|
New RAF wonder fuel
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 |
Originally Posted by Mogwi
(Post 11143436)
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 Steamfire?
|
The Telegraph story is here. It doesn't say "fake fuel".
The producer of the fuel, called Zero Petroleum, 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. |
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? |
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
(Post 11143548)
Will our potential enemies be ensuring their fuel is also politically acceptable or just be intent on defeating us anyway they can?
|
Originally Posted by Recc
(Post 11143575)
You can't see any military or strategic advantage in being able to produce fuel independently from imported petroleum products?!
|
I don't know why I still get surprised by the old and brain dead on here, but I still do...
|
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
(Post 11143591)
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....
|
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? |
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 |
Originally Posted by OMAAbound
(Post 11143641)
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 https://assets.publishing.service.go...W7ep-jMcIH6iHe |
Originally Posted by Ninthace
(Post 11143611)
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
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... |
Originally Posted by Fonsini
(Post 11143614)
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? |
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 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 |
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! |
I'm just delighted that the RAF are realising the potential of the C42.
|
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. |
Comco Ikarus C-42 as shown in the article. Oh the dangers of context (or sarcasm whichever applies).
|
|
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. |
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? |
Originally Posted by Kent Based
(Post 11144001)
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? |
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 £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. |
Originally Posted by The Helpful Stacker
(Post 11143801)
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 |
Siemens have been experimenting in this field for a while
https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2021...ile-25683.html |
KB :-
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. |
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.
|
I thought the German military produce synthetic fuel about 1943,isn't this the same thing ???
|
Originally Posted by Fonsini
(Post 11144108)
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. |
Originally Posted by SPIT
(Post 11144118)
I thought the German military produce synthetic fuel about 1943,isn't this the same thing ???
|
Originally Posted by Bing
(Post 11144132)
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.
Still has a massive carbon footprint though. |
Originally Posted by Herod
(Post 11143771)
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.
|
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 Rigga I'm just think of the steps needed to get the crew off it.... |
Originally Posted by Archer4
(Post 11144046)
Nothing new here. The Germans were already doing this during WWII !
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 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!
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.