Swift Fuels Offers Future STCs For One-Time Fee


Unleaded aviation gasoline developer Swift Fuels has introduced a new program offering participants all future FAA avgas supplemental type certificates (STCs) issued to the company for a one-time fee. The “FOREVER” program covers the specific aircraft and piston engines registered by the owner. According to the company, it will notify FOREVER certificate holders when new STCs are approved by the FAA and provide specified placards, license rights and FAA-required forms for free.

“The FOREVER Avgas STC program will allow Swift Fuels to ‘illuminate the pathway to Fleetwide Approval’ for pilots as we rollout our 100-octane unleaded avgas to replace 100LL,” said Swift Fuels CEO Chris D’Acosta. “While there is no assurance that the FAA will grant such a certification to every aircraft, Swift Fuels is actively pursuing their FAA certification program for engines and airframes across the North American fleet—with expectations of replacing 100LL on a global scale within 3-5 years.”

The FOREVER program is currently available in the U.S. and Canada with international sales expected to begin in approximately 90 days. Cost for a FOREVER certificate is currently $100. The program will also be open to customers purchasing a new avgas STC at no additional charge. In addition, Swift announced that it has reduced the price of its UL94 avgas STC to $100, a drop of around 75 percent.

Other AVwebflash Articles


    • As far as I know there are two FBOs selling Swift UL94. Both are located in the great lakes region. It is the same price as 100LL. AirNav had a comment regarding poor availability of UL94 at one of them which does not inspire confidence.

  1. As I’ve said, I DON’T NEED 100 octane in my aircraft.
    Unleaded no-alcohol MoGas works for me and I have an STC already from the EAA.
    Perhaps the easy economical solution is too reasonable? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  2. The easy, economical solution would have been to have less ridiculous certification standards and to make robbing manufacturers using legal chicanery punishable by imprisonment. Alternatives would doubtless have been presented decades ago.

    You can have your not so economical mogas solution as soon as you pony up for a money losing pump everywhere you want to go. No whining about the cost of disposal for all the gallons that go bad because there isn’t enough demand.

    • I don’t think it’s the certification standards, really. Yeah, they were a little outdated in some ways, but they weren’t the primary impediment to so much of GA. I don’t even think it’s the requirements for production under Part 21 (which, don’t get me wrong, are still a pain).

      Rather, I think the biggest problem is the requirement that private, non-commercial owner-operators of light airplanes must maintain their aircraft in strict conformance to approved type design over the entire life of the aircraft. Nearest I can figure, that came in because either (a) the FAA figured they needed standards for commercial aircraft, just made one set of “one size fits all” standard, and then has refused to change things on the basis of “we only have one set of rules so there can only be one set of rules”, or (b) they figure that every airplane could theoretically be used commercially, and therefore all airplanes need to be conformed at all times just in case. Either way, it’s my belief that the vast majority of these owner-operators do not find this requirement to always be in strict conformance to approved type design to be a major benefit to them, and would be perfectly happy to convert their airplane to another category that frees them from that requirement–even if it’s a permanent one-way conversion (the FAA thinks otherwise, but I think the market would value such aircraft more).

      The FAA itself (in the Par 23 ARC report that eventually led to the Part 23 update) even realized this and proposed that older GA airplanes be released from that requirement (look up “primary non-commercial”) and more or less be treated like homebuilts. Unfortunately, the rest of the FAA has been slow to follow suit. I’m holding out hope that this MOSAIC thing eventually leads us down this path.

  3. The Aerostar I fly needs 100 octane. Reducing the performance of the engine so it can run on lower grade of fuel is not an option on a piston twin. What little single engine performance there is now would go away altogether.

  4. I will save my $100 for a veggie burger at 6B6. I feel their pain trying to start a new capital intensive distribution system is a daunting task. Mean while I will take the instant gratification and a great burger.

  5. The Swift web site FAQ states the following:
    “Will I need a separate tank at my airport for your 100-octane avgas to fully replace 100LL?
    No, not according to our current Swift Fuels deployment plan. Our 100-octane unleaded avgas will be fully commingable with 100LL. This means that it can be stored in the same airport tank as 100LL and commingled into the aircraft fuel tanks with 100LL at any ratio. Our avgas deployment plan anticipates that all Swift Fuels products can work effectively with 100LL.”
    Nonetheless, since use of Swift fuel requires an STC mixing the two in an airport tank will automatically exclude use of that fuel by any aircraft not having the associated STC. The tank will also therefore need to be clearly signed as “not” being 100LL.

  6. Personally I’d rather see Jet-A replace 100LL. Continental and Austro make diesel engines that burn only 5-6 gph. The DA-62 twin burns less than singles, and is faster. All new airplanes could be diesel.
    Obviously the current fleet is limited to gasoline, but with STCs to replace the gas engines with diesel as they reach TBO, we can gradually phase them out.