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