Veg Oil Tax Update

Not wrong, Jet A-1 is plain AVTUR the old spec was DERD 2494 (AVTUR)

F34, or JP6, is is to DEF STAN 91-87 (AVTUR/FSII), note the "/FSII"

So they are both AVTUR but F34 is AVTUR/FSII

Regards Jeff

Military use an additive, 1l to 5000l of avtur to lubricate the 300 Tdi Prolonged running on AVTUR doesn't do the engine any favours tho!

Nicckfish

Jeff uttered summat worrerz funny about:

We'll it's no freakin' wonder there are so many planes dropping out of the sky ;-)

Lee

According to my sources and 22 years refuelling nimrods, F34 is JP8, not JP6. That was also the conclusion of the yanks in Oman, who were blending Jet-A1 with what they call "fizzy" to produce JP8. The bowser was labelled with "warning - JP8 when blended" all over it, that was only a few years ago.

I won't disagree with you on that one, not having my (no doubt out of date) Def-Stan book to hand and having no reason to disbelieve you, but to avoid confusion within RAF circles Jet-A1 has always been referred to as exactly that, NEVER as Avtur in the Nimrod world, in case someone doesn't realise and fails to fill in the correct paperwork in the aircraft's documentation reflecting the lack of lubricity additive or FSII or both, whilst at a foreign airbase. I'm not even going to mention Avcat/Avtag............ ;-) Badger.

"> According to my sources and 22 years refuelling nimrods, F34 is JP8, not

Sorry that was my typo I did mean JP8 not JP6

Jeff

In a desperate, but probably futile attempt to get back somewhere of direct interest.

Can any of these be used in a 300TDi engine without rupturing it?

I think the short answer is no, as someone else said, the military do it with some additives, but Jet fuel is basically paraffin so I am sure the engine will run (and smell like an old ice cream van) so you could possibly cut it with real diesel (at your own risk).

Jeff

More here:

Having a quick (and I mean quick) zip through that and a seemingly relevant other link, I didn't spot anything where it said that you'd be OK to use it as road fuel if you are deregistered as a producer, only that you no longer have to register it for duty payments... The cynic in me wonders if that means that you can no longer legally use the fuel in a vehicle if you produce and use less than 2500 litres per year as now it's fuel on which duty has not been paid...

Maybe I've just missed some paragraph somewhere, CBA to read through it all right now.

"A production threshold of 2,500 litres per annum below which producers will not need to enter premises, submit returns or pay duty, and"

???

Steve

All that says is that if you produce 2,500 or less per year, then they can't be arsed to process your returns, it doesn't say anything concrete about whether you'll get penalised if caught using it on the road, given the penalties can be harsh I'd want something concrete, it might be in there but I didn't spot it.

On or around Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:35:05 GMT, "William Black" enlightened us thusly:

One of the reasons[1] given for converting the military road fleet to diesel (which the military call DIESO I believe) is that in emergency situations the road vehicles can be run on AVTUR if that's available. However, if it's "run on AVTUR or get your arse shot off" then you're not going to be too fussed about the long-term effects.

I believe the problems are lack of lubrication for the injection pump etc., so it's possible that one or more of the variations including lubricants would be better.