[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by Sirrotica

FWIW, here's the definition of bunker oil, I had an idea of what it was, but wanted to know for sure:


It's always going to be around, because it comes off the bottom of a cracking tower when they distill crude oil (bottom of the barrel product). The viscosity is so high that the thick mixture needs to be heated just to be liquid enough to be pumped. I would imagine that it has very high BTUs per unit as most crude products do, the thicker viscosity they are, the more BTUs they have.

Brad, that is WHY it was used for producing high pressure steam: its higher BTU composition made it far more attractive than coal. It was safer than coal as well. I'm not really sure HOW you would heat bunker oil enough to get it through the incredibly small clearances (.00001 or smaller) inside diesel injectors.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

Brad, that is WHY it was used for producing high pressure steam: its higher BTU composition made it far more attractive than coal. It was safer than coal as well. I'm not really sure HOW you would heat bunker oil enough to get it through the incredibly small clearances (.00001 or smaller) inside diesel injectors.

FWIW, I did some work at the Cooper Energy company located in Grove City PA. They make and repair engines of that type, just monstrous sized engines. I of course talked to some of the people that worked there, just to gain some knowledge about these huge engines, and alternate fuels. The guy said that some of the engines run on oil, some on natural gas, and some run on coal dust. I never did get all the particulars of how they inject coal dust into the cylinders, but if they can make an I/C engine run on coal dust I guess bunker oil would be much easier than coal dust......

Most times when I've been in refineries, the really thick viscosity oils are steam heated to get them to flow. Steam of course has no open flame to accidently cause a fire, or explosion. The huge storage tanks were connected to boilers to heat the product when they had to move it via pumps.

One time I went into a refinery that during the winter had split a seam down towards the bottom of one of the storage tanks. All the product had flowed out into a dike system that contained it. During these cold temps, that stuff hardened up firm enough that you could walk on it. as spring came it again turned into a semi liquid, that they gathered up and pumped it into another tank while they were repairing the tank that split. Looking back, that was probably bunker oil, or some facsimile.

Googling it on the net shows quite a few I/C engine programs that have been tried with coal dust as a fuel, GM even messed with it.

[Formulabruce]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

70 year old technology would be incredibly difficult to restore, at best. All of these liners were essentially "one off", hand built vessels; they were the pinnacle of technology at the time of their construction. Today, they are dinosaurs. Can any of you tell us where you can procure #4 bunker oil? The last ship is U.S. Navy service that used bunker oil is being towed to Texas for scrapping. Nearly all vessels sailing in commercial service today use diesel engines to generate power, not bunker oil to generate high pressure steam. The high pressure steam used in the United States' turbines? How many people outside of U.S. Navy veterans and serving active duty know anything about it? Even if she were converted into a museum ship it would take millions of dollars every year just to maintain her hull and water tight integrity.

Couple points I will make as a Plank Holder of the SS United States.
1. Bunker " C" oil ( #5) Is procured and Used in the US. One " BIG BOY" Example is the Union Pacific 4014 Steam Engine Recently converted to run on bunker oil, vs dirty Bituminous coal. YES, It Has Injectors....
2. The Big U has inefficient ( by today's standards)
engines that would never be used even if it was restored to service.
3. A major cruise like spent a few million to study conversion to a cruise ship for smaller # passengers.
Why? The hull is 95% sound due to its location salinity, AND
The Hull Design is Still cutting edge for speed, which makes it also efficient. Ship holds trans Atlantic speed record for her size and class.
4. As stated, the Big U has NO Asbestos.
5. The Whole superstructure above deck IS ALUMINUM.
6. The Big U was built in a partnership with the US Govt
At Norfolk.
7. The Big U is Not Nuclear.. you may say, yeah.. but The Govt had Nuclear cruise ship build in that era. Its still afloat
Awaiting scraping, only due to fear......
8. Restoration? Dunno, be best to get it out of the water, but near it for resort usage.
9. But does the Govt fix old stuff? Ummmm, well, YES.
Currently BOIENG has a Govt. contract to rebuild B-52's With Rolls Royce Engines. Yeah, B-52's are NOT new... dinosaurs?? NO. IS YOUR PONTIAC?
On a similar note, modified 567 type EMD train engine holds above water Speed record combined with Zinc batteries and underwater speed record. Faster than Nuclear Subs in the 60's.
ARE WE Dinosaurs?

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by Formulabruce

Couple points I will make as a Plank Holder of the SS United States.
1. Bunker " C" oil ( #5) Is procured and Used in the US. One " BIG BOY" Example is the Union Pacific 4014 Steam Engine Recently converted to run on bunker oil, vs dirty Bituminous coal. YES, It Has Injectors....
2. The Big U has inefficient ( by today's standards)
engines that would never be used even if it was restored to service.
3. A major cruise like spent a few million to study conversion to a cruise ship for smaller # passengers.
Why? The hull is 95% sound due to its location salinity, AND
The Hull Design is Still cutting edge for speed, which makes it also efficient. Ship holds trans Atlantic speed record for her size and class.
4. As stated, the Big U has NO Asbestos.
5. The Whole superstructure above deck IS ALUMINUM.
6. The Big U was built in a partnership with the US Govt
At Norfolk.
7. The Big U is Not Nuclear.. you may say, yeah.. but The Govt had Nuclear cruise ship build in that era. Its still afloat
Awaiting scraping, only due to fear......
8. Restoration? Dunno, be best to get it out of the water, but near it for resort usage.
9. But does the Govt fix old stuff? Ummmm, well, YES.
Currently BOIENG has a Govt. contract to rebuild B-52's With Rolls Royce Engines. Yeah, B-52's are NOT new... dinosaurs?? NO. IS YOUR PONTIAC?
On a similar note, modified 567 type EMD train engine holds above water Speed record combined with Zinc batteries and underwater speed record. Faster than Nuclear Subs in the 60's.
ARE WE Dinosaurs?

Bruce, question: what alloy is the aluminum and was it anodized? If not, after spending YEARS in a salt environment it is probably undergone corrosion so severe it would warrant replacement. Aluminum is exponentially more reactive to salt water than steel is. We had very specific corrosion prevention protocols for any aircraft exposed to a saline environment. As for the UP 4014 having injectors, it does not in the sense of injectors used in diesel engines. They utilize the same technology the Navy used: the fuel is heated then sprayed into the firebox(I watched the restoration videos of 4014. They went into great detail as to how the system worked). A better question is WHY would any cruise line undertake such an expensive and questionable project? IF it were economically feasible one of the major cruise lines WOULD have purchased United States in the same manor as Disney purchase the Norway(ex-France). HUGE difference between reengining a B-52H that was removed from active duty service (built in 1960-1962 and having received all the upgrades since its entry into active duty service) and a one of a kind ocean liner with ZERO sister ships for spares. This is why the Navy scrapped ALL the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk carriers. Their material condition, after years of being pillaged for parts to maintain the remaining members of those classes still in service, was poor. United States has been is "mothballs" since the late 1960s. ANY part that needs to be replaced WILL have to be manufactured, raising the cost of any restoration dramatically. Yes, our Pontiacs ARE dinosaurs....many are us are as well. The difference is PMD manufactured MILLIONS of Pontiacs, not ONE.

[tom s]

Pretty much all marine applications use 5086 aluminum.Highly corrosion resistance.I owned a Striker that was all 5086.FWIW,Tom

[Formulabruce]

When a cruise line hired a firm to check out the Big U for resto conversion, they spent some serious money. As I recall their only draw back was removing the deck and 2 floors to re- engine the Ship. There was a mock up model made and 3d concepts done for the cruise company.
Point is that 99.9 $ of even full restorations are not done to 100% original specs and equipment. This ship would be updated even if it never sailed again. Ask Jay Leno about make parts for rare cars, yup point taken.. doesnt mean its bad.
My point about the 4014 ( and yeah I know the fuel system too, and glad you looked it up.) My point is that Bunker C is still used, and UP has at least 2 engines running it.
The B-52's are a lot of Aluminum too. And old to most folks.
This proves that " New" is Not Always the answer to everything. I helped strip and restore many F/B wheels for the Air Force that were 30+ years old and put on Jets much newer.
So, the Big U may have to prove its economic draw to stay in one piece as many do, but is a significant part of Cold war history really.
We Did save the Fastest Sub ever Built by the Navy.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by tom s

Pretty much all marine applications use 5086 aluminum.Highly corrosion resistance.I owned a Striker that was all 5086.FWIW,Tom

Tom, thanks for the info. I worked primarily with 2023/2024/6061 in the aviation industry. How is 5086 when it comes to galvanic corrosion?

[tom s]

A friend of mine has a 113 ft sportfishing boat.It has huge bait tanks on it that circulate water 24-7 to keep the bait alive.The alu house is not painted at all and looks great.I noticed that one panel in the construction of the tank was all pitted and all the rest were pristine.The answer was they did not have enough 5086 to finish the tank and used something like 6061 and it did not stand up to the task of time.The boat has steel hull and alu superstructure.The hull has to be painted on regular maintenance,they figured the 5086 saved them 250000 to build the boat and on going saving for not having to paint the superstructure.Tom

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by Formulabruce

When a cruise line hired a firm to check out the Big U for resto conversion, they spent some serious money. As I recall their only draw back was removing the deck and 2 floors to re- engine the Ship. There was a mock up model made and 3d concepts done for the cruise company.
Point is that 99.9 $ of even full restorations are not done to 100% original specs and equipment. This ship would be updated even if it never sailed again. Ask Jay Leno about make parts for rare cars, yup point taken.. doesnt mean its bad.
My point about the 4014 ( and yeah I know the fuel system too, and glad you looked it up.) My point is that Bunker C is still used, and UP has at least 2 engines running it.
The B-52's are a lot of Aluminum too. And old to most folks.
This proves that " New" is Not Always the answer to everything. I helped strip and restore many F/B wheels for the Air Force that were 30+ years old and put on Jets much newer.
So, the Big U may have to prove its economic draw to stay in one piece as many do, but is a significant part of Cold war history really.
We Did save the Fastest Sub ever Built by the Navy.

Yes, she was but she isn't in water, either. She is preserved in a dry display. Bruce, if you want to get a real-world idea how expensive it would be to keep the United States preserved in a "wet" environment take a look at the budgets for preservation of New Jersey and Wisconsin. Both ships were removed from "mothballs" after both had received extensive modernization in the late 1980s along with their sister ships Iowa and Missouri. If memory serves me, Nauticus (where Wisconsin is docked) spends around $8-10 million per year just on hull maintenance. When I was on Wisconsin (2009), the City of Newport News (title holder of Wisconsin) had not been given permission by the Navy to correct the 5 degree list that she had developed because one of the rain water gutters in the deck had rusted through. From what I have been told, Wisconsin is NOW the property of the city of Newport News and is completely open to the public(she was still sealed when I was aboard). B-52s go through depot level maintenance regularly. Depot level maintenance is equivalent to a "D" check for an airliner. The aircraft is de-mated(fuselage, wings and empennage are separated ), the engines are pulled along with the main landing gear, the entire fuselage is subjected to NDT (non destructive testing...x-ray, eddy current and ultrasonic inspection). 1 in 3 "Hotel" model B-52s does NOT return to active service after its depot level maintenance due to cracking in the "spine" of the fuselage. These repairs take up to a year to complete. The entire electrical system is replaced and upgraded as are the avionics suite. The aircraft is stripped of all paint, thoroughly inspected for corrosion. Upon re-assembly the aircraft is test flown for several weeks before it is painted, given a final flight check and ground inspection before it is returned to duty. I know this because one of my friends' oldest son is a former B-52H crew chief (Barksdale AFB) who is now a KC-46 crew chief. He and I have discussed B-52 maintenance at length. Another thing to consider about B-52s: there are several hundred still at AMARC. Any part needed can be shipped from AMARC to Tinker (depot), Barksdale or Minot overnight.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by tom s

A friend of mine has a 113 ft sportfishing boat.It has huge bait tanks on it that circulate water 24-7 to keep the bait alive.The alu house is not painted at all and looks great.I noticed that one panel in the construction of the tank was all pitted and all the rest were pristine.The answer was they did not have enough 5086 to finish the tank and used something like 6061 and it did not stand up to the task of time.The boat has steel hull and alu superstructure.The hull has to be painted on regular maintenance,they figured the 5086 saved them 250000 to build the boat and on going saving for not having to paint the superstructure.Tom

6061 is a nightmare when it comes to corrosion. 6061 is alloyed with magnesium; it is very reactive. We used it only for non-structural repairs and instrument panels.