New fuel for GA?

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

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.

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.

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

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

"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.

"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

"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!

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
news

"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

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/Swif...0benefits.html

Make of it what you will.
--
dgs