Jet A has a very low resistance to detonation/preignition. That's why diesels run it. In something like a GTSIO520 the fuel/air mixture in the cylinder is going to be hot enough that with Jet A in there it will self-ignite far before the spark plugs fire, which means that the fuel air mixture will be burning while the piston is still coming up on the compression stroke. This sends pressures and temperatures in the cylinder through the roof and results in things like reduction in power, cylinder heads popping off, and holes being burned in pistons. I guess it's important to note that diesels are still recips and they run great on Jet A, the key is that spark ignition engines can't run it.Why can't a recip operate on Jet-A? We all know that it can't, I just don't understand why it can't.
Both witnesses reported seeing smoke trailing the right engine, so Jet-A obviously kills an engine very quickly.
Why can't a recip operate on Jet-A? We all know that it can't, I just don't understand why it can't.
This was released yesterday for those who are interested.
NTSB: Wrong fuel pumped into plane caused deadly crash in Las Cruces
@tomokc you might enjoy this - among Deakin's other columns, this is an analysis of an inflight engine failure captured by a sophisticated engine monitor. ALL of his engine-related columns are really quite good too and provide far better explanations of what's really going on in there than anything you'll see out of the FAA or even engine manufacturers.Jet A has a very low resistance to detonation/preignition. That's why diesels run it. In something like a GTSIO520 the fuel/air mixture in the cylinder is going to be hot enough that with Jet A in there it will self-ignite far before the spark plugs fire, which means that the fuel air mixture will be burning while the piston is still coming up on the compression stroke. This sends pressures and temperatures in the cylinder through the roof and results in things like reduction in power, cylinder heads popping off, and holes being burned in pistons. I guess it's important to note that diesels are still recips and they run great on Jet A, the key is that spark ignition engines can't run it.
The last FBO I worked at a guy did the opposite, putting 100LL in a diesel DA-42. Thankfully they caught it, although I hear it's not as bad as the other way around.Sad to hear that happened. I fly around in an AvGas powered DA-42. Whenever, I'm out on cross countries, I always check the FBO receipt to make sure the plane was fueled up with AvGas and not Jet-A since a lot of Twin Stars out there are diesels. I'm always extra careful with that, and I have even had line guys initially think it did take Jet-A. It only takes one line guy assuming a fuel type to mess up a person's day. It's really cool to hear about what an impact he had on those around him. May he RIP, and be remembered for that impact he had on those around him.
Beyond the sadness surrounding this accident, is this Preliminary Report that states the pilot was actively involved in the fueling process. Earlier comments in this thread about how a pilot should be involved in the fueling has been set aside.
This pilot, may he and the others RIP, WAS present and engaged in the fueling but must have been pre-occupied with other tasks or not thinking of the task at hand.
Bad deal for all, I empathize with the fueler as well, tough thing to live with.....
Yeah, that's pretty much what it states. My bet is the final report will state what I did. Contributing to the accident - He was there, involved, and distracted during the fueling process.
To me, ordering the fuel, being the the very near vicinity while the fueling occurs, replacing a fuel cap, signing the fuel ticket (which I would be willing to bet reflects the amount and TYPE of fuel provided) IS the fueling process. Although you described some of the task that may have been in his mind, you have stated almost exactly what I did. And that is that he was pre-occupied with other tasks and wasn't paying attention. Tomato.....Tomawto......whatever......
It was reported last night on the local news that the Navy will not be bringing their T-44 detachment into Las Cruces for winter training. They've been doing this since 2001. The reason cited in the report is that the Navy has concerns about their aircraft receiving the proper fuel following the air ambulance crash.
Tried an online search but found nothing for this.. Every place I did line service, the Jet A nozzles were an oval shape and much larger than avgas, they wouldn't even fit into avgas openings. Do they make a smaller nozzle for some application?
That program has been in use since the early 80s, the oval Jet-A nozzles in order to prevent misfuelings; good innovative designs. The smaller nozzles however still exist, primarily for rotary wing aircraft that don't have receptacles that can accept the oval nozzle. Why this is, I'm not certain.