New RAF wonder fuel
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,369
Received 86 Likes
on
60 Posts
Can we assume this new fuel will not be as fully utilised and distributed to deserving causes as "Avgas" was ?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
That Norway - UK pipeline cost Ł1.6bn! 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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Siemens have been experimenting in this field for a while
https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2021...ile-25683.html
https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2021...ile-25683.html
KB :-
This you mean? Just more PR puff (and same Kemble micro-light)
Flight Global :-
There's better articles on this particular story on fightglobal and other aviation websites, if anyone is interested further.
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.
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.
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.
You might well ask how this could be dictated, given the immaturity of the technology even today. The programme was not successful.
Still has a massive carbon footprint though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herod View Post
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 Herod View Post
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....
I'm just think of the steps needed to get the crew off it....
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
FB
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.
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.
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!