THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

Three Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016-5990 99-GT-293

The Society shall not be responsible for statements or opinions advanced in papers or discussion at meetings of the Society or of its Divisions or
Sections, or printed in Its publications. Discu‘sion Is printed only lithe paper is published in an ASME Journal. Authorization to photocopy .
for internal or personal use is granted to libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) provided
S3/article is paid to CCC, 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923. Requests for special permission or bulk reproduction should be ad-
dressed to the ASME Technical Publishing Department.

Copyright 0 1999 by ASME All Rights Reserved Printed in U.S.A.

THE USE OF BIO-FUELS AS ADDITIVES AND EXTENDERS' 1111111111111111111111111

FOR AVIATION TURBINE FUELS

Melanie A. Kimble-Thom David L. Stanley

Baere Aerospace Consulting Purdue University
80 N. Sharon Chapel Road Department of Aviation Technology
West Lafayette, Indiana 47906 1 Purdue Airport Road
United States West Lafayette, Indiana 47906
765-494-9757 United States
765-494-2305 765-494-6266
102741.424@compuseive.com 765-494-2305
dIstanley@rtech.purdue.edu
John T. Cholis
Purdue University
Aviation Technology Denver W. Lopp
1 Purdue Airport Road Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana 47906 Department of Aviation Technology
United States 1 Purdue Airport Road
765-494-6266 West Lafayette, Indiana 47906
765-494-2305 United States
765-494-6387
765-494-2305
dwlopp©tech.purdue.edu

ABSTRACT WHY USE BID-FUELS IN ASTM 0-1655 TURBINE FUEL?

The use of biologically derived oils and fuels has received
increasing visibility in recent years. A combination of filel
availability, refinery capacity and environmental icspunsibility has
resulted in interest in their use in turbine engine fuels.
Such a soy methyl ester (SME) is being evaluated as a possible
extender and/or additive for aviation turbine fuel per ASTM D-1655.
Laboratory testing indicates additive levels of up to 2% by volume
can be used while still meeting ASTM D-1655. Engine testing
performed at 20% blending levels have demonstrated potential fuel
consumption improvements as well as reduction in NO emissions.
The final blend levels have not yet been determined.
The use of SME even at low levels could provided performance
benefits. Because of the oil nature of SME, a small addition could
result in significant increases in lubricity. The use of the higher
flashpoint SME could result in an upward shift in flashpoint with
little or no effect to other physical properties. With increased
visibility to work place considerations, the potential for "odor"
abatement is also of interest
In recent months the use of bio-fuels as replacements for
traditional petroleum based materials has received a lot of press. One
of the major activities of the National Soybean Growers Association
is to find new markets for soy based products. To this end, the
Indiana Soybean Development Council has funded research on the
viability and challenges of using soy methyl esters (SME) as an
extender for commercial aviation turbine fuel.
Indeed, there are several potential benefits to be obtained aside
from the extension of current petroleum resources. The use of soy
diesel in ground based applications like city buses has resulted in an
observed reduction in emissions, possible power benefits and
improved environmental friendliness with odor abatement and
biodegradability.
It was hoped the use of SME as an extender to current aviation
turbine fuels would allow for more end gallons of fuel from current
petroleum reserves while reaping some of the benefits observed in
other applications using SME and possibly benefits unique to the
application.

Presented at the International Gas Turbine & Aeroengine Congress & Exhbdion
Indianapds, Indiana — June 7-June 10, 1999
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/25/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 Aviation Turbine Fuel Availability
In 1997, the US commercial airline industry used 1.4 million
barrels of fuel per day or 77 million gallons of jet fuel per day
(Salisbury, 1997). To make those 77 million gallons, it took
approximately 750 million gallons of crude oil or 14 million barrels
per day. An average jet fuel yield on the refmery runs in May 1997
was 10.3% (Petroleum Intelligence, 1997).
With increasing pressure to tind alternate sources for petroleum,
pressure to reduce dependence on foreign sources and environmental
pressures to improve the cleanliness of combustion engines, the use
of SME in aviation turbine fuel warrants investigation. If Jet A were
extended 5% with SME, this would equate to 3.9 million gallons of
fuel or 37.5 million gallons of base crude oil per day.
Because of poor refining margins and sharper focus on gasoline,
there could be a cut into the jet net inventories. Slim gasoline
inventories and weak jet fuel prices relative to gasoline could push
refuters to adjust yields in favor of gasoline and overall throughput
reductions may be in store to improve refining margins.
Lubricity Improvements
While the effects of poor lubricity are generally not observed in
the US market, "dry" fuel is becoming more and more of a problem
for non-US fuel users. New environmental requirements have
resulted in refiners more severely hydrotreating their fuels. The fuel
made by this method is more "dry", meaning it has less ability to
lubricate fuel wetted components in the engine system. This loss of
• lubricity means the potential for a reduction in the useful life of
critical components which are dependant on this lubrication.
Problems involving these more severely hydrotreated fuels have been
seen in isolated markets since 1996.
One of the potential benefits obtained from the use of SME,
even at low levels, is an improvement in lubricity. Laboratory testing
was done using the Ball on Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator (BOCLE)
per ASTM D-5001. Lubricity is a measurement of the size of a wear
scar formed on the surface of the test ball. The measurement is the
average of the maximum and minimum axes of the wear scar,
measured in millimeters and reported as a wear scar diameter (WSD).
A smaller value is preferable.
The laboratory testing was performed with 2% soy methyl esters
in iso-octane. The resulting lubricity value was 0.56nun avenge
WSD. The base iso-octane was so dry, it could not be accurately
measured due to changes in the wear mechanism during the test
(adhesive and scuffing wear). For comparison, the average WSD of a
typical aviation fuel Was 0.50 to 0.60mm avg. WSD. The lubricity of
some of the "dry" fuels has been observed to be greater than 0.70nun
Improved Emissions
Aircraft engines are one of the fastest growing sources of NO
and CO especially around airport areas. In terms of public
perception, this growth seems even worse due to the fact that other
sources of NO and CO are being reduced The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for air pollutants. Because aircraft
exhaust is a significant contributor to these pollutants, the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) aircraft standards
have been included into NAAQS. For the first time EPA regulations
will be consistent across aircraft and engine type and testing will be
included into the base fuel specifications (Bokulich, 1998). This
means anything which can help improve these emissions will have a
positive impact on aviation fuel.
Exhaust emissions testing was performed on-site at the Purdue
University Airport by Clean Air Engineering of Palatine, IL. A
Garrett TPE-331-3U turboprop engine on the wing of a Hadley-Paige
HP 137 was used for this project. With the aircraft chocked and
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/25/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
otherwise secured, the sampling probe for emissions was located at
the approximate center of the exhaust plume just at the tailpipe exit
A heated Teflon sample line carried the sample gases to the
Continuous Emissions Monitoring system while maintaining
temperatures above 121°C (250°F) to prevent condensation of
moisture within the line.
02, CO2, SO2, NOx, and CO concentrations were measured
following the removal of moisture through a standard condensation
process. These gas concentrations were measured on a dry volumetric
basis (ppmdv). Total hydrocarbons (THC) were measured on a wet
volumetric basis (ppmwv). Analyzers were calibrated with EPA
certified gases prior to testing, and sampling system bias and
calibration drift were checked prior to and after each of the test
operations.
Engine operations were performed on three different fuel
samples: 100% Jet-A, 98% Jet-A and 2% SME, and 80% Jet-A and
20% SME. Given the large amount of time the aircraft spends on the
ground holding or taxing, one goal of the project was to examine idle
power exhaust emissions, which presented no operational problem.
However, studies at high power - the opposite end of the spectrum -
did present operational considerations, with respect to both engine
temperatures, and safety. In view of these considerations, it was
decided to conduct tests at idle and at medium power, approximately
500 horsepower.
For idle operations, little if any change was observed across the
three test fuels for oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and total
hydrocarbons. On the other hand, both sulfur dioxide and carbon
monoxide trended upwards as the percent of SME increased For
operations at the higher power settings, little change was observed for
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. Sulfur dioxide,
however, was measured at 7.63 ppmdv for Jet-A, decreased to 7.38
ppmdv for the 98% Jet-A blend, and continued dropping to 4.85
ppmdv for the 80% Jet-A / 20% soybean methyl ester blend Carbon
monoxide measured 24.1 ppmdv for Jet-A operations, dropped to
16.4 ppmdv on the 9804 Jet-A /2% SME blend, and then reverse-
trended upwards to 21.6 ppmdv on 80% Jet-A / 20% SME. The
reason for the trend was unclear and further research on this result is
recommended.
To summarize the emissions fmdings, test results for the high
power settings, two values changed significantly as a percentage:
sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Both of these showed lower
concentrations in the SME-blended fuels. It is interesting to note,
however, that for idle power operations, the trend for sulfur dioxide
was upwards, that is, concentrations increased with higher blending
ratios of SME. None of the changes observed appear to be
remarkable or particularly anomalous, and neither do these results
appear to contraindicate further testing. (Table 1).
More Pleasant Combustion Odor
Anyone who has had to follow behind a city bus is familiar with
the foul smelling belch of black smoke corning from the exhaust.
Testing has been done in many US markets using soy diesel instead
of traditional diesel in the buses. As a result, not only was the belch
of smoke reduced, the odor was more like french fries or baking
bread.
During the 1998 meeting of the Coordinating Research Council
(CRC), a professional organization which provides technical data for
ASTM under the auspices of the American Petroleum Institute (API),
a new concern was presented. It was announced there was an
indication that a group might be formed to address the odor of burnt
kerosene. Ramp workers, baggage handlers and other personnel who
must work around jet aircraft had voiced a concern regarding the
odor and it was thought this concern should be addressed
 If the odor benefits observed with the use of SME on city buses
could be obtained through the use of SME in Jet A, ramp workers
could find the work environment much less unpleasant Initial engine
testing with 20% blends did show some changes in the exhaust odor
to more of an "food oil" type odor. The extent to which such
improvements might be made still needs to be studied.
Increased FlashpoiM
Following the explosion and crash of a Boeing 747 out of
Kennedy Airport, a lot of attention was placed on the safety of the jet
fuel. Concerns were raised regarding the flanunability of kerosene,
especially as a vapor in an empty or nearly empty fuel tank. One of
the potential solutions was an evaluation of the flashpoint of fuel.
Flashpoint is directly related to the lighter distillates being able
to evaporate and form a flammable mixture. Most methods of raising
the flashpoint involve changing the distillation range of the entire
fuel. One of the impacts of this shift is reduced flammability, which
is the goal. Unfortunately, such a change also causes changes in
other properties, including viscosity and combustibility. These
changes negatively effect engine performance such as cold starting
capabilities and air starts at altitude.
If SME, which has a much higher flashpoint (112°C (234°F) by
ASTM 0-93, Penslcy-Martens) is added to Jet A (minimum
flashpoint of 38°C(101°F)), then the overall percentage of light ends
to the total fuel volume will be reduced. This is done without
actually shifting the base distillation curve of the kerosene.
Laboratory testing will be required to determine if this produces a
reliable shift in flashpoint.
CHEMICAL EVALUATION OF SOY METHYL ESTER
BLENDS
In order to evaluate the viability of using SME as a fuel
extender, it was necessary to evaluate base chemical properties and
determine whether any would pose an insurmountable obstacle. Also,
it was necessary to determine what, if any, changes would need to be
made to the base SME. In addition, an evaluation of these properties
would provide likely blending levels of SME which would not
adversely affect the end jet fuel meeting current specifications. This
additive level would need to be such that a marginal fuel would not
fail to meet specification after the addition of SME.
In 1995, under a grant from the Indiana Soybean Development
Council, an Impact Evaluation Study was performed to determine
which properties were likely to prevent the use of SME in Jet A, and
which might necessitate an adjustment to current fuel specifications.
Once these properties were identified, testing to determine how
severe the effects would be and to determine what was the maximum
amount of SME which could be added.
Show Stoppinq Properties of SME as a Jet Fuel Extender
After reviewing the physical properties of SME, four properties
were identified as potential obstacles. Those properties were
freeze/cloud point, viscosity, density, and total acid number (TAN).
Freeze Point. Of the four properties, the one of greatest
concern is cloud point. Because SME products do not actually
freeze, the concern is the formation of waxy particles which can
block filters and valves. The cloud point for SME is reported as
—3°C (26°F), significantly above the maximum freeze point of —40°C
(-40°F) for Jet A.
This property was assumed to be the greatest hurdle, so testing
was done to determine the greatest amount of SME which could be
added to Jet A without the obvious formation of waxy particles.
Based on testing done at —28°C (-20°F), it was determined additive
levels greater than 3% were definitely unacceptable. At 3% by
volume, the formation of crystals was observed in the bulk sample.
3
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/25/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Actual freeze point testing on a 2% blend showed no change in the
base freeze point of the Jet A.
Density (Specific Gravity). The density of the SME, 0.883
g/cc, is much higher than the specified density rangeof 0.775 to
0.840 glee. There were concerns for both the ability to meet the
specified density range as well as the potential for separation due to
different densities.
Testing was done on various blend ratios, and the mixture was
found to be stable with no separation observed over time. Using a
density meter, testing showed the 2% by volume blend was well
within specification limitations. Further testing showed additive
levels to nearly 50% by volume would not drive an average density
fuel out of specification.
Viscosity. The viscosity of SME is nearly four times the
typical value of Jet A. In addition, because of the higher freeze point,
the fuel may not be able to meet the 8 cSt maximum requirement at
—20°C (-4°F).
Viscosity testing per ASTM 0-445 was performed using the 2%
by volume blend The resulting values did show an observable shift
from the values of the base jet fuel, but still met the 8.0 cSt maximum
requirement at —20°C (-4°F).
Total Acid Number. The total acid number (TAN) of SME is
about four times that allowed by ASTM 0-1655. Concerns would be
the high acid number of the soy diesel could cause the entire fuel
blend to fail TAN, could cause premature degradation of the fuel,
and/or elastomeric attack. The loss of fuel stability means either the
*fuel can not be stored or there will be coking and deposits within the
engine. In addition, the long term stability of the diesel may not be as
good as that of the Jet A.
Testing done with a 2% blend did indeed show a ten-fold
increase in the TAN of the base Jet A. While it was still well within
the specified limit (0.028 mg KOH versus 0.10 max), this increase
could cause storage stability and fuel life issues. In addition, this
same testing showed the existent gum content of the fuel using a 2%
blend would not meet the specification (42 mg/L versus 7 mg/L
max.)
ENGINE PERFORMANCE
Dynamic testing phases were performed during the summers of
1996, '97, and '98. The test vehicle was a Garrett WE 331-3U
Turbo Prop engine as standard equipment on a Hadley Page Jet
Stream Mark 1 aircraft. Normal operating parameters for this engine
were established using Garrett's performance figures as a data base
for comparison (Figure 2.) The data was collected through operator
observation at predetermined time intervals. The aircraft
instrumentation was used for data monitoring. .
The aircraft fuel system was modified to accommodate three
external tanks as the fuel source for SME / JET-A blended fuels.
Each tank had a designation of either straight JET-A, a blend of 98%
JET-A / 2% SME, or 80% JET-A / 20% SME. Positive and
immediate control of the three fuel sources was obtained through a
system of external valves and manifolds.
For the test session in 1996, a target horsepower of 550 was
established as a safe ground operating range. However, that was
reduced to 500 for subsequent testing in 1998. The time window for
supplying the three different fuels to the engine was 6 minutes each
in 1996 and 10 minutes each in 1998, at the target horsepower. The
run times were constrained by the fuel handling system and the
supply fuel tank capacities.
Critical to the results of the research, it is important to note once
the target horsepower was obtained no manual throttle changes were
 attempted, as any change would invalidate the data. Failure of an
engine fuel control unit iti 1997 precluded further testing that summer
and no data was obtained for that period. The failure was identified as
a mechanical problem not related to the use of SME.
Critical engine operating parameters of turbine temperature,
fuel pressure, and fuel flow were all nominal values and within the
engine manufacturer's specifications. Engine start and transient
conditions showed no abnormalities.
Horsepower readings were observed closely and recorded
constantly. The test results for 1996 are presented in Table 2, and for
1998 in Table 3.
FUEL CONSUMPTION
Fuel consumption tests were made for three different fuel
mixtures; I) 100% Jet A, 2) 98% Jet A, 2% SME and 3) 80% Jet A,
20% SME. With the engine settings fixed, consumption rates and
related horsepower readings were recorded for each mixture. The
results for 1996 are presented in Table 4 and for 1998 in Table 5.
Using an 80% Jet A, 20% SME mixture, an additional analysis
was conducted in the 1998 test by advancing the power from 480
horsepower to the initial Jet A 500 horsepower setting. The result is
recorded in Table 6. Instead of increasing fuel consumption, fuel
flow actually decreased with the elevated power reinstated to 500
horsepower. Although this could not be rationalized, one suggestion
may be that with the adjustment of the engine settings to 500
horsepower, fuel control parameters were reprogrammed and the
results were not measurable with the instnunentation used in the test •
In summary, the tests suggest that fuel consumption will
decrease with a higher ratio mixture of Jet A and SME, along with a
decrease in engine horsepower. Because of the irregular result of a
decreased fuel consumption rate in an 80120 mixture during an
increased power setting, additional research in this area would be
recommended using improved instrumentation and controlled
environmental conditions.
ISSUES WITH THE USE OF SOY METHYL ESTERS
The use of soy methyl esters as an extender for such a critical
application as aviation fuel, raises several concerns. These concerns
range from the available supply of soybeans, to the quality of the end
product, to materials compatibility.
Soybean Supply and Soy Methyl Ester Consistency
As noted at the beginning of this article, a 5% extension of just
the fuels used in the US would require 3.9 million gallons of SME
per day. With all of the other applications for soybean oil, there are
concerns regarding the ability of the soybean growers to be able to
supply sufficient quantities of SME. Due to the nature of jet fuel
specifications, it would be difficult to change back and forth from
using or not using SME.
Experiments performed at Purdue University during 1997 and
1998 demonstrated fluctuations in the consistency of the soy product.
During engine testing, differences in performance properties were
observed between the first product received and subsequent
deliveries. The reason for these differences could not be determined
as a physical property difference. One hypothesis was the difference
was actually a difference in product quality.
Soy Methyl Ester Quality
During the course of testing at Purdue University, the second
shipment of SME was determined to have been contaminated with a
highly volatile cleaning solution which was used to clean the barrels
in which the SME was provided. This caused significant problems
with the engine perfomuince and with compatibility with the rubber
components. The material was a low flashpoint fluid which
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/25/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
separated from the bulk SME. It has been hypothesized the
differences in observed combustion properties may have been due to
contamination of the original SME with cleaning solution as well.
During the course of the investigation, it was concluded such
contamination of the barrels is not a completely uncommon
occurrence. While such contamination may have less of an impact on
current uses of SME, it is of significant concern for a safety critical
application such as aviation fuel. Such quality issues would have to
be addressed and contamination prevention methods demonstrated
before SME would ever be approved for use in commercial or private
aircraft applications.
Materials Compatibility
Another issue with SME was its compatibility with the rubber
used in typical aviation environment, particularly supply hoses. The
neat SME was found to be very aggressive to the fuel hoses used
during the testing. It dissolved the rubber almost instantly. These
hoses were manufactured using Buna-N, a nitrite rubber which was
common in older aircraft systems.
The presence of SME in an aviation environment will need to be
carefully controlled to prevent the contamination of fuel supply hoses
with neat SME. In addition, full rubber compatibility testing will
need to be performed.
CONCLUSIONS
The testing performed to date was limited by available funding,
available hardware and the requirements of the involved grant. This
research was designed to be exploratory in nature. The goal was to
prove or negate the value of further testing SME as an extender for
commercial aviation filets. Based on the completed activities several
general conclusions could be made. These conclusions were
grouped as chemicaU physical, and operational. At the completion of
the funded testing, it was concluded that further testing would be
warranted
Chemical/Physical Conclusions
The chemical testing done with respect to chemical and physical
properties indicated:
I. The maximum blend level likely without a change to current
aviation fuel specifications was 2% SME by volume. This was
dictated by the freeze point
2. The 2% SME by volume did not force any of the required
properties of Jet A per ASTM D-1655 out of specification.
3. Total acid number was significantly affected by the presence of
2% SME. The long term consequences of this effect would
need to be detamined
4. Significant lubricity improvements were observed with the
addition of 2% SME.
5. The use of SME with Buna-N o'rings and other packings is not
recommended due to excessive swell.
Operational Conclusions
I. The available test hardware had several variables which could
have had a affect on the resultant data. Further testing should be
performed using hardware without these multiple variables.
2. Testing to date did not confirm or disprove the hypothesis of
improved emissions. Data taken to date showed indications of
positive trending. This indicated there was a potential for
operational improvements.
3. Within the limited rim time, there were indications of fuel
consumption improvements.
 FUTURE WORK Table 1
The testing performed to date was very limited in nature and Summary of Exhaust Emissions Test Results
was designed as a screening test. The testing did indicated there was
a potential application and did not counter indicate further testing Medium Horsepower (Approximately 500 Horsepower
being performed Subsequent grant activities are recommended with Source Constituent 0% SME 2% SME 20% SME
the following tests suggested. Oxygen (%) 17.2 17.3 17.3
Carbon dioxide (%) 2.73 2.65 2.65
I. Design and perform a full rubber compatibility matrix to Sulfur dioxide (ppmdv) 7.63 7.38 4.85
determine the potential for o'ring and other rubber damage. Nitrogen dioxide (ppmdv) 67.3 66.6 66.1
2. Perform TAN and thermal stability testing on the reference Carbon monoxide (ppmdv) 24.1 16.4 21.6
blend sample from original test fluid to determine thermal Total hydrocarbons (ppmwv) 1.79 1.42
3.58
stability over time.
3. Obtain multiple Jet A samples, containing marginal fuels at both
ends of the specification. Use these base fuels for further
blending studies to evaluate the impact of adding SME to Ensine Idle
Source Constituent 0% SME 2% SME 20% SME
physical properties.
4. Repeat actual engine testing under controlled test cell Oxygen (%) 19.0 19.0 19.0
conditions. Testing should be nut on a single test fluid for a Carbon dioxide (%) 1.41 1.42 1.45
longer duration, and emission and horsepower data obtained Sulfur dioxide (ppmdv) 10.1 13.8 16.7
over time. Nitrogen dioxide (ppmdv) 11.3 11.6 11.8
5. While actual aircraft testing is beyond the scope of this research Carbon monoxide (ppmdv) 460 463 510
facility, should continued ground testing support it, testing Total hydrocarbons (ppmwv) 280 291 291
across the full aircraft operations envelope is recommended.
Table 2
Resultant Horsepower with Fuel Blends
1996 Tests

1996 JET-A .98 /.02 .80 / .20

TEST 1 Horsepower 550 550 540
TEST 2 Horsepower 550 550 540
TEST 3 Horsepower 550 NO DATA 540
TEST 4 Horsepower 550 550 510

Table 3
Resultant Horsepower with Fuel Blends
1998 Tests

1998 JET-A .98 / .02 .80 / .20

Figure 1 TEST 1 Horsepower 498 460 440
Soy Methyl Ester Attack on Buna-N Hose TEST 2 Horsepower 500 498 480

Table 4
Fuel Consumption 1996

Parameter ° JET A 98/2 80/20

Consumption 1.092 gal/min 1.35 gal/min 1.007 gal/min
Horsepower 550 550 540

Table 5
Fuel Consumption

Parameter JET A 98/2 80/20

Consumption 1.47 gal/min 1.46 gal/min 1.38 gal/min
Horsepower 500 498 480

Figure 2
Diagram of the Engine Run Test Setup

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/25/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 6
Fuel Consumption at Equivalent Horsepower

80/20 I 1.15 gal/min 500 horsepower

Table 7
Jet A : Soy Methyl Ester Test Fluids

Jet A Fuel purchased from local FB0

Soy Methyl Esters Three different batches available
commercially
Test Blend #1 by volume 98% Jet A 2% SME
Test Blend #2 by volume 80% Jet A 20% SME

REFERENCES

Bolculich, F., July 1998, "Aircraft Emissions Standards", Aerospace

Engineering,p. 12.

Petroleum Intelligence Weekly News release, June 16, 1997, "US Jet
Fuel Prices Set Course for Smoother Summer",
hmil/www.enerayinte1.com/pr061397.htrn.

Salisbury, L., Feb 13, 1997, "AMR strike —jet fuel prices", Reuters
Ltd.

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/25/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use