Timeline for Why do jet engines use kerosene rather than gasoline?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 12 at 23:34 | comment | added | russbishop | I'll note that if the FBO accidentally puts AVGAS in your turboprop you will likely be able to land under power. Turbines will burn gasoline. They won't like it and you're looking at some expensive maintenance when you land but you can fly on it. Gas piston engines, unfortunately, just quit running entirely when fueled with Jet-A. | |
| Jun 15, 2019 at 23:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jun 16, 2019 at 3:03 | |||||
| May 27, 2018 at 2:52 | comment | added | Vikki | @MasonWheeler: Liquid kerosene burns much more slowly than liquid gasoline. It also has a much lower vapour pressure and much higher flash point than gasoline. When sprayed as a fine mist into what is essentially a raging fire, it burns just as fast and as readily as gasoline. Thus, kerosene works just as well as jet fuel as gasoline would (actually, it probably works considerably better, due to its lower vapour pressure, and thus lower boiloff, reducing fuel losses), and is far safer to handle to boot. Trying to use gasoline for an airportfull of jets would be hideously dangerous. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 13:37 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Aug 10, 2015 at 15:40 | comment | added | TomMcW | This site shows the same #'s. This site shows several different numbers from different sources. They all seem to show a different - and lower - number for jet fuel than for kerosene. | |
| Aug 10, 2015 at 15:30 | comment | added | TomMcW | @Johnny Looking on the web gives me all kinds of different specific energy #'s. This site shows gasoline at 45.8 and kerosene at 46.3, but jet fuel lower at 43.3. | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 21:03 | answer | added | Paul | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 17, 2015 at 18:32 | answer | added | diogenes | timeline score: 9 | |
| Mar 8, 2015 at 23:43 | vote | accept | yippy_yay | ||
| Mar 6, 2015 at 10:08 | comment | added | Sanchises | @MasonWheeler They're planning to make paraffin (candle wax) rockets; the stuff in a match head is just as incendiary bombs in the military. Just because something looks innocent, doesn't say it is in all applications. A lantern can burn for hours - imagine that energy being released (with)in seconds. | |
| Mar 6, 2015 at 1:13 | answer | added | UnrecognizedFallingObject | timeline score: 27 | |
| Mar 6, 2015 at 0:52 | answer | added | Tom Johnson | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 21:32 | comment | added | raptortech97 | @Johnny thanks for the correction. I really need to stop running my mouth so much | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 20:56 | comment | added | Johnny | @raptortech97 - Jet fuel does have a slightly higher energy density than gasoline, both by weight and by volume: 46 MJ/kg and 37.4 MJ/l versus 44.4/32.4 for gasoline (and 48/35.8 for diesel fuel) | |
| S Mar 5, 2015 at 20:53 | history | suggested | 200_success |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 5, 2015 at 20:15 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 5, 2015 at 20:53 | |||||
| Mar 5, 2015 at 14:53 | comment | added | Jim2B | Military turbine engines are designed to operate on everything from avgas to heating oil but are optimized to run on JP4 / JP5 (roughly the weight of kerosene). If you use one of those other fuels, the engines will require extensive maintenance afterwards. Jet fuel does have a higher energy density than gasoline: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 12:47 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | @raptortech97: I didn't say energy density. I said that the energy demand (the required output) is much higher for aviation than for ground transportation, so why use a lower-density fuel? That seems inefficient. | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 12:40 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | @raptortech97: So why is something that--at first glance at least--seems to be a much lower-quality fuel than gasoline used in an application that poses a much higher energy demand than even the heftiest gasoline motors face? | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 12:25 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAviation/status/573459373969833985 | ||
| Mar 5, 2015 at 11:47 | comment | added | raptortech97 | @MasonWheeler it's the same stuff (take a look at the third paragraph) | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 11:13 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | Every time I hear people say "kerosene" as jet fuel it just seems weird. I grew up on a farm; I know what kerosene is. It's the stuff you put in a lantern so you can see to go out and milk the cow at night. It's much less volatile than, say, gasoline. It burns slowly and (relatively) cool, which makes it great for a lantern, but--I would imagine--horrible for motor fuel. Is this a different type of kerosene? | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 9:33 | comment | added | sweber | Of course. I mean: For piston engines, there's a big difference between petrol and diesel. However, it seems to be no big difference if you spray kerosene/diesel/petrol into an already burning flame. So, while the difference for piston engines is obvious, it is not for jets. We already know, the PT6A takes avgas and kersosene. So, I don't understand Arons comment. | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 8:47 | comment | added | ratchet freak | @sweber the ignition for jets is different (spray into already ignited chamber rather than compress into piston) | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 8:45 | comment | added | sweber | Cars run on petrol or diesel (which is similar to kerosene). As both are piston engines, the differences are quite big, e.g. diesel engines have twice the compression of petrol engines, different ignition and so on. You can not run the one with the other fuel. But it is not so clear why it's different for jet engines. | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 5:38 | comment | added | Aron | A better question is why do cars run on petrol rather than kerosene. | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 0:39 | answer | added | paul | timeline score: 104 | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 0:10 | answer | added | Thomas McKelvey | timeline score: 15 | |
| Mar 4, 2015 at 23:18 | comment | added | Brian | Posting a comment because I only have a partial answer: "The PT6A engine is approved for operation with all commercial jet fuels, JP-4, JP-5 and for a maximum of 150 hours during any overhaul period with all grades of aviation gasoline. Specific grades of diesel fuel are approved as alternate fuels for restricted use." pwc.ca/files/en/Know_your_PT6A.pdf | |
| Mar 4, 2015 at 22:33 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Mar 4, 2015 at 22:51 | |||||
| Mar 4, 2015 at 22:13 | history | asked | yippy_yay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |