Captain Wilson,

You're a nautical genius is what you are! I have this co-worker/friend of mine, Ronald Timm, that sits next office over, whose dad was a ship builder, and he was very impressed with your knowledge of ocean going war vessels. And self-taught, you must read an awful lot Capt.
Best regards, Sal

The conversion to distilate had no effect on the maximum shaft horsepower. The significnant difference is that you had to burn more fuel per any given time to create the same specific energy. I don't remember the numbers, but lets say for instance you had to burn 500 gal/hr of nsfo to maintain 35 kts. you would have to burn 2000 gal/hr of dfm to maintain the same 35 knots. Like I said the numbers are off cause I'm too lazy to go look them up, but you can get the idea. The dfm also has a slightly lower specific gravity and a lower viscosity than nsfo making it lighter,easier to pump,eliminating the need to pre heat the fuel, etc. All in all it's about a trade off except the reduction in fuel economy.

Don Reed
MM2 6/66-11/68

MM2 Don Reed....You too are a nautical engineering genius!!! I think that you guys sharing your shipboard learned knowledge on the forum is a terrific thing.

Hey Web-site Guru/Webmaster/Esteemed Snipe/Big John Freeman, I know the vast amount of stuff you know about the engine room of the Cochrane (remeber I was there when you gave Horace the abbreviated snipe school series lecture in the hotel room). Anyway, feel free to post your engineering indiosynrasies anytime you like. If I don't understand them thoroughly, at the very least I'll read them conclusively. Thanks and best regards, Sal

I kind of figured that DFM was probably just a higher burn rate. I am not sure what they did to convert to DFM, I remember when they re-commissioned USS Missouri BB-63, they upgraded her to DFM. I think they changed the burner heads in the boilers, and discovered a whole slew of leaks in the fuel piping systems. It seems the heavier NSFO had a self sealing property. It was such a heavy fraction it tended to seal its own leaks. BB-63 had to manufacture some kind of nickle steel pipes to replace the ones that leaked. If I rememebr they just about replaced all the fuel piping (a section at a time) by the time she decomissioned again in 92.

FTG1(SW)DDG-21 80-84 NRFF-1091 USS Miller 85-87

Figures, dont it? Replace he whole fuel system - just in time to park her again... I wonder if any of those magnificent pieces of Naveng that is the Iowa class will ever be lit off again? My last ship mwas in the Philly yards alot, and the Iowa and Wisconsin were mothballed there at that time. I spent quite a number of hours checking those leviathians out! Was a Jeep carrier nested between them, and that carrier wasnt at all impressive next to the berthmates! (Think it was a jeep carrier- was a small carrier, but all id markings were oblitterated, so I havnt a clue which one she was) Wonder how many dollars per mile they got? )

Whew!! Sure am glad there ain't gonna be a test tomorrow!!! All I know is that gas is expensive and my SUV loves it!!!

Dave Doty ETR3 65-67

A.K.A. "Minnow"
(941) 693-3689