Using ship fuel as aviation fuel?

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

"KDR" wrote in message
m...
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


i think they mean that they can put either type of fuel in the fuel tanks
and not that one fuel fits all

"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?

I believe the ship can burn the jet fuel, but the jets cannot burn the ship's
diesel/turbine fuel.

Many modern jet engines are very sensitive to fuel type because of the high
temps and close tolerances within the engines. The older J-85 could use JP4 or
5; Jet A, A1, or B; and 115 AvGas; I don't remember if it could use F-76.
However, the J-52 could not use AvGas.

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've talked
with several "oil kings" in the past, and they all told me the diesels much
preferred diesel fuel over JP because of its lubricity and energy content. The
big turbines didn't much care.

Another problem would be the aircraft engines' lesser tolerance for water
contamination. The ship would have to keep the higher contamination standards
for any fuel transferred to aircraft.

In article ,
(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?

http://www.stormingmedia.us/31/3168/A316873.html

The Universal Fuel at Sea: Replacing F-76 with JP-5
Authors: Sermarini, Joseph T.; NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA

Abstract: This research investigates the feasibility, benefits, impacts
and costs of replacing F-76 with JP-5 and adopting JP-5 as the single
"universal fuel at sea". Joint Publication 4-03, Joint Bulk Petroleum
Doctrine states, "Department of Defense components should minimize the
number of bulk petroleum products that must be stocked and distributed".
DoD currently stores and distributes two fuels, F-76 and JP-5, for
shipboard use. As the universal fuel at sea JP-5 would replace F-76. All
shipboard systems, including boilers, turbine engines and diesel engines
that currently operate with F-76 should operate satisfactorily with JP-5.
Adopting JP-5 as the single fuel stocked and distributed for shipboard use
would simplify logistics support, maximize flexibility, and enhance the
readiness and sustainability of U.S. forces at sea.

Limitations: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Description: Master's thesis

and an excellent tutorial at
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/elcbalt/docs/...0GUIDE%201.pdf

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:7Hzfc.44106$xn4.148857@attbi_s51...

snip
I've talked
with several "oil kings" in the past, and they all told me the diesels
much
preferred diesel fuel over JP because of its lubricity and energy content.
The
big turbines didn't much care.

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

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:12:24 GMT, R. David Steele
/OMEGA wrote:

Do a little research. Most modern destroyers and cruisers are
powered by jet engines. The Ticonderoga ( CG-47) class and

Research, indeed. None of the classes you cited burn jet fuel in
their engines. Maybe you should have researched that point?

the Spruance class (DD-963) plus new DD-X series (DD-21) are jet

DD-21 was cancelled years ago.

by the L1011 (2500). And the new series of LH(X) assault ships
are also jet powered.

You mean LHD 8, and LHD(R)? There's no such thing as LHX.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

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.

Most modern destroyers and cruisers are
powered by jet engines. The Ticonderoga ( CG-47) class and
the Spruance class (DD-963) plus new DD-X series (DD-21) are jet
powered (four engines to two shafts). The Perry class frigate
had two engines.

They have not announced how many engines DD(X) will use, but they have said
that it will probably be Rolls Royce MT-30s, not the GE LM2500s used in
other USN ships. DD(X)'s arrangements may be substantially different from
the other ships, since all-electric propulsion means that none of the
engines will be coupled directly to a propellor shaft.


Originally they were the same engines as used
by the L1011 (2500).

Nope. The L-1011 used the Rolls Royce RB211. I don't know if this has a
direct marine derivative.

The GE LM2500 is derived from the TF39 (military) and CF6 (commercial) engin
es. These are used in the C-5 as well as the DC-10 and many other
airliners, but not the L-1011.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:12:24 GMT, R. David Steele
/OMEGA wrote:

Do a little research. Most modern destroyers and cruisers are
powered by jet engines. The Ticonderoga ( CG-47) class and

Research, indeed. None of the classes you cited burn jet fuel in
their engines.

Well, they can (and sometimes do) burn jet fuel, but they don't have to.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"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.