Synthetic Avgas, 100LL replacement???

BillErvin

Peddling as fast as I can
Has anyone else heard much about this, if it comes about it may cut the cost of flight training and GA flying.


May 5, 2008
Designer aviation fuel may provide cleaner, greener, cheaper alternative



WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Research on SwiftFuel©
Download photo
caption below
0002swiftLO.jpg
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.
About Swift Enterprises Ltd.
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. To the Purdue Research Park, http://www.purdueresearchpark.com
Note to journalists: Rusek is pronounced RUSS ek.
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
Jeanine Phipps, (765) 494-0748, (765) 413-5579 (mobile), jeanine@purdue.edu
Sources:
John Rusek, (765) 464-8336, john.rusek@swiftenterprises.com
Mary Rusek, (765) 464-8336, mary.rusek@swiftenterprises.com
 
Very interesting article...I am curious how much engines need to be retrofitted to accept this type of fuel...that will be the true test on whether it can be used as a viable alternative for AVgas. Interesting nonetheless!
 
i read about this on avweb a few weeks ago...

it looks promising, I'm glad someone is looking at alternative fuels....

however, the article mentions this fuel is "hydrocarbons derived from biomass". what kind of biomass? are we talking corn or garbage?

The article doesn't go out and say "we're coming up with a new corn fuel". But at the end of the article it reads, "This fuel ...[will] be an economic boon for the state of Indiana and the Midwest, where we can abundantly grow the resources to produce SwiftFuel©."

a misleading article about producing fuel from food!

Bad idea to mix food production with fuel production. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD

It takes 5 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of CURRENT biofuel stuff. Should we make our fuel dependent on having a good year in the corn fields? Not to mention the price of agriculture skyrocketing already!

avweb has a podcast interview with the company here. its a good listen.
 
i read about this on avweb a few weeks ago...

it looks promising, I'm glad someone is looking at alternative fuels....

however, the article mentions this fuel is "hydrocarbons derived from biomass". what kind of biomass? are we talking corn or garbage?

The article doesn't go out and say "we're coming up with a new corn fuel". But at the end of the article it reads, "This fuel ...[will] be an economic boon for the state of Indiana and the Midwest, where we can abundantly grow the resources to produce SwiftFuel©."

a misleading article about producing fuel from food!

Bad idea to mix food production with fuel production. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD

It takes 5 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of CURRENT biofuel stuff. Should we make our fuel dependent on having a good year in the corn fields? Not to mention the price of agriculture skyrocketing already!

avweb has a podcast interview with the company here. its a good listen.


Good pt. I read an article and heard some things on the news were algae is proving to be a perfect "bio" mass...no worries for food prices with that either!
 
We have to realize that the production of avgas doesn't create enough of a profit for oil companies to be worth it in the long run.

And given that economic fact, we've got to find something else to power our airplanes!
 
A lot of promise for biomass based fuel had been shown in field crop residue. For example, normally a combine goes through a corn field and harvests the corn kernels off of plant. The rest of the plant is left behind basically as waste. With crop residue biomass, the waste product of the plant that is usually left behind in a field is gathered up, taken to the processing plant, and broken down into ethanol. The big advantages to this over pure corn based ethanol is that it will not drive up food prices since it is made from a waste product, it can be made out of any crop residue including straw and hay, and it can be produced in poor soil quality fields that are normally not used to produce any crops. Also, I have read that the existing corn ethanol processing plants can be retrofitted to process crop residue and the product is more efficient to produce than corn ethanol.
 
Bio-fuel was one of the worst ideas to ever come along. Drive up the costs of food world wide, and never mind the fact the stuff sucks in water like nothing else!
The only alternative really is electric power. If you could invent the same power source as what Iron Man was using in the movie, you would become the worlds richest man over night. The downside would be no more fancy FBO's with hot line girls, the oil companies would have to pull out of the aviation markets.
 
Wood is actually a very efficient biomass input. It is very surprising how few people realize where wood as a biofuel could take us. Research was actually being done on it back in the 1970's at UW-Madison. However, with the low price of fuel back then, it would not have been economical. But now things have obviously changed.

Also, there currently exists industries to support the growth of wood as a biofuel. Simply take a look at the input change to a pulp mill. They're using a few thousand tons of wood per day.

And just a warning, don't play the deforestation card.:D
 
Steam locomotives, the first ones burned wood, later they moved to coal... We have plenty of coal...
 
Steam locomotives, the first ones burned wood, later they moved to coal... We have plenty of coal...


You see it is interesting to me because we are being dealt and knock out blow. The one thing we have plenty of we can't use because it emmits too much CO2. What a load of crap.
 
You see it is interesting to me because we are being dealt and knock out blow. The one thing we have plenty of we can't use because it emmits too much CO2. What a load of crap.
We do have a method of burning coal clean now. I'm not sure how this can help aviation. What we really need is a way to produce hydrogen cleanly. Once that happens I see good things for the future of aviation/transportation. Apparently, experts are saying it will cost about $4/gallon however you get 2x the range than normal gasoline.
 
We do have a method of burning coal clean now. I'm not sure how this can help aviation. What we really need is a way to produce hydrogen cleanly. Once that happens I see good things for the future of aviation/transportation. Apparently, experts are saying it will cost about $4/gallon however you get 2x the range than normal gasoline.

If it gets 2x the range then that screams $2 a gallon :D and I'm all for it. The real question, what will it take to retrofit the millions of cars out there to take these new fuels.
 
The Germans also had pieces of flare they made the Jews wear. ;)

I believe they're called 'Nazis' now. The Germans are the cuddly lederhosen-wearing, sausage-eaters beloved by the international comunity for not being French.

:D
 
I believe they're called 'Nazis' now. The Germans are the cuddly lederhosen-wearing, sausage-eaters beloved by the international comunity for not being French.

:D

Hah, I stand corrected. I'll drink to that Oktoberfest. (aka every Thursday)
 
You see it is interesting to me because we are being dealt and knock out blow. The one thing we have plenty of we can't use because it emmits too much CO2. What a load of crap.

I guess you don't know what else is emitted when coal is combusted. Go look at the health of the people and environment around a coal burning plant and tell me if you want more of that.

Coal gasification is great and all, but it does produce byproducts which we still wouldn't know where to put.
 
Back
Top