Using ship fuel as aviation fuel?

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message
...
Hi NG,

The high compression ratios for diesel piston engines cause
detonation using
wide cut jet fuel.

Diesel engines cannot "detonate". The term "detonation" applies to
preignition of part of the charge before ignition or before the
flamefront has reached that portion of the charge.

Detonation refers to more energy being imparted to the fuel air mixture by
compression heating than can be absorbed without igniting the fuel.
Detonation damages rod bearings and is a serious problem over the long term
in reciprocating engines.

Hi,

Diesel engines cannot "detonate". The term "detonation" applies to
preignition of part of the charge before ignition or before the
flamefront has reached that portion of the charge.

Detonation refers to more energy being imparted to the fuel air
mixture by
compression heating than can be absorbed without igniting the fuel.

On a diesel, the fuel is not there until the very moment when it is
supposed to ignite. You cannot ignite pure air, no matter how much
energy you impart on it.

Detonation damages rod bearings and is a serious problem over the
long term
in reciprocating engines.

Detonation can do much more than that, serious detonation can kill an
engine within seconds. I have personally seen melted pistons after such
an event. But still detonation is only possible in spark ignition
engines, or to be more precise, in engines with external mixture
building.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entferrnen" from my adress

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message
...
Hi NG,

The high compression ratios for diesel piston engines cause
detonation using
wide cut jet fuel.

Diesel engines cannot "detonate". The term "detonation" applies to
preignition of part of the charge before ignition or before the
flamefront has reached that portion of the charge.

Detonation refers to more energy being imparted to the fuel air mixture by
compression heating than can be absorbed without igniting the fuel.
Detonation damages rod bearings and is a serious problem over the long
term
in reciprocating engines.

John, every power stroke of a diesel engine fits that definition.
Diesels, by definition, compress the fuel & air to the point the
fuel ignites.

"Friedrich Ostertag" writes:


As said before, Diesel engines will burn jetfuel, however the
lubrication properties are much lower so the injection system has to be
designed to live with that.

Indeed. When I worked on a pipeline delivering JetA to CLE, we'd
chat with the mechanics that maintained the refueling trucks. They
were run on JetA, as was much of the ramp lice. The logistical
advantage of doing so must have exceeded the cost difference of
trucking in #2.

The mechanics told me that neither Detroit or Cummings recommended
#1, and it likely reduced the time between overhauls, but it still
made sense on the bottom line.
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"David Lesher" wrote in message
...
"Friedrich Ostertag" writes:


As said before, Diesel engines will burn jetfuel, however the
lubrication properties are much lower so the injection system has to be
designed to live with that.

Indeed. When I worked on a pipeline delivering JetA to CLE, we'd
chat with the mechanics that maintained the refueling trucks. They
were run on JetA, as was much of the ramp lice. The logistical
advantage of doing so must have exceeded the cost difference of
trucking in #2.

Number 2 will tun into jelly if it gets too cold, so most truck operators
avoid it unless there is some State requirement to use it.

Also, are not both the Hummers and the M1 are rated to "run on
anything that burns" -- be it #1, #2, gasoline, moonshine, etc?


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"John R Weiss" writes:


In the US navy, the nuclear powered carriers only carry JP4 or JP8 (and all
on-board diesel-powered equipment use the JP), so any smaller ships that refuel
from the carrier (a relatively common practice) get the jet fuel.

?? I thought the Navy forbit anything but JP5 on board. To the extent
a Navy plane refueled at an AF base was not allowed below decks, until
"clean"...

JP4 was kero/gasoline/naptha/tolune or such; nasty low-flash stupf.
JP5's basically Jet-A, I think. And Jet-A is ultra-pure kero.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"David Lesher" wrote...

?? I thought the Navy forbit anything but JP5 on board. To the extent
a Navy plane refueled at an AF base was not allowed below decks, until
"clean"...

JP4 was kero/gasoline/naptha/tolune or such; nasty low-flash stupf.
JP5's basically Jet-A, I think. And Jet-A is ultra-pure kero.

When the USAF started transitioning to JP-8 in the '80s, the Navy was relatively
slow to follow suit. When I was at China Lake in the early 90s, there was still
a mix of JP-4, JP-5, and JP-8 found at various USAF and Navy shore bases, though
JP-5 was still used exclusively on ships. However, there was talk at the time
about JP-8 eventually replacing both JP-4 and JP-5 (though that may have been
based on economic and/or political concerns, not on safety concerns). I haven't
followed the transition since I left the Navy in '94, so I don't know how widely
JP-8 was[n't] adopted for use at sea.

Also I don't know how provisions for Army/USMC vehicles are made on various
amphib and Maritime Prepositioning ships -- F-76/diesel, JP-5, JP-8, or some
combination. The most recent document I could find is DOD Directive 4140.25,
August 25, 2003 (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...t/d414025p.txt).
It designates F-76 as primary for ship propulsion, JP-5 as primary for sea-based
aircraft, and JP-8 for ground vehicles (though JP-5 can be substituted). So,
apparently JP-8 never came into accepted use at sea.

"John R Weiss" wrote:

:In the US navy, the nuclear powered carriers only carry JP4 or JP8 (and all
n-board diesel-powered equipment use the JP), so any smaller ships that refuel
:from the carrier (a relatively common practice) get the jet fuel.

The US Navy uses neither of these fuels at sea, even to fill aircraft,
much less to fill large ship's tanks. The Navy switched from JP4
(which is a hideously dangerous fuel) to JP5 about half a century ago.
The Air Force later switched from JP4 to JP8 (essentially Jet-A).

The Navy currently uses JP8 ashore (because it's cheaper and easier to
get) and JP5 at sea (because it's safer).

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

"John R Weiss" wrote:

:In the US navy, the nuclear powered carriers only carry JP4 or JP8
and all on-board diesel-powered equipment use the JP), so any smaller
:ships that refuel from the carrier (a relatively common practice) get
:the jet fuel.

The US Navy uses neither of these fuels at sea, even to fill aircraft,
much less to fill large ship's tanks. The Navy switched from JP4
(which is a hideously dangerous fuel) to JP5 about half a century ago.
The Air Force later switched from JP4 to JP8 (essentially Jet-A).

IIRC the minimum allowed flash point is 140F. I uderstand that even
a little JP4, if mixed with JP5, can dangerously lower flash point.

scott s.
..