Is fuel tanker work that dangerous?

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
61

raymundo:

Freight Dog:
I’ll be straight up with and say I’d have to look it up (carryfast will google it for us :laughing: ). Used to know for my exams years ago. We’ve far too much to worry about apart from that. You don’t put anything but Jet A1 in a 747. No one comes up to you and offers 150 tonnes of Jet B by mistake. It’s Jet A1 every time. We order it, big semi trucks turn up. The Engineer completes the fuel distribution and calcs and it’s on. Jet A1 has a temp limit we adhere to in flight. Other than that it’s pretty un exciting. It’s fuel, it’ll be useful in your hurricane lamp when camping and we burn 10 tonnes of the stuff per hour in cruise and 20 tonnes per hour on take off and worry constantly about how much we have left!

I was often criticised for sourcing my fuel from supermarkets instead of proprietary brands, have you ever bought supermarket Jet A1 and noticed a marked difference in miles per tank or acceleration or increase in servicing costs ? :wink: :slight_smile:

Never use Tescos. It’s ■■■■■! Sainsburys good for nectar points :laughing:

62

raymundo:
have you ever bought supermarket Jet A1 and noticed a marked difference in miles per tank or acceleration or increase in servicing costs ? :wink: :slight_smile:

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Probably just easier and cheaper to buy diesel and then add your own LOX but you’ll need to strengthen the main spar to hold the wings on before attempting to fly it. :smiling_imp:

youtube.com/watch?v=4WST60T0axk

63

Freight Dog:
Not aware of the mtom on the Dreamliner.

I meant the mtom for the 8f vs 8i or 400f vs pax versions, like LH have.

Freight Dog:
Sainsburys good for nectar points :laughing:

Sainsbury jet a1, class[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

64

Pimpdaddy:

Freight Dog:
Not aware of the mtom on the Dreamliner.

I meant the mtom for the 8f vs 8i or 400f vs pax versions, like LH have.

Sorry I meant intercontinental or whatever they hell they called it. God knows why I wrote Dreamliner. I’m distracted by Chinese tv :unamused: .

Can’t remember figures for pax 400 as long since left that company, but we had a higher mtom on the 400F.

65

Freight Dog:
but we had a higher mtom on the 400F.

I thought so[emoji1]
Watched a clip on how they converted ex BA 752s into sf & quite a bit is changed.

66

Pimpdaddy:

Freight Dog:
but we had a higher mtom on the 400F.

I thought so[emoji1]
Watched a clip on how they converted ex BA 752s into sf & quite a bit is changed.

Loads is changed on converted aircraft. They’re still not as good as dedicated freighters. You have a nose door on a real 400F and 8F, you don’t on the 400 converted version. The 400BCFs were all converted in Israel or out in Taipei. Think it’s just Taipei now and they haven’t done any in years.

67

Freight Dog:
The 400BCFs were all converted in Israel or out in Taipei. Think it’s just Taipei now and they haven’t done any in years.

Wow, so does that mean operators are buying specified from new instead of converting?

68

Pimpdaddy:

Freight Dog:
The 400BCFs were all converted in Israel or out in Taipei. Think it’s just Taipei now and they haven’t done any in years.

Wow, so does that mean operators are buying specified from new instead of converting?

No too many existing ones. Plenty sitting in the desert. Couple of companies getting brand new 8s.

69

Freight Dog:
Plenty sitting in the desert.

I enjoyed my time in the dessert, wish I could go back [emoji16][emoji41]

70

Carryfast:
The idea that only ‘vapour’ will ‘burn’ arguably just creates a false sense of security.Realistically given the right ( wrong ) circumstances the fuel,even in it’s pre vapourous liquid state,can be mixed with sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere to burn ( explode ) effectively instantaneously as shown in the video.Which is why the emergency services would require an even more problematic fire fighting operation,in the case of a loaded tanker,than an empty one.In which it’s essential to maintain the integrity of the tank by keeping it cool.Not because they’re bothered about liquid fuel running down the drains but because they know if the tank ruptures the resulting mixture of air and fuel,in whatever state both vapour and liquid,can result in the type of example shown in the video. :bulb:

Carryfast,

There’s no easy way to say this… your post is wildly inaccurate (= just plain wrong.)

Let’s avoid waffle and words like “arguably” which will allow us to stick to real facts. :wink:

The liquid fuel is ONE side of a fire-triangle.
Stated simply, you need THREE things in order for a fire to exist.
So, that’s it… game over.

In the case of a flammable liquid being the fuel side of the triangle, there needs to be exposure to atmosphere in order for evaporation to take place. That evaporation can only take place at a temperature higher than the flashpoint for the flammable liquid concerned. The flashpoints for flammable liquids vary greatly.

Once evaporation has taken place, there needs to be sufficient fuel AND sufficient oxygen, so that the fuel/air mixture is within the flammable range for the flammable liquid concerned. The flammable ranges for flammable liquids vary greatly.

Now that we have a flammable vapour/air mixture within the correct proportions, we now need a sufficiently hot heat source in order for ignition to take place. The heat of ignition needed for the flammable liquid concerned is an important factor. The amount of required heat for ignition of the various flammable liquids varies greatly.

There are four reasons (rules) why a fire involving a flammable liquid may not take place:

1.) The flammable liquid is at a temperature lower than its flashpoint.
2.) There may be insufficient fuel, even if the heat source is hot enough.
3.) There may be insufficient oxygen, even if the heat source is hot enough.
4.) The heat of the ignition source may be insufficient, even if the fuel/air mixture is correct.

There are two kinds of fire:

1.) The kind that you want.
2.) The kind that you don’t want.

Both kinds of fires are subject to rules 1 - 4 above.

There you go Carryfast, no waffle. :wink: :grimacing:

71

What a surprise. Carryfast surely cannot be wrong. LOL.
I had read some of his theories earlier in the thread and thought about telling him he was talking (ZB) but then I decided against it.
Carryfast why do you constantly try to talk about things you know nothing about?

72

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
The idea that only ‘vapour’ will ‘burn’ arguably just creates a false sense of security.Realistically given the right ( wrong ) circumstances the fuel,even in it’s pre vapourous liquid state,can be mixed with sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere to burn ( explode ) effectively instantaneously as shown in the video.Which is why the emergency services would require an even more problematic fire fighting operation,in the case of a loaded tanker,than an empty one.In which it’s essential to maintain the integrity of the tank by keeping it cool.Not because they’re bothered about liquid fuel running down the drains but because they know if the tank ruptures the resulting mixture of air and fuel,in whatever state both vapour and liquid,can result in the type of example shown in the video. :bulb:

Carryfast,

There’s no easy way to say this… your post is wildly inaccurate (= just plain wrong.)

Let’s avoid waffle and words like “arguably” which will allow us to stick to real facts. :wink:

The liquid fuel is ONE side of a fire-triangle.
Stated simply, you need THREE things in order for a fire to exist.
So, that’s it… game over.

In the case of a flammable liquid being the fuel side of the triangle, there needs to be exposure to atmosphere in order for evaporation to take place. That evaporation can only take place at a temperature higher than the flashpoint for the flammable liquid concerned. The flashpoints for flammable liquids vary greatly.

Once evaporation has taken place, there needs to be sufficient fuel AND sufficient oxygen, so that the fuel/air mixture is within the flammable range for the flammable liquid concerned. The flammable ranges for flammable liquids vary greatly.

Now that we have a flammable vapour/air mixture within the correct proportions, we now need a sufficiently hot heat source in order for ignition to take place. The heat of ignition needed for the flammable liquid concerned is an important factor. The amount of required heat for ignition of the various flammable liquids varies greatly.

There are four reasons (rules) why a fire involving a flammable liquid may not take place:

1.) The flammable liquid is at a temperature lower than its flashpoint.
2.) There may be insufficient fuel, even if the heat source is hot enough.
3.) There may be insufficient oxygen, even if the heat source is hot enough.
4.) The heat of the ignition source may be insufficient, even if the fuel/air mixture is correct.

There are two kinds of fire:

1.) The kind that you want.
2.) The kind that you don’t want.

Both kinds of fires are subject to rules 1 - 4 above.

There you go Carryfast, no waffle. :wink: :grimacing:

I made it clear that I’m talking about the specific type of circumstances where you’ve got ‘enough’ oxygen because the tank has blown apart in a bleve type incident exposing what remains of the contents to the atmosphere.With ‘tankers’ often meaning the involvement of petrol.As for the ‘heat’ of the ‘ignition source’ we know that just a spark from ordinary static electricity is enough to get things going at ordinary atmospheric temperatures.In which case as I said given the right ( wrong ) circumstances it’s just a matter of how much fuel is available for the unlimited amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to react with.

On that note,as I said,a fire involving a tank that just contains vapour,is a lesser evil under 2,than one that’s got loads of liquid fuel still left in it.Especially if it manages to split open exposing the contents to the atmosphere.In which case it is possible for the whole lot to burn instantaneously.As shown in the video.

All based on the same idea of.

  1. liquid fuel like petrol or kerosene mixed with enough oxygen when ignited = fire just as in the case of a Saturn V rocket. :bulb: :wink:

  2. Fuel vapour mixed with oxygen also = fire when ignited.But there’s obviously more fuel contained in a load of liquid than the same volume in vapour.

73

quote … ‘The liquid fuel is ONE side of a fire-triangle.
Stated simply, you need THREE things in order for a fire to exist.’

That was exactly what I was taught when I did a seven day fire fighting course at Plymouth fire station. But didn’t dare bring it up for fear of contradiction (again) :slight_smile:

74

.

75

raymundo:
quote … ‘The liquid fuel is ONE side of a fire-triangle.
Stated simply, you need THREE things in order for a fire to exist.’

That was exactly what I was taught when I did a seven day fire fighting course at Plymouth fire station. But didn’t dare bring it up for fear of contradiction (again) :slight_smile:

The issue was wether a ‘burning’ tanker full of liquid fuel is more dangerous than an empty one with a load of vapour in it.It’s on fire so we’ve got the hot ignition source and the atmosphere provides all the oxygen required.Which just leaves the amount of liquid fuel left in the tank and hoping the tank stays together to stop the air getting at the remaining load.IE ignition and enough oxygen in the atmosphere can be taken as a given.Which just leaves how much fuel is involved and making sure that the atmosphere is kept away from it.Unless I’ve missed something. :unamused:

76

Carryfast:

raymundo:
quote … ‘The liquid fuel is ONE side of a fire-triangle.
Stated simply, you need THREE things in order for a fire to exist.’

That was exactly what I was taught when I did a seven day fire fighting course at Plymouth fire station. But didn’t dare bring it up for fear of contradiction (again) :slight_smile:

The issue was wether a ‘burning’ tanker full of liquid fuel is more dangerous than an empty one with a load of vapour in it.It’s on fire so we’ve got the hot ignition source and the atmosphere provides all the oxygen required.Which just leaves the amount of liquid fuel left in the tank and hoping the tank stays together to stop the air getting at the remaining load.IE ignition and enough oxygen in the atmosphere can be taken as a given.Which just leaves how much fuel is involved and making sure that the atmosphere is kept away from it.Unless I’ve missed something. :unamused:

Oh and I thought the issue was that a empty tanker was more dangerous than an loaded one.(not a burning one)

You been getting a little mixed up along the way again CF?

77

albion1971:

Carryfast:

raymundo:
quote … ‘The liquid fuel is ONE side of a fire-triangle.
Stated simply, you need THREE things in order for a fire to exist.’

That was exactly what I was taught when I did a seven day fire fighting course at Plymouth fire station. But didn’t dare bring it up for fear of contradiction (again) :slight_smile:

The issue was wether a ‘burning’ tanker full of liquid fuel is more dangerous than an empty one with a load of vapour in it.It’s on fire so we’ve got the hot ignition source and the atmosphere provides all the oxygen required.Which just leaves the amount of liquid fuel left in the tank and hoping the tank stays together to stop the air getting at the remaining load.IE ignition and enough oxygen in the atmosphere can be taken as a given.Which just leaves how much fuel is involved and making sure that the atmosphere is kept away from it.Unless I’ve missed something. :unamused:

Oh and I thought the issue was that a empty tanker was more dangerous than an loaded one.(not a burning one)

You been getting a little mixed up along the way again CF?

Let’s just say that an empty tanker doesn’t have the as much potential risk of causing as much potential damage as a loaded one in a major accident and/or spill situation. :unamused:

78

dieseldave:
There are two kinds of fire:

1.) The kind that you want.
2.) The kind that you don’t want.

Both kinds of fires are subject to rules 1 - 4 above.

There you go :wink: :grimacing:

What I want to know is what happens if you smoke or spark up around the tank with the vapour system open?[emoji16]

79

Carryfast:

albion1971:

Carryfast:

raymundo:
quote … ‘The liquid fuel is ONE side of a fire-triangle.
Stated simply, you need THREE things in order for a fire to exist.’

That was exactly what I was taught when I did a seven day fire fighting course at Plymouth fire station. But didn’t dare bring it up for fear of contradiction (again) :slight_smile:

The issue was wether a ‘burning’ tanker full of liquid fuel is more dangerous than an empty one with a load of vapour in it.It’s on fire so we’ve got the hot ignition source and the atmosphere provides all the oxygen required.Which just leaves the amount of liquid fuel left in the tank and hoping the tank stays together to stop the air getting at the remaining load.IE ignition and enough oxygen in the atmosphere can be taken as a given.Which just leaves how much fuel is involved and making sure that the atmosphere is kept away from it.Unless I’ve missed something. :unamused:

Oh and I thought the issue was that a empty tanker was more dangerous than an loaded one.(not a burning one)

You been getting a little mixed up along the way again CF?

Let’s just say that an empty tanker doesn’t have the as much potential risk of causing as much potential damage as a loaded one in a major accident and/or spill situation. :unamused:

I do love it Carryfast when you spout complete twoddle and people who know what they’re on about correct you. Can just visualise your google sessions trying to figure out a response, fingers on fire. You had a choice of planes or fuel on this last page by looks of it and decided this time to give planes and u boats a miss and went fuel. And still got a spanking from Diesel Dave. :laughing: