Even when all quality issues are sorted out there can still be problems. After the various issues of high and low aromatic fuels were sorted as far as engine performance goes they then discovered that the high aromatic fuels would find a leak point the others wouldnt. Easily resolved in the factory but a pain in the ass to replace connectors on fuel systems in the field.
Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2
- Thread starter NightHawk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
High aromatic fuels also tended to dissolve US rubber gaskets and self sealing fuel tank liners. The first caused leaks, the second tended to plug lines and filters.
It was solved fairly soon.
It was solved fairly soon.
I agree, but my point was there were all sorts of problems that people obviously never imagined could be problems. Fuel is fuel isnt it? What you talking about viscosity and permeability an all that stuff?
Regarding your previous post on oils, I worked on the Elgin Franklin project which produces very sour (high in sulphur) oil at extremely high temperatures. The only places that had the equipment to run the required tests were actually in universities and research establishments, they didnt have the certification to run production tests. I went to all sorts of exotic locations seeing "tests" on lash up equipment that just passed "muster" on the technical requirements but it was a hard job to reject what was presented because everyone knew there was no where else to do it.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
You might want to read up on fractional distillation, then. You can produce almost any fuel or lubricant needed from any raw-oil source.
Did the Soviets reject Lend-lease tanker-loads on the basis that it was the wrong oil?
You clearly don't know your ass from third-base about this stuff.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
To be fair, many of us don't. I've got a life too, haven't replied since this morning, and between then and now have put 600 miles on my truck.
Not that I think Alphabet is earnest -- he's clearly an oxygen-hog -- but there are plenty of reasons for delays that have nothing to do with the internet.
And auxiliary jets on B36s, KC97s, C23s, and P2Vs used 115/145 avgas.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,977
- Jun 25, 2013
Gas turbines are not very fussy about fuel. If there is enough vapor pressure for ignition and the impurities don't mung up the hot end, hey can tolerate quite a lot. To give an idea, when I worked at Lycoming, there was a civil T-55 (LTC4) running on peat.
Conversely, the same goes for Toyota Surfs and other diesel trucks! When we used to do fuel drains some of the guys used to take the used fuel home in canisters and chuck it in their cars, but it was stopped because some - there's always some, were double-dipping. There was one guy when I worked on Hueys who hadn't fuelled his truck in years because he relied on fuel drain supplies!
Ditto for Jet A sump drains and home kerosene heaters.
But when they burn 115/145 avgas it coats their hot section with a beige/tan crust of hard deposit that slowly grows till it chokes the engine.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,977
- Jun 25, 2013
In newer engines, it will also clog the cooling holes in the hot end. This is bad.
Starting can be a problem. They were trying to qualify the AGT-1500 on marine diesel when I was at Lycoming. This didn't work, as the vapor pressure of the fuel was so low and the viscosity so high that they couldn't get the engine started. Alas, the inside of the engine was also covered with marine diesel, so when they did start the engine, the marine diesel that coated the inside of the engine ignited and all sorts of hilarity ensued, including an overspeed resulting in all the LPT blades leaving their home disc.
We usually did all our tests with Jet-A (or Jet-A1), mostly because it was much easier to get than JP-4, JP-5, or Jet-B, and there was little functional difference between Jet-A and JP-5 (and why would anybody use JP-4, anyway?)
IIRC, doesn't JP4 have a few more BTU/LB?
NAS Boca Chica was required to stock JP4 ONLY, because of our high level of AF and ANG transient traffic, which meant we had to defuel and dispose of the JP5 tankered in by jets returning from deployment, then the fuel controls had to be rerigged.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
My base, Carswell, used only JP-4 for the entire fleet, including the F-16 A/Bs the 301st gained in 1991. Hell, I didn't know there was another fuel at all until 1990 or so... doh!
USAF always seemed to prefer JP4, probably because of its slightly greater performance. They don't have to operate in confined hangar decks at high temperatures where the extra volatility of JP4 is an issue.
And, why did the Germans use only synthetic fuel for the LW, not imported fuel, not domestic fuel ?
The fact that they used only synthetic fuel for the LW means that it matters if the fuel was made from coal or was crude .
Does it?
Shortround6
Major General
OK, show me how it matters.
source or report that shows why.
Not a conclusion based on circumstance or coincidence.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,977
- Jun 25, 2013
No.
I know the engines I worked with (I was a development test engineer at AVCO Stratford) could run on Jet -A, Jet-B, JP-5, and JP-4 without adjustment. I don't know about any other company's engines.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Luftwaffe didn't "only use synthetic fuel".
They used whatever they could get their hands on - which was clearly not enough...
