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

November 19, 2016

B4 was equivalent of the 87 oct fuel. The C3 was called 100 octane in Germany, but only 96 octane in Britain, for example. As war neared the end, the C3 was improving and went close to 100/125 or 100/130 fuel per Allied measurements.

November 19, 2016

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?

That is true, the ratings are not directly comparable but are close enough to get an idea.

C3 fuel was developed throughout the war. By 1943, it was equivalent to about 116/144 grade. That is a major driving factor in the Allied fuel development to keep up with the German aviation fuels.

The early 1943 C3 fuel = 97/120 Octane = (97 *1.2)/(120*1.2) = 116/144 Octane with the 20% increase in octane rating found in summer of 1943 C3 fuel samples.

Concurrent but seperate fuel development led both the Allies and the Axis to arrive at the same physical barrier between performance and reliability. Even today, racing fuel caps out at ~140 Octane for the same physical reasons.

http://www.vpracingfuels.com/vp-drag-racing

Edited November 19, 2016 by Crump

November 19, 2016

The 140+ PN fuel was not an average fuel in 1943/44, rather it was "125+" PN.

Per pg. 7 of the whole doc: link

Edited November 19, 2016 by tomo-pauk

November 19, 2016

Nice link tomo. Makes more sense than the excerpt posted previously.

November 19, 2016

The 140+ PN fuel was not an average fuel in 1943/44, rather it was "125+" PN.

Page 7 has nothing on it of importance that I saw.

The 140 octane is due to hydrogenation process Germany was using on their fuels. The British report simply states the fuel samples were "Greater Than" 125 Octane. Well, 144 octane is greater than 125 octane. Simply taking the early 1942 research method octane ratings of 97/120 and applying the summer in 1943 still further increase of 20% in octane rating delivers the 116/144 octane rating making it the equivalent of 114/145 US fuel that was adopted in the last days of the war.

The US adopted fuel of 114/145 grade was the end result of the 150 grade development program.

By August 1939, Germany had twelve operational hydrogenation plants producing gasoline and mineral oils, with a total capacity of 3.85 million tons a year. These covered most of the Wehrmacht’s needs for fuel and lubricants in case of war.

That is what caused the 20% increase in octane rating. They improved their hydroforming in 1943.

From 1939 to 1943, I.G. Farben saw its revenues from synthetic fuels more than double from 162 million RM to 351 million RM. The concern only began to address the Luftwaffe’s urgent need for high-quality aviation fuel starting in late 1940, as the progress of the war left no other alternative because the expected conquest of resource-rich territories failed. Factories at the I.G.’s new plant in Auschwitz were planned to produce Buna as well as isooctane, the latter to provide the Luftwaffe with 25,000 tons of high-octane fuel a year.

http://www.wollheim-memorial.de/en/entwicklung_und_produktion_von_synthetischem_benzin

Nice link tomo. Makes more sense than the excerpt posted previously.

Very deceitful...

This is not a new topic, it is common report, and has been shared multiple times....

Edited November 19, 2016 by Crump

November 19, 2016

During World War II the United States conducted secret research in converting coal to gasoline at a facility in Louisiana, Missouri. The Louisiana operation began about 1946 using captured German technology. Located along the Mississippi river, this plant was producing gasoline in commercial quantities by 1948. The Louisiana process method produced automobile gasoline at a price slightly higher than, but comparable to, petroleum-based gasoline^[7] but of a higher quality.^{[citation needed]} The facility was shut down in 1953 by the Eisenhower administration, allegedly after intense lobbying by the oil industry.^[7]

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

Coal hydrogenation produced high quality aviation and motor gasoline,

But neither coal-to-oil conversion process could produce a synthetic liquid fuel at a cost competitive with natural petroleum.

Natural Petroleum is cheaper but not better....

http://www.caer.uky.edu/energeia/PDF/vol12_5.pdf

From:

Center for Applied Energy Research 2540 Research Park Drive University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky 40511-8410

Edited November 19, 2016 by Crump

November 20, 2016

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?

It shouldn't be surprising that such things might not be immediately available on internet sites. Some folk seem to think that historical research means snapping your fingers and - viola! - original documents will be instantly available and, if they aren't, then such things probably don't exist.

In the case of 100/150 grade fuel, this was used in the USAAF solely by 8th A/F Fighter Command, so chances are excellent that any material, such as engine power charts and range charts, were issued only to pilots of 8th A/F FC as supplementary pages to their Pilot's Manuals, and only at the time that 100/150 grade fuel was used operationally. Had 100/150 grade fuel been used right throughout the USAAF, documents such as the PIlot's Manuals, would have been modified to reflect that, otherwise it was far simpler and easier to print and distribute supplementary material to be issued to a select group.

Even so, hints can be found that some localized modifications made to use 100/150 grade fuel did end up on the production lines. For example this document describes modifications needed to P-38s, P-47s and P-51Bs: on page 2, under c. P-51B Para 3. Install manifold pressure gauges with dial reading of 100"

In a P-51D/K Erection and Maintenance Manual early P-51D instrument panels were fitted with a manifold pressure gauge reading to 70", while later panels were equipped with gauges reading to 100"

In this document, a recommendation was made to set the ignition timing of V-1650-7s to 45° B.T.D.C on both inlet and exhaust valves to eliminate severe vibration experienced by some Mustang IIIs @ +25lbs boost. In November 1944, a Technical order was issued, revising the ignition timing of V-1650-7s to 45° B.T.D.C on both inlet and exhaust valves.

Packard V-1650-7 Magneto Timing TO Nov 1944.pdf

While such things are not as definitive as finding engine or range charts, they are a good indication that modifications made to 8th A/F fighters to allow them to use high octane fuels were taken seriously by aircraft and engine manufacturers.

Finding original material that was used by operational pilots and aircrew from WW 2 is a hell of a lot harder than some people like to think. While avialogs and the like can be useful, and national archives are treasure-troves, sometimes the only way to find such material is to find war veterans and/or their families and ask politely whether such material still exists.

November 20, 2016

Very deceitful...

This is not a new topic, it is common report, and has been shared multiple times....

Failure to list sources would get an F on a Masters Thesis.

November 20, 2016

Finding original material that was used by operational pilots and aircrew from WW 2 is a hell of a lot harder than some people like to think. While avialogs and the like can be useful, and national archives are treasure-troves, sometimes the only way to find such material is to find war veterans and/or their families and ask politely whether such material still exists.

When I was doing a type rating and tech exam for a WWII 4 engined A/C you would not believe the amount of contradictory info that it was possible to unearth

It made the "my chart is better than your chart" forum wars seem quite insignificant

Even when talking to Pilots who had flown these types for many years did not bring any more clarity to the subject

when you then talked to/worked with flight engineers the subject became even more confusing

Now add in the technical staff/engineers/ground crew with lots (and lots) of experience (and more charts) things became even less clear

my point, as with the quoted post, is that a single source and even multiple sources of info is not always something to absolutely rely on

this is just regarding operational/flying parameters, when it came to airframes and re-building engines a much larger hornets nest was kicked

*Edit*

And if you were to add in Pilot anecdotes and references from memoirs intended to be a 'commercial' success rather than historical data (some written by people working for a given company at the time of writing) an even more confusing situation can occur, for the casual reader

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited November 20, 2016 by Dakpilot

November 20, 2016

n a P-51D/K Erection and Maintenance Manual early P-51D instrument panels were fitted with a manifold pressure gauge reading to 70", while later panels were equipped with gauges reading to 100"

For the 115/145 grade....

And what is the date on that manual....

In this document, a recommendation was made to set the ignition timing of V-1650-7s to 45° B.T.D.C on both inlet and exhaust valves to eliminate severe vibration experienced by some Mustang IIIs @ +25lbs boost. In November 1944, a Technical order was issued, revising the ignition timing of V-1650-7s to 45° B.T.D.C on both inlet and exhaust valves.

ADGB of Great Britain

While such things are not as definitive as finding engine or range charts, they are a good indication that modifications made to 8th A/F fighters to allow them to use high octane fuels were taken seriously by aircraft and engine manufacturers.

.

Nobody is denying that the 8th USAAF fighters used British 100/150 grade as part of operational testing. This has all been hashed out before....

Finding original material that was used by operational pilots and aircrew from WW 2 is a hell of a lot harder than some people like to think. While avialogs and the like can be useful, and national archives are treasure-troves, sometimes the only way to find such material is to find war veterans and/or their families and ask politely whether such material still exists.

Not really...

There is mounds of it and all you have to do is line up the dates and record numbers.

his is just regarding operational/flying parameters, when it came to airframes and re-building engines a much larger hornets nest was kicked

Wow...

Your 4 engine bomber did not have data plates...

The documents did not have dates and record numbers?

As a pilot and a mechanic you are familiar with the aviation convention of how paperwork for aircraft is maintained.

The paper work is not that hard especially when it comes to Operating Limitations. It is the latest edition of the POH. We found it quite easily for an FW-190F8 and common Ailled designs are even easier to track down the information. I find it a very tough pill to swallow that nobody could do that in your experience.

It is a simply fact, if British 100/150 grade was the adopted standard fuel of the 8th USAAF then it would have an Army Navy Specification number and be listed as a Specified Fuel for the type.

It is just that simple.

That does preclude the 8th USAAF from being selected to use it in operational testing and combat trials. In fact, that is exactly why we see this report:

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

That is the summary of the experience gained in that operational testing.....

November 20, 2016

Failure to list sources would get an F on a Masters Thesis.

OMG

Participating in these boards in the 1 millionth time this topic has come up is kind an F in life.....

November 20, 2016

...

ADGB of Great Britain

...

Nobody is denying that the 8th USAAF fighters used British 100/150 grade as part of operational testing. This has all been hashed out before....

...

...

The paper work is not that hard especially when it comes to Operating Limitations. It is the latest edition of the POH. We found it quite easily for an FW-190F8 and common Ailled designs are even easier to track down the information. I find it a very tough pill to swallow that nobody could do that in your experience.

It is a simply fact, if British 100/150 grade was the adopted standard fuel of the 8th USAAF then it would have an Army Navy Specification number and be listed as a Specified Fuel for the type.

It is just that simple.

That does preclude the 8th USAAF from being selected to use it in operational testing and combat trials. In fact, that is exactly why we see this report:

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

That is the summary of the experience gained in that operational testing.....

The USAF used the 'hundred-fifty-octane' fuel, operatively besides the testing. Some links:

one

two

three

So yes, the British 150 PN fuel was what USAF fighters were using very much from mid-1944 on in the ETO.

November 20, 2016

The USAF used the 'hundred-fifty-octane' fuel, operatively besides the testing. Some links:

Operational testing is using the fuel operationally!!

It is just NOT a standard fuel and is not adopted for widespread use.

It is a simply fact, if British 100/150 grade was the adopted standard fuel of the 8th USAAF then it would have an Army Navy Specification number and be listed as a Specified Fuel for the type. It is just that simple. That does preclude the 8th USAAF from being selected to use it in operational testing and combat trials. In fact, that is exactly why we see this report: http://www.wwiiaircr...ps-4april45.pdf That is the summary of the experience gained in that operational testing.....

Edited November 20, 2016 by Crump

November 20, 2016

For the 115/145 grade....

Pure conjecture on Crump's part

ADGB of Great Britain

Crump should read the T/O, which is right there in pdf, because it came from Headquarters, Army Air Forces Washington, and it was not directed specifically at ADGB.

.

Not really...

There is mounds of it and all you have to do is line up the dates and record numbers.

Yeah, right, Crump's just going to snap his fingers, come up with the relevant documentation and stun us all with his brilliance. He will find those ex-8th A/F Pilot's Manuals with all the supplementary pages intact...

Wow...

Your 4 engine bomber did not have data plates...

The documents did not have dates and record numbers?

As a pilot and a mechanic you are familiar with the aviation convention of how paperwork for aircraft is maintained.

Exactly what pre-WW2 Aviation Convention is Crump talking about, that states that all records and paperwork for all operational aircraft are to be kept in storage for 70 plus years, for the convenience and edification of Flight Sim enthusiasts, circa 2016?

Bureaucracies can be very careless at record keeping, and can have a habit of just dumping material after a set time. Why keep old records around of obsolete, obsolescent or soon to be destryed aircraft around when most of them were scrapped straight after the war? Also not forgetting that the USAAF was disestablished and the USAF established in 1947.

The paper work is not that hard especially when it comes to Operating Limitations. It is the latest edition of the POH. We found it quite easily for an FW-190F8 and common Ailled designs are even easier to track down the information. I find it a very tough pill to swallow that nobody could do that in your experience.

Yep, so again, Crump is going to stun us all by posting all those records for the Fw 190F-8 and common Allied aircraft, either here or on websites like avialogs.

November 20, 2016

Pure conjecture on Crump's part

Negative ghostrider...

44-1 formula is not the same as British 100/150 grade. That is a fact...

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.

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% xylidine. http://www.wwiiaircr...-grade-spec.pdf It is not the same fuel and one has nothing to do with the other....

Obviously you do not read what others write and simply spam a thread with a singular point of view.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Crump

November 20, 2016

ADGB of Great Britain Crump should read the T/O, which is right there in pdf, because it came from Headquarters, Army Air Forces Washington, and it was not directed specifically at ADGB.

You do know the signature block says ADGB?

Have you read it?

In this document, a recommendation was made to set the ignition timing of V-1650-7s to 45° B.T.D.C on both inlet and exhaust valves to eliminate severe vibration experienced by some Mustang IIIs @ +25lbs boost. In November 1944, a Technical order was issued, revising the ignition timing of V-1650-7s to 45° B.T.D.C on both inlet and exhaust valves.

Seriously, do you read any of this stuff outside of seeing "100/150 grade" and "Mustang" somewhere in it?

November 20, 2016

7,1 % TEL, geez, no wonder there were such issues with plug fouling a valves destroying themselves and excessive vibrations all the time.

I wonder how retarding the spark plugs effected power output. Probably did not help it though.

November 20, 2016

You do know the signature block says ADGB?

Have you read it?

Seriously, do you read any of this stuff outside of seeing "100/150 grade" and "Mustang" somewhere in it?

Seriously, did Crump bother reading the pdf document Packard V-1650-7 Magneto Timing TO Nov 1944.pdf attached to my post?? Of course he didn't!

November 20, 2016

Seriously, did Crump bother reading the pdf document Packard V-1650-7 Magneto Timing TO Nov 1944.pdf attached to my post?? Of course he didn't!

It is not my fault your argument is not coherent and your evidenced is unclear.

I am curious as to what leads you to believe this is evidence of 8th USAAF using Britsh 100/150 grade fuel outside of anything but operational testing?

This is a TO dated 30 November 1944. While advancing the timing is a step in increasing power production this TO is 9 months into the United States 100/150 grade program and a few months away from the formal adoption of 114/145 grade as a United States Army Air Force specified fuel.

Once more, all aircraft in the Continental United States used 91 grade fuel to conserve 100/130 grade for the combat units deployed overseas. Any aircraft about to be ferried overseas will require a magneto timing adjustment.

It simply has nothing at all to do with the extent of British 100/150 grade use during the operational testing. It is just white noise.

7,1 % TEL, geez, no wonder there were such issues with plug fouling a valves destroying themselves and excessive vibrations all the time.

I wonder how retarding the spark plugs effected power output. Probably did not help it though.

Yes...British 100/150 grade is almost 10% lead additive so it is not very surprising that lead deposits were an issue grounding out engines ignition source.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Crump

November 20, 2016

That high lead content is on of largest physical hurdles to overcome. It simply comes down to not being able to get rid of it and keeping the deposits from adhering to the spark plugs and grounding the electrode.

That is why 114/145 grade fuel was adopted. It not only had better lean mixture performance, It did not require that high lead content.

So all in all 114/145 grade was a much better fuel.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Crump

November 20, 2016

Negative ghostrider...

44-1 formula is not the same as British 100/150 grade. That is a fact...

Not that I have written anything of the sort in any of my posts; this is just another excuse for Crump to embark on another of his lectures, quoting himself as an "authority".

Obviously you do not read what others write and simply spam a thread with a singular point of view.

Says the person who is noted for holding onto a singular POV with the obstinacy of a mule, and for spamming multiple threads trying to prove that everyone else is stupid.

It is not my fault your argument is not coherent and your evidenced is unclear.

It's not my fault that Crump is too obtuse to concede that he overlooked a document and went off half-cocked.

I am curious as to what leads you to believe this is evidence of 8th USAAF using Britsh 100/150 grade fuel outside of anything but operational testing?

Not that I wrote any such thing - I merely pointed out that modifications made in the field can end up on the production lines, in this case, partly because the powers that be did take the 8th A/F's use of British 100/150 grade fuel seriously.

This is a TO dated 30 November 1944.

Amazing! Crump can actually read dates (once he gets around to reading documents)!

Once more, all aircraft in the Continental United States used 91 grade fuel to conserve 100/130 grade for the combat units deployed overseas. Any aircraft about to be ferried overseas will require a magneto timing adjustment.

Not exactly "news", but it is interesting to know that just 2 months after the British tested alterations to the ignition timing, the USAAF followed suit.

It simply has nothing at all to do with the extent of British 100/150 grade use during the operational testing. It is just white noise.

The T.O was issued at the time that the 8th A/F FC was using 100/150 grade fuel on operations...gee, that's some coincidence. The only white noise here is Crump's.

Yes...British 100/150 grade is almost 10% lead additive so it is not very surprising that lead deposits were an issue grounding out engines ignition source.

Yes, the British and Americans quickly found ways to overcome any problems with lead fouling, otherwise Crump's "combat trials" would have been terminated well before V-E Day.

November 20, 2016

Sorry to ask a dumb question but what does 100/150 in regards to Octane (why the 2 numbers??)??

November 20, 2016

Come now NZ, the 8th AF did operational testing with thousands of a/c participating over many many many months.

November 20, 2016

100 is the performance number when engine uses lean mixture; British term being weak mixture - used for cruising, for example. 150 is the performance number when engine uses rich mixture, for regimes when engine need to give plenty of power.

November 21, 2016

What is the USAAF AN Specification number that all non-experimental fuels have for British 100/150 grade and all the SEFC charts?

November 21, 2016

What is the USAAF AN Specification number that all non-experimental fuels have for British 100/150 grade and all the SEFC charts?

Not that anyone here, or elsewhere, has stated, or even implied that the British 100/150 grade was given a USAAF AN Spec. Number.

Edited November 21, 2016 by NZTyphoon

November 21, 2016

Not that anyone here, or elsewhere, has stated, or even implied that the British 100/150 grade was given a USAAF AN Spec. Number.

Sure you have!,,

You have made the claim on every occasion that British 100/150 grade was the standard fuel and have stated multiple times it is the only fuel used by the 8th USAAF fighters.

If it was the standard fuel, it would have a AN Specification number and being so widespread there would be plenty of SEFC charts.

So what is the AN Specification number and where are the SEFC charts?

It simply cannot be a standard fuel without having been adopted by the service. That means an AN Specification was issued after all the service testing and experimentation gathered sufficient evidence the fuel worked in the engines satisfactory.

If you make a statement about something someone else said you better have a quote to back it up...

Edited November 26, 2016 by Bearcat

November 21, 2016

I wonder how retarding the spark plugs effected power output. Probably did not help it though.

It decreases power output (very) slightly, reducing "knocking" a bit. But no, it didn't help much reagarding service cycles of the engines. Most dirt buildup is at low power anyway.

It's just amazing how much better old engines run on todays fuels and lubricants. Even with oldtimer cars. The sparkplugs just stay clean. All this dirt building up at low power outputs...

November 21, 2016

Sure you have!,,

You have made the claim on every occasion that British 100/150 grade was the standard fuel and have stated multiple times it is the only fuel used by the 8th USAAF fighters.

Yeah,right,sure!

November 21, 2016

Has this been posted?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf

Please not "all fighter units" mentioned several times.

November 22, 2016

Has this been posted?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf

Please not "all fighter units" mentioned several times.

Yes it has, a couple of times - as a reader trying to follow this discussion I look at paragraph 2.b which states that all fighter units in 8th AAF were supplied with 100/150 fuel, after earlier testing in 1943-44, which was used in operations from 1 June 1944 to 1 Feb 1945: 8 months.

The question in my mind is does "operations with this fuel continued" imply that all fighter operations were using this fuel, or only some of them (ie consistent with the idea that this was "operational testing")? My natural reading is that the 100/150 was the only fuel used during this period, since none other is mentioned, so it was not "testing".

Edited November 22, 2016 by unreasonable

November 24, 2016

The question in my mind is does "operations with this fuel continued" imply that all fighter operations were using this fuel, or only some of them (ie consistent with the idea that this was "operational testing")? My natural reading is that the 100/150 was the only fuel used during this period, since none other is mentioned, so it was not "testing".

It was used operationally as part of operational testing. The entire point of operational testing is use whatever you are testing on operations!!

The issue is extent of its use. It was factually NOT the only fuel available to the 8th USAAF Fighters nor was it the "adopted" fuel of the 8th USAAF Fighters in service.

It quite clearly states service testing, which is the first stage, was conducted by the 8th USAAF Technical Operations. That is similar to what you saw with Wright Patterson's investigation into 44-1 fuel. It is simply trying to see if the fuel is even technically feasible and if so make recommendations.

The next step in the process is OPERATIONAL TESTING. That is why Col Hough, Director of the 8th USAAF Technical Operations is writing this summary of experience with the fuel. You do not need a summary of experience with an "adopted" or "standard" fuel.

It also quite clearly states that "all fighters were supplied" with the fuel. There is nowhere in any of the documents that says it is only fuel available and that any unit must use it.

It was supplied to them to test it on operations not as the sole source of fuel. It was given to them so that Technical Operations could answer the questions it needed about operational use as part of the larger program to develop a high octane fuel for general service use. That fuel was 114/145 grade and was adopted in the last days of the war. This is simply one part of that experience base and history that culminates in the adoption of 114/145 grade.

The document also states they were able to get no worthwhile experience with the fuel in the P-38's and very little experience with the P-47's in theater. Those types really have little or nothing to contribute outside of service testing results.

Once more, the document clearly relates that the grand total of experience on the P-51 Mustang is six months worth of operational testing. During that time it does not relate the extent at which it was used operationally only that a total of about six months experience was gained.

It also states that the most common accident was complete engine failure on take off and subsequent belly landing.

November 24, 2016

A bizarre way to read that document. No matter - a little further research throws up this very extensive discussion:

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

Which includes:

Into Service with the USAAF Eighth Air Force

In late Winter of 1943-44 the Allied Expeditionary Air Force (A.E.A.F.) decided, pending further trials, not to employ 150 Grade Fuel for Overlord due to spark plug issues, however, it was intended that 150 Grade would be used when proved satisfactory. ²¹ Meanwhile, cross channel operations by two squadrons of P-47’s and one P-38 using 150 Grade fuel revealed an increase of speed and climb characteristics at the expense of spark plug difficulties. ²² The Production Division was directed on 28 March 1944, under the authority of the Commmanding General, Army Air Forces, to modify all P-38, P-47 and P-51 airplanes in the United Kingdom for the use of Grade 150 fuel, with the necessary modification kits to be shipped to the European Theater of Operations within 30 days. ²³ It was decided that Grade 150 fuel was to be the only fuel available for AAF fighter airplanes in the United Kingdom. ²⁴

Successful service tests led in May 1944 to the Eighth Air Force Fighter Command requesting that it "be supplied immediately with grade 150 aviation fuel for use in P-47, P-51 and P-38 planes". ²⁵ Deliveries of Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to AAF Stations commenced within a week of the landings in France. ²⁶ ²⁷ The change over to 150 grade fuel necessitated the resetting of all aneroid switches on the P-51s. ²⁸

Note 24 -

November 24, 2016

Carson gives excellent marks for the Fw 190 - so there is no criticizing it. Perhaps people can comment a bit more on that if we can move from the 150 oct saga?

Edited November 24, 2016 by tomo-pauk

November 25, 2016

A bizarre way to read that document. No matter - a little further research throws up this very extensive discussion:

So anything outside of your interpretation is bizarre. That is an article written by an author and NOT a piece of documentation. It presents the point of view the author wishes you to take. It builds a circumstantial case off logistical documentation.

In reading it, one would certainly believe that the fuel was the ONLY thing available to the 8th USAAF fighters and it was the adopted fuel.

Absolutely not proof that during the operational testing that was ongoing as of April 1945 in the 8th USAAF

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

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

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

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

Those are operational proof the fuel was the standard and only fuel available to 8th USAAF fighters.

Lastly, the consumption of 100/130 grade fuel by the 8th USAAF fighters increases and then remains steady as the aircraft levels remain steady.

Flying time remains consistent at ~110,000 hrs a month

An the number of operational 8th USAAF fighters remains ~1000 aircraft:

So just what was the 8th USAAF Fighter Groups doing with all this 100/130 grade during the time period that British 100/150 grade was "only fuel" available to the 8th USAAF fighters?

November 25, 2016

So just what was the 8th USAAF Fighter Groups doing with all this 100/130 grade during the time period that British 100/150 grade was "only fuel" available to the 8th USAAF fighters?

Giving the fuel to the bombers of the VIII AF.

Flying time remains consistent at ~110,000 hrs a month

Flying time averages ~146,000hrs/month for fighters.

Once more, all aircraft in the Continental United States used 91 grade fuel to conserve 100/130 grade for the combat units deployed overseas

If that is so then why was 100 (3,441,922) consumption almost twice that of 91 (1,883,254)?

November 25, 2016

Giving the fuel to the bombers of the VIII AF.

It is fuel consumption by fighters. Bombers are clearly listed separately in the columns to the left or you not able to see that?

If that is so then why was 100 (3,441,922) consumption almost twice that of 91 (1,883,254)?

........

I did not say 91 Octane was the only fuel available. I said CONUS aircraft were supplied with 91 Octane and were to use it instead of 100/130 grade. Changing the timing was one step required when switching fuel types.

It takes a few gallons of AVGAS to ferry an aircraft from California to England. That is all gas on the CONUS consumption until it is accepted by the ETO command.

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

November 25, 2016

It is bizarre to say "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..."

Similarly para 2.b states "Operations with this fuel continued...."

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

As for later post: interesting tables, but absolutely no proof of anything in what you have shown us.

1) The "Gasoline consumption" table 184 does not break down usage overseas by Octane rating. (Why not?)

2) Tables 186 and 176 simply show total gasoline consumption and flying time for the European theatre: there is no mention of octane ratings at all. (So why assume this is 130 grade?) Unless there is some indication of the grades used, looking at the trends of flying time etc is meaningless.

Your supposition seems to be that there should be a particular type of technical document, you do not have it, therefore it never existed, therefore 100/150 could not have been in widespread operational use.

The absence of evidence argument. Logically faulty as a proof, although sometimes indicative an issue worth investigating. But there is evidence of a different kind: a contemporary document stating clearly that 100/150 was to be the only fuel for 8thAAF fighters from June 1944 to Feb 1945, plus another that supports this interpretation if read literally.

I know you will never be convinced: but do not be surprised if others find contemporary documents more convincing.

November 25, 2016

I did not say 91 Octane was the only fuel available. I said CONUS aircraft were supplied with 91 Octane and were to use it instead of 100/130 grade.

No you didn't but you did say

Once more, all aircraft in the Continental United States used 91 grade fuel to conserve 100/130 grade for the combat units deployed overseas.

which is clearly a false statement.

Nice try but ferry a/c using 100 fuel is not saving 100 fuel required in the ETO if that is what you are saying.

"An the number of operational 8th USAAF fighters remains ~1000 aircraft"

But the ratio of P-51s to P-38s/P47s change to almost all P-51s.

November 25, 2016

No milo...

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

Kind of like what you are doing with 100/150 grade in the 8th USAAF, LOL.

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

Recommended Posts

tomo-pauk

Crump

tomo-pauk

MiloMorai

Crump

Crump

NZTyphoon

MiloMorai

Dakpilot

Crump

Crump

tomo-pauk

Crump

NZTyphoon

Crump

Crump

Kurfurst

NZTyphoon

Crump

Crump

NZTyphoon

novicebutdeadly

MiloMorai

tomo-pauk

Crump

NZTyphoon

Crump

ZachariasX

NZTyphoon

MiloMorai

unreasonable

Crump

unreasonable

tomo-pauk

Crump

MiloMorai

Crump

unreasonable

MiloMorai

Crump

Browse All

Activity