X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:53:34 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [69.146.254.20] (HELO arilabs.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3529725 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:41:59 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.146.254.20; envelope-from=Kevin@arilabs.net Subject: RE: [LML] On Swift Fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C99E0D.6B685310" Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-Original-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:41:21 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Original-Message-ID: <7141427652BB3049A7DBF1084B67805B1E302D@penumbra.arilabs.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] On Swift Fuel Thread-Index: AcmeBKIGR914m4UyQPyytOpeRf1UhwACGxnQ From: "Kevin Stallard" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C99E0D.6B685310 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey John, =20 The FAA's lab's have just finished testing. It appears as though it worked as claimed. I'm sure we'll know more as details of the testing are released.=20 =20 BTW: It isn't alcohol, although alcohol is byproduct of it's production. Being non-alcohol based is one of the big reasons it looks so promising. =20 Anyway, I'm sure the test results will be available at some point. Don't forget, it has to pass ASTM's fuel standard as well. =20 I know, it sounds too good to be true. I guess we'll see. =20 Kevin=20 =20 Kevin Stallard President Aerial Robotics, Inc. 970.201.1804 (cell) 970.464.4855 (office) ________________________________ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John Hafen Sent: 2009-03-05 19:38 To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] On Swift Fuel =20 Gents: Swift Fuel is currently seeking investors to "fund future research." I don't know what your collective risk tolerance is, but you may do better by putting your money in a downward spiraling stock market. At least that way your money will crash and burn quickly, rather than languishing in the sea of hope for years to come, before sinking. When green people tell me they are going to make high octane fuel "from cellulosic biomass-switch grass and agricultural waste" and used disposable diapers, AND the resulting fuel will be CHEAPER than a petroleum based product, I grab my wallet and hang on tight. Remember the corn and ethanol thing? All that did was destroy a lot of pheasant habitat. I would LOVE to believe the hype, but I won't be sending them any money. Nor will I hold my breath waiting for them to deliver as promised. John Hafen On 3/5/09 3:54 PM, "Chuck Jensen" wrote: John, Not to worry....tell the wife she's welcome to come along. While the SF is about a pound heavier per gallon, it also has 13% more stored heat energy, so you don't need to carry as much fuel to go the same distance. Funny how that works; heavier fuels hold more BTUs....must just be a coincidence. Chuck Jensen=20 -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of John Hafen Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:12 PM 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" wrote: =20 Looks like the FAA testing labs are coming out with some positive feedback on Swift Fuel (100LL replacement). Looking good! =20 http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/1325-full.html#199892 =20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C99E0D.6B685310 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Swift Fuel

Hey = John,

 

The FAA’s lab’s have = just finished testing.  It appears as though it worked as claimed.  = I’m sure we’ll know more as details of the testing are released. =

 

BTW: It isn’t alcohol, = although alcohol is byproduct of it’s production.  Being non-alcohol based is = one of the big reasons it looks so promising.

 

Anyway, I’m sure the test = results will be available at some point.  Don’t forget, it has to = pass ASTM’s fuel standard as well.

 

I know, it sounds too good to be = true.  I guess we’ll see.

 

Kevin

 

Kevin Stallard

President

Aerial Robotics, = Inc.

970.201.1804 = (cell)

970.464.4855 = (office)

From: = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John Hafen
Sent: 2009-03-05 = 19:38
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] On Swift = Fuel

 

Gents:

Swift Fuel is currently seeking investors to “fund future research.”  I don’t know what your collective risk = tolerance is, but you may do better by putting your money in a downward spiraling = stock market.  At least that way your money will crash and burn quickly, = rather than languishing in the sea of hope for years to come, before = sinking.

When green people tell me they are going to make high octane = fuel “from cellulosic biomass—switch grass and agricultural = waste” and used disposable diapers,  AND the resulting fuel will be = CHEAPER than a petroleum based product, I grab my wallet and hang on tight. =  Remember the corn and ethanol thing?  All that did was destroy a lot of = pheasant habitat.

I would LOVE to believe the hype, but I won’t be sending them any = money.  Nor will I hold my breath waiting for them to deliver as = promised.

John Hafen


On 3/5/09 3:54 PM, "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com> wrote:

John,

Not to worry....tell the wife she's = welcome to come along.  While the SF is about a pound heavier per gallon, it = also has 13% more stored heat energy, so you don't need to carry as much fuel to = go the same distance.  Funny how that works; heavier fuels hold more = BTUs....must just be a coincidence.

Chuck Jensen


-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing = List  [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of John Hafen
Sent:  Thursday, = March 05, 2009 2:12 PM
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  
 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C99E0D.6B685310--