New RAF wonder fuel

[Mogwi]

Reported in the Telegraph today:

The RAF has completed the world’s first flight powered by synthetic fuel made from “air and water”. The fake fuel is called UL91.

That’s funny, I have been flying my 1938 Tiger Moth on UL91 for about 6 years without any snags.

Mog

[The Helpful Stacker]

Reported in the Telegraph today:

The RAF has completed the world’s first flight powered by synthetic fuel made from “air and water”. The fake fuel is called UL91.

That’s funny, I have been flying my 1938 Tiger Moth on UL91 for about 6 years without any snags.

Mog

It's a fully synthetic version of UL91, rather than the UL91 AVGAS you have been using.

[Less Hair]

The Steamfire?

[OldLurker]

The Telegraph story is here (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/17/raf-tests-green-fuel-made-air-water-power-planes-tomorrow/). It doesn't say "fake fuel".
The producer of the fuel, called Zero Petroleum (https://zeropetroleum.com/how-we-do-it/), says it indeed makes the fuel from "air and water" – by capturing carbon from atmospheric CO2 and capturing hydrogen by electrolysis from water, then synthesising whatever hydrocarbons are required. That sounds to me as if it'd be practical but would need a lot of energy, which Zero Petroleum have got because they're in Orkney where there are so many wind turbines that they produce more electricity than the islands can use.

[Chugalug2]

OL, exactly. So all that abundant electricity on tap in the UK can ensure that RAF AVGAS can now be carbon free. Just about fills all the tick boxes, along with those electric scooters. Someone needs to tell my energy company though. If it wasn't for the cap they'd be charging me even more than the King's Ransom I'm already paying.

Just a thought however, how much AVGAS does the RAF consume or even need now anyway? Will our potential enemies be ensuring their fuel is also politically acceptable or just be intent on defeating us anyway they can?

[Recc]

Will our potential enemies be ensuring their fuel is also politically acceptable or just be intent on defeating us anyway they can?

You can't see any military or strategic advantage in being able to produce fuel independently from imported petroleum products?!

[Chugalug2]

You can't see any military or strategic advantage in being able to produce fuel independently from imported petroleum products?!

Not when we haven't the 'independent' energy resources to do so, no. And even if we had, what meaningful strategic advantage would there be provided from an AVGAS so produced? An Air Force needs as higher performance fuels as are available. As an island nation that has historically meant importing them by sea, at enormous cost in life and treasure in time of war it is true. I don't think flying around in a civvy single piston fed with this fuel is going to change that equation anytime soon. So why the copy and paste Telegraph story? Wouldn't be virtue signalling by the CAS/RAF of course....

[muppetofthenorth]

I don't know why I still get surprised by the old and brain dead on here, but I still do...

[Ninthace]

Not when we haven't the 'independent' energy resources to do so, no. And even if we had, what meaningful strategic advantage would there be provided from an AVGAS so produced? An Air Force needs as higher performance fuels as are available. As an island nation that has historically meant importing them by sea, at enormous cost in life and treasure in time of war it is true. I don't think flying around in a civvy single piston fed with this fuel is going to change that equation anytime soon. So why the copy and paste Telegraph story? Wouldn't be virtue signalling by the CAS/RAF of course....
If you can synthesise the hydrocarbons for a piston engine surely you should be able to synthesise jet fuel. It is only paraffin after all

[Fonsini]

Surely the solution is to simply fit one of those big wind turbines to the front of a Hercules. In addition to having excellent range as a tactical bomber the excess electricity generated could be used to power lights and a disco in the cargo hold for weddings etc to generate revenue when there isn’t a war on.

per ardua ad zero carbon footprint?

[OMAAbound]

I always thought the UK produced more fuel (gas/electric) more than it needed. Somebody just in a F-35 with UL96 and tell Insulate Britain.

OMAA

[drustsonoferp]

I always thought the UK produced more fuel (gas/electric) more than it needed. Somebody just in a F-35 with UL96 and tell Insulate Britain.

OMAA
The UK has been a net importer of electricity since 2010:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/997345/ET_5.6_JUN_21.xls&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwje1sihgKD0AhWFmFwKHTrxBNoQFXoECAEQAg&usg=AOvVaw1mthSk8qW7ep-jMcIH6iHe

[tdracer]

If you can synthesise the hydrocarbons for a piston engine surely you should be able to synthesise jet fuel. It is only paraffin after all
Yes, it's basically the same technology - carbon from the air, H2 from water. So far it's rather energy intensive and doesn't scale well, but they're working on it.
Time will tell if this turns out to be more environmental friendly and cost effective than bio based fuels (algae being a strong contender it that arena). Both have the potential for near zero net carbon, one takes large amounts of electricity, the other large amounts of space to grow the bio feedstock...

[Herod]

Surely the solution is to simply fit one of those big wind turbines to the front of a Hercules. In addition to having excellent range as a tactical bomber the excess electricity generated could be used to power lights and a disco in the cargo hold for weddings etc to generate revenue when there isn’t a war on.

per ardua ad zero carbon footprint?

Funnily enough, I was once told that it was possible to replace all the propellers with windmills, and use zero fuel. Then again, he was a university graduate.

[The Helpful Stacker]

I do love it when some old fart makes statements like this, seemingly believing that AVTUR is somehow more high performance than AVGAS.

An Air Force needs as higher performance fuels as are available

As already touched upon, the alleged "higher performance fuels" the RAF use are kerosene-based, the stuff that can be used in lamps and heaters!

As an aside, the production and trial usage of synthetic kerosene fuels is old news, with Germany (among others) already funding increased development of sites for producing such fuels

[Chugalug2]

THS, as the old fart in question, I do not doubt that synthetic aviation fuels can be manufactured. The Luftwaffe depended on them when that from the Ploesti Oil Field became unavailable. What I question is how Zero Petroleum's product has become a 'wonder' fuel. There's nothing wonderful about it. It requires prodigious quantities of electricity to produce. How is it then 'zero carbon' given that other than UK nuclear generation (with decommissioning removing a lot of it very soon), the next big chunk is generated by burning natural gas?

https://gridwatch.co.uk/

And what has this to do with the RAF anyway? Zero may or may not be able to produce synthetic aviation fuel that can eventually compete in the open market. The UK may eventually wake up to the urgent need to get more nuclear generation on line ASAP. Then we can all wallow in the limitless 'free' electricity promised us all in the fifties. In the meantime we'll be lucky to keep the lights burning, let alone support energy heavy synthetic fuel production, zero C or otherwise. Zero fuelled up a light SE GA a/c with a few gallons of their 'wonder zero carbon' fuel and got the DT to run this promotional piece, and the RAF clambered aboard to give it the 'air of authority' it sought. Well done Zero! Null points everyone else!

[Hadley Rille]

I'm just delighted that the RAF are realising the potential of the C42.

[BEagle]

C-42? Rather an old design, surely?

The Douglas C-42 was the designation given to a single transport aircraft, with the fuselage of the DC-2 but the tail and wing centre section of the DC-3. During the Second World War two C-42s were used as Staff and VIP transports.

[Hadley Rille]

Comco Ikarus C-42 as shown in the article. Oh the dangers of context (or sarcasm whichever applies).

[deltahotel]

https://www.midlandsengine.org/east-midlands-airport-becomes-sustainable-aviation-fuel-base-for-dhl/

Slightly different slant on sustainable fuel.

[Krystal n chips]

Can we assume this new fuel will not be as fully utilised and distributed to deserving causes as "Avgas" was ?

[SWBKCB]

In the summer of 2020, Group Captain Willy Hackett joined the RAF Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) and it was suggested to him that using microlights for airborne experimentation with novel technologies made great sense. After a day trip to Kemble Flying Club at Cotswold Airport, Gp Capt Hackett realised the idea wasn’t as crazy as it sounded.

Using a microlight as an experimentation platform for cutting edge sensor and communication technology, instead of using a traditional military platform, would vastly reduce the carbon footprint and save the UK taxpayer a great deal of money.

https://www.flyer.co.uk/microlight-in-tests-for-commercial-operations/

[Kent Based]

There's a fair number of comments on here that seem to have missed the point.

One issue with wind farms is that when the wind is good then their generation exceeds local demands and is effectively wasted. A large amount of thought is being put into storing this excess electricity. This company can use excess wind turbine generation to take CO2 out of the air and store it as aviation fuel to be used later. The RAF have tested the fuel to ensure it meets their demands. If it's also as good a fuel as the existing one (UL91) then what's the problem?

[Chugalug2]

There's a fair number of comments on here that seem to have missed the point.

One issue with wind farms is that when the wind is good then their generation exceeds local demands and is effectively wasted. A large amount of thought is being put into storing this excess electricity. This company can use excess wind turbine generation to take CO2 out of the air and store it as aviation fuel to be used later. The RAF have tested the fuel to ensure it meets their demands. If it's also as good a fuel as the existing one (UL91) then what's the problem?
Is that something you know, KB, or something you think you know? The problem with this bit of commercial self promotion is that we are told very little. I suspect that is because there is very little to tell right now. A small quantity of synthetic fuel was put into a small SE a/c and flown over Kemble. All the rest is hype. If the production process can be improved upon so that large quantities of AVTUR can be obtained at reasonable cost then it might well end up in the fuel tanks of RAF a/c (and that of LCCs too!). I very much doubt that process will be turned on and off dependent on the wind. Large capital investments as this would need continuous operation to justify that investment, quite apart from the physics and chemistry involved which most likely need the same. If Orkney can't use all the electricity it produces then pipe it into the National Grid. Can't imagine why that wouldn't be the case now, as we already receive electric power from Norway.

[Fonsini]

A discussion on the relative merits and de-merits of HEF Borane fuel for military aircraft would be interesting. I have always wanted to talk to one of the engineers who worked on that project.

[BEagle]

From elsewhere:
The ethyl derivatives of decaborane, made by Friedel-Crafts reaction of decaborane with ethyl bromide, was found to be easy to store and handle and was code named HEF-3 (High Energy Fuel-3). This was considered for use as fuel in the Mach 3 B-70 Valkyrie. But the programme was cancelled after spending millions of dollars. One reason was that borane-based fuels are highly corrosive and could spontaneously ignite. Also, when burned they produced solid combustion by-products, especially hard boron carbide and boron oxides, that became attached to the engine parts leading to mechanical faults and corrosion. In addition the sooty exhaust was highly toxic and has high visibility, making it unfit for defence use. Adding to this were the exorbitant cost of making such fuels and hence the borane-based fuel programme was abandoned.

[Kent Based]

That Norway - UK pipeline cost £1.6bn! A fine outlay when large amounts of electricity are involved. Part of that includes a reliable lump of hydro generated power.

It's well known that wind farms can't economically store power yet. There's better articles on this particular story on fightglobal and other aviation websites, if anyone is interested further.

[Archer4]

I do love it when some old fart makes statements like this, seemingly believing that AVTUR is somehow more high performance than AVGAS.



As already touched upon, the alleged "higher performance fuels" the RAF use are kerosene-based, the stuff that can be used in lamps and heaters!

As an aside, the production and trial usage of synthetic kerosene fuels is old news, with Germany (among others) already funding increased development of sites for producing such fuels

Nothing new here. The Germans were already doing this during WWII !

[Ninthace]

Siemens have been experimenting in this field for a while
https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2021/company/porsche-construction-begins-commercial-plant-production-co2-neutral-fuel-chile-25683.html

[Chugalug2]

KB :-

There's better articles on this particular story on fightglobal and other aviation websites, if anyone is interested further.

This you mean? Just more PR puff (and same Kemble micro-light)

Flight Global :-

Zero Petroleum and the UK Royal Air Force (RAF) have claimed a world record for a first aircraft flight conducted using 100% synthetic fuel.

Involving an Ikarus C42 ultra-light aircraft, the 21min flight was conducted from Cotswold Airport in Kemble, Gloucestershire on 2 November. It was flown by Group Captain Peter Hackett, the RAF’s head flight test pilot.



Source: Zero Petroluem

Milestone flight involved an Ikarus C42 ultra-light

Recognised as a Guinness World Record for the “first aircraft powered by synthetic fuel”, the milestone stems from an initiative named Project Martin, launched with the RAF in June 2021.

The Zero SynAvGas fuel for the flight was produced in Billia Croo, Orkney, by Zero Petroleum and IGTL Technology, via an adaptation of the Fischer-Tropsch process. This involves extracting hydrogen from water by using energy generated from renewable sources, before combining it with carbon dioxide captured from the atmosphere.

Zero Petroleum says this process can provide a “drop-in” alternative fuel, “without the need to adapt distribution infrastructure or engine design”. Such a solution is “crucial for sectors in which electrification is not currently an option, including aviation, agriculture and a wide range of high-performance vehicles”, it adds.

“We are particularly proud of the fact that this high-grade aviation gasoline was developed in just five months and ran successfully in the aircraft as a whole-blend without any modification whatsoever to the aircraft or the engine,” says Zero Petroleum founder Paddy Lowe. “Engine manufacturer Rotax’s measurements and the test pilot’s observations showed no difference in power or general performance compared to standard fossil fuel.”



Source: Zero Petroleum

No changes were required for using

Lowe adds: “I believe we have together made a significant mark in the history of powered aviation.”

“Climate change is a transnational challenge which threatens global resilience and our shared security and prosperity,” says chief of the air staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston. “I am determined to tackle this head-on and have set the Royal Air Force the ambitious goal to be net-zero by 2040.

“The way we power our aircraft will be a big part of achieving that goal,” Wigston adds.

The RAF earlier this year outlined a broad range of initiatives which are intended to reduce the environmental impact of its operations. These vary from potentially seeking an electric-powered replacement for its current elementary trainer fleet to investing in sustainable aviation fuel technologies.

[Fonsini]

Thanks BEagle, I also recalled reading that they proposed using conventional fuel for take off and initial climb, only switching to HEF when en-route to the target to avoid spreading toxic particles on friendly civvies. In spite of the significant and ultimately terminal drawbacks of using Boranes as “fuel boosters”, the range gains were very impressive. Similar and equally flawed in many ways to the proposed use of nuclear powered aircraft and missiles.

[SPIT]

I thought the German military produce synthetic fuel about 1943,isn't this the same thing ???

[tucumseh]

In spite of the significant and ultimately terminal drawbacks of using Boranes as “fuel boosters”, the range gains were very impressive. Similar and equally flawed in many ways to the proposed use of nuclear powered aircraft and missiles.

Around 18 years ago Ammonia Borane was declared the chemistry of choice for the Infantry (but not by the Infantry), to replace or supplement various types of Lithium batteries.

You might well ask how this could be dictated, given the immaturity of the technology even today. The programme was not successful.

[Bing]

I thought the German military produce synthetic fuel about 1943,isn't this the same thing ???

I think they got theirs from coal, which is an expensive way of doing it but they didn't have a lot of other options.

[tdracer]

I think they got theirs from coal, which is an expensive way of doing it but they didn't have a lot of other options.
Correct - in WW II the Germans created petroleum products from coal to compensate for shortages of the real thing.
Still has a massive carbon footprint though.

[Rigga]

Funnily enough, I was once told that it was possible to replace all the propellers with windmills, and use zero fuel. Then again, he was a university graduate.

I'm just think of the steps needed to get the crew off it....

[Ninthace]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herod View Post (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/643781-new-raf-wonder-fuel.html#post11143771)
Funnily enough, I was once told that it was possible to replace all the propellers with windmills, and use zero fuel. Then again, he was a university graduate.
Originally Posted by Rigga
I'm just think of the steps needed to get the crew off it....
Surely all you have to do is incline the windmill at an angle - I think they are called helicopters

[Finningley Boy]

Nothing new here. The Germans were already doing this during WWII !
Have you seen the film The Formula, released in 1980 and starring Marlon Brando and George C Scott? By the way, is this new fuel the one which Oxford University have been working on? What will be interesting to see now, is what kind of reception it will get among the Climate Change Proselytizers?:)

FB

[Kent Based]

I did ask that if this fuel is as good as the existing one (UL91) then what's the problem?

I have heard that posters have issues with the tone/content of the article or the characters involved etc. This fuel can be used as a direct replacement for an existing fuel without any need to modify the engine. As others have said, synthetic fuels have been around for a long time, even longer than most folks on this forum! There seems to be an emotional backlash against it, but no constructive objections.

[Chugalug2]

I don't think anyone is getting emotional KB. With the UK seriously short of sustainable and economic generated power, the RAF chooses to promote a synthetic fuel process that requires vast amounts of generated power. Go figure!

[Ninthace]

I don't think anyone is getting emotional KB. With the UK seriously short of sustainable and economic generated power, the RAF chooses to promote a synthetic fuel process that requires vast amounts of generated power. Go figure!
Promote? Trying something out and finding that it works is not much of a promotion. The entire aviation sector, both commercial and military, is looking for sustainable, low carbon or zero carbon fuels for thereby lies long term survival. Anything that points that way is useful. If the UK can develop an indigenous industry manufacturing said fuels, so much the better.

[Kent Based]

I don't think anyone is getting emotional KB. With the UK seriously short of sustainable and economic generated power, the RAF chooses to promote a synthetic fuel process that requires vast amounts of generated power. Go figure!

https://www.oref.co.uk/orkneys-energy/wind/#:~:text=Orkney%20is%20home%20to%20the,energy%20exporter%20i n%202013%20%26%202014.

Orkneys net exporter of wind generated power they were having issues putting in the grid to deal with it.

[Ninthace]

https://www.oref.co.uk/orkneys-energy/wind/#:~:text=Orkney%20is%20home%20to%20the,energy%20exporter%20i n%202013%20%26%202014.

Orkneys net exporter of wind generated power they were having issues putting in the grid to deal with it.
From you link, it seems the lack of grid capacity in Orkney is limiting the installation of more power turbines at present. That is not an argument for not making fuel from wind or tidal power. Interestingly, the Surf & Turf project in Orkney is using excess generating capacity to manufacture hydrogen that is used in other projects, such as powering one of the inter-island ferries. In fact I missed any mention Zero Petroleum in the link you furnished.

[Chugalug2]

Promote? Trying something out and finding that it works is not much of a promotion. The entire aviation sector, both commercial and military, is looking for sustainable, low carbon or zero carbon fuels for thereby lies long term survival. Anything that points that way is useful. If the UK can develop an indigenous industry manufacturing said fuels, so much the better.
Yes, promote. What else would you call an aircraft photographed with Zero Petroleum and RAF decals being flown over Kemble airfield by an RAF Gp Capt wearing an RAF flying suit other than promotion? Trying it out to see if it works? LoL, just as well for him that it does then!

[Ninthace]

Yes, promote. What else would you call an aircraft photographed with Zero Petroleum and RAF decals being flown over Kemble airfield by an RAF Gp Capt wearing an RAF flying suit other than promotion? Trying it out to see if it works? LoL, just as well for him that it does then!
Civilian registered aircraft - registered to Kemble Flying Club. RAF logo tick, but RAF decals no. Also Zero Solutions logos. If I were to guess i would say there is a degree of sponsorship going on.

[Chugalug2]

Civilian registered aircraft - registered to Kemble Flying Club. RAF logo tick, but RAF decals no. Also Zero Solutions logos. If I were to guess i would say there is a degree of sponsorship going on.
Interesting comment. Who would be sponsoring who?

[Ninthace]

Interesting comment. Who would be sponsoring who?
Well, if I were to guess, the aeroplane.

[Chugalug2]

Well, if I were to guess, the aeroplane.
Sorry, old boy, not quite getting your drift. There are four possible parties involved here; Zero Petroleum, The Royal Air Force, Kemble Flying Club, and now the aeroplane? The Ikarus C42 with its Rotax 912UL engine? Are you saying that airframe and/or engine manufacturer has a dog in the race?

Seeing as we are guessing, wouldn't the more obvious culprit be Zero? Whoever you might mean, I doubt it is the RAF, who are fast clearing out whole fleets in back to back fire sales more akin to flogging the family silver than investing in wonder technologies. In any case even if it did have two brass farthings to its name, isn't sponsoring commercial companies somewhat frowned upon? Or is that what is meant by "cutting through the bureaucracy"?

It does seem that G-KFCA's new fame is being exploited to the utmost though :-
https://kembleflyingclub.com/

So who is the sugar daddy here, and who or what is trousering its largesse? Genuinely interested.

[Ninthace]

I am only speculating but from experience, owning and operating a fleet of club aircraft is not cheap. I did it on more than one occasion in the RAFGSA. If someone had come to me and offered to sponsor one of my airframes and the rules allowed it, I would have bitten their hand off and would have happily put their logos on the aircraft.
I stress, speculation on my part.