Would jet fuel for an F-16 or F-35 be producible during WW2?Why do jet engines use kerosene rather than gasoline?Does the APU consume a lot of fuel compared to a jet engine?Why would the fuel pressure decrease during a climb?How should Isopropyl Alcohol be used as an AvGas Fuel System Icing Inhibitor?Are tripropellant jet engines a viable way to increase fuel efficiency for large commercial airplanes?Can IPA be used as a FSII with MoGas, particularly with a Peterson STC?Is turboshaft fuel efficiency affected by N2 loading?Is water a possible fuel for jet engines?Alternate for jet fuelWhy is there still a preference for turboprop airliners over the new regional jets?How much fuel does an airliner consume during passenger boarding?
A word that means "blending into a community too much"
Printing Pascal’s triangle for n number of rows in Python
Why is long-term living in Almost-Earth causing severe health problems?
Is using 'echo' to display attacker-controlled data on the terminal dangerous?
How to safely destroy (a large quantity of) valid checks?
Explain the ending of Black Mirror's "Smithereens"
Why am I Seeing A Weird "Notch" on the Data Line For Some Logical 1s?
Ability To Change Root User Password (Vulnerability?)
What is the color of artificial intelligence?
How do free-speech protections in the United States apply in public to corporate misrepresentations?
Origin of "boor"
A map of non-pathological topology?
Why did Intel abandon unified CPU cache?
Is it possible to fly backward if you have really strong headwind?
How can I end combat quickly when the outcome is inevitable?
Non-aqueous eyes?
Why did my credit score plummet after a balance transfer?
Russian word for a male zebra
How do photos of the same subject compare between the Nikon D700 and D70?
Solve Riddle With Algebra
Is it fine to get '204 No Content' in PATCH method
Increase speed altering column on large table to NON NULL
How to “listen” to existing circuit
What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letter
Would jet fuel for an F-16 or F-35 be producible during WW2?
Why do jet engines use kerosene rather than gasoline?Does the APU consume a lot of fuel compared to a jet engine?Why would the fuel pressure decrease during a climb?How should Isopropyl Alcohol be used as an AvGas Fuel System Icing Inhibitor?Are tripropellant jet engines a viable way to increase fuel efficiency for large commercial airplanes?Can IPA be used as a FSII with MoGas, particularly with a Peterson STC?Is turboshaft fuel efficiency affected by N2 loading?Is water a possible fuel for jet engines?Alternate for jet fuelWhy is there still a preference for turboprop airliners over the new regional jets?How much fuel does an airliner consume during passenger boarding?
$begingroup$
I understand that different types of engines use different types of fuel, and as the description of the [jet] tag says, turboprops and jet engines use different types of fuel.
So if – like in the works of fiction The Final Countdown and 1632 – modern aircraft did find themselves in 1940, which aircraft would you readily be able to find fuel for? And which would you have to (re)develop the fuel for?
Let's take the following aircraft as examples:
- AH-64 Apache gunship
- Airbus EC 135 P2e
- AgustaWestland AW101
- Boeing 747 (whatever variant is most prolific today)
- Lockheed C-130 Hercules
- General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
- Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
- Bombardier Dash 8
My assumption is that even the turboprops will not be able to use the aviation fuel available.
Which aircraft could have been fuelled "locally" first? And will any fly with 1940 aviation fuel, maybe with an additive?
jet-engine fuel turboprop wwii
edited May 25 at 12:53
ymb1
74k7241398
asked May 24 at 8:12
JoSSteJoSSte
20816
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I understand that different types of engines use different types of fuel, and as the description of the [jet] tag says, turboprops and jet engines use different types of fuel.
So if – like in the works of fiction The Final Countdown and 1632 – modern aircraft did find themselves in 1940, which aircraft would you readily be able to find fuel for? And which would you have to (re)develop the fuel for?
Let's take the following aircraft as examples:
- AH-64 Apache gunship
- Airbus EC 135 P2e
- AgustaWestland AW101
- Boeing 747 (whatever variant is most prolific today)
- Lockheed C-130 Hercules
- General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
- Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
- Bombardier Dash 8
My assumption is that even the turboprops will not be able to use the aviation fuel available.
Which aircraft could have been fuelled "locally" first? And will any fly with 1940 aviation fuel, maybe with an additive?
jet-engine fuel turboprop wwii
edited May 25 at 12:53
ymb1
74k7241398
asked May 24 at 8:12
JoSSteJoSSte
20816
$endgroup$
10
$begingroup$
"turboprops and Jet engines use different types of fuel" No, turboprops have turbine engines just like jets and use the same fuel (typically Jet A or Jet A-1). Piston engines use different fuel...
$endgroup$
– Bianfable
May 24 at 8:27
13
$begingroup$
Turbine engines run on almost anything that can burn, jet fuel is basically kerosene with some additives. Yes that was available in WWII, probably easier to get than aviation fuel. Related question: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13042/21091
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
May 24 at 8:48
$begingroup$
@Koyovis, the engines do (and the same cores are often run on natural gas for power generation), but the fuel pumps rely on lubricating properties of the fuel, which gasoline lacks. Easy to get as it is a large fraction of crude oil and was in less demand back then.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
May 24 at 18:24
1
$begingroup$
Note fuel is probably the easiest of the problems since your logistics tail for weapons and spare parts and the tools to install everything is somewhat lacking. If you don't happen to have a Nimitz around, I bet you are not going to do very many sorties. Also note that starting your jet may require special external power, but that could probably be jiggered up in an afternoon. Absent a single existential threat, the best thing to do would be to study the heck out of it to jumpstart aerospace by a few decades.
$endgroup$
– Seth Robertson
May 24 at 20:50
1
$begingroup$
@SethRobertson - Aerospace, electrical engineering, radar, computer science....
$endgroup$
– Steve V.
May 25 at 1:20
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I understand that different types of engines use different types of fuel, and as the description of the [jet] tag says, turboprops and jet engines use different types of fuel.
So if – like in the works of fiction The Final Countdown and 1632 – modern aircraft did find themselves in 1940, which aircraft would you readily be able to find fuel for? And which would you have to (re)develop the fuel for?
Let's take the following aircraft as examples:
- AH-64 Apache gunship
- Airbus EC 135 P2e
- AgustaWestland AW101
- Boeing 747 (whatever variant is most prolific today)
- Lockheed C-130 Hercules
- General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
- Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
- Bombardier Dash 8
My assumption is that even the turboprops will not be able to use the aviation fuel available.
Which aircraft could have been fuelled "locally" first? And will any fly with 1940 aviation fuel, maybe with an additive?
jet-engine fuel turboprop wwii
edited May 25 at 12:53
ymb1
74k7241398
asked May 24 at 8:12
JoSSteJoSSte
20816
$endgroup$
I understand that different types of engines use different types of fuel, and as the description of the [jet] tag says, turboprops and jet engines use different types of fuel.
So if – like in the works of fiction The Final Countdown and 1632 – modern aircraft did find themselves in 1940, which aircraft would you readily be able to find fuel for? And which would you have to (re)develop the fuel for?
Let's take the following aircraft as examples:
- AH-64 Apache gunship
- Airbus EC 135 P2e
- AgustaWestland AW101
- Boeing 747 (whatever variant is most prolific today)
- Lockheed C-130 Hercules
- General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
- Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
- Bombardier Dash 8
My assumption is that even the turboprops will not be able to use the aviation fuel available.
Which aircraft could have been fuelled "locally" first? And will any fly with 1940 aviation fuel, maybe with an additive?
jet-engine fuel turboprop wwii
jet-engine fuel turboprop wwii
edited May 25 at 12:53
ymb1
74k7241398
asked May 24 at 8:12
JoSSteJoSSte
20816
edited May 25 at 12:53
ymb1
74k7241398
asked May 24 at 8:12
JoSSteJoSSte
20816
edited May 25 at 12:53
ymb1
74k7241398
edited May 25 at 12:53
ymb1
74k7241398
edited May 25 at 12:53
ymb1
74k7241398
74k7241398
asked May 24 at 8:12
JoSSteJoSSte
20816
asked May 24 at 8:12
JoSSteJoSSte
20816
asked May 24 at 8:12
JoSSteJoSSte
20816
20816
10
$begingroup$
"turboprops and Jet engines use different types of fuel" No, turboprops have turbine engines just like jets and use the same fuel (typically Jet A or Jet A-1). Piston engines use different fuel...
$endgroup$
– Bianfable
May 24 at 8:27
13
$begingroup$
Turbine engines run on almost anything that can burn, jet fuel is basically kerosene with some additives. Yes that was available in WWII, probably easier to get than aviation fuel. Related question: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13042/21091
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
May 24 at 8:48
$begingroup$
@Koyovis, the engines do (and the same cores are often run on natural gas for power generation), but the fuel pumps rely on lubricating properties of the fuel, which gasoline lacks. Easy to get as it is a large fraction of crude oil and was in less demand back then.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
May 24 at 18:24
1
$begingroup$
Note fuel is probably the easiest of the problems since your logistics tail for weapons and spare parts and the tools to install everything is somewhat lacking. If you don't happen to have a Nimitz around, I bet you are not going to do very many sorties. Also note that starting your jet may require special external power, but that could probably be jiggered up in an afternoon. Absent a single existential threat, the best thing to do would be to study the heck out of it to jumpstart aerospace by a few decades.
$endgroup$
– Seth Robertson
May 24 at 20:50
1
$begingroup$
@SethRobertson - Aerospace, electrical engineering, radar, computer science....
$endgroup$
– Steve V.
May 25 at 1:20
|
show 1 more comment
10
$begingroup$
"turboprops and Jet engines use different types of fuel" No, turboprops have turbine engines just like jets and use the same fuel (typically Jet A or Jet A-1). Piston engines use different fuel...
$endgroup$
– Bianfable
May 24 at 8:27
13
$begingroup$
Turbine engines run on almost anything that can burn, jet fuel is basically kerosene with some additives. Yes that was available in WWII, probably easier to get than aviation fuel. Related question: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13042/21091
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
May 24 at 8:48
$begingroup$
@Koyovis, the engines do (and the same cores are often run on natural gas for power generation), but the fuel pumps rely on lubricating properties of the fuel, which gasoline lacks. Easy to get as it is a large fraction of crude oil and was in less demand back then.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
May 24 at 18:24
1
$begingroup$
Note fuel is probably the easiest of the problems since your logistics tail for weapons and spare parts and the tools to install everything is somewhat lacking. If you don't happen to have a Nimitz around, I bet you are not going to do very many sorties. Also note that starting your jet may require special external power, but that could probably be jiggered up in an afternoon. Absent a single existential threat, the best thing to do would be to study the heck out of it to jumpstart aerospace by a few decades.
$endgroup$
– Seth Robertson
May 24 at 20:50
1
$begingroup$
@SethRobertson - Aerospace, electrical engineering, radar, computer science....
$endgroup$
– Steve V.
May 25 at 1:20
10
10
$begingroup$
"turboprops and Jet engines use different types of fuel" No, turboprops have turbine engines just like jets and use the same fuel (typically Jet A or Jet A-1). Piston engines use different fuel...
$endgroup$
– Bianfable
May 24 at 8:27
$begingroup$
"turboprops and Jet engines use different types of fuel" No, turboprops have turbine engines just like jets and use the same fuel (typically Jet A or Jet A-1). Piston engines use different fuel...
$endgroup$
– Bianfable
May 24 at 8:27
13
13
$begingroup$
Turbine engines run on almost anything that can burn, jet fuel is basically kerosene with some additives. Yes that was available in WWII, probably easier to get than aviation fuel. Related question: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13042/21091
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
May 24 at 8:48
$begingroup$
Turbine engines run on almost anything that can burn, jet fuel is basically kerosene with some additives. Yes that was available in WWII, probably easier to get than aviation fuel. Related question: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13042/21091
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
May 24 at 8:48
$begingroup$
@Koyovis, the engines do (and the same cores are often run on natural gas for power generation), but the fuel pumps rely on lubricating properties of the fuel, which gasoline lacks. Easy to get as it is a large fraction of crude oil and was in less demand back then.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
May 24 at 18:24
$begingroup$
@Koyovis, the engines do (and the same cores are often run on natural gas for power generation), but the fuel pumps rely on lubricating properties of the fuel, which gasoline lacks. Easy to get as it is a large fraction of crude oil and was in less demand back then.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
May 24 at 18:24
1
1
$begingroup$
Note fuel is probably the easiest of the problems since your logistics tail for weapons and spare parts and the tools to install everything is somewhat lacking. If you don't happen to have a Nimitz around, I bet you are not going to do very many sorties. Also note that starting your jet may require special external power, but that could probably be jiggered up in an afternoon. Absent a single existential threat, the best thing to do would be to study the heck out of it to jumpstart aerospace by a few decades.
$endgroup$
– Seth Robertson
May 24 at 20:50
$begingroup$
Note fuel is probably the easiest of the problems since your logistics tail for weapons and spare parts and the tools to install everything is somewhat lacking. If you don't happen to have a Nimitz around, I bet you are not going to do very many sorties. Also note that starting your jet may require special external power, but that could probably be jiggered up in an afternoon. Absent a single existential threat, the best thing to do would be to study the heck out of it to jumpstart aerospace by a few decades.
$endgroup$
– Seth Robertson
May 24 at 20:50
1
1
$begingroup$
@SethRobertson - Aerospace, electrical engineering, radar, computer science....
$endgroup$
– Steve V.
May 25 at 1:20
$begingroup$
@SethRobertson - Aerospace, electrical engineering, radar, computer science....
$endgroup$
– Steve V.
May 25 at 1:20
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Jet fuel is mostly kerosene, with some aromatic hydrocarbons mixed in for stability, temperature range and the like. You could probably run military jets on pure kerosene if they were magically transported back to WWII, but you wouldn't have to as it would have been possible to make reasonable jet fuel. The Jet-A standard was made in the 50s, and there were no major differences in the fractions available from WWII.
Before it was an engine fuel kerosene was primarily used for heating and lighting, and it was widely used across the world for that purpose in WWII. It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't available. The aromatics in jet fuel aren't anything special, so it would have been entirely possible to make a jet fuel.
You could go farther back than WWII and still run a jet on raw kerosene as the modern process to distill it from petroleum was invented in the 1850s.
answered May 24 at 11:33
GdDGdD
34k393143
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
The aromatics also help in not eating away the tank sealants. Should not be an issue if short-term.
$endgroup$
– ymb1
May 24 at 15:54
8
$begingroup$
It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't availableand in some places where electricity is available, like Japan, where kerosene space heaters are really common.
$endgroup$
– briantist
May 24 at 19:26
4
$begingroup$
They have kerosene in gas station pumps around where I live in the US. If you buy kerosene here, you are getting Jet A minus some additives and the quality control paperwork. The demand isn't enough for refineries and pipelines to carry a separate product.
$endgroup$
– user71659
May 24 at 21:25
3
$begingroup$
Where I'm from Jet-A fuel from the bottom of the barrel (not used in case there are some contaminants) are sold as household kerosene. I've been told the primary difference between jet fuel and regular kerosene is that jet fuel is finely filtered to avoid any contaminants that could clog the fuel system
$endgroup$
– slebetman
May 25 at 1:33
$begingroup$
"jet fuel" aka: kerosene, trademarked in 1854...."was first written about in the 9th century" - "During the medieval Chinese Ming Dynasty [(1368–1644)], the Chinese made use of kerosene"
$endgroup$
– Mazura
May 25 at 20:47
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Hydrocarbon cuts that can be used for jet fuel were plentiful during WWII; it was gasoline, especially high octane avgas, that was in short supply.
Greatly over-simplified: the first stage in a refinery is the pipe still which boils the oil, then condenses it into different fractions according to temperature ranges. Typically a large fraction is "gas-oil" which contains kerosene type oils a.k.a. jet fuel. Some lower octane gasoline is also collected. To make gasoline, the gas-oil goes to the cat cracker, makes some gasoline. Then, some fractions from the pipe still and the cat cracker go to the reformer (expensive in operation because it uses high pressure hydrogen).
The reformer makes the high octane aromatics needed for avgas. No aromatics are needed in jet fuel.
This is the big picture without desalters, alkylation, vacuum pipe stills, cokers, desulfurizers, isomerization, etc.
edited May 25 at 22:48
Williham Totland
1033
answered May 25 at 16:50
blacksmith37blacksmith37
24416
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Because of the critical need for high octane aromatics , the government gave top priority to building reformers. American Oil probably built the most ( Yorktown VA and Texas City, TX). After the war there was not as much need for high octane , cars had about 7:1 compression. Instead of shutting down the reformers, American offered a high octane unleaded gasoline while all others used tetraethyl lead. Later, Standard Oil- Indiana bought American and started the name "Amoco". Again , because they had the repormers ,Amoco continued to offer unleaded premium ( in the east and south east ).
$endgroup$
– blacksmith37
May 25 at 18:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I doubt that could be done. Even though jet fuel is mostly kerosene, advancements in fuel production technology have focused on lowering the freezing temperature of the fuel, among other things. You could probably get the engine started on fuel made back then, but it would be difficult to keep the engine going at the altitudes aircraft like the F-16 can fly.
answered May 24 at 12:21
Juan JimenezJuan Jimenez
6,5041943
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
"You'd have to stay under 10k feet" and "it can't be done" are vastly different things, though.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 19:57
$begingroup$
Oh sure, @ceejayoz, because staying under 10k is the optimal mission profile for the F-16. Unhuh. :)
$endgroup$
– Juan Jimenez
May 24 at 21:37
12
$begingroup$
If you've managed to get an F-16 back to WWII, you don't really need to be at the optimal mission altitude to destroy everyone else in the air.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 21:45
1
$begingroup$
@ceejayoz ammunition might be more of a challenge - the 20mm cannon was loaded with 511 rounds, and making more would be difficult.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
May 24 at 22:11
5
$begingroup$
@JuanJimenez Good thing the question didn't ask about the optimal mission profile for an F-16 then?
$endgroup$
– Chris Hayes
May 25 at 1:47
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f64687%2fwould-jet-fuel-for-an-f-16-or-f-35-be-producible-during-ww2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Jet fuel is mostly kerosene, with some aromatic hydrocarbons mixed in for stability, temperature range and the like. You could probably run military jets on pure kerosene if they were magically transported back to WWII, but you wouldn't have to as it would have been possible to make reasonable jet fuel. The Jet-A standard was made in the 50s, and there were no major differences in the fractions available from WWII.
Before it was an engine fuel kerosene was primarily used for heating and lighting, and it was widely used across the world for that purpose in WWII. It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't available. The aromatics in jet fuel aren't anything special, so it would have been entirely possible to make a jet fuel.
You could go farther back than WWII and still run a jet on raw kerosene as the modern process to distill it from petroleum was invented in the 1850s.
answered May 24 at 11:33
GdDGdD
34k393143
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
The aromatics also help in not eating away the tank sealants. Should not be an issue if short-term.
$endgroup$
– ymb1
May 24 at 15:54
8
$begingroup$
It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't availableand in some places where electricity is available, like Japan, where kerosene space heaters are really common.
$endgroup$
– briantist
May 24 at 19:26
4
$begingroup$
They have kerosene in gas station pumps around where I live in the US. If you buy kerosene here, you are getting Jet A minus some additives and the quality control paperwork. The demand isn't enough for refineries and pipelines to carry a separate product.
$endgroup$
– user71659
May 24 at 21:25
3
$begingroup$
Where I'm from Jet-A fuel from the bottom of the barrel (not used in case there are some contaminants) are sold as household kerosene. I've been told the primary difference between jet fuel and regular kerosene is that jet fuel is finely filtered to avoid any contaminants that could clog the fuel system
$endgroup$
– slebetman
May 25 at 1:33
$begingroup$
"jet fuel" aka: kerosene, trademarked in 1854...."was first written about in the 9th century" - "During the medieval Chinese Ming Dynasty [(1368–1644)], the Chinese made use of kerosene"
$endgroup$
– Mazura
May 25 at 20:47
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Jet fuel is mostly kerosene, with some aromatic hydrocarbons mixed in for stability, temperature range and the like. You could probably run military jets on pure kerosene if they were magically transported back to WWII, but you wouldn't have to as it would have been possible to make reasonable jet fuel. The Jet-A standard was made in the 50s, and there were no major differences in the fractions available from WWII.
Before it was an engine fuel kerosene was primarily used for heating and lighting, and it was widely used across the world for that purpose in WWII. It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't available. The aromatics in jet fuel aren't anything special, so it would have been entirely possible to make a jet fuel.
You could go farther back than WWII and still run a jet on raw kerosene as the modern process to distill it from petroleum was invented in the 1850s.
answered May 24 at 11:33
GdDGdD
34k393143
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
The aromatics also help in not eating away the tank sealants. Should not be an issue if short-term.
$endgroup$
– ymb1
May 24 at 15:54
8
$begingroup$
It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't availableand in some places where electricity is available, like Japan, where kerosene space heaters are really common.
$endgroup$
– briantist
May 24 at 19:26
4
$begingroup$
They have kerosene in gas station pumps around where I live in the US. If you buy kerosene here, you are getting Jet A minus some additives and the quality control paperwork. The demand isn't enough for refineries and pipelines to carry a separate product.
$endgroup$
– user71659
May 24 at 21:25
3
$begingroup$
Where I'm from Jet-A fuel from the bottom of the barrel (not used in case there are some contaminants) are sold as household kerosene. I've been told the primary difference between jet fuel and regular kerosene is that jet fuel is finely filtered to avoid any contaminants that could clog the fuel system
$endgroup$
– slebetman
May 25 at 1:33
$begingroup$
"jet fuel" aka: kerosene, trademarked in 1854...."was first written about in the 9th century" - "During the medieval Chinese Ming Dynasty [(1368–1644)], the Chinese made use of kerosene"
$endgroup$
– Mazura
May 25 at 20:47
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Jet fuel is mostly kerosene, with some aromatic hydrocarbons mixed in for stability, temperature range and the like. You could probably run military jets on pure kerosene if they were magically transported back to WWII, but you wouldn't have to as it would have been possible to make reasonable jet fuel. The Jet-A standard was made in the 50s, and there were no major differences in the fractions available from WWII.
Before it was an engine fuel kerosene was primarily used for heating and lighting, and it was widely used across the world for that purpose in WWII. It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't available. The aromatics in jet fuel aren't anything special, so it would have been entirely possible to make a jet fuel.
You could go farther back than WWII and still run a jet on raw kerosene as the modern process to distill it from petroleum was invented in the 1850s.
answered May 24 at 11:33
GdDGdD
34k393143
$endgroup$
Jet fuel is mostly kerosene, with some aromatic hydrocarbons mixed in for stability, temperature range and the like. You could probably run military jets on pure kerosene if they were magically transported back to WWII, but you wouldn't have to as it would have been possible to make reasonable jet fuel. The Jet-A standard was made in the 50s, and there were no major differences in the fractions available from WWII.
Before it was an engine fuel kerosene was primarily used for heating and lighting, and it was widely used across the world for that purpose in WWII. It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't available. The aromatics in jet fuel aren't anything special, so it would have been entirely possible to make a jet fuel.
You could go farther back than WWII and still run a jet on raw kerosene as the modern process to distill it from petroleum was invented in the 1850s.
answered May 24 at 11:33
GdDGdD
34k393143
answered May 24 at 11:33
GdDGdD
34k393143
answered May 24 at 11:33
GdDGdD
34k393143
answered May 24 at 11:33
GdDGdD
34k393143
34k393143
8
$begingroup$
The aromatics also help in not eating away the tank sealants. Should not be an issue if short-term.
$endgroup$
– ymb1
May 24 at 15:54
8
$begingroup$
It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't availableand in some places where electricity is available, like Japan, where kerosene space heaters are really common.
$endgroup$
– briantist
May 24 at 19:26
4
$begingroup$
They have kerosene in gas station pumps around where I live in the US. If you buy kerosene here, you are getting Jet A minus some additives and the quality control paperwork. The demand isn't enough for refineries and pipelines to carry a separate product.
$endgroup$
– user71659
May 24 at 21:25
3
$begingroup$
Where I'm from Jet-A fuel from the bottom of the barrel (not used in case there are some contaminants) are sold as household kerosene. I've been told the primary difference between jet fuel and regular kerosene is that jet fuel is finely filtered to avoid any contaminants that could clog the fuel system
$endgroup$
– slebetman
May 25 at 1:33
$begingroup$
"jet fuel" aka: kerosene, trademarked in 1854...."was first written about in the 9th century" - "During the medieval Chinese Ming Dynasty [(1368–1644)], the Chinese made use of kerosene"
$endgroup$
– Mazura
May 25 at 20:47
|
show 1 more comment
8
$begingroup$
The aromatics also help in not eating away the tank sealants. Should not be an issue if short-term.
$endgroup$
– ymb1
May 24 at 15:54
8
$begingroup$
It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't availableand in some places where electricity is available, like Japan, where kerosene space heaters are really common.
$endgroup$
– briantist
May 24 at 19:26
4
$begingroup$
They have kerosene in gas station pumps around where I live in the US. If you buy kerosene here, you are getting Jet A minus some additives and the quality control paperwork. The demand isn't enough for refineries and pipelines to carry a separate product.
$endgroup$
– user71659
May 24 at 21:25
3
$begingroup$
Where I'm from Jet-A fuel from the bottom of the barrel (not used in case there are some contaminants) are sold as household kerosene. I've been told the primary difference between jet fuel and regular kerosene is that jet fuel is finely filtered to avoid any contaminants that could clog the fuel system
$endgroup$
– slebetman
May 25 at 1:33
$begingroup$
"jet fuel" aka: kerosene, trademarked in 1854...."was first written about in the 9th century" - "During the medieval Chinese Ming Dynasty [(1368–1644)], the Chinese made use of kerosene"
$endgroup$
– Mazura
May 25 at 20:47
8
8
$begingroup$
The aromatics also help in not eating away the tank sealants. Should not be an issue if short-term.
$endgroup$
– ymb1
May 24 at 15:54
$begingroup$
The aromatics also help in not eating away the tank sealants. Should not be an issue if short-term.
$endgroup$
– ymb1
May 24 at 15:54
8
8
$begingroup$
It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't available and in some places where electricity is available, like Japan, where kerosene space heaters are really common.$endgroup$
– briantist
May 24 at 19:26
$begingroup$
It still is in some places around the world where electricity isn't available and in some places where electricity is available, like Japan, where kerosene space heaters are really common.$endgroup$
– briantist
May 24 at 19:26
4
4
$begingroup$
They have kerosene in gas station pumps around where I live in the US. If you buy kerosene here, you are getting Jet A minus some additives and the quality control paperwork. The demand isn't enough for refineries and pipelines to carry a separate product.
$endgroup$
– user71659
May 24 at 21:25
$begingroup$
They have kerosene in gas station pumps around where I live in the US. If you buy kerosene here, you are getting Jet A minus some additives and the quality control paperwork. The demand isn't enough for refineries and pipelines to carry a separate product.
$endgroup$
– user71659
May 24 at 21:25
3
3
$begingroup$
Where I'm from Jet-A fuel from the bottom of the barrel (not used in case there are some contaminants) are sold as household kerosene. I've been told the primary difference between jet fuel and regular kerosene is that jet fuel is finely filtered to avoid any contaminants that could clog the fuel system
$endgroup$
– slebetman
May 25 at 1:33
$begingroup$
Where I'm from Jet-A fuel from the bottom of the barrel (not used in case there are some contaminants) are sold as household kerosene. I've been told the primary difference between jet fuel and regular kerosene is that jet fuel is finely filtered to avoid any contaminants that could clog the fuel system
$endgroup$
– slebetman
May 25 at 1:33
$begingroup$
"jet fuel" aka: kerosene, trademarked in 1854...."was first written about in the 9th century" - "During the medieval Chinese Ming Dynasty [(1368–1644)], the Chinese made use of kerosene"
$endgroup$
– Mazura
May 25 at 20:47
$begingroup$
"jet fuel" aka: kerosene, trademarked in 1854...."was first written about in the 9th century" - "During the medieval Chinese Ming Dynasty [(1368–1644)], the Chinese made use of kerosene"
$endgroup$
– Mazura
May 25 at 20:47
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Hydrocarbon cuts that can be used for jet fuel were plentiful during WWII; it was gasoline, especially high octane avgas, that was in short supply.
Greatly over-simplified: the first stage in a refinery is the pipe still which boils the oil, then condenses it into different fractions according to temperature ranges. Typically a large fraction is "gas-oil" which contains kerosene type oils a.k.a. jet fuel. Some lower octane gasoline is also collected. To make gasoline, the gas-oil goes to the cat cracker, makes some gasoline. Then, some fractions from the pipe still and the cat cracker go to the reformer (expensive in operation because it uses high pressure hydrogen).
The reformer makes the high octane aromatics needed for avgas. No aromatics are needed in jet fuel.
This is the big picture without desalters, alkylation, vacuum pipe stills, cokers, desulfurizers, isomerization, etc.
edited May 25 at 22:48
Williham Totland
1033
answered May 25 at 16:50
blacksmith37blacksmith37
24416
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Because of the critical need for high octane aromatics , the government gave top priority to building reformers. American Oil probably built the most ( Yorktown VA and Texas City, TX). After the war there was not as much need for high octane , cars had about 7:1 compression. Instead of shutting down the reformers, American offered a high octane unleaded gasoline while all others used tetraethyl lead. Later, Standard Oil- Indiana bought American and started the name "Amoco". Again , because they had the repormers ,Amoco continued to offer unleaded premium ( in the east and south east ).
$endgroup$
– blacksmith37
May 25 at 18:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hydrocarbon cuts that can be used for jet fuel were plentiful during WWII; it was gasoline, especially high octane avgas, that was in short supply.
Greatly over-simplified: the first stage in a refinery is the pipe still which boils the oil, then condenses it into different fractions according to temperature ranges. Typically a large fraction is "gas-oil" which contains kerosene type oils a.k.a. jet fuel. Some lower octane gasoline is also collected. To make gasoline, the gas-oil goes to the cat cracker, makes some gasoline. Then, some fractions from the pipe still and the cat cracker go to the reformer (expensive in operation because it uses high pressure hydrogen).
The reformer makes the high octane aromatics needed for avgas. No aromatics are needed in jet fuel.
This is the big picture without desalters, alkylation, vacuum pipe stills, cokers, desulfurizers, isomerization, etc.
edited May 25 at 22:48
Williham Totland
1033
answered May 25 at 16:50
blacksmith37blacksmith37
24416
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Because of the critical need for high octane aromatics , the government gave top priority to building reformers. American Oil probably built the most ( Yorktown VA and Texas City, TX). After the war there was not as much need for high octane , cars had about 7:1 compression. Instead of shutting down the reformers, American offered a high octane unleaded gasoline while all others used tetraethyl lead. Later, Standard Oil- Indiana bought American and started the name "Amoco". Again , because they had the repormers ,Amoco continued to offer unleaded premium ( in the east and south east ).
$endgroup$
– blacksmith37
May 25 at 18:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hydrocarbon cuts that can be used for jet fuel were plentiful during WWII; it was gasoline, especially high octane avgas, that was in short supply.
Greatly over-simplified: the first stage in a refinery is the pipe still which boils the oil, then condenses it into different fractions according to temperature ranges. Typically a large fraction is "gas-oil" which contains kerosene type oils a.k.a. jet fuel. Some lower octane gasoline is also collected. To make gasoline, the gas-oil goes to the cat cracker, makes some gasoline. Then, some fractions from the pipe still and the cat cracker go to the reformer (expensive in operation because it uses high pressure hydrogen).
The reformer makes the high octane aromatics needed for avgas. No aromatics are needed in jet fuel.
This is the big picture without desalters, alkylation, vacuum pipe stills, cokers, desulfurizers, isomerization, etc.
edited May 25 at 22:48
Williham Totland
1033
answered May 25 at 16:50
blacksmith37blacksmith37
24416
$endgroup$
Hydrocarbon cuts that can be used for jet fuel were plentiful during WWII; it was gasoline, especially high octane avgas, that was in short supply.
Greatly over-simplified: the first stage in a refinery is the pipe still which boils the oil, then condenses it into different fractions according to temperature ranges. Typically a large fraction is "gas-oil" which contains kerosene type oils a.k.a. jet fuel. Some lower octane gasoline is also collected. To make gasoline, the gas-oil goes to the cat cracker, makes some gasoline. Then, some fractions from the pipe still and the cat cracker go to the reformer (expensive in operation because it uses high pressure hydrogen).
The reformer makes the high octane aromatics needed for avgas. No aromatics are needed in jet fuel.
This is the big picture without desalters, alkylation, vacuum pipe stills, cokers, desulfurizers, isomerization, etc.
edited May 25 at 22:48
Williham Totland
1033
answered May 25 at 16:50
blacksmith37blacksmith37
24416
edited May 25 at 22:48
Williham Totland
1033
edited May 25 at 22:48
Williham Totland
1033
edited May 25 at 22:48
Williham Totland
1033
1033
answered May 25 at 16:50
blacksmith37blacksmith37
24416
answered May 25 at 16:50
blacksmith37blacksmith37
24416
answered May 25 at 16:50
blacksmith37blacksmith37
24416
24416
2
$begingroup$
Because of the critical need for high octane aromatics , the government gave top priority to building reformers. American Oil probably built the most ( Yorktown VA and Texas City, TX). After the war there was not as much need for high octane , cars had about 7:1 compression. Instead of shutting down the reformers, American offered a high octane unleaded gasoline while all others used tetraethyl lead. Later, Standard Oil- Indiana bought American and started the name "Amoco". Again , because they had the repormers ,Amoco continued to offer unleaded premium ( in the east and south east ).
$endgroup$
– blacksmith37
May 25 at 18:03
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Because of the critical need for high octane aromatics , the government gave top priority to building reformers. American Oil probably built the most ( Yorktown VA and Texas City, TX). After the war there was not as much need for high octane , cars had about 7:1 compression. Instead of shutting down the reformers, American offered a high octane unleaded gasoline while all others used tetraethyl lead. Later, Standard Oil- Indiana bought American and started the name "Amoco". Again , because they had the repormers ,Amoco continued to offer unleaded premium ( in the east and south east ).
$endgroup$
– blacksmith37
May 25 at 18:03
2
2
$begingroup$
Because of the critical need for high octane aromatics , the government gave top priority to building reformers. American Oil probably built the most ( Yorktown VA and Texas City, TX). After the war there was not as much need for high octane , cars had about 7:1 compression. Instead of shutting down the reformers, American offered a high octane unleaded gasoline while all others used tetraethyl lead. Later, Standard Oil- Indiana bought American and started the name "Amoco". Again , because they had the repormers ,Amoco continued to offer unleaded premium ( in the east and south east ).
$endgroup$
– blacksmith37
May 25 at 18:03
$begingroup$
Because of the critical need for high octane aromatics , the government gave top priority to building reformers. American Oil probably built the most ( Yorktown VA and Texas City, TX). After the war there was not as much need for high octane , cars had about 7:1 compression. Instead of shutting down the reformers, American offered a high octane unleaded gasoline while all others used tetraethyl lead. Later, Standard Oil- Indiana bought American and started the name "Amoco". Again , because they had the repormers ,Amoco continued to offer unleaded premium ( in the east and south east ).
$endgroup$
– blacksmith37
May 25 at 18:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I doubt that could be done. Even though jet fuel is mostly kerosene, advancements in fuel production technology have focused on lowering the freezing temperature of the fuel, among other things. You could probably get the engine started on fuel made back then, but it would be difficult to keep the engine going at the altitudes aircraft like the F-16 can fly.
answered May 24 at 12:21
Juan JimenezJuan Jimenez
6,5041943
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
"You'd have to stay under 10k feet" and "it can't be done" are vastly different things, though.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 19:57
$begingroup$
Oh sure, @ceejayoz, because staying under 10k is the optimal mission profile for the F-16. Unhuh. :)
$endgroup$
– Juan Jimenez
May 24 at 21:37
12
$begingroup$
If you've managed to get an F-16 back to WWII, you don't really need to be at the optimal mission altitude to destroy everyone else in the air.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 21:45
1
$begingroup$
@ceejayoz ammunition might be more of a challenge - the 20mm cannon was loaded with 511 rounds, and making more would be difficult.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
May 24 at 22:11
5
$begingroup$
@JuanJimenez Good thing the question didn't ask about the optimal mission profile for an F-16 then?
$endgroup$
– Chris Hayes
May 25 at 1:47
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
I doubt that could be done. Even though jet fuel is mostly kerosene, advancements in fuel production technology have focused on lowering the freezing temperature of the fuel, among other things. You could probably get the engine started on fuel made back then, but it would be difficult to keep the engine going at the altitudes aircraft like the F-16 can fly.
answered May 24 at 12:21
Juan JimenezJuan Jimenez
6,5041943
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
"You'd have to stay under 10k feet" and "it can't be done" are vastly different things, though.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 19:57
$begingroup$
Oh sure, @ceejayoz, because staying under 10k is the optimal mission profile for the F-16. Unhuh. :)
$endgroup$
– Juan Jimenez
May 24 at 21:37
12
$begingroup$
If you've managed to get an F-16 back to WWII, you don't really need to be at the optimal mission altitude to destroy everyone else in the air.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 21:45
1
$begingroup$
@ceejayoz ammunition might be more of a challenge - the 20mm cannon was loaded with 511 rounds, and making more would be difficult.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
May 24 at 22:11
5
$begingroup$
@JuanJimenez Good thing the question didn't ask about the optimal mission profile for an F-16 then?
$endgroup$
– Chris Hayes
May 25 at 1:47
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
I doubt that could be done. Even though jet fuel is mostly kerosene, advancements in fuel production technology have focused on lowering the freezing temperature of the fuel, among other things. You could probably get the engine started on fuel made back then, but it would be difficult to keep the engine going at the altitudes aircraft like the F-16 can fly.
answered May 24 at 12:21
Juan JimenezJuan Jimenez
6,5041943
$endgroup$
I doubt that could be done. Even though jet fuel is mostly kerosene, advancements in fuel production technology have focused on lowering the freezing temperature of the fuel, among other things. You could probably get the engine started on fuel made back then, but it would be difficult to keep the engine going at the altitudes aircraft like the F-16 can fly.
answered May 24 at 12:21
Juan JimenezJuan Jimenez
6,5041943
answered May 24 at 12:21
Juan JimenezJuan Jimenez
6,5041943
answered May 24 at 12:21
Juan JimenezJuan Jimenez
6,5041943
answered May 24 at 12:21
Juan JimenezJuan Jimenez
6,5041943
6,5041943
11
$begingroup$
"You'd have to stay under 10k feet" and "it can't be done" are vastly different things, though.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 19:57
$begingroup$
Oh sure, @ceejayoz, because staying under 10k is the optimal mission profile for the F-16. Unhuh. :)
$endgroup$
– Juan Jimenez
May 24 at 21:37
12
$begingroup$
If you've managed to get an F-16 back to WWII, you don't really need to be at the optimal mission altitude to destroy everyone else in the air.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 21:45
1
$begingroup$
@ceejayoz ammunition might be more of a challenge - the 20mm cannon was loaded with 511 rounds, and making more would be difficult.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
May 24 at 22:11
5
$begingroup$
@JuanJimenez Good thing the question didn't ask about the optimal mission profile for an F-16 then?
$endgroup$
– Chris Hayes
May 25 at 1:47
|
show 4 more comments
11
$begingroup$
"You'd have to stay under 10k feet" and "it can't be done" are vastly different things, though.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 19:57
$begingroup$
Oh sure, @ceejayoz, because staying under 10k is the optimal mission profile for the F-16. Unhuh. :)
$endgroup$
– Juan Jimenez
May 24 at 21:37
12
$begingroup$
If you've managed to get an F-16 back to WWII, you don't really need to be at the optimal mission altitude to destroy everyone else in the air.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 21:45
1
$begingroup$
@ceejayoz ammunition might be more of a challenge - the 20mm cannon was loaded with 511 rounds, and making more would be difficult.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
May 24 at 22:11
5
$begingroup$
@JuanJimenez Good thing the question didn't ask about the optimal mission profile for an F-16 then?
$endgroup$
– Chris Hayes
May 25 at 1:47
11
11
$begingroup$
"You'd have to stay under 10k feet" and "it can't be done" are vastly different things, though.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 19:57
$begingroup$
"You'd have to stay under 10k feet" and "it can't be done" are vastly different things, though.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 19:57
$begingroup$
Oh sure, @ceejayoz, because staying under 10k is the optimal mission profile for the F-16. Unhuh. :)
$endgroup$
– Juan Jimenez
May 24 at 21:37
$begingroup$
Oh sure, @ceejayoz, because staying under 10k is the optimal mission profile for the F-16. Unhuh. :)
$endgroup$
– Juan Jimenez
May 24 at 21:37
12
12
$begingroup$
If you've managed to get an F-16 back to WWII, you don't really need to be at the optimal mission altitude to destroy everyone else in the air.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 21:45
$begingroup$
If you've managed to get an F-16 back to WWII, you don't really need to be at the optimal mission altitude to destroy everyone else in the air.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
May 24 at 21:45
1
1
$begingroup$
@ceejayoz ammunition might be more of a challenge - the 20mm cannon was loaded with 511 rounds, and making more would be difficult.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
May 24 at 22:11
$begingroup$
@ceejayoz ammunition might be more of a challenge - the 20mm cannon was loaded with 511 rounds, and making more would be difficult.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
May 24 at 22:11
5
5
$begingroup$
@JuanJimenez Good thing the question didn't ask about the optimal mission profile for an F-16 then?
$endgroup$
– Chris Hayes
May 25 at 1:47
$begingroup$
@JuanJimenez Good thing the question didn't ask about the optimal mission profile for an F-16 then?
$endgroup$
– Chris Hayes
May 25 at 1:47
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f64687%2fwould-jet-fuel-for-an-f-16-or-f-35-be-producible-during-ww2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
10
$begingroup$
"turboprops and Jet engines use different types of fuel" No, turboprops have turbine engines just like jets and use the same fuel (typically Jet A or Jet A-1). Piston engines use different fuel...
$endgroup$
– Bianfable
May 24 at 8:27
13
$begingroup$
Turbine engines run on almost anything that can burn, jet fuel is basically kerosene with some additives. Yes that was available in WWII, probably easier to get than aviation fuel. Related question: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13042/21091
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
May 24 at 8:48
$begingroup$
@Koyovis, the engines do (and the same cores are often run on natural gas for power generation), but the fuel pumps rely on lubricating properties of the fuel, which gasoline lacks. Easy to get as it is a large fraction of crude oil and was in less demand back then.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
May 24 at 18:24
1
$begingroup$
Note fuel is probably the easiest of the problems since your logistics tail for weapons and spare parts and the tools to install everything is somewhat lacking. If you don't happen to have a Nimitz around, I bet you are not going to do very many sorties. Also note that starting your jet may require special external power, but that could probably be jiggered up in an afternoon. Absent a single existential threat, the best thing to do would be to study the heck out of it to jumpstart aerospace by a few decades.
$endgroup$
– Seth Robertson
May 24 at 20:50
1
$begingroup$
@SethRobertson - Aerospace, electrical engineering, radar, computer science....
$endgroup$
– Steve V.
May 25 at 1:20