[AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel

[Bill Bruer]

There is no conversion to the engines at all, only to the boilers & fuel 
handling equipment that feed the boilers.  Steam is still steam, which is 
what the engines - turbines - get.  Now, during the WW II era they switched 
from 600 psi steam to 1200 psi superheated steam.

I didn't know they took equipment off the NC but am not surprised.  I don't 
remember whether she had a 600 or 1200 psi plant but would not be surprised 
if it is 1200 given the time of construction.  It is not unusual that such 
machinery would have been "recycled" - it was extremely expensive when first 
manufactured, specially designed & built for naval use by ship type, mostly 
by GE.  They may have taken the reduction gears as well.  It is not the same 
equipment as used in commercial ships.  Many mothballed & all scrapped ships 
have had major equipment removed as part of demilitarization if for no other 
reason.  In fact, such items - pumps, engines, gears, etc - were routinely 
reused in new construction as older ships were taken out of service.  That 
may not be the case anymore due to the use of gas turbines for main 
propulsion.

I only got to visit the USS NC once, back about 1981.  I got to go down into 
one of the engine rooms then.  At that time I could still have lit off the 
engines - engine-room side, not boilers.  There is a lot more to getting a 
steam-driven ship underway than lighting a fire in a boiler.  Best time I 
ever heard of was 1 1/2 hours and that is in emergency conditions that 
justify risking major damage to the power plant.

I hope they have managed to keep the NC in good shape.  I worry about her 
every time there is a big storm through there.  At the time of my visit she 
was in remarkably good condition and looked as if she could have been 
manned, provisioned, and put to sea immediately.  It sounds as if their 
marketing people are taking lessons from Biltmore House with the 
behind-the-scenes tour.

Bill

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Al Jones" <farmallsupera at earthlink.net>
To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel


I wonder how much did they have to change the engines/turbines to convert? 
Reason I ask is when they were re-activating them in the 80's, they took 
tons and tons of equipment off the North Carolina.  I got to go on a "behind 
the scenes tour" a couple years ago (NC list members it's called "Hidden 
Battleship" and it's well worth the price.  Guides take you into spaces on 
the ship that haven't been touched since 1947) and they showed us one of the 
engine rooms where the big turbine had been removed.  Didn't say which ship 
it went to but it was one of the Iowa BB's.  My point is, the fact they got 
one off the NC might give a clue to whether or not they had been converted.

One of the tourguides actually demonstrated how a boiler was lit.  Pretty 
fascinating. I forget how fast but it was amazing how fast they could get a 
dead cold boiler online.

Al


-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Bruer <bill_bru at bellsouth.net>
>Sent: May 8, 2011 9:56 AM
>To: Antique tractor email discussion group <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel
>
>Hadn't thought about it & really don't know.  Given the extensive refits in
>other departments, my guess would be that they did convert them to JP5.
>
>I was told that the reasons for converting to JP5 were to avoid some of the
>problems associated with black oil already mentioned like the need for
>preheating.  That made it faster to "light off" the boilers & get underway.
>It burns cleaner which reduces boiler maintenance etc.  It is much lighter 
>&
>is easier to handle.  Those points mean it can use lighter pumps in the
>boiler rooms and lighter equipment for underway replenishment.  A 
>"drawback"
>to that is a definite difference in ship's ballasting - it changes the
>ship's handling characteristics especially in rough water.  The online
>histories I am aware of don't go into such mundane issues.
>
>Bill
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Al Jones" <farmallsupera at earthlink.net>
>To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:11 PM
>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel
>
>
>Interesting.  What did the Iowa class battleships use when they were
>re-activated in the '80s?  Black oil or JP5?
>
>Al
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bill Bruer <bill_bru at bellsouth.net>
>>Sent: May 7, 2011 10:16 AM
>>To: Antique tractor email discussion group <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel
>>
>>Yes, that is the old black oil but it's use didn't end with WW II.  When I
>>reported aboard the USS Wainwright DLG-28 in September of 1971 they had
>>just
>>finished converting from black oil to JP5 - kerosene.  Wainwright was laid
>>down in 1962 and commissioned in 1966.  Black oil was used in virtually 
>>all
>>the steam turbine-driven ships (except nukes, of course) from WW II onward
>>until the early 1970's.  I doubt that any of the WW II era ships were ever
>>converted before being sold, scrapped, or given away.
>>
>>Bill Bruer
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Al Jones" <farmallsupera at earthlink.net>
>>To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" 
>><at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>>Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 8:40 AM
>>Subject: Re: [AT] Fuel Oil vs. Diesel Fuel
>>
>>
>>I was going to ask about #5---is it what the Navy used for ships during
>>WWII?  I think I have read somewhere (of course I can't remember exactly
>>which book, but it would almost have to be about the USS North Carolina)
>>they used something called "Navy special black fuel oil."
>>
>>Al
>>
>>