Re: Is Your Airplane Susceptible To Mis Fu eling? A Simple Test For Fuel Contamination.

[S Green]

"AbsolutelyCertain" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Dylan Smith > wrote:
>
> > Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
>
> But Scott, the Brits don't speak the English Language .... do they?

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language - an oxymoron if
ever there was one.

[S Green]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
si.com...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>>Kerosene is the American word for paraffin - they are the same stuff.
> >>>Jets still run on it.
> >>
> >>Actually the reverse is true - 'paraffin' is the British word for what
> >>Americans call 'kerosene'.
> >
> >
> > Huh? What's the difference?
> >
> > Seems to me you're arguing something like whether "moi" is the French
word
> > for "me" or "me" is the English word for "moi".
> >
> > Or did you not notice that the person to whom you were disagreeing was
from
> > the UK neighborhood of the English-speaking world?
>
> You're forgetting that Scott believes everything on Usenet should be
> posted from a U.S. perspective. See, for example, his rants about an
> April Fools Day joke posted on 4/1 in the poster's timezone, but before
> the date rolled over in the U.S.

Maybe this is why the brits refer to Kerosene as Paraffin:-

Kindly supplied by Scott himself

".....thus coal gas and kerosene consist largely of paraffins."

Makes sense to call it Paraffin if that's what it is.

[Morgans]

"Bob Moore" > wrote

> As I posted earlier, the Westinghouse J-34-WE-36 jet engines
> installed on the Lockheed P-2V Neptune were operated exclusively
> on 115/145 AVGAS. I

> Bob Moore

Just out of curiosity, why only avgas?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/8/2004

[Bob Moore]

"Morgans" > wrote

> Just out of curiosity, why only avgas?

Because that is what we carried in the fuel tanks for the
R-3350 radial engines. Since the jets were added later,
there were just no tanks available for kerosene. I would
imagine that all of the Air Force aircraft that had a mix
of reciprocating and jet engines also burned AVGAS in the
jets. B-36, C-123, etc.

Bob Moore

[Peter Duniho]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, there's quite a difference. Saying "The original jets ran on
> paraffin" implies that they don't run on it any more. Pointing out that
> paraffin is indeed kerosene shows that the same fuel is being used. This
> is the point I was making.

I'm not sure you're reading my post correctly.

The "difference" I'm talking about is between what was written in Scott's
post and what was written in your post. The post to which you replied, Bob
Martin's post, is completely irrelevant to my comment. I was taking Scott
to task for correcting you when no correction was called for.

You aren't the one who "offended", and you're not the to whom my comment was
directed, so I don't really understand why you seem to be getting defensive
at this point (at least, in response to my post).

Pete

[Bob Chilcoat]

I know the B-36 used avgas in the jets. My dad flew it.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote
>
> > Just out of curiosity, why only avgas?
>
> Because that is what we carried in the fuel tanks for the
> R-3350 radial engines. Since the jets were added later,
> there were just no tanks available for kerosene. I would
> imagine that all of the Air Force aircraft that had a mix
> of reciprocating and jet engines also burned AVGAS in the
> jets. B-36, C-123, etc.
>
> Bob Moore
>

[Seth Dillon]

How long did they operate for? As I understand it the J34s on the Neptunes
only operated for a short duration each flight, correct mje if I am wrong.
Also how did the turbine blades look at overhaul? Were the fuel controls OK
or did they need to have numerous internal parts replaced due to the poor
lubricating qualities of gas? I admit I got my info from a former P2V crew
chief I used to work with. The big question is how many running hours (as
opposed to hanging under the wing hours) did the Navy get? A modern jet
should get 6000 + hours as a minimum and are usually limited by cycles on
the internal parts. The record for a commercial jet engine is upward of
24,000 hrs. My carrier had an RB211-524B4I do 24,000+ and held the record
for a while, but I heard that was broken a little later by another carrier.
I don't recall what engine type or carrier.
-Seth

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 8...
> "Seth Dillon" > wrote
>
> > As far as using gasoline, especially avgas, is concerned this is
> > a different matter. The engine will probably run....but not well,
> > or for very long. The combustion chambers and the turbine blades
> > and vanes will lead up dramatically in a short period of time.
>
> As I posted earlier, the Westinghouse J-34-WE-36 jet engines
> installed on the Lockheed P-2V Neptune were operated exclusively
> on 115/145 AVGAS. I flew them for three years and never had
> a problem. Always obtained 100% RPM for takeoff.
> Tell us your "real world" experience with operating jet engines
> on AVGAS, generalities just don't work.
>
> Bob Moore
> Patrol Squadron 21 1959-1962

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bob Chilcoat wrote:
>
> I know the B-36 used avgas in the jets. My dad flew it.

The German jets in WWII ran on gasoline, though all of their gasoline tended to be
low octane.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.