U.S. Navy Lauds Earth Day Test Of 'Green Hornet' - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#13377349
The U.S. Navy's first fighter jet powered by alternative fuel took off April 22 from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., and took a 45-minute spin around the block in what Navy officials touted as proof the service is serious about reducing its dependence on oil.

An F/A-18F Super Hornet from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 - dubbed the "Green Hornet" - flew with conventionally powered chase aircraft on Earth Day before an in-person audience that included U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and other viewers who watched it live on the Internet.

"The alternative fuels test program is a significant milestone in the certification and ultimate operational use of biofuels by the Navy and Marine Corps," Mabus said. "It's important to emphasize, especially on Earth Day, the Navy's commitment to reducing dependence on foreign oil as well as safeguarding our environment. Our Navy, alongside industry, the other services and federal agency partners, will continue to be an early adopter of alternative energy sources."

As fighter sorties go, the hop was very basic, including gentle climbs, turns and passes, but the jet performed just as it would have on regular fuel.

"The aircraft flew exactly as we expected - no surprises," said Lt. Cmdr. Tom Weaver, the Super Hornet's pilot, in a Navy announcement. "The fuel works so well, all I needed to do was just fly the plane."

NavAir engineers' goal is to prove a Super Hornet's engines can run just as well on the blend of half-camelina oil in the test as they can on standard jet fuel, known as JP-5.

"Our mission today and for the rest of the flight tests is to confirm that the fuel makes no difference in performance across the Super Hornet's entire flight envelope, from subsonic to supersonic operations," said Mark Swierczek, NavAir's propulsion flight test engineer. "Preliminary results show there was no difference in engine ops attributable to the biofuel. Engine performance is normal and as expected."

Engineers will continue to test the biofuel-powered Super Hornet over about 14 more flights, and then expand the tests of alternative fuels in the marine gas turbines that power many surface ships and the engines of Marine Corps ground vehicles.

Although Navy officials are confident that synthetic biofuels are advanced enough to run in existing engines without the need for major modifications, the fuels aren't cheap: In September 2009, the Defense Energy Support Center paid $2.7 million for 40,000 gallons of camelina-based fuel, the Navy said, which comes to about $67.50 per gallon, compared to the typical cost of about $2.94 per gallon for standard JP-5.

But Navy leaders say that as the fuel industry and the Pentagon develop advanced new methods for making alternative fuel, with the understanding that the Navy is committed to buying lots of it, the price will come down.

Proving that a Navy fighter can operate normally on alternative fuel is a critical step toward Mabus' goal of fielding a "Great Green Fleet" by 2016 - a carrier strike group completely independent of petroleum fuel. In Mabus' vision, its carrier and submarine escort would be nuclear powered, and its surface ships and aircraft would run on biofuel.

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=SEA
User avatar
By Typhoon
#13377401
"The fuel works so well, all I needed to do was just fly the plane." - Pilot

As opposed to having to get out and push or infuse his own lifeblood into the jet to keep it airborne, sure it works the airforce already tried it, what an odd statement. :eh:

Must admit to being a bit sceptical as to the green credentials of the jet, especially with all the bad press (deforestation, competition with food crops etc) biofuels get today.

Would it not have been cheaper and more effective for the airforce to have offset emissions by planting a forest somewhere rather than going 50/50 on biofuels??
By Lensky1917
#13379304
Would it not have been cheaper and more effective for the airforce to have offset emissions by planting a forest somewhere rather than going 50/50 on biofuels??


Because the Air Force can't do labor, that's an Army job.

Besides, it's the Army that tries to blend in with the trees.

;)
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13379569
FFS, the "Green Hornet" is a Navy plane. Did you two read the article at all, or even the thread title? :eh:
User avatar
By Typhoon
#13379695
Did you two read the article at all, or even the thread title?

Hmm well I guess not since I quoted the pilot of so-called 'Green-Hornet'...

Though it must be said that the 'air force' is not exclusive to those on the land, which is seen in such loverly titles as Commander, Naval Air Force, United States Atlantic Fleet (COMNAVAIRLANT). Also since both the Navy and USAF are using biofuels (and could both perhaps be better off giving the army some cover) the catch all of airforce could be applied when refering to both. Perhaps I should clarify with Naval, probably just being sneaky to dodge the critisism but then im not nit-picking :)
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13380131
Typhoon, as a Navy vet I tend to get a bit edgy since people repeatedly forget the difference between branches.
User avatar
By Godstud
#13380169
Wouldn't it have been "greener" to just ground the plane for a few days and save even more energy?

I was expecting something fantastic like a wind-powered or solar-powered plane when I saw the title of the post. This is such a disappointment.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13380170
Uh... how exactly do you propose a wind or solar powered plane would work? :eh:
User avatar
By Godstud
#13380180
I don't know, but certainly I was expecting something a bit different. :p

Why not a hydrogen powered plane?
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13380462
There is/was a wind powered UAV. But no fighterjet so far.
Waiting for Starmer

@JohnRawls I think the smaller parties will do[…]

https://i.ibb.co/VDfthZC/IMG-0141&#[…]

I don't care who I have to fight. White people wh[…]

World War II Day by Day

Yes, we can thank this period in Britain--and Orw[…]