::Probably is wrong term there. This temperature seems as value of [[Fire point]]. --[[User:Postrach|Postrach]] ([[User talk:Postrach|talk]]) 12:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
::Probably is wrong term there. This temperature seems as value of [[Fire point]]. --[[User:Postrach|Postrach]] ([[User talk:Postrach|talk]]) 12:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
::: The entire article is dodgy. The free-air burn temperature is pulled out of somebody's rear end. Jet-A1 can (and does) burn in free-air at an average of about 2000 C. This is why airports and military air installations have such strict handling protocols (and its also corrosive). I've given up on Wikipedia as a source of anything accurate, I just use it as a jumping-off point these days to try and find the actual facts.
Some urls, if anyone can be bothered then by all means add them to the external references:
Firefighting, quotes "3,000 - 4,000 F" (search on '3,000'):
Chart of various physicalities including adiabatic (approximation to 'free-air') burn temperature (search on 'Kerosene Jet A-1'), source - Isidoro Martínez, Prof. of Thermodynamics, ETSIA-UPM, Ciudad Universitaria, E-28040-Madrid:
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
Did you read the article? It's called Jet B and is discussed at some length. Or is there something specific ygfhdgfdhfhfhfghdfghgfhfghfdhou'd like to know that isn't covered there? -User:Lommer | talk23:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. Kerosene and naphtha type fuels appear to refer to two different types of fuels, so if that is the case, it wouldn't be just Jet B. I've found various definitions for each type. -- Kjkolb01:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I'm not sure. Jet A is basically pure kerosene, Jet B is a naptha-kerosene blend, so I guess it's entirely possible that there are even lighter pure-naptha jet fuels out there. After all, it's possible to burn almost anything in a jet engine, even avgas works just fine (I've seen it done). In fact there was one company I know of that put a tank of avgas through its garrett-powered king air once every year for "cleaning purposes". When I asked other AMEs about this they said they didn't see the need but that it wouldn't hurt the engine... -User:Lommer | talk05:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the terms aren't used in the aviation industry, just in refining or energy statistics. These are the definitions from the Department of Energy.
This entry should be completely rewritten. As said above, a jet engine can take most, the composition of the fuel is trivial, the main blend, "Jet Fuel 1A, Colonial Blend 54" is not even mentioned, while 9/11 and melting point of stell, the collapse of the Twin Tower is shed light on by even more hearsay. The section should be linked to jet engines and turbo-props / helicopter engines. Please ask me if you are ready for a complete revision of the entry. --KH Flottorp22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kerosene-type - A kerosene-based product having a maximum distillation temperature of 205 degrees Celsius at the 10-percent recovery point and a final maximum boiling point of 300 degrees Celsius and meeting ASTM Specification D 1655 and Military Specifications MIL-T-5624P and MIL-T-8133D (Grades JP-5 and JP-8). It is used for commercial and military turbojet and turboprop aircraft engines.
Naphtha-type - A fuel in the heavy naphtha boiling range having an average gravity of 52.8 degrees API, 20 to 90 percent distillation temperatures of 145 degrees to 245 degrees Celsius, and meeting Military Specification MIL-T-5624L (Grade JP-4). It is used primarily for military turbojet and turboprop aircraft engines because it has a lower freeze point than other aviation fuels and meets engine requirements at high altitudes and speeds.
Oh that makes sense; JP-4 is Jet B, and JP-8 is Jet A, (JP-5 is between the two IIRC). So yeah, Kerosene-type is Jet A and similar fuels while Naptha-type refers to Jet B. -User:Lommer | talk02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sort of off-topic for Wikipedia in a sense. But this could help another article on wikipedia. A series of US "Experts" claim that 9/11 could be a hoax based on a set of reasons they've outline. One of them is that:
"Since the melting point of iron is 1537*C or 2,798.6*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
Does anyone happen to know if these temperatures quoted could be correct?
I contend anyone can throw a bunch of facts and figures against a chalk board and contend it is so. And a majority of the people who have *no idea* of what is true or not, might 'buy it' and accept it as fact. So my question is do these temperatures in fact hold true based on the knowledge of others here?
I took a look at the article. There are solid answers to all of the questions. It says that experts came up with these questions, but most show scientific ignorance and/or illogic. Besides the steel being weakened by heat, another example is, "the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?" If the planes had simply crashed into the buildings, they would have stayed up. However, fires burned for hours inside them, which weakened the steel and caused them to collapse. -- Kjkolb21:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack." The building was allowed to burn because it was empty. It collapse because it was weakened, just like the others.
"A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles." I cannot think of a reason for the debris to be limited to a city block. I have searched for other crashes and eight square miles is a reasonable figure. Also, accident investigation does not appear to be a part of the Inspector General's job, "The primary charge of the IG is to sustain a credible Air Force IG system by ensuring the existence of responsive complaint investigations, and FWA programs characterized by objectivity, integrity, and impartiality. Only the IG may investigate allegations of reprisal under the Military Whistleblower’s Protection Act."
"The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?" There are several answers to this. The first is that she was lying because she did not want to look bad because if she knew, she, or the administration, should have done something to prevent it. Another is that she was not aware of such a simulation. She was a military advisor, but that does not mean she knows about all of the training exercises that they do. The last reason I can think of right now is that she may have known about the simulation, but considered it so unlikely that she did not consider it a threat.
"Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?" They had some intelligence, but they were far from brilliant. Also, smart people can make mistakes. Also, they may not have had very good control over the descent. Finally, there is a good chance that they did not know the wing was being renovated.
"The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?" The most likely reasons are that they were wrong about who some of the hijackers were or the people found in Saudi Arabia were misidentified.
"Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints." There is no reason given why the collapse should not have been similar to a demolition. It was somewhat similar. Implosions usually take out the first floor or two, but with so many floors above the crash sites, it did not matter. -- Kjkolb21:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand where you are coming from here with regard to the official story of 9-11 and the science of jet fuel. However, I feel it my need to correct you on the fact that although jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees under optimal conditions, the state of optimal conditions for the burning of jet fuel is within a jet engine under 10-20 atmospheres of pressue. When the fuel leaves the engine, it cools down to within 450-500 degrees in seconds, jet fuel just can't hold all that heat in thin air! Steel reaches red heat(the tempurature at which its structure is compromised) at 600 degrees, this means that the steel in those buildings was not even weakened by the fuel as you contend. With regard to the Saudis who are still alive, you are probably familiar with the amount of personal information one has to hand over to get a plane ticket; therefore it is highly unprobable that in their investigation the FBI simply "got things wrong" they most likely lied instead.I'm not telling you what happened because I honestly don't know, I'm just telling you what didn't happen. For any further questions, feel free to email.
It's best not to post your email address here, so I removed it. If anyone wants to reply, they can do so here. Although this is off topic, I don't think it is a big deal in this situation and it can be deleted later. Anyway, the jet fuel was not burning in a jet engine or at high altitude, so the temperature would be higher.
As for the passengers, they may have been using fake information, as you suggested. I would not be surprised if they did. However, the BBC seems to be using only names for identifying the passengers (at least some of them), which is very inaccurate when you're dealing with such a large population. In fact, they have found more than one person with the name Abdulaziz Al Omari. The BBC saying that they have definitely found the suspects alive based upon such information is unethical. -- Kjkolb02:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maximum adiabatic combustion temperatures of kerosene/jet-A1 fuel is 2300° Kelvin or 2027° Celsius (3680° Fahrenheit), which is hot enough to melt steel. 24.200.17.245 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Turbine fuels are high-quality fuels covering the general heavy gasoline and kerosene boding range. They do not contain dyes or tetraethyl lead."
http://www.cavalrypilot.com/fm1-506/ch1.htm
I would recommend that this article be re-written. The first sentence, stating that jet fuel is gray, is completely inaccurate. Jet fuel is clear to straw colored, as it states later in the article, and any jet fuel that was gray would be severely contaminated. In addition, most of the article is uncited, and the only source cited doesn't contain most of the information that is portrayed in the article. The history of jet fuel section doesn't actually talk about the history at all, but rather discusses the composition of jet fuel. It's a good start for the article, it just needs some revision.
Also it states "Jet A is the standard jet fuel type in the U.S. since the 1950s and is only available there". So what do the rest of the world use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.80.249 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually most jet fuel exported from Russia etc. is "JP54" or "Colonial JP54". It is similar to "Jet A" except the the Specific Energy is 18.4 mj/kg compared to that of 42.8 mj/kg of "Jet A". Also there is a slight difference in additives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.220.38 (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I have read the article correctly, Jet A is used in the USA and Jet A-1 is used everywhere else, except in cold countries where Jet B is used. Is this right? The article is not at all clear. Biscuittin (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial aircraft around most of the world use Jet A-1, usually requiring the fuel to meet the specifications of the Joint Fuelling System Checklift for Jet A-1. Jet B is a wide cut kerosene, meaning that it has a higher proportion of lighter hydrocarbons (shorter carbon chains). This lowers the freezing point of the fuel (Jet A-1 freezes at -47degC) allowing the aircraft the fly to much colder environments (think antarctica). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.206.175 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chemical composition of jet fuel
On 10 October, Cypoet added a "Chemical compound" attribute to the list of properties of Jet A-1 at the top of the article. Unfortunately, this addition incorrectly suggests that jet fuel is a single chemical compound, dodecane. Jet fuel is actually a complex blend of hundreds of hydrocarbons. I've taken the "Chemical compound" attribute out of the table and added a paragraph to the "Description" section of the article with a more detailed and accurate description of the actual composition, including a citation. Piperh10:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does "Aeroplane" mean "Jet"?
The lead paragraph speaks repeatedly of "Aeroplane fuel" while talking about jet fuel. Is "Aeroplane" a British synonym for "Jet"? Or should the relevent sections be changed to the more explicit "Jet aeroplane"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren.wilton (talk • contribs) 09:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, keep in mind that jet fuel is also burned by turboprop and turboshaft engines. Neither are "jets", and turboshaft engines are used in helicopters, not airplanes. This is why in technical discussion we use the more accurate term "gas turbine fuel" to describe jet fuel, even though this is not the common term. Shreditor (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This link is still pointing to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-10 which is about Gunma Prefecture in Japan. Can't find an article about JP-10 at all. NutterguyIrl 18:13, 02 Febuary 2014 (UTC)
...the technology is still in it's infancy...?
I was surprised to find this claim, as diesel engines have been around for more than 100 years, and turbocharged diesel engines have been around for as long as turbocharged gasoline engines. Furthermore, a diesel engine is less complex than a gasoline engine. One does not have to worry about having a dual ignition system, as diesels don't use spark plugs. The glow plugs (igniters) used are simple resistive elements which don't require RF shielding as do the gasoline engines' twin magneto system.
I wrote that statement, so I'll take a stab at explaining it... Yes, diesel engines have been around for a long time, but very very few have found use in aircraft. As of 2008 Thielert is the only company I know of building certified aircraft diesel engines, and they're currently insolvent because of numerous customer support problems. So yes, I would call that a technology in its infancy, since it hasn't been developed to the point of becoming a significant part of the aerospace economy. I don't mean to be overly negative, here. I personally think aircraft diesel engines have great potential. They just haven't reached it... yet. Shreditor (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The German Junkers company produced a number of inline diesels for aircraft use in the 1930s, although they were heavier than the equivalent petrol engine and therefore had much poorer power-to-weight ratio, which is an important disadvantage in an aero engine. They were used mainly on flying boats such as the Bv 138 that needed the longer range possible with a diesel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maximum Burning Temperature
There is no such thing as a maximum burning temperature. The phrase only exists on 9/11 conspiracy pages, this wikipedia page, and some Yahoo Answers pages which source from these two things. The concept of a "maximum burning temperature" does not exist within chemistry or thermodynamics, and does not have a scientific origin. In reality, combustion is a chemical process which generates energy. Generating energy raises the temperature. This process does not have a "maximum" like stated here. Please do not add the phrase back to this article. Jojobe (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In reality, combustion is a chemical process which generates energy." Oh, great that you finally made us aware of this important fact! Yes, of course adding heat in a closed space would cause its temperature to rise and rise, but in real life, including inside jet engines, these kind of fuels have a limit before pressure and other processes forces the temperature down. And as stated here, burning jet fuel in open air does not have a tremendously high temperature, far away from even weakening construction steel enough to bend it.
Also even if you may claim that the initial heat of the jet flame was higher than in free air, it would certainly not be higher once burning inside the 9/11 complex. Sometimes politics and patriotic "responsibility" can seem go far past what we would normally call 'scientific reason'. I know I'm not the only one thinking that.... --Nabo0o (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is dodgy. The free-air burn temperature is pulled out of somebody's rear end. Jet-A1 can (and does) burn in free-air at an average of about 2000 C. This is why airports and military air installations have such strict handling protocols (and its also corrosive). I've given up on Wikipedia as a source of anything accurate, I just use it as a jumping-off point these days to try and find the actual facts.
Some urls, if anyone can be bothered then by all means add them to the external references:
Firefighting, quotes "3,000 - 4,000 F" (search on '3,000'):
Chart of various physicalities including adiabatic (approximation to 'free-air') burn temperature (search on 'Kerosene Jet A-1'), source - Isidoro Martínez, Prof. of Thermodynamics, ETSIA-UPM, Ciudad Universitaria, E-28040-Madrid:
Suggest adding that the density of JET A is 6.3 to 7.1 pounds per US gallon with a standard of 6.7 pounds per US gallon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.169.213 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
pra mim jetfuel é um homem que vê o 1749 a circular com um volante dum O530 na 203...isso sim é um verdadeiro jetfuel...hum...
jetfuel pode ser tambem considerado uma betoneira....pronto ok um burro.exta foi de homem.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.63.59.42 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking actual detail
Enough of this lamer common knowledge such as "it is a mixture of this and that". How is Jet-A fuel manufactured? Provide with hand book description of do-it-yourself Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation fuels are often what is called "straight run fuels," meaning that as the crude oil is heated and evaporates in a distillation column, different fuels are drawn off at different hieghts depending on their density. (Have a look at oil refinery processes.) Kerosene is drawn off below gasoline but above diesel. It is called a straight run fuel because after being drawn off the distillation column, it does not usually require any other processing prior to use, except for the blending in of additives if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.206.175 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking verification and factual accuracy
This article is lacking any verification and some of it is just factually incorrect. I will attempt to clean it up over the next few days. Also bits of it need rephrasing to make it clearer Veryangrypenguin (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
A paragraph at the end of the Military Jet Fuels section
The US Air Force C-17 Globemaster III was built to perform development testing. The US Air Force’s C-17 Globemaster III, F-16 and F-15 are certified for use of hydrotreated renewable jet fuels.[1][2] The US Air Force plans to certify over 40 models for fuels derived from waste oils and plants by 2013.[2] The army is considered one of the few customers of biofuels large enough to potentially bring biofuels up to the volume production needed to reduce costs.[2] The US Air Force has also flown a Green Hornet fighter at 1.7 times the speed of sound using a biofuel blend.[2] The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded a $6.7 million project with Honeywell UOP to develop technologies to create jet fuels from biofeedstocks for use by the US and NATO militaries.[3]
Jet Biofuels
For the end of the Jet Biofuels bullets
24 commercial and military biofuel flights have taken place using Honeywell “Green Jet Fuel,” including a Navy F/A-18 Hornet.[4]
Text is well sourced and a good improvement to the article.
Water in jet fuel
It should also be mentioned that water may be desirable in the jet engine in addition to hydrocarbon fuels, as a means of performance enhancement (usually in a mixture of water-alcohol, aka MW-50 injector).
Given a little extra vodka, a Mi-26 helo, officially certifed for 20 tons will lift a 27-ton frozen mammoth, as seen on National Geographic (behold the main rotor cone angle).
It is crucial for the article to include comparison with the Soviet fuel classification (TS-1, RT and the stuff). Soviet-designed aircraft dominate the world market and post-Soviet air forces constitute the majority of world military jets - all using Soviet fuel classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.131.171 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of things can be considered both "unnecessary", yet also "justified". Which makes the better articles? There are not a great many specific jet fuels (and there are excellent sources available). We can construct an article for each, with an overall article too, and this gives the best presentation of content to our readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would argue that there is a level of detail on the individual articles which does not fit in the overarching article. The JP-7 article, for example, lists the chemical characteristics of the fuel Bobbyd2500 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JP-4 was a fuel developed for carrier use, during the transitional phase from piston engines. A low fire risk kerosene fuel was stored, with other tanks still carrying large stock of AVGAS gasoline. For fuelling jet aircraft, the two would first be mixed.
Was JP-4 the designation for the stored kerosene, or for the mixed blend? In such a case, what was the other (blended / stored) component called? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
