Aircraft fuel question

Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq
When they drain off fuel from the fuel tank, of an aircraft, obviously
that fuel is not put back in the tank - but what is the fuel removed,
then called please, in the world of aircraft?

Why would they drain the fuel?

--
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

—Soren Kierkegaard

Harry Bloomfield Esq

2024-10-17 10:37:32 UTC

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Why would they drain the fuel?

Maintenance perhaps, all I know is that they do, and cannot return the
fuel to the tanks - it has to come fresh, from the bowser..

SteveW

2024-10-17 12:24:17 UTC

Why would they drain the fuel?

They certainly drain a small quantity of fuel, to ensure that the tank
contains only fuel (and vapour) and condensation has not caused water to
pool at the bottom of the tank and be in danger of being pumped into the
engine(s) in flight.

The Natural Philosopher

2024-10-17 12:43:28 UTC

Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq
When they drain off fuel from the fuel tank, of an aircraft,
obviously that fuel is not put back in the tank - but what is the
fuel removed, then called please, in the world of aircraft?

Why would they drain the fuel?

Yes I suppose so. Get the water out.
I would expect it to e.g. get reprocessed and sold on as domestic
heating oil.

--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

Harry Bloomfield Esq

2024-10-17 13:12:03 UTC

Yes I suppose so. Get the water out.
I would expect it to e.g. get reprocessed and sold on as domestic
heating oil.

I only wanted to know, because I was going this morning to a local aero
club, to buy some Jet A1, at 94p per litre. Just a small amount, for my
workshop diesel fuelled heater. Red is unobtainium, despite the law
allowing it, kero 60p perlitre, but only if you buy 500L, otherwise they
want £1.90 or more per litre.

Last week, reading that Jet A1 works, and is near the same as kero, and
others use it successfully, I emailed my local aero club and asked if I
could buy 20L from their bowser. They agreed I could, no problem, just
fill a form in, at the flight desk, pay and collect it.

Then I read something about people getting hold of the waste Jet A1,
even cheaper, and wondered what they might call that waste fuel - hence
my question here.

Whilst at the club, I asked them, and they say what ever they drain,
goes back in the tanks, so 94p per litre it was.

Having now tested it on Jet A1, it was indistinguishable from running on
Tescos white diesel, from the pump, other than the 41.9p per litre saving.

David

2024-10-17 16:09:34 UTC

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Why would they drain the fuel?

I can speak from experience.

The plane I was due to fly on was delayed due to the late arrival of
another flight. The flight crew on the delayed flight were scheduled to
crew my flight.

However, by the time we were able to take off, if the crew had continued
to the ultimate destination, they would have exceeded their hours.

So the airline arranged for the aircraft to land at a intermediate point
where they would do a crew change.

But in order to land at the intermediate point, if they had had their
original load of fuel on board, they would have exceeded their landing
weight.

So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could
take-off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went for
recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

2024-10-17 16:41:07 UTC

So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could take-
off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went for
recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel? For
example, ground-based electricity generators.

Davey

2024-10-17 16:48:46 UTC

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 17:41:07 +0100

Post by David
So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could
take- off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went
for recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel?
For example, ground-based electricity generators.

Maybe that's what my boiler burns!

--
Davey.

Theo

2024-10-17 16:57:24 UTC

So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could take-
off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went for
recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel? For
example, ground-based electricity generators.

Can you use kerosene in diesel engines? There's various ground tugs,
service trucks, buses etc around the airfield. Although they might not like
fuel additives.

Aircraft have an APU for electricity generation so not sure how much ground
generators you'd need (yes if you're Concorde or a B-52 [*], but not so much
for a 737).

Theo

[*] B-52s can be started with explosives:
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

The Natural Philosopher

2024-10-17 17:28:37 UTC

So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could take-
off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went for
recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel? For
example, ground-based electricity generators.

Can you use kerosene in diesel engines?

It will knock like fuck in a commercial diesel engine.

No compression ignition so it doesn't need anti knock

So depends on what you mean by 'can be used'

There's various ground tugs,

Post by Theo
service trucks, buses etc around the airfield. Although they might not like
fuel additives.
Aircraft have an APU for electricity generation so not sure how much ground
generators you'd need (yes if you're Concorde or a B-52 [*], but not so much
for a 737).

Interesting chart of fuels here.

https://www.nato.int/docu/logi-en/1997/lo-15a.htmo

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

jon

2024-10-17 18:17:30 UTC

So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could take-
off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went for
recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel?
For example, ground-based electricity generators.

Can you use kerosene in diesel engines?

It will knock like fuck in a commercial diesel engine.
No compression ignition so it doesn't need anti knock
So depends on what you mean by 'can be used'
There's various ground tugs,

Post by Theo
service trucks, buses etc around the airfield. Although they might not
like fuel additives.
Aircraft have an APU for electricity generation so not sure how much
ground generators you'd need (yes if you're Concorde or a B-52 [*], but
not so much for a 737).

Interesting chart of fuels here.
https://www.nato.int/docu/logi-en/1997/lo-15a.htmo

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

My G-wagon had a 3 litre 5 cylinder Mercedes diesel engine with "Indirect
Injection" and it would run on all sorts of fuel, including frying fat.

Jethro_uk

2024-10-17 19:57:03 UTC

So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could take-
off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went for
recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel?
For example, ground-based electricity generators.

Can you use kerosene in diesel engines?

It will knock like fuck in a commercial diesel engine.
No compression ignition so it doesn't need anti knock
So depends on what you mean by 'can be used'
There's various ground tugs,

Post by Theo
service trucks, buses etc around the airfield. Although they might
not like fuel additives.
Aircraft have an APU for electricity generation so not sure how much
ground generators you'd need (yes if you're Concorde or a B-52 [*],
but not so much for a 737).

Interesting chart of fuels here.
https://www.nato.int/docu/logi-en/1997/lo-15a.htmo

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

My G-wagon had a 3 litre 5 cylinder Mercedes diesel engine with
"Indirect Injection" and it would run on all sorts of fuel, including
frying fat.

Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

SteveW

2024-10-17 21:53:26 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk

So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could take-
off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went for
recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel?
For example, ground-based electricity generators.

Can you use kerosene in diesel engines?

It will knock like fuck in a commercial diesel engine.
No compression ignition so it doesn't need anti knock
So depends on what you mean by 'can be used'
There's various ground tugs,

Post by Theo
service trucks, buses etc around the airfield. Although they might
not like fuel additives.
Aircraft have an APU for electricity generation so not sure how much
ground generators you'd need (yes if you're Concorde or a B-52 [*],
but not so much for a 737).

Interesting chart of fuels here.
https://www.nato.int/docu/logi-en/1997/lo-15a.htmo

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

My G-wagon had a 3 litre 5 cylinder Mercedes diesel engine with
"Indirect Injection" and it would run on all sorts of fuel, including
frying fat.

Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

mm0fmf

2024-10-18 12:48:06 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a big
blower. It was a 19L engine.

No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early engine
cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years lots of
improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.

Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

John R Walliker

2024-10-18 15:16:24 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a big
blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early engine
cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years lots of
improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I think the engine management system was made by Motorola at the
Stotfold factory.

John

jon

2024-10-18 16:04:01 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a big
blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early engine
cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years lots of
improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I remember the Commer

Graces Guide
https://www.gracesguide.co.uk › Commer
commer from www.gracesguide.co.uk
20 Jan 2024 — 1953 A two stroke diesel marketed with two horizontally
opposed piston in each of the three cylinders. 1961 Listed as a subsidiary
of Humber.

Chris Green

2024-10-18 16:51:33 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a big
blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early engine
cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years lots of
improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I remember the Commer
Graces Guide
https://www.gracesguide.co.uk › Commer
commer from www.gracesguide.co.uk
20 Jan 2024 — 1953 A two stroke diesel marketed with two horizontally
opposed piston in each of the three cylinders. 1961 Listed as a subsidiary
of Humber.

Yes, I remember they made a very characteristic (and loud) noise.

The other two stroke diesel lorries back then which made a much more
two-stroke type of noise were Fodens.

--
Chris Green
·

Tim+

2024-10-18 17:22:28 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a big
blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early engine
cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years lots of
improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I remember the Commer
Graces Guide
https://www.gracesguide.co.uk › Commer
commer from www.gracesguide.co.uk
20 Jan 2024 — 1953 A two stroke diesel marketed with two horizontally
opposed piston in each of the three cylinders. 1961 Listed as a subsidiary
of Humber.

Yes, I remember they made a very characteristic (and loud) noise.

A great sounding engine!

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

Tim Lamb

2024-10-19 08:48:20 UTC

In message

Post by Tim+

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a big
blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early engine
cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years lots of
improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I remember the Commer
Graces Guide
https://www.gracesguide.co.uk › Commer
commer from www.gracesguide.co.uk
20 Jan 2024 — 1953 A two stroke diesel marketed with two horizontally
opposed piston in each of the three cylinders. 1961 Listed as a subsidiary
of Humber.

Yes, I remember they made a very characteristic (and loud) noise.

A great sounding engine! http://youtu.be/JrAoj5Cuu68

Reading this made me remember the van owned by a friend's father in the
'50's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jowett_Bradford

Very strange noise:-)

--
Tim Lamb

Davey

2024-10-19 09:41:23 UTC

On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 09:48:20 +0100

Post by Tim Lamb
In message

Post by Tim+

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel
only engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was
a multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and
a big blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early
engine cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years
lots of improvements to the engines made them a lot more
reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I remember the Commer
Graces Guide
https://www.gracesguide.co.uk › Commer
commer from www.gracesguide.co.uk
20 Jan 2024 — 1953 A two stroke diesel marketed with two
horizontally opposed piston in each of the three cylinders. 1961
Listed as a subsidiary of Humber.

Yes, I remember they made a very characteristic (and loud) noise.

A great sounding engine!
http://youtu.be/JrAoj5Cuu68

Reading this made me remember the van owned by a friend's father in
the '50's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jowett_Bradford
Very strange noise:-)

I had one of those when I was an engineering student! Accelerate up into
top gear (3rd), then never change the cone leather clutch again until
you stopped. You could count the piston strokes by ear as it slowly
climbed steep hills.
Of course, there was the Rising Floor, as the body slowly sank when the
bottom of the sides rotted, and the steering, which made for an
oscillating path down the road.
Buying it from a scrapyard, fixing the worn kingpins for MOT, passing
the MOT (despite having to hit a rear lamp to get it to work, and the
battery falling out of its 'box' and dripping acid on the forecourt),
tax for a few months, and student union insurance, cost me a total of
£25 in 1969.

Them wuz the days...

--
Davey

Tim Lamb

2024-10-19 13:19:42 UTC

In message <vevus4$3qk4d$***@dont-email.me>, Davey <***@example.invalid>
writes

Post by Davey
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 09:48:20 +0100

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by Tim+
A great sounding engine!
http://youtu.be/JrAoj5Cuu68

Reading this made me remember the van owned by a friend's father in
the '50's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jowett_Bradford
Very strange noise:-)

Indeed. My first car was a pre-war Morris 8 tourer. King pins and
steering slack were the major 1961 issues:-)

--
Tim Lamb

jon

2024-10-18 17:31:51 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a big
blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early
engine cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years lots
of improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I remember the Commer
Graces Guide https://www.gracesguide.co.uk › Commer commer from
www.gracesguide.co.uk 20 Jan 2024 — 1953 A two stroke diesel marketed
with two horizontally opposed piston in each of the three cylinders.
1961 Listed as a subsidiary of Humber.

Yes, I remember they made a very characteristic (and loud) noise.
The other two stroke diesel lorries back then which made a much more
two-stroke type of noise were Fodens.

Don't forget the Napier Deltic locos.

Chris Green

2024-10-18 17:35:48 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a big
blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early
engine cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years lots
of improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I remember the Commer
Graces Guide https://www.gracesguide.co.uk › Commer commer from
www.gracesguide.co.uk 20 Jan 2024 — 1953 A two stroke diesel marketed
with two horizontally opposed piston in each of the three cylinders.
1961 Listed as a subsidiary of Humber.

Yes, I remember they made a very characteristic (and loud) noise.
The other two stroke diesel lorries back then which made a much more
two-stroke type of noise were Fodens.

Don't forget the Napier Deltic locos.

Not lorries really though! :-)

--
Chris Green
·

jon

2024-10-18 19:11:38 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a
big blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early
engine cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years
lots of improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I remember the Commer
Graces Guide https://www.gracesguide.co.uk › Commer commer from
www.gracesguide.co.uk 20 Jan 2024 — 1953 A two stroke diesel
marketed with two horizontally opposed piston in each of the three
cylinders. 1961 Listed as a subsidiary of Humber.

Yes, I remember they made a very characteristic (and loud) noise.
The other two stroke diesel lorries back then which made a much more
two-stroke type of noise were Fodens.

Don't forget the Napier Deltic locos.

Not lorries really though! :-)

But, two stroke engines never the less.

Andrew

2024-11-05 17:59:56 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a
big blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early
engine cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years
lots of improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I remember the Commer
Graces Guide https://www.gracesguide.co.uk › Commer commer from
www.gracesguide.co.uk 20 Jan 2024 — 1953 A two stroke diesel
marketed with two horizontally opposed piston in each of the three
cylinders. 1961 Listed as a subsidiary of Humber.

Yes, I remember they made a very characteristic (and loud) noise.
The other two stroke diesel lorries back then which made a much more
two-stroke type of noise were Fodens.

Don't forget the Napier Deltic locos.

Not lorries really though! :-)

But, two stroke engines never the less.

Don't forget the Detroit Diesel.

The Bus Grease Monkeys youtube channel is devoted to old US
buses powered by these engines.

Marland

2024-11-05 21:46:28 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a big
blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early
engine cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years lots
of improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I remember the Commer
Graces Guide https://www.gracesguide.co.uk › Commer commer from
www.gracesguide.co.uk 20 Jan 2024 — 1953 A two stroke diesel marketed
with two horizontally opposed piston in each of the three cylinders.
1961 Listed as a subsidiary of Humber.

Yes, I remember they made a very characteristic (and loud) noise.
The other two stroke diesel lorries back then which made a much more
two-stroke type of noise were Fodens.

Don't forget the Napier Deltic locos.

Not lorries really though! :-)

How about a Fire Pump.

<https://www.emergencyvehicleresponse.com/the-fdny-super-pumper/>

GH

Andrew

2024-11-05 17:41:50 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk
Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Pretty well, but IIRC they use lower compression than diesel only
engines and are less efficient.

They used a specially designed engine, the Leyland L60 which was a
multi-fuel 2-stoke with opposed pistons (no cylinder head) and a big
blower. It was a 19L engine.
No cylinder head meant no gasket which could fail. So the early
engine cylinder liners failed instead ! Towards the later years lots
of improvements to the engines made them a lot more reliable.
Being a two-stroke diesel, yhey wouldn't meet today's emissions
requirements ;-)

I remember the Commer
Graces Guide https://www.gracesguide.co.uk › Commer commer from
www.gracesguide.co.uk 20 Jan 2024 — 1953 A two stroke diesel marketed
with two horizontally opposed piston in each of the three cylinders.
1961 Listed as a subsidiary of Humber.

Yes, I remember they made a very characteristic (and loud) noise.
The other two stroke diesel lorries back then which made a much more
two-stroke type of noise were Fodens.

Don't forget the Napier Deltic locos.

Invented by the Germans !

https://simanaitissays.com/2015/03/26/junkers-jumo-and-its-napier-deltic-offspring/

Brian

2024-10-21 21:36:46 UTC

Post by Jethro_uk

So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could take-
off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went for
recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel?
For example, ground-based electricity generators.

Can you use kerosene in diesel engines?

It will knock like fuck in a commercial diesel engine.
No compression ignition so it doesn't need anti knock
So depends on what you mean by 'can be used'
There's various ground tugs,

Post by Theo
service trucks, buses etc around the airfield. Although they might
not like fuel additives.
Aircraft have an APU for electricity generation so not sure how much
ground generators you'd need (yes if you're Concorde or a B-52 [*],
but not so much for a 737).

Interesting chart of fuels here.
https://www.nato.int/docu/logi-en/1997/lo-15a.htmo

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

My G-wagon had a 3 litre 5 cylinder Mercedes diesel engine with
"Indirect Injection" and it would run on all sorts of fuel, including
frying fat.

Couldn't a Chieftain Tank run on anything ?

Not sure about the Chieftain but the M1 is claimed to run on anything that
will burn.

David

2024-10-18 06:54:55 UTC

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

And not only B52s.

Google "tractor 12 bore cartridge start"

Andy Burns

2024-10-18 07:52:46 UTC

Post by Theo
B-52s can be started with explosives

And not only B52s.

Fairchild C-82As, see 'The Flight of the Phoenix'

Bob Eager

2024-10-18 13:24:31 UTC

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Theo
B-52s can be started with explosives

And not only B52s.

Fairchild C-82As, see 'The Flight of the Phoenix'

The 1965 version. Not sure about the remake.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

The Natural Philosopher

2024-10-18 10:02:48 UTC

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

And not only B52s.
Google "tractor 12 bore cartridge start"

Dozens of WWII era and later engines used cartridge starts.

It's lighter than carrying a starter motor...

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

SteveW

2024-10-19 18:37:48 UTC

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

And not only B52s.
Google "tractor 12 bore cartridge start"

Dozens of WWII era and later engines used cartridge starts.
http://youtu.be/CJ7hniPWPAY
It's lighter than carrying a starter motor...

And some had flywheels, cranked up to high speed by small motors or hand
cranking and then used to start the engine(s).

No mail

2024-10-20 15:45:51 UTC

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

And not only B52s.
Google "tractor 12 bore cartridge start"

Dozens of WWII era and later engines used cartridge starts.
http://youtu.be/CJ7hniPWPAY
It's lighter than carrying a starter motor...

And some had flywheels, cranked up to high speed by small motors or hand
cranking and then used to start the engine(s).

I used to instruct in a Stearman. The start procedure was to operate a
toggle switch for some number of seconds (now forgotten) to spin the
flywheel up to speed and then move the switch in the other direction to
engage the flywheel with the engine. Judicious operation of throttle and
fuel pump were then needed to get all the cylinders to wake up.

... but WTF has this thread to do with DIY?

Tim+

2024-10-20 16:02:15 UTC

Post by No mail
... but WTF has this thread to do with DIY?

uk.d-i-y staying on-topic? You must have noticed that that shipped sailed
long ago….

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

Andrew

2024-11-05 18:08:37 UTC

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

And not only B52s.
Google "tractor 12 bore cartridge start"

Dozens of WWII era and later engines used cartridge starts.
http://youtu.be/CJ7hniPWPAY
It's lighter than carrying a starter motor...

And some had flywheels, cranked up to high speed by small motors or hand
cranking and then used to start the engine(s).

Pony motors.

All John Deere tractors and Cat bulldozers were started with
a petrol pony motor that engaged the flywheel of the main
engine, where the compression was released with a lever
until it had been spun up to speed.

Also the exhaust from the pony motor ran through the
inlet manifold of the main engine to preheat the air.

Bob Eager

2024-10-18 13:23:16 UTC

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

And not only B52s.
Google "tractor 12 bore cartridge start"

Anyone seen the film 'The Flight of the Phoenix'? The 1965 version...

The Natural Philosopher

2024-10-18 13:39:30 UTC

Post by Bob Eager

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

And not only B52s.
Google "tractor 12 bore cartridge start"

Anyone seen the film 'The Flight of the Phoenix'? The 1965 version...

in 1965 yes. The stunt pilot was killed flying that thing. Rather took
the enjoyment out of it

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

Harry Bloomfield Esq

2024-10-18 19:19:38 UTC

Post by Bob Eager
Anyone seen the film 'The Flight of the Phoenix'? The 1965 version...

Me! The later film was a pale imitation.

SteveW

2024-10-19 18:36:04 UTC

Post by Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

And not only B52s.
Google "tractor 12 bore cartridge start"

And the Coffman starter for piston engined aircraft, armoured vehicles, etc.

Tim+

2024-10-17 19:39:53 UTC

So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could take-
off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went for
recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel? For
example, ground-based electricity generators.

Can you use kerosene in diesel engines? There's various ground tugs,
service trucks, buses etc around the airfield. Although they might not like
fuel additives.
Aircraft have an APU for electricity generation so not sure how much ground
generators you'd need (yes if you're Concorde or a B-52 [*], but not so much
for a 737).
Theo
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/air-force-b-52-cart-start/

As could Field Marshall tractors.

FF to 3:30 if you’re impatient.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

SteveW

2024-10-17 21:51:48 UTC

So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could take-
off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went for
recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel? For
example, ground-based electricity generators.

I was involved in testing two gas truebine, 24MW generator sets (for
Shell Gannet in the North Sea). They could run on natural gas from the
well, but for startup (and for our testing) they ran on diesel ... we
burned 1/4 million litres of red diesel during testing - peak rate was
120 litres per minute.

nib

2024-10-18 08:45:23 UTC

So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could take-
off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went for
recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel?
For example, ground-based electricity generators.

Figures like that tempt me into a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Say
diesel is approx 10 kWh/L then 120 L/min is

(120 * 10 * 3.6e6) / 60 = 72 MW. So if that's one turbine generator
about 33% conversion (or 67% if it's both of them)?

nib

The Natural Philosopher

2024-10-18 10:07:10 UTC

Post by nib

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel?
For example, ground-based electricity generators.

Figures like that tempt me into a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Say
diesel is approx 10 kWh/L then 120 L/min is
(120 * 10 * 3.6e6) / 60 = 72 MW. So if that's one turbine generator
about 33% conversion (or 67% if it's both of them)?
nib

33%. Only CCGT get to 66%.

In general an OCGT should max out at 37% or so. But during warm up they
use more fuel

And this fact is why when gas is used as renewable backup, you ned up
using just as much fuel as if they had run as baseload and no renewable
energy had been deployed.
1. You don't build efficient CCGT for backup. Its a waste of money.
2. constant stop start operation burns more fuel than steady state.

--
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

—Soren Kierkegaard

SteveW

2024-10-19 16:20:18 UTC

Post by nib

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel?
For example, ground-based electricity generators.

I was involved in testing two gas truebine, 24MW generator sets (for
Shell Gannet in the North Sea). They could run on natural gas from
the well, but for startup (and for our testing) they ran on
diesel ... we burned 1/4 million litres of red diesel during testing
- peak rate was 120 litres per minute.

Figures like that tempt me into a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Say
diesel is approx 10 kWh/L then 120 L/min is
(120 * 10 * 3.6e6) / 60 = 72 MW. So if that's one turbine generator
about 33% conversion (or 67% if it's both of them)?
nib

33%. Only CCGT get to 66%.
In general an OCGT should max out at 37% or so. But during warm up they
use more fuel
And this fact is why when gas is used as renewable backup, you ned up
using just as much fuel as if they had run as baseload and no renewable
energy had been deployed.
1. You don't build efficient CCGT for backup. Its a waste of money.
2. constant stop start operation burns more fuel than steady state.

Yes 33% is about right. This was during testing. Once installed on the
rig, a waste-heat recovery plant was installed on top - so efficiency
would have been higher.

SteveW

2024-10-19 16:18:29 UTC

Post by nib

Are there less mission-critical uses for slightly contaminated fuel?
For example, ground-based electricity generators.

Figures like that tempt me into a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Say
diesel is approx 10 kWh/L then 120 L/min is
(120 * 10 * 3.6e6) / 60 = 72 MW. So if that's one turbine generator
about 33% conversion (or 67% if it's both of them)?

Just one at a time during testing - although they ran in parallel once
installed.

They may not have been as efficient as they might on diesel, as they
were designed to run on natural gas. Diesel was only used for testing
and then for "Black Start" situations once in use.

In use, one would normally be running and the rig would be producing
gas, so the other could start on gas. If both were down, a 1.2MW diesel
generator/hydraulic pump would be started, to provide power for starting
the main generators on diesel, once the main generators were running,
the rig could go back into production and the generators could switch
over to gas.

Davey

2024-10-17 16:47:47 UTC

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 17:09:34 +0100

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Why would they drain the fuel?

I can speak from experience.
The plane I was due to fly on was delayed due to the late arrival of
another flight. The flight crew on the delayed flight were scheduled
to crew my flight.
However, by the time we were able to take off, if the crew had
continued to the ultimate destination, they would have exceeded their
hours.
So the airline arranged for the aircraft to land at a intermediate
point where they would do a crew change.
But in order to land at the intermediate point, if they had had their
original load of fuel on board, they would have exceeded their
landing weight.
So they had to offload a certain amount of fuel before we could
take-off. The offloaded fuel was then waste (or more probably went
for recycling)- it could not be used on another flight.

Jeez! When I returned from Cape Town, while Apartheid was still in
force, meaning South African Airways flights had to avoid most of
mainland Africa when flying to Europe, we landed at Windhoek to let all
the soldiers off for the Angolan War. Then we refuelled for the long
flight to London, but after waiting for ages at the start of the
runway, we returned to the terminal, as "the wind had changed in our
favour and we were able to offload unnecessary fuel". That must have
gone to waste, then. To top it off (!), after again sitting at the start
of the runway, we returned again to the terminal to load up with fuel,
"as the winds had again shifted". Somebody must have had a busy credit
card that evening.
After all that, we couldn't get to London, we had to stop at Munich in
order to have enough fuel to get to Heathrow.
The whole flight, from Cape Town to London, took 23 hours, and we
never left the aircraft.

--
Davey.

Andy Burns

2024-10-17 10:48:43 UTC

spent?

<https://benzoil.com.au/services/aviation-fuel-removal/#:~:text=spent>

Tricky Dicky

2024-10-17 12:56:59 UTC

I do not know what aircraft fuel is made of but I always feel it smells
like Keroscene

Theo

2024-10-17 13:17:29 UTC

Post by Tricky Dicky

I do not know what aircraft fuel is made of but I always feel it smells
like Keroscene

Jet-A1 is kerosene, used by jets and turboprops. Avgas is used by piston
engines and is roughly leaded 4* petrol.

Theo

The Natural Philosopher

2024-10-17 13:52:03 UTC

Post by Tricky Dicky

I do not know what aircraft fuel is made of but I always feel it smells
like Keroscene

it is kerosene (sp) + special additives.

NATO specifies that jets and diesels must be able to use it

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

No mail

2024-10-17 19:47:50 UTC

Fuel is sometimes off-loaded to ensure adequate take-off performance if
conditions have changed and performance is limiting, or to ensure
take-off mass is below maximum if the anticipated payload has changed.
AFAIK the fuel is returned to storage in those cases, but it can also be
mixed with diesel for use in airfield service vehicles. Separately,
small samples are drained before flight to check for contamination by
water, or an incorrect fuel upload (i.e. AVGAS uploaded when it should
be AVTUR, or vice versa) ... these samples are either discarded or
(rarely IME) kept for analysis.
AVTUR is close to paraffin. AVGAS has a few grades but the most common
is "100 octane low lead" (100LL) - but "low" relates to what went before
and the lead content is much higher than 4* MOGAS. I would not use 100LL
in a modern car.

Mark

2024-11-04 21:15:10 UTC

Waste fuel.

brian

2024-11-05 12:53:04 UTC