American fighter ace & Engineer "Kit" Carson criticizes the BF109E/G and FW-190.

[Crump]

"Once more, the document clearly relates that the grand total of experience on the P-51 Mustang is six months worth of operational testing." when the extract you highlight immediately below says "  In the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft with 150 grade fuel..."

 

 

Kind of sounds like six months of experience to me....

 

 

 

The document mentions "service testing" and "operations". I cannot see anywhere the use of the term "operational testing".  

 

Once again...

 

After service testing comes operational testing...

 

That is the process.   Think about it.  Why would the Director of Technical Operations write a summary of experience on a fuel that is tried, true, and adopted as "standard".

 

Perhaps he was just bored and decided to pass his musing along to whomever cared??? 

 

No, service testing simply confirms that the technical function is reasonable based upon limited information and limited testing.

 

Operational testing is defined as:

 

 

During this phase of testing, adequate DT&E is accomplished to ensure that engineering is reasonably complete (including survivability/vulnerability, compatibility, transportability, interoperability, reliability, maintainability, safety, human factors, and logistics supportability).

 

 

 

Also, this phase confirms that all significant design problems have been identified and solutions to these problems are in place.

 

 

The early OT&E program is accomplished in an environment containing limited operational realism.

 

http://www.dau.mil/publications/publicationsDocs/Test%20and%20Evaluation%20Management%20Guide,%20December%202012,%206th%20Edition%20-v1.pdf

 

 

Colonel Hough as the Director of Technical Services is the USAAF Operational Testing and Evaluation agency and the 4 April 1945 report is a summary of the experience gained in that operational testing.  It is meeting this requirement:

 

 

The Service OT&E agency should conduct an OA for the Post-Critical Design Review Assessment (PCDRA) to estimate the systems potential to be operationally effective and suitable; identify needed modifications; and provide information on tactics, doctrine, organization, and personnel requirements.

 

 

 

Technical Operations, Eighth Air Force issued a 4 April 1945 memorandum in which 100/150 grade fuel experience in the Eighth Air Force was summarized.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf

 

It is the Operational Assessment requirement of the testing process.

 

 

It is bizarre

 

Please use some maturity and facts.  These asinine appeals to emotion do nothing for the conversation. 

United States Defense acquisition has a process and that process was used during World War II.  It is the foundation of the one in place today.

[unreasonable]

Six months of operations - at the end of which, a new formulation was used. The document summarizes the experience of using the fuel for the record. If it had been summarizing it's use in operational trials, prior to wider approval or disapproval, it surely would have said as much. It did not - is says "operations".

 

You are misrepresenting the clear and obvious meaning of the document to suit your preconceived idea. Hardly a new phenomenon in your case, so perhaps not bizarre. 

 

Enjoyable or not as insults may be for you, they simply emphasize that you have not addressed the other document quoted as note 24 previously which explicitly states that the fuel would be the only one used by 8th AAF fighters in the UK.

 

Is the officer who wrote this just plain wrong? The fact is that there is a contemporary military document explicitly contradicting your case, so unless you can directly show why it is not genuine or can prove that the writer was mistaken you do not have a leg to stand on with this procedures, missing documents argument.  It is not just a matter of finding another historical interpretation more convincing  - it is a matter of finding Col. George E Price a more convincing witness than Crump!

 

Edit - I have nothing to add on this unless there is some new document to see.

Edited November 25, 2016 by unreasonable

[Crump]

You are misrepresenting the clear and obvious meaning of the document to suit your preconceived idea.

 

What is your explanation for the fact most of fuel used by the 8th USAAF was 100/130 grade?

 

What is your explanation for the fact there is no Army Navy Specification Number for British 100/150 grade?

 

What is your explanation for the fact there are no SEFC charts for flight planning using British 100/150 grade fuel? 

 

It is not complicated.  

 

 

Is the officer who wrote this just plain wrong?

 

Not at all.  He writes a very good summary of the experience gained in the six months of operational experience attained on the fuel.

 

The problem does not lie with him.  It is with the interpretation of others and the lack of experience in how aircraft and the military work. 

It lies with those who do not deal with the fact that 100/150 grade fuel represents a very real technical barrier with real technical problems that have not been solved even today.  That is why the real adopted fuel was 145 grade...it simply had a lot less lead and did not require the additives that destroy seals/valve seats.

[unreasonable]

Crump, I am talking about this document which you need to address: we can disagree about the interpretation of the "service trials and operations" document, but this one leaves no wriggle room.

 

Either the document writer was correct or not. 

 

[Crump]

Why do you think their internal memo very early in the project is the last word on anything having to do with flying the aircraft.

 

 

 

and logistics supportability).

 

Is part of Operational testing.  Obviously, the system has to be developed that supports only 100/150 grade.

 

You seem to think anyone who does not agree with the conclusion "it was the standard and only fuel available from the moment the memo was written" as being "bizarre".

 

You also seem to think that Operational Testing does not mean using it during operational flying.  It most certainly does require its use in operations.  It will start out as very limited non-combat operational flying and progress from there to full operational combat use.  That is the purpose of operational testing.

 

It requires the logistical support network to be fully engaged and any problems in logistics have to be solved.  Operational testing is the final stage before service adoption.  That British 100/150 grade never got an Army Navy Specification Number or published SEFC charts and the fact 114/145 grade did receive those items tells us the Operational Testing was not successful.

[unreasonable]

Why do you think their internal memo very early in the project is the last word on anything having to do with flying the aircraft.

 

Is part of Operational testing.  Obviously, the system has to be developed that supports only 100/150 grade.

 

You seem to think anyone who does not agree with the conclusion "it was the standard and only fuel available from the moment the memo was written" as being "bizarre".

 

You also seem to think that Operational Testing does not mean using it during operational flying.  It most certainly does require its use in operations.  It will start out as very limited non-combat operational flying and progress from there to full operational combat use.  That is the purpose of operational testing.

 

It requires the logistical support network to be fully engaged and any problems in logistics have to be solved.  Operational testing is the final stage before service adoption.  That British 100/150 grade never got an Army Navy Specification Number or published SEFC charts and the fact 114/145 grade did receive those items tells us the Operational Testing was not successful.

 

Naughty Crump. You are putting something I never said in quotes - not for the first time. Deliberate misrepresentation.

 

What I do think is that generally people writing military staff memos say what they mean and mean what they say. So if it had just been about "operational testing", the report would have said so. It does not. It is titled "Use of 100/150 Grade Fuel by Eighth Air Force".They used it on operations, after testing it, and nowhere in the report does it state that any other fuel was being used in parallel in the June 44 - Jan 45 period.

 

If it was, you have yet to provide evidence.

 

There is interesting information on how wartime testing was done - page 2 para 5 outlines how after 200 hours of accelerated service testing (by three squadrons - ie perhaps one or two sorties per aircraft!) the decision was made that "all fighter units of the [8th] Air Force were put on "Pep" fuel late in January 1945".  Hardly a massive bureaucratic nightmare.   "All fighter units...were put on "Pep" fuel - again, clearly implies that this was the sole fuel that they used for that period.  Similarly para 1.b "All fighter units switched..."   The language is clear and consistent.  The Project P.P.F. document is explicit.

 

The contemporary documents are worth far more than your speculations.

[Crump]

 

 

Naughty Crump. You are putting something I never said in quotes - not for the first time. Deliberate misrepresentation.

 

Show where that is occurring, please!

 

Personally, I think it just another tactic designed to increase the white noise.

 

 

 

What I do think is that generally people writing military staff memos say what they mean and mean what they say.

 

It is very clearly stated the purpose of the memo in the first paragraph....

 

 

 

 1.   The following is a summary of 100/150 grade fuel experience in Eighth Air Force.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf

 

The memo is a summary of experience with the fuel.

 

There is no need for anyone to write a "summary of experience" with an officially adopted fuel.  Only with operational testing is a report summarizing the experience gained in operational conditions......

 

 

 

All fighter units

 

Is no more confusing than:

 

 

 

All Aircraft CONUS did you use 91 Octane.  You just think I said all aircraft used 91 Octane and nothing else.  

 

How do you explain the tons of 100/130 grade use of the 8th USAAF fighters during this time period if your theory they used 100/150 grade is correct??

 

How did they consume 12 million gallons of 100/130 grade fuel in single engine fighters in the month of September 1944?

 

 

What is your explanation for the fact most of fuel used by the 8th USAAF was 100/130 grade?   What is your explanation for the fact there is no Army Navy Specification Number for British 100/150 grade?   What is your explanation for the fact there are no SEFC charts for flight planning using British 100/150 grade fuel?    It is not complicated.  

 

[MiloMorai]

Where does it say that the ~12 million gallons was only 100/130 fuel?

 

Consumption of 150 Grade Fuel - Barrels

August 1944 USAAF 182,000bbl or 7,644,000gal (1bbl = 42gal)

 

From Table 186 - 14,744,000gal for all fuels

...

 

1) Dir. of supply Petroleum Section 26.5.1944

2) Dir. of Maint

3) Dir. of Tec. Engr

1.      The Eighth Air Force have requested that the VIII Fighter Command Stations be supplied immediately with grade 150 aviation fuel for use in P-47, P-51 and P-38 planes.

2.      The fuel has been tested in service and the results have been such that the fuel is desired as soon as its supply can be implemented.

 

 

   

 

[Crump]

 

 

Where does it say that the ~12 million gallons was only 100/130 fuel?

 

 

That is the only specified fuel the United States shipped overseas for single engine fighters, Milo.   

 

 

91/97 Grade was ONLY used for interior operations and was not counted in the statistical digest as overseas fuel.  Overseas fuel is strictly 100/130 grade.

 

 

 

August 1944 USAAF 182,000bbl or 7,644,000gal (1bbl = 42gal)

 

 

Contrasted by the consumption of 14,744,000 gallons of 100/130 grade....

 

In other words...1/3 of the fuel consumed by the 8th USAAF was 100/150 grade.  That very much fits with an operational test.

[MiloMorai]

What are you babbling on about?

[Crump]

Answering your question is now babbling?  In other words you do not have any real facts or arguments to contribute and are resorting to insults as a last ditch effort.

[NZTyphoon]

It is a fact that all service adopted fuels MUST have a Army Navy Specification Number.

 

What specific U.S pre-war WW2 or wartime WW2 regulation says this?  Clearly Crump has the documentation to back up this claim, otherwise he wouldn't keep repeating it.

 

Does Crump have any evidence whatsoever that the USAAF or USN made a habit of giving foreign manufactured fuels a AN Spec No?

 

It is a fact that all service adopted fuels MUST have a SEFC sheet for flight planning purposes...

 

It is a fact that the fuel was used only by the 8th A/F Fighter Command: why would the USAAF print and distribute such documents outside of the immediate users? 

 

What Crump doesn't seem to understand is that  SEFC sheets for 100/150 grade fuel must have existed, otherwise how did 8th A/F fighter pilots plan and fly operational missions while using the fuel?  Maybe they were given ouija boards and avgas divining sticks...

 

What is the AN specification number for 100/150 grade fuel used by the 8th USAAF?

 

 

As Crump well knows, this question has been answered. Asking a question repeatedly doesn't mean it has to be answered repeatedly.

 

Where is even ONE example of the SEFC sheets for 100/150 grade?

 

Clearly, Crump always thinks that documents from a large, military bureaucracy from 70 years ago - and one that was dis-established soon after the end of the war -can be produced at the drop of a hat. Every large bureaucracy will eventually dump or destroy redundant documents en-masse; the  bureaucracy might file a small, representative selection away in basements where they can be gnawed by rats, or flooded out, or whatever, but that's not a given either. Who knows what might have happened to a relatively small number of documents from a dead military bureaucracy?

 

Why is that that just about every Pilot's Manual or Engine Maintenance manual available on the internet is a revised, post-war edition? Could that be because the earlier editions were withdrawn and destroyed because they were redundant?

 

How many Pilot's Manuals or Engine Maintenance manuals available to the public were originals, from frontline operational units, complete with all the additions and supplements that were handed out to personnel?

 

Does Crump know what happened to all the Pilot's Manuals that were issued to 8th A/F Fighter Command personnel between June 1944 and May '45?

 

Can Crump find an example of a pilot's manual that had been owned by an operational pilot from a USAAF 8th A/F Fighter Command unit between June 44 and May 45?

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by NZTyphoon

[Crump]

[JG13_opcode]

Nice. Post the pdf.

[NZTyphoon]

Nice. Post the pdf.

Here it is: what it has to do with 100/150 grade fuel is anyone's guess; nor does it mention 114/145 grade:

US Recommended Specified and Alternative Fuels.pdf

[MiloMorai]

Contrasted by the consumption of 14,744,000 gallons of 100/130 grade.... In other words...1/3 of the fuel consumed by the 8th USAAF was 100/150 grade. That very much fits with an operational test.

 

14,744,000 was total fuel consumed without specifying the octane. (Table 186)

 

14,744,000 (100) - 7,644,000 (150) = 7,100,000 (100), or slightly more than 1/2 was 150 fuel.

 

So yes babbling because what has CONUS consumption to do with ETO consumption.

[Crump]

 

 

 

14,744,000 was total fuel consumed without specifying the octane. (Table 186)

 

They ONLY counted AN-F28 100/130 grade.... 

 

 

So yes babbling because what has CONUS consumption to do with ETO consumption.

 

It is the ETO 100/130 grade consumption figure for August of 1944... 

[Crump]

Does Crump have any evidence whatsoever that the USAAF or USN made a habit of giving foreign manufactured fuels a AN Spec No?

 

Foreign manufactured fuels are prohibited in USAAF aircraft unless they are listed an equivalent to USAAF specified fuels and lubricants.   There is actually a entire list of them and guess what....100/150 grade is NOT on it.

 

ONLY specified fuels can be used.  That is why that question keeps getting asked.  You simply cannot answer it because it never existed.

 

You do realize that the lack of a Army Navy Specification number is definitive PROOF that British 100/150 Grade was NOT an adopted or standard fuel in any USAAF unit.   

 

It simply could not have been anything else but operational testing as part of the larger push to find a high octane fuel that ultimately resulted in the adoption of 114/145 grade post war.

Nice. Post the pdf.

 

It has been posted before....

 

It is not a new piece of documentation.  I posted it years ago for these guys.

[MiloMorai]

 

 

They ONLY counted AN-F28 100/130 grade....

 

Were is the proof.

[Crump]

 

 

Here it is: what it has to do with 100/150 grade fuel is anyone's guess; nor does it mention 114/145 grade:

 

AN-F-33 is the Specification number for 114/145 grade fuel.  It was actually adopted as a standard specified fuel in JULY 1944.  However, since making one gallon of 114/145 grade fuel prevented the production of TWO gallons of 100/130 grade AN-F-28 fuel....the decision was made not to mass produce it until after VE day, May 1945.

[Crump]

Here is the British and commercial equivalent fuels and lubricants that can be used on the P-51 Mustang.

 

Sadly, there is no fuel equivalent to AN-F-28 100/130 grade fuel and of course there is nothing about 100/150 grade.

 

 

So once again, I must ask the question....What is the AN specification number for British 100/150 grade fuel that proves the 8th USAAF did anything other than operational testing??

[NZTyphoon]

Foreign manufactured fuels are prohibited in USAAF aircraft unless they are listed an equivalent to USAAF specified fuels and lubricants.   There is actually a entire list of them and guess what....100/150 grade is NOT on it.

 

 

So hopefully Crump can post the list of prohibited fuels, and the wartime USAAF/USN regulations that governed the list?

 

Here is the British and commercial equivalent fuels and lubricants that can be used on the P-51 Mustang.

 

Sadly, there is no fuel equivalent to AN-F-28 100/130 grade fuel and of course there is nothing about 100/150 grade.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps Crump isn't aware that 100/130 grade fuel was produced under a joint Anglo-American specification, which was why there was no "British equivalent" listed:

 

[Crump]

So hopefully Crump can post the list of prohibited fuels, and the wartime USAAF/USN regulations that governed the list?

 

It is posted.

 

 

 

Perhaps Crump isn't aware that 100/130 grade fuel was produced under a joint Anglo-American specification, which was why there was no "British equivalent" listed:

 

 

That is not the same thing NzTyphoon.  All fuels and fluids have a specification.   That is a joint civilian specification and nothing to do with the Army Navy specification number. 

 

Fuels approved for USAAF aircraft must comply with the Army Navy Specification.  If that Army Navy Specification is complied with then the fuel can be used.

 

It might sound silly if you have no experience in aviation and how things work.  Everything on a certified aircraft must comply with the type certificate including fuel and oil.  I sat in Stansted for three hours one time while they searched for the correct specification or an equivalent Turbine oil was located and we ended up on the phone with bombardier to find the right oil.  In this case, the brand names had changed and the new brand was not an approved lubricant despite the fact it was the same damn oil so the approval did not apply.  They had to go over the specification sheet, fax a copy to Canada, and bombardier had to give the OK for us to add 3 quarts of oil to the engines.  

 

So that joint civilian specification means is the 8th USAAF Technical Service could inspect and buy that fuel to turn around and designate it as AN-F-28 fuel.  It does not mean any pilot could just throw some in his tanks from a British airfield unless that was expressly authorized.

 

Once more that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact 100/150 grade does not have an Army Navy Specification number.

Without that Army Navy Specification number, it is impossible for British 100/150 grade fuel to be used as anything other than operational testing.

[unreasonable]

The document I find most conclusive is this one - also from  http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html 

 

It is an instruction on the delivery of 100/150 to USAAF fighter group storage facilities. It says " All grade 100/130 aviation fuel in storage will be used before the use of grade 100/150 aviation fuel is started".

 

 

As to the proportion of 100/150 to 100/130 used: the aggregate numbers for ETO fighter use will include 8th Air Force in the UK and 9th Air Force based on the continent as the invasion progressed. Only the 8th used 100/150.

 

So any fuel use on the continent - and in training in the UK or ferrying - by 9th Air Force would be the 100/130 component of total ETO fighter use.  

Edited November 26, 2016 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

So, taken together, it is fair to say that by 1945, a large portion of the USAAF in the ETO (as well as parts of the 2^nd  TAF) were running on 100/150 grade fuel. As deliveries of 150 octane are at least a third of the total fuel supplied, one can reason that most fighter squadrons were supplied (why would you give it to the bombers?) with that fuel grade.

 

It is also of note that those fuels added a rather appalling wear to the engines that would not be tolerated under any circumstances other than keeping the fighter force competitive in wartime. The memos point that out very eloquently.

 

I would guess none of us forum participants would accept using such a fuel like the 150 "pep" fuel for a real aircraft it it was our aircraft.

 

Obviously, the authorities also were of that opinion and never made it an "official" (hence no code for it) fuel, no matter how widespread the use was in 1945. Why quarrel over bureaucratic issues. They had the fuel for fighters and used it. And they ditched it as soon as the last 10% of performance and the quantities were not required anymore. The Japanese didn't have aircraft in quality or quantity that required a widespread upgrade of the octane rating at the cost of significant maintenance increase. And with lower shipping quantities being ok after the war, 145 octane was the eventual choice.

 

Just because something is not listed "standard", it doesn't mean it may not be commonly available "in non-standard times". Listed high performance standard fuels were 130 and later 145 octane. 150 was obviously widely used, but it was not "standard" and thus nowhere in the documentation of the individual aircraft. Being "experimental", such as the whole 150 octane story, is a way to improvise where it mattered in one of the most regulated environments.

 

This is all the documents posted above say.

 

 

Here's an example on improvising in the aviation world:

In Switzerland, airplanes with less than 20 kg/m2 wing load were illegal from 1984 on, sp depending on the design, you had to put a sandbag in your aircraft it if you used modern materials to build it. But you could have an "experimental" aircraft within that spec, and that was ok. They just made it harder for you to get the plane approved. (In 2014, finally politics realized that lighter aircraft are not "polluting the environment more" than aircraft of the normal GA specs and lifted the ban partially).

[Crump]

Where is the list that proscribes foreign fuels and lubricants and where are the regulations that cover the list? Surely, if Crump can quote regulations  ad-nauseum, he can post the said regulations? It's not complicated.

 

 

You do know this is the regulation?  It is the maintenance instructions for the aircraft and carries the weight of law.  The aircraft is not in compliance with its Type Certificate and is not airworthy if anything else is used.  

 

 

 

Hair-splitting. It was a military grade fuel, issued by the military to be used in military aircraft, so it had everything to do with AN Spec. Numbers

 

 

 

No, it is a VERY important concept in aviation for compliance with the Type Certificate and airworthiness.  There is not one organization that does fuel specification, there are many and they do not always agree.  

 

 

 

The listings principally cover those documents of United States origin followed by those originating from Canada, then the United Kingdom, the European Committee for Standards (CEN), from NATO, International Standardization Organization (ISO), Australian Standards Institute (AS), Austria (ONORM), Germany (DIN), Indian (BIS), Japan (JSA), Russia (GOST), Turkey (TUPRAS), South Africa (SABS), and lastly Sweden (FSD). Additionally, websites are included for the recently published ExxonMobil World Jet Fuel Specifications, ExxonMobil Marine Fuel Specifications, and the World Wide Fuel Charter. Hopefully, this listing will be expanded to include those fuel specifications and standards from other foreign sources.

 

http://www.iash.net/fuel-specifications

 

That the United States and England decided on a joint specification for 100/130 grade certainly streamlines things and made it easier.  It did not eliminate the USAAF from it's duty to maintain the airworthiness of its aircraft by using only Army Navy Specified fuel.  You do know that the USAAF did not drill for oil or refine it?  Even in the United States, they bought it.  It would come from the refinery to the USAAF.  The USAAF would inspect it to ensure compliance with their Army Navy Specification and once that process was complete they had the authority to designate that fuel as meeting that Army Navy specification.  

 

 

 

Maintains quality control of petroleum fuel, and cryogenic products. Operates and maintains laboratory test equipment. Collects and analyzes product samples from receipt sources, bulk storage tanks, and dispensing equipment.

 

https://www.thebalance.com/air-force-enlisted-job-descriptions-3344295

 

 

It is the USAAF that gives it the AN specification number and not the civilian petroleum standards organizations.

 

All USAAF aircraft must use a AN specified fuel.

 

 

How about Crump posts the wartime regulations that he is so fond of quoting?

 

 

 

You do not understand airplanes do you?  You think it is just a suggestion.  No, it is from the Maintenance Manual and carries the weight of law.

[Crump]

 

 

So, taken together, it is fair to say that by 1945, a large portion of the USAAF in the ETO (as well as parts of the 2nd  TAF) were running on 100/150 grade fuel. As deliveries of 150 octane are at least a third of the total fuel supplied, one can reason that most fighter squadrons were supplied (why would you give it to the bombers?) with that fuel grade.   It is also of note that those fuels added a rather appalling wear to the engines that would not be tolerated under any circumstances other than keeping the fighter force competitive in wartime. The memos point that out very eloquently.   I would guess none of us forum participants would accept using such a fuel like the 150 "pep" fuel for a real aircraft it it was our aircraft.

 

Absolutely.

 

I find it very interesting that a few folks are so "stuck" on proving it was the "standard adopted fuel" when it is very clear cut that it was not an adopted fuel without realizing that even operational testing is operational use.

[ZachariasX]

Absolutely.

 

I find it very interesting that a few folks are so "stuck" on proving it was the "standard adopted fuel" when it is very clear cut that it was not an adopted fuel without realizing that even operational testing is operational use.

 

People have different background and  experience indealing with bureaucratic authorities, hence there you can look at the term "standard" in various ways while saying the same thing: namely most fighters being issued the "stinky" fuel by 1945.

 

But only if you take from the bureaucratic standpoint you will have the explanation why it never made it in the official type certificates.

[Crump]

 

 

People have different background and  experience indealing with bureaucratic authorities, hence there you can look at the term "standard" in various ways while saying the same thing: namely most fighters being issued the "stinky" fuel by 1945.   But only if you take from the bureaucratic standpoint you will have the explanation why it never made it in the official type certificates.

 

LOL, there is nothing more highly regulated and "bureaucratic" as aviation and especially aviation maintenance.   There are laws and convention that cover how aircraft work and if it does not fit that convention...it highly unlikely it happened. 

 

It looks like to me that many of the "documents" used on wwiiaircraftperformance.com to "prove" the use of 100/150 grade are actually the result in context of the Petroleum Conference with little or nothing to do with the British 100/150 Octane use in operational testing.

 

Simply put, there was a shortage of 100/130 grade and the United States manufacturers were unable to meet production requirements.

 

 

The best document on that site is the Director of Technical Services, Col Hough's summary of its use and that does not paint the picture of the fuel being "the only fuel available" from June 1944 on.   The lack of a Army Navy Specification is proof positive the fuel was never the "adopted or standard" fuel for the 8th USAAF.

 

The purpose of operational testing is to validate the test subject under operational conditions.  That would be a phased in approach as real militaries do not rely upon some mythical "combat fairey" or "hope" as a plan.

 

At some point that phase would become full blown operational combat missions.  As Colonel Hough explicitly states in his summary, the 8th USAAF amassed six months worth of operational experience with the fuel.

[unreasonable]

Absolutely.

 

I find it very interesting that a few folks are so "stuck" on proving it was the "standard adopted fuel" when it is very clear cut that it was not an adopted fuel without realizing that even operational testing is operational use.

 

I find it very interesting that Crump is "stuck" on proving that 100/150 grade fuel was used only in "operational testing" when the contemporary documents prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all of 8th AAF fighter groups used exclusively 100/150 from somewhere about end of June 1944 until January 1945 - or the end of the war in Europe if you include the PEP variants.

 

15 fighter groups on crucial missions for 6-9 months during the key period of the war: some "testing"!

 

I would prefer to call it a "wartime expediency" as Z is suggesting. The testing took place much earlier, and is also described in the documents.

Edited November 26, 2016 by unreasonable

[Crump]

 

 

I find it very interesting that Crump is "stuck" on proving that 100/150 grade fuel was used only in "operational testing" when the contemporary documents prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all of 8th AAF fighter groups used exclusively 100/150 from somewhere about end of June 1944 until January 1945 - or the end of the war in Europe if you include the PEP variants.

 

Where do they prove that?  Nowhere unreasonable.  That is simply your "best wishes" based on some gaming desire.

 

It is a just a fact no AN specification means the fuel could not be anything BUT operational testing.  The 8th USAAF commander does not have the authority to just put any fuel he wants into his airplanes.  It is just that simple.  There is a set procedure though that he could and appears did use to get the fuel into his airplanes.  

 

In other words, there are things he has to do and a pathway to that goal.  

 

It is isn't "hey we are gonna use this stuff right now and nothing else". 

The June 1944 deadline does correspond to D-Day but it also corresponds to the timeline set by the Petroleum Conference for adopting a high grade aviation fuel.  That fuel was 114/145 grade though and nothing to do with British 100/150 grade use in operational testing.

Many of those US documents are referring too the US 150 grade program and nothing to do with the 8th USAAF.

[ZachariasX]

100/150 grade fuel was used only in "operational testing" when the contemporary documents prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all of 8th AAF fighter groups used exclusively 100/150 from somewhere about end of June 1944 until January 1945 - or the end of the war in Europe if you include the PEP variants.

 

Anything you do that is not "official", can be seen as "testing". Today you would call it "experimental". There are planes retaining this status since decades. They are still "experimental". In this sense, being standard or not is a legal issue, not a technical one and certainly not a logic one.

 

The point is that if the aviation authorities sanction certain fuels/parts/maintenance, they are liable for the safety within specified use. 150 pep grade fuel was nothing they would sign off. The memos you posted explain that in colorful manner. And even you wouldn't put that fuel in your plane. Or would you?

 

Keep in mind, there are no more lasting things than the makeshift ones. We even have a Spit Mk.IX when there should have been Mk.VIII instead. Makeshift. You can "test" for a thousand years. There is nothing that limits the scope of a "test", even though at some point it might seem unreasonable (pun intended ).

 

Given everyone agrees that from D-day on, stocks of 150 grade increased for fighters throughout the units and from 1945 on possibly most of the units were. yes, exclusively issued this fuel grade, why do you claim (if I undersand you correctly) this is what the respective aviation authorities sectioned?

 

You can fill in your plane what you want. From salad oil to nitromethane. Just if you hit the farm, the accident report will go on like "The dumbass who filled nitromethane in the tank of his aircraft..." and insurance will not pay. But you can do it. Same with 150 grade pep fuel.

[JG13_opcode]

This is a really dumb argument, even by the standards of we "usual suspects" of FM arguing.

 

They could always just include a "fuel" option in the game if and when a Mustang gets added.

 

That way, mission designers can create the scenarios they want. Problem solved.

Edited November 26, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[unreasonable]

Given everyone agrees that from D-day on, stocks of 150 grade increased for fighters throughout the units and from 1945 on possibly most of the units were. yes, exclusively issued this fuel grade, why do you claim (if I undersand you correctly) this is what the respective aviation authorities sectioned?

 

You can fill in your plane what you want. From salad oil to nitromethane. Just if you hit the farm, the accident report will go on like "The dumbass who filled nitromethane in the tank of his aircraft..." and insurance will not pay. But you can do it. Same with 150 grade pep fuel.

 

It is obvious that the military hierarchy authorized the widespread - indeed exclusive - use of 100/150 by 8th AAF fighter groups. If you want to differentiate between the military chain of command that made that decision and the "aviation authorities" that is up to you. Personally I think this is meaningless pedantry. 

 

The fighter pilots of the USAAF could not   "fill in your plane what you want. From salad oil to nitromethane." That is just silly, we are not talking about private GA.

 

The documentation shows early operational testing if you read all the attachments to the piece linked earlier - 200 hours in three squadron strength cross channel missions IIRC in early 1944.  As a result of which the fuel got authorized for further use by the military chain of command. To say that the later use was "not standard" and "an extensive operational trial" is profoundly misleading. It is exactly equivalent to saying that the use of P-51s on long range escort missions was "not standard" and "testing". It was not - it was SOP for these units.

 

@Opcode - As for the impact on the game - there will be none unless we have aircraft and missions where the fuel might have been used, which seems a very distant prospect.

 

The issue is simply one of getting the historical record straight without obfuscation. This is fundamental. Crump has said " It is just NOT a standard fuel and is not adopted for widespread use." (Post 294)  I do not care what his definition of "standard" is, obviously he is very concerned about his documentation, but 15 Fighter groups using the stuff exclusively for over six months is most certainly "widespread use" and certainly not "testing". 

[ZachariasX]

A2A lets you choose 130 and 100 grade fuel for their P-51. Guess why.

 

Military hierarchy filling whatever in their units aircraft is similar to you filling whatever in your aircraft.

 

Given there is no argument in fuel usage per se, it is not clear why one would label 150 octane 'standard' fuel when this labeling can be misleading as well.

[unreasonable]

A2A lets you choose 130 and 100 grade fuel for their P-51. Guess why.

 

Military hierarchy filling whatever in their units aircraft is similar to you filling whatever in your aircraft.

 

Given there is no argument in fuel usage per se, it is not clear why one would label 150 octane 'standard' fuel when this labeling can be misleading as well.

 

Who cares what a video game lets you choose? Are you saying they are the authority on the historical facts?

 

No it is not - the fuel was operationally tested then, after approval by chain of command, rolled out to more widespread use  - all 8th AAF FGs - with SOPs developed for the issues, and was used for months in what must have been more than a hundred thousand hours of flight time. This is nothing whatsoever like you deciding to put mayonnaise in your Cessna.  

 

As to agreement on fuel usage - I wonder about that. Maybe on the tonnages, but I think not on the by whom and for how long.  Does Crump agree - contrary to his earlier interpretation of the documents -  that 8th AAF FGs used only 100/150 (and it's later PEP variants) from about the end of June 1944 until the war's end? 

 

You can argue about the meaning of "standard" and "operational testing" if you like, but the usage is a matter of fact one way or another.

Edited November 26, 2016 by unreasonable

[JG13_opcode]

You guys are in the FM section for this game, and you're arguing about which of two widely-available fuels was "standard" during a 6 month period of the war, for an aircraft that isn't in this game and won't be for at least another 5 years.
 
So I guess my question is why is this important to any of you, and why are you arguing about it here?
 
 
 
Try https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/

Edited November 26, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[unreasonable]

Well, since you asked,  the topic was introduced - by Crump - in post 262 after the thread had already gone wildly away from the original topic. So I read the attachments and links that people add to their posts; sometimes they are quite interesting; and I find that Crump's views are contradicted by the actual documentary evidence. So I point this out as a public service, (since I know many people do not check his pronouncements because they believe in his self-proclaimed status as an authority on aviation), and simply because it is an interesting historical puzzle. 

 

No-one is forcing you to read the thread if you find it uninteresting.

[Crump]

 

 

the topic was introduced - by Crump - in post 262

 

 

Negative ghostrider...It was introduced in post 260.  The topic was the fact one crash is significant in aviation if it is due to a mechanical flaw.  The poster used the example of RAF Mustangs using +25 boost as part of the ADGB.

 

There are simply some good technical reasons why the fuel suited the ADGB.  

 

The risk was worth it in the court of public opinion in the anti-diver mission.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25292-american-fighter-ace-engineer-kit-carson-criticizes-bf109eg/?p=411200

 

 

 

Does Crump agree - contrary to his earlier interpretation of the documents -  that 8th AAF FGs used only 100/150 (and it's later PEP variants) from about the end of June 1944 until the war's end? 

 

 

Curious how you fit 6 months worth of experience with the fuel into an 11 month period??

[NZTyphoon]

You do know this is the regulation?  It is the maintenance instructions for the aircraft and carries the weight of law.  The aircraft is not in compliance with its Type Certificate and is not airworthy if anything else is used.  

 

Thus,  Crump says, with great authority and gravitas, that  the maintenance instructions carry the weight of law.

 

What Laws?

 

Can we please see a copy of those laws, just so we know exactly what Crump is talking about?

 

Can we please see a copy of the list of proscribed foreign fuels that Crump claims existed?

 

Foreign manufactured fuels are prohibited in USAAF aircraft unless they are listed an equivalent to USAAF specified fuels and lubricants.   There is actually a entire list of them and guess what....100/150 grade is NOT on it.

 

 

Can Crump actually back up his authoritative statements with factual evidence...

 

You do not understand airplanes do you?  (blah, blah, more blah)

 

...instead of resorting to his  usual tired, condescending, red-herring BS? (It seems, sadly, that Crump doesn't understand how to answer without resorting to condescending BS.)

Edited November 26, 2016 by NZTyphoon