"Thomas Schoene" wrote in
hlink.net:


I suggest the same for you, especialy before you dismiss a reasonable
question from a regualr, and usually well-informed, poster.

1) Ship power plants are not "jet engines" -- they are marine gas
turbines. Sometimes these are derived from aircraft jet engines, but
they are not the same. Terminology matters.

2) Marine gas turbines can burn fuels, like F76 diesel, that are not
considered suitable for aircraft engines. They can also burn jet fuel,
but the reverse is not true. A jet aircraft probably cannot burn F76,
at least not for very long. So I'd agree with several earlier posts
that this "swing" tankage would be jet fuel diverted to ship
propulsion if need be, rather than F76 diverted to aircraft use.

In the 963/47 classes, there are cross connects from the JP-5 system
to the FO service system. We did a test, back in the 70s, running
one of the Allison GTGs on JP-5 only. I think NAVSEA was interested in
the impact on the fuel nozzles. I don't think the results showed that
JP-5 was cost effective as a replacement for Nato F-76.

IIRC, the emergency diesel (tandem Detroit Diesel) on the 1052s
were fed JP-5? I'm having a "senior moment" on that.

I suppose it could be fixed, but once JP-5 gets into the ship's service
system, I don't think you're allowed to use it in aircraft.

I don't recall ever getting JP-5 from any CV, but what I did get was
crap. I think CVs just use the opportunity to offload their off-spec
fuel.

I can't remember now what we burned at Great Lakes, either. Probably
commercial diesel.

scott s.
..