Avgas replacement news

[Lou]

Check out this recent page from Swift Fuels on their candidate fuel. They are saying higher energy density and lower maintenance cost. https://swiftfuels.com/fuel/ul102-avgas/ .

Hopefully it's not $25 / gallon.

[HPNAviator]

This particular Swift fuel is part of the FAA PAFI program and if selected will not be available for several years. However Swifts other fuel called Unleaded 94 MON is available now with a STC for the DA40. Unfortunately it has very limited distribution at the moment. If it where available at my airport I would use it. I estimate that the cost of the STC, $540, could be recouped in about a year.

https://swiftfuels.com/fuel/unleaded-94-mon-avgas/

[pietromarx]

Has anyone gone out and gotten this STC (which is now $600)?

https://swiftfuels.com/stc/Diamond/DA%2040/any/any/any

Seems to be available now at San Carlos and a bunch of places in the upper midwest at prices between automotive and aviation.

[HPNAviator]

The price listed on the website for the STC is wrong. It is based on HP and they list the Diamond DA40 as 200 HP instead of the 180 HP which $540.

[pietromarx]

Have you gotten this STC? Anyone used the fuel in a DA-40?

Thanks

[Rich]

I got to thinking about the higher energy density of the proposed new fuel. First impression is "cool - more range".

Then I thought about it some more. There are a couple of downsides:

1. Many agonize over full-fuel payload. If this new fuel needs to be considered at 6.8 lb./gal, then that cuts into the FFP number for DA40-180's by 32-40 lb.

2. Since the density of the new fuel can approximate that of Jet-A, will those of us with 40 gallon tanks suddenly have the same rearward weight limitation that the 40-gallon version of the DA40-TDI has (down from 102 in. to 100.4 inches)? And what about the impact to the 50-gallon planes?

[TimS]

Rich,

Where did you get higher energy density?
And nothing I have seen suggests a density of 6.8lbs per gallon. All the released media and reports I have read are that it remains 6lbs per gallon, or close enough for us to not care.

Tim

[Rich]

Rich,

Where did you get higher energy density?
And nothing I have seen suggests a density of 6.8lbs per gallon. All the released media and reports I have read are that it remains 6lbs per gallon, or close enough for us to not care.

Tim

On the Swift web site. It's the UL-102 fuel, (replacement for 100LL) not the 94UL:

https://swiftfuels.com/fuel/unleaded-ul102-avgas/

[TimS]

Interesting, that has not been covered in the general aviation press, and I would expect that to cause issues with a lot of planes. That is a pretty dramatic shift in weight and could present structural issues besides the stall/aerodynamic ones.

No idea on the answer for the DA-40.

Tim

[Rich]

No small thing for other aircraft, I agree. I've had occasion to fly singles that can carry 80-90 gallons of fuel. so we're looking at 60-70 extra lbs.

As far as the weight, I can handle the extra. But right now it's almost impossible for me to load out of rearward CG. This would change if the aft CG limit becomes that of the TDI or the current 50 gallon variety, I'd actually have to be more careful about rearward-cabin loads. And I know some of the DA40 fleet already have payload/CG issues.