PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2107 times:
I should mention that JP-8 isn't compatable with all jet engines. Jerry Mercer found that out the hard way, when he was flying the BD-5J for Budwiser Aerobatic Team, after a preformance at a military airfield they refueled his plane with JP-8. Well he made it upto alititude before his engine went out on him.
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5215 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2075 times:
Thanks, L-188 (L-188 used to be/maybe still is my favorite plane) I know the specs and what JP-8 is for.
We're trying to put together a fuel "menu" for a fixed base that will support occasional transiting military customers as well as everyday commercial business. We know there will be a rare call for JP-8 from the military people - I just wonder if we would EVER get a commercial request for it. And if so, what would be the circumstances?
Mikeclod From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2070 times:
When I worked at an FBO in BOI, we were constantly fueling military transient flights, Air Force training flights, and National Guard aircraft. We just put Jet-A w/prist(fsii) in most of them. And this wasn't just one or two types, but quite a few different ones. We would do F-18s, F-16, F-15, Av-8b, C-130, C-9, C-12, Ah-64, Uh-60, Ch-47, A-10, T-37/8, we even did a Kc-135 once. They didn't seem to worry about it. The only precaution to take when mixing two different types of fuel is to fuel the AC slower. This is supposed to lower the amount of static created from the fuel mixing in the tank. For quite awhile, we fueled all the airlines' ground equipment with Jet-A too. They all ran fine, just a little more exhaust than with diesel.
Avioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2078 times:
Another difference is that JP-4 is Naptha based while virtually all others (JP-7 a noteworthy exception) are kerosene based. JP-8 also has floability additives in addition to Fuel System Icing Inhibitors which will cause transfer pumps and anything else with a neoprene seal to leak like a seive.
When the Air Force bought the KC-10's they all flew on JP-4 originally and in the states. When USAFE changed over to JP-8. We'd go to Europe on deployments and within a week, any marginal seals were leaking like crazy. We'd bring the planes "home" to get them fixed and if we took fuel at any stateside location enroute (JP-4 or JP-5 didn't matter) the leaks would be all gone by the time troubleshooting could begin.
One more thing; The Navy used JP-5 which provided a measure of fire safety over JP-4 on the ships. When JP-4 mixes with 5 there's a chemical reaction which lowers the flash point to below that of either fuel. We used to get very angry communications from Carrier Air Bosses if they found JP-4 in any of their planes.
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29699 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2058 times:
Any time we got anything military, P-1 C-130, C-9, C-12, C-21's mostly that where tranfering through PACD, quite often on their way to Hickam, they always got Jet A. We didn't sell any JP fuels.
In the situation that you are discribing I would just stock Jet A. Every Aircraft including military aircraft has an approved fuels list in their ops or flight manuals. I want to say that there is nothing the flight crew has to do to go from Jet A to JP8 but don't hold me to that. It isn't like burning Avgas in a turbine engine where there are hour limits and additives to be added to allow it to be used in lue of jet fuel.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.