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

November 26, 2016

.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.)

LMAO!! I think it very obvious who the immature posters are in the thread!

Nothing I have said is condescending or disrespectful. You on the other hand cannot answer without putting some childish video clip. Your post's are long on emotional appeal and short on any facts.

What Laws?

Aviation law is the branch of law that concerns flight, air travel, and associated legal and business concerns. Some of its area of concern overlaps that of admiralty law and, in many cases, aviation law is considered a matter of international law due to the nature of air travel. However, the business aspects of airlines and their regulation also fall under aviation law. In the international realm, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) provides general rules and mediates international concerns to an extent regarding aviation law. The ICAO is a specialized agency of the United Nations.

Prior to World War I, several nations signed bilateral agreements regarding the legal status of international flights, and during the war, several nations took the step of prohibiting flights over their territory. Several competing multilateral treaty regimes were established in the wake of the war, including the Paris Convention of 1919, Ibero-American Convention (1926)^[3] and the Havana Convention (1928).^[4] The International Air Transport Association (IATA) was founded in 1919 in a conference at The Hague, to foster cooperation between airlines in various commercial and legal areas.^[2]

The lack of uniformity in international air law, particularly with regard to the liability of international airlines, led to the Warsaw Convention of 1929.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_law

International Aviation Law: A Practical Guide explains the international context and application of the law as it applies to commercial and recreational aviation, and to the broader aviation environment. It provides a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of aviation law from criminal law to contract law to the legal duties and responsibility of aircrew and other aviation personnel including airport operators, air traffic controllers and aircraft engineers.

https://www.amazon.com/International-Aviation-Law-Practical-Guide/dp/1409432874

Aviation law pertains to nearly all individuals connected to the operation and maintenance of aircraft.

https://www.hg.org/aviation-law.html

November 26, 2016

LMAO!! I think it very obvious who the immature posters are in the thread!

Nothing I have said is condescending or disrespectful. You on the other hand cannot answer without putting some childish video clip. Your post's are long on emotional appeal and short on any facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_law

https://www.amazon.com/International-Aviation-Law-Practical-Guide/dp/1409432874

https://www.hg.org/aviation-law.html

Thus, Crump can show us those laws that he claims govern the types of aviation fuels that were to be used in USAAF aircraft...

November 26, 2016

Thus, Crump can show us those laws that he claims govern the types of aviation fuels that were to be used in USAAF aircraft...

NzTyphoon...it governs the aviation of all signatory nations.

What it is say the airworthiness of the aircraft is dependent upon compliance with the type certificate. To maintain compliance with the type certificate, you must follow the directions in the maintenance manual, operating limitations section of the POH, and the weight/balance.

You must follow the instructions and procedures in the Maintenance manual. That includes only using the list of approved fuels and lubricants. It is part of the airworthiness of the design.

Airworthiness
Categories:
Airworthiness

Enhancing Safety

Article Information Category: Airworthiness Content source: SKYbrary Content control: SKYbrary

Definition
Airworthiness may be defined as the fitness of an aircraft to fly when it meets the minimum conditions laid down in its type certificate. This includes the design and construction (in accordance with specific certification codes). An airworthy aircraft is one that is fit to fly. Additionally it must be operated within the limits laid down; an aircraft which exceeds any limit may be judged to become un-airworthy. In service, an aircraft must also be maintained to specific requirements for it to remain airworthy, the latter case is referred to as Continuing Airworthiness.

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Airworthiness

November 27, 2016

NzTyphoon...it governs the aviation of all signatory nations.

What it is say the airworthiness of the aircraft is dependent upon compliance with the type certificate. To maintain compliance with the type certificate, you must follow the directions in the maintenance manual, operating limitations section of the POH, and the weight/balance.

You must follow the instructions and procedures in the Maintenance manual. That includes only using the list of approved fuels and lubricants. It is part of the airworthiness of the design.

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Airworthiness

Since when did the USAAF of 1944 follow a code of post-WW2 practice and international convention? Surely Crump can see that posting a set of current rules and regulations doesn't answer the question:

What laws, prewar or wartime, governed the USAAF's fuel use during WW 2? Can Crump show them to all of us, instead of simply making unsubstantiated definitive statements. There's nothing complicated about it

Nor does it answer the question of what foreign fuels were proscribed by the USAAF? Can we see the list that, according to Crump, was made by the USAAF?

November 27, 2016

Since when did the USAAF of 1944 follow a code of post-WW2 practice and international convention?

It is not post WWII....

And since the United States signed the Paris Convention of 1919.

You know Germany, Japan, the UK, and Russia all followed the same convention as well.

If you understand this stuff NzTyphoon, it will help you in researching WWII aircraft.

November 27, 2016

It is not post WWII....

And since the United States signed the Paris Convention of 1919.

You know Germany, Japan, the UK, and Russia all followed the same convention as well.

If you understand this stuff NzTyphoon, it will help you in researching WWII aircraft.

Crump means this Paris Convention the full text of which can be found in pdf here

Convention Relating to the Regulation of Aerial Navigation; Signed at Paris, October 13, 1919

Neither Germany, nor Russia attended, let alone signed, because Germany didn't have any aircraft, civil or military and Russia was still deep in civil war. (Germany joined LoN 1926, USSR in 1934)

Because the USA didn't become a member of the League of Nations, the rules of the convention didn't apply to them

Havana Convention of 1928
As a consequence of the failure of the United States to ratify and join the League of Nations, and therefore not joining the convention, the rules and provisions of the Paris Convention did not apply to the Americas. As a result, there was a need for a separate form of international cooperation on a regional American basis. (from https://jpbtransconsulting.com/tag/paris-convention-of-1919/ )

https://jpbtransconsulting.com/about/

Thus, the convention had nothing to do with the types of fuel the USAAF allowed or disallowed in 1944.

So, yes I understand this stuff.

Edited November 27, 2016 by NZTyphoon

November 27, 2016

either Germany, nor Russia attended, let alone signed, because Germany didn't have any aircraft, civil or military and Russia was still deep in civil war. (Germany joined LoN 1926, USSR in 1934)

The signatory nations were:

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, CHINA, CUBA, ECUADOR, FRANCE, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, THE HEDJAZ, HONDURAS, ITALY, JAPAN, LIBERIA, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROUMANIA, THE SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, SIAM, CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND URUGUAY,

It more like imposed on Germany....from "The Evolution of Air Law":

The Paris 1919 Aviation Convention was a sub convention of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 which sought to answer just how much aviation should be allowed in Germany.

It was linked to membership in the League of Nations. In fact, that is the reason why the United States never ratified the convention but followed it in our laws.

This new Convention (with texts in French, English and Italian) consisted of 43 articles that dealt with all technical, operational and organizational aspects of civil aviation and also foresaw the creation of the International Commission for Air Navigation (ICAN, Commission internationale de Navigation Aérienne or CINA), under the direction of the League of Nations, to monitor developments in civil aviation and to propose measures to States to keep abreast of developments.

http://www.icao.int/secretariat/PostalHistory/1919_the_paris_convention.htm

September 18, 1934 general meeting of the League of Nations adopted a resolution on the admission of the USSR into the League and the inclusion of its representative to its Board as a permanent member.

So when the USSR joined the League of Nations, it adopted the statutes of the Paris Aviation Convention of 1919 and the authority of ICAN/CINA.

Probably, the most important achievement of the Paris Convention was the creation of the ICAN, which possessed administrative, legislative, executive and judicial powers, as well as being an advisory body and a center of documentation. The provisions of the Convention became part of the national legislation of the Contracting States and proved to be an inspiration to the development of national law in Europe which up to that time was very limited. The work of the ICAN and its sub-commissions proved to be very helpful in the drafting of the technical annexes to the Chicago Convention of 1944.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Crump

November 27, 2016

So, yes I understand this stuff.

Honestly, you cannot recognize the legal link between the type certificate, airworthiness, and the maintenance manual. That is very basic things all Airframe and Powerplant Mechanics are required to know and comply with both in the civilian world as well as the military.

November 27, 2016

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.

You and I are on the same page in many aspects of the 100/150 grade story. You do know that you cannot just put anything into your airplane. You are correct in that is no air police who chase you down if you do something unauthorized to your airplane. It is generally just the physics that get people and once that happens the paperwork follows. There are idiots out there who have tried it. The general result is a heavy price to pay. If they are lucky, they get to live and only deal with the large bills as well as loss of their flying privileges. I know for example a guy who put "slick 50" in his airplane. It spun a crankshaft bearing race. 40,000 USD later he got to sell the airplane and recover a fraction of what he spent on it as he no longer was qualified to fly it.

But that does not have any bearing on Military aircraft. The Military has it's own justice system and willful destruction of government property as well as disobeying orders is punishable under that justice system in most countries.

My issue is not the "bureaucratic standpoint" but rather it is one of simply knowing how aviation works.

There are two opposing views.

1. The fuel was immediately adopted for all fighters as the standard fuel in the 8th USAAF starting in June 1944 until the end of the war. They flew nothing else in their airplanes. They simply filled their airplanes up with this fuel after a few controlled test and the experience of a foreign air force with a specialized mission and flew off into the sunrise to "get the hun" with the combat fairey riding on their shoulder with a wing and prayer. Everybody just dropped what they were doing, went and wished all the knowledge, logistics, and technical modifications required to use the fuel into existence .

2. The required process to adopt the fuel that was followed. Everyone from the fighter pilot to the top command stayed within their authority and scope moving forward to give the warfighter the best chance to win and survive. The operational testing phase was designated to begin in June of 1944. That means emplacing the logistical support structure including required fuel reserves, modifying aircraft IAW a maintenance schedule, training crews, logistical personnel, and maintenance personnel, etc...

It also means a period of non-combat but operational flying that gradually builds up to full combat operations.

The emplacement of all these elements is why an 11 month program yielded only 6 months of operational experience with the fuel. Not all of that 6 months was operational combat sorties over Germany either. They would want to move the process forward as rapidly as possible. In other words, they would not sit around flying this wonderful fuel enjoying all the performance benefits while their fellow airmen had to soldier on with inferior fuel. As soon as the Operational Testing and Evaluation requirements could be checked off...in other words they had what they thought was a reasonable solution for the issues at hand, the process was moved forward. All the technical and maintenance issues simply delayed the process and it was not until the 4th of April 1945 that Colonel Hough had enough of the answers to write the experience summary to move the process forward.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Crump

November 27, 2016

The other part of this puzzle is the fact that 114/145 grade WAS a specified and adopted fuel as of May of 1944 in the USAAF. I am sure that news hit the fighter force like an electric shock. Everybody was probably anticipating tons and tons of this "150 grade" fuel that did not have the associated reliability issues to be delivered and for it to become the "standard fuel" in "all fighters" by June of 1944.

Unfortunately that never happened because the Petroleum board determined it was logistically unsupportable at that time.

November 27, 2016

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. It is reproduced in full below:

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

2.

a

. This fuel was first service tested by Technical Operations Section, this headquarters, in October 1943, said service test lasting through until March 1944, at which time it was recommended that if extra performance from P-38, P-47 and P-51 aircraft was desired it could be secured by the use of this fuel. It was pointed out at that time that the only apparent deleterious effect of this fuel on any one of the three types was the extra lead fouling of spark plugs.

b

. A decision was made in May 1944 to have all fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June. As of that date operations with this fuel continued until approximately 1 February 1945 when all fighter units switched to “Pep” (100/150 plus 1.5 T’s ethylene dibromide). As of 1 April 1945 all units switched back to 100/150 fuel containing 1.0 T ethylene dibromide.

3. At the time the 150 grade fuel was first used all three fighter types listed above were in operational use by this Air Force. Shortly after June 1 P-38 units were re-equipped with P-51 type aircraft so that experience with 150 grade fuel in P-38 aircraft is limited. Gradually, conversion of P-47 outfits to P-51’s took place during the Summer and Fall of 1944, and as of approximately 1 November only one P-47 group remained in this Air Force.

November 27, 2016

NZTyphoon,

LMAO! I see you edited out all the immature cartoons. Thank you.

November 27, 2016

The United States 100/150 grade program had just concluded and a fuel adopted for standard service under that program. You do realize that development program was not called the 114/145 grade development program but rather the 100/150 grade development program as several formulas of 150 grade fuel were considered before the final selection of AN-F-33 114/145 grade fuel.

I am sure the ETO was anxious to get the fuel AN-F-33 114/145 grade that was adopted as a standard fuel in May 1944.

The representatives for the USAAF made it very clear at the Petroleum Conference that the ETO was interested in 150 grade fuel.

What is the proof this has anything to do with 8th USAAF using British 100/150 grade?

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. It is reproduced in full below:

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

2.   a.   This fuel was first service tested by Technical Operations Section, this headquarters, in October 1943, said service test lasting through until March 1944, at which time it was recommended that if extra performance from P-38, P-47 and P-51 aircraft was desired it could be secured by the use of this fuel. It was pointed out at that time that the only apparent deleterious effect of this fuel on any one of the three types was the extra lead fouling of spark plugs.

Wright Patterson did not do the initial service testing for British 100/150 grade fuel according to Col. Hough in his report. Technical Services, 8th USAAF did the initial service testing of British 100/150 grade in October of 1943.

  b.   A decision was made in May 1944 to have all fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June. As of that date operations with this fuel continued (meaning the operational test program was established and NOT that all 8th USAAF fighters were using 100/150 grade in combat yet) until approximately 1 February 1945 when all fighter units switched to “Pep” (100/150 plus 1.5 T’s ethylene dibromide). As of 1 April 1945 all units switched back to 100/150 fuel containing 1.0 T ethylene dibromide.

3.   At the time the 150 grade fuel was first used (Referencing service testing and why all three fighter designs were service tested...not a declaration that it was morphed into existence in June 1944) all three fighter types listed above were in operational use by this Air Force. Shortly after June 1 P-38 units were re-equipped with P-51 type aircraft so that experience with 150 grade fuel in P-38 aircraft is limited.(the P-38's fighters were not around for any detailed operational testing...only service test's) Gradually, conversion of P-47 outfits to P-51’s took place during the Summer and Fall of 1944, and as of approximately 1 November only one P-47 group remained in this Air Force. (the P-47's were not around to gain much operational experience either otherwise why even mention the fact they were being replaced with P51's and give a date?????).

And further down the same document Milo it clearly states they got only 6 months of operational experience with the P-51...

At various times in the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft on 150 grade fuel many other maintenance difficulties were attributed to the fuel,

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

So which is it?

1. The fuel was immediately adopted for all fighters as the standard fuel in the 8th USAAF starting in June 1944 until the end of the war. They flew nothing else in their airplanes. They simply filled their airplanes up with this fuel after a few controlled test and the experience of a foreign air force with a specialized mission and flew off into the sunrise to "get the hun" with the combat fairey riding on their shoulder with a wing and prayer. Everybody just dropped what they were doing, went and wished all the knowledge, logistics, and technical modifications required to use the fuel into existence .

2. The required process to adopt the fuel that was followed. Everyone from the fighter pilot to the top command stayed within their authority and scope moving forward to give the warfighter the best chance to win and survive. The operational testing phase was designated to begin in June of 1944. That means emplacing the logistical support structure including required fuel reserves, modifying aircraft IAW a maintenance schedule, training crews, logistical personnel, and maintenance personnel, etc... It also means a period of non-combat but operational flying that gradually builds up to full combat operations.

The emplacement of all these elements is why an 11 month program yielded only 6 months of operational experience with the fuel.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Crump

November 27, 2016

Aug '44 to Jan '45 is 6 months.

Consumption of 150 Grade Fuel - Barrels

June 1944 184,000 (25,205 tons) (6,440,000 Imp gal)

July 1944 283,000 (38,767 tons) (7,075,000 Imp gal)

I doubt that RAF ADGB burned all that fuel all by itself.

November 27, 2016

Aug '44 to Jan '45 is 6 months.

Consumption of 150 Grade Fuel - Barrels

June 1944 184,000 (25,205 tons) (6,440,000 Imp gal)

VS 17,288,000 gallons of 100/130 grade consumed by 8th USAAF fighters. In other words a little over 1/4 of the fuel used including the ADGB....

July 1944 283,000 (38,767 tons) (7,075,000 Imp gal)

VS 15,115,000 gallons

Still at the same percentage....including the ADGB...

I doubt that RAF ADGB burned all that fuel all by itself.

November 27, 2016

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

This was Crump's reply to my question: "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? " I see that this question is still unanswered, so I will repeat it as it gets to the core of the issue, leaving the semantics of "standards" and "operational testing" aside.

The six months of use of 100/150 would be the initial period after the switch from 100/130 until the move to the various PEP variants. I do not know exactly when 8thAAF started using 100/150 but we do know when it was supplied to units. According to the instruction, the 100/130 stocks were to be finished first, and as I do not know exactly how much these were (my guess would be about perhaps a month, but it is just a guess) then the use of 100/150 (outside trials) would have started somewhere about the middle of July, but possible a couple of weeks earlier or later.

Not that it matters - the question is, if you were to take a number of 8th AAF fighters in, say October 1944 and look in their fuel tank, would you expect to find exclusively 100/150, 100/130 or some of each?

From your comments on the 8th USAAF report on the use of 100/150, I think you expect to find some with 100/130, some with 100/150, with perhaps the majority 100/130, while I expect to find only 100/150.

I am still waiting to see how you reconcile your view that 8th AAF FGs used 100/150 and 100/130 concurrently with the document explicitly laying out that they are to use them consecutively.

Here it is again - it is a huge problem for your argument, I am surprised that you have not addressed it.

Edited November 27, 2016 by unreasonable

November 27, 2016

I am still waiting to see how you reconcile your view that 8th AAF FGs used 100/150 and 100/130 concurrently with the document explicitly laying out that they are to use them consecutively.

All that memo says is an intent by logistics. It has nothing to do with anything operational nor is it proof of anything regarding how much or when any fuel was used.

The six months of use of 100/150 would be the initial period after the switch from 100/130 until the move to the various PEP variants.

That is not at all what it says. In fact in the context of time that is impossible.

As a results, all fighter units of the Air Force were put on Pep fuel late in January 1945.

Late January 1945 is only 3 1/2 month at the very best from 4 April 1945 when the report was written.

Your timeline is totally illogical and simply does not fit. Of course we know from philosophy that nothing is certain and maybe in the 8th USAAF time bubble it seemed like 6 months worth of experience?

The report summarizes the entirety of the 100/150 grade experience in the 8th USAAF. It tells about the issue with lead fouling then the switch to PEP and finally the return to original formulation with its lead fouling issues unsolved...mitigated but unsolved.

The same type of lead fouling as described in a and b above happened in the case of the P-51 except that is was probably more serious than in either of the other two types. (First formulation experience) Using 130 grade fuel with 4½ cc. of lead, the average operational P-51 could last 5 missions (roughly 25 hours) before the fouling required plug change. With 150 grade fuel containing 6 cc. of lead, 10 to 12 hours, or normally 2 missions, was the average length of time between spark plug changes or cleaning.(Experience with PEP). At various times in the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft on 150 grade fuel (Total Experience on 100/150 grade) many other maintenance difficulties were attributed to the fuel, but final analysis proved that the only real effect of the fuel was the lead fouling.

Three days before the summary of experience was written by Colonel Hough the operational testing switched back to the original formulation with its lead fouling issues:

As of 1 April 1945 fighter units of the Air Force returned to the use of 100/150 grade fuel containing 1.0 T of ethylene dibromide. ³⁵

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

I am still waiting to see how you reconcile your view that 8th AAF FGs used 100/150 and 100/130 concurrently with the document explicitly laying out that they are to use them consecutively.

All that memo says is an intent by logistics. It has nothing to do with anything operational nor is it proof of anything regarding how much or when any fuel was used.

The six months of use of 100/150 would be the initial period after the switch from 100/130 until the move to the various PEP variants.

That is not at all what it says. In fact in the context of time that is impossible.

As a results, all fighter units of the Air Force were put on Pep fuel late in January 1945.

Late January 1945 is only 3 1/2 month at the very best from 4 April 1945 when the report was written.

Your timeline is totally illogical and simply does not fit. Of course we know from philosophy that nothing is certain and maybe in the 8th USAAF time bubble it seemed like 6 months worth of experience? <jk>

The report summarizes the entirety of the 100/150 grade experience in the 8th USAAF. It tells about the issue with lead fouling then the switch to PEP and finally the return to original formulation with its lead fouling issues unsolved...mitigated but unsolved.

The same type of lead fouling as described in a and b above happened in the case of the P-51 except that is was probably more serious than in either of the other two types. (First formulation experience) Using 130 grade fuel with 4½ cc. of lead, the average operational P-51 could last 5 missions (roughly 25 hours) before the fouling required plug change. With 150 grade fuel containing 6 cc. of lead, 10 to 12 hours, or normally 2 missions, was the average length of time between spark plug changes or cleaning.(Experience with PEP). At various times in the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft on 150 grade fuel (Total Experience on 100/150 grade) many other maintenance difficulties were attributed to the fuel, but final analysis proved that the only real effect of the fuel was the lead fouling.

Three days before the summary of experience was written by Colonel Hough the operational testing switched back to the original formulation with its lead fouling issues:

As of 1 April 1945 fighter units of the Air Force returned to the use of 100/150 grade fuel containing 1.0 T of ethylene dibromide. ³⁵

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

Going back 6 months places the first operational testing begins sometime in November of 1944. No wonder Colonel Hough thought it important to mentioned the limited experience in the P-47 and that on 1 Nov 1944 only ONE P-47 unit existed in the 8th USAAF.

November 27, 2016

"Intent by logistics" - wrong, look at the date and the wording. Dated 13th June, first deliveries started 10th and 11th June, deliveries to the balance of stations to start on the 12th. Probably worded this way since if written early on the 13th the writer might not yet have confirmation that the deliveries on the 12th had taken place.

It is a contemporary record of something that was actually happening at the time, written by people who were in the best possible position to know the facts and policy. It contains a clear statement that 100/130 was to be replaced by 100/150.

If you think this is not what actually happened, or that there was a later reversal of policy, the burden of proof is clearly on you.

If you are now just brushing off contemporary military documentation as being worthless as evidence when it does not fit your preconceptions, there is clearly no hope for you. Anyone else who takes the trouble to read the evidence can make up their own minds.

November 27, 2016

Going back 6 months places the first operational testing begins sometime in November of 1944. No wonder Colonel Hough thought it important to mentioned the limited experience in the P-47 and that on 1 Nov 1944 only ONE P-47 unit existed in the 8th USAAF.

Going back 6 months would be Aug 1944 as the fuel was changed (PEP) at the end of Jan 1945.

So what a/c consumed the 41,195,000 Imp gal of 100/150 fuel between June 1944 and end of Nov 1944?

Certainly not all by the RAF.

"A decision was made in May 1944 to have all fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June. As of that date operations with this fuel continued until approximately 1 February 1945 when all fighter units switched to “Pep”...."

If it was still operational testing it would have said so, but it doesn't.

November 28, 2016

Thank Crump and a few others for this thread being locked. From now on every single thread that turns into a pissing match between these folks will be locked. All of you need to grow up.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Crump

NZTyphoon

Crump

NZTyphoon

Crump

NZTyphoon

Crump

Crump

Crump

Crump

MiloMorai

Crump

Crump

MiloMorai

Crump

unreasonable

Crump

unreasonable

MiloMorai

Bearcat

Browse All

Activity