Using ship fuel as aviation fuel?

"Jim E" wrote in message ...
"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...


At the moment there are attempts to develop 'photo detonation'
internal combustion engines that do not rely on deflageration
combustion (ie combustion along a flame front rather than by infra red
light) and thus will be indifferent to octane ratings.

Where can I learn more about this?
Curious old school gear head here

Jim E

Use the advanced options in google groups search to find this thread:

Message-ID:

Hi Gord (and Peter),

Why must knock be supersonic?

Peter Skelton

Well, it's not exactly supersonic actually, it's more like
'instantaneous'.

It's actually two different things. "Detonation" means supersonic
combustion. "Knock" means preignition of part of the charge before it
is reached by the flamefront (or in extreme cases the whole charge even
before the spark). However one can lead to the other and the result is
pretty much the same anyway: extreme pressure gradients. Therefore the
terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Less than a half minute with heavy detonation
wrecked it. Don't futz around with detonation!. It'll bite yer
butt!.

true ...

regards,
Friedrich

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

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote:

Hi Gord (and Peter),

Why must knock be supersonic?

Peter Skelton

Well, it's not exactly supersonic actually, it's more like
'instantaneous'.

It's actually two different things. "Detonation" means supersonic
combustion. "Knock" means preignition of part of the charge before it
is reached by the flamefront (or in extreme cases the whole charge even
before the spark). However one can lead to the other and the result is
pretty much the same anyway: extreme pressure gradients. Therefore the
terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Less than a half minute with heavy detonation
wrecked it. Don't futz around with detonation!. It'll bite yer
butt!.

true ...

regards,
Friedrich

Yep...very good Friedrich...that's exactly as I see it...one
point, you use the term 'preignition' and although I see how you
meant it now (and you're correct) I never use that term unless
I'm describing the occurance of spark, it can be confused with
that..

A little levity for a sober subject. Our 'dash one' for the Argus
describes detonation like this.

"Detonation will be evidenced by a rapid rise in cylinder head
temp, a rapid rise in oil temp, a rapid drop in torque closely
followed by structural parts of the engine emitting from the
exhaust stacks"

I think they used that to scare the snot outta us engineers (it
worked too!)
--

-Gord.

In rec.aviation.military Peter Stickney wrote:

# Heating Oil is similar, but doesn't have the Dyes placed in U.S. #2
Diesel fuel to show that the necessary fuel taxes have been paid.

Uh, just a minor quibble, but my understanding is that they
dye the non-taxed stuff so that they can see the dye in over the
road trucks that have been cheating. I know, dying the non-taxed
seems backwards but that is what I have always seen on various web
pages related to diesel fuel issues. Here is a link to an EPA
document to support what I have said.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f99029.pdf

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

wrote in message ...
In rec.aviation.military Peter Stickney wrote:

# Heating Oil is similar, but doesn't have the Dyes placed in U.S. #2
Diesel fuel to show that the necessary fuel taxes have been paid.

Uh, just a minor quibble, but my understanding is that they
dye the non-taxed stuff so that they can see the dye in over the
road trucks that have been cheating. I know, dying the non-taxed
seems backwards but that is what I have always seen on various web
pages related to diesel fuel issues. Here is a link to an EPA
document to support what I have said.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f99029.pdf

Bill is of course, correct.

In article k.net,
"Thomas Schoene" wrote:

R. David Steele wrote:
On 14 Apr 2004 22:44:09 -0700, (KDR)
wrote:

If necessary, is it possible to use F-76 as aviation fuel? I've read
somewhere that the RN's Invincible class carrier can trade off her
endurance for embarked air group's endurance by using ship fuel tanks
as 'swing tanks'. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?

Thanks in advance

Do a little research.

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.

Looking at the specs, and the tutorial, it appears that F76 and JP-5 are
essentially the same except for the anti-icing additives in JP-5.

Both can be used in marine turbines and marine diesels.
F76 is cheaper.
JP-5 burns cleaner.

You could probably use F76 in a helo that is not going to high altitude
(in a pinch, probably not specifically approved).

JP-5 and JP-8 also have anti-static additives that are not needed
aboard ship for marine use.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:59:12 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

I'm not positive, but I think the regs say something to the effect
that if you land with ANY JP4 on board, you have to be fully defueled.
If you have JP8, I think they'll allow a 50/50 mix with JP5 on a
refuel.

Four refuelings before an airplane that had taken JP4 on board could
be struck below to the hangar deck. Until then, it stayed on the
flight deck. No need to drain the tanks.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:59:12 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

I'm not positive, but I think the regs say something to the effect
that if you land with ANY JP4 on board, you have to be fully defueled.
If you have JP8, I think they'll allow a 50/50 mix with JP5 on a
refuel.

Four refuelings before an airplane that had taken JP4 on board could
be struck below to the hangar deck. Until then, it stayed on the
flight deck. No need to drain the tanks.

You can float JP-4 on water and light it with a match.

"scott s." wrote in message . 161...
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.

Naptha mixed with gasoline with lower the flashpoint
of just about anything from whatever it was
before mixing to a nice cozy room temperature.



scott s.
.

wrote in message ...
In rec.aviation.military Peter Stickney wrote:

# Heating Oil is similar, but doesn't have the Dyes placed in U.S. #2
Diesel fuel to show that the necessary fuel taxes have been paid.

Uh, just a minor quibble, but my understanding is that they
dye the non-taxed stuff so that they can see the dye in over the
road trucks that have been cheating. I know, dying the non-taxed
seems backwards but that is what I have always seen on various web
pages related to diesel fuel issues. Here is a link to an EPA
document to support what I have said.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f99029.pdf


In the UK diesel fuel for agricultural vehicles is exempt
from tax and it is dyed red. As diesel is more commonly
used on cars and pickups than in the USA its common
to see excise men checking fuel tanks at country
markets and fairs.

Keith