Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Flightdeck
This is probably going to cause a lot of damage to the aircraft and cost more in the long run. Liberals are dangerous to national security.

If performance is better, then do it, otherwise forget it. Well, I do agree with testing it for 6 or 7 years on airfarce 1, as long as the pilots and aircrew have parachutes.

7 posted on 03/27/2010 7:58:22 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Hey, Barack "Hubris" Obama, $10 is all it would take, why spend millions to cover it up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: FreeAtlanta

“If performance is better, then do it, otherwise forget it. Well, I do agree with testing it for 6 or 7 years on airfarce 1, as long as the pilots and aircrew have parachutes.”

FT blends have better thermal performance (freeze point and so on) and better emissions performance. The lack of polymers and large molecules leads to less wax deposition and buildup in the injectors, which can be a big deal (one B-52 crashed due to excessive wax buildup in the injectors). However, the main advantage, in my opinion, is that FT fuel can be generated from coal right under Colorado and Ohio and ten other states. With a big enough infrastructure, it could reduce dependency on the middle east.

6 or 7 years? We better have this fool out in three...


16 posted on 03/28/2010 4:57:59 PM PDT by Flightdeck (Go Longhorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson