Jump to content
GridiroN

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

Recommended Posts

At the end of 1944 in the West for operation Bodenplatte the fighter force was made up of:

 

257 Fw190A-8 (30.5% of the fighter),

20 Fw190A-9 (2.4%)

167 Fw190D-( (19.8%)

255 Bf109109G-14, 14/AS (30.2%)

52 Bf109G-10 (6.2%)

92 BF109K-4 (10.9%)

 

What some like to do is include a/c from the East and MTO.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this appendage measuring is amusing it is somewhat pointless but it is interesting to learn little facts.

As an aside did Spitfire's also have Armour? I'm only curious because I remember watching a documentary in which some 109's had their armour removed to give them a higher rate of climb (and it improved it dramatically) to help them intercept the bombers (the context was in order to ram the bombers).

Though can anyone one here confirm this, and if it was common?

Edited by novicebutdeadly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Spitfires had armour. By early 1940 (February iirc) they came off the production line with armour behind the seat and head and I believe late in 1942 they got some more under the seat and the pilot's legs. Also, I think it was after Dunkirk that they started adding thicker gauged skin above the top fuel tank, not as proper armour as such but rather as 'deflection armour' to bounce angled strikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this appendage measuring is amusing it is somewhat pointless but it is interesting to learn little facts.

 

As an aside did Spitfire's also have Armour? I'm only curious because I remember watching a documentary in which some 109's had their armour removed to give them a higher rate of climb (and it improved it dramatically) to help them intercept the bombers (the context was in order to ram the bombers).

 

Though can anyone one here confirm this, and if it was common?

Sonderkommando Elbe was an Experiment in which 109s were stripped of All Armament except 1 MG131 with 50 rounds, no Armor except Windshield, radio and other non-essential equipment.

In the only recorded deployment, in Ram Attacks 23 Bombers were apparently destroyed. Some of the Ram Pilots died on Impact, many survived initially but were Chutekilled by American Pilots. Others were killed after Crash Landing through Strafing Attacks by American Pilots. 

 

The Rammings themselves had about a 50% survial chance, but 10% of the deployed Pilots survived.

 

 

109s initially were completely unarmored. The first armor installments were the in the E-3 JaBo models and later commonly taken over in other Aircraft.

Edited by CuteKitten94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with everything apart from the 262. 262 was just a generation up compared to anything else in WW2. Proper organized (bigger) squadrons of 262, flying tactical correct for such an aircraft, and not having to fear getting shot down while starting or landing would have been more or less unbeatable by everything the allies had, no matter if Spitfire, La7, or a big bomber. Would have been like 109 against biplanes...it would already have made a huge difference, if the 262 would have been used properly from the beginning, and not as bomber or such nonsense.

 

Fully agree on the tanks though. Maus is the best example.

 

Doubt it, had the 262s been in service in large number the Americans and the British would have accelerated the developement of the P80 and the Meteor, respectively, and jets combat would have been a common sight toward the end of the war.

 

Point is tho, I doubt the 262 would have changed the outcome.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point is tho, I doubt the 262 would have changed the outcome.

It most certainly wouldn't have. It would have made the Allied think a bit more in how and where to strike, such as after Schweinfurt, they had their moment of introspection. But from 1944 on, even though it came at a price, they were just having a go at everything with their main worry being that they would run out of targets at some point.

 

"If the Germans had the 262 from the beginning" disregards not only technical constraint but also main planning objectives of the German leadersip at the GL.

 

Most people just don't get that R&D for a new product takes a certain minimal time, and you can't shorten that time even by throwing more money at it. The 262 production was limited by the engine production. The airframe itself is rather conventional, so there is not much of a challenge there.

 

But even 1000 operational 262 would have made up a comparably little air force when you look at the daily service time of a 262 compared to a prop aircraft.

 

German planning asked for many aircraft of a given (standard) type. Influencial people lobbying for certain types, even though they were not the planned "standrd-type", is the reason for the existence of several German aircraft types. The He-219 Uhu is a good example. It took Milch big effort to kill it. But he was rather proud of himself doing so. Having very few and complicated to manufacture aircraft is the direct opposite of all sourcuing and planning the Germans did from the late 30's on.

 

Engine production capacity was also the main reason for the 109 to be kept in service. BMW couldn't urn out enough engines to double productuion rates of Fw190's. Ironically, This was in turn also a reason why the Fw190 was accepted back then. Not enough engines to further increase production of Bf109. The BMW engine was available in numbers and they lacked aircraft to install it. The 190 was a perfect fit. They had to accept the 190 in order to produce the numbers of fighters ordered.

 

The fact that there was a 262 in the first place just shows how impressive the aircraft was in the flesh. But try to change an entire industry for the sake of one aircraft when in fact your main problem at the time was that you start lacking the pilots to put in them to make use from them.

 

And as GrapeJam said, if the Germans suddenly could by sheer magic produce thousands of jets, why shouldn't the Brits? Or the Amerians? After all they had jets on par with the 262. The British had operational Meteor squadrons at the time when the 262 entered in service in numbers. They just didn't feel it worth the risk using them over hostile territory. Tells you much about how scared people in charge were about the 262 on the allied side.

 

 

"If the Germans had the 262 from the beginning"... Guido Knopp at his best.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt it, had the 262s been in service in large number the Americans and the British would have accelerated the developement of the P80 and the Meteor, respectively, and jets combat would have been a common sight toward the end of the war.

 

Point is tho, I doubt the 262 would have changed the outcome.

 

It would have still been almost a year until P80 would have been combat ready, after the 262 has been deployed. The early versions (until 45) of the Meteor would not have been competitive against the 262. Agree with the jet combat (at the very end).

It would not have changed the outcome, because they would never have had enough to stop enough bombers. However my only point being was, that the 262 was by far the best fighter in WW2. 

Wasn't talking at all about some "what if history".

But saying the Spitfire was a better fighter then the 262 is pretty much the same like saying the Gloster Gladiator was a better fighter then the 109 F4.

Galland himself said that one single 262 is worth more in combat terms, then 5 109s (at times where the Kurfürst was already out).

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up there as a contender as worst war film in history we also have to consider the truly awful "Fury." The Panzergrenadier attack at the end is just the most ridiculous piece of fiction every committed to film. Just a horrendous mess. 

 

 

PS: Redtails is the worst!

This cannot be repeated often enough.

 

To all of those who saw it, this American apologizes.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The portrayal of the American Sherman crews as ill disciplined rabid brutes was just as bad.  And to think they invited veterans along to watch the opening.  OMG!  They must have been seething with rage  The movie was a total disgrace from start to finish.  The director should have been dragged out by the hair and shot as an example to all other director to never do something as crap as that ever again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And .50 cals killed lots of Tiger Tanks........

 

:huh:

 

Since we have gone from Carson's opinion on the Bf-109 and FW-190 to tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And .50 cals killed lots of Tiger Tanks........

 

:huh:

 

Since we have gone from Carson's opinion on the Bf-109 and FW-190 to tanks.

Yeah, I don't even get where that story came from. American Propaganda at it's finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't even get where that story came from. Pilot exaggeration at it's finest.

 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIFY

 

Did the British fly P-47s in the ETO? Considering the myth began with P-47s then CK94s statement is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that some bollocks that started with a CFS manual? Fun stuff though :)

Edited by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Several fatal crashes is insignificant, tho not for the pilots involved in the crashes.

 

Several fatal crashes is not insignificant.  Just ONE crash or even the possibility of a crash due to a technical issue will cause the type certificate holder to investigate and issue any necessary design changes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several fatal crashes is not insignificant.  Just ONE crash or even the possibility of a crash due to a technical issue will cause the type certificate holder to investigate and issue any necessary design changes. 

 

You failed to give a number for the crashes. Considering the high number of other crashes, the unspecified number of crashes is insignificant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again....ONE crash or even the possibility of ONE crash is significant in aviation when it is caused by a technical issue.  What is so difficult to understand about that?


Why does that fact become an argument on a gaming board???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crump, your logic isn't without merit, but it is merely conjecture until you present evidence of said crashes.

 

If the risk of mechanical failure was so significant as to cause multiple crashes, I doubt that the RAF would approve, not just some, but all of their Mustangs to fly on +25 lbs boost.

 

 

mustang3-clearance-25lbs.jpg

 

 

 

Furthermore, it was also found that the fouling issues were solved by opening the throttle and increasing the revs for a periodically to clear the engine.

Finally, it stated that usage of the fuel was fairly problem free.

 

Both of the immediate above claims are substantiated in the begining summary.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/appendixa.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again....ONE crash or even the possibility of ONE crash is significant in aviation when it is caused by a technical issue.  What is so difficult to understand about that?

Why does that fact become an argument on a gaming board???

Give me one WW2 plane that hasn't gotten at least 1 test pilot killed throughout it's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If the risk of mechanical failure was so significant as to cause multiple crashes, I doubt that the RAF would approve, not just some, but all of their Mustangs to fly on +25 lbs boost.

 

The mechanical failures did not occur until after the modifications and they occurred in the 8th USAAF which spent much more time at cruise than the ADGB.

 

The ADGB mission profile very much suited 150 Octane.  They took off at a scramble and remained at high power settings intercepting buzz bombs.  The RAF was under tremendous public and political pressure to mount some sort of defense against "the divers".

 

It is just a technical fact that lean mixture octane ratings above ~140 were very problematic in late 1940's engines.  Those issues are very real and that physical barrier in octane rating still exist's today.  

 

Everything I have seen points to the same conclusions as this guy:

 

 

 

Yes, 8th AF did use 100/150 grade fuel, this is something I have never debated. But the questions are: 

1. How spread was the use of this fuel in 8th AF service, did it go beyond operational testing? (which by the way it implies use in combat) - to answer this question they need to post the actual 100/150 fuel monthly consumption for 8th AF fighter units. 


The authors of the website claim that 8th AF used for their fighters 100/150 grade fuel only since mid 1944, which is obvious nonsense. For instance, in June 1944 8th AF fighters alone consumed 51,864 tons of fuel whereas the quoted "consumption" of 100/150 fuel for 8th AF and ADGB is 25,205 tons. So obviously they were consuming 100/130 fuel also. 

Now, is the quoted "consumption" in the link you gave an actual consumption in combat? The answer is no. This is a British document that only shows how much of their 100/150 stock was gone monthly and it reflects the fact that about 20,000 tons were given monthly to 8th AF. At no point the authors of the website showed the ACTUAL monthly consumption of 100/150 fuel of the 8th AF, if indeed they consumed it and not just made stocks out of it. 

In fact N. Stirling himself found multiple documents saying that that 8th AF fighter units will switch to 100/150 fuel ONLY if sustainable operations were being possible on this fuel ALONE. The fact that the monthly fuel consumption of 8th AF fighter units in that period was sometimes three times higher than the 100/150 fuel quantity that Britain could supply (about 20,000 tons monthly) is another argument against their theory, beside the operational troubles this fuel brought. 


2. What were the engine settings allowed if this fuel was approved for service? - to answer this question they need the SEFC charts (preferably the FOIC too) that show the performance of the engine (and plane) for the engine settings approved for a particular fuel in combat service. 


ALL USAAF engines approved for service have these charts. I can post the SEFC charts for V-1710 on 91, 100, 100/130 fuels. Actually, I chased these charts for many years and now I have them for most major production engines used by USAAF on the fuels they were allowed to use. Surprisingly, I have never found a single SEFC chart for USAAF engines on 100/150 grade fuel (or maybe it is not surprising at all).

 

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=103914

 

SpitfirePerformance.com writes a slanted and myopic article that is designed to lead one to believe this fuel was the "standard" fuel.  That just does not fit with the technical reality.  

 

 

 

Furthermore, it was also found that the fouling issues were solved by opening the throttle and increasing the revs for a periodically to clear the engine. Finally, it stated that usage of the fuel was fairly problem free.

 

Again...all of which is hindsight and points out the techniques found during the investigation to solve the technical problems....

 

You are putting the cart before the horse using that logic to conclude the horse does not exist. 


Give me one WW2 plane that hasn't gotten at least 1 test pilot killed throughout it's life.

 

 

Pilot error is NOT a technical issue nor is having a technical issue mean it is unsolvable...

 

Wow people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good example of one incident starting an investigation that lasted for years and resulted in several changes the operating limitations of the entire design.  In this case, the P-38 test pilot discovered a previously unknown phenomena....compressibility.

 

Major Gilkey dove from 35,000 feet in a YP-38.  He lost control but stayed with the airplane and was able to use the trim system at low altitude to recover.

 

Lockheed started to investigate and unfortunately one their company test pilots, Ralph Virden, gave his life attempting to find the answers.

 

P38.pdf


That is why the dive limits on the P-38 were so ridiculously low compared other designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mechanical failures did not occur until after the modifications and they occurred in the 8th USAAF which spent much more time at cruise than the ADGB.

 

The ADGB mission profile very much suited 150 Octane.  They took off at a scramble and remained at high power settings intercepting buzz bombs.  The RAF was under tremendous public and political pressure to mount some sort of defense against "the divers".

 

It is just a technical fact that lean mixture octane ratings above ~140 were very problematic in late 1940's engines.  Those issues are very real and that physical barrier in octane rating still exist's today.  

 

Everything I have seen points to the same conclusions as this guy:

 

 

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=103914

 

SpitfirePerformance.com writes a slanted and myopic article that is designed to lead one to believe this fuel was the "standard" fuel.  That just does not fit with the technical reality.  

 

 

 

 

Again...all of which is hindsight and points out the techniques found during the investigation to solve the technical problems....

 

You are putting the cart before the horse using that logic to conclude the horse does not exist. 

 

 

Pilot error is NOT a technical issue nor is having a technical issue mean it is unsolvable...

 

Wow people.

Fair enough. Your explanation about the ADGB makes perfect sense. 

The reason I talked about the techniques used to address the problem were an attempt to prove that the problem was not as critical or vexing as you were stating. However, I only just realized that there is no date associated with the second document I posted, making it essentially meaningless in that regard. I am unable to prove anything regarding the supply situation regarding 100/150 fuel, so I will concede there as well.

 

Also, off topic, but I find these quantities of fuel to be simply mind boggling at times. The fact that, in a month, the fighters of the 8th AF and ADGB used the equivalent in fuel of the displacement of an Iowa-Class Battleship is stupendous.

Edited by Silavite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Everything I have seen points to the same conclusions as this guy:

 

 

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=103914

 

SpitfirePerformance.com writes a slanted and myopic article that is designed to lead one to believe this fuel was the "standard" fuel.  That just does not fit with the technical reality.  

 

 

Yeah, right! "This guy", from an 11 year old thread, could be anyone with a grudge, with no documentation to prove his own case and nothing but a bunch of allegations as to what documents Neil Stirling might or might not have had at the time. How about Crump come up with some original USAAF documentation to prove that the article is slanted and myopic?

 

Wow people.

How about, for once, or maybe for all time, Crump stop with the snitty, condescending little comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So..., the 109 was notorious to crash on take off and landing due to design and even very experienced pilots crashed in it. That doesn't make it immediately unusable right? But somehow, higher octane fuels that lead to some inconvenience for the ground crew and a bit more care from the pilot, makes the whole airplane dangerous to use?

 

Crump, at his finest. :pilot:

 

Also, the 150oct fuel 44-1, was standard fuel for the 8th AAF based in England, for a very long time.

Edited by =LD=Solty
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So..., the 109 was notorious to crash on take off and landing due to design and even very experienced pilots crashed in it. That doesn't make it immediately unusable right? But somehow, higher octane fuels that lead to some inconvenience for the ground crew and a bit more care from the pilot, makes the whole airplane dangerous to use?   Crump, at his finest.

 

 

 

Flamebaiting.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, the 150oct fuel 44-1, was standard fuel for the 8th AAF based in England, for a very long time.

 

Great!  Show us in any USAAF manual that it is a specified fuel like AN-F28 (100/150 Grade) and point out the SEFC charts used to operate the aircraft on it.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

Yeah, right! "This guy", from an 11 year old thread, could be anyone with a grudge, with no documentation to prove his own case and nothing but a bunch of allegations as to what documents Neil Stirling might or might not have had at the time. How about Crump come up with some original USAAF documentation to prove that the article is slanted and myopic?  
 

 

So he has had 11 years to find the documents.  Again, if was the adopted standard fuel...EVERY airplane would have a serial numbered Operating Limitations that reflect an "Army/Navy Specified Fuel".

 

33ts4t5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Your explanation about the ADGB makes perfect sense. 

The reason I talked about the techniques used to address the problem were an attempt to prove that the problem was not as critical or vexing as you were stating. However, I only just realized that there is no date associated with the second document I posted, making it essentially meaningless in that regard. I am unable to prove anything regarding the supply situation regarding 100/150 fuel, so I will concede there as well.

 

Also, off topic, but I find these quantities of fuel to be simply mind boggling at times. The fact that, in a month, the fighters of the 8th AF and ADGB used the equivalent in fuel of the displacement of an Iowa-Class Battleship is stupendous.

 

I think the history is pretty interesting.  The documentation seems to fit a large scale combat trial was conducted by the 8th USAAF fighters.  Unlike the ADGB, the fuel was definitely used in large scale combat with the Luftwaffe by the 8th USAAF.

 

That report you quote is the experience report written periodically and at the end of a combat trial.

 

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

 

Col. Hough just did not feel like musing and passing along his thoughts on 100/150 grade.  He was told to write down the experiences and it was done for a reason.   

 

Why would he be doing that for a standard fuel that has already gone through the experience gaining adoption process?  Of course he wouldn't be doing it for a standard fuel and that report is part of the adoption process to eventually make it a specified fuel. However, the war ended and there were better fuels that gave similar performance without damaging the engines so 100/150 grade was abandoned before it became a standard fuel in the USAAF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically, Crump reads an 11 year old forum post he likes, agrees with it and now insists that the only possible acceptable evidence is a USAAF manual plus SEFC charts. Crump will then conveniently ignore any other because it doesn't serve his purpose, which is to now dig his heels in and argue until the cows come home that he, and the mysterious "this guy" alone are right...YAWN!

 

It's an "issue" no longer worth bothering with, because long experience has shown that Crump isn't worth the time and trouble to argue with.

 

 

What has changed in that 11 years?  Have you found the fuel listed as a specified fuel for the P-51 or any USAAF airplane during that time?

 

Oh yeah...no you haven't.    :dry:

 

Only thing you can offer is playground style intimidation tactics.  Might have worked for you bullying the kids in kindergarten but as an adult, I need logic and facts.    As a pilot at the top of my profession and formally educated in aviation science as well as process, that logic and facts should fit the way in which airplanes work.  Airplanes being one of the most unique and most highly regulated vehicles mankind has ever produced.

Honestly NzTyphoon...

 

It is not my fault the history does not work out how you wish it too.  In the games, you still get your gameshape so I do not see what all the hostility is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were two types of 150oct fuel. One that was used most of the time, 44-1 and second that was actively damaging the engines of AAF planes called "Pep". "Pep" was used for a short period of time, because of those issues, while 150oct 44-1 was used widely in all FG's since May 1944.

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

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mechanical failures did not occur until after the modifications and they occurred in the 8th USAAF which spent much more time at cruise than the ADGB.

 

The ADGB mission profile very much suited 150 Octane.  They took off at a scramble and remained at high power settings intercepting buzz bombs.  The RAF was under tremendous public and political pressure to mount some sort of defense against "the divers".

 

It is just a technical fact that lean mixture octane ratings above ~140 were very problematic in late 1940's engines.  Those issues are very real and that physical barrier in octane rating still exist's today.  

...

 

The lean mixture octane rating of the 100/150 fuel was 100. After the war, the americans went to 115/145 fuel, the 115 being lean mixture octane rating.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lean mixture octane rating of the 100/150 fuel was 100. After the war, the americans went to 115/145 fuel, the 115 being lean mixture octane rating.

 

 

 

Good catch, I reversed that.  oops.   :salute:

 

Rich mixture is what causes the problems.  You can see that the post war, the rich mixture setting was never 150 octane and it stayed about the 145 mark even today.  The Germans developed C3 and fielded an equivalent to British 100/150 grade fuel at the end of 1942.  They ultimately landed upon ~140 octane in the rich mixture too.

 

So we have seperate and parallel development that was limited to ~140 Octane due to real physical limitations emplace upon fuel octane number for piston engines.  It was not that we could not make higher octane fuels but rather a barrier to reliability and performance that still exists today in piston engines.

Edited by Crump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were two types of 150oct fuel. One that was used most of the time, 44-1 and second that was actively damaging the engines of AAF planes called "Pep". "Pep" was used for a short period of time, because of those issues, while 150oct 44-1 was used widely in all FG's since May 1944.

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

 

 

Ok, the USAAF experimented with multiple high octane grades of fuel.  The end result became 115/145 grade that was used post war and briefly in the pacific.

 

295pydc.jpg

 

I have seen NOTHING that ties United States 44-1 fuel to British 100/150 grade.  

 

Absolutely NOTHING that shows they are the same fuel outside of supposition on the part of wwiiaircraftperformance.com.  The United States was developing 120/150 grade fuel as part of the mandate to develop high octane fuels that ultimately resulted in 115/145 grade as the best fuel given the physical limitations of high octane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SpitfirePerformance.com writes a slanted and myopic article that is designed to lead one to believe this fuel was the "standard" fuel...blah,blah,blah.

 

So he has had 11 years to find the documents.  Again, if was the adopted standard fuel...EVERY airplane would have a serial numbered Operating Limitations that reflect an "Army/Navy Specified Fuel".

The WWII Aircraft Performance article does not state that 100/150 grade and 1-44 grade were "standard" fuels - this is all in Crump's imagination. The article clearly points out the extent to which the fuels were used by ADGB, 2 TAF and 8th A/F Fighter Command over Europe, and nothing else, using primary source documentary evidence.

 

 

I have seen NOTHING that ties United States 44-1 fuel to British 100/150 grade.  

 

Absolutely NOTHING that shows they are the same fuel outside of supposition on the part of wwiiaircraftperformance.com.  The United States was developing 120/150 grade fuel as part of the mandate to develop high octane fuels that ultimately resulted in 115/145 grade as the best fuel given the physical limitations of high octane.

Nowhere does the article claim that the RAF's 100/150 grade fuel and the USAAF's 1-44 grade were the same fuel - again, this is a product of Crump's imagination.

What is quite clear from the article is that there was an exchange of information on fuel specifications, and that British supplied 100/150 grade was used by 8th A/F fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, WWII Aircraft Performance makes no claims that British 100/150 grade was the same fuel as U.S 44-1 - that's purely in Crump's imagination.  

 

They sure as heck tie it in and create the impression that 44-1 is somehow tied to British 100/150 grade.  

 

In fact the article even uses the memorandum resulting from the Petroleum conference noted in my previous report as "proof" of the USAAF adopting British 100/150 grade.

 

 

USAAF Materiel Command held a "Conference on National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Test Program to Investigate 150 Grade Fuels" on 27-28, January 1944. It was concluded that "The program outlined should permit conclusive data to be obtained and should indicate the relative advantages of the various high octane fuel components for the preparation of satisfactory rich and lean rating fuels. It should also indicate the military value of these fuels for long range patrol or bombardment operation". It was recommended that "the program outlined should be carried out as expeditiously as is possible".

Using the fuel for Operation Overlord, the invasion of France, was being actively considered at the highest levels as of February 1944. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, commanding SHAEF, wrote to Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall and General Henry H. Arnold, head of the Air Force on 11 February, 1944 of the importance of using 150 fuel to the "fullest possible extent". 5 On 13 February, 1944 General Arnold replied that Xylidine, a necessary component for 150 grade fuel production, was being drummed for shipment and that information available to him "indicates satisfactory operation of Merlin and possibly R-2800 engines on this fuel". 6   On 21 February 1944 the Engineering Division of the US Army Air Force Materiel Command was instructed to initiate a test program on 104/150 Grade Fuel. 7

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

 

 

 

 On 21 February 1944 the Engineering Division of the US Army Air Force Materiel Command was instructed to initiate a test program on 104/150 Grade Fuel. 7

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1509-add2.pdf

 

104/150 grade is a US developed fuel.  It was being considered in February 1944 because the engine manufacturer's asked it be done and nothing to do with the 8th USAAF and Overlord.

 

That document clearly states the increased octane testing is the result of the Petroleum conference agreement on current US fuels under development and has NOTHING to do with British 100/150 grade use in the 8th USAAF.

 

That memo even talks about how one of the research fuels, 94/114 grade 6% TEL and 3% xylidine will be applicable to the new formula for 104/150 grade.  US 104/150 grade used 6% TEL and 3% xylidine.

 

35db5g6.jpg

 

Besides a completely different name of 100/150 grade....the British specification calls for NOT LESS than 7.1 % TEL and NO MORE than 2.5%. 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-spec.pdf

 

It is not the same fuel and one has nothing to do with the other....

 

So yes it kind of seems to intentionally tie two seperate things into one event somehow linking the test's of a US developed fuel, 104/150 grade into the story of the 8th USAAF British 100/150 grade.  

 

 

 

 

What did happen is that the British made their specifications available to the Americans.

 

 

Which is important IF the USAAF adopted the fuel and subsequently gave it an Army-Navy Specification number....

 

That did not happen.

Edited by Crump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2000 G10, 2800 G14, 2000 G14AS, 1500 K4-->that's more then all G6s together...there were rarely any G6s mid 44 onwards. Early 44 the G6s had a lot of upgrades, MW50 etc, which buffed their performance already considerably. 

 

1944-45 neabau production

G-6 - 7838 (2689 from Jul '44)

G-14 - 2689

G-14/AS - 1377

G-10 - 2048

K-4 - 1593

 

There was 131 more G-6s produced than all the others.

 

See Post #28, http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=2462&page=3&highlight=109+production

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked over Avialogs I can find no engine power charts that were made using fuel of a higher grade than 100/130 for the P-47, F6F, P-51, P-38, P-39, or F4U-1. The only exception is the F4U-4 manual which also includes 115/145 fuel. The page 115/145 was revised on June 15, 1948, so it could be postulated that the 115/145 fuel was a postwar addition anyway.

On a side note, why didn't the WEP and military manifold pressures not get increased when higher PN fuel was used? Wasn't that the point of using such a fuel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WEP manifold pressure was increased with increase of octane number, or 'performance number', ie. PN. The water-alcohol injection could be used just fine in conjunction with hi-PN fuel, as well as with 'low-PN' fuel. Military power (or whatever it was called by different beligerents) was being increased with 'better' fuel available, but jump in the power was not as big as with WER. The 100/150 fuel was very much a 'British thing', with ETO having a 1st call, we won't see the F6F and F4U using it, especially in the Pacific/Asia.

The R-2800-34W was doing 2100 HP for take off on 100/130 oct fuel, but also 2300 HP for take off with 115/145 fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I looked over Avialogs I can find no engine power charts that were made using fuel of a higher grade than 100/130 for the P-47, F6F, P-51, P-38, P-39, or F4U-1. The only exception is the F4U-4 manual which also includes 115/145 fuel. The page 115/145 was revised on June 15, 1948, so it could be postulated that the 115/145 fuel was a postwar addition anyway. On a side note, why didn't the WEP and military manifold pressures not get increased when higher PN fuel was used? Wasn't that the point of using such a fuel?

 

115/145 made it into the Pacific theater in the last weeks of the war.  It was the final result of the 150 grade development program.  It was not that 150 octane could not be made, it was considered the best compromise for engine performance and reliability.

 

 

 

On a side note, why didn't the WEP and military manifold pressures not get increased when higher PN fuel was used?

 

It is not as simply as dropping new fuel into an engine and running it.  Increased power means increased heat and stress which the design must account for and be strong enough to handle.  Aircraft engines are unique in that they are NOT overbuilt meaning they have a very small safety margin and they spend almost all of their life working at or near that design capacity.  

 

Here is a typical example of the engine development process. 

 

 34p11qf.jpg

 

dzxs0j.jpg

 

2jai3ix.jpg

Edited by Crump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vaguely remember hearing that the Germans used a different test for their fuels, and so their Octane rating don't have the same value as the Allies (??????)

If so what is the equivalent of B4 and C3 to what the Allies were using?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...