JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
22 April 2012
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
2,036
Whilst flicking through the OR.330 files at the PRO in Kew (AIR 20/7723) I cam across a note generated in 1956 when concerns were being raised over the Avro 730s range and Avro were proposing to reduce the crew to two thus reducing the length of the pressure cabin and so allowing for either weight reduction, additional fuel or some combination of the two. However, many in the Air Staff and in the RAE seem to have been less than impressed by such a suggestion and were concerned about work overload for the crew, consensus eventually being that whilst two crew could man the bomber if any of the systems failed it would effectively be the end of the mission. Anyway, in amongst this was a note in which someone spoke of high energy fuels (of which it was said could potentially double the range) and made particular reference to Monoethyl Dekaborane (Google suggests this is more commonly known as Monoethyldecaborane), does anybody know if this has ever actually been used as part of a jet fuel or anything about its advantages and disadvantages?

My googling found this 1966 US patent: http://www.archpatent.com/patents/3266958
 
Wikipedia has a good starting article point under "zip fuel".

Advantages;
More energy per weight and volume i.e 30000 BTU per pound for borane based fuel vs. 18000 BTU per pound for kerosene.
Disadvantages:
Really really expensive. Pure boranes apparently like to catch on fire when they come in contact with air. Putting a small amount of borane fuel into regular jet fuel tamed that, but also 'watered down' the energy improvement. Combustion fumes are toxic. Combustion residue is abrasive (bad news for turbine blades) so most work was based around using the borane fuel in the afterburner aka reheat section downstream of the turbine. Combustion products contain solid particles (like coal smoke) so would leave a highly visible 'smoke' trail behind your Mach 3 bomber, the exact opposite of stealth.

Other than experimentals, and any still classified projects, the only 'open' usage was in the SR-71 'Blackbird'. It used a small squirt of borane based fuel as 'starter fluid' to light off the relatively difficult to ignite JP-6 fuel.
 
Most of the original WS-110 (Chemical Powered Bomber and related i.e. reconnaissance) proposals, such as the North American NA-239 were based around the use of Zip fuels.

Here's an August 1956 NACA research memorandum that mentions Zip fuels (although not specifically Monoethyl Dekaborane) in relation to chemical powered bombers and hybrid concepts, i.e. the nuclear cruise-chemical dash bomber and the nuclear subsonic tug/supersonic CPB tow.

Fuel heat of combustion. - A convenient means of presenting the
fuel picture in relation to heat of combustion is to plot the heat of
combustion of the elements as a function of their atomic numbers (fig.
6). Heats of combustion in excess of the current value of JP-4, 2400
nautical-mile pounds per pound (approximately 18,500 Btu/lb), can be obtained
by substituting lithium, beryllium, or boron for the carbon of
hydrocarbons, or by eliminating these elements entirely and using
hydrogen.

Lithium is not enough better than carbon to be of much interest.
Beryllium is much rarer, and is more toxic than boron, which leaves the
boron-hydrides of major interest. Pentaborane (B5H9) has a heat of combustion
of 29,000 Btu per pound. The development of the boron fuels
under the code name of Zip is being actively sponsored by the Department
of Defense. A fuel consisting of a combination of boron-hydride and
hydrocarbon with an estimated heat of combustion of 25,000 to 26,000 Btu
is being produced in laboratory quantities. If this fuel can be used in
place of JP-4, a range increase of 40 percent (26,000/18,500 = 1.40)
will be realized. However, the combustion products, boron oxide, tend
to deposit as a solid in the combustor and on the turbine stator blades;
intensive research is needed on this problem. Without going into details,
current research indicates that combustion of Zip fuel in the
afterburner causes less trouble than combustion in the primary combustor.
Use of Zip fuel in the afterburner only will increase range about 25 percent,
for that portion of the flight in which the afterburner is used.

Research and development on Zip fuel is currently limited in scope
because of the small quantities of the fuel that have been available.
Based on present recommedndations of the Department of the Navy and Department
of the Air Force, sufficient fuel should be available in about
2 years to permit an adequate attack on the problem of exhaust product
deposits. In the mean time, interesting laboratory results on full scale
engines are being obtained with the limited fuel quantities now available.

Hydrogen as a fuel would give a heat of combustion 2.75 times that
of JP-4, and would present no major engine operation problems,, In fact,
because of its combustibility, hydrogen has good combustion efficiency
at altitudes much in excess of those currently being used. The principal
disadvantage of hydrogen is its low density; in liquid form hydrogen
is only one-tenth as dense as JP-4, and extremely low temperatures are
required to maintain the liquid form. In comparison with a quantity
of JP-4 of given energy content, an equivalent amount of hydrogen would
weigh 0.4 as much, but would occupy four times the volume. This
lower density, with consequent larger fuel tanks, has led to consideration
of hydrogen primarily for altitudes above 70,000 feet and generaly
for radii of action less than that required for the strategic bomber
mission. Current interest in this fuel is for flights at considerably
higher altitudes, with particular emphasis on the reconnaissance
mission. The Department of the Air Force, in conjunction with the NYACA,
is conducttig an accelerated program on the use of hydrogen. Use of
hydrogen is discussed more fully in references 2 and 3.

Summarizing the chemical fuel picture: zip fuels may well increase
potential range of the strategic bomber by 25 percent of the portion of
the flight in which an afterburner is used. A potential range increase
of 40 percent will be realized if the boron oxide deposit problem is
solved, permitting full use of Zip fuel. The low density of hydrogen
makes it of current interest as a fuel to be used at quite high alti-,
tudes; decision on its use as a long-range fuel must await additional
research.

If the strategic bomber is powered with nuclear fuel instead of
chemical fuel, the value of h becomes many orders of magnitude greater
than that for chemical fuels. In this case, because range is sufficiently
greater than that required by the bomber mission, other factors,
notably nuclear radiation effects on the crew, determine the time the
airplane can stay in the air and so determine the radius.
 
The Valkyrie was intended to have a decaborane-based fuel version. Ref here.
There is an interesting talk on the subject here.The pic below shows the Valkyrie engine with 'ordinary' fuel on testbed Hustler.
A view of engine by Valkyrie is next (from Flickr)
 

Attachments

  • NB-58A_With_J-93_Pod.jpg
    NB-58A_With_J-93_Pod.jpg
    381.6 KB · Views: 355
  • 5775808671_c16ddd173b_o.jpg
    5775808671_c16ddd173b_o.jpg
    177.6 KB · Views: 337
tartle,

You remind me, something else I cam across (which you may well be interested in/already be aware of) whilst looking through a file about the Armstrong Siddeley P.176 was a proposed Rolls Royce engine with the designation RB.134 that was essentially to be based on the same concepts and technologies as the P.176 but sized as an Avon replacement. Opinion seems to have been that it offered nothing new compared to the P.176 so it was therefore not proceeded with. That makes my RR Mach 2-2.5+ turbojet designations list six long:

RB.106 (Thames- for supersonic Swift)
RB.121 (OR.330- Vickers and Handley Page)
RB.122 (OR.329- chosen but not developed, enlarged RB.106)
RB.127 (OR.330- Option for Avro 730- not adopted)
RB.128 (OR.329, evolved version of the RB.122)
RB.134 (proposed Avon replacement)

Also, thank you everyone who replied.
 
Thanks for that... I really must update my list of RB numbers.... when I have time.... Merlins and 'R' engines are occupying me at the moment. Kew is a great place for potential references to distract you from your original aim!
 
Borane fuels were flight tested for the first time on 28 September 1958 from F-101A 53-2418, which had been baled to General Electric since 1956 for testing of the J79 engine. The following is from memory, but as I recall the HEF-3 fuel used in the tests was powdered decaborane suspended in benzene. The combustion products were boric anhydride and boron hydride (BH4). The original intent had been to use this in the combustion chambers just like regular hydrocarbon fuel, but boric anhydride is highly acidic and BH4 is the next thing on the hardness scale to diamond...neither of which you would want impinging on turbine blades spinning at several thousand RPM and 1,000 degrees.... By the time they got around to ground tests at (NACA Langley?) using a modified GE J47 and flight testing in the Voodoo, they instead had decided to inject the borane fuel into the afterburner plume to avoid the worst of the problems. Running in the J93-GE-5 engine for the B-70, it was expected to give a 15% increase in range. But testing in the Voodoo showed such thick smoke as to be deemed dangerous during taxiing and ground operations, high toxicity, and extreme maintenance burden to remove the BH4 deposits from the afterburner that further flight operations were abandoned in 1959.

Anyway, if you get on the NASA NTRS server and type in "HEF-3" or "borane" as a search term, there is some good stuff there. Valkyrie by Jenkins and Landis and either of Steve Pace's books on the B-70 have good information as well. I have a photo of 53-2418 taken during the tests that I will have to dig up and post here.
 
Eh, not so much really, NRTS is still being a pain. However I did find these using just "borane" as a search term:
"Conceptual study of hypersonic airbreathing missiles"

No pdf but here's the summery:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19780036719&hterms=Borane&qs=N%3D0%26Ntk%3DAll%26Ntt%3DBorane%26Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchallpartial%26Nm%3D17%7CCollection%7CNACA%7C%7C123%7CCollection%7CNASA%2520STI

"Turbine Engines for High Speed Flight" @1968 report on turbines and fuels
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680089382_1968089382.pdf

"Performance of Pentaborane, Pentaborane-JP4 Mixtures and Trimethalborate Azeotrope Fuel in Full Scale Turbojet Engine"
@1963 report
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930089609_1993089609.pdf

Randy
 
Jay Miller's "Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works" very briefly mentions the use of "boron based" high energy fuel being tested on 3 occasions in the X-7. "Though the results were favourable, the logistics of handling the extremely toxic propellant proved formidable. Besides being dangerous to inhale, even in minute quantities, it also was hypergolic"

On a side note, the X-7 and it's ramjet propulsion are fascinating to me.
max speed of mach 4.31 using a 36 inch diameter ramjet!
max altitude of 106,000 feet
Intriguingly, Miller mentions talk of flight testing a "monstrous 48 inch engine for another, unspecified program".
 
here is my contribution on Zip Fuel in this forum
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6570.msg55995.html#msg55995
 
Mat Parry said:
Jay Miller's "Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works" very briefly mentions the use of "boron based" high energy fuel being tested on 3 occasions in the X-7. "Though the results were favourable, the logistics of handling the extremely toxic propellant proved formidable. Besides being dangerous to inhale, even in minute quantities, it also was hypergolic"

On a side note, the X-7 and it's ramjet propulsion are fascinating to me.
max speed of mach 4.31 using a 36 inch diameter ramjet!
max altitude of 106,000 feet
Intriguingly, Miller mentions talk of flight testing a "monstrous 48 inch engine for another, unspecified program".

Navaho possibly? It had a pair of 48" ramjets for propulsion. This Glenn historical page describes testing them originally in 1952 and then again in 1955/56.
http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov/Ramjets%20and%20Missiles.aspx

Edit: Unfortunatly it looks like the majority of "paper" links are dead ends due to the shuffle at NTRS :(

Randy
 
Yes a good call and I was aware that Navaho did indeed use 48 inch ramjets.


However in Mr Millers book the "talk of flight testing monstrous 48 inch ramjet" is discussed in the context of a series of Marquardt engines tested on the X-7 (one of which was later used on the D-21). From what I have read Marquardt was not the manufacturer of the Navaho's powerplants


Perhaps I am misinterpreting the tone and context of Mr Miller? (this thought is what has prevented me making some outrageous speculations ;D , I am learning restraint as I enter my 40's!)
 
Mat Parry said:
Yes a good call and I was aware that Navaho did indeed use 48 inch ramjets.


However in Mr Millers book the "talk of flight testing monstrous 48 inch ramjet" is discussed in the context of a series of Marquardt engines tested on the X-7 (one of which was later used on the D-21). From what I have read Marquardt was not the manufacturer of the Navaho's powerplants


Perhaps I am misinterpreting the tone and context of Mr Miller? (this thought is what has prevented me making some outrageous speculations ;D , I am learning restraint as I enter my 40's!)

The Ramjets on Navaho was a XRJ47-W-5 build by Wright.
this Ramjet was tested as 20 inch sub scale version on X-7

It possible that Zip Fuel had to be used for Navaho, that stuff was design for supersonic aircraft or Atomic powered aircraft (as high trust fuel and liquid radiation shield )
the only Zip Fuel that manage into a Aircraft was the triethylborane (TEB) for A-10, YF-12 and Sr-71 aircraft, here it ignites the JP-7 fuel with air
 
Guys, apologies


my side note on the X-7 and talk of flight testing the 48" monster is derailing this thread :-[
I have no information other than the passage by Miller and no-where did he state that the monster was to be tested with zip fuels (or that the monster was actually flight tested)


Maybe I'll start a new thread or add something here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,352.75.html (I like reply #29)
 
Mat Parry said:
Guys, apologies


my side note on the X-7 and talk of flight testing the 48" monster is derailing this thread :-[
I have no information other than the passage by Miller and no-where did he state that the monster was to be tested with zip fuels (or that the monster was actually flight tested)


Maybe I'll start a new thread or add something here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,352.75.html (I like reply #29)


No problem
on that "46 inch Monster" ramjet for another, "unspecified program"
in that time were several program with ramjet like Navaho, Republic XF-103, XB-70 study, Lockheed study what let to A-12/YF-12/M-21/Sr-71 family
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom