Talk:JP-7

message: A minor error, but yet an error.  Given that the article is correct in that the fuel was developed in 1955, and THAT YEAR there was a shortage of bug spray because the non-volatile components were used for JP-7 (it is) then the fulel could not have been developed for the A-12.  The timeline of the A-12 article is very confusing, mixing the A-12 and the SR-71, but a close examination shows that the A-12 was not even conceived in 1955, much less built.  The A-12 entry states, "With the failure of the CIA's Project Rainbow to reduce the radar cross-section of the U-2, preliminary work began inside Lockheed in late 1957 to develop a follow-on aircraft to overfly the Soviet Union
It is obvious that in 1955 the A-12 was not even conceived, let alone built, and could not be the cause of any type of shortage.
The answer is simple.  The referenced documents are also wrong. As are the Wikipedia articles about the A-12 and SR-71 (but interestingly, not the U-2).  JP-7 was in fact developed for the U-2, not the A-12.
This causes a sort of a quagmire.  The "referenced" information, and the sources are clearly wrong, but there is no reference for the true facts, .  Do we leave in the obviously wrong data because it is properly referenced?  Do we change it to the true facts, even though there is no reference?  or do we delete it entirely because no one knows exactly how to handle this situation?  To make things worse, what do we do with the unreferenced information in the U-2 article?  Maybe, kick the whole problem down the road by using the unreferenced U-2 article as the reference for this one?
 
This is a prime example of the fact that the most aggressive reference attempt can't compete with someone with no references, but has "been there, done that."
Any suggestions will be appreciated.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbonge (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for Development 

message: Whilst the History U-2 reference links to a valid citation "1992). The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954-1974" that apparently authoritative article is unfortunately inaccurate. The Lockheed U2 (CIA AQUATONE) first flight 1955 with P&W J57-P-31A engine used specially developed JPTS (Jet Propellant Thermally Stable) Fuel Grade MIL-F-25524 probably developed by Esso (hence the Flit reference). *** THIS IS NOT JP-7 MIL-T 38219 *** 
Source: 1959 Lockheed U2 Flight Manual PDF 
PDF Page 33 (Manual 1-3) J57-P-31A engine
PDF Page 47 (Manual 1-17) Fuel Grade MIL-F-25524
Pratt & Whitney with Shell developed PF-1 fuel (needing triethylborane TEB for ignition) for the P&W J58 JT11D-20 which powered the Lockheed A-12 (CIA OXCART). Note PF-1 is a Pratt & Whitney designation and *not* the MILSPEC PF-1 priming fluid specification MIL-P-87173. Later Shell, Ashland Oil Company, and Monsanto Chemical company developed a low vapour pressure, less caustic replacement fuel for PF-1 known as JP-7 (MIL-T 38219) for the USAF SR-71
Sources:
SR-71 Blackbird By Paul F. Crickmore A (pp FUEL SYSTEM)
Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions (Revised Edition) By Paul F Crickmore (pp77)
US Military jet fuels 1944 – 1987 
Suggested HISTORY edit:
Shell Oil developed PF-1 (internal name not MILSPEC) with Pratt & Whitney for the P&W J58 JT11D-20 to power the Lockheed A-12 (CIA OXCART).  During the follow on development of the SR-71 for the USAF, Shell, Ashland Oil Company and Monsanto Chemical company developed a low vapour pressure, less caustic replacement fuel for PF-1 known as JP-7 (MIL-T 38219) Source: US Military jet fuels 1944 – 1987 pp6 
Hbaumhardt (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  JP-7 was not used by U2 

message: I seem to remember an anecdote that said that JP-7 was more expensive per volume than the finest single-malt scotch whiskey. Does this have a place in the article?
Rusty 00:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like an urban legend to me.  In Col. Graham's book (and he worked both on the SR-71 and in the Pentagon funding department for the program) I recall that the upper cost of a mission was around $100,000.  That works out to about a dollar per pound of fuel ($6.60/gallon), and that would be the upper limit as the figure also accounts for maintenance, crew, etc. -Rolypolyman (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single malt scotch 

message: This article states that JP-7 contained "alkylbenzenes, indanes/tetralins, and naphthalenes." Each of these are aromatic hydrocarbons, however, the article subsequently states that the quantity of such compounds was deliberately minimized. It is unlikely that these would be deliberately blended into such a mixture, as that would raise the aromatic content. --209.189.245.112 06:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction: fuel composition 

message: Added ref tag. There's only one referene listed. Seems like there's lots of info on this page that should be easily verifiable should someone take the time to do so. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Tag

message: "It must operate across a wide range of temperatures, from near freezing at high altitude, to high temperature of airframe and engine parts being cooled." Can the author please clarify?  (EnochBethany (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Obtuse Word Group

message: In the top of the article: ..."the match will be extinguished (although this is common in any low-volatility fuel including gasoline and diesel)."
Seems partially incorrect, and it would be great to see a citation on that. 
I have been fire breathing with kerosene for many years, so I can vouch for such substances as diesel extinguishing a lit match, but not gasoline. You can find lots of videos on YouTube where people pour gasoline on piles of wood, and when they merely strike the match, the vapors all round them light off immediately without even throwing the match into the gasoline. Fire breathers also get hurt trying to use white gas and gasoline instead of other less-volatile materials. 
So I think that the gasoline part of the statement needs to be verified or removed. Diesel part is probably correct.
71.139.165.172 (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  the match will be extinguished?