Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@att.net
Message-ID: <4DFB6696.7050503@att.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:37:10 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@att.net>
Reply-To: echristley@att.net
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100623)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Swift Fuel
References: <list-5023573@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5023573@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kelly Troyer wrote:
> "I want to use SwiftFuel to inject some
> environmentally responsible awareness and behavior into a
> particularly wasteful industry," Volker said. 

Why do people say such naive things?  If Swift could ship production quantities tomorrow, it would be one thing.  As it 
is, they have a promising, but still experimental, fuel with no full scale production facility.  Statements like the one 
above gives ammunition to groups that are already trying to shut down GA aviation completely.

Heh, Volker, shut-up.  OK?

 >"There is a difference in testing
 >fuel during an extreme air show performance compared with standard
 >general aviation flying. Engines are pushed to fly at the limits of
 >their durability at air shows, at maximum levels of rpm, CHT, oil
 >temperature, manifold pressure and gyroscopic forces without regard
 >to outside air temperature," Volker said.

The biggest difference I see with standard aviation flying is that the typical GA plane sits for at least week between 
runs, is operated by someone who flies 50hrs a year, and sees a mechanic only once or twice a year.  I'd have much more 
concern about what the fuel is doing to 5yr old seal than what the octane and combustion by-products are.  The latter 
are easy things to test in a lab.  The former is difficult and time consuming (because there are SO many variations to 
deal with).