Jet Fuel

Keith Browning · August 5, 2008

I knew the day would come that I would run into this. An '06 350 with a 6.0L was dragged in for running rough. Wouldn't start for me. Long story short it had no fuel pressure due to a bad pump. Filters were not bad but I did see fine metal debris in the secondary, I also noticed my fuel sample was clear and didn't smell right.

It was easy to put 2 & 2 together, this was an Aviation Enterprises service truck. The guy services aircraft tow vehicles and fuel trucks... with an 06 Harley Davidson F350. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif He had two containers of Jet fuel in the bed which I sampled and matched it to the sample I took from the HFCM. HE approved the repair, truck runs well actually but I am afraid he could have damaged other things or caused other long term affects. If he doesn't want the old parts I will open the pump up and see if there was actually damage that looks like a lubricity issue.

After I was done I contacted the Hot Line just to see what they would say. Oh boy. Hi guys!

Any way I now have a sample of Jet Fuel.

Jim Warman · August 5, 2008

Over in the monkey house, there's a few baboons that know a guy that has a sister-in-law that is the second cousin pf a guy that plows snow out of the driveway of the lady that trims the dogs toenails of a woman that once rode on a bus with a guy that claimed he once had a vision in which he met someone that put JP sumpin' into his truck.... and it din't 'splode...

I don't believe that there are many road taxes involved in jet fuel.... If I gotta suffer, everyone else should be able to suffer right along with me.

Without any lab quality testing, I have to think that the little "Diesel fuel only" sign might sway a wiser mans decision. f I had a truck that I didn't have to depend on, I might consider tinkering... but to experiment with something that can affect ones livelihood..... ummmmmm, there is no delicate way to say that this guy is nuckin' futs.

Bruce Amacker · August 5, 2008

IH TSI 97-12-09 says it's OK to run JP8 jet fuel in older HEUI engines, specifically the split shot injectors used in the T444E and DT466E. I know several fleets running it in later engines without problems. I'd caution the cust that this is a gray area and he should be running a lubricity additive, but I recommend a lubricity additive regardless of fuel supply. Like we've never seen a lubricity problem in diesel fuel before?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Keith Browning · August 5, 2008

This is what Ford had to say in response to my Hot-Line contact:

Ford does not recommend running anything more than 5% of anything other than low sulfur and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Anything more will not only void the warranty but can cause damage. The damage can destroy fuel systems, injectors and possibly the base engine. Diesel fuel lubricity was used more on the 7.3 diesel engine when injectors were installed to make sure they had extra lube when first running an engine after injector replacement. Running jet fuel definitely can damage and contribute to failure of a HFCM. This is not a warrantable repair...

Fordracer · August 5, 2008

We have a National Guard truck that is used on the runway and never goes above 20 mph. It's a 2004 6.0. I've replaced turbo's every 4000 miles and complete exhaust systems at 10,000 miles. I called the hotline about it and they say the military sometimes run jet fuel because that's all that's available sometimes and the hotline acted like it was no big deal. They also said that the military gets all the good quality diesel and that's why we have poor quality fuel. We told the gaurd to drive them on the highway once a week and we haven't had anymore problems.

Keith Browning · August 8, 2008

Okay, so I discussed this "warranty canceling issue with my service manager and I called the Hot-Line (hi guys!) for some clarification about the form. No big deal, Submitted the form and entered Service Managers name and e-mail.

So they call us after reviewing the form and wanted to know what TYPE of jet fuel it was. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif How the hell are we supposed to know that?

Apparently JP-8 has just been "approved" for use in 6.0L PSD engines. But don't quote me on that, its third hand information and I would personally want to that in writing. Now we have to find a lab to send a sample to that can identify the fuel. Good thing I took a big sample!

Bruce Amacker · August 8, 2008

wanted to know what TYPE of jet fuel it was. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif How the hell are we supposed to know that?

Apparently JP-8 has just been "approved" for use in 6.0L PSD engines. But don't quote me on that, its third hand information and I would personally want to that in writing. Now we have to find a lab to send a sample to that can identify the fuel. Good thing I took a big sample!

I called the Napa oil analysis lab at 800-394-3669 and talked to a tech named Grant Dawson. I asked if they could identify diesel vs. JP8 vs. jet fuel vs. K1 and he said they probably could. The fuel guy was gone for the day (gee, at 4pm on a Friday?) whose name is Mike Costello. Grant also said they can do diesel lubricity testing but could not answer about pricing. Most of the office was gone for the day but they will get back to me next week via e-mail with pricing and details.

Keep that sample handy.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Keith Browning · August 9, 2008

Thank you Bruce.

Torqued_Up · August 10, 2008

I googled this and found a few intersting pages that had som e good info

Quote:

AVIATION TURBINE FUEL (JET FUEL)

CIVIL JET FUELS

Aviation turbine fuels are used for powering jet and turbo-prop engined aircraft and are not to be confused with Avgas. Outside former communist areas, there are currently two main grades of turbine fuel in use in civil commercial aviation : Jet A-1 and Jet A, both are kerosene type fuels. There is another grade of jet fuel, Jet B which is a wide cut kerosene (a blend of gasoline and kerosene) but it is rarely used except in very cold climates.

JET A-1

Jet A-1 is a kerosene grade of fuel suitable for most turbine engined aircraft. It is produced to a stringent internationally agreed standard, has a flash point above 38°C (100°F) and a freeze point maximum of -47°C. It is widely available outside the U.S.A. Jet A-1 meets the requirements of British specification DEF STAN 91-91 (Jet A-1), (formerly DERD 2494 (AVTUR)), ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A-1) and IATA Guidance Material (Kerosine Type), NATO Code F-35.

JET A

Jet A is a similar kerosene type of fuel, produced to an ASTM specification and normally only available in the U.S.A. It has the same flash point as Jet A-1 but a higher freeze point maximum (-40°C). It is supplied against the ASTM D1655 (Jet A) specification.

JET B

Jet B is a distillate covering the naphtha and kerosene fractions. It can be used as an alternative to Jet A-1 but because it is more difficult to handle (higher flammability), there is only significant demand in very cold climates where its better cold weather performance is important. In Canada it is supplied against the Canadian Specification CAN/CGSB 3.23

MILITARY

JP-4

JP-4 is the military equivalent of Jet B with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-DTL-5624U Grade JP-4. (As of Jan 5, 2004, JP-4 and 5 meet the same US Military Specification). JP-4 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-88 AVTAG/FSII (formerly DERD 2454),where FSII stands for Fuel Systems Icing Inhibitor. NATO Code F-40.

JP-5

JP-5 is a high flash point kerosene meeting the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-DTL-5624U Grade JP-5 (as of Jan 5, 2004, JP-4 and 5 meet the same US Military Specification). JP-5 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-86 AVCAT/FSII (formerly DERD 2452). NATO Code F-44.

JP-8

JP-8 is the military equivalent of Jet A-1 with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-DTL-83133E. JP-8 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-87 AVTUR/FSII (formerly DERD 2453). NATO Code F-34.

AVIATION FUEL ADDITIVES

Aviation fuel additives are compounds added to the fuel in very small quantities, usually measurable only in parts per million, to provide special or improved qualities. The quantity to be added and approval for its use in various grades of fuel is strictly controlled by the appropriate specifications.

A few additives in common use are as follows:

1. Anti-knock additives reduce the tendency of gasoline to detonate. Tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) is the only approved anti-knock additive for aviation use and has been used in motor and aviation gasolines since the early 1930s.

2. Anti-oxidants prevent the formation of gum deposits on fuel system components caused by oxidation of the fuel in storage and also inhibit the formation of peroxide compounds in certain jet fuels.

3. Static dissipater additives reduce the hazardous effects of static electricity generated by movement of fuel through modern high flow-rate fuel transfer systems. Static dissipater additives do not reduce the need for `bonding' to ensure electrical continuity between metal components (e.g. aircraft and fuelling equipment) nor do they influence hazards from lightning strikes.

4. Corrosion inhibitors protect ferrous metals in fuel handling systems, such as pipelines and fuel storage tanks, from corrosion. Some corrosion inhibitors also improve the lubricating properties (lubricity) of certain jet fuels.

5. Fuel System Icing Inhibitors (Anti-icing additives) reduce the freezing point of water precipitated from jet fuels due to cooling at high altitudes and prevent the formation of ice crystals which restrict the flow of fuel to the engine. This type of additive does not affect the freezing point of the fuel itself. Anti-icing additives can also provide some protection against microbiological growth in jet fuel.

6. Metal de-activators suppress the catalytic effect which some metals, particularly copper, have on fuel oxidation.

7. Biocide additives are sometimes used to combat microbiological growths in jet fuel, often by direct addition to aircraft tanks; as indicated above some anti-icing additives appear to possess biocidal properties.

8. Thermal Stability Improver additives are sometimes used in military JP-8 fuel, to produce a grade referred to as JP-8+100, to inhibit deposit formation in the high temperature areas of the aircraft fuel system.

POWER BOOSTING FLUIDS

It used to be commonplace for large piston engines to require special fluids to increase their take-off power. Similar injection systems are also incorporated in some turbo-jet and turbo-prop engines. The power increase is achieved by cooling the air consumed, to raise its density and thereby increase the weight of air available for combustion. This effect can be obtained by using water alone but it is usual to inject a mixture of methanol and water to produce a greater degree of evaporative cooling and also to provide additional fuel energy.

For piston engines, methanol/water mixtures are used and these may have 1 percent of a corrosion inhibiting oil added. The injection system may be used to compensate for the power lost when operating under high temperature and/or high altitude conditions (i.e. with low air densities) or to obtain increased take-off power under normal atmospheric conditions, by permitting higher boost pressure for a short period.

Both water alone and methanol/water mixtures are used in gas turbine engines, principally to restore the take-off power (or thrust) lost when operating under low air density conditions. Use of a corrosion inhibitor in power boost fluids supplied for these engines is not permitted.

The methanol and water used must be of very high quality to avoid formation of engine deposits. The water must be either demineralised or distilled and the only adulterant permitted in the methanol is up to 0.5 per cent of pyridine if required by local regulations as a de-naturant. In the past there were several different grades of water/methanol mixtures, e.g. 45/55/0 for turbine engines, 50/50/0 for piston engines (this was also available with 1% corrosion inhibiting oil and was designated 50/50/1) and 60/40/0, however, with decreasing demand Shell now only supplies 45/55/0. The table shows the principal characteristics of Shell demineralised water and of the commonly used methanol/water blend

Quote:

Re: Can JET-A fuel substitute for 1-D or 2-D diesel

Date: Wed Mar 22 13:44:15 2000

Posted By: Joseph Weeks, President, Thermal Products, Inc.

Area of science: Chemistry

ID: 952745334.Ch Message:

Free fuel sounds like a great idea, however there are several matters which

need to be considered. First, the fuel at the bottom of the tank probably

has dirt and other crud which can cause wear of the fuel injection system.

Assuming that you eliminate the dirt, then there is the question of

compatibility. I contacted Marketing Fuel Technical Service at Chevron

concerning your question. Their response is as follows:

"In regards to your inquiry about whether Jet A can be run in a diesel

engine, Chevron would never advise anyone to use a particular fuel in an

engine that was not designed for that fuel. We would advise that the

inquiry be made to the equipment (engine) manufacturer."

Remember, while there is only one basic Jet A species, there are several

kinds of diesel - diesel No. 1 and diesel No. 2 (amongst others). Jet A is

more like Diesel No. 1. Diesel No. 2 is the more common "diesel" fuel,

since it is the fuel used by vehicles "on-road".

All of the fuels are products of the refining process. One of the main

differences between them is their distillation boiling ranges. Diesel No. 2

has a higher (in temperature) boiling range and is more dense than Jet A

and/or diesel No. 1 (both of which have lower densities and lower

boiling range temperatures). A fuel which is less dense will have lower

fuel economy (less BTU's per gallon). All of this is "besides the point" as far

as the appropriateness of any of the three to perform in the engines that were

designed for their use. If the engine manufacturer indicates the use of only one

type of fuel, that is the fuel that should be used.

For further information please visit Chevron's INTERNET site at http://www.chevron.com.

There are some very informative publications at the site at http://www.chevron.com/chevr

on_root/prodserv (there is an "underscore" character after the second

"chevron" word). When you reach that site, click on the word "Fuels" and you

will then see a "Publications" option.

That said, we will break down your inquiries into a group of statements

that we have put together to answer others who have asked similar

questions:

Jet A, Diesel No. 1, and Diesel No. 2, are covered by different American

Society For Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications. The diesel fuels are

covered by ASTM D 975, "Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils". Jet A has

the designation of ASTM D 1655, "Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine

Fuels".

According to the ASTM specifications listed above, the sulfur limit for Jet

A is a maximum of 0.3 mass %. Because of an Environmental Protection Agency

1993 regulation, the specification for sulfur in "on road" Diesel No. 1 and

Diesel No. 2 is a maximum of 0.05 mass % - a large difference from the Jet A

sulfur level.

The EPA regulation would be broken if one were to use Jet A for "on-road"

Diesel. Jet A is also not taxed for "on-road" use, so would be illegal to

use in "on-road" vehicles and possibly illegal in some "off-road" uses as

well. Both the sulfur level and the tax issue need to be considered in a

legal sense when considering the uses of these fuels.

Another difference between the fuels is the viscosity. The ASTM D 1655

detailed viscosity requirement of Jet A is a maximum of 8 mm2/S (millimeter

squared/Seconds - [1mm2/S = 1 Centistoke]) at -200C. The ASTM D 975 viscosity

requirement of Diesel No. 1 is a minimum of 1.3 and a maximum of 2.4 mm2/S at

400C and of Diesel No. 2, a minimum of 1.9 and a maximum of 4.1 mm2/S at 400C.

It is hard to compare these, since the testing temperatures of the diesels do

not agree with that of the Jet A. However, the viscosities at 200 Centigrade and

in units "milliPascal/Seconds" (still another, and different unit measurement)

for the two fuels according to a national average of four semiannual surveys

taken from 1990-1992 are as follows:

Jet A & Diesel No. 1 1.33

Diesel No. 2 3.20

Jet A and Diesel No. 1 tend towards lower viscosities. Lower lubricity is

likely as the viscosity decreases. While this may not cause catastrophic instant

damage, it could cause long-term wear of pumps, etc.

Jet fuels have additional specifications that aren't required of diesel

fuels. A couple examples of these are the requirement of testing for

certain components and a volatility requirement. Some of the methods for

testing also vary from one fuel to the other. Basically, however, we have

pointed out the biggest differences. If you need more detailed comparisons,

please contact the ASTM society at their headquarters at 100 Barr Harbor Drive,

West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428. They could provide you with copies of the

specifications. Their phone number is 610-832-9500.

Once again, we stress that you should contact the equipment manufacturers

and ask what fuels are proper for use in the engines you are curious about.

Also, you must make certain you are not breaking any legal regulations."

So the bottom line is that although Jet-A may not cause immediate damage to

a diesel engine and may allow the engine to run OK, its use may cause

premature wear or fouling of the fuel system, and you may be breaking EPA

regulations as well as not paying appropriate taxes. Outside the US,

differences in viscosity still mean that the use of Jet-A for Diesel No. 1

may cause early wear of the fuel system. Kind of like running 10 weight

oil in a car designed for 30 weight. So how much risk are you willing to

take, because no engine manufacturer or fuel supplier will take part of the

risk?

Aaron · August 13, 2008

Hot-Line (hi guys!)

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif

Why do you do this every time again, you explained it to me once but I forget. Is it like "HIGUYS" like Special Ed from Crank Yankers?

"YAAAAAAAAY We're gonna go see Air bud! YAAAAAAAAAAY!"

Keith Browning · August 13, 2008

I was told that some of the Gents from the Hot-Line visit our forums on occasion. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/borgsmile-1.gif Too bad they can't chime in. Sometimes I just feel like waving hello! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

LARRY BRUDZYNSKI · August 13, 2008

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whew.gif

Bruce Amacker · August 13, 2008

This morning I spoke with Ed Eckart at Stavely Services, who is the lab that does Napa's testing. Unfortunately, they do not do lubricity testing and farm it out to Southwest Research in San Antonio, who charges $275 to test lubricity. A 4 oz sample is all that they need. He says determining whether a sample is Jet A, JP8, or K1 is very difficult by their chemical signature because they are so similar. Determining whether these samples are LSD or ULSD is relatively easy by the sulfur content. His personal opinion is that the chemical signature of JP8, Jet A, and LSD are so similar that no problem would be caused by interchanging them. He stated a lubricity enhancer would be a good idea even before I said it.

I called IH Tech support and asked them the same thing and was surprised to find it is stated right in the owner's manual (duh!) that "International Truck and Engine Corporation allows the use of Aviation 1-D (Commercial Jet A) and JP8 fuel in VT-365 and DT466E and EGR engines". Tech Support specifically warned against using it in DPF equipped engines as it will cause DPF plugging.

Ford's owner's manual states that only #1 or #2 LSD should be used in a 6.0.

Interesting information.......

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/coffee.gif

Shlep · August 13, 2008

I was told that some of the Gents from the Hot-Line visit our forums on occasion. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/borgsmile-1.gif Too bad they can't chime in. Sometimes I just feel like waving hello! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

Probably looking for the "right" fixes to pass on to engineering /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/hahaha.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/ford.gif

Aaron · August 14, 2008

Originally Posted By: Keith Browning

I was told that some of the Gents from the Hot-Line visit our forums on occasion. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/borgsmile-1.gif Too bad they can't chime in. Sometimes I just feel like waving hello! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

Probably looking for the "right" fixes to pass on to engineering /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/hahaha.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/ford.gif

BURNED!

I refer you gentlemen to my signature below /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif :

Keith Browning · August 16, 2008

Update on this. It is "okay" to use Jet-A/JP8 but only in off road applications like military or construction only vehicles. Any vehicle registered and tagged for on road use is prohibited and THAT(?) is the final determining factor for warranty coverage/cancellation?

This is the kind of thing many of us hate about Ford Motor Company.

What the hell does the registration status of a vehicle have to to with warranty and whether or not a type of fuel is fit for use in a given engine? Nothing! It does have legal implications if jet fuel is not certified for use as a motor vehicle fuel in an on-highway motor vehicle... which I don't know the answer to. But this brings us back to the point that jet fuel and diesel fuel are DIFFERENT and are refined and formulated differently to be used in specific types of engines.

So, if jet fuel has lower lubricity, different ignition qualities and has the potential to damage a diesel engine then how the fuck is not having license plates on the truck going to make all that change? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/icon_crazy.gif

Bruce Amacker · August 17, 2008

What the hell does the registration status of a vehicle have to to with warranty and whether or not a type of fuel is fit for use in a given engine? Nothing!

So, if jet fuel has lower lubricity, different ignition qualities and has the potential to damage a diesel engine then how the fuck is not having license plates on the truck going to make all that change? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/icon_crazy.gif

Come on, Keith, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Actually, I agree totally about Ford being weird about how they handle the political side of this, but disagree about the technical side. If IH says it's OK, then I agree, and the fuels are similar enough to not cause a problem. Who knows more about diesel engines, Ford or IH?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Jim Warman · August 17, 2008

Originally Posted By: Keith Browning

What the hell does the registration status of a vehicle have to to with warranty and whether or not a type of fuel is fit for use in a given engine? Nothing!

So, if jet fuel has lower lubricity, different ignition qualities and has the potential to damage a diesel engine then how the fuck is not having license plates on the truck going to make all that change? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/icon_crazy.gif

Come on, Keith, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Actually, I agree totally about Ford being weird about how they handle the political side of this, but disagree about the technical side. If IH says it's OK, then I agree, and the fuels are similar enough to not cause a problem. Who knows more about diesel engines, Ford or IH?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

One thing that comes to mind.... Cornbinder gives us a VT365 putting out anywhere up to 230 HP.... Ford gives us a 6.0PSD putting out 325 of them little fellers...

Thinking back to my youth, I see several instances where power "upgrades" have had the net result of making an engine fit real loose in a five gallon bucket...

What might be good in a motor pumping 200 HP may not be so good in the same motor pounding out half again the 'designed' power. If someone says "That might not be a good idea", we can either heed them or ignore them... often, we don't have the opportunity to change our mind...

If Navistar says jet fuel is OK, I am sure that they mean it is OK in a VT365... but I don't work on those.

Keith Browning · August 17, 2008

Actually, I agree totally about Ford being weird about how they handle the political side of this, but disagree about the technical side. If IH says it's OK, then I agree, and the fuels are similar enough to not cause a problem. Who knows more about diesel engines, Ford or IH?

Allow me to punctuate my position. Ford Motor Company needs to determine and state in writing with respect to fuels what they will allow and what they will not allow and WHY. Whatever their position is, they need to make it clear, stand behind it and stop with ponderous administrative policy. For God's sake.