  Large hydrocarbon fuels are used for ground and air transportation and will
be for the foreseeable future. Despite their extensive use, turbulent
combustion of large hydrocarbon fuels, remains relatively poorly understood and
difficult to predict. A key parameter when burning these fuels is the turbulent
consumption speed; the velocity at which fuel and air are consumed through a
turbulent flame front. Such information can be useful as a model input
parameter and for validation of modeled results. In this study, turbulent
consumption speeds were measured for three jet-like fuels using a premixed
turbulent Bunsen burner. The burner was used to independently control
turbulence intensity, unburned temperature, and equivalence ratio. Each fuel
had similar heat releases (within 2%), laminar flame speeds (within 5-15 %),
and adiabatic flame temperatures. Despite this similarity, for constant Re_D
and turbulence intensity, A2 (i.e., jet-A) has the highest turbulent flame
speeds and remains stable (i.e., without tip quenching) at lower {\phi} than
the other fuels evaluated. In contrast the C1 fuel, which contains no
aromatics, has the slowest turbulent flame speeds and exhibits tip quenching at
higher {\phi} then the other fuels. C1 was the most sensitive to the influence
of turbulence, as evidenced by this fuel having the largest ratio of turbulent
to laminar flame speeds. The C1 fuel had the highest stretch sensitivity, in
general, as indicated by calculated Markstein numbers. This work shows that
turbulent flame speeds and tip stability of multi-component large hydrocarbon
fuels can be sensitive to the chemical class of its components. The results
from the current work indicate that caution may be needed when using
alternative or surrogate fuels to replicate conventional fuels, especially if
the alternative fuels are missing chemical classes of fuels that influence
stretch sensitivities.
