"Green"/Biofuel for USAF and Navy aviation...

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Part of the big problem in T2k is of course the near lack of aircraft on either side...I imagine that what's left of the US military holds back some avgas for emergency contingency purposes here and there; at least in my head-canon, the handful of Tactical air units in Europe at least have scraped together enough to hold off an "end times, now-or-never" type counterattack, plus keep the engines periodically spun up.

Stateside there likewise might be a few B52s (3-5) and perhaps a B1 and B2 remaining in terms of strategic air power, but, again, held out for an absolute emergency situation.

There's been some talk over the last few years about "ATJ" or "Alcohol to Jet" biofuels, that are essentially the same as the "brewed" fuels (probably filtered to a higher purity, though) that are already in use in ground vehicles in T2k - so I would think that this could be discovered and put to use during the reconstruction phase in the US; the ability to shift supplies via air would be a huge, huge asset.

[.45cultist]

Part of the problem is that the heavies rely on altitude for part of their defense. T2013 stated a very low ceiling on such fuels.

[mikeo80]

IMHO, IF SAC kept some B-52's in reserve, there would also be some AGM-86 ALCM's held back. A BUFF can carry 20 of these things. There were 1700+ produced by 1986.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

Plus, IIRC, B52 crews had practiced low level flight for some time by T2K. I would also think that some KC-135's would have been kept in reserve to serve the BUFF's.

This combination should overcome the problem with alcohol or "bio-fuel".

I can also see ANY refinery that Mil-Gov gets its' hands on will be producing jet fuel to keep the BUFF's full tanks.

My $0.02

Mike

[Olefin]

Keep in mind if you are playing the orginal game (and not 2013) that MilGov still has refineries working in Oklahoma and Illinois - and even the Robinson faciilty at 1 percent of capacity could still make a decent amount of avgas.

So aircraft in the US being operational is definitely still feasible and not just for last gasp operations. As "A River Runs Through It" stated there are still flights going to and from New England being staged thru the NJ airfields that MilGov controls - they are rare but they are being done - and they have enough gas to operate some aircraft on a limited basis

the real issue may be getting the fuel to where the planes are - i.e. if you have all your SAC assets sitting in Colorado and your refineries are in OK and IL then its not going to be easy to get them fueled up

the reality is that most avgas that will be used will be for transport flights except in places where you may need to fuel up attack planes - which in the US would be on the Oklahoma and California fronts against the Mexicans and Soviets and against New American forces in the Ozarks and Florida

thats why I never saw the Ozarks module as very realistic as to the air threat against MilGov units - not with the Robinson refinery as close as it is - wouldnt take long to make enough avgas to put a couple of planes in the air - and even an old P-51 would make short work of any ultralights and dirigibles

Let alone the fact that the 197th probably still has operational Stingers - they never went overseas and never face enemy air - and even one of them would blow the guts out of a dirigible

CivGov units on the other hand would be SOL - as far as I can see they dont control any working refineries

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Olefin

the 197th probably still has operational Stingers - they never went overseas and never face enemy air - and even one of them would blow the guts out of a dirigible

Would a few 50's or M240 do the same thing, you could do it with a M-72 LAW if you great a luck shot

[pmulcahy11b]

All you really need to do to a dirigible is pop it a few times.

[Sanjuro]

The problem with alcohol-based fuels (so far) is not that the energy they hold is less than gasoline, but that their internal pressure is much higher: they start to boil at much lower temperatures, or much higher atmospheric pressure, than either avgas (aviation gasoline, for piston engines) or avtur (aviation kerosene, for turbine engines). Practical ceiling is much lower.
There is a way round the problem: pressurised fuel tanks. I don't know of any aircraft to have these- they would be heavy...

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Would a few 50's or M240 do the same thing, you could do it with a M-72 LAW if you great a luck shot

depending on the height you could even nail it with a tank or AFV gun - as long you can elevate to hit it - a few HE or HEAT tank shells (which the 197th have a bunch of) would make short work of dirigibles

and a LAW or RPG may be effective depending on the dirigibles height - they did score on helicopters in Vietnam with them

and any unit with an operational AA gun, especially radar controlled, and you can kiss New America's Ozark Air Power goodbye

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

All you really need to do to a dirigible is pop it a few times.

Well....yes and no. It depends partly on the overall design.

The dirigible, or more accurately, aerostats that I worked on for a year or so used an internal ballast tank, or bladder within the aerostat itself. This is basically a big gasbag within the blimp that holds lighter-than-air gas. The rest of the blimp's shape is provided by normal air pumped into it. Think of it as one big bag with one or more smaller bags stuffed into it.

Most aerostats these days use a helium/hydrogen mixture that's more helium than hydrogen, obviously. Nobody wants a repeat of the Hindenburg. Thus just shooting at it won't result in just a big fiery explosion either.

Hitting the main body of the blimps that use this design, aerostat, dirigible, whatever really won't do that much. To bring it down you need to tear open some good sized holes in the ballast bladder itself, and just a few pops from some Chinese/Russian AK-47's not going to do it. To illustrate, there was an "incident" some time ago (no, I won't say when or where) where an unmanned aerostat broke loose of it's tether and started drifting toward the Iranian border. Problem was these aerostats were used aerial observation and had a few sensitive pieces of equipment aboard. Naturally, the U.S. Army didn't want the Iranians getting their paws on this and sent up a Blackhawk with the minigun door gunners and they did a circle around the aerostat, blasting it with the minigun. Seems they didn't quite hit the ballast, as while it was well shredded, it just kept on floating. Finally, a pair of F16's (or F15's, not sure which) got diverted and brought it down with a shot from a pair of Sidewinder missiles. The problem was rectified in later models, should the aerostat ever lose it's tether, with the installation of a large capacitor attached to a set of wires along with a GPS and trip sensor. If the GPS sensed the unit was drifting away too far from it's current position, the capacitor fires and burns a huge clean hole in the ballast, causing the unit to lose ballast and eventually come back to earth.

Aerostats are still pretty susceptible to bad weather though, particularly high winds, more so than aircraft obviously as they are still basically just big balloons, a big floating lighter than air mass just begging to be smacked around by the storm gods if they get ornery, that IMO is one of their biggest flaws and why you don't see quite a mass deployment of them.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The point I was making about the fuel was that for jobs like moving recovery assets around by air, close-air-support (which, let's face it, is all you'd be doing in the CONUS), and so forth it'd be absolutely viable.

Do I mean wings of F22s available to the USAF? No. Do I mean C130s delivering food where needed, or equipment, or evacuating people? Or Apaches or A10s (or O-1s or OV-10s or A37s) available for closer air support? Absolutely.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

The point I was making about the fuel was that for jobs like moving recovery assets around by air, close-air-support (which, let's face it, is all you'd be doing in the CONUS), and so forth it'd be absolutely viable.

Do I mean wings of F22s available to the USAF? No. Do I mean C130s delivering food where needed, or equipment, or evacuating people? Or Apaches or A10s (or O-1s or OV-10s or A37s) available for closer air support? Absolutely.

Completely agree with you there on what biofuel could mean for CONUS - and in the current situation in the US those kind of aircraft are exactly what they need - I doubt the Mexicans have a single decent aircraft they can put in the air that would require an F-15 or F-16 to take out but anti-armor/ground support/transport/para missions - hell yes those are exactly what is needed

[pmulcahy11b]

Is there enough of a warm air mass to make it a viable target for a heat-seeking missile?

[Olefin]

I think that would come down to what they are using for propulsion - the dirigible itself may not register but its engines sure would be a source of heat

[swaghauler]

While Virgin Airways proved that Jumbo Jets can fly on purified Biodiesel, most lighter-than-air craft won't need purified fuels. Indeed, if my proposed Electric Drive Motor concept were used, you could burn wood to produce the electricity to run the motors.

[aspqrz]

The other thing no-one mentions is that there are a LOT of civilian aircraft out there. One heck of a lot. And not all are sited at airports or airfields that will be hit by nukes.

Why is this an issue?

Well, while civilian aircraft generally aren't designed to carry weapons, that doesn't mean that they cannot do so.

Consider the Biafran Airforce ... flying Mfi-9Bs/Bölkow Bo 208 (light aircraft) which mounted six 68mm rockets under each wing.

Then there are ex-military trainers ... Biafra also flew a number of T-6 Texans forex.

Not all of these sorts of aircraft require avgas, some, at least, can run on normal petrol.

And then there are all those C-47s still out there ... 'Puff the Magic Dragon' AC-47s anyone?

High performance jets or ground attack aircraft? No. Strategic Bombers? No. Helicopters (as fuel hogs)? No.

But combat airpower? Too useful to not have.

(Not huge numbers ... probably AF Squadrons would have as many of these converted aircraft as the Army units still had tanks ... i.e. maybe a single handful or less, rarely a double handful.)

It's one thing about TW:2000 that simply made no sense to me. Even just using them for recon would be a huge advantage ...

YMMV,

Phil

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

The other thing no-one mentions is that there are a LOT of civilian aircraft out there. One heck of a lot. And not all are sited at airports or airfields that will be hit by nukes.

Why is this an issue?

Well, while civilian aircraft generally aren't designed to carry weapons, that doesn't mean that they cannot do so.

Consider the Biafran Airforce ... flying Mfi-9Bs/Bölkow Bo 208 (light aircraft) which mounted six 68mm rockets under each wing.

Then there are ex-military trainers ... Biafra also flew a number of T-6 Texans forex.

Not all of these sorts of aircraft require avgas, some, at least, can run on normal petrol.

And then there are all those C-47s still out there ... 'Puff the Magic Dragon' AC-47s anyone?

High performance jets or ground attack aircraft? No. Strategic Bombers? No. Helicopters (as fuel hogs)? No.

But combat airpower? Too useful to not have.

(Not huge numbers ... probably AF Squadrons would have as many of these converted aircraft as the Army units still had tanks ... i.e. maybe a single handful or less, rarely a double handful.)

It's one thing about TW:2000 that simply made no sense to me. Even just using them for recon would be a huge advantage ...

YMMV,

Phil

I believe that any aircraft that uses JP8 would still be able to fly with existing fuel. Hercules aircraft flying out of "bush bases" in Africa would often bring in large "filters" (on trailers) to "strain" African jet fuel in order to take out the impurities that would sometimes occur in that fuel. I was told that this was "just a precaution" because the "Herky-Bird" was pretty "tolerant" of poor quality fuel (one of the reasons EVERYONE uses them). Such a filter system would allow Kerosene (with some "additives" such machines mix into the fuel) to be used as a potential substitute. This option would allow "transport" aircraft to fly but would NOT be a good idea for combat jets. Combat jets perform "High-G" maneuvers that could cause impurities in such fuel to "clog" fuel pumps and "stall" the jet in the middle of a maneuver. Transport aircraft don't have such issues.

The question then becomes, "how much of your precious Biodiesel Production are you willing to sacrifice to get an aircraft up and running?" A single C130 can use more fuel than an entire COMPANY of 5-Tons. Thus, Mission Demands versus Available Fuel Supply would determine whether you would fly or drive (or sail).

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Thus, Mission Demands versus Available Fuel Supply would determine whether you would fly or drive (or sail).

Hey, I was pointing out that combat capable (in a very limited sense) civilian aircraft that can use regular fuel would be available in large enough numbers to ensure the continuance of airpower ... and that such aircraft are not huge fuel hogs.

The MFI-9 the Biafrans used had a 75 kW engine and a gross weight of 575 kg and is certified to run on 80/87 avgas (aka only requires only "regular" 87 anti-knock index automotive gasoline) ... and not a whole hell of a lot of it, 'smell of an oily rag' comes to mind.

Yet it could carry six 68 mm Rockets under each wing.

Not an Arc Light strike by any means, but for a tactical strike against some of the 'Divisions' remaining in the field in TW:2000 not a mere nothing.

Hercules transports would be nice in certain situations, but they were not what I was commenting on.

Phil

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Hey, I was pointing out that combat capable (in a very limited sense) civilian aircraft that can use regular fuel would be available in large enough numbers to ensure the continuance of airpower ... and that such aircraft are not huge fuel hogs.

The MFI-9 the Biafrans used had a 75 kW engine and a gross weight of 575 kg and is certified to run on 80/87 avgas (aka only requires only "regular" 87 anti-knock index automotive gasoline) ... and not a whole hell of a lot of it, 'smell of an oily rag' comes to mind.

Yet it could carry six 68 mm Rockets under each wing.

Not an Arc Light strike by any means, but for a tactical strike against some of the 'Divisions' remaining in the field in TW:2000 not a mere nothing.

Hercules transports would be nice in certain situations, but they were not what I was commenting on.

Phil

My issue with this is that everyone keeps talking about 87 Octane Gas as though it will be the most plentiful fuel in Twilight2000. It won't be and here's why:
(note: this is coming from my experience as a 77FOX after my artillery unit was disbanded and my last 3 years working as a trucker for the oil and gas industry in PA)

There are many grades or types of oil in the World, but the two most commonly discussed (and harvested) oils for fuels are Shale Oil Crude and Light, Sweet Crude.

Shale Oil Crude: This is what the vast majority of Canadian and US oil is comprised of. This oil is often harvested through Fracking and contains sand, and mineral contaminants as well as being heavier and thicker than Light, Sweet Crude. This means that it costs more money to refine this oil and it is therefore used to make "heavier" (by Specific Gravity) products that don't require as much refining. Thus Shale oil is used to produce Fuel Oil, Motor Lubricants, Greases, Diesel Fuel, and Kerosene (Canadian oils are commonly used here), and Plastics. The costs are currently too high to refine Shale oil into Gasolines, Cutting oils, or "lighter" (by Specific Gravity) products.

Light, Sweet Crude: This oil is now normally found in Africa, The Middle East, and certain North Sea areas. There is speculation that the reserves in the South China Sea are Light, Sweet Crude. All Gasoline (AvGas, Premium, Midgrade, and 87 Octane) comes primarily from Light, Sweet Crude (along with Cutting Oils and other "lighter" petroleum products). This oil is the most used oil in the World, which is leading to it's "exhaustion" and the need to drill in newer places. Light, Sweet Crude is the "Benchmark" oil and all other Crudes have a lower Dollar value than Light, Sweet Crude due to the costs of refining them (compared to the lower cost of refining Light, Sweet Crude). This is also the oil used by the Civilian Sector (in the ENTIRE World) to provide transportation. The demand for this oil is incredibly high.

When one considers a disruption of the World's Fuel Manufacturing base, the following WILL happen:

Gasoline Production WILL fall off drastically and prices will rise to catastrophic levels very quickly. There simply isn't enough Light, Sweet Crude left in the European, and North American continents to meet demand. Without the African and Middle Eastern supplies of Light, Sweet Crude, Gas will "dry up" rapidly.

Diesel Fuel, Fuel Oil, and even Kerosene will still be available. The Shale Oil supplies in North America and Europe CAN BE REFINED INTO FUEL OIL AND DIESEL AT MODERATE COST. This is why Diesel Fuel was still available to US citizens during the Gas Crisis of the 1970s. We could make affordable Diesel fuel.

Bio-Diesel WILL be available as it can be made by combining animal fats with Ethanol to make it. This can be done by the stills listed in the game. Bio-Diesel carries NO loss of power or fuel efficiency either (I actually have BioWilly fuel in my tanks as I type this).

Ethanol CAN be used in many Gasoline powered cars. Contrary to the Dev's beliefs, Ethanol is NOT less powerful than gas but, in fact, MORE POWERFUL... producing anywhere from 5% to 35% MORE Horsepower per liter of fuel. The issue is NOT Horsepower BUT LONGEVITY in "alchohol burners."
First, the fuel burns "hotter" than gas, and this tends to destroy the seals, valves, springs and other various components of the engine in question. Multifuel engines CAN handle this wear.
Second, the fuel has a shorter "Duration of Burn" than gas. Gas has elements in it that extend the amount of time each injection of gas will burn in relation to Ethanol's burn time. This is where the reduced fuel economy of Ethanol comes in (due to Ethanol's faster burn rate).

Methanol cannot even be used as a fuel. Kato has a good post on this in the Thread Maps so I won't revisit that here.

Thus, our Fuel Chart SHOULD BE (from MOST Common to LEAST Common):

Bio-Diesel
Ethanol
Diesel
Kerosene
Gas
AvGas

[swaghauler]

Could Ethanol be used in Piston Aircraft? The answer is...it depends. It depends on how "clean" (contaminant free) your Ethanol is. Ethanol has sufficient energy for most aircraft (the reason it is used by Top Fuel Dragsters), but Ethanol's "burn rate" can be SEVERELY affected by altitude. Ethanol binds with water which can create combustion issues. This is actually easier to do at higher altitudes, so you can see the problem with Ethanol in aircraft.

Any equally powerful, BUT FAR MORE DANGEROUS, fuel for such aircraft is Methane Gas. Methane can also be used in jets (and its cousin, Propane, can be easily substituted in for liquid fuels in ALL Diesel and Kerosene engines).

And let's not forget that the German's made great use of hydrogen Peroxide as a jet fuel during WW2.

[aspqrz]

So you use Ethanol in civilian aircraft that can use it and can be converted like the Biafrans did ...

Anyway, scarcity of fuel isn't so much the problem as is how much of it you burn per mission.

The Mfi will, as noted, run on the smell of an oily rag ... that Hercules or F-16 not so much (even if there are any still operational).

How many mission equivalents would the Mfi manage compared to the F-16?

Heck of a lot. And desperation is the mother of invention, so to speak.

See ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches

So I still contend that there will be a lot more airpower than the game allows for, just that it won't be those military (or civilian) fuel hogs.

The Russians, at least, have a tradition of doing such ... though they may not use women this time around. Could the allies afford to not have their own light attack bomber units?

I don't think so.

Phil

[raketenjagdpanzer]

O-1 Bird Dogs and OV-10D Broncos (and possibly even Skyraiders) taking over the CAS mission, yeah.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

O-1 Bird Dogs and OV-10D Broncos (and possibly even Skyraiders) taking over the CAS mission, yeah.

OV-10G Broncos are showing their worth in Syria as I type this. The big advantage that these and other TURBOPROP COIN aircraft have is that they DON'T use AvGas. Most modern (post-Vietnam) turboprops have been adapted to use the Jet A fuel type (essentially highly refined Kerosene) to reduce the risk of fire. Your Broncos should be able to fly on well filtered Kerosene with a few additives (including Ethanol) with only a slight reduction in radius, altitude, top speed and safe G-Maneuvering (how many G's the motor can pull before you stall her).

Life is NOT all roses, though. There would also be a SIGNIFICANT reduction in Engine Service Life (the time you can fly in hours before certain parts MUST be replaced to avoid engine failure). This engine rebuild time varies by engine model, and can be as little as 10 hours of operation in an older Cessna using 87 Octane "pump gas" (instead of the 100LL AvGas).

I think the best ay to handle this would be an Aircraft Mechanics skill check to avoid an Engine Wear Number Increase when using the incorrect fuel in any aircraft.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

OV-10G Broncos are showing their worth in Siria as I type this. The big advantage that these and other TURBOPROP COIN aircraft have is that they DON'T use AvGas. Most modern (post-Vietnam) turboprops have been adapted to use the Jet A fuel type (essentially highly refined Kerosene) to reduce the risk of fire. Your Broncos should be able to fly on well filtered Kerosene with a few additives (including Ethanol) with only a slight reduction in radius, altitude, top speed and safe G-Maneuvering (how many G's the motor can pull before you stall her).

Life is NOT all roses, though. There would also be a SIGNIFICANT reduction in Engine Service Life (the time you can fly in hours before certain parts MUST be replaced to avoid engine failure). This engine rebuild time varies by engine model, and can be as little as 10 hours of operation in an older Cessna using 87 Octane "pump gas" (instead of the 100LL AvGas).

I think the best ay to handle this would be an Aircraft Mechanics skill check to avoid an Engine Wear Number Increase when using the incorrect fuel in any aircraft.

Well, the nice thing about prop-COIN ac like the Bronco, or a converted Cessna (I'm picturing two 7-round LAU racks, one on each wing, and a door gunner's vest strapped to the seat pan, all other seats removed, with an illuminated gunsight mounted on the top of the instrument board, or 1 LAU rack on one wing and a containerized M60D on the other) is that in almost every rural county in the US, there's a grass strip or even prepared strip and a "flying club" or Civil Air Patrol with the skill to maintain them. Since you're going from hundreds of planes flying on a daily basis to one to three and only when "in need" then you've got a huge surfeit of spare parts to choose from.

Also, consider the T37 and the A37. Nearly 2000 (combined) were built (1200 +/- of the T37 and 557 of the A37); if we assume that the USAF is still using the T37 by the start of the war (and we are - it is still used as a jet trainer), then there's a considerable store of parts for them A37s are parked at D-M; I would imagine that the USAF (or what's left of it) by 2000 would definitely look at converting at least some T37s to A37s or otherwise weaponizing them, to create a few ad-hoc air support wings (in fact, I will headcanon that). Again, if we're talking about perhaps a few dozen total, the "trickle" of fuel and remaining fuel stocks would be enough to provide for the Tweet/Dragonfly. It's not a high-performance bird, and it is decidedly low-altitude so a lower grade Bio/green fuel would suit it most excellently.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I think that would come down to what they are using for propulsion - the dirigible itself may not register but its engines sure would be a source of heat

Not so sure about that, since a stinger is designed to detect and home in on hot-buring turbine or jet engines.

Ultralight engines are comparatively small, cool heat sources; Dirigible engines are larger - but still not all that hot. The gas envelope is doing the hard work or keeping the thing in the sky.

No tone (detection), no target.

And another point - who says they still have Stingers?

As you say, they did not need them in the US - but there were a ton of Soviet aircraft in Europe and China: (Early 1997) "Quit bitching. You ain't being air-raided like the boys in Poland are today. If you need Stingers, Uncle Sugar will issue you some more off the assembly line."

And then TDM stops the assembly lines.

Uncle Ted