Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 12:20 pm Post Subject: Stealth Jets and Contrails
Does anyone know if stealth technology includes the visible aspect of trails? It would be interesting to know if they have managed to modify engines or develop special fuels so that the jets produce invisible exhaust trails...
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 140
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 4:50 pm Post Subject:
Hi John,
Good question! I've just had a bit of a trawl to see what I could find on this topic.
Quote:
The invention of jet engines created another challenge for engine designers. They did not require a fuel that vaporized (turned to a gaseous state) as easily as AvGas, but they did have other requirements. Instead of using gasoline, they chose kerosene or a kerosene-gasoline mix. The first jet fuel was known as JP-1 (for “Jet Propellant”), but the U.S. military soon sought fuels with better qualities. They wanted fuels that did not produce visible smoke and which were also less likely to produce contrails (the visible trail of condensed water vapor or ice crystals caused when water condenses in aircraft exhaust at certain altitudes). But a major requirement was for fuels that did not ignite at low temperatures in order to reduce the chance of fire.
I started with looking at the fuel development for the Lockheed SR71 (Blackbird).
Part of the development of that aircraft in the 1950's was the requirement for a new fuel. Because the SR71 flies so fast (4,062 km/h), friction heats the aircraft to over 500C. The new fuel needed a high ignition temperature so it wouldnt simply ignite in the fuel tanks at operating temperatures.
The Blackbird's engines operate as turbojets at lowers speeds and ramjets at higher speeds. One of the problems with high speed engines is getting hydrocarbon fuel to burn fast enough at the very high airflow speeds through the engine.
The solution that they came up with is a fuel called JP-7 (MIL-DTL-38219, Turbine Fuel, Low Volatility, JP-7).
There is not a lot of info around on what goes into JP-7, but I did find that it is unique among jet fuels in that it is not a petroleum distillate, but is blended up from various chemical compounds.
Quote:
Engine designers and fuel chemists created JP-7 with a high flashpoint that would not explode in the aircraft’s tanks, but this also made the fuel hard to ignite within the engines themselves. Because JP-7 is so hard to ignite, particularly at the low pressures encountered at high altitudes, these planes used a special chemical called tri-ethyl borane (TEB), which burns at a high temperature when it is oxidized (combined with air). Another problem that the A-12 encountered was that the engine exhaust (particularly shock waves created in the exhaust when the engines were at full afterburner) was easily seen by radar. The engine designers added an expensive chemical known as A-50, which contained cesium, to the fuel for operational flights that reduced its ability to be detected by radar.
I then looked at the engines used in the F117A Stealth Fighter; 2x General Electric F404-GE-F1D2.
I couldn't find a definitive statement on the fuel used, but it seems to be the same as in the F18. F18's are primarily naval aircraft and use JP-5, which is basically the naval version of JP-8. From that I concluded that the F117A runs on JP-8. (if anyone finds more information on this, please post it.)
The US Department of Labor note some health factors of JP-8:
The only thing I found on modifications to the engines on the F117A was to do with shielding the air intakes to prevent radar reflecting off the turbine blades. Nothing on emission reduction.
However, the B2 Spirit Stealth Bomber is "powered by four General Electric turbofan engines internally mounted in the body of the wings. The engines have an exhaust temperature control system to minimise thermal signature."
So I get the impression on a preliminary look that the answer to the question you pose is, Yes!
I'll do more research as I am able and will add what I find. I'll look particularly for more info on the additive mentioned called "A-50". Caesium, which it aparently contains, is pretty nasty stuff.
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Location: Levin, New Zealand
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 2:54 pm Post Subject:
WOW - this is frighteningly interesting John and Colin, isn't it?
:-k I presume the intial reason for the airforce(s) wanting to eliminate visible trails was to leave little evidence for the 'enemy', of where they were heading - or was it more sinister then :?:
Thanks for all the :research: you are doing into this Colin <clap>
I've been watching the skies lately, but the weather has not been good for catching trails on camera - and besides, windy conditions wouldn't be conducive to aerosol activity would they?
keep warm everyone - and safe :!:
Pamela
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:43 pm Post Subject: JP8
JP8 jet fuel contains the additive ethyline dibromide, an extremly toxic pesticide banned dy the EPA in 1983.
If you wanted to test for the presence of such a chemical in say a chemtrail fallout sample you had collected, or an air sample, or a water sample, or blood sample...you would test for bromine.
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 140
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:37 am Post Subject: Re: JP8
hadleigh wrote:
JP8 jet fuel contains the additive ethyline dibromide, an extremly toxic pesticide banned by the EPA in 1983.
Hi Hadleigh,
I was interested to learn more about the ethylene dibromide you mentioned and I found the information below on the Air Force Propulsion Laboratory Propulsion Directorate:
Quote:
SUBJECT: Public Release Statement on JP-8+100 Fuel
1. In response to questions about the contents of jet fuels, JP-8 fuel does not and never has contained ethylene dibromide. No jet fuel used by the military or commercial aircraft contains ethylene dibromide.
2. Jet fuel is kerosene, a petroleum distillate fraction, purchased to specification Mil-T-83133D. The specification requires the fuel producer to meet a range of chemical and physical properties to ensure proper aircraft operation. Fuel additives are allowed, but highly controlled in the specification and related qualified products lists. Allowed additives include antioxidants, metal deactivators, corrosion inhibitors, fuel system icing inhibitor, and a static dissipater additive. Commercial fuels allow the use of antioxidants and metal deactivators and for some aircraft fuel systems icing inhibitor and static dissipater additive. JP-8 is essentially commercial Jet A-1 fuel with corrosion inhibitor, fuel system icing inhibitor, and an antistatic additive. None of these additives is ethylene dibromide, nor are any part of the additive packages ethylene dibromide.
I'm happy to report too, that we can all rest easy about chemtrails... the USAF assures us in the very same document, that chemtrails are merely illusions. (PHEW!!) [-o<
Quote:
5. Contrails are safe, contrary to misinformation on the internet and other sources. The creation of contrails may give the illusion an aircraft is spraying something, however, this is just an illusion. Contrails are created from the normal emissions of jet engines at higher altitudes which condense water vapor into a visible cloud. The emissions from jet engines are basically the same as from car or diesel engines. These emissions do not contain ethylene dibromide (EDB), since EDB is not a component of JP-8, or jet fuel. The contrails are water vapor. They do not pose a hazard.
Yeah, there is misinformation on the internet alright!
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 140
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:27 am Post Subject:
pamela wrote:
Thanks for all the :research: you are doing into this Colin <clap>
It's really interesting stuff isn't it Pamela. There still seems to be a great deal of secrecy around this issue of stealth aircraft, their fuels and their basic design and functionality. It is difficult finding reliable specifications.
Surprisingly, the technologies we're looking at actually date back to the 1950's!
The development of the SR-71, "said" to be the first stealthy aircraft, began in 1958 and it entered service in 1962. The last SR-71 flight took place in 1999.
Quote:
Although most news reports characterize the SR-71 aircraft as `radar evading', in point of fact, however, the SR-71 was one of the largest radar targets ever detected on the FAA's long-range radars. The FAA was able to track it at ranges of several hundred miles. The explanation offered was that the radars were detecting the exhaust plume.
Development of the The F117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter began in 1975 and a production decision was made in 1978 with a contract awarded to Lockheed Advanced Development Projects, the "Skunk Works," in Burbank, Calif. (The same outfit that developed the SR-71) The first flight was in 1981, only 31 months after the full-scale development decision. The first F-117A was delivered in 1982, and the last delivery was in the summer of 1990.
Quote:
The B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber is the most expensive plane built to date, costing approximately US$2.2 billion per plane. Weighing in at 158,000 pounds (71,668 kg), each bomber cost over $870.00 per ounce ($30/g) which is two or three times more than its weight in gold. Some writers have suggested that the huge program cost may actually include costs for other black projects that remain classified.
An estimated 23 billion dollars was secretly spent for research and development on the B-2 in the 1980s. The first B-2 was publicly displayed on November 22, 1988 and the first aircraft, named Spirit of Missouri, was delivered on December 17, 1993.
Four General Electric F118 engines power the B-2. This is the same engine now used to power the well-known U2 spy plane.
The Air Force originally ordered 120 B-2's but by 1995 the program was canned with only 21 having been delivered.
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Location: Levin, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:02 am Post Subject:
Hi Colin and others,
Thanks again - and this ethyline dibromide is a worry - who on earth does one believe? Statements, denials, etc. really do leave us confused.
As I'm having problems with skin and nasal tissues, often worse following a bout of trails, I intend requesting a blood test for Bromine from my doctor!
He acknowledges that I'm unwell, and looking pale, but I'm not anaemic - so perhaps this test may throw some light on things :?: :!:
