Why Are Gasoline-Like Fuels Favored For Aircraft?

Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,
says...
Since taking up aviation as a hobby, I have wondered why gasoline, and
similar oil-derived liquid fuels, have become the defacto standard for all
forms of general aviation and commercial and military aircraft. Comparing
Jet fuel to something like natural gas, Jet fuel is four times as expensive.
Liquid fuels are extremely heavy, and certainly airplanes do not need extra
weight.


Perhaps because in the early development of aircraft it was found to be a
sutible fuel ?




This leads me to wonder why haven't engines been commercialized that can
burn gas-based fuels? Is the only reason safety, because of the
explosive nature of gas fuels like natural gas or hydrogen?


You will find any number fo ground vehicles that use LPG for fuel.


Isn't there some way you could use two separate gases, which in their
separate state are inert, but combined together under high pressure, become
explosive? Such a combination would not ignite if the airplane crashed
(you could separate the gases into separate containers on each side of the
airplane, at the wingtips), but in controlled injection into a high pressure
compartment could be made explosive in a controlled way, in a very limited
space.

Think how much fuel is being wasted each day on airplanes, simply to support
the extra weight required to carry the fuel itself. Think how dangerous
airplanes are during relatively survivable impacts to the ground, primarily
because they are gasoline bombs. I would be very interested to read about
efforts to develop gas based engines for general aviation or commercial
aircraft. I would appreciate any pointers to web sites or books.


Think how safe airplanes would be if they were powered by coal fired steam
engines....

No wait, that won't work either.. coal dust = explosions..

I think that they've found that jet fuel (kerosene etc) has the
greatest energy pound for pound, it doesn't require special
handling (as LNG etc does) etc so it's the best and cheapest
available. You can bet yer butt that if another type were cheaper
then they'd be using that. A lot of good minds are involved in
the 'big bux' aviation world. They don't miss much.
--

-Gord.

In article , "Gord Beaman"
) says...
Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,
says...
Since taking up aviation as a hobby, I have wondered why gasoline, and
similar oil-derived liquid fuels, have become the defacto standard for all
forms of general aviation and commercial and military aircraft. Comparing
Jet fuel to something like natural gas, Jet fuel is four times as expensive.
Liquid fuels are extremely heavy, and certainly airplanes do not need extra
weight.


Perhaps because in the early development of aircraft it was found to be a
sutible fuel ?




This leads me to wonder why haven't engines been commercialized that can
burn gas-based fuels? Is the only reason safety, because of the
explosive nature of gas fuels like natural gas or hydrogen?


You will find any number fo ground vehicles that use LPG for fuel.


Isn't there some way you could use two separate gases, which in their
separate state are inert, but combined together under high pressure, become
explosive? Such a combination would not ignite if the airplane crashed
(you could separate the gases into separate containers on each side of the
airplane, at the wingtips), but in controlled injection into a high pressure
compartment could be made explosive in a controlled way, in a very limited
space.

Think how much fuel is being wasted each day on airplanes, simply to support
the extra weight required to carry the fuel itself. Think how dangerous
airplanes are during relatively survivable impacts to the ground, primarily
because they are gasoline bombs. I would be very interested to read about
efforts to develop gas based engines for general aviation or commercial
aircraft. I would appreciate any pointers to web sites or books.


Think how safe airplanes would be if they were powered by coal fired steam
engines....

No wait, that won't work either.. coal dust = explosions..

I think that they've found that jet fuel (kerosene etc) has the
greatest energy pound for pound, it doesn't require special
handling (as LNG etc does) etc so it's the best and cheapest
available. You can bet yer butt that if another type were cheaper
then they'd be using that. A lot of good minds are involved in
the 'big bux' aviation world. They don't miss much.

Well aware of the extra handling and storage requirments for LPG.

The original poster is ignoring the history of aircraft development. They
used those fuel's that were available and cheap. I'd have to get into the
SG and BTU content of the various fuels but the current crop of jet fuels
have a good balance of stored energy to safety.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Isn't there some way you could use two separate gases, which in their
separate state are inert, but combined together under high pressure,
become
explosive? Such a combination would not ignite if the airplane crashed
(you could separate the gases into separate containers on each side of the
airplane, at the wingtips), but in controlled injection into a high
pressure
compartment could be made explosive in a controlled way, in a very limited
space.

We've been using this for years in spacecraft. The Titan II that launched
Gemini capsules was powered by hypergolics. Mainly, though, these fuels are
used for in-orbit engines (Apollo, Soyuz, space shuttle, and Shenzhou all
use hypergolic propellants). The most common ones used are unsymmetrical
dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) and nitrogen tetraoxide (NO4). These two
chemicals are EXTREMELY toxic.

Also, the Russian Proton rocket, and the launch vehicle the Chinese used to
launch their taikonaut, are powered by hypergolic fuels.