Actually, if you do the math, they claim
15% increase in range/power. Means less fuel per mile.
15% of 6.02 lbs is around .9lbs (almost the
one 1 pound difference).
Seems you can pack more energy into your
wings with the same volume, with the penalty being weight instead of quantity.
Seems close to a wash to me. If you don’t
need to go as far, you certainly don’t have to fill it up to the top….
Kevin
From: Lancair Mailing
List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf
Of John Hafen
Sent: 2009-03-05 12:12
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Swift Fuel
reeks havoc on kitchen clearance
If the Swift Fuel is, as they say:
“about a pound heavier per gallon,”
that makes it pretty much a non-starter in my IVP. “Sorry Honey,
you have to stay home on this trip. I just loaded up on “Swift
Fuel.”
If a guy leaves his wife home, because he’s now a hundred pounds heavier,
and he had to choose between taking his wife along or his golf clubs, then the
resulting scenario hurls a javelin through the heart of the primary core of
aerodynamics of flight — you know — what makes an airplane
fly, which is “kitchen clearance.” (we all know it has
nothing to do with lift and drag and all that stuff)
On 3/4/09 10:34 AM, "Kevin Stallard" <Kevin@arilabs.net>
wrote:
Looks like the FAA testing labs are
coming out with some positive feedback on Swift Fuel (100LL replacement).
Looking good!
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/1325-full.html#199892