| NZtyphoon |
03-29-2012 03:40 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
(Post 400540)
Next point is "consumed" does not mean it was put in an airplane and used up. Aircraft fuel has a specific shelf life to it. Once mixed it is distributed and considered consumed. For example, 100LL stock is refined only ONCE per year in the United States. The stock is then distributed to the holding yards. When it is dispensed to the airports, the final mix of that stock occurs and it becomes 100LL fuel. Just because the airport buys 15,000 gallons does not mean it will be sold and go into airplanes by the time the shelf life is over. That is why airport managers keep data on fuel sales!
That does not mean they mixed up a huge batches of 100 grade to be "disposed of" either. In many cases fuel can be converted back to stock and then again to a lower grade. It is still 100 grade that is consumed whether it comes back to the holding yard or not!
This is why the same reasoning that was used to "prove" the 100/150 grade extent of use was so flawed. First the strategic stocks must be maintained and once the fuel is mixed, it is "consumed". Nothing to do with it being blown out the exhaust pipe of an airplane.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
(Post 403807)
Airplane fuel does not work that way. My old Socata used to have vapor lock issues because I did not fly for months when I was away on business. The plane would sit with full tanks in the hanger. By the time I got to fly it, the conditions had changed from when it blended to maintain Reid VP and I would end up hitting the auxiliary fuel pump all the time to keep my fuel pressure up so the engine would not quit. Once that gas was out of my tanks, I did not have to use the aux pump except for start, takeoff, and landing.
|
And what exactly do intensive wartime operations of military aircraft have to do with what US civil aviation does with fuel blended and used for peacetime civilian operations? Socata's sitting in hangers for months? So What? For instance, the standard practice of the RAF was to fill the tanks of their fighters asap after landing to avoid vapour locks, condensation etc - there was no time for fuel to deteriorate through sitting around in a hanger for months waiting for something to happen. By Crumpp's reasoning the RAF mixed up small batches of 100 octane fuel then let it sit around, or tested it to see if it would work, instead of using as much as possible at a time when the country was facing full scale air assault!
Confusing peacetime civilian practice with military practice during wartime, and saying that the same constraints apply to the use of aviation fuel is just nonsense. It is just another red herring by someone who doesn't want to admit that he has no arguments left against FC using 100 octane fuel for all of its front line operations by Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants throughout the Battle of Britain. |
