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

[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.