Commatoze

Here's an interesting tidbit from today's edition of Autotech Daily:

U.S. MILITARY FILLS UP ON KEROSENE-BASED JP-8 FUEL BLEND
In the past, about half the U.S. military’s combat vehicles ran on gasoline, and the other half used a variety of diesel blends. In some cases, different branches of the service
specified separate fuels for the same vehicle. But thanks to an initiative launched about 10 years ago, virtually all the tanks, trucks, planes and helicopters deployed by the U.S. military in Iraq run on a single fuel: JP-8. This greatly simplifies the refueling process and reduces the chance of the wrong fuel being used, reports Automotive News online. It says only the U-2 spy plane uses another type of fuel—it runs on JP-7, a premium blend designed for high-altitude flight. Similar to lamp fuel, JP-8 is about 98% kerosene. Additives are used to discharge static electricity, limit corrosion and ice buildup and lubricate the moving parts of the fuel system. The fuel is less expensive than gasoline or diesel and is less volatile. Most Army trucks also are capable of running on other fuels. But AN notes that switching from a heavy fuel like JP-8 to gasoline or diesel may cause leaks. The newspaper says the military fuel is unlikely to be used in civilian vehicles due to its high sulfur content and because it takes longer to dissipate if spilled.

NWDave

And perhaps violates every wish and law from the EPA. High sulfer content? That ought to drive the tree huggers crazy. I know when I was with a mobile radar, it drove us nuts having to carry mogas for the commanders jeep, commo trucks and immersion heaters, diesel for our deuces and JP-4 for our generators. But, we were one of the few sites where the USAF helicopters could get a drink.<br><br>~Dave

Redleg

They started that program a long time ago. In the gulf, we had a hard time lighting abandoned BMP's on fire with the diesel. Of course the BMP's run on mogas and the back doors are the fuel tanks. We just unfastened the fuel line at the door (after filling the vehicle with all the unused weapons), lit a fire and ran for the hills.

shortround

While JP-8 works great for gas turbines, we are seeing problems with using it in diesels. Engines with &quot;inline&quot; type pumps do ok, but those with &quot;rotary&quot; pumps seem to be nuking a bunch of injector pumps. There is also a fair amount of power loss.<br>Right after we switched over, we filled up one of our M88's with JP-8. Got the big old Continental V-12 twin turbo fired up and proceeded to give it a run. Hit the smoke generator switch and got nothing but more heat out the back. It is causing nightmares with fuel filters. It cleans like you wouldn't believe. One of our maintenance units that mobilized carried a pickup truck with the bed full of fuel filters. That was for a 400 mile trip. Most of the vehicles used at least two filters along the way. Cummins and Cat will not warranty any of our engines/injector pumps that have been burning JP-8.<br>However, the idea of a single fuel for all equipment is a good idea. It does make the logistics much easier.

shortfieldbreak

I can't speak for what the air farce is doing, but as for Navy, we use JP-5 in the P-3 and all other aircraft as far as I know. JP-8 is considered an alternate fuel. The line vehicles also run on JP-5. The air force likes JP-8 because it's expensive . JP-8 is also a lighter fuel than JP-5, less BTUs per pound, lower lubricity, and much more expensive. One thing we consider when using JP-8 is increased wear on components like fuel pumps because it doesn't lubricate as well. I think JP-5 is much closer to our diesel than JP-8. Just my .02.<br><br>-SFB

bulabula

The Navy still uses DFM (Diesel Fuel Marine) for both gas turbine propulsion plants, gas turbine generators, and conventional steam plants; and JP-5 for Helo's on air-capable ships. I think that also holds for fixed wing on bird farms. I recall that JP-5 is less volatile than the other jet fuel which makes it inherently safer for shipboard use.

We always used to fill the boats up with JP-5 if possible because they ran cleaner than when we used DFM. DFM was also considerably less expensive than JP-5.

MOGAS on a ship is a nightmare to maintain. Makes the paint locker and flamm stowage kids stuff.

goldenears

I was a little mystified when i saw on CNN about the reports of the military diesel tanker trucks and the ambushes/small arms fire threat that they were having. I know that if they were gasoline tankers they would explode in a second if they were hit..... but i was always under the impression that diesel is quite hard to ignite, and it would be a slow burn??<br>Would a diesel tanker blow up if it took a bullet?

bulabula

A buddy of mine who flew back seat in Air Force F4's during Vietnam, told me one time during a low level run after tanking up, they took small arms fire and the cockpit flooded with fuel up to chest level. I don't know what type of fuel they used.<br><br>He said they were concerned whether or not the ejection seat charges would ignite the fuel while they were on the way out. They didn't. Then again, neither did the small arms fire.<br><br>BTW, Mo passed away last week.

calvic

[The air force likes JP-8 because it's expensive . <br><br>Navy carrier pilot to Air Farce pilots. <br>&quot;flairing on landing is like squatting to pee