Using ship fuel as aviation fuel?

"scott s." wrote...

IIRC the minimum allowed flash point is 140F. I uderstand that even
a little JP4, if mixed with JP5, can dangerously lower flash point.

True.

However, the problem is not as pronounced with JP5/JP8 mixtures. The reduction
of flash point from JP5's 140 to JP8's 100 is roughly linear with the mixture
ratio.

"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.
.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote...

:In the US navy, the nuclear powered carriers only carry JP4 or JP8

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).

Yep! That was a typo -- I meant JP5 or JP8. Thanks for the catch.


The Navy currently uses JP8 ashore (because it's cheaper and easier to
get) and JP5 at sea (because it's safer).

OK. It appears sanity won over economics. There was talk in the late 80s/early
90s to transition from JP5 to JP8 at sea as well as the JP4 - JP8 transition
ashore.

"John R Weiss" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote...
:
: :In the US navy, the nuclear powered carriers only carry JP4 or JP8
:
: 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).
:
:Yep! That was a typo -- I meant JP5 or JP8. Thanks for the catch.
:
: The Navy currently uses JP8 ashore (because it's cheaper and easier to
: get) and JP5 at sea (because it's safer).
:
:OK. It appears sanity won over economics. There was talk in the late 80s/early
:90s to transition from JP5 to JP8 at sea as well as the JP4 - JP8 transition
:ashore.

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.

The latter presumably makes it more convenient for folks coming out
from shore bases just to do carrier quals.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

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

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

(KDR) wrote in message om...
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

Many thanks for all the replies. Compared with F-76, how expensive is
JP-5? Is there any official move in the RN or USN to adopt JP-5 as a
single universal fuel?

KDR wrote:

Many thanks for all the replies. Compared with F-76, how expensive is
JP-5?

http://www.sd.fisc.navy.mil/FUEL/FUEL-INFOR-PAGE.HTML

JP-5 $1.03/gallon
DFM $0.98/gallon (DFM is Diesel fuel, Marine, another term for F-76)

That's roughly 5% difference. It may not seem like much, but considering
the Navy's overall fuels budget, it can really add up.


Is there any official move in the RN or USN to adopt JP-5 as a
single universal fuel?

Not that I've ever heard of.

--
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

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:46:47 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

KDR wrote:

Many thanks for all the replies. Compared with F-76, how expensive is
JP-5?

http://www.sd.fisc.navy.mil/FUEL/FUEL-INFOR-PAGE.HTML

JP-5 $1.03/gallon
DFM $0.98/gallon (DFM is Diesel fuel, Marine, another term for F-76)

That's roughly 5% difference. It may not seem like much, but considering
the Navy's overall fuels budget, it can really add up.


Is there any official move in the RN or USN to adopt JP-5 as a
single universal fuel?

Not that I've ever heard of.

As long ago as 1960, my Diesel-powered ship made a NATO exercise and
was refueled during the exercise with JP-5 (the oilers were carrying
no Diesel fuel). I believe the fuel comsumption was slightly worse.
I don't know the long-term effects on the Diesel engines, as JP-5 is
missing some lubricant as compared to JP-5, I understand. This was
just one two-month exercise, of course, but the matter was being
considered even then.

Do modern gas turbine powered ships use Diesel fuel, or is there yet
another formulation of fuel for them?

In article . net, "Thomas
Schoene" wrote:

KDR wrote:

Many thanks for all the replies. Compared with F-76, how expensive is
JP-5?

http://www.sd.fisc.navy.mil/FUEL/FUEL-INFOR-PAGE.HTML

JP-5 $1.03/gallon
DFM $0.98/gallon (DFM is Diesel fuel, Marine, another term for F-76)

In the tutorial URL I posted, they made a definite distinction between
F-76 and DFM.


That's roughly 5% difference. It may not seem like much, but considering
the Navy's overall fuels budget, it can really add up.

That's $500 for a 10K gallon fill up. Substantial enough savings.
Anyone know how much fuel a DDG takes on at a time?


Is there any official move in the RN or USN to adopt JP-5 as a
single universal fuel?

Not that I've ever heard of.

Just proposals.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur