It was somewhere outside Barstow when firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
You can't get any (AFAIK) US-designed production gas turbine to run on
petrol (gasoline) Some of the late '50s Armstrong-Siddeley burner
designs (as used in the Beryl or Sapphire) could be run on petrol, but
this was known to be hazardous.
If by "gas" you mean LPG (propane) then this is quite easy - easier to
get started than kerosene - which is why most of the model jet
builders use it.
For natural gas (methane) then this is a significant market for
turboshaft engines - they're used to power pipeline compressors, using
some of the product as fuel. These have quite extensively modified
fuel systems though.
Turbojet, turbofan, gas turbine engines will most definitely run on
gasoline. When this becomes necessary by circumstances, there are
limitations imposed on the operating parameters of the engine. These
ordinarily would include power settings, and time of operation while using
gasoline as fuel, etc. to avoid affecting the TBO (time between overhauls)
of the engine in question.
Of course you can. This is nothing new. In 1963 a bunch of people were
driving around in gas turbine powered Chryslers, that could run on just
about anything including whiskey and perfume (both were demonstrated).
They did have a minor problem with leaded gasoline--the lead precipitated
out on the turbine which over the long term was badness, but was not
The AGT1500 engine used in the Abrams is specifically rated to run on
diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, and marine diesel, or so says the manufacturer,
and will no doubt run on other fuels as well.
If by "production gas turbine" you mean commercial aircraft engines you are
probably correct, there is no real need for them to have this capability
and certification testing with nonstandard fuels would add a good deal to
the development cost.
They were in the hands of ordinary citizens and driven daily for several
years and there are in fact still several of them in private hands. They
were as much "production cars" as some models of Ferrari.
So how may Rovers were in private hands, ever?
How did they end up in private hands? GM didn't sell them and I thought
they destroyed them all after the program ended. <sob!> If any of them
still exist I'd love to see one again.
BTW: I think you're wrong about the Ferrari. IIRC they had to produce a
minimum number, something like a hundred, to qualify for GT racing. The
Formula Ones and such were a different matter, of course.
None, of course. Those were purely experimental, like some of the
'turbine cars' a few people built in the 60s using military surplus
No, GM didn't sell them. GM didn't make them either. They were _CHRYSLER_
products, not General Motors.
Forty were destroyed--apparently it was some kind of tax thing--remember
that the bodywork was limited production from Ghia and the taxes might have
been substantial. That left ten--two belong to Chrysler, the remainder
were all sent to various museums, some of which subsequently sold them.
According to <http://www.turbinecar.com/where.htm four of them are
currently in driveable condition including one of ones at Chrysler and one
that is privately held. And I'm annoyed with myself--I grew up in a small
town in Florida and moved out as soon as I could. According to one site I
visited there was a concours held in that town a while back and by golly
somebody drove up in a Chrysler turbine.
Don't know the current rule but at one time it was 25. Ford had to do the
same with the Ford GT--I used to have a brochure for the homologation
version, which had power steering and air conditioning. But they wanted
something like $35K for it, which in the early '60s was a Hell of a lot of
Seems to me then that Chrysler has done a better job all around--they've
managed to get at least one guy on the road with a privately owned
Chrysler-built turbine car.
Yeah, but ours actually ran more than 50 miles between mechanic's
[As a former owner of a Sterling, I can say that]
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
Umm, yep, my point exactly. My Sterling was a dream to drive, too.
Great pickup, smooth ride, nice amenities -- problem was I spent most of my
time enjoying all that on the trips to the repair shop. Rover mechanicals
with Lucas electronics -- there's a combination made in [not] heaven.
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
It never retired due to "failure". They drove it at Le Man three
times, although it was never officially entered as the rules couldn't
classify its "cylinder capacity". In '63 it finished 8th, in '65 10th
and '64 was the year when they damaged it getting there and couldn't
The Rover T4 (the third road car ?) was about as close to reaching a
public market as the Chrysler Ghia was. When launched it was claimed
to be within two or three years of production (which if you know the
car industry, is very close indeed). It was in fact even closer than
that - the thing holding it back was the chassis, that of the new P6
Rover (the shark) which went successfully on sale around two years
later. The reason they didn't sell it was quite simple - it cost
around twice what any other Rover did.
the first generation jet fuel, isn't considered kerosene derived because
it's about half gasoline. The later grades of jet fuel are kerosene
For more than you'd ever want to know see:
(and mind the line break)
JP-4 (amazingly enough) is actually the fourth generation jet fuel,
first specified in 1951 (third generation in service, because JP-2 was
barely used). Compared to JP-3 it was less volatile (less loss in
flight). It was never "made from gasoline", but it was (compared to
the early fuels) a blend of kerosene and naptha (gasoline-like
fractions). It's main advantage was easy worldwide production from
existing petrochemical plant - a problem with the JP-3 spec.
JP-5 was an interesting fuel. At the time the navy had a mixed jet and
piston fleet, on carriers with little spare storage capacity. So JP-5
was a heavy kerosene that wasn't usable as a jet fuel, but could be
stored in the ship's fuel bunkers (low fire risk) and even used in the
ship's own engines. To turn it into a jet fuel it was blended with
piston AvGas on-board ship to make something that resembled JP-4 and
really was "half gasoline". This fuel also contained lead, not a usual
additive in jet fuel. This caused a little metallurgical trouble for
US engine makers and also raised some limits on NATO aircraft
refueling from US carriers.
In time, JP-5's very low volatility made it attractive for higher
altitudes, once engines had been developed that could burn it
directly. JP-6 was a low temperature fuel for high altitudes at high
supersonic speeds and JP-7 was a high temperature fuel for _really_
high speeds - just the SR-71 family.
JP-8 is a relatively recent (mid 70s) development to provide a true
"single fuel" across the army's entire engine fleet. It's not a
perfect substitute for diesel, because of lower lubricity - military
multi-fuel diesels use more hard chrome plating in their fuel systems
to avoid the increased wear that its use would cause in a "civilian"
The British army seems to be slightly ahead of the US in replacing
petrol engines. AIUI, the Brits have cleared the old petrol generator
fleet out (the surplus market is flooded with them) but the US still
needs petrol to run specialised gen sets attached to some equipment.
Neither of them seems to have found a workable diesel motorbike though
- there have been trial Harley Davidson singles fitted with Indian
Enfield engines, but these were about everything you'd expect from an
Indian diesel motorbike. There was talk of a Rotax diesel too, but
nothing seems to have come of it.
Gasoline (petrol) is a difficult fuel to burn in a gas turbine. The
problem is its low flashpoint and high flame velocity. It's difficult
to provide a stable burner design for it, particularly over the wide
range of air mass flow found over the engine's operating range. It's
especially hard to start a gas turbine engine fuelled with petrol -
the Armstrong-Siddeley design of vapourising burner had advantages
here (amongst many other advantages) but it was killed off by the
politics of the British engine industry being rationalised into one
company (lots of "Not Invented Here" innovations were discarded by
Rolls-Royce, whether they came from A-S, Bristol or Napier)
The engine in an Abrams is either the AGT1500 or the LV100 (if the
upgrade programme goes ahead). The AGT1500 is a dog, however you
measure it. The finest of '60s helicopter engine technology, with a
great many compressor and turbine stages. If you're in a mood to run
gasoline, then a better design to start with is one of the smaller APU
designs - a separate burner can, isolated and off to one side.
I understand that it will run on gasoline, but that this was very
much an expedient for use in extremis only. Since one of the mid-90s
upgrade programmes though, this facility has been withdrawn from
service - in a diesel-only army, it doesn't make much sense to support
a problematic fuel you're not going to have available anyway.
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 20:25:24 -0600, Australopithecus scobis
QUOTE [Morrison and Boyd, "Organic Chemistry", second edition]
"Certain organic compounds contain only two elements, hydrogen and
carbon, and hence are known as hydrocarbons."
Vegetable oil has attached hydrocarbon chains, but because its entire
structure is not composed of only two elements it is not a hydrocarbon
Hydrocarbon chains comprise a series of carbon atoms linked together,
each of which has two hydrogen atoms attached. These molecules may be
of different chain lengths, and may also have double bonds in some
places. They are generally stable but release considerable amounts of
energy when burnt in the presence of oxygen. Combustion is activated
by a small amount of energy but can release a great deal of energy in
the right situation.
Hydrocarbon chains derived from fossil fuels typified by the
petrochemical industry do not have the carboxylic acid ester
connection, and exist in many elaborate forms.
...and many more.
Try reading instead of resorting to childish name-calling.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.