb.com.
> And there's also this:
> http://www.swiftenterprises.com/Swift%20Fuel%20benefits.html
> Make of it what you will.

Swift gives no hint whatsoever as to the consitutents of his fuel. Many
hydrocarbons*, really most hydrocarbon liquids, will burn and can
provide an eplosive mixture with air. It's just a matter of using the
"Edison" method of locating a good replacement for 100 octane no-lead.
This fellow has apparently foung a cost-effective substitute, and he's
keeping the mixture identity under his hat.

*Ages ago (maybe not so long ago), benzine was a useful constutent for
auto fuel. In Europe, for some years, auto fuel was called "Benzin". So
Mr. Swift has found another cost-effective (at today's prices)
substirute for AvGas.

We wonder what the stuff is made of...


Angelo Campanellsa

[Angelo Campanella]

terry wrote:
> for those interested , here is a link to the Swift patent. It sounds
> pretty complicated with 5 different components. One of the components
> used to lower the vapour pressure is ethyl acetate, a solvent used in
> nail polish , varnish etc.
> This fuel is going to have quite an interesting odour. The
> percentage of the various components can apparently be varied to
> adjust octane rating for both aviation and auto use.
>
> http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008013922&IA=WO2008013922&DISPLAY=DESC

For you cehm wonks, here's the nugget:

"... the present inventors provide a renewable fuel comprised of:
(a) one or more low carbon esters derivable from ethanol;
(b) one or more pentosan derivable furans;
(c) one or more aromatic hydrocarbons derived from acetone or propyne;
(d) one or more C4-C io straight chain alkanes derivable from
polysaccharides; and
(e) one or more bio-oils derived from plant germ."

Soup for the needy AvPlane, I say.

Ang.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Angelo Campanella > wrote in
:

> terry wrote:
>> for those interested , here is a link to the Swift patent. It
>> sounds pretty complicated with 5 different components. One of the
>> components used to lower the vapour pressure is ethyl acetate, a
>> solvent used in nail polish , varnish etc.
>> This fuel is going to have quite an interesting odour. The
>> percentage of the various components can apparently be varied to
>> adjust octane rating for both aviation and auto use.
>>
>> http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008013922&IA=WO2008013922
&DI
>> SPLAY=DESC
>
> For you cehm wonks, here's the nugget:
>
> "... the present inventors provide a renewable fuel comprised of:
> (a) one or more low carbon esters derivable from ethanol;
> (b) one or more pentosan derivable furans;
> (c) one or more aromatic hydrocarbons derived from acetone or propyne;
> (d) one or more C4-C io straight chain alkanes derivable from
> polysaccharides; and
> (e) one or more bio-oils derived from plant germ."
>
> Soup for the needy AvPlane, I say.
>
> Ang.
>
>

Tell me this, what do you make of his claim that you can pour this stuff
straight into an airplane set up for Avgas? No timing or mixture
changes, no hardware changes?


Bertie

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Bertie the Bunyip > writes:

>Tell me this, what do you make of his claim that you can pour this stuff
>straight into an airplane set up for Avgas? No timing or mixture
>changes, no hardware changes?

If it really is a substitute for 100LL, then that would be exactly
what one would do.

A pretty big 'if', though. If he can really make the stuff, why is
he talking instead of mixing? If you can put avgas out at 1/2 the price
as he seemed to be claiming, he could get a lot of attention with a
pump pumping for $2.499 / gallon.

Of course, if he makes the stuff without lead, then I don't see why
it wouldn't work in most cars as well. At $2.499 / gallon, he could
sell all he could make.

*IF* he can do it.

Alan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

(Alan) wrote in
:

> In article > Bertie the
> Bunyip > writes:
>
>>Tell me this, what do you make of his claim that you can pour this
>>stuff straight into an airplane set up for Avgas? No timing or mixture
>>changes, no hardware changes?
>
> If it really is a substitute for 100LL, then that would be exactly
> what one would do.
>
> A pretty big 'if', though. If he can really make the stuff, why is
> he talking instead of mixing? If you can put avgas out at 1/2 the
> price as he seemed to be claiming, he could get a lot of attention
> with a pump pumping for $2.499 / gallon.
>
> Of course, if he makes the stuff without lead, then I don't see why
> it wouldn't work in most cars as well. At $2.499 / gallon, he could
> sell all he could make.
>
> *IF* he can do it.
>
> Alan
>

Exactly. Even if were the same price and did what he claims ( greater
range for volume) he could still outsell Avgas.

Bertie

[Lou]

>
> Exactly. Even if were the same price and did what he claims ( greater
> range for volume) he could still outsell Avgas.
>
> Bertie

But, who's going to be the first to put it in their own plane?
And how long do you think it would take the FAA to approve it?
Lou

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Lou > wrote in news:5f087b9e-df00-47a0-8139-
:

>
>>
>> Exactly. Even if were the same price and did what he claims ( greater
>> range for volume) he could still outsell Avgas.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> But, who's going to be the first to put it in their own plane?
> And how long do you think it would take the FAA to approve it?

I'd have put it in my old Luscombe. That thing would have run on carrot
juice. The LeBLond even more so (min oct 58) The injected O-320, not so
much.... There's not even an auto gas STC available for it.



Bertie

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:


>
> Tell me this, what do you make of his claim that you can pour this stuff
> straight into an airplane set up for Avgas? No timing or mixture
> changes, no hardware changes?

Timing? probably, if the octane rating is there.

Mixture? You would probably have to adjust mixture accordingly. The
different fuel density would probably require adjustments to float
levels.

Other hardware changes?

I would have to see the materials compatibility tests before I started
using it. It has been known since the 1950s that the synthetic rubber
used in hoses, etc. can tolerate either petroleum-based or
parrafin-based fuels.

The problems arise when switching (either way) between the two, since
each type fuel has its own effect on the polymers.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Tell me this, what do you make of his claim that you can pour this
>> stuff straight into an airplane set up for Avgas? No timing or
>> mixture changes, no hardware changes?
>
> Timing? probably, if the octane rating is there.
>
> Mixture? You would probably have to adjust mixture accordingly. The
> different fuel density would probably require adjustments to float
> levels.
>
> Other hardware changes?
>
> I would have to see the materials compatibility tests before I started
> using it. It has been known since the 1950s that the synthetic rubber
> used in hoses, etc. can tolerate either petroleum-based or
> parrafin-based fuels.
>
> The problems arise when switching (either way) between the two, since
> each type fuel has its own effect on the polymers.
>
Well, my luscombe had virtually nothing in the fuel system vunerable to
anything this side of Skydrol, but only because I installed a metal
float and an automotive fuel line. The float seat is metal of course and
there's nothing else in the system that anythign can melt. My KCAB is
anouther thing altogether. The LeBlond I'm going to have to check, but I
think it has a standard MS carb form the thirties anyway, so it should
be fine.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Alan > wrote:
> In article > Bertie the Bunyip > writes:

> >Tell me this, what do you make of his claim that you can pour this stuff
> >straight into an airplane set up for Avgas? No timing or mixture
> >changes, no hardware changes?

> If it really is a substitute for 100LL, then that would be exactly
> what one would do.

> A pretty big 'if', though. If he can really make the stuff, why is
> he talking instead of mixing? If you can put avgas out at 1/2 the price
> as he seemed to be claiming, he could get a lot of attention with a
> pump pumping for $2.499 / gallon.

> Of course, if he makes the stuff without lead, then I don't see why
> it wouldn't work in most cars as well. At $2.499 / gallon, he could
> sell all he could make.

> *IF* he can do it.

Based on the claims, the only unknown for auto use would be the
oxygenate requirement, i.e. would alcohol have to be added and would
it be compatible.

As for sales, if he could really make the stuff significantly cheaper,
why isn't he doing it now?

The US isn't the only market for fuel in the world.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Tell me this, what do you make of his claim that you can pour this
> >> stuff straight into an airplane set up for Avgas? No timing or
> >> mixture changes, no hardware changes?
> >
> > Timing? probably, if the octane rating is there.
> >
> > Mixture? You would probably have to adjust mixture accordingly. The
> > different fuel density would probably require adjustments to float
> > levels.
> >
> > Other hardware changes?
> >
> > I would have to see the materials compatibility tests before I started
> > using it. It has been known since the 1950s that the synthetic rubber
> > used in hoses, etc. can tolerate either petroleum-based or
> > parrafin-based fuels.
> >
> > The problems arise when switching (either way) between the two, since
> > each type fuel has its own effect on the polymers.
> >
> Well, my luscombe had virtually nothing in the fuel system vunerable to
> anything this side of Skydrol, but only because I installed a metal
> float and an automotive fuel line. The float seat is metal of course and
> there's nothing else in the system that anythign can melt. My KCAB is
> anouther thing altogether. The LeBlond I'm going to have to check, but I
> think it has a standard MS carb form the thirties anyway, so it should
> be fine.
>

What about the flexible hose from the gascolator to the carburetor? I
would not use a hard metal line because of engine vibration and flexing.

It is the synthetic materials use in hoses that is mentioned in my
reference.

If you can find one (I found mine by accident) a good reference is:

"Aviation Fuels and Their Effects on Engine Performance,"
NAVAIR-06-5-501
USAF T.O. No. 06-5-4,
prepared by Ethyl Corp
supplied to
U.S. Air Forces
on Purchase Order AF-33(600)5312

Dept of the Navy BuAer
on contract No. 52-2002
Copyright 1951 by Ethyl Corp.

It is a comprehensive guide to aviation fuels and potential aviation
fuels and lists energy output, vapor pressure, octane rating, density
and numerous other pertinent qualities of those fuels.

It makes specific note of the potential materials compatibility problems
when switching between fuel bases.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
>> news:o_r_fairbairn-D13E8E.10215613052008@70-3-168-
216.area5.spcsdns.ne
>> t:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Tell me this, what do you make of his claim that you can pour this
>> >> stuff straight into an airplane set up for Avgas? No timing or
>> >> mixture changes, no hardware changes?
>> >
>> > Timing? probably, if the octane rating is there.
>> >
>> > Mixture? You would probably have to adjust mixture accordingly. The
>> > different fuel density would probably require adjustments to float
>> > levels.
>> >
>> > Other hardware changes?
>> >
>> > I would have to see the materials compatibility tests before I
>> > started using it. It has been known since the 1950s that the
>> > synthetic rubber used in hoses, etc. can tolerate either
>> > petroleum-based or parrafin-based fuels.
>> >
>> > The problems arise when switching (either way) between the two,
>> > since each type fuel has its own effect on the polymers.
>> >
>> Well, my luscombe had virtually nothing in the fuel system vunerable
>> to anything this side of Skydrol, but only because I installed a
>> metal float and an automotive fuel line. The float seat is metal of
>> course and there's nothing else in the system that anythign can melt.
>> My KCAB is anouther thing altogether. The LeBlond I'm going to have
>> to check, but I think it has a standard MS carb form the thirties
>> anyway, so it should be fine.
>>
>
> What about the flexible hose from the gascolator to the carburetor? I
> would not use a hard metal line because of engine vibration and
> flexing.

We made one up from an automotive line that was resistant to every fuel
we intended to put in, including ethanol. I couldn't tell you which it
was now cause the airplane is gone. I'll ask the guy who made it up for
me what it was, though.
>
> It is the synthetic materials use in hoses that is mentioned in my
> reference.
>

Yeah, I figured, but there's all sorts of other rubbers and platics in a
modern system as well.

> If you can find one (I found mine by accident) a good reference is:
>
> "Aviation Fuels and Their Effects on Engine Performance,"
> NAVAIR-06-5-501
> USAF T.O. No. 06-5-4,
> prepared by Ethyl Corp
> supplied to
> U.S. Air Forces
> on Purchase Order AF-33(600)5312
>
> Dept of the Navy BuAer
> on contract No. 52-2002
> Copyright 1951 by Ethyl Corp.
>
> It is a comprehensive guide to aviation fuels and potential aviation
> fuels and lists energy output, vapor pressure, octane rating, density
> and numerous other pertinent qualities of those fuels.
>
> It makes specific note of the potential materials compatibility
> problems when switching between fuel bases.
>



Good stuff!

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> We made one up from an automotive line that was resistant to every fuel
> we intended to put in, including ethanol. I couldn't tell you which it
> was now cause the airplane is gone. I'll ask the guy who made it up for
> me what it was, though.
>>
>> It is the synthetic materials use in hoses that is mentioned in my
>> reference.
>>
>
> Yeah, I figured, but there's all sorts of other rubbers and platics in a
> modern system as well.
>

Here we go again. Another "dog ate the homework" story.

You lying piece of ****. You don't even fly.

Funny when some one catches your ass lying.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:58oWj.1156$xF6.574
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> We made one up from an automotive line that was resistant to every
fuel
>> we intended to put in, including ethanol. I couldn't tell you which
it
>> was now cause the airplane is gone. I'll ask the guy who made it up
for
>> me what it was, though.
>>>
>>> It is the synthetic materials use in hoses that is mentioned in my
>>> reference.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I figured, but there's all sorts of other rubbers and platics
in a
>> modern system as well.
>>
>
> Here we go again. Another "dog ate the homework" story.
>
> You lying piece of ****. You don't even fly.
>
> Funny when some one catches your ass lying.
>
>

Yeh, right.


That'll come to a bit of a surprise to the 757 I just left standing on
the ramp.

Bertie