Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
WWII Fuel in Britain for Military Aircraft.
1,166 views
Skip to first unread message
Daryl
Jun 1, 2013, 8:23:40 PM6/1/13
to
Time to wind up Keith.
I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and after the BoB.
Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters. But Britain was
stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English Fighters used the 100 during
BoB. In 1943, Britain began using a 125 octane fuel in fighters.
England had enough 100 octane for an estimated 80 weeks of war. But the
adding of the US flying out of England changed that estimate quickly.
This meant that the 87 octane with the anti knock addition had to be
used in the two long ranged fighters. More on this later.
Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war. The 87
octane was superior in engines that weren't "Super Tuned" like the
Merlin and the Allison in a fighter application. The Spits and
Hurricanes both used 100 octane starting just before the BoB. The
Bombers continued to use 87 octane for dependability sake. The English
Inlines may have shared many of the same parts but each one was tuned
differently to accept different fuels. For instance, in order to use 87
octane in a Spit it required anti knock formula to be added to the fuel.
It helped to prevent the pre detonation using the lower fuel. But the
87 octane also lowered the performance on the Spit. It had no affect on
the bombers whether you used the 87 or the 100 octane. It's wasteful to
run 100 octane or higher in the bomber since they are tuned and designed
to use 87 octane. So the Spit and Hurricane continued using the 100
octane until the 115 octane was available. But the Hurricane and the
Spitfire ran 100 octane until the higher octane became available.
In late 1943, the English introduced their "130" fuel with an octane
rating of 115. This fuel was produced by 3 refineries in England and
also was imported heavily from the US. This fuel was specifically
tailored to High Performance Engines like the PW2800 and the Allison
with the turbocharger. This is what they were tuned to use. The
retuning of the Spit and Hurricane and follow on English Fighters
performance was increased as well by retuning the Merlins. And the anti
knock formula was not longer required. That 115 octane outlasted all
the other fuels and is still being used today. Today's Avgas is 115
octane. In 1973/74 we ran it in our private vehicles since the cost of
private gas skyrocketed so bad that none of us could afford to buy it.
They opened an Avgas Station and sold us Avgas instead. Avgas is
roughly equivalent to the old Premium from the old days. I don't know
when that ceased as I PCS'd in March of 1974.
The P-38 and the P-47 both required the anti knock add even using the
100 octane since they were tuned for 115 and 125 (125 was not readily
used until very late in the war by the US and Australia).
The P-47 still knocked when using the 87 octane and got a little
predetonation using the 100 even with the booster. The lower octane
fuels didn't hamper the Supercharger though and the P-47 only saw a
slight reduction in Performance at certain altitudes but it cut down on
their range and, over time, burnt valves. Let's face it, the R2800
outlived all the other engines and still being used today. It's hard to
hurt that puppy (or big dog if you will).
On the P-38 it was a complete disaster. IF all the P-38s that were
assigned to Bomber Escort were to generate, they would still be out
numbered by 2 1/2 to one by the Luftwaffe Fighters attacking the
bombers. Unfortunately, half of the P-38s aborted for engine troubles
including blown engines. There was separation of fuel and antiknock
compound at higher altitudes. This jammed up the intercooler and the
turbochargers on the Allisons. If the Allison was under heavy power,
the engine would go to an extreme lean condition and burn valves, blow
pistons, lose rods and even catch on fire. Many even had engine fires
and couldn't continue and didn't make it home. This means that the P-38
was facing 5 to 1 odds when it entered into Germany. The Luftwaffe was
quite aware of this and would normally not attack the bombers until the
P-47 was relieved by the gaggle of P-38s in 1943.
The Fighters had to stay with the fighters. If the Luftwaffe went below
18,000 feet, the escort fighter had to disengage and return to the
bombers. The Luftwaffe used dive tactics to hit the fighters and
bombers and quickly get to below 18,000 feet where the escort fighter
had to disengage and climb back to the bomber formation. The P-38
pilots learned to point their noses to the incoming Luftwaffe and fire
on them before the Luftwaffe Fighters could start firing themselves.
The P-47s excellent diving was neutralized by having to disengage at
18,000 feet.
The P-51B/C didn't really start coming into the war until early 1944 due
to manufacture and training of pilots. Even in England, it took about
100 hours to get a pilot trained for combat in a P-51 in country. The
P-51 got more training than the P-47 and the P-38 training was an
embarrassment. The P-51B/C arrived with two improvements to the
theater; The Fighters started being able to pursue and destroy enemy
fighters attacking the bombers and the arrival of the 115 octane fuel
for the fighters. Both the P-47 and the P-38 no longer required the
Antiknock in the fuel and both ran better at all altitudes. With the
many problems of the P-38 finally cured including the additional
internal fuel (The H and up) and the introduction of larger drop tanks
for both the P-38 and the P-47, allowing them to go into ground attack
into Germany as well as mix it up with the Luftwaffe.
While the Allies fuel got better, at the same time, the Luftwaffe fuel
was becoming problematic. In the end, the Allied Fighters ended up out
numbering and out performing the Luftwaffe Fighters. Even, as one P-51
pilot stated about his D, they were only 2% better than the Luftwaffe,
that's still 2% better.
Fetch, Keith, fetch.
Daryl
I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and after the BoB.
Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters. But Britain was
stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English Fighters used the 100 during
BoB. In 1943, Britain began using a 125 octane fuel in fighters.
England had enough 100 octane for an estimated 80 weeks of war. But the
adding of the US flying out of England changed that estimate quickly.
This meant that the 87 octane with the anti knock addition had to be
used in the two long ranged fighters. More on this later.
Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war. The 87
octane was superior in engines that weren't "Super Tuned" like the
Merlin and the Allison in a fighter application. The Spits and
Hurricanes both used 100 octane starting just before the BoB. The
Bombers continued to use 87 octane for dependability sake. The English
Inlines may have shared many of the same parts but each one was tuned
differently to accept different fuels. For instance, in order to use 87
octane in a Spit it required anti knock formula to be added to the fuel.
It helped to prevent the pre detonation using the lower fuel. But the
87 octane also lowered the performance on the Spit. It had no affect on
the bombers whether you used the 87 or the 100 octane. It's wasteful to
run 100 octane or higher in the bomber since they are tuned and designed
to use 87 octane. So the Spit and Hurricane continued using the 100
octane until the 115 octane was available. But the Hurricane and the
Spitfire ran 100 octane until the higher octane became available.
In late 1943, the English introduced their "130" fuel with an octane
rating of 115. This fuel was produced by 3 refineries in England and
also was imported heavily from the US. This fuel was specifically
tailored to High Performance Engines like the PW2800 and the Allison
with the turbocharger. This is what they were tuned to use. The
retuning of the Spit and Hurricane and follow on English Fighters
performance was increased as well by retuning the Merlins. And the anti
knock formula was not longer required. That 115 octane outlasted all
the other fuels and is still being used today. Today's Avgas is 115
octane. In 1973/74 we ran it in our private vehicles since the cost of
private gas skyrocketed so bad that none of us could afford to buy it.
They opened an Avgas Station and sold us Avgas instead. Avgas is
roughly equivalent to the old Premium from the old days. I don't know
when that ceased as I PCS'd in March of 1974.
The P-38 and the P-47 both required the anti knock add even using the
100 octane since they were tuned for 115 and 125 (125 was not readily
used until very late in the war by the US and Australia).
The P-47 still knocked when using the 87 octane and got a little
predetonation using the 100 even with the booster. The lower octane
fuels didn't hamper the Supercharger though and the P-47 only saw a
slight reduction in Performance at certain altitudes but it cut down on
their range and, over time, burnt valves. Let's face it, the R2800
outlived all the other engines and still being used today. It's hard to
hurt that puppy (or big dog if you will).
On the P-38 it was a complete disaster. IF all the P-38s that were
assigned to Bomber Escort were to generate, they would still be out
numbered by 2 1/2 to one by the Luftwaffe Fighters attacking the
bombers. Unfortunately, half of the P-38s aborted for engine troubles
including blown engines. There was separation of fuel and antiknock
compound at higher altitudes. This jammed up the intercooler and the
turbochargers on the Allisons. If the Allison was under heavy power,
the engine would go to an extreme lean condition and burn valves, blow
pistons, lose rods and even catch on fire. Many even had engine fires
and couldn't continue and didn't make it home. This means that the P-38
was facing 5 to 1 odds when it entered into Germany. The Luftwaffe was
quite aware of this and would normally not attack the bombers until the
P-47 was relieved by the gaggle of P-38s in 1943.
The Fighters had to stay with the fighters. If the Luftwaffe went below
18,000 feet, the escort fighter had to disengage and return to the
bombers. The Luftwaffe used dive tactics to hit the fighters and
bombers and quickly get to below 18,000 feet where the escort fighter
had to disengage and climb back to the bomber formation. The P-38
pilots learned to point their noses to the incoming Luftwaffe and fire
on them before the Luftwaffe Fighters could start firing themselves.
The P-47s excellent diving was neutralized by having to disengage at
18,000 feet.
The P-51B/C didn't really start coming into the war until early 1944 due
to manufacture and training of pilots. Even in England, it took about
100 hours to get a pilot trained for combat in a P-51 in country. The
P-51 got more training than the P-47 and the P-38 training was an
embarrassment. The P-51B/C arrived with two improvements to the
theater; The Fighters started being able to pursue and destroy enemy
fighters attacking the bombers and the arrival of the 115 octane fuel
for the fighters. Both the P-47 and the P-38 no longer required the
Antiknock in the fuel and both ran better at all altitudes. With the
many problems of the P-38 finally cured including the additional
internal fuel (The H and up) and the introduction of larger drop tanks
for both the P-38 and the P-47, allowing them to go into ground attack
into Germany as well as mix it up with the Luftwaffe.
While the Allies fuel got better, at the same time, the Luftwaffe fuel
was becoming problematic. In the end, the Allied Fighters ended up out
numbering and out performing the Luftwaffe Fighters. Even, as one P-51
pilot stated about his D, they were only 2% better than the Luftwaffe,
that's still 2% better.
Fetch, Keith, fetch.
Daryl
Orval Fairbairn
Jun 1, 2013, 9:43:34 PM6/1/13
to
In article <koe321$3nt$1...@dont-email.me>,
The highest rating was Grade 115/145, "purple gas" and was used in all
the big recips until the jets replaced them.
Currently, the only avgas available in the US id so-called Grade 100LL,
or 100 octane "low lead." The big warbirds have to detune to use it.
>
> The P-38 and the P-47 both required the anti knock add even using the
> 100 octane since they were tuned for 115 and 125 (125 was not readily
> used until very late in the war by the US and Australia).
>
> The P-47 still knocked when using the 87 octane and got a little
> predetonation using the 100 even with the booster. The lower octane
> fuels didn't hamper the Supercharger though and the P-47 only saw a
> slight reduction in Performance at certain altitudes but it cut down on
> their range and, over time, burnt valves. Let's face it, the R2800
> outlived all the other engines and still being used today. It's hard to
> hurt that puppy (or big dog if you will).
When you add a turbocharger, it raises the octane requirement, due to
the increased manifold pressure. When you turbocharge an 80/87engine, it
raises the requirement to 100 octane.
the big recips until the jets replaced them.
Currently, the only avgas available in the US id so-called Grade 100LL,
or 100 octane "low lead." The big warbirds have to detune to use it.
>
> The P-38 and the P-47 both required the anti knock add even using the
> 100 octane since they were tuned for 115 and 125 (125 was not readily
> used until very late in the war by the US and Australia).
>
> The P-47 still knocked when using the 87 octane and got a little
> predetonation using the 100 even with the booster. The lower octane
> fuels didn't hamper the Supercharger though and the P-47 only saw a
> slight reduction in Performance at certain altitudes but it cut down on
> their range and, over time, burnt valves. Let's face it, the R2800
> outlived all the other engines and still being used today. It's hard to
> hurt that puppy (or big dog if you will).
the increased manifold pressure. When you turbocharge an 80/87engine, it
raises the requirement to 100 octane.
Keith W
Jun 2, 2013, 10:51:01 AM6/2/13
to
Daryl wrote:
> Time to wind up Keith.
>
> I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and after
> the BoB.
> Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters. But Britain
> was stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English Fighters used the 100
> during BoB. In 1943, Britain began using a 125 octane fuel in
> fighters.
The decision to switch to 100 octane fuel was taken in March 1939
> Time to wind up Keith.
>
> I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and after
> the BoB.
> Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters. But Britain
> was stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English Fighters used the 100
> during BoB. In 1943, Britain began using a 125 octane fuel in
> fighters.
and the process began in Jan 1940 amd was complete
> England had enough 100 octane for an estimated 80 weeks of war. But
> the adding of the US flying out of England changed that estimate
> quickly.
stocks from UK and other sources
> This meant that the 87 octane with the anti knock addition had to be
> used in the two long ranged fighters. More on this later.
>
initially supplies were restricted to Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants
100 octane began to be released to other commands, especially the
light bombers.
Stocks of 100 Octane
Source : War Cabinet Oil Position Monthly report
30th September 1939 153,000 tons(b)
27th February 1940 220,000 tons(b)
31st May 1940 294,000 tons(a)
11th July 1940 343,000 tons(b)
31st August 1940 404,000 tons(a)
10th October 1940 424,000 tons(c)
30th November 1940 440,000 tons(a)
> Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war. The 87
> octane was superior in engines that weren't "Super Tuned" like the
> Merlin and the Allison in a fighter application.
such as the Lancaster and Mosquito
> The Spits and
> Hurricanes both used 100 octane starting just before the BoB. The
> Bombers continued to use 87 octane for dependability sake. The
> English Inlines may have shared many of the same parts but each one
> was tuned differently to accept different fuels. For instance, in
> order to use 87 octane in a Spit it required anti knock formula to be
> added to the fuel. It helped to prevent the pre detonation using the
> lower fuel. But the 87 octane also lowered the performance on the
> Spit. It had no affect on the bombers whether you used the 87 or the
> 100 octane.
and that you get more power.
It is in fact an item of record that issue of 100 octane to bomber command
was authorized in 1941. The actual limitation was not the stocks
of 100 octane fuel but the engines cleared to work with them which at
the time were only the Merlin II, IIIs, XIIs and XXs and Bristol Mercury XV
The rapidity of the switch over can be seen stock reports from the aviation
ministry
Nov 1939
100 Octane - 153,000 tons
Other grades - 325,000 tons
Nov 1940
100 Octane - 440,000 tons
Other grades - 257,000 tons
Nov 1941
100 Octane - 520,000 tons
Other grades - 310,000 tons
Note other grades included 78 octane used for aircraft
used in training and communications powered engines
like the Gypsy H
Excerpt from the Memoirs of F/Lt Peter Baxter, a Flight Engineer with
12 Squadron flying Lancaster bombers out of Wickenby
<Quote>
The fuel used was always 100 octane petrol which was coloured green for
identification purposes, and also to prevent theft. The aircraft had six
tanks, all in the wings, which contained a total of 2,154 gallons. A
cross-feed pipe was fitted which allowed the transfer of fuel from one side
to the other if a tank had been damaged. On later aircraft from about 1944,
nitrogen was supplied to the tanks as the petrol was used up, minimising the
risk of explosion. All the tanks were self-sealing. 150 gallons of
lubricating oil were carried, 37½ gallons to each engine. The oil
consumption was one to two gallons per hour per engine, depending on its
condition. An engine exceeding a usage of more than two gallons per hour
needed changing.
</Quote>
Try again hopefully after doing a little more research.
Keith
Geoffrey Sinclair
Jun 2, 2013, 11:03:28 AM6/2/13
to
"Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
news:koe321$3nt$1...@dont-email.me...
> I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and after the
> BoB.
And stumbled straight back out again without any understanding.
> Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters.
The USAAF was the first to introduce 100 Octane in quantity,
a fellow named Doolittle had a lot to do with it.
The RAF was using 100 Octane for the aircraft of 3 squadrons
in November 1937, using fuel from refineries in the USA. A
meeting on 16 March 1939 decided to introduce the fuel into
general use with 16 fighter and 2 twin engined bomber squadrons
switched by September 1940, with an 800,000 ton stock built up.
Trials with a Spitfire began in September 1939, it cost around 53
pounds to do the conversion. Refineries at Adaban and in Trinidad
were under British control.
I have not yet checked the following claim about the actual
British supply sources in 1940,
"In November 1940, UK supplies of high octane aviation fuel
were derived from three Esso refineries handling Venezuelan
oil, two in the US and one in the Caribbean (about 45%), the
Anglo-Iranian Oil refinery at Abadan (25%) and Shell
refineries in Borneo (30%). Half the British supply was
non-US in origin.
Source for above: "The History of the British Petroleum
Company" (Cambridge University Press, 1994). You might also
consult the British Official History volume entitled "Oil",
by Payton-Smith, (HMSO, 1971)."
> But Britain was stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English Fighters used
> the 100 during BoB. In 1943, Britain began using a 125 octane fuel in
> fighters. England had enough 100 octane for an estimated 80 weeks of war.
The 80 weeks of war stockpile refers to the planned stockpiles
in 1939/40, not 1943. By 1943 there was bulk shipment of 100
octane fuel to England and plans for a higher performance fuel.
> But the adding of the US flying out of England changed that estimate
> quickly.
Not until 1944.
From the various logistics histories, basically dealing with the build
up to D-Day.
When it came to bulk fuel stocks it was a steady juggle between tanker
allocations and consumption. Tankers could be "black oil" or "white oil"
and changing between the cargo types required an extensive tank
cleaning. So it was quite possible for an excess of white products like
avgas to build up while stocks of naval oil fuel went down. Fuel
consumption in the UK was generally below forecasts enabling stocks
to be built up even as the average weekly imports fell from around 364,000
tons/week in mid 1943 to 250,000 tons/week in the first two months of
1944. The trouble was tankers being in such short supply once they were
allocated to another run it was very hard to get them back, and consumption
rose significantly in early 1944. In the period March to May 1944 weekly
imports climbed to 402,000 tons but bunker fuel levels were still below the
October 1943 level and stocks of "white" products, like avgas and MT80
continued to fall. For the first time in the war avgas consumption exceeded
the forecast. The "white" fuel stocks were still below planned levels on
D-Day, the result was a major increase in shipments in the middle of the
year, putting stocks well above the agreed levels, some tankers were then
withdrawn and the feast/famine cycle began again. As an aside the UK
imports in 1938 had been an average of 223,000 tons per week.
MT80 was leaded, it became the standard fuel for motor vehicles,
which caused some problems for various army equipment meant
to use lower octane or unleaded fuels.
> This meant that the 87 octane with the anti knock addition had to be used
> in the two long ranged fighters. More on this later.
No, the USAAF used 100 Octane fuels for its combat aircraft on
operations, the cost of the fuel, in both money and production
capacity, meant training flights in the US often used 87 Octane.
There was a set of rules to follow in using 100 Octane while in
the US.
> Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war.
Not western allied bombers.
> The 87 octane was superior in engines that weren't "Super Tuned" like the
> Merlin and the Allison in a fighter application. The Spits and Hurricanes
> both used 100 octane starting just before the BoB. The Bombers continued
> to use 87 octane for dependability sake.
Again no.
> The English Inlines may have shared many of the same parts but each one
> was tuned differently to accept different fuels. For instance, in order
> to use 87 octane in a Spit it required anti knock formula to be added to
> the fuel.
The early Merlins could handle 87 octane, the later ones were meant
for 100 octane, which meant you had to take care using them with
87 octane.
> It helped to prevent the pre detonation using the lower fuel. But the 87
> octane also lowered the performance on the Spit.
Putting higher octane rating fuels into Spitfires increased speed at
lower altitudes, it did not increase top speed at rated altitude. The
low level power boost helped take off performance, hence why
bombers used it.
> It had no affect on the bombers whether you used the 87 or the 100 octane.
The short answer here is no.
> It's wasteful to run 100 octane or higher in the bomber since they are
> tuned and designed to use 87 octane.
So the idea is the Merlins fitted to Halifaxes and Lancasters etc.
were 87 octane but the fighter ones were 100? Is that the claim?
Two grades of fuel in use? The bombers doing without the better
take off performance and lower fuel weights per gallon?
> So the Spit and Hurricane continued using the 100 octane until the 115
> octane was available. But the Hurricane and the Spitfire ran 100 octane
> until the higher octane became available.
This seems to be a duplication.
> In late 1943, the English introduced their "130" fuel with an octane
> rating of 115. This fuel was produced by 3 refineries in England and also
> was imported heavily from the US. This fuel was specifically tailored to
> High Performance Engines like the PW2800 and the Allison with the
> turbocharger. This is what they were tuned to use.
In late 1943 there was a plan to introduce a higher performance
fuel that ultimately was only used by fighters, the bombers stayed
with 100 Octane.
> The retuning of the Spit and Hurricane and follow on English Fighters
> performance was increased as well by retuning the Merlins.
Hurricanes in 1944 were using the 1940 Merlin XX, they did not
use the higher octane fuel.
> And the anti knock formula was not longer required. That 115 octane
> outlasted all the other fuels and is still being used today. Today's Avgas
> is 115 octane. In 1973/74 we ran it in our private vehicles since the
> cost of private gas skyrocketed so bad that none of us could afford to buy
> it. They opened an Avgas Station and sold us Avgas instead. Avgas is
> roughly equivalent to the old Premium from the old days. I don't know
> when that ceased as I PCS'd in March of 1974.
>
> The P-38 and the P-47 both required the anti knock add even using the 100
> octane since they were tuned for 115 and 125 (125 was not readily used
> until very late in the war by the US and Australia).
What you are doing here is confusing rich and lean mixture ratings.
You are also saying in the 1940 to 1943 period with 100 octane as
standard the USAAF was turning out engines requiring 115, a rather
bad idea.
> The P-47 still knocked when using the 87 octane and got a little
> predetonation using the 100 even with the booster.
Given the P-47 was supposed to use 100 octane then 87 octane
will have its problems.
> The lower octane fuels didn't hamper the Supercharger though
This will certainly be news to many in the engineering trade.
> and the P-47 only saw a slight reduction in Performance at certain
> altitudes but it cut down on their range and, over time, burnt valves.
As noted 87 octane was used in the US but 100 octane in combat.
> Let's face it, the R2800 outlived all the other engines and still being
> used today. It's hard to hurt that puppy (or big dog if you will).
In 1944 the 8th AF fighters went over to higher octane, which gave
more performance but came with a series of problems and in the end
a trade off, more maintenance.
There were no significant problems running the 100 Octane fuel,
except in P-38s on standard 8th AF escort missions.
> On the P-38 it was a complete disaster.
The more powerful fuels arrived after the P-38 was taken off high
altitude escort work.
> IF all the P-38s that were assigned to Bomber Escort were to generate,
> they would still be out numbered by 2 1/2 to one by the Luftwaffe Fighters
> attacking the bombers.
I like this, all the Luftwaffe fighters are supposed to meet all the
P-38s. In any case there were more Luftwaffe fighters present
in Luftflotte Reich than just 2.5 times the number of P-38s in
operational USAAF fighter groups in the ETO.
> Unfortunately, half of the P-38s aborted for engine troubles including
> blown engines. There was separation of fuel and antiknock compound at
> higher altitudes. This jammed up the intercooler and the turbochargers on
> the Allisons. If the Allison was under heavy power, the engine would go
> to an extreme lean condition and burn valves, blow pistons, lose rods and
> even catch on fire. Many even had engine fires and couldn't continue and
> didn't make it home.
All of this was done on the standard allied fuel since 1939/40, that
is 100 Octane, nothing to do with a new fuel.
> This means that the P-38 was facing 5 to 1 odds when it entered into
> Germany.
In short no.
> The Luftwaffe was quite aware of this and would normally not attack the
> bombers until the P-47 was relieved by the gaggle of P-38s in 1943.
Actually once again you really are telling us you have no idea
about what was going on.
P-38 operations with the 8th AF started on 15 October 1943.
First escort mission, 20 October, 39 P-38, no kill claims, 321 P-47
6 kill claims. No USAAF fighters MIA.
table is date / number of P-38 / P-38 kill claims / P-38 MIA //
number of P-47 / number of P-47 kill claims / P-47 MIA. Bomber
escort missions only
3 November / 45 / 3 / 0 // 333 / 11 / 2
5 November / 47 / 5 / 0 // 336 / 13 / 4
7 November / 0 / 0 / 0 // 283 / 1 / 0
11 November / 59 / 0 / 0 // 342 / 8 / 2
13 November / 45 / 7 / 7 // 345 / 3 / 3
19 November / 0 / 0 /0 // 288 / 0 / 0
26 November / 28 / 0 / 0 // 353 / 36 / 4
29 November / 38 / 2 / 7 // 314 / 13 / 9
30 November / 20 / 0 / 1 // 327 / 0 / 5
1 December / 42 / 0 / 5 // 374 / 20 / 2
The third set of figures is for P-51
5 December / 34 / 0 / 0 // 266 / 0 / 1 // 36 / 0 / 0
11 December / 31 / 0 / 0 // 313 / 20 / 3 // 44 / 0 / 1
13 December / 31 / 1 / 0 // 322 / 0 / 1 // 41 / 0 / 1
16 December / 31 / 0 / 0 // 131 / 1 / 1 // 39 / 1 / 0
20 December / 26 / 0 / 0 // 418 / 16 / 2 // 47 / 3 / 4
22 December / 40 / 0 / 2 // 448 / 9 / 2 // 28 / 6 / 0
24 December / 40 / 0 / 0 // 459 / 0 / 0 // 42 / 0 / 0
30 December / 79 / 0 / 0 // 463 / 8 / 11 // 41 / 0 / 2
31 December / 74 / 3 / 1 // 441 / 4 / 2 // 33 / 2 / 1
Totals, P-38 749 sorties, 21 kill claims, 23 MIA,
P-47 6,877 sorties, 169 kill claims, 54 MIA,
P-51 351 sorties, 12 kill claims, 9 MIA.
> The Fighters had to stay with the fighters.
Presumably the bombers.
> If the Luftwaffe went below 18,000 feet, the escort fighter had to
> disengage and return to the bombers. The Luftwaffe used dive tactics to
> hit the fighters and bombers and quickly get to below 18,000 feet where
> the escort fighter had to disengage and climb back to the bomber
> formation.
Actually the Luftwaffe tried a variety of tactics, head on, diving,
rockets and the big one for much of 1943, waiting for the escorts
to go home.
> The P-38 pilots learned to point their noses to the incoming Luftwaffe and
> fire on them before the Luftwaffe Fighters could start firing themselves.
> The P-47s excellent diving was neutralized by having to disengage at
> 18,000 feet.
When compared with the Fw190 the P-47 would initially lose ground
in a dive, before the extra weight came into play.
> The P-51B/C didn't really start coming into the war until early 1944 due
> to manufacture and training of pilots.
If you are going to say this then as far as the ETO is concerned the
same statement can be made of the P-38.
> Even in England, it took about 100 hours to get a pilot trained for combat
> in a P-51 in country.
Except for the many stories of rapid transition because of the
desperate need for more P-51s to be available.
> The P-51 got more training than the P-47 and the P-38 training was an
> embarrassment.
Actually no, US pilots arriving in England in early 1944 had the same
basic training, though time in operational aircraft could be low, lots
then found themselves having to suddenly switch from a P-38 or P-47
to a P-51.
> The P-51B/C arrived with two improvements to the theater; The Fighters
> started being able to pursue and destroy enemy fighters attacking the
> bombers and the arrival of the 115 octane fuel for the fighters.
The fuel upgrade for the 8th AF fighters was in the second half of 1944,
trials were run from March, change over from July to September. The
change in fighter escort tactics was in the first half of 1944.
> Both the P-47 and the P-38 no longer required the Antiknock in the fuel
> and both ran better at all altitudes.
In short no, they were tuned to 100 octane, then needed to be
changed to handle the new fuel in the second half of 1944 if
they used it. I am not sure whether the 9th AF units switched.
> With the many problems of the P-38 finally cured including the additional
> internal fuel (The H and up)
Again no, not for 8th AF escort missions.
> and the introduction of larger drop tanks for both the P-38 and the P-47,
> allowing them to go into ground attack into Germany as well as mix it up
> with the Luftwaffe.
The ground attack, or strafing, was part of the new escort tactics,
giving the fighters the freedom to seek combat after the escort
part of the mission was over.
> While the Allies fuel got better, at the same time, the Luftwaffe fuel was
> becoming problematic. In the end, the Allied Fighters ended up out
> numbering and out performing the Luftwaffe Fighters. Even, as one P-51
> pilot stated about his D, they were only 2% better than the Luftwaffe,
> that's still 2% better.
>
> Fetch, Keith, fetch.
Daryl will stumble into "help" the situation if he can ever figure out how
to tie his shoe laces, and also the meaning of fetch.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
news:koe321$3nt$1...@dont-email.me...
> Time to wind up Keith.
Seems to be the latest excuse to post a lot of fiction.
> I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and after the
> BoB.
> Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters.
a fellow named Doolittle had a lot to do with it.
The RAF was using 100 Octane for the aircraft of 3 squadrons
in November 1937, using fuel from refineries in the USA. A
meeting on 16 March 1939 decided to introduce the fuel into
general use with 16 fighter and 2 twin engined bomber squadrons
switched by September 1940, with an 800,000 ton stock built up.
Trials with a Spitfire began in September 1939, it cost around 53
pounds to do the conversion. Refineries at Adaban and in Trinidad
were under British control.
I have not yet checked the following claim about the actual
British supply sources in 1940,
"In November 1940, UK supplies of high octane aviation fuel
were derived from three Esso refineries handling Venezuelan
oil, two in the US and one in the Caribbean (about 45%), the
Anglo-Iranian Oil refinery at Abadan (25%) and Shell
refineries in Borneo (30%). Half the British supply was
non-US in origin.
Source for above: "The History of the British Petroleum
Company" (Cambridge University Press, 1994). You might also
consult the British Official History volume entitled "Oil",
by Payton-Smith, (HMSO, 1971)."
> But Britain was stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English Fighters used
> the 100 during BoB. In 1943, Britain began using a 125 octane fuel in
> fighters. England had enough 100 octane for an estimated 80 weeks of war.
in 1939/40, not 1943. By 1943 there was bulk shipment of 100
octane fuel to England and plans for a higher performance fuel.
> But the adding of the US flying out of England changed that estimate
> quickly.
From the various logistics histories, basically dealing with the build
up to D-Day.
When it came to bulk fuel stocks it was a steady juggle between tanker
allocations and consumption. Tankers could be "black oil" or "white oil"
and changing between the cargo types required an extensive tank
cleaning. So it was quite possible for an excess of white products like
avgas to build up while stocks of naval oil fuel went down. Fuel
consumption in the UK was generally below forecasts enabling stocks
to be built up even as the average weekly imports fell from around 364,000
tons/week in mid 1943 to 250,000 tons/week in the first two months of
1944. The trouble was tankers being in such short supply once they were
allocated to another run it was very hard to get them back, and consumption
rose significantly in early 1944. In the period March to May 1944 weekly
imports climbed to 402,000 tons but bunker fuel levels were still below the
October 1943 level and stocks of "white" products, like avgas and MT80
continued to fall. For the first time in the war avgas consumption exceeded
the forecast. The "white" fuel stocks were still below planned levels on
D-Day, the result was a major increase in shipments in the middle of the
year, putting stocks well above the agreed levels, some tankers were then
withdrawn and the feast/famine cycle began again. As an aside the UK
imports in 1938 had been an average of 223,000 tons per week.
MT80 was leaded, it became the standard fuel for motor vehicles,
which caused some problems for various army equipment meant
to use lower octane or unleaded fuels.
> This meant that the 87 octane with the anti knock addition had to be used
> in the two long ranged fighters. More on this later.
operations, the cost of the fuel, in both money and production
capacity, meant training flights in the US often used 87 Octane.
There was a set of rules to follow in using 100 Octane while in
the US.
> Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war.
> The 87 octane was superior in engines that weren't "Super Tuned" like the
> Merlin and the Allison in a fighter application. The Spits and Hurricanes
> both used 100 octane starting just before the BoB. The Bombers continued
> to use 87 octane for dependability sake.
> The English Inlines may have shared many of the same parts but each one
> was tuned differently to accept different fuels. For instance, in order
> to use 87 octane in a Spit it required anti knock formula to be added to
> the fuel.
for 100 octane, which meant you had to take care using them with
87 octane.
> It helped to prevent the pre detonation using the lower fuel. But the 87
> octane also lowered the performance on the Spit.
lower altitudes, it did not increase top speed at rated altitude. The
low level power boost helped take off performance, hence why
bombers used it.
> It had no affect on the bombers whether you used the 87 or the 100 octane.
> It's wasteful to run 100 octane or higher in the bomber since they are
> tuned and designed to use 87 octane.
were 87 octane but the fighter ones were 100? Is that the claim?
Two grades of fuel in use? The bombers doing without the better
take off performance and lower fuel weights per gallon?
> So the Spit and Hurricane continued using the 100 octane until the 115
> octane was available. But the Hurricane and the Spitfire ran 100 octane
> until the higher octane became available.
> In late 1943, the English introduced their "130" fuel with an octane
> rating of 115. This fuel was produced by 3 refineries in England and also
> was imported heavily from the US. This fuel was specifically tailored to
> High Performance Engines like the PW2800 and the Allison with the
> turbocharger. This is what they were tuned to use.
fuel that ultimately was only used by fighters, the bombers stayed
with 100 Octane.
> The retuning of the Spit and Hurricane and follow on English Fighters
> performance was increased as well by retuning the Merlins.
use the higher octane fuel.
> And the anti knock formula was not longer required. That 115 octane
> outlasted all the other fuels and is still being used today. Today's Avgas
> is 115 octane. In 1973/74 we ran it in our private vehicles since the
> cost of private gas skyrocketed so bad that none of us could afford to buy
> it. They opened an Avgas Station and sold us Avgas instead. Avgas is
> roughly equivalent to the old Premium from the old days. I don't know
> when that ceased as I PCS'd in March of 1974.
>
> The P-38 and the P-47 both required the anti knock add even using the 100
> octane since they were tuned for 115 and 125 (125 was not readily used
> until very late in the war by the US and Australia).
You are also saying in the 1940 to 1943 period with 100 octane as
standard the USAAF was turning out engines requiring 115, a rather
bad idea.
> The P-47 still knocked when using the 87 octane and got a little
> predetonation using the 100 even with the booster.
will have its problems.
> The lower octane fuels didn't hamper the Supercharger though
> and the P-47 only saw a slight reduction in Performance at certain
> altitudes but it cut down on their range and, over time, burnt valves.
> Let's face it, the R2800 outlived all the other engines and still being
> used today. It's hard to hurt that puppy (or big dog if you will).
more performance but came with a series of problems and in the end
a trade off, more maintenance.
There were no significant problems running the 100 Octane fuel,
except in P-38s on standard 8th AF escort missions.
> On the P-38 it was a complete disaster.
altitude escort work.
> IF all the P-38s that were assigned to Bomber Escort were to generate,
> they would still be out numbered by 2 1/2 to one by the Luftwaffe Fighters
> attacking the bombers.
P-38s. In any case there were more Luftwaffe fighters present
in Luftflotte Reich than just 2.5 times the number of P-38s in
operational USAAF fighter groups in the ETO.
> Unfortunately, half of the P-38s aborted for engine troubles including
> blown engines. There was separation of fuel and antiknock compound at
> higher altitudes. This jammed up the intercooler and the turbochargers on
> the Allisons. If the Allison was under heavy power, the engine would go
> to an extreme lean condition and burn valves, blow pistons, lose rods and
> even catch on fire. Many even had engine fires and couldn't continue and
> didn't make it home.
is 100 Octane, nothing to do with a new fuel.
> This means that the P-38 was facing 5 to 1 odds when it entered into
> Germany.
> The Luftwaffe was quite aware of this and would normally not attack the
> bombers until the P-47 was relieved by the gaggle of P-38s in 1943.
about what was going on.
P-38 operations with the 8th AF started on 15 October 1943.
First escort mission, 20 October, 39 P-38, no kill claims, 321 P-47
6 kill claims. No USAAF fighters MIA.
table is date / number of P-38 / P-38 kill claims / P-38 MIA //
number of P-47 / number of P-47 kill claims / P-47 MIA. Bomber
escort missions only
3 November / 45 / 3 / 0 // 333 / 11 / 2
5 November / 47 / 5 / 0 // 336 / 13 / 4
7 November / 0 / 0 / 0 // 283 / 1 / 0
11 November / 59 / 0 / 0 // 342 / 8 / 2
13 November / 45 / 7 / 7 // 345 / 3 / 3
19 November / 0 / 0 /0 // 288 / 0 / 0
26 November / 28 / 0 / 0 // 353 / 36 / 4
29 November / 38 / 2 / 7 // 314 / 13 / 9
30 November / 20 / 0 / 1 // 327 / 0 / 5
1 December / 42 / 0 / 5 // 374 / 20 / 2
The third set of figures is for P-51
5 December / 34 / 0 / 0 // 266 / 0 / 1 // 36 / 0 / 0
11 December / 31 / 0 / 0 // 313 / 20 / 3 // 44 / 0 / 1
13 December / 31 / 1 / 0 // 322 / 0 / 1 // 41 / 0 / 1
16 December / 31 / 0 / 0 // 131 / 1 / 1 // 39 / 1 / 0
20 December / 26 / 0 / 0 // 418 / 16 / 2 // 47 / 3 / 4
22 December / 40 / 0 / 2 // 448 / 9 / 2 // 28 / 6 / 0
24 December / 40 / 0 / 0 // 459 / 0 / 0 // 42 / 0 / 0
30 December / 79 / 0 / 0 // 463 / 8 / 11 // 41 / 0 / 2
31 December / 74 / 3 / 1 // 441 / 4 / 2 // 33 / 2 / 1
Totals, P-38 749 sorties, 21 kill claims, 23 MIA,
P-47 6,877 sorties, 169 kill claims, 54 MIA,
P-51 351 sorties, 12 kill claims, 9 MIA.
> The Fighters had to stay with the fighters.
> If the Luftwaffe went below 18,000 feet, the escort fighter had to
> disengage and return to the bombers. The Luftwaffe used dive tactics to
> hit the fighters and bombers and quickly get to below 18,000 feet where
> the escort fighter had to disengage and climb back to the bomber
> formation.
rockets and the big one for much of 1943, waiting for the escorts
to go home.
> The P-38 pilots learned to point their noses to the incoming Luftwaffe and
> fire on them before the Luftwaffe Fighters could start firing themselves.
> The P-47s excellent diving was neutralized by having to disengage at
> 18,000 feet.
in a dive, before the extra weight came into play.
> The P-51B/C didn't really start coming into the war until early 1944 due
> to manufacture and training of pilots.
same statement can be made of the P-38.
> Even in England, it took about 100 hours to get a pilot trained for combat
> in a P-51 in country.
desperate need for more P-51s to be available.
> The P-51 got more training than the P-47 and the P-38 training was an
> embarrassment.
basic training, though time in operational aircraft could be low, lots
then found themselves having to suddenly switch from a P-38 or P-47
to a P-51.
> The P-51B/C arrived with two improvements to the theater; The Fighters
> started being able to pursue and destroy enemy fighters attacking the
> bombers and the arrival of the 115 octane fuel for the fighters.
trials were run from March, change over from July to September. The
change in fighter escort tactics was in the first half of 1944.
> Both the P-47 and the P-38 no longer required the Antiknock in the fuel
> and both ran better at all altitudes.
changed to handle the new fuel in the second half of 1944 if
they used it. I am not sure whether the 9th AF units switched.
> With the many problems of the P-38 finally cured including the additional
> internal fuel (The H and up)
> and the introduction of larger drop tanks for both the P-38 and the P-47,
> allowing them to go into ground attack into Germany as well as mix it up
> with the Luftwaffe.
giving the fighters the freedom to seek combat after the escort
part of the mission was over.
> While the Allies fuel got better, at the same time, the Luftwaffe fuel was
> becoming problematic. In the end, the Allied Fighters ended up out
> numbering and out performing the Luftwaffe Fighters. Even, as one P-51
> pilot stated about his D, they were only 2% better than the Luftwaffe,
> that's still 2% better.
>
> Fetch, Keith, fetch.
to tie his shoe laces, and also the meaning of fetch.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Daryl
Jun 2, 2013, 6:48:29 PM6/2/13
to
It's so easy to wind up the English. I won't answer Keith. This one is
more interesting.
On 6/2/2013 9:03 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> "Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
> news:koe321$3nt$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Time to wind up Keith.
>
> Seems to be the latest excuse to post a lot of fiction.
Thanks, I appreciate that. Except, the facts have been obscured. Yours
is no more accurate than mine.
>
>> I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and after the
>> BoB.
>
> And stumbled straight back out again without any understanding.
Thank you for your vote of confidence.
>
>> Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters.
>
> The USAAF was the first to introduce 100 Octane in quantity,
> a fellow named Doolittle had a lot to do with it.
>
> The RAF was using 100 Octane for the aircraft of 3 squadrons
> in November 1937, using fuel from refineries in the USA. A
> meeting on 16 March 1939 decided to introduce the fuel into
> general use with 16 fighter and 2 twin engined bomber squadrons
> switched by September 1940, with an 800,000 ton stock built up.
> Trials with a Spitfire began in September 1939, it cost around 53
> pounds to do the conversion. Refineries at Adaban and in Trinidad
> were under British control.
>
> I have not yet checked the following claim about the actual
> British supply sources in 1940,
>
> "In November 1940, UK supplies of high octane aviation fuel
> were derived from three Esso refineries handling Venezuelan
> oil, two in the US and one in the Caribbean (about 45%), the
> Anglo-Iranian Oil refinery at Abadan (25%) and Shell
> refineries in Borneo (30%). Half the British supply was
> non-US in origin.
>
> Source for above: "The History of the British Petroleum
> Company" (Cambridge University Press, 1994). You might also
> consult the British Official History volume entitled "Oil",
> by Payton-Smith, (HMSO, 1971)."
You just reinforced what I already stated. Going into the war, both 100
and 87 were being used by the RAF depending on the aircraft type and
command.
>
>> But Britain was stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English Fighters used
>> the 100 during BoB. In 1943, Britain began using a 125 octane fuel in
>> fighters. England had enough 100 octane for an estimated 80 weeks of war.
>
> The 80 weeks of war stockpile refers to the planned stockpiles
> in 1939/40, not 1943. By 1943 there was bulk shipment of 100
> octane fuel to England and plans for a higher performance fuel.
Noper, the RAF went into B0B with an 80 week war stockpile of 100 octane
at that current fuel usage. I am saying that the RAF planned well for
it's fighter groups and that was one of the reasons the BoB was a draw.
That 80 week stockpile rule goes back to just before the B0B and it
was dependent on the planned usage, not the tonnage of fuel in it. The
80 week rule didn't change in 1943. It just changed from 100 octane to
115 octane. And the usage also changed. Obviously, the RAF planners
were a lot smarter than you are. In fact, those old, grey haired dudes
were a lot smarter than the AAF planners and even the RAF planners of today.
>
>> But the adding of the US flying out of England changed that estimate
>> quickly.
>
> Not until 1944.
Oh, that's right, the US didn't enter the war until 1944 and didn't do
any daylight bombings either. Newflash: The estimate changes every
month or so to keep the 80 week stockpile current. This includes the
addition of AAF aircraft starting in 1942. And the addition of the
Polish, French and other flyers operating out of England.
>
> From the various logistics histories, basically dealing with the build
> up to D-Day.
I am sure that the logistics goes further back than that from the
English Planners. Starting right after the Dunkirk battle. Had it not,
the Germans would have successfully invaded England.
>
> When it came to bulk fuel stocks it was a steady juggle between tanker
> allocations and consumption. Tankers could be "black oil" or "white oil"
> and changing between the cargo types required an extensive tank
> cleaning. So it was quite possible for an excess of white products like
> avgas to build up while stocks of naval oil fuel went down. Fuel
> consumption in the UK was generally below forecasts enabling stocks
> to be built up even as the average weekly imports fell from around 364,000
> tons/week in mid 1943 to 250,000 tons/week in the first two months of
> 1944. The trouble was tankers being in such short supply once they were
> allocated to another run it was very hard to get them back, and consumption
> rose significantly in early 1944. In the period March to May 1944 weekly
> imports climbed to 402,000 tons but bunker fuel levels were still below the
> October 1943 level and stocks of "white" products, like avgas and MT80
> continued to fall. For the first time in the war avgas consumption exceeded
> the forecast. The "white" fuel stocks were still below planned levels on
> D-Day, the result was a major increase in shipments in the middle of the
> year, putting stocks well above the agreed levels, some tankers were then
> withdrawn and the feast/famine cycle began again. As an aside the UK
> imports in 1938 had been an average of 223,000 tons per week.
>
> MT80 was leaded, it became the standard fuel for motor vehicles,
> which caused some problems for various army equipment meant
> to use lower octane or unleaded fuels.
And you still haven't made any comments to say that the 80 week war
stockpile was ever changed. It wasn't.
>
>> This meant that the 87 octane with the anti knock addition had to be used
>> in the two long ranged fighters. More on this later.
>
> No, the USAAF used 100 Octane fuels for its combat aircraft on
> operations, the cost of the fuel, in both money and production
> capacity, meant training flights in the US often used 87 Octane.
> There was a set of rules to follow in using 100 Octane while in
> the US.
When training with a front lined fighter, the US used 100 and 115
octane. In the hot fighters, they used 115 and 125. In the Pacific,
the AAF and others used 115 since it was provided by the US. In the
MTO, they used 115 as well. The only theater that the English
controlled the fuel was the ETO. And it affected the High Performance
US engines quite a bit. Especially the Turbocharged Engines that had
higher Compression Ratios.
>
>> Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war.
>
> Not western allied bombers.
Until the 100 octane was brought up to speed, they certainly did use 87
octane. Thinking that the change over was done over night is an Arnt
moment.
>
>> The 87 octane was superior in engines that weren't "Super Tuned" like the
>> Merlin and the Allison in a fighter application. The Spits and Hurricanes
>> both used 100 octane starting just before the BoB. The Bombers continued
>> to use 87 octane for dependability sake.
>
> Again no.
You have to retune and change parts out like jets, etc. to effectively
use a higher octane. Just like auto and truck engines. Physics hasn't
been rewritten to please you.
>
>> The English Inlines may have shared many of the same parts but each one
>> was tuned differently to accept different fuels. For instance, in order
>> to use 87 octane in a Spit it required anti knock formula to be added to
>> the fuel.
>
> The early Merlins could handle 87 octane, the later ones were meant
> for 100 octane, which meant you had to take care using them with
> 87 octane.
>
>> It helped to prevent the pre detonation using the lower fuel. But the 87
>> octane also lowered the performance on the Spit.
>
> Putting higher octane rating fuels into Spitfires increased speed at
> lower altitudes, it did not increase top speed at rated altitude. The
> low level power boost helped take off performance, hence why
> bombers used it.
You already stated that 87 wasn't used in Western Bombers yet now you
say it was. Of course it was while the 100 octane was ramping up. You
also stated that there wasn't any difference between a merlin bomber
engine and a Merlin Fighter Engine. There was quite a bit of
difference. It's like using the Truck 413 engine versus the engine that
was in the Cross Ram 300J Chrysler engine. They shared the block, rods,
and crank. Nothing else on the basic engine including the pistons and
heads.
>
>> It had no affect on the bombers whether you used the 87 or the 100 octane.
>
> The short answer here is no.
Unless you retuned it for the higher octane, it did no good and just
dumped more fuel out the tail pipe.
>
>> It's wasteful to run 100 octane or higher in the bomber since they are
>> tuned and designed to use 87 octane.
>
> So the idea is the Merlins fitted to Halifaxes and Lancasters etc.
> were 87 octane but the fighter ones were 100? Is that the claim?
> Two grades of fuel in use? The bombers doing without the better
> take off performance and lower fuel weights per gallon?
>
>> So the Spit and Hurricane continued using the 100 octane until the 115
>> octane was available. But the Hurricane and the Spitfire ran 100 octane
>> until the higher octane became available.
>
> This seems to be a duplication.
And it duplicated the facts.
>
>> In late 1943, the English introduced their "130" fuel with an octane
>> rating of 115. This fuel was produced by 3 refineries in England and also
>> was imported heavily from the US. This fuel was specifically tailored to
>> High Performance Engines like the PW2800 and the Allison with the
>> turbocharger. This is what they were tuned to use.
>
> In late 1943 there was a plan to introduce a higher performance
> fuel that ultimately was only used by fighters, the bombers stayed
> with 100 Octane.
Until the 100 octane was up to production and storage rates, they used
100 for the fighters and some bombers and 87 for all others.
When the 115 was introduced, this is when the 100 was used in the
bombers and the 115 went to the fighters. And that happened in early
1944. Yes, they planned on something like this all along. It started
in 1937.
>
>> The retuning of the Spit and Hurricane and follow on English Fighters
>> performance was increased as well by retuning the Merlins.
>
> Hurricanes in 1944 were using the 1940 Merlin XX, they did not
> use the higher octane fuel.
They used the 100 octane in 1940 just like the Spit even though there
was a much larger surplus of 87 octane. By 1944, the Hurricane entered
into the same realm as the P-40 who were both eclipsed by newer fighters
who required the 115 and 125.
>
>> And the anti knock formula was not longer required. That 115 octane
>> outlasted all the other fuels and is still being used today. Today's Avgas
>> is 115 octane. In 1973/74 we ran it in our private vehicles since the
>> cost of private gas skyrocketed so bad that none of us could afford to buy
>> it. They opened an Avgas Station and sold us Avgas instead. Avgas is
>> roughly equivalent to the old Premium from the old days. I don't know
>> when that ceased as I PCS'd in March of 1974.
>>
>> The P-38 and the P-47 both required the anti knock add even using the 100
>> octane since they were tuned for 115 and 125 (125 was not readily used
>> until very late in the war by the US and Australia).
>
> What you are doing here is confusing rich and lean mixture ratings.
> You are also saying in the 1940 to 1943 period with 100 octane as
> standard the USAAF was turning out engines requiring 115, a rather
> bad idea.
115 was used by the US in the MTO, Pacific, CBI starting in 1942. YEs,
they still used 100 on their bombers and some "Not Frontline" fighters
but NEVER 87 octane.
>
>> The P-47 still knocked when using the 87 octane and got a little
>> predetonation using the 100 even with the booster.
>
> Given the P-47 was supposed to use 100 octane then 87 octane
> will have its problems.
The P-47 was adjusted to 115. It got by with the 100 but it still had a
bit of a fuel detonation problem. The late model P-47s were tuned for
125 also sometimes known as 150. But they could get by on 115. Putting
100 octane in them will cause all kinds of problems. BTW, the late
model engines from England would have had the same problem with 100
octane as well since they were tuned and designed for higher octane.
>
>> The lower octane fuels didn't hamper the Supercharger though
>
> This will certainly be news to many in the engineering trade.
Using a Supercharger requires lower compression than the Turbocharger.
Hence the engine is less likely to catch on fire.
>
>> and the P-47 only saw a slight reduction in Performance at certain
>> altitudes but it cut down on their range and, over time, burnt valves.
>
> As noted 87 octane was used in the US but 100 octane in combat.
And the P-47 was tuned and designed for 115.
>
>> Let's face it, the R2800 outlived all the other engines and still being
>> used today. It's hard to hurt that puppy (or big dog if you will).
>
> In 1944 the 8th AF fighters went over to higher octane, which gave
> more performance but came with a series of problems and in the end
> a trade off, more maintenance.
Not in the P-47 or the P-38s case,
>
> There were no significant problems running the 100 Octane fuel,
> except in P-38s on standard 8th AF escort missions.
And why is that? Higher compression and turbochargers. From the E
forward, it required 115 or higher. And the Antiknock Addon to the 87
and 100 octane would seperate at high altitude or heavy load. That
would cause a super lean mixture and even engine fires. Good reasons to
abort.
>
>> On the P-38 it was a complete disaster.
>
> The more powerful fuels arrived after the P-38 was taken off high
> altitude escort work.
Two things happened at about the same time. And until the other thing
happened, the P-38 was still the primary long ranged bomber escort.
1. Higher octane arrived in force by early 1944.
2. The P-51B arrived finally in a large force and the training was
churning out good pilots.
Neither of these two things happened over night. Until then, the P-38
was the only escort fighter available for operation over Germany. And
they didn't have enough of them nor enough trained pilots to fly them if
they had them.
>
>> IF all the P-38s that were assigned to Bomber Escort were to generate,
>> they would still be out numbered by 2 1/2 to one by the Luftwaffe Fighters
>> attacking the bombers.
>
> I like this, all the Luftwaffe fighters are supposed to meet all the
> P-38s. In any case there were more Luftwaffe fighters present
> in Luftflotte Reich than just 2.5 times the number of P-38s in
> operational USAAF fighter groups in the ETO.
Nice caviat. If all the P-38s in the ETO were launched and all the
Luftwaffe 109s and 190s were launched and they met, the P-38 would be
facing 16 to 1 odds against them. The 5 to one odds were when the
Luftwaffe Fighters attacked the bomber formation. Not the total of
aircraft.
>
>> Unfortunately, half of the P-38s aborted for engine troubles including
>> blown engines. There was separation of fuel and antiknock compound at
>> higher altitudes. This jammed up the intercooler and the turbochargers on
>> the Allisons. If the Allison was under heavy power, the engine would go
>> to an extreme lean condition and burn valves, blow pistons, lose rods and
>> even catch on fire. Many even had engine fires and couldn't continue and
>> didn't make it home.
>
> All of this was done on the standard allied fuel since 1939/40, that
> is 100 Octane, nothing to do with a new fuel.
The P-38 was NEVER designed to use the 100 octane. In order to use it,
an antiknock compound had to be added and there were some real problems
with that fuel.
>
>> This means that the P-38 was facing 5 to 1 odds when it entered into
>> Germany.
>
> In short no.
Even shorter, yes.
>
>> The Luftwaffe was quite aware of this and would normally not attack the
>> bombers until the P-47 was relieved by the gaggle of P-38s in 1943.
>
> Actually once again you really are telling us you have no idea
> about what was going on.
>
> P-38 operations with the 8th AF started on 15 October 1943.
>
> First escort mission, 20 October, 39 P-38, no kill claims, 321 P-47
> 6 kill claims. No USAAF fighters MIA.
>
> table is date / number of P-38 / P-38 kill claims / P-38 MIA //
> number of P-47 / number of P-47 kill claims / P-47 MIA. Bomber
> escort missions only
>
> 3 November / 45 / 3 / 0 // 333 / 11 / 2
> 5 November / 47 / 5 / 0 // 336 / 13 / 4
> 7 November / 0 / 0 / 0 // 283 / 1 / 0
> 11 November / 59 / 0 / 0 // 342 / 8 / 2
> 13 November / 45 / 7 / 7 // 345 / 3 / 3
> 19 November / 0 / 0 /0 // 288 / 0 / 0
> 26 November / 28 / 0 / 0 // 353 / 36 / 4
> 29 November / 38 / 2 / 7 // 314 / 13 / 9
> 30 November / 20 / 0 / 1 // 327 / 0 / 5
> 1 December / 42 / 0 / 5 // 374 / 20 / 2
Let's analyze these figures.
The majority of the target were NOT in Germany. That means the P-47 was
quite capable of escorting the bombers most of the way. Your chart
doesn't state WHERE the bombers were headed at all. And there were more
P-47s present in 1943 than P-38s in the MTO. Another factor left out.
This makes your whole argument null.
>
> The third set of figures is for P-51
<snipped as to having no relevance>
>
>> The Fighters had to stay with the fighters.
>
> Presumably the bombers.
Yes, typo error.
>
>> If the Luftwaffe went below 18,000 feet, the escort fighter had to
>> disengage and return to the bombers. The Luftwaffe used dive tactics to
>> hit the fighters and bombers and quickly get to below 18,000 feet where
>> the escort fighter had to disengage and climb back to the bomber
>> formation.
>
> Actually the Luftwaffe tried a variety of tactics, head on, diving,
> rockets and the big one for much of 1943, waiting for the escorts
> to go home.
>
>> The P-38 pilots learned to point their noses to the incoming Luftwaffe and
>> fire on them before the Luftwaffe Fighters could start firing themselves.
>> The P-47s excellent diving was neutralized by having to disengage at
>> 18,000 feet.
>
> When compared with the Fw190 the P-47 would initially lose ground
> in a dive, before the extra weight came into play.
>
>> The P-51B/C didn't really start coming into the war until early 1944 due
>> to manufacture and training of pilots.
>
> If you are going to say this then as far as the ETO is concerned the
> same statement can be made of the P-38.
Ah, yes, let's put the P-38 into that time machine of yours. And let's
give the P-38 the upgrades it needed early on, let's get those pilots
properly trained, etc.. The reason many of the needed changes starting
to show up in the P-38 H was the fact that the War Planning Commission
turned them down. 1942 they modified an E model to accept the new
engine that later into the H model, put in the changed Lockheed wanted
to simplify going from cruise to combat mode, installed the Paddle
Hamilton Standard 4 bladed Prop along with the engine cowling changes to
accept the larger spinner, and more. Only one was made. In the AAF
Tests in September of 1943, it's speed was 432 mph, with a predicted top
speed of 450 mph, it was judged at that time the best Allied Fighter in
existance.
In order to make it happen, two things.
First, the Lockheed assembly lines would have to be shut down for 2 to 3
weeks. The War Planning Board would allow that to happen. The P-38 was
still the only long ranged fighter to go all the way to Berlin and Back
and they didn't have enough of them when you include the MTO, PTO and
CBI. Lockheed presented just changing the gearbox and propeller that
would have greatly increased the P-38 performance by themselves. The
War Planning said no shut down of manufacture. Vultee was making the
P-38 in smaller numbers. The War Planning wouldn't even consider
shutting that down to make the changes like they did when the P-51B/C
was changing over to the D model.
Second, The War Planning Commission didn't believe that Allison could
keep it's production promise on the new F-15 engine required for the
complete K production.
It didn't seem to affect the L model too much using that same engine but
without the Hamilton Standard Prop and gearbox change, it was 7 mph
slower and climbed slower. The good news is, many of the changes they
wanted to do in the K went into the J-25 and L such as making it
simpler to change from cruise to combat quickly. They could have had
these changes as early as the G model but didn't. How many pilots died
because of that poor planning.
>
>> Even in England, it took about 100 hours to get a pilot trained for combat
>> in a P-51 in country.
>
> Except for the many stories of rapid transition because of the
> desperate need for more P-51s to be available.
At least the P-51 Jocks trained on P-51s stateside. Many of the P-38
Pilots were converted bomber twin engine pilots done in theater (ETO).
OR were changed from a P-39 directly into the P-38 in theater (ETO and
MTO).
>
>> The P-51 got more training than the P-47 and the P-38 training was an
>> embarrassment.
>
> Actually no, US pilots arriving in England in early 1944 had the same
> basic training, though time in operational aircraft could be low, lots
> then found themselves having to suddenly switch from a P-38 or P-47
> to a P-51.
1944. Look at the date. It's a damned site easier to change from the
P-38 to a P-51 than it is to change from a P-39 to a P-38. Same goes
for changing from the P-47 to the P-51 which was easier still. And
those were experienced pilots, not novices directly from the US.
>
>> The P-51B/C arrived with two improvements to the theater; The Fighters
>> started being able to pursue and destroy enemy fighters attacking the
>> bombers and the arrival of the 115 octane fuel for the fighters.
>
> The fuel upgrade for the 8th AF fighters was in the second half of 1944,
> trials were run from March, change over from July to September. The
> change in fighter escort tactics was in the first half of 1944.
Very near the same time in a couple or three months.
>
>> Both the P-47 and the P-38 no longer required the Antiknock in the fuel
>> and both ran better at all altitudes.
>
> In short no, they were tuned to 100 octane, then needed to be
> changed to handle the new fuel in the second half of 1944 if
> they used it. I am not sure whether the 9th AF units switched.
Both were tuned what was being used in all the other theaters which was
115 octane. They both needed the antiknock add to run the 100 octane.
>
>> With the many problems of the P-38 finally cured including the additional
>> internal fuel (The H and up)
>
> Again no, not for 8th AF escort missions.
There were no H Models and up in the MTO? Right, there old buddy.
>
>> and the introduction of larger drop tanks for both the P-38 and the P-47,
>> allowing them to go into ground attack into Germany as well as mix it up
>> with the Luftwaffe.
>
> The ground attack, or strafing, was part of the new escort tactics,
> giving the fighters the freedom to seek combat after the escort
> part of the mission was over.
With the 167 gallon twin tanks for the P-47 and the twin 300 gallon
tanks for the P-38 meant they both could raise a lot of hell on their
way back if they didn't meet enemy fighters and had to drop their tanks.
>
>> While the Allies fuel got better, at the same time, the Luftwaffe fuel was
>> becoming problematic. In the end, the Allied Fighters ended up out
>> numbering and out performing the Luftwaffe Fighters. Even, as one P-51
>> pilot stated about his D, they were only 2% better than the Luftwaffe,
>> that's still 2% better.
>>
>> Fetch, Keith, fetch.
>
> Daryl will stumble into "help" the situation if he can ever figure out how
> to tie his shoe laces, and also the meaning of fetch.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.
Fetch, Jeffy, Fetch.
daryl
more interesting.
On 6/2/2013 9:03 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> "Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
> news:koe321$3nt$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Time to wind up Keith.
>
> Seems to be the latest excuse to post a lot of fiction.
is no more accurate than mine.
>
>> I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and after the
>> BoB.
>
> And stumbled straight back out again without any understanding.
>
>> Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters.
>
> The USAAF was the first to introduce 100 Octane in quantity,
> a fellow named Doolittle had a lot to do with it.
>
> The RAF was using 100 Octane for the aircraft of 3 squadrons
> in November 1937, using fuel from refineries in the USA. A
> meeting on 16 March 1939 decided to introduce the fuel into
> general use with 16 fighter and 2 twin engined bomber squadrons
> switched by September 1940, with an 800,000 ton stock built up.
> Trials with a Spitfire began in September 1939, it cost around 53
> pounds to do the conversion. Refineries at Adaban and in Trinidad
> were under British control.
>
> I have not yet checked the following claim about the actual
> British supply sources in 1940,
>
> "In November 1940, UK supplies of high octane aviation fuel
> were derived from three Esso refineries handling Venezuelan
> oil, two in the US and one in the Caribbean (about 45%), the
> Anglo-Iranian Oil refinery at Abadan (25%) and Shell
> refineries in Borneo (30%). Half the British supply was
> non-US in origin.
>
> Source for above: "The History of the British Petroleum
> Company" (Cambridge University Press, 1994). You might also
> consult the British Official History volume entitled "Oil",
> by Payton-Smith, (HMSO, 1971)."
and 87 were being used by the RAF depending on the aircraft type and
command.
>
>> But Britain was stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English Fighters used
>> the 100 during BoB. In 1943, Britain began using a 125 octane fuel in
>> fighters. England had enough 100 octane for an estimated 80 weeks of war.
>
> The 80 weeks of war stockpile refers to the planned stockpiles
> in 1939/40, not 1943. By 1943 there was bulk shipment of 100
> octane fuel to England and plans for a higher performance fuel.
at that current fuel usage. I am saying that the RAF planned well for
it's fighter groups and that was one of the reasons the BoB was a draw.
That 80 week stockpile rule goes back to just before the B0B and it
was dependent on the planned usage, not the tonnage of fuel in it. The
80 week rule didn't change in 1943. It just changed from 100 octane to
115 octane. And the usage also changed. Obviously, the RAF planners
were a lot smarter than you are. In fact, those old, grey haired dudes
were a lot smarter than the AAF planners and even the RAF planners of today.
>
>> But the adding of the US flying out of England changed that estimate
>> quickly.
>
> Not until 1944.
any daylight bombings either. Newflash: The estimate changes every
month or so to keep the 80 week stockpile current. This includes the
addition of AAF aircraft starting in 1942. And the addition of the
Polish, French and other flyers operating out of England.
>
> From the various logistics histories, basically dealing with the build
> up to D-Day.
English Planners. Starting right after the Dunkirk battle. Had it not,
the Germans would have successfully invaded England.
>
> When it came to bulk fuel stocks it was a steady juggle between tanker
> allocations and consumption. Tankers could be "black oil" or "white oil"
> and changing between the cargo types required an extensive tank
> cleaning. So it was quite possible for an excess of white products like
> avgas to build up while stocks of naval oil fuel went down. Fuel
> consumption in the UK was generally below forecasts enabling stocks
> to be built up even as the average weekly imports fell from around 364,000
> tons/week in mid 1943 to 250,000 tons/week in the first two months of
> 1944. The trouble was tankers being in such short supply once they were
> allocated to another run it was very hard to get them back, and consumption
> rose significantly in early 1944. In the period March to May 1944 weekly
> imports climbed to 402,000 tons but bunker fuel levels were still below the
> October 1943 level and stocks of "white" products, like avgas and MT80
> continued to fall. For the first time in the war avgas consumption exceeded
> the forecast. The "white" fuel stocks were still below planned levels on
> D-Day, the result was a major increase in shipments in the middle of the
> year, putting stocks well above the agreed levels, some tankers were then
> withdrawn and the feast/famine cycle began again. As an aside the UK
> imports in 1938 had been an average of 223,000 tons per week.
>
> MT80 was leaded, it became the standard fuel for motor vehicles,
> which caused some problems for various army equipment meant
> to use lower octane or unleaded fuels.
stockpile was ever changed. It wasn't.
>
>> This meant that the 87 octane with the anti knock addition had to be used
>> in the two long ranged fighters. More on this later.
>
> No, the USAAF used 100 Octane fuels for its combat aircraft on
> operations, the cost of the fuel, in both money and production
> capacity, meant training flights in the US often used 87 Octane.
> There was a set of rules to follow in using 100 Octane while in
> the US.
octane. In the hot fighters, they used 115 and 125. In the Pacific,
the AAF and others used 115 since it was provided by the US. In the
MTO, they used 115 as well. The only theater that the English
controlled the fuel was the ETO. And it affected the High Performance
US engines quite a bit. Especially the Turbocharged Engines that had
higher Compression Ratios.
>
>> Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war.
>
> Not western allied bombers.
octane. Thinking that the change over was done over night is an Arnt
moment.
>
>> The 87 octane was superior in engines that weren't "Super Tuned" like the
>> Merlin and the Allison in a fighter application. The Spits and Hurricanes
>> both used 100 octane starting just before the BoB. The Bombers continued
>> to use 87 octane for dependability sake.
>
> Again no.
use a higher octane. Just like auto and truck engines. Physics hasn't
been rewritten to please you.
>
>> The English Inlines may have shared many of the same parts but each one
>> was tuned differently to accept different fuels. For instance, in order
>> to use 87 octane in a Spit it required anti knock formula to be added to
>> the fuel.
>
> The early Merlins could handle 87 octane, the later ones were meant
> for 100 octane, which meant you had to take care using them with
> 87 octane.
>
>> It helped to prevent the pre detonation using the lower fuel. But the 87
>> octane also lowered the performance on the Spit.
>
> Putting higher octane rating fuels into Spitfires increased speed at
> lower altitudes, it did not increase top speed at rated altitude. The
> low level power boost helped take off performance, hence why
> bombers used it.
say it was. Of course it was while the 100 octane was ramping up. You
also stated that there wasn't any difference between a merlin bomber
engine and a Merlin Fighter Engine. There was quite a bit of
difference. It's like using the Truck 413 engine versus the engine that
was in the Cross Ram 300J Chrysler engine. They shared the block, rods,
and crank. Nothing else on the basic engine including the pistons and
heads.
>
>> It had no affect on the bombers whether you used the 87 or the 100 octane.
>
> The short answer here is no.
dumped more fuel out the tail pipe.
>
>> It's wasteful to run 100 octane or higher in the bomber since they are
>> tuned and designed to use 87 octane.
>
> So the idea is the Merlins fitted to Halifaxes and Lancasters etc.
> were 87 octane but the fighter ones were 100? Is that the claim?
> Two grades of fuel in use? The bombers doing without the better
> take off performance and lower fuel weights per gallon?
>
>> So the Spit and Hurricane continued using the 100 octane until the 115
>> octane was available. But the Hurricane and the Spitfire ran 100 octane
>> until the higher octane became available.
>
> This seems to be a duplication.
>
>> In late 1943, the English introduced their "130" fuel with an octane
>> rating of 115. This fuel was produced by 3 refineries in England and also
>> was imported heavily from the US. This fuel was specifically tailored to
>> High Performance Engines like the PW2800 and the Allison with the
>> turbocharger. This is what they were tuned to use.
>
> In late 1943 there was a plan to introduce a higher performance
> fuel that ultimately was only used by fighters, the bombers stayed
> with 100 Octane.
100 for the fighters and some bombers and 87 for all others.
When the 115 was introduced, this is when the 100 was used in the
bombers and the 115 went to the fighters. And that happened in early
1944. Yes, they planned on something like this all along. It started
in 1937.
>
>> The retuning of the Spit and Hurricane and follow on English Fighters
>> performance was increased as well by retuning the Merlins.
>
> Hurricanes in 1944 were using the 1940 Merlin XX, they did not
> use the higher octane fuel.
was a much larger surplus of 87 octane. By 1944, the Hurricane entered
into the same realm as the P-40 who were both eclipsed by newer fighters
who required the 115 and 125.
>
>> And the anti knock formula was not longer required. That 115 octane
>> outlasted all the other fuels and is still being used today. Today's Avgas
>> is 115 octane. In 1973/74 we ran it in our private vehicles since the
>> cost of private gas skyrocketed so bad that none of us could afford to buy
>> it. They opened an Avgas Station and sold us Avgas instead. Avgas is
>> roughly equivalent to the old Premium from the old days. I don't know
>> when that ceased as I PCS'd in March of 1974.
>>
>> The P-38 and the P-47 both required the anti knock add even using the 100
>> octane since they were tuned for 115 and 125 (125 was not readily used
>> until very late in the war by the US and Australia).
>
> What you are doing here is confusing rich and lean mixture ratings.
> You are also saying in the 1940 to 1943 period with 100 octane as
> standard the USAAF was turning out engines requiring 115, a rather
> bad idea.
they still used 100 on their bombers and some "Not Frontline" fighters
but NEVER 87 octane.
>
>> The P-47 still knocked when using the 87 octane and got a little
>> predetonation using the 100 even with the booster.
>
> Given the P-47 was supposed to use 100 octane then 87 octane
> will have its problems.
bit of a fuel detonation problem. The late model P-47s were tuned for
125 also sometimes known as 150. But they could get by on 115. Putting
100 octane in them will cause all kinds of problems. BTW, the late
model engines from England would have had the same problem with 100
octane as well since they were tuned and designed for higher octane.
>
>> The lower octane fuels didn't hamper the Supercharger though
>
> This will certainly be news to many in the engineering trade.
Hence the engine is less likely to catch on fire.
>
>> and the P-47 only saw a slight reduction in Performance at certain
>> altitudes but it cut down on their range and, over time, burnt valves.
>
> As noted 87 octane was used in the US but 100 octane in combat.
>
>> Let's face it, the R2800 outlived all the other engines and still being
>> used today. It's hard to hurt that puppy (or big dog if you will).
>
> In 1944 the 8th AF fighters went over to higher octane, which gave
> more performance but came with a series of problems and in the end
> a trade off, more maintenance.
>
> There were no significant problems running the 100 Octane fuel,
> except in P-38s on standard 8th AF escort missions.
forward, it required 115 or higher. And the Antiknock Addon to the 87
and 100 octane would seperate at high altitude or heavy load. That
would cause a super lean mixture and even engine fires. Good reasons to
abort.
>
>> On the P-38 it was a complete disaster.
>
> The more powerful fuels arrived after the P-38 was taken off high
> altitude escort work.
happened, the P-38 was still the primary long ranged bomber escort.
1. Higher octane arrived in force by early 1944.
2. The P-51B arrived finally in a large force and the training was
churning out good pilots.
Neither of these two things happened over night. Until then, the P-38
was the only escort fighter available for operation over Germany. And
they didn't have enough of them nor enough trained pilots to fly them if
they had them.
>
>> IF all the P-38s that were assigned to Bomber Escort were to generate,
>> they would still be out numbered by 2 1/2 to one by the Luftwaffe Fighters
>> attacking the bombers.
>
> I like this, all the Luftwaffe fighters are supposed to meet all the
> P-38s. In any case there were more Luftwaffe fighters present
> in Luftflotte Reich than just 2.5 times the number of P-38s in
> operational USAAF fighter groups in the ETO.
Luftwaffe 109s and 190s were launched and they met, the P-38 would be
facing 16 to 1 odds against them. The 5 to one odds were when the
Luftwaffe Fighters attacked the bomber formation. Not the total of
aircraft.
>
>> Unfortunately, half of the P-38s aborted for engine troubles including
>> blown engines. There was separation of fuel and antiknock compound at
>> higher altitudes. This jammed up the intercooler and the turbochargers on
>> the Allisons. If the Allison was under heavy power, the engine would go
>> to an extreme lean condition and burn valves, blow pistons, lose rods and
>> even catch on fire. Many even had engine fires and couldn't continue and
>> didn't make it home.
>
> All of this was done on the standard allied fuel since 1939/40, that
> is 100 Octane, nothing to do with a new fuel.
an antiknock compound had to be added and there were some real problems
with that fuel.
>
>> This means that the P-38 was facing 5 to 1 odds when it entered into
>> Germany.
>
> In short no.
>
>> The Luftwaffe was quite aware of this and would normally not attack the
>> bombers until the P-47 was relieved by the gaggle of P-38s in 1943.
>
> Actually once again you really are telling us you have no idea
> about what was going on.
>
> P-38 operations with the 8th AF started on 15 October 1943.
>
> First escort mission, 20 October, 39 P-38, no kill claims, 321 P-47
> 6 kill claims. No USAAF fighters MIA.
>
> table is date / number of P-38 / P-38 kill claims / P-38 MIA //
> number of P-47 / number of P-47 kill claims / P-47 MIA. Bomber
> escort missions only
>
> 3 November / 45 / 3 / 0 // 333 / 11 / 2
> 5 November / 47 / 5 / 0 // 336 / 13 / 4
> 7 November / 0 / 0 / 0 // 283 / 1 / 0
> 11 November / 59 / 0 / 0 // 342 / 8 / 2
> 13 November / 45 / 7 / 7 // 345 / 3 / 3
> 19 November / 0 / 0 /0 // 288 / 0 / 0
> 26 November / 28 / 0 / 0 // 353 / 36 / 4
> 29 November / 38 / 2 / 7 // 314 / 13 / 9
> 30 November / 20 / 0 / 1 // 327 / 0 / 5
> 1 December / 42 / 0 / 5 // 374 / 20 / 2
The majority of the target were NOT in Germany. That means the P-47 was
quite capable of escorting the bombers most of the way. Your chart
doesn't state WHERE the bombers were headed at all. And there were more
P-47s present in 1943 than P-38s in the MTO. Another factor left out.
This makes your whole argument null.
>
> The third set of figures is for P-51
>
>> The Fighters had to stay with the fighters.
>
> Presumably the bombers.
>
>> If the Luftwaffe went below 18,000 feet, the escort fighter had to
>> disengage and return to the bombers. The Luftwaffe used dive tactics to
>> hit the fighters and bombers and quickly get to below 18,000 feet where
>> the escort fighter had to disengage and climb back to the bomber
>> formation.
>
> Actually the Luftwaffe tried a variety of tactics, head on, diving,
> rockets and the big one for much of 1943, waiting for the escorts
> to go home.
>
>> The P-38 pilots learned to point their noses to the incoming Luftwaffe and
>> fire on them before the Luftwaffe Fighters could start firing themselves.
>> The P-47s excellent diving was neutralized by having to disengage at
>> 18,000 feet.
>
> When compared with the Fw190 the P-47 would initially lose ground
> in a dive, before the extra weight came into play.
>
>> The P-51B/C didn't really start coming into the war until early 1944 due
>> to manufacture and training of pilots.
>
> If you are going to say this then as far as the ETO is concerned the
> same statement can be made of the P-38.
give the P-38 the upgrades it needed early on, let's get those pilots
properly trained, etc.. The reason many of the needed changes starting
to show up in the P-38 H was the fact that the War Planning Commission
turned them down. 1942 they modified an E model to accept the new
engine that later into the H model, put in the changed Lockheed wanted
to simplify going from cruise to combat mode, installed the Paddle
Hamilton Standard 4 bladed Prop along with the engine cowling changes to
accept the larger spinner, and more. Only one was made. In the AAF
Tests in September of 1943, it's speed was 432 mph, with a predicted top
speed of 450 mph, it was judged at that time the best Allied Fighter in
existance.
In order to make it happen, two things.
First, the Lockheed assembly lines would have to be shut down for 2 to 3
weeks. The War Planning Board would allow that to happen. The P-38 was
still the only long ranged fighter to go all the way to Berlin and Back
and they didn't have enough of them when you include the MTO, PTO and
CBI. Lockheed presented just changing the gearbox and propeller that
would have greatly increased the P-38 performance by themselves. The
War Planning said no shut down of manufacture. Vultee was making the
P-38 in smaller numbers. The War Planning wouldn't even consider
shutting that down to make the changes like they did when the P-51B/C
was changing over to the D model.
Second, The War Planning Commission didn't believe that Allison could
keep it's production promise on the new F-15 engine required for the
complete K production.
It didn't seem to affect the L model too much using that same engine but
without the Hamilton Standard Prop and gearbox change, it was 7 mph
slower and climbed slower. The good news is, many of the changes they
wanted to do in the K went into the J-25 and L such as making it
simpler to change from cruise to combat quickly. They could have had
these changes as early as the G model but didn't. How many pilots died
because of that poor planning.
>
>> Even in England, it took about 100 hours to get a pilot trained for combat
>> in a P-51 in country.
>
> Except for the many stories of rapid transition because of the
> desperate need for more P-51s to be available.
Pilots were converted bomber twin engine pilots done in theater (ETO).
OR were changed from a P-39 directly into the P-38 in theater (ETO and
MTO).
>
>> The P-51 got more training than the P-47 and the P-38 training was an
>> embarrassment.
>
> Actually no, US pilots arriving in England in early 1944 had the same
> basic training, though time in operational aircraft could be low, lots
> then found themselves having to suddenly switch from a P-38 or P-47
> to a P-51.
P-38 to a P-51 than it is to change from a P-39 to a P-38. Same goes
for changing from the P-47 to the P-51 which was easier still. And
those were experienced pilots, not novices directly from the US.
>
>> The P-51B/C arrived with two improvements to the theater; The Fighters
>> started being able to pursue and destroy enemy fighters attacking the
>> bombers and the arrival of the 115 octane fuel for the fighters.
>
> The fuel upgrade for the 8th AF fighters was in the second half of 1944,
> trials were run from March, change over from July to September. The
> change in fighter escort tactics was in the first half of 1944.
>
>> Both the P-47 and the P-38 no longer required the Antiknock in the fuel
>> and both ran better at all altitudes.
>
> In short no, they were tuned to 100 octane, then needed to be
> changed to handle the new fuel in the second half of 1944 if
> they used it. I am not sure whether the 9th AF units switched.
115 octane. They both needed the antiknock add to run the 100 octane.
>
>> With the many problems of the P-38 finally cured including the additional
>> internal fuel (The H and up)
>
> Again no, not for 8th AF escort missions.
>
>> and the introduction of larger drop tanks for both the P-38 and the P-47,
>> allowing them to go into ground attack into Germany as well as mix it up
>> with the Luftwaffe.
>
> The ground attack, or strafing, was part of the new escort tactics,
> giving the fighters the freedom to seek combat after the escort
> part of the mission was over.
tanks for the P-38 meant they both could raise a lot of hell on their
way back if they didn't meet enemy fighters and had to drop their tanks.
>
>> While the Allies fuel got better, at the same time, the Luftwaffe fuel was
>> becoming problematic. In the end, the Allied Fighters ended up out
>> numbering and out performing the Luftwaffe Fighters. Even, as one P-51
>> pilot stated about his D, they were only 2% better than the Luftwaffe,
>> that's still 2% better.
>>
>> Fetch, Keith, fetch.
>
> Daryl will stumble into "help" the situation if he can ever figure out how
> to tie his shoe laces, and also the meaning of fetch.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.
daryl
Ian B MacLure
Jun 3, 2013, 1:09:38 AM6/3/13
to
Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:orfairbairn-EE48...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net:
> The highest rating was Grade 115/145, "purple gas" and was used in all
> the big recips until the jets replaced them.
There were Canadian military bases up to the early 80's where the
ramp pump island could handle everything from 87 (100hp Cessna/Piper)
up to 115 (R3350).
IBM
news:orfairbairn-EE48...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net:
> The highest rating was Grade 115/145, "purple gas" and was used in all
> the big recips until the jets replaced them.
ramp pump island could handle everything from 87 (100hp Cessna/Piper)
up to 115 (R3350).
IBM
Daryl
Jun 3, 2013, 2:18:42 AM6/3/13
to
were only 8 R4350s being used in the Active Duty and both AC were at
Elmendorf.
Keith W
Jun 3, 2013, 4:36:09 AM6/3/13
to
Daryl wrote:
> It's so easy to wind up the English. I won't answer Keith. This one
> is more interesting.
>
Make that CANT answer
> It's so easy to wind up the English. I won't answer Keith. This one
> is more interesting.
>
Keith
David E. Powell
Jun 3, 2013, 11:34:04 AM6/3/13
to
I wonder if high test Avgas is tougher to get these days? Firefighters and some specialty Airlines in Alaska and other areas of the world still use the big reciprocating prop motors. Can Avgas still be leaded? I don't recall that leaded aviation fuel was banned when leaded automotive fuel was in the USA.
Daryl
Jun 3, 2013, 12:24:58 PM6/3/13
to
interesting. There can only be so much duplication.
daryl
Geoffrey Sinclair
Jun 3, 2013, 1:09:07 PM6/3/13
to
"Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
news:koghrh$nmg$1...@dont-email.me...
> It's so easy to wind up the English. I won't answer Keith. This one is
> more interesting.
I gather your belief system requires most of the world's population
> more interesting.
to be English, given so many people can correct you, repeatedly,
an English population the size of India and China combined would
not be enough.
Interesting you think posting fiction is a fun idea.
Meantime there is always,
"Aviation Gasoline Production and Control",
Army Air Forces Historical Study 65
> On 6/2/2013 9:03 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> "Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
>> news:koe321$3nt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Time to wind up Keith.
>>
>> Seems to be the latest excuse to post a lot of fiction.
>
> Thanks, I appreciate that.
> Except, the facts have been obscured.
> Yours is no more accurate than mine.
>>> I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and after the
>>> BoB.
>>
>> And stumbled straight back out again without any understanding.
>
> Thank you for your vote of confidence.
>>> Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters.
>>
>> The USAAF was the first to introduce 100 Octane in quantity,
>> a fellow named Doolittle had a lot to do with it.
>>
>> The RAF was using 100 Octane for the aircraft of 3 squadrons
>> in November 1937, using fuel from refineries in the USA. A
>> meeting on 16 March 1939 decided to introduce the fuel into
>> general use with 16 fighter and 2 twin engined bomber squadrons
>> switched by September 1940, with an 800,000 ton stock built up.
>> Trials with a Spitfire began in September 1939, it cost around 53
>> pounds to do the conversion. Refineries at Adaban and in Trinidad
>> were under British control.
>>
>> I have not yet checked the following claim about the actual
>> British supply sources in 1940,
>>
>> "In November 1940, UK supplies of high octane aviation fuel
>> were derived from three Esso refineries handling Venezuelan
>> oil, two in the US and one in the Caribbean (about 45%), the
>> Anglo-Iranian Oil refinery at Abadan (25%) and Shell
>> refineries in Borneo (30%). Half the British supply was
>> non-US in origin.
>>
>> Source for above: "The History of the British Petroleum
>> Company" (Cambridge University Press, 1994). You might also
>> consult the British Official History volume entitled "Oil",
>> by Payton-Smith, (HMSO, 1971)."
>
> You just reinforced what I already stated.
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
> Going into the war, both 100 and 87 were being used by the RAF depending
> on the aircraft type and command.
Just change the claim to what I actually reported. Or did the Battle of
Britain happen before the war?
>>> But Britain was stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English Fighters
>>> used
>>> the 100 during BoB. In 1943, Britain began using a 125 octane fuel in
>>> fighters. England had enough 100 octane for an estimated 80 weeks of
>>> war.
>>
>> The 80 weeks of war stockpile refers to the planned stockpiles
>> in 1939/40, not 1943. By 1943 there was bulk shipment of 100
>> octane fuel to England and plans for a higher performance fuel.
>
> Noper, the RAF went into B0B with an 80 week war stockpile of 100 octane
> at that current fuel usage.
other than 1939 or 1940. So tell us all what was the "current fuel
usage" you refer to, mid May during the Battle of France, the early
July lull, or the mid July start point? Given the loss of France the
RAF was about to undergo a major change on operations tempo
and type.
Also given your claim none was being used before the Battle of
Britain the total stockpile would be zero.
> I am saying that the RAF planned well for it's fighter groups and that was
> one of the reasons the BoB was a draw.
understood. The reality is the RAF was building up to switching
over to 100 octane starting pre war, the stockpiles were set at
that time, given they had no real data on actual wartime consumption.
The Battle of France was over too quickly to do any adjustments to
things like fuel stockpiles.
By the way if the Battle of Britain is a draw, then the USAAF lost
the air fighting over Germany in early 1944, given the aircraft
and crew losses of both sides.
> That 80 week stockpile rule goes back to just before the B0B and it was
> dependent on the planned usage, not the tonnage of fuel in it.
1940. I know this is silly but the stockpile was measured in tons, and
the planned consumption gave the tonnage required.
> The 80 week rule didn't change in 1943. It just changed from 100 octane
> to 115 octane.
The US had produced test quantities of 115/145 octane by the end
of 1944 (75,000 barrels in December 1944). They wanted the new
fuel but they could not produce enough 100/130 even as late as
March 1945, when 100/130 production was 525,000 barrels a day
and more 115 octane meant even less 100 octane.
It is clear some 115 octane fuel made it to the Pacific in 1945, in
what was essentially as series of tests by both the USAAF and
USN.
> And the usage also changed.
factors like the switch to using 100 octane in all combat aircraft, the
rise in the number of bombers and their increase in size. The change
in fighter operations. For example in September 1940 Fighter
Command flew around 4,500 sorties a week, in February 1943 it
was about 2,500, but with more offensive operations and bigger
aircraft that needed more fuel.
> Obviously, the RAF planners were a lot smarter than you are.
much better than any outsiders. At the same time predicting
the future in things like fuel consumption estimates means you
are usually wrong.
> In fact, those old, grey haired dudes were a lot smarter than the AAF
> planners and
> even the RAF planners of today.
of people, including non grey hairs and females.
>>> But the adding of the US flying out of England changed that estimate
>>> quickly.
>>
>> Not until 1944.
>
> Oh, that's right, the US didn't enter the war until 1944 and didn't do any
> daylight bombings either.
You might also note the USAAF in the ETO had 63,929 airborne
sorties for all of 1943, versus over 56,000 in March 1944, and
655,289 for all of 1944.
> Newflash: The estimate changes every month or so to keep the 80 week
> stockpile current.
saying it stayed but was adjusted according to current fuel
consumption and projected consumption.
So I gather the idea is the rule was supply for 80 weeks, and the
tonnage was changed, which is what I am concentrating on.
> This includes the addition of AAF aircraft starting in 1942.
allied air force stockpile. So why are the AAF supposed to be
not as smart, since it was the RAF setting the stockpile levels?
> And the addition of the Polish, French and other flyers operating out of
> England.
RAF, which were for non Empire allies, they were counted as
RAF.
>> From the various logistics histories, basically dealing with the build
>> up to D-Day.
>
> I am sure that the logistics goes further back than that from the English
> Planners. Starting right after the Dunkirk battle. Had it not, the
> Germans would have successfully invaded England.
possible unless the British surrendered the second claim is a joke.
The first claim is also a joke, the fuel stockpile rules were worked
out pre war, it was far too late in June 1940 to suddenly try and
ship in 80 weeks worth of aviation fuel.
You might note the considerable performance gain switching
from two pitch to constant speed propellers in mid 1940.
was the time, the actual tonnage stockpiled was the expected
consumption of those 80 weeks which was continually adjusted.
And it was for all aircraft operating out of Britain, not just RAF?
Correct? And the USAAF were at fault when the projections
were wrong, not the RAF people doing the estimates.
And I am pointing out for most of the war the projections were
wrong, mostly over estimates but in one crucial period they were
underestimates. And correcting the problem was difficult given
the tanker shortage.
>>> This meant that the 87 octane with the anti knock addition had to be
>>> used
>>> in the two long ranged fighters. More on this later.
>>
>> No, the USAAF used 100 Octane fuels for its combat aircraft on
>> operations, the cost of the fuel, in both money and production
>> capacity, meant training flights in the US often used 87 Octane.
>> There was a set of rules to follow in using 100 Octane while in
>> the US.
>
> When training with a front lined fighter, the US used 100 and 115 octane.
and 115 octane was simply an exotic test fuel in WWII.
> In the hot fighters, they used 115 and 125.
seems from mid 1944 the 8th AF fighters on 100/150 and some
operations in the Pacific in 1945 using 115/145.
> In the Pacific, the AAF and others used 115 since it was provided by the
> US. In the MTO, they used 115 as well.
sent to the front except in small quantities near the end of the war with
Japan.
> The only theater that the English controlled the fuel was the ETO. And it
> affected the High Performance US engines quite a bit. Especially the
> Turbocharged Engines that had higher Compression Ratios.
the English controlled the fuel supply ignores how much came from
America, and was refined to American standards.
>>> Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war.
>>
>> Not western allied bombers.
>
> Until the 100 octane was brought up to speed, they certainly did use 87
> octane. Thinking that the change over was done over night is an Arnt
> moment.
statement so time to pretend everyone else is wrong.
>>> The 87 octane was superior in engines that weren't "Super Tuned" like
>>> the
>>> Merlin and the Allison in a fighter application. The Spits and
>>> Hurricanes
>>> both used 100 octane starting just before the BoB. The Bombers
>>> continued
>>> to use 87 octane for dependability sake.
>>
>> Again no.
>
> You have to retune and change parts out like jets, etc. to effectively use
> a higher octane. Just like auto and truck engines. Physics hasn't been
> rewritten to please you.
went to 100 octane.
Reality cannot be rewritten just to accommodate your fiction. The
bombers changed to 100 octane according to the fuel supply and
engines they were fitted with and well before the end of the war.
>>> The English Inlines may have shared many of the same parts but each one
>>> was tuned differently to accept different fuels. For instance, in order
>>> to use 87 octane in a Spit it required anti knock formula to be added to
>>> the fuel.
>>
>> The early Merlins could handle 87 octane, the later ones were meant
>> for 100 octane, which meant you had to take care using them with
>> 87 octane.
>>> It helped to prevent the pre detonation using the lower fuel. But the
>>> 87
>>> octane also lowered the performance on the Spit.
>>
>> Putting higher octane rating fuels into Spitfires increased speed at
>> lower altitudes, it did not increase top speed at rated altitude. The
>> low level power boost helped take off performance, hence why
>> bombers used it.
>
> You already stated that 87 wasn't used in Western Bombers yet now you say
> it was.
"Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
into changing what I said to fit the fiction.
> Of course it was while the 100 octane was ramping up.
in combat? Come on, which bombers and for how long? RAF
and USAAF.
Or perhaps given you claim most did not use 100 octane for most
of the war how about a list of all 100 octane users and when they
changed over, which you claim should be a short list.
> You also stated that there wasn't any difference between a merlin bomber
> engine and a Merlin Fighter Engine.
aviation fuel especially as 100 octane had so many performance
advantages. Therefore the bombers switched. You can see my
text below, the line about Lancasters and Halifxes
The allies did a lot to reduce their fuel grade requirements, things
like using MT80 for vehicles and 100 Octane for aircraft. They
did not have the tanker capacity to ship lots of different grades
of fuels to each theatre.
> There was quite a bit of difference. It's like using the Truck 413 engine
> versus the engine that was in the Cross Ram 300J Chrysler engine. They
> shared the block, rods, and crank. Nothing else on the basic engine
> including the pistons and heads.
permutations in terms of basic engineering.
>>> It had no affect on the bombers whether you used the 87 or the 100
>>> octane.
>>
>> The short answer here is no.
>
> Unless you retuned it for the higher octane, it did no good and just
> dumped more fuel out the tail pipe.
engines to use it. 100 Octane improved performance, in bombers
as well as fighters. Apparently people will use the fuel but not
adjust or change the engines.
>>> It's wasteful to run 100 octane or higher in the bomber since they are
>>> tuned and designed to use 87 octane.
>>
>> So the idea is the Merlins fitted to Halifaxes and Lancasters etc.
>> were 87 octane but the fighter ones were 100? Is that the claim?
>> Two grades of fuel in use? The bombers doing without the better
>> take off performance and lower fuel weights per gallon?
>>> So the Spit and Hurricane continued using the 100 octane until the 115
>>> octane was available. But the Hurricane and the Spitfire ran 100 octane
>>> until the higher octane became available.
>>
>> This seems to be a duplication.
>
> And it duplicated the facts.
as it was on the way out in 1944. And 115 octane was not
around, the WWII Spitfire never used it, going with 100/150.
The fact is Daryl is wrong.
>>> In late 1943, the English introduced their "130" fuel with an octane
>>> rating of 115. This fuel was produced by 3 refineries in England and
>>> also
>>> was imported heavily from the US. This fuel was specifically tailored
>>> to
>>> High Performance Engines like the PW2800 and the Allison with the
>>> turbocharger. This is what they were tuned to use.
>>
>> In late 1943 there was a plan to introduce a higher performance
>> fuel that ultimately was only used by fighters, the bombers stayed
>> with 100 Octane.
>
> Until the 100 octane was up to production and storage rates, they used 100
> for the fighters and some bombers and 87 for all others.
"Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
And the 1943/4 idea was to change to 100/150.
> When the 115 was introduced, this is when the 100 was used in the bombers
> and the 115 went to the fighters.
> And that happened in early 1944.
In 1945 test amounts of 115/145 were sent to the Pacific.
> Yes, they planned on something like this all along. It started in 1937.
>>> The retuning of the Spit and Hurricane and follow on English Fighters
>>> performance was increased as well by retuning the Merlins.
>>
>> Hurricanes in 1944 were using the 1940 Merlin XX, they did not
>> use the higher octane fuel.
>
> They used the 100 octane in 1940 just like the Spit even though there was
> a much larger surplus of 87 octane. By 1944, the Hurricane entered into
> the same realm as the P-40 who were both eclipsed by newer fighters who
> required the 115 and 125.
using the improved 1944 octane 100/150 ratings.
The newer fighters were using 100/130 octane. The 115 octane
was under limited test in the US.
>>> And the anti knock formula was not longer required. That 115 octane
>>> outlasted all the other fuels and is still being used today. Today's
>>> Avgas
>>> is 115 octane. In 1973/74 we ran it in our private vehicles since the
>>> cost of private gas skyrocketed so bad that none of us could afford to
>>> buy
>>> it. They opened an Avgas Station and sold us Avgas instead. Avgas is
>>> roughly equivalent to the old Premium from the old days. I don't know
>>> when that ceased as I PCS'd in March of 1974.
>>>
>>> The P-38 and the P-47 both required the anti knock add even using the
>>> 100
>>> octane since they were tuned for 115 and 125 (125 was not readily used
>>> until very late in the war by the US and Australia).
>>
>> What you are doing here is confusing rich and lean mixture ratings.
>> You are also saying in the 1940 to 1943 period with 100 octane as
>> standard the USAAF was turning out engines requiring 115, a rather
>> bad idea.
>
> 115 was used by the US in the MTO, Pacific, CBI starting in 1942. YEs,
> they still used 100 on their bombers and some "Not Frontline" fighters but
> NEVER 87 octane.
and production capacity meant some training flights in the US would
use 87 octane to reduce demand for 100 octane, even fighters.
115 Octane was a test fuel, used in limited quantities in the Pacific
in 1945.
>>> The P-47 still knocked when using the 87 octane and got a little
>>> predetonation using the 100 even with the booster.
>>
>> Given the P-47 was supposed to use 100 octane then 87 octane
>> will have its problems.
>
> The P-47 was adjusted to 115.
> It got by with the 100 but it still had a bit of a fuel detonation
> problem.
systematic problem.
> The late model P-47s were tuned for 125 also sometimes known as 150.
> But they could get by on 115.
> Putting 100 octane in them will cause all kinds of problems.
was the standard fuel, correct?
> BTW, the late model engines from England would have had the same problem
> with 100 octane as well since they were tuned and designed for higher
> octane.
available and whatever development fuels as well the reality is
the allies were using 100 octane.
>>> The lower octane fuels didn't hamper the Supercharger though
>>
>> This will certainly be news to many in the engineering trade.
>
> Using a Supercharger requires lower compression than the Turbocharger.
> Hence the engine is less likely to catch on fire.
And the use of water injection in the P-47.
>>> and the P-47 only saw a slight reduction in Performance at certain
>>> altitudes but it cut down on their range and, over time, burnt valves.
>>
>> As noted 87 octane was used in the US but 100 octane in combat.
>
> And the P-47 was tuned and designed for 115.
>>> Let's face it, the R2800 outlived all the other engines and still being
>>> used today. It's hard to hurt that puppy (or big dog if you will).
>>
>> In 1944 the 8th AF fighters went over to higher octane, which gave
>> more performance but came with a series of problems and in the end
>> a trade off, more maintenance.
>
> Not in the P-47 or the P-38s case,
100/150 fuel was introduced it could have avoided the problems,
there were still 4 P-47 groups at the time. Essentially one group
changed from P-47 to P-51 per month in the final 3 months of 1944.
>> There were no significant problems running the 100 Octane fuel,
>> except in P-38s on standard 8th AF escort missions.
>
> And why is that?
> Higher compression and turbochargers. From the E forward, it required 115
> or higher.
weapon, but it failed as an escort fighter in the ETO, to explain
this requires the USAAF to deliberately ship the wrong fuel for it
to Europe, and in fact the wrong fuel for all its fighters in theatre.
Alternatively the USAAF shipped the correct fuel, and it was
P-38 problems.
The tanker shortage meant refineries tried to supply their closest
theater, so most ETO fuel came from the Americas, the Middle
East refineries handled the Middle East and India and after the
end of 1942 fuel from the Americas was shipped to the
Mediterranean theatre.
In Britain all fuel arrivals went into a common pool, which
caused a small paper war, Lend-Lease, therefore free
fuel, was supplied to the pool and the users, like the RAF and
USAAF were charged for their consumption. The US had the
system changed.
> And the Antiknock Addon to the 87 and 100 octane would seperate at high
> altitude or heavy load. That would cause a super lean mixture and even
> engine fires. Good reasons to abort.
it, not due to the wrong fuel.
>>> On the P-38 it was a complete disaster.
>>
>> The more powerful fuels arrived after the P-38 was taken off high
>> altitude escort work.
>
> Two things happened at about the same time. And until the other thing
> happened, the P-38 was still the primary long ranged bomber escort.
missions. In December 1943 the P-51 was around and flying
in comparable numbers until a second P-38 group became
operational, then for a time the two types swapped lead effort as
new fighter groups arrived.
> 1. Higher octane arrived in force by early 1944.
> 2. The P-51B arrived finally in a large force and the training was
> churning out good pilots.
number of P-51s are not.
> Neither of these two things happened over night. Until then, the P-38 was
> the only escort fighter available for operation over Germany.
is a large number which applies to P-51s, only when the number is
exceeded does it count, 1 P-38 counts though.
> And they didn't have enough of them nor enough trained pilots to fly them
> if they had them.
>>> IF all the P-38s that were assigned to Bomber Escort were to generate,
>>> they would still be out numbered by 2 1/2 to one by the Luftwaffe
>>> Fighters
>>> attacking the bombers.
>>
>> I like this, all the Luftwaffe fighters are supposed to meet all the
>> P-38s. In any case there were more Luftwaffe fighters present
>> in Luftflotte Reich than just 2.5 times the number of P-38s in
>> operational USAAF fighter groups in the ETO.
>
> Nice caviat.
> If all the P-38s in the ETO were launched and all the Luftwaffe 109s and
> 190s were launched and they met, the P-38 would be facing 16 to 1 odds
> against them.
70 or 1,100 to 1,200 Fw190 and Bf109, in the Daryl fiction anyway
counting only P-38 sorties, the USAAF had 380 P-38 in the ETO
at the end of 1943. Multiply that by 70.
Luftflotte Reich held 814 single and 198 twin engined day fighters
in late May 1944, numbers that had been largely going up since
1943 even as pilot quality went down.
> The 5 to one odds were when the Luftwaffe Fighters attacked the bomber
> formation. Not the total of aircraft.
>>> Unfortunately, half of the P-38s aborted for engine troubles including
>>> blown engines. There was separation of fuel and antiknock compound at
>>> higher altitudes. This jammed up the intercooler and the turbochargers
>>> on
>>> the Allisons. If the Allison was under heavy power, the engine would go
>>> to an extreme lean condition and burn valves, blow pistons, lose rods
>>> and
>>> even catch on fire. Many even had engine fires and couldn't continue
>>> and
>>> didn't make it home.
>>
>> All of this was done on the standard allied fuel since 1939/40, that
>> is 100 Octane, nothing to do with a new fuel.
>
> The P-38 was NEVER designed to use the 100 octane.
> In order to use it, an antiknock compound had to be added and there were
> some real problems with that fuel.
>>> This means that the P-38 was facing 5 to 1 odds when it entered into
>>> Germany.
>>
>> In short no.
>
> Even shorter, yes.
even, Daryl is short a few key realities.
>>> The Luftwaffe was quite aware of this and would normally not attack the
>>> bombers until the P-47 was relieved by the gaggle of P-38s in 1943.
>>
>> Actually once again you really are telling us you have no idea
>> about what was going on.
>>
>> P-38 operations with the 8th AF started on 15 October 1943.
>>
>> First escort mission, 20 October, 39 P-38, no kill claims, 321 P-47
>> 6 kill claims. No USAAF fighters MIA.
>>
>> table is date / number of P-38 / P-38 kill claims / P-38 MIA //
>> number of P-47 / number of P-47 kill claims / P-47 MIA. Bomber
>> escort missions only
>>
>> 3 November / 45 / 3 / 0 // 333 / 11 / 2
>> 5 November / 47 / 5 / 0 // 336 / 13 / 4
>> 7 November / 0 / 0 / 0 // 283 / 1 / 0
>> 11 November / 59 / 0 / 0 // 342 / 8 / 2
>> 13 November / 45 / 7 / 7 // 345 / 3 / 3
>> 19 November / 0 / 0 /0 // 288 / 0 / 0
>> 26 November / 28 / 0 / 0 // 353 / 36 / 4
>> 29 November / 38 / 2 / 7 // 314 / 13 / 9
>> 30 November / 20 / 0 / 1 // 327 / 0 / 5
>> 1 December / 42 / 0 / 5 // 374 / 20 / 2
>
> Let's analyze these figures.
>
> The majority of the target were NOT in Germany.
Ge \ 20-October-1943 \ Duren \ 208.9
NL \ 20-October-1943 \ Gilze-Rijen \ 39.0
Ge \ 20-October-1943 \ Misc., Ge \ 39.0
NL \ 20-October-1943 \ Woensdrecht \ 5.0
Ge \ 03-November-1943 \ Wilhelmshaven \ 1,450.2
Ge \ 05-November-1943 \ Coesfeld \ 3.0
Ge \ 05-November-1943 \ Gelsenkirchen \ 495.2
Ge \ 05-November-1943 \ Gelsenkirchen/Buer \ 123.2
Ge \ 05-November-1943 \ Gelsenkirchen/Nordstern \ 114.2
Ge \ 05-November-1943 \ Haltern \ 2.8
Ge \ 05-November-1943 \ Munster \ 284.1
Ge \ 07-November-1943 \ Duren \ 84.1
Ge \ 07-November-1943 \ Renderath \ 48.0
Ge \ 07-November-1943 \ Wesel \ 125.0
Ge \ 11-November-1943 \ Munster \ 122.1
Ge \ 13-November-1943 \ Bremen \ 267.2
Ge \ 13-November-1943 \ Flensberg \ 10.8
Ge \ 13-November-1943 \ Heligoland \ 23.5
Ge \ 13-November-1943 \ Kiel \ 2.0
Ge \ 13-November-1943 \ Misc., Ge \ 25.8
NL \ 19-November-1943 \ Arnheim \ 32.0
Ge \ 19-November-1943 \ Misc., Ge \ 249.3
Ge \ 26-November-1943 \ Bremen \ 1,204.8
Ge \ 26-November-1943 \ Misc., Ge \ 41.4
Fr \ 26-November-1943 \ Paris \ recalled
Ge \ 26-November-1943 \ Vegesack \ 5.6
Ge \ 29-November-1943 \ Bremen \ 404.6
Ge \ 29-November-1943 \ Emmerich \ 2.0
Ge \ 29-November-1943 \ Emmerich \ 1.0
Ge \ 29-November-1943 \ Misc., Ge \ 51.9
Ge \ 29-November-1943 \ Oldenburg \ 3.0
Ge \ 30-November-1943 \ Solingen \ 231.7
Ge \ 30-November-1943 \ Wermelskirchen \ 3.0
Ge \ 01-December-1943 \ Misc., Ge \ 5.0
Ge \ 01-December-1943 \ Rossbach \ 2.5
Ge \ 01-December-1943 \ Siegburg \ 42.7
Ge \ 01-December-1943 \ Solingen \ 702.5
So Daryl is very wrong again.
> That means the P-47 was quite capable of escorting the bombers most of the
> way.
which was essentially Western Germany at the time.
> Your chart doesn't state WHERE the bombers were headed at all.
> And there were more P-47s present in 1943 than P-38s in the MTO.
After all I posted the sorties by fighter type, apparently the number
of P-47s present in the ETO is more important, plus the MTO
P-38s matter to the ETO in 1944 it seems.
> Another factor left out.
As opposed to reporting the actual sorties being done.
> This makes your whole argument null.
not a wonder aircraft, so the facts have to be thrown away.
>> The third set of figures is for P-51
> <snipped as to having no relevance>
the relative P-38 versus P-51 effort.
5 December / 34 / 0 / 0 // 266 / 0 / 1 // 36 / 0 / 0
11 December / 31 / 0 / 0 // 313 / 20 / 3 // 44 / 0 / 1
13 December / 31 / 1 / 0 // 322 / 0 / 1 // 41 / 0 / 1
16 December / 31 / 0 / 0 // 131 / 1 / 1 // 39 / 1 / 0
20 December / 26 / 0 / 0 // 418 / 16 / 2 // 47 / 3 / 4
22 December / 40 / 0 / 2 // 448 / 9 / 2 // 28 / 6 / 0
24 December / 40 / 0 / 0 // 459 / 0 / 0 // 42 / 0 / 0
30 December / 79 / 0 / 0 // 463 / 8 / 11 // 41 / 0 / 2
31 December / 74 / 3 / 1 // 441 / 4 / 2 // 33 / 2 / 1
Totals, P-38 749 sorties, 21 kill claims, 23 MIA,
P-47 6,877 sorties, 169 kill claims, 54 MIA,
P-51 351 sorties, 12 kill claims, 9 MIA.
>>> If the Luftwaffe went below 18,000 feet, the escort fighter had to
>>> disengage and return to the bombers. The Luftwaffe used dive tactics to
>>> hit the fighters and bombers and quickly get to below 18,000 feet where
>>> the escort fighter had to disengage and climb back to the bomber
>>> formation.
>>
>> Actually the Luftwaffe tried a variety of tactics, head on, diving,
>> rockets and the big one for much of 1943, waiting for the escorts
>> to go home.
No reply here.
>>> disengage and return to the bombers. The Luftwaffe used dive tactics to
>>> hit the fighters and bombers and quickly get to below 18,000 feet where
>>> the escort fighter had to disengage and climb back to the bomber
>>> formation.
>>
>> Actually the Luftwaffe tried a variety of tactics, head on, diving,
>> rockets and the big one for much of 1943, waiting for the escorts
>> to go home.
>>> The P-38 pilots learned to point their noses to the incoming Luftwaffe
>>> and
>>> fire on them before the Luftwaffe Fighters could start firing
>>> themselves.
>>> The P-47s excellent diving was neutralized by having to disengage at
>>> 18,000 feet.
>>
>> When compared with the Fw190 the P-47 would initially lose ground
>> in a dive, before the extra weight came into play.
>>
>>> The P-51B/C didn't really start coming into the war until early 1944 due
>>> to manufacture and training of pilots.
>>
>> If you are going to say this then as far as the ETO is concerned the
>> same statement can be made of the P-38.
>
> Ah, yes, let's put the P-38 into that time machine of yours.
> And let's give the P-38 the upgrades it needed early on, let's get those
> pilots properly trained, etc..
> The reason many of the needed changes starting to show up in the P-38 H
> was the fact that the War Planning Commission turned them down. 1942 they
> modified an E model to accept the new engine that later into the H model,
> put in the changed Lockheed wanted to simplify going from cruise to combat
> mode, installed the Paddle Hamilton Standard 4 bladed Prop along with the
> engine cowling changes to accept the larger spinner, and more. Only one
> was made. In the AAF Tests in September of 1943, it's speed was 432 mph,
> with a predicted top speed of 450 mph, it was judged at that time the best
> Allied Fighter in existance.
bad guys shot it down.
> In order to make it happen, two things.
> First, the Lockheed assembly lines would have to be shut down for 2 to 3
> weeks. The War Planning Board would allow that to happen. The P-38 was
> still the only long ranged fighter to go all the way to Berlin and Back
> and they didn't have enough of them when you include the MTO, PTO and CBI.
which date have you chosen this time?
Production changed from the P-38G to H in May/June 1943,
then from H to J in August 1943.
Lockheed passed the 100 accepted in the month in December 1942,
over 150 in February 1943, the G to H change and then H to J change
overs went like this, in 1943
January 148 G, 3 J
February 168 G
March 132 G, 1 H
April 122 G
May 84 H
June 172 H, 7 J, 1 K
July 264 H
August 80 H, 22 J
September 66 J
October 350 J
November 387 J
You can see quite clearly how the two model change overs
caused a loss of output that cost the equivalent of weeks of
earlier model production.
> Lockheed presented just changing the gearbox and propeller that would have
> greatly increased the P-38 performance by themselves. The War Planning
> said no shut down of manufacture.
> Vultee was making the P-38 in smaller numbers. The War Planning wouldn't
> even consider shutting that down to make the changes like they did when
> the P-51B/C was changing over to the D model.
they built the L model.
Inglewood, P-51B to D change over, 1944, production had been
running at about 250 a month since October 1943,
February 250 B, 2 D
March 245 B, 27 D
April 20 B 182 D
May 340 D
Dallas, the change over from the C to the D and K in 1944
June 251 C
July 245 C, 6 D
August 171 C, 59 D
September 3 C, 134 D, 76 K
October 1 D, 261 K.
> Second, The War Planning Commission didn't believe that Allison could keep
> it's production promise on the new F-15 engine required for the complete K
> production.
> It didn't seem to affect the L model too much using that same engine but
> without the Hamilton Standard Prop and gearbox change, it was 7 mph slower
> and climbed slower. The good news is, many of the changes they wanted to
> do in the K went into the J-25 and L such as making it simpler to change
> from cruise to combat quickly. They could have had these changes as early
> as the G model but didn't. How many pilots died because of that poor
> planning.
The K used the V-1710-75/77, the L the V-1710-111/113
And the H used 89/90, all these engines rated 1425 HP
take off and 1600 Combat.
>>> Even in England, it took about 100 hours to get a pilot trained for
>>> combat
>>> in a P-51 in country.
>>
>> Except for the many stories of rapid transition because of the
>> desperate need for more P-51s to be available.
>
> At least the P-51 Jocks trained on P-51s stateside.
requirement for long range fighters largely effected the P-51
units.
> Many of the P-38 Pilots were converted bomber twin engine pilots done in
> theater (ETO).
> OR were changed from a P-39 directly into the P-38 in theater (ETO and
> MTO).
pilot conversions from say mid 1943 onwards, given in July 1943
the USAAF had a whole 3 P-39 in theatre, along with 2 P-38,
by January 1944 the last ETO P-39 had been retired or scrapped.
>>> The P-51 got more training than the P-47 and the P-38 training was an
>>> embarrassment.
>>
>> Actually no, US pilots arriving in England in early 1944 had the same
>> basic training, though time in operational aircraft could be low, lots
>> then found themselves having to suddenly switch from a P-38 or P-47
>> to a P-51.
>
> 1944. Look at the date.
> It's a damned site easier to change from the P-38 to a P-51 than it is to
> change from a P-39 to a P-38.
> Same goes for changing from the P-47 to the P-51 which was easier still.
> And those were experienced pilots, not novices directly from the US.
1943, the number of P-47 groups rose to 4 in August, 6 in September,
7 in October and 9 by end December. There was 1 operational
P-38 group from mid October and a second just at the end of 1943.
So 11 groups, plus the 354th borrowed from the 9th AF, which
had arrived in early November. In the end the 8th would have
15 fighter groups.
The 354th was the first 9th AF fighter group, 2 P-47 groups
arrived for the 9th at the end of November, 1 P-47 and 1 P-51
group in December. On D-Day the 9th would have 18 fighter groups.
Do you realise how late the USAAF build up in England was?
>>> The P-51B/C arrived with two improvements to the theater; The Fighters
>>> started being able to pursue and destroy enemy fighters attacking the
>>> bombers and the arrival of the 115 octane fuel for the fighters.
>>
>> The fuel upgrade for the 8th AF fighters was in the second half of 1944,
>> trials were run from March, change over from July to September. The
>> change in fighter escort tactics was in the first half of 1944.
>
> Very near the same time in a couple or three months.
>>> Both the P-47 and the P-38 no longer required the Antiknock in the fuel
>>> and both ran better at all altitudes.
>>
>> In short no, they were tuned to 100 octane, then needed to be
>> changed to handle the new fuel in the second half of 1944 if
>> they used it. I am not sure whether the 9th AF units switched.
>
> Both were tuned what was being used in all the other theaters which was
> 115 octane. They both needed the antiknock add to run the 100 octane.
>>> With the many problems of the P-38 finally cured including the
>>> additional
>>> internal fuel (The H and up)
>>
>> Again no, not for 8th AF escort missions.
>
> There were no H Models and up in the MTO? Right, there old buddy.
8th AF escort missions. Nor did the J models.
The H models did not get the extra internal fuel tanks, hence why it
was out of 8th AF units by around the end of January 1944.
>>> and the introduction of larger drop tanks for both the P-38 and the
>>> P-47,
>>> allowing them to go into ground attack into Germany as well as mix it up
>>> with the Luftwaffe.
>>
>> The ground attack, or strafing, was part of the new escort tactics,
>> giving the fighters the freedom to seek combat after the escort
>> part of the mission was over.
>
> With the 167 gallon twin tanks for the P-47 and the twin 300 gallon tanks
> for the P-38 meant they both could raise a lot of hell on their way back
> if they didn't meet enemy fighters and had to drop their tanks.
a pair of 150 (really 165) gallon external tanks, essentially making sure
there was more internal than external fuel. Also the tanks were not
pressurised, limiting their use to under 20,000 feet. That gave a combat
radius of 425 miles for the aircraft with the larger internal fuel tanks.
The P-47D-15 upped internal fuel from 305 to 375 gallons, plus
the wing pylons. The P-47D-16 had provision for 100/150 fuel.
These versions entered production around October/November
1943. The D-15 with a pair of 108 gallon drop tanks had a radius
of 475 miles.
The P-51 with a pair of 108 gallon drop tanks had a 750 mile radius.
Ranges are for standard 8th AF missions.
The 8th used a lot of drop tank types and the official capacity often
varies from the actual capacity.
>>> While the Allies fuel got better, at the same time, the Luftwaffe fuel
>>> was
>>> becoming problematic. In the end, the Allied Fighters ended up out
>>> numbering and out performing the Luftwaffe Fighters. Even, as one P-51
>>> pilot stated about his D, they were only 2% better than the Luftwaffe,
>>> that's still 2% better.
>>>
>>> Fetch, Keith, fetch.
>>
>> Daryl will stumble into "help" the situation if he can ever figure out
>> how
>> to tie his shoe laces, and also the meaning of fetch.
>>
>> Geoffrey Sinclair
>> Remove the nb for email.
>
> Fetch, Jeffy, Fetch.
Daryl will stumble into "help" the situation if he can ever figure out how
to tie his shoe laces, and also the meaning of fetch.
have to think the person doing the insulting has some credibility. And
then there is what the Neo Nazis and conspiracy theory people use
for insults when they are contradicted.
Daryl
Jun 3, 2013, 6:41:43 PM6/3/13
to
On 6/3/2013 11:09 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> "Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
> "Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
> news:koghrh$nmg$1...@dont-email.me...
>> It's so easy to wind up the English. I won't answer Keith. This
>> one is more interesting.
>
> I gather your belief system requires most of the world's population
> to be English, given so many people can correct you, repeatedly, an
> English population the size of India and China combined would not be
> enough.
>
> Interesting you think posting fiction is a fun idea.
>
> Meantime there is always,
>
> "Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
> Historical Study 65
You are having another Arnt moment. Using the AAF stats instead of the
>> It's so easy to wind up the English. I won't answer Keith. This
>> one is more interesting.
>
> I gather your belief system requires most of the world's population
> to be English, given so many people can correct you, repeatedly, an
> English population the size of India and China combined would not be
> enough.
>
> Interesting you think posting fiction is a fun idea.
>
> Meantime there is always,
>
> "Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
> Historical Study 65
RAF stats. Newsflash, there was NO AAF involved in the BoB. If ARnt
does it, you call it lying. When you do it.....
>
>> On 6/2/2013 9:03 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>>> "Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
>>> news:koe321$3nt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Time to wind up Keith.
>>>
>>> Seems to be the latest excuse to post a lot of fiction.
>>
>> Thanks, I appreciate that.
>
> Nice to know you admit to posting fiction.
your clouded bigotry.
>
>> Except, the facts have been obscured.
>
> No, misreported by you.
>
>> Yours is no more accurate than mine.
>
> Actually the information I gave is much more accurate.
heaven that it was a lie. When you do it.......
>
>>>> I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and
>>>> after the BoB.
>>>
>>> And stumbled straight back out again without any understanding.
>>
>> Thank you for your vote of confidence.
>
> It is called evidence based conclusions.
And even then, the facts you choose falls short. You try to use
confusion to say that you are right. Noper, confusion is rarely
correct, just confusing.
>
> That is wrong for the RAF and even more wrong for the USAAF.
their fuels in 1937. It didn't happen overnight. This is when they
decided to create the 80 week fuel requirement. Before 1937, they ran
87 octane. By 1939, in time for Dunkirk, the fighters were running 100
octane and the 80 week requirement was in place but was still being
built. By 1940 for the BoB, the supply was up to where they wanted it
to be. You can't change history to suit yourself.
The AAF is another matter completely. In 1937, they began designing
Fighters that required 115 octane. The 400 by 400 requirement of 1937
brought the US both the P-38 and the P-47. It also brought the
requirement for the B-29. In order to get that type of performance the
115 and higher fuels were required and the production for it was ramped
up. The AAF had already made the switch to 100 octane by 1937 and was
in the process of changing to 115.
When the AAF started to show up in England, it wasn't 1937 or 1939, it
was 1942 and the ONLY long ranged fighter was tuned and built for 115
octane and ended up using 100 octane with Antiknock compound that would
separate and jam up the engine causing the engine to go to extreme lean
which caused severe damage at high altitude or under heavy power. If
115 had been available in 1942 and much of 1943 this problem would not
have been present. 100 Octane is no longer used in Aircraft but the 115
octane is still being used. Until all e R2800s and R3350s go away (not
in my lifetime) 115 will still be around. We call it 115/145 fuel today.
Sunoco 260 start out as 115 and was "Blended" for automotive racing. I
ran it on the strip myself in the late 60s. When you added the addons
for automotive use including lead, it dropped it to a little over 97
octane. We used to mix it with Avgas 115/145 so the higher rating would
pass the tech inspection. Sunoco 260 was designed for at least an 11 to
1 compression level. We used 12.5 to 1 and the avgas helped to get us
to where we needed to be.
The Engine used in the P-39/P-40 and P-51 used the lower compression
engines that could accept the 100 octane. In fact, they tolerated even
the 87 octane with additions. These used single speed superchargers and
required lower compression due to supercharging. But the P-38 used a
Turbocharger and required much higher compression. From the plan
accepted in 1937, the P-38 was tuned and designed to use 115 octane
fuel. And so was the P-47. You can't change physics to suit your self.
Only Star Trek can do that.
>
>> Going into the war, both 100 and 87 were being used by the RAF
>> depending on the aircraft type and command.
>
> So much for he "all fuels" claim.
>
> Just change the claim to what I actually reported. Or did the
> Battle of Britain happen before the war?
thing you would call it lying. But if you do it.........
>
>>>> But Britain was stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English
>>>> Fighters used the 100 during BoB. In 1943, Britain began
>>>> using a 125 octane fuel in fighters. England had enough 100
>>>> octane for an estimated 80 weeks of war.
>>>
>>> The 80 weeks of war stockpile refers to the planned stockpiles
>>> in 1939/40, not 1943. By 1943 there was bulk shipment of 100
>>> octane fuel to England and plans for a higher performance fuel.
>>
>> Noper, the RAF went into B0B with an 80 week war stockpile of 100
>> octane at that current fuel usage.
>
> Ah, I gather you believe the Battle Of Britain occurred some time
> other than 1939 or 1940. So tell us all what was the "current fuel
> usage" you refer to, mid May during the Battle of France, the early
> July lull, or the mid July start point? Given the loss of France the
> RAF was about to undergo a major change on operations tempo and
> type.
are still trying to throw more BS into the Ballgame.
>
> Also given your claim none was being used before the Battle of
> Britain the total stockpile would be zero.
fighters and light bombers. I made a claim that at one time, all RAF
aircraft used 87 octane but that was before 1937. By 1937, the 80 week
war reserve was completed for the 100. Again, your reading
comprehension has become equal to anything ARnt would do. And you would
scream lie if ARnt was doing it. Since you are doing it.......
>
>> I am saying that the RAF planned well for it's fighter groups and
>> that was one of the reasons the BoB was a draw.
>
> I suppose the fact the RAF used squadrons as a base unit is not
> understood. The reality is the RAF was building up to switching
> over to 100 octane starting pre war, the stockpiles were set at that
> time, given they had no real data on actual wartime consumption. The
> Battle of France was over too quickly to do any adjustments to things
> like fuel stockpiles.
But I see you are learning, alibi the hard way.
>
> By the way if the Battle of Britain is a draw, then the USAAF lost
> the air fighting over Germany in early 1944, given the aircraft and
> crew losses of both sides.
side of the Channel and the Germans on theirs. That is a draw. And you
are still trying to throw more BS in the ballgame. In late 1943 and
early 1944, the AAF started an attrition game. Like the US Ground
Forces in WWI, the AAF could generate more equipment, supplies and human
resources than the Germans. Something you English couldn't do in WWI OR
WWII.
>
>> That 80 week stockpile rule goes back to just before the B0B and
>> it was dependent on the planned usage, not the tonnage of fuel in
>> it.
>
> So now we are back before the Battle of Britain, like 1939 and early
> 1940. I know this is silly but the stockpile was measured in tons,
> and the planned consumption gave the tonnage required.
and he tonnage has to change to keep the 80 week stockpile. Your own
stats showed that it changed as requirements changed. It was still held
at 80 week stockpile and stayed that way.
>
>> The 80 week rule didn't change in 1943. It just changed from 100
>> octane to 115 octane.
>
> In short no when it comes to octane change over.
England. You honestly think that the engine used in the late war
English Fighters could still use 100 octane? Well, neither could the
longranged Fighters in 1941 and up. Since the English didn't start
changing over to 115 octane in 1941 because their AC couldn't use it,
you think the US wasn't already quickly heading that direction. You
can't win the Kentucky Derby 2 furlong with a hay fed horse.
>
> The US had produced test quantities of 115/145 octane by the end of
> 1944 (75,000 barrels in December 1944). They wanted the new fuel
> but they could not produce enough 100/130 even as late as March
> 1945, when 100/130 production was 525,000 barrels a day and more 115
> octane meant even less 100 octane.
>
> It is clear some 115 octane fuel made it to the Pacific in 1945, in
> what was essentially as series of tests by both the USAAF and USN.
on says you are just making it up again. Losing some of the 100 octane
was no big loss in the Pacific where the Aircraft there required more
range. You have 115/145 confused with the new fuel being test of
125/150 that did come out at the end of the war and was tested starting
in 1944. By the second half of 1944, 100 octane was no longer really
needed by the AAF, USNavy or USMarines. The 115 was there in 1942 for
the P-38s and as he new high performance US Aircraft started making the
requirement for the 115 go up. This is why the MTO, CBI and PTO had
better performance and dependability for ALL long ranged fighters and
even the heavy bombers. The B-29 couldn't run at all on 100 octane and
still have the performance and range it was designed to have. Neither
could anything running the High Compression turbo Allison or the R2800.
In the CBI/PTO/MTO, the R2800 and the turbo allison did not require
antiknock compound to be added. And they didn't knock or blow up in
near the frequency that they did in the ETO where only 100 octane
octane or below was provided. The US already had 115 octane in those
three theaters. When it was just the P-38 they needed less. But with
the addition of the F-4U/F-6 and P-47 the amount was increased to
support these aircraft. You can't change history to suit yourself, arnt.
>
>> And the usage also changed.
>
> RAF home air force usage changed steadily from 1940 onwards, factors
> like the switch to using 100 octane in all combat aircraft, the rise
> in the number of bombers and their increase in size. The change in
> fighter operations. For example in September 1940 Fighter Command
> flew around 4,500 sorties a week, in February 1943 it was about
> 2,500, but with more offensive operations and bigger aircraft that
> needed more fuel.
>
>> Obviously, the RAF planners were a lot smarter than you are.
>
> Collectively and with more data at their disposal they should be
> much better than any outsiders. At the same time predicting the
> future in things like fuel consumption estimates means you are
> usually wrong.
job. Coming up with that 80 week war fuel requirement was just plain
ingenious and kept the English from having to learn German. Without the
gas to power the planes, it doesn't matter how many pilots you have or
the number of Aircraft. Just ask the Germans starting in the second
half of 1944.
>
>> In fact, those old, grey haired dudes were a lot smarter than the
>> AAF planners and even the RAF planners of today.
>
> No, they are being misreported, and the planners had a mixture of
> people, including non grey hairs and females.
okayed everything were quite elderly and definitely weren't female.
>
>>>> But the adding of the US flying out of England changed that
>>>> estimate quickly.
>>>
>>> Not until 1944.
>>
>> Oh, that's right, the US didn't enter the war until 1944 and
>> didn't do any daylight bombings either.
>
> Good to know, sorts out much.
like to hear that one.
>
> You might also note the USAAF in the ETO had 63,929 airborne sorties
> for all of 1943, versus over 56,000 in March 1944, and 655,289 for
> all of 1944.
to see your target. I spent a winter in England and on many of the
days, we had to follow the taxi lights to just get to our parked
aircraft. Oftentimes we landed blind using ILS. And had a followme
vehicle take us off the runway all the way to where we parked. ILS
didn't exist in WWII. We still landed at night and took off at night.
The AC during WWII in the ETO didn't have that advantage. For night
time area bombing, close counts and the target can be socked in. But
you need to have the weather clear to land. For Daylight Precision
Bombing, you have to see your target to hit it and be able to see your
homestation to land. You can't keep diverting when you get home.
Again, you are tossing in more BS into the ballgame.
>
>> Newflash: The estimate changes every month or so to keep the 80
>> week stockpile current.
>
> Above you are saying the 80 week rule changed, now you are saying it
> stayed but was adjusted according to current fuel consumption and
> projected consumption.
>
> So I gather the idea is the rule was supply for 80 weeks, and the
> tonnage was changed, which is what I am concentrating on.
>
>> This includes the addition of AAF aircraft starting in 1942.
>
> So essentially you are saying the RAF stockpile was in fact the
> allied air force stockpile. So why are the AAF supposed to be not
> as smart, since it was the RAF setting the stockpile levels?
>
>> And the addition of the Polish, French and other flyers operating
>> out of England.
>
> You really are quite ignorant of the 300 series squadrons in the
> RAF, which were for non Empire allies, they were counted as RAF.
>
>>> From the various logistics histories, basically dealing with the
>>> build up to D-Day.
>>
>> I am sure that the logistics goes further back than that from the
>> English Planners. Starting right after the Dunkirk battle. Had it
>> not, the Germans would have successfully invaded England.
>
> Given the reality a German invasion of England in 1940 was not
> possible unless the British surrendered the second claim is a joke.
>
> The first claim is also a joke, the fuel stockpile rules were worked
> out pre war, it was far too late in June 1940 to suddenly try and
> ship in 80 weeks worth of aviation fuel.
>
> You might note the considerable performance gain switching from two
> pitch to constant speed propellers in mid 1940.
speed prop was only part of the performance increase. More BS in Ballgame.
>
> Correct? And the USAAF were at fault when the projections were
> wrong, not the RAF people doing the estimates.
change even when the USAAF started tapping into the English fuel supply.
It stayed at 80 weeks and the tonnage was increased to meet that
requirement. Except now, 100 octane was being shipped in from the US at
a higher rate to meet that 80 week requirement.
>
> And I am pointing out for most of the war the projections were
> wrong, mostly over estimates but in one crucial period they were
> underestimates. And correcting the problem was difficult given the
> tanker shortage.
they built more. And many of those "English" tankers came from the US
by way of Canada.
>
>>>> This meant that the 87 octane with the anti knock addition had
>>>> to be used in the two long ranged fighters. More on this
>>>> later.
>>>
>>> No, the USAAF used 100 Octane fuels for its combat aircraft on
>>> operations, the cost of the fuel, in both money and production
>>> capacity, meant training flights in the US often used 87 Octane.
>>> There was a set of rules to follow in using 100 Octane while in
>>> the US.
>>
>> When training with a front lined fighter, the US used 100 and 115
>> octane.
>
> In the US 87 octane was used to conserve 100 octane fuel, and 115
> octane was simply an exotic test fuel in WWII.
the pacific.
>
>> In the hot fighters, they used 115 and 125.
>
> 100/130 octane in all USAAF combat aircraft in war zones except it
> seems from mid 1944 the 8th AF fighters on 100/150 and some
> operations in the Pacific in 1945 using 115/145.
was introduced in 1945 into the pacific.
>
>> In the Pacific, the AAF and others used 115 since it was provided
>> by the US. In the MTO, they used 115 as well.
>
> Again 100/130 Octane, 115/145 was around in test batches and not
> sent to the front except in small quantities near the end of the war
> with Japan.
octane. Since they didn't seem to have that problem anywhere except the
MTO where the fuel requirements were controlled by the English with
antiknock compound added then the fuels had to be a bit higher than 100
octane in the other theaters. Once again, you get 115/145 confused with
125/150.
>
>> The only theater that the English controlled the fuel was the ETO.
>> And it affected the High Performance US engines quite a bit.
>> Especially the Turbocharged Engines that had higher Compression
>> Ratios.
>
> Given how much US aviation fuel was shipped to England the idea the
> English controlled the fuel supply ignores how much came from
> America, and was refined to American standards.
Standards.
>
>>>> Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war.
>>>
>>> Not western allied bombers.
>>
>> Until the 100 octane was brought up to speed, they certainly did
>> use 87 octane. Thinking that the change over was done over night
>> is an Arnt moment.
>
> Ah the Arnt insult, a sign Daryl is desperate. He made a wrong
> statement so time to pretend everyone else is wrong.
argument, arnt.
>
>>>> The 87 octane was superior in engines that weren't "Super
>>>> Tuned" like the Merlin and the Allison in a fighter
>>>> application. The Spits and Hurricanes both used 100 octane
>>>> starting just before the BoB. The Bombers continued to use 87
>>>> octane for dependability sake.
>>>
>>> Again no.
>>
>> You have to retune and change parts out like jets, etc. to
>> effectively use a higher octane. Just like auto and truck
>> engines. Physics hasn't been rewritten to please you.
>
> The 87 octane was not a superior fuel, which is why the allies went
> to 100 octane.
for dependability reasons. The higher performance the engine the more
power output, the higher octane needed and shorter the TBO is. Simple
motorhead logic. That was applicable then and still applies today.
>
> Reality cannot be rewritten just to accommodate your fiction. The
> bombers changed to 100 octane according to the fuel supply and
> engines they were fitted with and well before the end of the war.
just started rolling off the assembly line they would have had the same
problem as the P-38. The English didn't do a thing by US wishes, it was
always according to their own time table.
>
>>>> The English Inlines may have shared many of the same parts but
>>>> each one was tuned differently to accept different fuels. For
>>>> instance, in order to use 87 octane in a Spit it required anti
>>>> knock formula to be added to the fuel.
>>>
>>> The early Merlins could handle 87 octane, the later ones were
>>> meant for 100 octane, which meant you had to take care using
>>> them with 87 octane.
>
> No reply here.
the 115 octane to run properly. You have no point on this one.
>
>>>> It helped to prevent the pre detonation using the lower fuel.
>>>> But the 87 octane also lowered the performance on the Spit.
>>>
>>> Putting higher octane rating fuels into Spitfires increased
>>> speed at lower altitudes, it did not increase top speed at rated
>>> altitude. The low level power boost helped take off
>>> performance, hence why bombers used it.
>>
>> You already stated that 87 wasn't used in Western Bombers yet now
>> you say it was.
>
> Daryl, I pointed out your claim
>
> "Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
>
> is wrong for western allied bombers, now you delude yourself into
> changing what I said to fit the fiction.
>
>> Of course it was while the 100 octane was ramping up.
>
> So tell us all how long did western allied bombers use 87 octane in
> combat? Come on, which bombers and for how long? RAF and USAAF.
>
> Or perhaps given you claim most did not use 100 octane for most of
> the war how about a list of all 100 octane users and when they
> changed over, which you claim should be a short list.
>
>> You also stated that there wasn't any difference between a merlin
>> bomber engine and a Merlin Fighter Engine.
>
> Actually I pointed out it made little sense to have two grades of
> aviation fuel especially as 100 octane had so many performance
> advantages. Therefore the bombers switched. You can see my text
> below, the line about Lancasters and Halifxes
compression, flows less fuel and air, has a lower blower on the engine.
The Fighter engine is a higher compression ratio, flows more fuel and
air and has a higher blower setting. That's the short answer but it
should be enough.
>
> The allies did a lot to reduce their fuel grade requirements, things
> like using MT80 for vehicles and 100 Octane for aircraft. They did
> not have the tanker capacity to ship lots of different grades of
> fuels to each theatre.
>
>> There was quite a bit of difference. It's like using the Truck
>> 413 engine versus the engine that was in the Cross Ram 300J
>> Chrysler engine. They shared the block, rods, and crank. Nothing
>> else on the basic engine including the pistons and heads.
>
> Given the large number of Merlin versions there are all sort of
> permutations in terms of basic engineering.
>
>>>> It had no affect on the bombers whether you used the 87 or the
>>>> 100 octane.
>>>
>>> The short answer here is no.
>>
>> Unless you retuned it for the higher octane, it did no good and
>> just dumped more fuel out the tail pipe.
>
> Ah I see, the Daryl air force will use 100 octane but not tune the
> engines to use it. 100 Octane improved performance, in bombers as
> well as fighters. Apparently people will use the fuel but not
> adjust or change the engines.
And you were don't so well.
>
>>>> It's wasteful to run 100 octane or higher in the bomber since
>>>> they are tuned and designed to use 87 octane.
>>>
>>> So the idea is the Merlins fitted to Halifaxes and Lancasters
>>> etc. were 87 octane but the fighter ones were 100? Is that the
>>> claim? Two grades of fuel in use? The bombers doing without the
>>> better take off performance and lower fuel weights per gallon?
>
> No reply here.
superchargers, pistons, etc.. You don't use a Thorobred to pull a plow,
you use a plowhorse.
>
>>>> So the Spit and Hurricane continued using the 100 octane until
>>>> the 115 octane was available. But the Hurricane and the
>>>> Spitfire ran 100 octane until the higher octane became
>>>> available.
>>>
>>> This seems to be a duplication.
>>
>> And it duplicated the facts.
>
> Except the Hurricane did not go to the higher octane rating, as it
> was on the way out in 1944. And 115 octane was not around, the WWII
> Spitfire never used it, going with 100/150.
>
> The fact is Daryl is wrong.
They were paid for and got used when push came to shove.
>
>>>> In late 1943, the English introduced their "130" fuel with an
>>>> octane rating of 115. This fuel was produced by 3 refineries
>>>> in England and also was imported heavily from the US. This
>>>> fuel was specifically tailored to High Performance Engines
>>>> like the PW2800 and the Allison with the turbocharger. This is
>>>> what they were tuned to use.
>>>
>>> In late 1943 there was a plan to introduce a higher performance
>>> fuel that ultimately was only used by fighters, the bombers
>>> stayed with 100 Octane.
>>
>> Until the 100 octane was up to production and storage rates, they
>> used 100 for the fighters and some bombers and 87 for all others.
>
> You see we have the steady retreat from
>
> "Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
>
> To a new unspecified change over time.
>
> And the 1943/4 idea was to change to 100/150.
125/150 fuel that barely made it into the war. What you meant was
100/125. Math is not one of your strong points.
>
>> When the 115 was introduced, this is when the 100 was used in the
>> bombers and the 115 went to the fighters.
>
> In short no, 115 Octane was effectively post war.
>
>> And that happened in early 1944.
>
> In short no. 100/150 was introduced in the ETO in 1944. In 1945
> test amounts of 115/145 were sent to the Pacific.
starting to be introduced very late in the war. In between those two
was the 115/145 that you keep getting mixed up with the 125/150. Then
again you keep typing 100/150 which never existed and still doesn't.
>
>> Yes, they planned on something like this all along. It started in
>> 1937.
>
> So now they know about 115 octane in 1937?
>
>>>> The retuning of the Spit and Hurricane and follow on English
>>>> Fighters performance was increased as well by retuning the
>>>> Merlins.
>>>
>>> Hurricanes in 1944 were using the 1940 Merlin XX, they did not
>>> use the higher octane fuel.
>>
>> They used the 100 octane in 1940 just like the Spit even though
>> there was a much larger surplus of 87 octane. By 1944, the
>> Hurricane entered into the same realm as the P-40 who were both
>> eclipsed by newer fighters who required the 115 and 125.
>
> Ah yes, ignore the fact Daryl is wrong when it comes to Hurricanes
> using the improved 1944 octane 100/150 ratings.
still doesn't.
>
> The newer fighters were using 100/130 octane. The 115 octane was
> under limited test in the US.
sometime in 1942. You still haven't explained why predetonation was
only a problem in the MTO and not any of the other theaters for both the
P-38 and the P-47.
The rest is trimmed. It's just more of the same trying to cover the
fact that the MTO was behind the other theaters. In the 60s, we would
call it bad gas and there was a lot of that for cars in the 60s before
the Feds put in the controls we have today.
I think this argument was going on during WWII as well. Luckily, the US
ignored this argument and did it their way.
Daryl
Ramsman
Jun 3, 2013, 7:13:28 PM6/3/13
to
On 03/06/2013 23:41, Daryl wrote:
>> Ah yes, ignore the fact Daryl is wrong when it comes to Hurricanes
>> using the improved 1944 octane 100/150 ratings.
>
> No Aircraft or anything else use a 100/150 fuel. It never existed and
> still doesn't.
Try reading this, Daryl (or Arndt Lite, as I prefer to think of you):
>> Ah yes, ignore the fact Daryl is wrong when it comes to Hurricanes
>> using the improved 1944 octane 100/150 ratings.
>
> No Aircraft or anything else use a 100/150 fuel. It never existed and
> still doesn't.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
Do tell us what you used to teach. Illogicality, Non Sequiturs, Moving
The Goalposts, Random Capitalisation and Anglophobia? Plus, of course,
Lockheed And The P-38 Wonderplane.
--
Peter
Daryl
Jun 3, 2013, 7:26:13 PM6/3/13
to
amount of lead added to it. 6 cc of lead per X number of gallons for
the 150 verus 4 cc of lead to the 130.
Even though it did show an increase in performance since you could run a
higher boost, the negatives far out weighed the positives.
a. Decreased spark plug life.
b. Increased rate of replacement of synthetic rubber parts in contact
with the fuel.
c. Probable increase of spark plug fouling trouble under low power
cruise conditions.
d. General increased engine flight line maintenance on all three engines
probably resulting from the higher power operation.
e. Generally increased engine deposits and ring sticking tendencies
particularly on V-1710-89 and -91 engines.
f. Higher relative toxicity of the fuel necessitates more careful handling.
Looks like YOU are trying to move the goalposts.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 3, 2013, 7:52:39 PM6/3/13
to
upgrading to 115 octane and there was plenty of 100 octane in 1943.
As for Teaching, I spent time as an Engine Specialtist on Recips and
Turbos for the United States Air Force. I am a retired member of the
United States Air Force. I would say that that is some pretty good
credentials. Well, at least better than most.
Since you brought it up, what are YOUR creds?
daryl
Orval Fairbairn
Jun 3, 2013, 8:49:54 PM6/3/13
to
In article <aa3a3004-d885-4f6e...@googlegroups.com>,
Some radical environmentalists are agitating against leaded avgas, but,
fortunately, to no avail. I am not aware of any 115/145 available
anywhere, but perhaps as racing fuel.
Nowadays, the only commonly-available avgas in the US is 100LL (green).
*0/87 went away in the 1970s/80s.
When I started flying in 1959, there were several grades of avgas
available at the pump: 80/87(red), 91/96 (I forget the color), 100/130
(blue) and 115/145(purple).
The airlines pretty much made the market for avgas -- the Connies, DC-7s
and Stratocruisers used the purple stuff. DC-3s used 80/87; most General
Aviation used 80/87, 91/96 or 100/130.
The first to go was 91/96, those engines requiring it used 100/130. When
the airlines phased out their big recips, 115/145 went away, leaving
80/87 and 100/130.
The oil companies found that it was becoming uneconomical to produce two
grades of fuel for such a limited market and came up with 100 LL,
so-called low-lead, which contains about 1/4 the amount of lead that the
old 100/130 had.
A lot of 80/87 engines have had trouble with lead fouling and have to
resort to aggressive leaning when using 100LL.
IIRC, the old 115/145 used benzene as an octane enhancer (pure benzene
is 160 octane). When benzene became listed as a possible carcinogen, it
was the final nail in the coffin for 115/145. I can smell tolulene in
100LL, so I assume that it takes the place of some of the lead.
The operators of the big warbirds have felt the pinch, since many of
their planes were set up for 115/145 and have had to detune their
engines for the lower-octane 100LL. They have coped by limiting manifold
pressure (boost) and by retarding timing.
fortunately, to no avail. I am not aware of any 115/145 available
anywhere, but perhaps as racing fuel.
Nowadays, the only commonly-available avgas in the US is 100LL (green).
*0/87 went away in the 1970s/80s.
When I started flying in 1959, there were several grades of avgas
available at the pump: 80/87(red), 91/96 (I forget the color), 100/130
(blue) and 115/145(purple).
The airlines pretty much made the market for avgas -- the Connies, DC-7s
and Stratocruisers used the purple stuff. DC-3s used 80/87; most General
Aviation used 80/87, 91/96 or 100/130.
The first to go was 91/96, those engines requiring it used 100/130. When
the airlines phased out their big recips, 115/145 went away, leaving
80/87 and 100/130.
The oil companies found that it was becoming uneconomical to produce two
grades of fuel for such a limited market and came up with 100 LL,
so-called low-lead, which contains about 1/4 the amount of lead that the
old 100/130 had.
A lot of 80/87 engines have had trouble with lead fouling and have to
resort to aggressive leaning when using 100LL.
IIRC, the old 115/145 used benzene as an octane enhancer (pure benzene
is 160 octane). When benzene became listed as a possible carcinogen, it
was the final nail in the coffin for 115/145. I can smell tolulene in
100LL, so I assume that it takes the place of some of the lead.
The operators of the big warbirds have felt the pinch, since many of
their planes were set up for 115/145 and have had to detune their
engines for the lower-octane 100LL. They have coped by limiting manifold
pressure (boost) and by retarding timing.
Daryl
Jun 3, 2013, 9:06:51 PM6/3/13
to
Daryl
Ian B MacLure
Jun 4, 2013, 12:42:38 AM6/4/13
to
Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:orfairbairn-0B04...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net:
[snip]
> When I started flying in 1959, there were several grades of avgas
> available at the pump: 80/87(red), 91/96 (I forget the color)
IBM
Keith W
Jun 4, 2013, 3:27:18 AM6/4/13
to
Daryl wrote:
> On 6/3/2013 11:09 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> What you stated,
>>
>> "Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
>
> That is still correct.
>
No it is not
> On 6/3/2013 11:09 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> What you stated,
>>
>> "Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
>
> That is still correct.
>
The RAF Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons began the transition to 100 octane
in January 1940, by Sept 1940 that was complete. Some of the squadrons that
flew in France and all those in Southern England in May 1940 were using 100
Octane
Keith
Daryl
Jun 4, 2013, 4:41:35 AM6/4/13
to
and 1940 only 87 octane was available. Once again, you are having your
arnt moments.
daryl
Ramsman
Jun 4, 2013, 7:04:18 AM6/4/13
to
provided a technical report that says the opposite. Did you actually
read it? No moving of goalposts there. All you have done is post an
irrelevant list of problems. THAT's moving the goalposts.
There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was used
extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944 onwards.
Please provide references to documents that prove it wasn't so.
>> daryl
>>
>
> I can see why this was looked into. the lead addon cost less than
> upgrading to 115 octane and there was plenty of 100 octane in 1943.
>
> As for Teaching, I spent time as an Engine Specialtist on Recips and
> Turbos for the United States Air Force. I am a retired member of the
> United States Air Force. I would say that that is some pretty good
> credentials. Well, at least better than most.
>
prove that you know anything about the history of aviation. Much of what
you post shows that you don't. Knowing how to sail a boat doesn't make a
person an expert on the Battle of Trafalgar.
> Since you brought it up, what are YOUR creds?
>
university and working in the industry). Knowing how to do research.
Knowing how to reach conclusions from what I read. Admitting when I'm wrong.
> daryl
--
Peter
Geoffrey Sinclair
Jun 4, 2013, 11:33:52 AM6/4/13
to
Note the final quarter to third of this post is the stuff Daryl avoided,
put back in, it is not new text.
I note in particular where the 8th AF went in November 1943
versus the Daryl claim.
news:koj5qq$u6i$1...@dont-email.me...
> Using the AAF stats instead of the
> RAF stats.
Actually it is a detailed report on US avgas production in WWII,
including the grades, it makes the situation quite clear, given how
much of the Daryl claims are about US fuels.
> Newsflash, there was NO AAF involved in the BoB.
So all you have to do is show where I said the USAAF was
involved in the Battle of Britain.
> If ARnt
> does it, you call it lying. When you do it.....
Daryl calls it lies, basically a report on what avgas the US did produce
in WWII, as a hint, not a lot of 115/145 grade.
Hence the desperate need to accuse people of telling lies while trying
to pretend what the US did produce is irrelevant.
>>> On 6/2/2013 9:03 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>>>> "Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:koe321$3nt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> Time to wind up Keith.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to be the latest excuse to post a lot of fiction.
>>>
>>> Thanks, I appreciate that.
>>
>> Nice to know you admit to posting fiction.
>
> You just don't get it.
No I get it quite clearly.
> Your ability to see the facts are obscured by
> your clouded bigotry.
Sounds like you are typing while looking into the mirror.
>>> Except, the facts have been obscured.
>>
>> No, misreported by you.
>
> I reported accurately.
Far from accurate, in just about every claim.
>>> Yours is no more accurate than mine.
>>
>> Actually the information I gave is much more accurate.
>
> Your in is slanted.
Translation, Daryl cannot cope with the facts that destroy his fiction.
> If arnt did the same thing you would yell to high
> heaven that it was a lie. When you do it.......
When Daryl is desperate he resorts to a standard reply, with of
course accusations of lies.
>>>>> I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and
>>>>> after the BoB.
>>>>
>>>> And stumbled straight back out again without any understanding.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your vote of confidence.
>>
>> It is called evidence based conclusions.
>
> You cherry picked and only chose those facts that support your claim.
No Daryl, I reported quite clearly what happened, not how many
corrections to your claims have been made by other people, versus
corrections to mine.
You are simply gazing into the mirror too much while typing.
> And even then, the facts you choose falls short.
I realise quite clearly you simply prefer your fiction and will yell
lies or arnt when that fiction is shown wrong.
> You try to use
> confusion to say that you are right. Noper, confusion is rarely
> correct, just confusing.
Daryl is an expert on confusion.
No, quite false, as the records show quite clearly.
>> That is wrong for the RAF and even more wrong for the USAAF.
>
> Separating the RAF from the AAF, the RAF made a decision to upgrade
> their fuels in 1937. It didn't happen overnight. This is when they
> decided to create the 80 week fuel requirement. Before 1937, they ran
> 87 octane. By 1939, in time for Dunkirk, the fighters were running 100
> octane and the 80 week requirement was in place but was still being
> built. By 1940 for the BoB, the supply was up to where they wanted it
> to be. You can't change history to suit yourself.
You know Daryl, apart from moving Dunkirk from 1940 to 1939,
you just stated in 1939 or at least before the Battle of Britain, fighters
were running100 octane, which is nice given your claim,
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
That is the trouble with your fiction, hard to keep it logical.
> The AAF is another matter completely. In 1937, they began designing
> Fighters that required 115 octane.
No, try 100 octane.
> The 400 by 400 requirement of 1937
> brought the US both the P-38 and the P-47. It also brought the
> requirement for the B-29.
This is stretching it, given the date differences when it comes to
orders.
> In order to get that type of performance the
> 115 and higher fuels were required and the production for it was ramped
> up. The AAF had already made the switch to 100 octane by 1937 and was
> in the process of changing to 115.
Daryl, you said,
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
Now you say the USAAF was using 100 octane in 1937.
And no the US was not going to 115 octane pre war, as the USAAF
report makes quite clear.
> When the AAF started to show up in England, it wasn't 1937 or 1939, it
> was 1942 and the ONLY long ranged fighter was tuned and built for 115
> octane and ended up using 100 octane with Antiknock compound that would
> separate and jam up the engine causing the engine to go to extreme lean
> which caused severe damage at high altitude or under heavy power.
Do you understand your fuel claims are simply nonsense?
That essentially you are busy claiming the USAAF shipped the wrong
grade of fuel to the ETO and only the ETO. The theatre where fighter
performance mattered the most? All to make the P-38 a wonder
weapon.
> If
> 115 had been available in 1942 and much of 1943 this problem would not
> have been present. 100 Octane is no longer used in Aircraft but the 115
> octane is still being used. Until all e R2800s and R3350s go away (not
> in my lifetime) 115 will still be around. We call it 115/145 fuel today.
115/145 octane was around in test batches to the end of 1944, it
was then used by a few USAAF and USN units in the Pacific in 1945
in small quantities.
> Sunoco 260 start out as 115 and was "Blended" for automotive racing. I
> ran it on the strip myself in the late 60s. When you added the addons
> for automotive use including lead, it dropped it to a little over 97
> octane. We used to mix it with Avgas 115/145 so the higher rating would
> pass the tech inspection. Sunoco 260 was designed for at least an 11 to
> 1 compression level. We used 12.5 to 1 and the avgas helped to get us
> to where we needed to be.
So now we are 20 years after WWII and simply reporting on very
different engines and fuels.
> The Engine used in the P-39/P-40 and P-51 used the lower compression
> engines that could accept the 100 octane. In fact, they tolerated even
> the 87 octane with additions.
Daryl, the engines could tolerate the lower octane fuels when required
and provided the pilots took care, hence the use in the US of 87 octane
for some training flights.
> These used single speed superchargers and
> required lower compression due to supercharging. But the P-38 used a
> Turbocharger and required much higher compression.
How odd then the table in the 1945 Janes has all V-1710 having a
6.65 to 1 compression ratio. What does change is the blower ratio,
not surprisingly.
Oh yes, all of them use 100 octane fuel. Including the V-3420.
> From the plan
> accepted in 1937, the P-38 was tuned and designed to use 115 octane
> fuel. And so was the P-47. You can't change physics to suit your self.
> Only Star Trek can do that.
In short Daryl the high performance US aircraft engines of the late
1930's and early 1940's were designed to run 100 octane, as that
was the best grade of fuel available.
Not 115 octane.
You can't change history to suit yourself.
The war began in September 1939, but Daryl says
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
>> Just change the claim to what I actually reported. Or did the
>> Battle of Britain happen before the war?
> You are just making it up as you go, aren't you. If ARnt did the same
> thing you would call it lying. But if you do it.........
When Daryl is in trouble, out comes arnt and claims of lies.
>>>>> But Britain was stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English
>>>>> Fighters used the 100 during BoB. In 1943, Britain began
>>>>> using a 125 octane fuel in fighters. England had enough 100
>>>>> octane for an estimated 80 weeks of war.
>>>>
>>>> The 80 weeks of war stockpile refers to the planned stockpiles
>>>> in 1939/40, not 1943. By 1943 there was bulk shipment of 100
>>>> octane fuel to England and plans for a higher performance fuel.
>>>
>>> Noper, the RAF went into B0B with an 80 week war stockpile of 100
>>> octane at that current fuel usage.
>>
>> Ah, I gather you believe the Battle Of Britain occurred some time
>> other than 1939 or 1940. So tell us all what was the "current fuel
>> usage" you refer to, mid May during the Battle of France, the early
>> July lull, or the mid July start point? Given the loss of France the
>> RAF was about to undergo a major change on operations tempo and
>> type.
>
> The RAF had already started making those changes before Dunkirk. You
> are still trying to throw more BS into the Ballgame.
No, I simply note the Daryl claim they were not using 100 octane,
so wondered how they calculated the "current fuel usage", given
a) the wild changes in operations tempo at the time.
b) the claim they were using none anyway.
Since Daryl has been caught out, time for a non reply.
>> Also given your claim none was being used before the Battle of
>> Britain the total stockpile would be zero.
>
> They were ramping up and finally got to the 80 week 100 octane for the
> fighters and light bombers. I made a claim that at one time, all RAF
> aircraft used 87 octane but that was before 1937.
the need to pretend you were saying it from the start.
> By 1937, the 80 week
> war reserve was completed for the 100.
So in other words they were not using it, but did immediately lay in
stocks for 80 weeks at whatever war consumption rates were used
at the time? Is this the latest retreat?
Try in 1937 the RAF started squadron trials, then later on came the
decision to go to 100 octane and so start to build stocks, and of
course as war came closer it became more urgent to have the
reserves.
The whole idea about the 1937 squadron trials was to work out
whether 100 octane was worth it, after that came decision about
stockpiles, Daryl simply prefers to believe it was all done in 1937.
> Again, your reading
> comprehension has become equal to anything ARnt would do. And you would
> scream lie if ARnt was doing it. Since you are doing it.......
When Daryl is in trouble, out comes arnt and claims of lies.
>>> I am saying that the RAF planned well for it's fighter groups and
>>> that was one of the reasons the BoB was a draw.
>>
>> I suppose the fact the RAF used squadrons as a base unit is not
>> understood. The reality is the RAF was building up to switching
>> over to 100 octane starting pre war, the stockpiles were set at that
>> time, given they had no real data on actual wartime consumption. The
>> Battle of France was over too quickly to do any adjustments to things
>> like fuel stockpiles.
>
> Damn, SAm, that's what I already stated.
No, as has been pointed out.
> Now you are saying I didn't.
I have been saying it for quite some time.
> But I see you are learning, alibi the hard way.
Translation Daryl wants to use some facts in his fiction, so he needs
to pretend he found them.
>> By the way if the Battle of Britain is a draw, then the USAAF lost
>> the air fighting over Germany in early 1944, given the aircraft and
>> crew losses of both sides.
>
> It was a draw. No winner and both losers. The English stayed on their
> side of the Channel and the Germans on theirs. That is a draw.
Yes we know you have your own definitions, designed to protect
your fiction.
> And you
> are still trying to throw more BS in the ballgame. In late 1943 and
> early 1944, the AAF started an attrition game.
Daryl, not by your logic,
"It was a draw. No winner and both losers. The Americans stayed on
wonder aircraft if all they could do was draw.
> Like the US Ground
> Forces in WWI, the AAF could generate more equipment, supplies and human
> resources than the Germans. Something you English couldn't do in WWI OR
> WWII.
By the way anyone who disagrees with Daryl is deemed to be English,
which makes England a country having well over 99% of the
world's population.
Let us see now the US population was around 2.5 times that of Britain,
or about 50% more than "Greater Germany", so not surprising the US
could field more units, also the US was more intelligent than simply
trying for attrition.
>>> That 80 week stockpile rule goes back to just before the B0B and
>>> it was dependent on the planned usage, not the tonnage of fuel in
>>> it.
>>
>> So now we are back before the Battle of Britain, like 1939 and early
>> 1940. I know this is silly but the stockpile was measured in tons,
>> and the planned consumption gave the tonnage required.
>
> The tonnage changed as the requirements changed. Build more fighters
> and he tonnage has to change to keep the 80 week stockpile. Your own
> stats showed that it changed as requirements changed. It was still held
> at 80 week stockpile and stayed that way.
Ah at least that is sorted out.
>>> The 80 week rule didn't change in 1943. It just changed from 100
>>> octane to 115 octane.
>>
>> In short no when it comes to octane change over.
>
> It changed to comply with he newer planes with newer engines build in
> England. You honestly think that the engine used in the late war
> English Fighters could still use 100 octane?
Yes, as that is what the Air Forces report, 100/130 or 100/150,
other blends were on the experimental list.
> Well, neither could the
> longranged Fighters in 1941 and up.
They could, and did, use 100 octane.
> Since the English didn't start
> changing over to 115 octane in 1941 because their AC couldn't use it,
> you think the US wasn't already quickly heading that direction. You
> can't win the Kentucky Derby 2 furlong with a hay fed horse.
Translation, Daryl wants to believe the US had a better fuel than 100
octane during WWII, but chose not to supply it to probably the key
theatre for the USAAF, the ETO, thereby making the P-38 under
perform.
Is anyone else having trouble seeing the screen because they are
laughing too much?
Daryl, the US shipped bulk fuel to England from the US, and had
control over what was shipped.
>> The US had produced test quantities of 115/145 octane by the end of
>> 1944 (75,000 barrels in December 1944). They wanted the new fuel
>> but they could not produce enough 100/130 even as late as March
>> 1945, when 100/130 production was 525,000 barrels a day and more 115
>> octane meant even less 100 octane.
>>
>> It is clear some 115 octane fuel made it to the Pacific in 1945, in
>> what was essentially as series of tests by both the USAAF and USN.
>
> Considering the P-38,l P-47, F-4U, F-6F were already using 115 in 1943
> on says you are just making it up again.
No, using the information in,
"Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
Historical Study 65
The report you have tried to pretend does not count.
> Losing some of the 100 octane
> was no big loss in the Pacific where the Aircraft there required more
> range. You have 115/145 confused with the new fuel being test of
> 125/150 that did come out at the end of the war and was tested starting
> in 1944.
No, I have actually looked at the air force reports, and noted 100/130
as the standard combat fuel for most of WWII, with 115/145 under
test at the end.
You simply have decided to move dates back in time several years,
then have the allies sabotaging their efforts by not supplying your
newly arrived better fuel.
> By the second half of 1944, 100 octane was no longer really
> needed by the AAF, USNavy or USMarines.
That is simply contradicted by the documentation.
> The 115 was there in 1942 for
> the P-38s and as he new high performance US Aircraft started making the
> requirement for the 115 go up.
That is simply contradicted by the documentation.
> This is why the MTO, CBI and PTO had
> better performance and dependability for ALL long ranged fighters and
> even the heavy bombers.
They were running 100 octane. By the way CBI fuel largely came
from the Middle East.
> The B-29 couldn't run at all on 100 octane and
> still have the performance and range it was designed to have.
No.
> Neither
> could anything running the High Compression turbo Allison or the R2800.
No.
> In the CBI/PTO/MTO, the R2800 and the turbo allison did not require
> antiknock compound to be added. And they didn't knock or blow up in
> near the frequency that they did in the ETO where only 100 octane
> octane or below was provided.
No.
> The US already had 115 octane in those
> three theaters.
No.
> When it was just the P-38 they needed less. But with
> the addition of the F-4U/F-6 and P-47 the amount was increased to
> support these aircraft. You can't change history to suit yourself, arnt.
Daryl, you cannot change history to suit yourself, which is what you
are doing.
>>> And the usage also changed.
>>
>> RAF home air force usage changed steadily from 1940 onwards, factors
>> like the switch to using 100 octane in all combat aircraft, the rise
>> in the number of bombers and their increase in size. The change in
>> fighter operations. For example in September 1940 Fighter Command
>> flew around 4,500 sorties a week, in February 1943 it was about
>> 2,500, but with more offensive operations and bigger aircraft that
>> needed more fuel.
>
> Still didn't change the 80 week war surplus requirement of fuel grades.
So we have that cleared up.
>>> Obviously, the RAF planners were a lot smarter than you are.
>>
>> Collectively and with more data at their disposal they should be
>> much better than any outsiders. At the same time predicting the
>> future in things like fuel consumption estimates means you are
>> usually wrong.
>
> With the exception of the fuel grade, the RAF Planners did a bang up
> job.
Yet the RAF planners should have used the Daryl fuel, since
that failure, supported by the USAAF meant the P-38 in the
ETO was not a wonder weapon.
P-38Daryl wonder weapon, did not happen, invent reasons why not,
ignore logic, claim sabotage by allied air force command.
> Coming up with that 80 week war fuel requirement was just plain
> ingenious and kept the English from having to learn German.
Daryl, the idea to stockpile fuel is simple, obvious and everyone
did it. And strange as it may seem an 80 week reserve is way
too much for 13 or so weeks of combat, July to September 1940,
or way too less depending on the consumption assumptions.
> Without the
> gas to power the planes, it doesn't matter how many pilots you have or
> the number of Aircraft. Just ask the Germans starting in the second
> half of 1944.
The trouble is you are busy giving the allies a fuel blend they did not
have.
>>> In fact, those old, grey haired dudes were a lot smarter than the
>>> AAF planners and even the RAF planners of today.
>>
>> No, they are being misreported, and the planners had a mixture of
>> people, including non grey hairs and females.
>
> YOu are using today's timeline for then.
No, I am actually pointing out planning departments had a mixture
of people involved.
> Trust me, the planners that
> okayed everything were quite elderly and definitely weren't female.
Daryl, on your record, that just about proves no elderly men were
involved in the decision.
Which by the way was not just for the RAF to make, they were
spending government money.
>>>>> But the adding of the US flying out of England changed that
>>>>> estimate quickly.
>>>>
>>>> Not until 1944.
>>>
>>> Oh, that's right, the US didn't enter the war until 1944 and
>>> didn't do any daylight bombings either.
>>
>> Good to know, sorts out much.
>
> Guess the Americans fighting in CBI/PTO/MTO and flying 8th AF would sure
> like to hear that one.
Well if you think it is wrong, stop making the claim.
Your words,
"Oh, that's right, the US didn't enter the war until 1944 and
didn't do any daylight bombings either."
in 1944 as they flew in all of 1943 is a good reason why the fuel
consumption went above that planned for.
> Daylight Precision Bombing requires you
> to see your target. I spent a winter in England and on many of the
> days, we had to follow the taxi lights to just get to our parked
> aircraft. Oftentimes we landed blind using ILS. And had a followme
> vehicle take us off the runway all the way to where we parked. ILS
> didn't exist in WWII.
Actually there were radio landing aids, and from pre WWII. Blind
approach training was done.
> We still landed at night and took off at night.
> The AC during WWII in the ETO didn't have that advantage. For night
> time area bombing, close counts and the target can be socked in. But
> you need to have the weather clear to land. For Daylight Precision
> Bombing, you have to see your target to hit it and be able to see your
> homestation to land.
Actually there was an extensive system set up for diversions, given
how changeable the weather was.
> You can't keep diverting when you get home.
Except that is what happened at times.
> Again, you are tossing in more BS into the ballgame.
No, I am point out facts, like why the fuel consumption estimates for
early 1944 proved under estimates.
>>> Newflash: The estimate changes every month or so to keep the 80
>>> week stockpile current.
>>
>> Above you are saying the 80 week rule changed, now you are saying it
>> stayed but was adjusted according to current fuel consumption and
>> projected consumption.
>
> No Sure, Shitlock.
Ah the above explains so much.
>> So I gather the idea is the rule was supply for 80 weeks, and the
>> tonnage was changed, which is what I am concentrating on.
>
> No Sure Shitlock.
Ah the above explains so much.
>>> This includes the addition of AAF aircraft starting in 1942.
>>
>> So essentially you are saying the RAF stockpile was in fact the
>> allied air force stockpile. So why are the AAF supposed to be not
>> as smart, since it was the RAF setting the stockpile levels?
>
> The English provided the fuel. You are adding more BS to the Ballgame.
You see it goes like this, all fuel shipped to Britain from any source
went into a common pool, and much to most of the fuel came from
the US. This does not suit the "fuel sabotaged wonder P-38"
fiction.
>>> And the addition of the Polish, French and other flyers operating
>>> out of England.
>>
>> You really are quite ignorant of the 300 series squadrons in the
>> RAF, which were for non Empire allies, they were counted as RAF.
>
> As was the fuel. More BS in the ballgame.
Dear Daryl, the 300 series of squadrons were already counted as
RAF for all purposes, your "addition" double counts them.
>>>> From the various logistics histories, basically dealing with the
>>>> build up to D-Day.
>>>
>>> I am sure that the logistics goes further back than that from the
>>> English Planners. Starting right after the Dunkirk battle. Had it
>>> not, the Germans would have successfully invaded England.
>>
>> Given the reality a German invasion of England in 1940 was not
>> possible unless the British surrendered the second claim is a joke.
>
> That joke (as you call it) was foremost on everyone's minds.
And what the Germans had to try and do the invasion makes it
clear your claim is a joke.
>> The first claim is also a joke, the fuel stockpile rules were worked
>> out pre war, it was far too late in June 1940 to suddenly try and
>> ship in 80 weeks worth of aviation fuel.
>
> It started in 1937. Another arnt moment for you.
Cannot cope with your little pet history being exposed to reality I see.
>> You might note the considerable performance gain switching from two
>> pitch to constant speed propellers in mid 1940.
>
> Except, the US was already producing those aircraft and the constant
> speed prop was only part of the performance increase. More BS in
> Ballgame.
Now comes the problem of what aircraft are being produced.
As opposed to propellers and the performance gain was quite real,
but Daryl is in wonder fuel mode, so anything else that helped is
supposed to be ignored.
Yes, real problems with replies.
>> Correct? And the USAAF were at fault when the projections were
>> wrong, not the RAF people doing the estimates.
>
> Blame it on the USAAF. That's your answer.
Actually that is your answer, remember your claim the RAF was good,
the USAAF were the ones making the errors? I know you made it more
than a day ago but try and remember.
> The 80 week rule didn't
> change even when the USAAF started tapping into the English fuel supply.
Try tapping into the common fuel pool.
> It stayed at 80 weeks and the tonnage was increased to meet that
> requirement. Except now, 100 octane was being shipped in from the US at
> a higher rate to meet that 80 week requirement.
Well, at least we are at 100 octane.
>> And I am pointing out for most of the war the projections were
>> wrong, mostly over estimates but in one crucial period they were
>> underestimates. And correcting the problem was difficult given the
>> tanker shortage.
>
> England had the shortage, not the US. IF the US needed more tankers,
> they built more. And many of those "English" tankers came from the US
> by way of Canada.
You really are quite ignorant of the situation. The allies had a tanker
shortage, as their fuel shipping requirements had gone way above
pre war levels. Things like putting in pipelines in the US to free tankers
were done.
All you need to do is read the various US histories on supply.
In case you are wondering they had a shipping shortage even after
the end of the war in Europe, given the requirements for the invasion
of Japan as well as all the other requirements.
>>>>> This meant that the 87 octane with the anti knock addition had
>>>>> to be used in the two long ranged fighters. More on this
>>>>> later.
>>>>
>>>> No, the USAAF used 100 Octane fuels for its combat aircraft on
>>>> operations, the cost of the fuel, in both money and production
>>>> capacity, meant training flights in the US often used 87 Octane.
>>>> There was a set of rules to follow in using 100 Octane while in
>>>> the US.
>>>
>>> When training with a front lined fighter, the US used 100 and 115
>>> octane.
>>
>> In the US 87 octane was used to conserve 100 octane fuel, and 115
>> octane was simply an exotic test fuel in WWII.
>
> It was so exotic that it was used in the P-38, P-47, F-6F and F-4U in
> the pacific.
Note by the way Daryl has decided to move to harmonise with
what I have been saying, what needs to be added that it was only
used in small amounts in the Pacific in 1945, plus of course P-51,
and given the users (20th AF fighters) possibly not the P-38.
>>> In the hot fighters, they used 115 and 125.
>>
>> 100/130 octane in all USAAF combat aircraft in war zones except it
>> seems from mid 1944 the 8th AF fighters on 100/150 and some
>> operations in the Pacific in 1945 using 115/145.
>
> Once again, you are getting he 115/145 confused with the 125/150 that
> was introduced in 1945 into the pacific.
Once again you are simply wrong, 100/130, with 100/150 for the 8th
AF fighters and 115/145 in test batches in the Pacific in 1945 and no
125/150.
>>> In the Pacific, the AAF and others used 115 since it was provided
>>> by the US. In the MTO, they used 115 as well.
>>
>> Again 100/130 Octane, 115/145 was around in test batches and not
>> sent to the front except in small quantities near the end of the war
>> with Japan.
>
> The Turbo Allison and the R2800 had predetonation problems with 100
> octane. Since they didn't seem to have that problem anywhere except the
> MTO where the fuel requirements were controlled by the English with
> antiknock compound added then the fuels had to be a bit higher than 100
> octane in the other theaters. Once again, you get 115/145 confused with
> 125/150.
Daryl, you are wrong and the Air Force says you are wrong.
>>> The only theater that the English controlled the fuel was the ETO.
>>> And it affected the High Performance US engines quite a bit.
>>> Especially the Turbocharged Engines that had higher Compression
>>> Ratios.
>>
>> Given how much US aviation fuel was shipped to England the idea the
>> English controlled the fuel supply ignores how much came from
>> America, and was refined to American standards.
>
> Nope, it did come from the US but it was manufactured to the English
> Standards.
You are talking pre war and early war, before any USAAF aircraft
were present, after than all fuel went into a pool.
>>>>> Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war.
>>>>
>>>> Not western allied bombers.
>>>
>>> Until the 100 octane was brought up to speed, they certainly did
>>> use 87 octane. Thinking that the change over was done over night
>>> is an Arnt moment.
>>
>> Ah the Arnt insult, a sign Daryl is desperate. He made a wrong
>> statement so time to pretend everyone else is wrong.
>
> Just quoting real history and not making it up to try and win an
> argument, arnt.
"Just quoting real history and not making it up to try and win an
argument."
Daryl I do not try and win arguments, I report what I know so
people who have experience can check what I have, people who
are interested can hopefully learn and finally I can have fun with
those that prefer fiction.
>>>>> The 87 octane was superior in engines that weren't "Super
>>>>> Tuned" like the Merlin and the Allison in a fighter
>>>>> application. The Spits and Hurricanes both used 100 octane
>>>>> starting just before the BoB. The Bombers continued to use 87
>>>>> octane for dependability sake.
>>>>
>>>> Again no.
>>>
>>> You have to retune and change parts out like jets, etc. to
>>> effectively use a higher octane. Just like auto and truck
>>> engines. Physics hasn't been rewritten to please you.
>>
>> The 87 octane was not a superior fuel, which is why the allies went
>> to 100 octane.
>
> You left out the part where I stated 87 octane engines used that fuel
> for dependability reasons.
No I left it in but then you are busy making so many claims about octane
change overs it is not surprising you are confused.
> The higher performance the engine the more
> power output, the higher octane needed and shorter the TBO is. Simple
> motorhead logic. That was applicable then and still applies today.
Actually it is simply not that linear, some engines are more reliable,
and while bleeding edge usually has short lifetimes, or is designed
for such, lower ratings become more reliable. Want to back a
100 HP engine from today versus one from a century ago?
>> Reality cannot be rewritten just to accommodate your fiction. The
>> bombers changed to 100 octane according to the fuel supply and
>> engines they were fitted with and well before the end of the war.
>
> Newflash, if 100 octane had been run in the new English Engines that had
> just started rolling off the assembly line they would have had the same
> problem as the P-38.
You see the idea is to avoid giving a date, it could be any time, from
1900 onwards, that way the Daryl non answer can be made to sound
like it has meaning.
In reality as it became clear 100 octane was the way to go engines
were altered accordingly. And that was from 1937 on as far as
the RAF was concerned.
> The English didn't do a thing by US wishes, it was
> always according to their own time table.
Apart from the times they conformed to US requests of course.
>>>>> The English Inlines may have shared many of the same parts but
>>>>> each one was tuned differently to accept different fuels. For
>>>>> instance, in order to use 87 octane in a Spit it required anti
>>>>> knock formula to be added to the fuel.
>>>>
>>>> The early Merlins could handle 87 octane, the later ones were
>>>> meant for 100 octane, which meant you had to take care using
>>>> them with 87 octane.
>>
>> No reply here.
>
> None required.
Daryl is so sure facts are irrelevant.
> The R1830 ran fine on 100 octane but the R2800 needed
> the 115 octane to run properly. You have no point on this one.
And as everyone knows, the 115 octane was not around except
as test quantities and some operations in the Pacific in 1945.
So Daryl has the US sabotaging its air war by mis matching
engines and fuel all war.
>>>>> It helped to prevent the pre detonation using the lower fuel.
>>>>> But the 87 octane also lowered the performance on the Spit.
>>>>
>>>> Putting higher octane rating fuels into Spitfires increased
>>>> speed at lower altitudes, it did not increase top speed at rated
>>>> altitude. The low level power boost helped take off
>>>> performance, hence why bombers used it.
>>>
>>> You already stated that 87 wasn't used in Western Bombers yet now
>>> you say it was.
>>
>> Daryl, I pointed out your claim
>>
>> "Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
>>
>> is wrong for western allied bombers, now you delude yourself into
>> changing what I said to fit the fiction.
>
> Read my next paragraph.
Which of course is a sad attempt at trying to avoid an answer.
>>> Of course it was while the 100 octane was ramping up.
>>
>> So tell us all how long did western allied bombers use 87 octane in
>> combat? Come on, which bombers and for how long? RAF and USAAF.
>
> The USAAF didn't. The RAF did while the 100 octane was being ramped up.
Daryl quotes, they make for a good laugh,
" "Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
"The USAAF didn't."
So tell us all how long did western allied bombers use 87 octane in
combat? Come on, which bombers and for how long? RAF and USAAF
it is someone else's job to provide the data.
Daryl quotes, they make for a good laugh,
>>> You also stated that there wasn't any difference between a merlin
>>> bomber engine and a Merlin Fighter Engine.
>>
>> Actually I pointed out it made little sense to have two grades of
>> aviation fuel especially as 100 octane had so many performance
>> advantages. Therefore the bombers switched. You can see my text
>> below, the line about Lancasters and Halifxes
>
> Your knowledge of engines is pretty lacking.
Compared to yours I know 5 year olds doing better, and that is
just the sound effects.
> Bomber uses lower
> compression, flows less fuel and air, has a lower blower on the engine.
Things like blowers rather relate to what altitude they expect to
operate in, similar to supercharging.
> The Fighter engine is a higher compression ratio, flows more fuel and
> air and has a higher blower setting. That's the short answer but it
> should be enough.
Daryl, the 1945 Jane's has a two page table of Merlin specifications,
from the mark I through to the 85 and the 224, 225 and 266, all have
the same compression ratio.
That's the short answer but it will not be enough of course, Daryl
prefers fiction.
Oh yes, the Merlin XX was fitted to Beaufighters, Defiants,
Halifxes, Hurricanes and Lancasters.
The Merlin 28 is said to be the V-1710-1, fitted to Lancasters,
and P-40s.
>> The allies did a lot to reduce their fuel grade requirements, things
>> like using MT80 for vehicles and 100 Octane for aircraft. They did
>> not have the tanker capacity to ship lots of different grades of
>> fuels to each theatre.
>
> Wow, the first honest thing you have said.
Translation, Daryl's fiction can allow the above fact.
>>> There was quite a bit of difference. It's like using the Truck
>>> 413 engine versus the engine that was in the Cross Ram 300J
>>> Chrysler engine. They shared the block, rods, and crank. Nothing
>>> else on the basic engine including the pistons and heads.
>>
>> Given the large number of Merlin versions there are all sort of
>> permutations in terms of basic engineering.
>
> That's two in a row. Can you keep it up?
Translation, Daryl's fiction can allow the above fact.
>>>>> It had no affect on the bombers whether you used the 87 or the
>>>>> 100 octane.
>>>>
>>>> The short answer here is no.
>>>
>>> Unless you retuned it for the higher octane, it did no good and
>>> just dumped more fuel out the tail pipe.
>>
>> Ah I see, the Daryl air force will use 100 octane but not tune the
>> engines to use it. 100 Octane improved performance, in bombers as
>> well as fighters. Apparently people will use the fuel but not
>> adjust or change the engines.
>
> In REality AF, you can't tune out needing a lower compression level.
> And you were don't so well.
Daryl, the people at the time altered the engines to use 100 octane
and 100 octane did improve bomber performance. Which makes
you claim wrong.
>>>>> It's wasteful to run 100 octane or higher in the bomber since
>>>>> they are tuned and designed to use 87 octane.
>>>>
>>>> So the idea is the Merlins fitted to Halifaxes and Lancasters
>>>> etc. were 87 octane but the fighter ones were 100? Is that the
>>>> claim? Two grades of fuel in use? The bombers doing without the
>>>> better take off performance and lower fuel weights per gallon?
>>
>> No reply here.
>
> They shared many parts but not the heads, induction systems,
> superchargers, pistons, etc.. You don't use a Thorobred to pull a plow,
> you use a plowhorse.
You see Daryl needs a way to avoid answering the question, after
all why would the allies go with two grades of avgas?
Note above Daryl thinks it was correct the allies reduced the number
of fuel grades in use, here it is about avoiding admitting that meant
bombers went to 100 octane far sooner than the original Daryl
claim.
>>>>> So the Spit and Hurricane continued using the 100 octane until
>>>>> the 115 octane was available. But the Hurricane and the
>>>>> Spitfire ran 100 octane until the higher octane became
>>>>> available.
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be a duplication.
>>>
>>> And it duplicated the facts.
>>
>> Except the Hurricane did not go to the higher octane rating, as it
>> was on the way out in 1944. And 115 octane was not around, the WWII
>> Spitfire never used it, going with 100/150.
>>
>> The fact is Daryl is wrong.
>
> The P-40 was on the way out for the same reasons but it was still used.
> They were paid for and got used when push came to shove.
You see Daryl cannot admit an error, so time to avoid Hurricanes
and head for a P-40.
>>>>> In late 1943, the English introduced their "130" fuel with an
>>>>> octane rating of 115. This fuel was produced by 3 refineries
>>>>> in England and also was imported heavily from the US. This
>>>>> fuel was specifically tailored to High Performance Engines
>>>>> like the PW2800 and the Allison with the turbocharger. This is
>>>>> what they were tuned to use.
>>>>
>>>> In late 1943 there was a plan to introduce a higher performance
>>>> fuel that ultimately was only used by fighters, the bombers
>>>> stayed with 100 Octane.
>>>
>>> Until the 100 octane was up to production and storage rates, they
>>> used 100 for the fighters and some bombers and 87 for all others.
>>
>> You see we have the steady retreat from
>>
>> "Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
>>
>> To a new unspecified change over time.
>>
>> And the 1943/4 idea was to change to 100/150.
>
> Hate to break it to you but you are now confusing the 100 for the
> 125/150 fuel that barely made it into the war. What you meant was
> 100/125.
No 100/130 with 100/150 for the 8th AF and some RAF fighters
in 1944 and 1945.
> Math is not one of your strong points.
Apparently Daryl thinks you need to add the two numbers together,
sounds like his engine knowledge level.
>>> When the 115 was introduced, this is when the 100 was used in the
>>> bombers and the 115 went to the fighters.
>>
>> In short no, 115 Octane was effectively post war.
>
> Once again, you are confusing the 115 with the 125.
No Daryl, you are busy moving a post war fuel to effectively pre war.
>>> And that happened in early 1944.
>>
>> In short no. 100/150 was introduced in the ETO in 1944. In 1945
>> test amounts of 115/145 were sent to the Pacific.
>
> There never was any 100/150.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
Thanks Peter, saved me having to look for it.
> There was 100/125 and the 125/150 was
> starting to be introduced very late in the war.
You really have no idea about the fuel situation.
> In between those two
> was the 115/145 that you keep getting mixed up with the 125/150.
No Daryl, you are busy moving 100/130 to 115/145.
> Then
> again you keep typing 100/150 which never existed and still doesn't.
Except it did and was in use.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
>>> Yes, they planned on something like this all along. It started in
>>> 1937.
>>
>> So now they know about 115 octane in 1937?
>
> More reading comprehension of your part. Not worth addressing.
Translation, Daryl made an error, try and hide it.
>>>>> The retuning of the Spit and Hurricane and follow on English
>>>>> Fighters performance was increased as well by retuning the
>>>>> Merlins.
>>>>
>>>> Hurricanes in 1944 were using the 1940 Merlin XX, they did not
>>>> use the higher octane fuel.
>>>
>>> They used the 100 octane in 1940 just like the Spit even though
>>> there was a much larger surplus of 87 octane. By 1944, the
>>> Hurricane entered into the same realm as the P-40 who were both
>>> eclipsed by newer fighters who required the 115 and 125.
>>
>> Ah yes, ignore the fact Daryl is wrong when it comes to Hurricanes
>> using the improved 1944 octane 100/150 ratings.
>
> No Aircraft or anything else use a 100/150 fuel. It never existed and
> still doesn't.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
The attempts to remain so ignorant of the fuels actually used does
explain why 115/145 becomes the fictional WWII avgas.
>> The newer fighters were using 100/130 octane. The 115 octane was
>> under limited test in the US.
>
> The 115 was being used in the other 3 theaters by the US starting
> sometime in 1942.
No, and that has been made clear many times.
> You still haven't explained why predetonation was
> only a problem in the MTO and not any of the other theaters for both the
> P-38 and the P-47.
ETO but Daryl has moved to the MTO.
Since the P-47 did not report major engine problems in the ETO,
apart from teething troubles in 1943 and again with the M model,
your claim is simply wrong, and the P-47 added water injection to
enable higher engine performance. The P-38 had lots of problems
when flying with the 8th AF.
> The rest is trimmed.
You see the facts are too hard to refute.
> It's just more of the same trying to cover the
> fact that the MTO was behind the other theaters.
The Daryl ETO is now code MTO.
> In the 60s, we would
> call it bad gas and there was a lot of that for cars in the 60s before
> the Feds put in the controls we have today.
>
> I think this argument was going on during WWII as well. Luckily, the US
> ignored this argument and did it their way.
The US conducted joint fuel planning with the British and ensured fuel
compatibility. The Daryl USAAF sent the wrong fuel to Europe,
apparently under pressure, so sabotaged the wonder P-38Daryl.
You see the P-38 must be wonder, which requires USAAF
command to be somewhere between incompetent and criminal.
The rest of the post is what Daryl couldn't answer, so if you have
seen my previous reply there is no need to read further. The
claim about where the 8th AF went in November 1943 is a
really good example of Daryl fiction.
--------------------------------------------------------
put back in, it is not new text.
I note in particular where the 8th AF went in November 1943
versus the Daryl claim.
news:koj5qq$u6i$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 6/3/2013 11:09 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> "Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
>> news:koghrh$nmg$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> It's so easy to wind up the English. I won't answer Keith. This
>>> one is more interesting.
>>
>> I gather your belief system requires most of the world's population
>> to be English, given so many people can correct you, repeatedly, an
>> English population the size of India and China combined would not be
>> enough.
>>
>> Interesting you think posting fiction is a fun idea.
>>
>> Meantime there is always,
>>
>> "Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
>> Historical Study 65
>
> You are having another Arnt moment.
So Daryl is desperate again.
>> "Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
>> news:koghrh$nmg$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> It's so easy to wind up the English. I won't answer Keith. This
>>> one is more interesting.
>>
>> I gather your belief system requires most of the world's population
>> to be English, given so many people can correct you, repeatedly, an
>> English population the size of India and China combined would not be
>> enough.
>>
>> Interesting you think posting fiction is a fun idea.
>>
>> Meantime there is always,
>>
>> "Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
>> Historical Study 65
>
> You are having another Arnt moment.
> Using the AAF stats instead of the
> RAF stats.
including the grades, it makes the situation quite clear, given how
much of the Daryl claims are about US fuels.
> Newsflash, there was NO AAF involved in the BoB.
involved in the Battle of Britain.
> If ARnt
> does it, you call it lying. When you do it.....
in WWII, as a hint, not a lot of 115/145 grade.
Hence the desperate need to accuse people of telling lies while trying
to pretend what the US did produce is irrelevant.
>>> On 6/2/2013 9:03 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>>>> "Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:koe321$3nt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> Time to wind up Keith.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to be the latest excuse to post a lot of fiction.
>>>
>>> Thanks, I appreciate that.
>>
>> Nice to know you admit to posting fiction.
>
> You just don't get it.
> Your ability to see the facts are obscured by
> your clouded bigotry.
>>> Except, the facts have been obscured.
>>
>> No, misreported by you.
>
> I reported accurately.
>>> Yours is no more accurate than mine.
>>
>> Actually the information I gave is much more accurate.
>
> Your in is slanted.
> If arnt did the same thing you would yell to high
> heaven that it was a lie. When you do it.......
course accusations of lies.
>>>>> I stumbled on some info on the fuels used before, during and
>>>>> after the BoB.
>>>>
>>>> And stumbled straight back out again without any understanding.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your vote of confidence.
>>
>> It is called evidence based conclusions.
>
> You cherry picked and only chose those facts that support your claim.
corrections to your claims have been made by other people, versus
corrections to mine.
You are simply gazing into the mirror too much while typing.
> And even then, the facts you choose falls short.
lies or arnt when that fiction is shown wrong.
> You try to use
> confusion to say that you are right. Noper, confusion is rarely
> correct, just confusing.
>> That is wrong for the RAF and even more wrong for the USAAF.
>
> Separating the RAF from the AAF, the RAF made a decision to upgrade
> their fuels in 1937. It didn't happen overnight. This is when they
> decided to create the 80 week fuel requirement. Before 1937, they ran
> 87 octane. By 1939, in time for Dunkirk, the fighters were running 100
> octane and the 80 week requirement was in place but was still being
> built. By 1940 for the BoB, the supply was up to where they wanted it
> to be. You can't change history to suit yourself.
you just stated in 1939 or at least before the Battle of Britain, fighters
were running100 octane, which is nice given your claim,
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
> The AAF is another matter completely. In 1937, they began designing
> Fighters that required 115 octane.
> The 400 by 400 requirement of 1937
> brought the US both the P-38 and the P-47. It also brought the
> requirement for the B-29.
orders.
> In order to get that type of performance the
> 115 and higher fuels were required and the production for it was ramped
> up. The AAF had already made the switch to 100 octane by 1937 and was
> in the process of changing to 115.
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
And no the US was not going to 115 octane pre war, as the USAAF
report makes quite clear.
> When the AAF started to show up in England, it wasn't 1937 or 1939, it
> was 1942 and the ONLY long ranged fighter was tuned and built for 115
> octane and ended up using 100 octane with Antiknock compound that would
> separate and jam up the engine causing the engine to go to extreme lean
> which caused severe damage at high altitude or under heavy power.
That essentially you are busy claiming the USAAF shipped the wrong
grade of fuel to the ETO and only the ETO. The theatre where fighter
performance mattered the most? All to make the P-38 a wonder
weapon.
> If
> 115 had been available in 1942 and much of 1943 this problem would not
> have been present. 100 Octane is no longer used in Aircraft but the 115
> octane is still being used. Until all e R2800s and R3350s go away (not
> in my lifetime) 115 will still be around. We call it 115/145 fuel today.
was then used by a few USAAF and USN units in the Pacific in 1945
in small quantities.
> Sunoco 260 start out as 115 and was "Blended" for automotive racing. I
> ran it on the strip myself in the late 60s. When you added the addons
> for automotive use including lead, it dropped it to a little over 97
> octane. We used to mix it with Avgas 115/145 so the higher rating would
> pass the tech inspection. Sunoco 260 was designed for at least an 11 to
> 1 compression level. We used 12.5 to 1 and the avgas helped to get us
> to where we needed to be.
different engines and fuels.
> The Engine used in the P-39/P-40 and P-51 used the lower compression
> engines that could accept the 100 octane. In fact, they tolerated even
> the 87 octane with additions.
and provided the pilots took care, hence the use in the US of 87 octane
for some training flights.
> These used single speed superchargers and
> required lower compression due to supercharging. But the P-38 used a
> Turbocharger and required much higher compression.
6.65 to 1 compression ratio. What does change is the blower ratio,
not surprisingly.
Oh yes, all of them use 100 octane fuel. Including the V-3420.
> From the plan
> accepted in 1937, the P-38 was tuned and designed to use 115 octane
> fuel. And so was the P-47. You can't change physics to suit your self.
> Only Star Trek can do that.
1930's and early 1940's were designed to run 100 octane, as that
was the best grade of fuel available.
Not 115 octane.
You can't change history to suit yourself.
>>> Going into the war, both 100 and 87 were being used by the RAF
>>> depending on the aircraft type and command.
>>
>> So much for he "all fuels" claim.
>
> You obviously had a reading comprehension problem.
Translation, Daryl has a fact comprehension problem.
>>> depending on the aircraft type and command.
>>
>> So much for he "all fuels" claim.
>
> You obviously had a reading comprehension problem.
The war began in September 1939, but Daryl says
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
"Going into the war, both 100 and 87 were being used by the RAF"
"By 1939, in time for Dunkirk, the fighters were running 100 octane"
Quite an effort of fiction writing.
>> Just change the claim to what I actually reported. Or did the
>> Battle of Britain happen before the war?
> You are just making it up as you go, aren't you. If ARnt did the same
> thing you would call it lying. But if you do it.........
>>>>> But Britain was stockpiling 100 octane fuel and the English
>>>>> Fighters used the 100 during BoB. In 1943, Britain began
>>>>> using a 125 octane fuel in fighters. England had enough 100
>>>>> octane for an estimated 80 weeks of war.
>>>>
>>>> The 80 weeks of war stockpile refers to the planned stockpiles
>>>> in 1939/40, not 1943. By 1943 there was bulk shipment of 100
>>>> octane fuel to England and plans for a higher performance fuel.
>>>
>>> Noper, the RAF went into B0B with an 80 week war stockpile of 100
>>> octane at that current fuel usage.
>>
>> Ah, I gather you believe the Battle Of Britain occurred some time
>> other than 1939 or 1940. So tell us all what was the "current fuel
>> usage" you refer to, mid May during the Battle of France, the early
>> July lull, or the mid July start point? Given the loss of France the
>> RAF was about to undergo a major change on operations tempo and
>> type.
>
> The RAF had already started making those changes before Dunkirk. You
> are still trying to throw more BS into the Ballgame.
so wondered how they calculated the "current fuel usage", given
a) the wild changes in operations tempo at the time.
b) the claim they were using none anyway.
Since Daryl has been caught out, time for a non reply.
>> Also given your claim none was being used before the Battle of
>> Britain the total stockpile would be zero.
>
> They were ramping up and finally got to the 80 week 100 octane for the
> fighters and light bombers. I made a claim that at one time, all RAF
> aircraft used 87 octane but that was before 1937.
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
"Going into the war, both 100 and 87 were being used by the RAF"
"By 1939, in time for Dunkirk, the fighters were running 100 octane"
We know you are slowing incorporating more of the truth, but with
the need to pretend you were saying it from the start.
> By 1937, the 80 week
> war reserve was completed for the 100.
stocks for 80 weeks at whatever war consumption rates were used
at the time? Is this the latest retreat?
Try in 1937 the RAF started squadron trials, then later on came the
decision to go to 100 octane and so start to build stocks, and of
course as war came closer it became more urgent to have the
reserves.
The whole idea about the 1937 squadron trials was to work out
whether 100 octane was worth it, after that came decision about
stockpiles, Daryl simply prefers to believe it was all done in 1937.
> Again, your reading
> comprehension has become equal to anything ARnt would do. And you would
> scream lie if ARnt was doing it. Since you are doing it.......
>>> I am saying that the RAF planned well for it's fighter groups and
>>> that was one of the reasons the BoB was a draw.
>>
>> I suppose the fact the RAF used squadrons as a base unit is not
>> understood. The reality is the RAF was building up to switching
>> over to 100 octane starting pre war, the stockpiles were set at that
>> time, given they had no real data on actual wartime consumption. The
>> Battle of France was over too quickly to do any adjustments to things
>> like fuel stockpiles.
>
> Damn, SAm, that's what I already stated.
> Now you are saying I didn't.
> But I see you are learning, alibi the hard way.
to pretend he found them.
>> By the way if the Battle of Britain is a draw, then the USAAF lost
>> the air fighting over Germany in early 1944, given the aircraft and
>> crew losses of both sides.
>
> It was a draw. No winner and both losers. The English stayed on their
> side of the Channel and the Germans on theirs. That is a draw.
your fiction.
> And you
> are still trying to throw more BS in the ballgame. In late 1943 and
> early 1944, the AAF started an attrition game.
"It was a draw. No winner and both losers. The Americans stayed on
their side of the Channel and the Germans on theirs. That is a draw. "
for all of USAAF operations in the ETO to June 5 1944. No P-38
wonder aircraft if all they could do was draw.
> Like the US Ground
> Forces in WWI, the AAF could generate more equipment, supplies and human
> resources than the Germans. Something you English couldn't do in WWI OR
> WWII.
which makes England a country having well over 99% of the
world's population.
Let us see now the US population was around 2.5 times that of Britain,
or about 50% more than "Greater Germany", so not surprising the US
could field more units, also the US was more intelligent than simply
trying for attrition.
>>> That 80 week stockpile rule goes back to just before the B0B and
>>> it was dependent on the planned usage, not the tonnage of fuel in
>>> it.
>>
>> So now we are back before the Battle of Britain, like 1939 and early
>> 1940. I know this is silly but the stockpile was measured in tons,
>> and the planned consumption gave the tonnage required.
>
> The tonnage changed as the requirements changed. Build more fighters
> and he tonnage has to change to keep the 80 week stockpile. Your own
> stats showed that it changed as requirements changed. It was still held
> at 80 week stockpile and stayed that way.
>>> The 80 week rule didn't change in 1943. It just changed from 100
>>> octane to 115 octane.
>>
>> In short no when it comes to octane change over.
>
> It changed to comply with he newer planes with newer engines build in
> England. You honestly think that the engine used in the late war
> English Fighters could still use 100 octane?
other blends were on the experimental list.
> Well, neither could the
> longranged Fighters in 1941 and up.
> Since the English didn't start
> changing over to 115 octane in 1941 because their AC couldn't use it,
> you think the US wasn't already quickly heading that direction. You
> can't win the Kentucky Derby 2 furlong with a hay fed horse.
octane during WWII, but chose not to supply it to probably the key
theatre for the USAAF, the ETO, thereby making the P-38 under
perform.
Is anyone else having trouble seeing the screen because they are
laughing too much?
Daryl, the US shipped bulk fuel to England from the US, and had
control over what was shipped.
>> The US had produced test quantities of 115/145 octane by the end of
>> 1944 (75,000 barrels in December 1944). They wanted the new fuel
>> but they could not produce enough 100/130 even as late as March
>> 1945, when 100/130 production was 525,000 barrels a day and more 115
>> octane meant even less 100 octane.
>>
>> It is clear some 115 octane fuel made it to the Pacific in 1945, in
>> what was essentially as series of tests by both the USAAF and USN.
>
> Considering the P-38,l P-47, F-4U, F-6F were already using 115 in 1943
> on says you are just making it up again.
"Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
Historical Study 65
> Losing some of the 100 octane
> was no big loss in the Pacific where the Aircraft there required more
> range. You have 115/145 confused with the new fuel being test of
> 125/150 that did come out at the end of the war and was tested starting
> in 1944.
as the standard combat fuel for most of WWII, with 115/145 under
test at the end.
You simply have decided to move dates back in time several years,
then have the allies sabotaging their efforts by not supplying your
newly arrived better fuel.
> By the second half of 1944, 100 octane was no longer really
> needed by the AAF, USNavy or USMarines.
> The 115 was there in 1942 for
> the P-38s and as he new high performance US Aircraft started making the
> requirement for the 115 go up.
> This is why the MTO, CBI and PTO had
> better performance and dependability for ALL long ranged fighters and
> even the heavy bombers.
from the Middle East.
> The B-29 couldn't run at all on 100 octane and
> still have the performance and range it was designed to have.
> Neither
> could anything running the High Compression turbo Allison or the R2800.
> In the CBI/PTO/MTO, the R2800 and the turbo allison did not require
> antiknock compound to be added. And they didn't knock or blow up in
> near the frequency that they did in the ETO where only 100 octane
> octane or below was provided.
> The US already had 115 octane in those
> three theaters.
> When it was just the P-38 they needed less. But with
> the addition of the F-4U/F-6 and P-47 the amount was increased to
> support these aircraft. You can't change history to suit yourself, arnt.
are doing.
>>> And the usage also changed.
>>
>> RAF home air force usage changed steadily from 1940 onwards, factors
>> like the switch to using 100 octane in all combat aircraft, the rise
>> in the number of bombers and their increase in size. The change in
>> fighter operations. For example in September 1940 Fighter Command
>> flew around 4,500 sorties a week, in February 1943 it was about
>> 2,500, but with more offensive operations and bigger aircraft that
>> needed more fuel.
>
> Still didn't change the 80 week war surplus requirement of fuel grades.
>>> Obviously, the RAF planners were a lot smarter than you are.
>>
>> Collectively and with more data at their disposal they should be
>> much better than any outsiders. At the same time predicting the
>> future in things like fuel consumption estimates means you are
>> usually wrong.
>
> With the exception of the fuel grade, the RAF Planners did a bang up
> job.
that failure, supported by the USAAF meant the P-38 in the
ETO was not a wonder weapon.
P-38Daryl wonder weapon, did not happen, invent reasons why not,
ignore logic, claim sabotage by allied air force command.
> Coming up with that 80 week war fuel requirement was just plain
> ingenious and kept the English from having to learn German.
did it. And strange as it may seem an 80 week reserve is way
too much for 13 or so weeks of combat, July to September 1940,
or way too less depending on the consumption assumptions.
> Without the
> gas to power the planes, it doesn't matter how many pilots you have or
> the number of Aircraft. Just ask the Germans starting in the second
> half of 1944.
have.
>>> In fact, those old, grey haired dudes were a lot smarter than the
>>> AAF planners and even the RAF planners of today.
>>
>> No, they are being misreported, and the planners had a mixture of
>> people, including non grey hairs and females.
>
> YOu are using today's timeline for then.
of people involved.
> Trust me, the planners that
> okayed everything were quite elderly and definitely weren't female.
involved in the decision.
Which by the way was not just for the RAF to make, they were
spending government money.
>>>>> But the adding of the US flying out of England changed that
>>>>> estimate quickly.
>>>>
>>>> Not until 1944.
>>>
>>> Oh, that's right, the US didn't enter the war until 1944 and
>>> didn't do any daylight bombings either.
>>
>> Good to know, sorts out much.
>
> Guess the Americans fighting in CBI/PTO/MTO and flying 8th AF would sure
> like to hear that one.
Your words,
"Oh, that's right, the US didn't enter the war until 1944 and
didn't do any daylight bombings either."
>> You might also note the USAAF in the ETO had 63,929 airborne sorties
>> for all of 1943, versus over 56,000 in March 1944, and 655,289 for
>> all of 1944.
>
> You have no point on this one.
I think the USAAF moving to flying about as many sorties a month
>> for all of 1943, versus over 56,000 in March 1944, and 655,289 for
>> all of 1944.
>
> You have no point on this one.
in 1944 as they flew in all of 1943 is a good reason why the fuel
consumption went above that planned for.
> Daylight Precision Bombing requires you
> to see your target. I spent a winter in England and on many of the
> days, we had to follow the taxi lights to just get to our parked
> aircraft. Oftentimes we landed blind using ILS. And had a followme
> vehicle take us off the runway all the way to where we parked. ILS
> didn't exist in WWII.
approach training was done.
> We still landed at night and took off at night.
> The AC during WWII in the ETO didn't have that advantage. For night
> time area bombing, close counts and the target can be socked in. But
> you need to have the weather clear to land. For Daylight Precision
> Bombing, you have to see your target to hit it and be able to see your
> homestation to land.
how changeable the weather was.
> You can't keep diverting when you get home.
> Again, you are tossing in more BS into the ballgame.
early 1944 proved under estimates.
>>> Newflash: The estimate changes every month or so to keep the 80
>>> week stockpile current.
>>
>> Above you are saying the 80 week rule changed, now you are saying it
>> stayed but was adjusted according to current fuel consumption and
>> projected consumption.
>
> No Sure, Shitlock.
>> So I gather the idea is the rule was supply for 80 weeks, and the
>> tonnage was changed, which is what I am concentrating on.
>
> No Sure Shitlock.
>>> This includes the addition of AAF aircraft starting in 1942.
>>
>> So essentially you are saying the RAF stockpile was in fact the
>> allied air force stockpile. So why are the AAF supposed to be not
>> as smart, since it was the RAF setting the stockpile levels?
>
> The English provided the fuel. You are adding more BS to the Ballgame.
went into a common pool, and much to most of the fuel came from
the US. This does not suit the "fuel sabotaged wonder P-38"
fiction.
>>> And the addition of the Polish, French and other flyers operating
>>> out of England.
>>
>> You really are quite ignorant of the 300 series squadrons in the
>> RAF, which were for non Empire allies, they were counted as RAF.
>
> As was the fuel. More BS in the ballgame.
RAF for all purposes, your "addition" double counts them.
>>>> From the various logistics histories, basically dealing with the
>>>> build up to D-Day.
>>>
>>> I am sure that the logistics goes further back than that from the
>>> English Planners. Starting right after the Dunkirk battle. Had it
>>> not, the Germans would have successfully invaded England.
>>
>> Given the reality a German invasion of England in 1940 was not
>> possible unless the British surrendered the second claim is a joke.
>
> That joke (as you call it) was foremost on everyone's minds.
clear your claim is a joke.
>> The first claim is also a joke, the fuel stockpile rules were worked
>> out pre war, it was far too late in June 1940 to suddenly try and
>> ship in 80 weeks worth of aviation fuel.
>
> It started in 1937. Another arnt moment for you.
>> You might note the considerable performance gain switching from two
>> pitch to constant speed propellers in mid 1940.
>
> Except, the US was already producing those aircraft and the constant
> speed prop was only part of the performance increase. More BS in
> Ballgame.
As opposed to propellers and the performance gain was quite real,
but Daryl is in wonder fuel mode, so anything else that helped is
supposed to be ignored.
>> Correct? And the USAAF were at fault when the projections were
>> wrong, not the RAF people doing the estimates.
>
> Blame it on the USAAF. That's your answer.
the USAAF were the ones making the errors? I know you made it more
than a day ago but try and remember.
> The 80 week rule didn't
> change even when the USAAF started tapping into the English fuel supply.
> It stayed at 80 weeks and the tonnage was increased to meet that
> requirement. Except now, 100 octane was being shipped in from the US at
> a higher rate to meet that 80 week requirement.
>> And I am pointing out for most of the war the projections were
>> wrong, mostly over estimates but in one crucial period they were
>> underestimates. And correcting the problem was difficult given the
>> tanker shortage.
>
> England had the shortage, not the US. IF the US needed more tankers,
> they built more. And many of those "English" tankers came from the US
> by way of Canada.
shortage, as their fuel shipping requirements had gone way above
pre war levels. Things like putting in pipelines in the US to free tankers
were done.
All you need to do is read the various US histories on supply.
In case you are wondering they had a shipping shortage even after
the end of the war in Europe, given the requirements for the invasion
of Japan as well as all the other requirements.
>>>>> This meant that the 87 octane with the anti knock addition had
>>>>> to be used in the two long ranged fighters. More on this
>>>>> later.
>>>>
>>>> No, the USAAF used 100 Octane fuels for its combat aircraft on
>>>> operations, the cost of the fuel, in both money and production
>>>> capacity, meant training flights in the US often used 87 Octane.
>>>> There was a set of rules to follow in using 100 Octane while in
>>>> the US.
>>>
>>> When training with a front lined fighter, the US used 100 and 115
>>> octane.
>>
>> In the US 87 octane was used to conserve 100 octane fuel, and 115
>> octane was simply an exotic test fuel in WWII.
>
> It was so exotic that it was used in the P-38, P-47, F-6F and F-4U in
> the pacific.
what I have been saying, what needs to be added that it was only
used in small amounts in the Pacific in 1945, plus of course P-51,
and given the users (20th AF fighters) possibly not the P-38.
>>> In the hot fighters, they used 115 and 125.
>>
>> 100/130 octane in all USAAF combat aircraft in war zones except it
>> seems from mid 1944 the 8th AF fighters on 100/150 and some
>> operations in the Pacific in 1945 using 115/145.
>
> Once again, you are getting he 115/145 confused with the 125/150 that
> was introduced in 1945 into the pacific.
AF fighters and 115/145 in test batches in the Pacific in 1945 and no
125/150.
>>> In the Pacific, the AAF and others used 115 since it was provided
>>> by the US. In the MTO, they used 115 as well.
>>
>> Again 100/130 Octane, 115/145 was around in test batches and not
>> sent to the front except in small quantities near the end of the war
>> with Japan.
>
> The Turbo Allison and the R2800 had predetonation problems with 100
> octane. Since they didn't seem to have that problem anywhere except the
> MTO where the fuel requirements were controlled by the English with
> antiknock compound added then the fuels had to be a bit higher than 100
> octane in the other theaters. Once again, you get 115/145 confused with
> 125/150.
>>> The only theater that the English controlled the fuel was the ETO.
>>> And it affected the High Performance US engines quite a bit.
>>> Especially the Turbocharged Engines that had higher Compression
>>> Ratios.
>>
>> Given how much US aviation fuel was shipped to England the idea the
>> English controlled the fuel supply ignores how much came from
>> America, and was refined to American standards.
>
> Nope, it did come from the US but it was manufactured to the English
> Standards.
were present, after than all fuel went into a pool.
>>>>> Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war.
>>>>
>>>> Not western allied bombers.
>>>
>>> Until the 100 octane was brought up to speed, they certainly did
>>> use 87 octane. Thinking that the change over was done over night
>>> is an Arnt moment.
>>
>> Ah the Arnt insult, a sign Daryl is desperate. He made a wrong
>> statement so time to pretend everyone else is wrong.
>
> Just quoting real history and not making it up to try and win an
> argument, arnt.
"Just quoting real history and not making it up to try and win an
Daryl I do not try and win arguments, I report what I know so
people who have experience can check what I have, people who
are interested can hopefully learn and finally I can have fun with
those that prefer fiction.
>>>>> The 87 octane was superior in engines that weren't "Super
>>>>> Tuned" like the Merlin and the Allison in a fighter
>>>>> application. The Spits and Hurricanes both used 100 octane
>>>>> starting just before the BoB. The Bombers continued to use 87
>>>>> octane for dependability sake.
>>>>
>>>> Again no.
>>>
>>> You have to retune and change parts out like jets, etc. to
>>> effectively use a higher octane. Just like auto and truck
>>> engines. Physics hasn't been rewritten to please you.
>>
>> The 87 octane was not a superior fuel, which is why the allies went
>> to 100 octane.
>
> You left out the part where I stated 87 octane engines used that fuel
> for dependability reasons.
change overs it is not surprising you are confused.
> The higher performance the engine the more
> power output, the higher octane needed and shorter the TBO is. Simple
> motorhead logic. That was applicable then and still applies today.
and while bleeding edge usually has short lifetimes, or is designed
for such, lower ratings become more reliable. Want to back a
100 HP engine from today versus one from a century ago?
>> Reality cannot be rewritten just to accommodate your fiction. The
>> bombers changed to 100 octane according to the fuel supply and
>> engines they were fitted with and well before the end of the war.
>
> Newflash, if 100 octane had been run in the new English Engines that had
> just started rolling off the assembly line they would have had the same
> problem as the P-38.
1900 onwards, that way the Daryl non answer can be made to sound
like it has meaning.
In reality as it became clear 100 octane was the way to go engines
were altered accordingly. And that was from 1937 on as far as
the RAF was concerned.
> The English didn't do a thing by US wishes, it was
> always according to their own time table.
>>>>> The English Inlines may have shared many of the same parts but
>>>>> each one was tuned differently to accept different fuels. For
>>>>> instance, in order to use 87 octane in a Spit it required anti
>>>>> knock formula to be added to the fuel.
>>>>
>>>> The early Merlins could handle 87 octane, the later ones were
>>>> meant for 100 octane, which meant you had to take care using
>>>> them with 87 octane.
>>
>> No reply here.
>
> None required.
> The R1830 ran fine on 100 octane but the R2800 needed
> the 115 octane to run properly. You have no point on this one.
as test quantities and some operations in the Pacific in 1945.
So Daryl has the US sabotaging its air war by mis matching
engines and fuel all war.
>>>>> It helped to prevent the pre detonation using the lower fuel.
>>>>> But the 87 octane also lowered the performance on the Spit.
>>>>
>>>> Putting higher octane rating fuels into Spitfires increased
>>>> speed at lower altitudes, it did not increase top speed at rated
>>>> altitude. The low level power boost helped take off
>>>> performance, hence why bombers used it.
>>>
>>> You already stated that 87 wasn't used in Western Bombers yet now
>>> you say it was.
>>
>> Daryl, I pointed out your claim
>>
>> "Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
>>
>> is wrong for western allied bombers, now you delude yourself into
>> changing what I said to fit the fiction.
>
Which of course is a sad attempt at trying to avoid an answer.
>>> Of course it was while the 100 octane was ramping up.
>>
>> So tell us all how long did western allied bombers use 87 octane in
>> combat? Come on, which bombers and for how long? RAF and USAAF.
>
> The USAAF didn't. The RAF did while the 100 octane was being ramped up.
" "Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
So tell us all how long did western allied bombers use 87 octane in
combat? Come on, which bombers and for how long? RAF and USAAF
>> Or perhaps given you claim most did not use 100 octane for most of
>> the war how about a list of all 100 octane users and when they
>> changed over, which you claim should be a short list.
>
> This is your fairy tale. You provide the "Once upon a time".
I do like this, Daryl cannot provide any facts so time to announce
>> the war how about a list of all 100 octane users and when they
>> changed over, which you claim should be a short list.
>
> This is your fairy tale. You provide the "Once upon a time".
it is someone else's job to provide the data.
Daryl quotes, they make for a good laugh,
" "Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
"The USAAF didn't."
>>> You also stated that there wasn't any difference between a merlin
>>> bomber engine and a Merlin Fighter Engine.
>>
>> Actually I pointed out it made little sense to have two grades of
>> aviation fuel especially as 100 octane had so many performance
>> advantages. Therefore the bombers switched. You can see my text
>> below, the line about Lancasters and Halifxes
>
> Your knowledge of engines is pretty lacking.
just the sound effects.
> Bomber uses lower
> compression, flows less fuel and air, has a lower blower on the engine.
operate in, similar to supercharging.
> The Fighter engine is a higher compression ratio, flows more fuel and
> air and has a higher blower setting. That's the short answer but it
> should be enough.
from the mark I through to the 85 and the 224, 225 and 266, all have
the same compression ratio.
That's the short answer but it will not be enough of course, Daryl
prefers fiction.
Oh yes, the Merlin XX was fitted to Beaufighters, Defiants,
Halifxes, Hurricanes and Lancasters.
The Merlin 28 is said to be the V-1710-1, fitted to Lancasters,
and P-40s.
>> The allies did a lot to reduce their fuel grade requirements, things
>> like using MT80 for vehicles and 100 Octane for aircraft. They did
>> not have the tanker capacity to ship lots of different grades of
>> fuels to each theatre.
>
> Wow, the first honest thing you have said.
>>> There was quite a bit of difference. It's like using the Truck
>>> 413 engine versus the engine that was in the Cross Ram 300J
>>> Chrysler engine. They shared the block, rods, and crank. Nothing
>>> else on the basic engine including the pistons and heads.
>>
>> Given the large number of Merlin versions there are all sort of
>> permutations in terms of basic engineering.
>
> That's two in a row. Can you keep it up?
>>>>> It had no affect on the bombers whether you used the 87 or the
>>>>> 100 octane.
>>>>
>>>> The short answer here is no.
>>>
>>> Unless you retuned it for the higher octane, it did no good and
>>> just dumped more fuel out the tail pipe.
>>
>> Ah I see, the Daryl air force will use 100 octane but not tune the
>> engines to use it. 100 Octane improved performance, in bombers as
>> well as fighters. Apparently people will use the fuel but not
>> adjust or change the engines.
>
> In REality AF, you can't tune out needing a lower compression level.
> And you were don't so well.
and 100 octane did improve bomber performance. Which makes
you claim wrong.
>>>>> It's wasteful to run 100 octane or higher in the bomber since
>>>>> they are tuned and designed to use 87 octane.
>>>>
>>>> So the idea is the Merlins fitted to Halifaxes and Lancasters
>>>> etc. were 87 octane but the fighter ones were 100? Is that the
>>>> claim? Two grades of fuel in use? The bombers doing without the
>>>> better take off performance and lower fuel weights per gallon?
>>
>> No reply here.
>
> They shared many parts but not the heads, induction systems,
> superchargers, pistons, etc.. You don't use a Thorobred to pull a plow,
> you use a plowhorse.
all why would the allies go with two grades of avgas?
Note above Daryl thinks it was correct the allies reduced the number
of fuel grades in use, here it is about avoiding admitting that meant
bombers went to 100 octane far sooner than the original Daryl
claim.
>>>>> So the Spit and Hurricane continued using the 100 octane until
>>>>> the 115 octane was available. But the Hurricane and the
>>>>> Spitfire ran 100 octane until the higher octane became
>>>>> available.
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be a duplication.
>>>
>>> And it duplicated the facts.
>>
>> Except the Hurricane did not go to the higher octane rating, as it
>> was on the way out in 1944. And 115 octane was not around, the WWII
>> Spitfire never used it, going with 100/150.
>>
>> The fact is Daryl is wrong.
>
> The P-40 was on the way out for the same reasons but it was still used.
> They were paid for and got used when push came to shove.
and head for a P-40.
>>>>> In late 1943, the English introduced their "130" fuel with an
>>>>> octane rating of 115. This fuel was produced by 3 refineries
>>>>> in England and also was imported heavily from the US. This
>>>>> fuel was specifically tailored to High Performance Engines
>>>>> like the PW2800 and the Allison with the turbocharger. This is
>>>>> what they were tuned to use.
>>>>
>>>> In late 1943 there was a plan to introduce a higher performance
>>>> fuel that ultimately was only used by fighters, the bombers
>>>> stayed with 100 Octane.
>>>
>>> Until the 100 octane was up to production and storage rates, they
>>> used 100 for the fighters and some bombers and 87 for all others.
>>
>> You see we have the steady retreat from
>>
>> "Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
>>
>> To a new unspecified change over time.
>>
>> And the 1943/4 idea was to change to 100/150.
>
> Hate to break it to you but you are now confusing the 100 for the
> 125/150 fuel that barely made it into the war. What you meant was
> 100/125.
in 1944 and 1945.
> Math is not one of your strong points.
sounds like his engine knowledge level.
>>> When the 115 was introduced, this is when the 100 was used in the
>>> bombers and the 115 went to the fighters.
>>
>> In short no, 115 Octane was effectively post war.
>
> Once again, you are confusing the 115 with the 125.
>>> And that happened in early 1944.
>>
>> In short no. 100/150 was introduced in the ETO in 1944. In 1945
>> test amounts of 115/145 were sent to the Pacific.
>
> There never was any 100/150.
Thanks Peter, saved me having to look for it.
> There was 100/125 and the 125/150 was
> starting to be introduced very late in the war.
> In between those two
> was the 115/145 that you keep getting mixed up with the 125/150.
> Then
> again you keep typing 100/150 which never existed and still doesn't.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
>>> Yes, they planned on something like this all along. It started in
>>> 1937.
>>
>> So now they know about 115 octane in 1937?
>
> More reading comprehension of your part. Not worth addressing.
>>>>> The retuning of the Spit and Hurricane and follow on English
>>>>> Fighters performance was increased as well by retuning the
>>>>> Merlins.
>>>>
>>>> Hurricanes in 1944 were using the 1940 Merlin XX, they did not
>>>> use the higher octane fuel.
>>>
>>> They used the 100 octane in 1940 just like the Spit even though
>>> there was a much larger surplus of 87 octane. By 1944, the
>>> Hurricane entered into the same realm as the P-40 who were both
>>> eclipsed by newer fighters who required the 115 and 125.
>>
>> Ah yes, ignore the fact Daryl is wrong when it comes to Hurricanes
>> using the improved 1944 octane 100/150 ratings.
>
> No Aircraft or anything else use a 100/150 fuel. It never existed and
> still doesn't.
The attempts to remain so ignorant of the fuels actually used does
explain why 115/145 becomes the fictional WWII avgas.
>> The newer fighters were using 100/130 octane. The 115 octane was
>> under limited test in the US.
>
> The 115 was being used in the other 3 theaters by the US starting
> sometime in 1942.
> You still haven't explained why predetonation was
> only a problem in the MTO and not any of the other theaters for both the
> P-38 and the P-47.
Since the P-47 did not report major engine problems in the ETO,
apart from teething troubles in 1943 and again with the M model,
your claim is simply wrong, and the P-47 added water injection to
enable higher engine performance. The P-38 had lots of problems
when flying with the 8th AF.
> The rest is trimmed.
You see the facts are too hard to refute.
> It's just more of the same trying to cover the
> fact that the MTO was behind the other theaters.
> In the 60s, we would
> call it bad gas and there was a lot of that for cars in the 60s before
> the Feds put in the controls we have today.
>
> I think this argument was going on during WWII as well. Luckily, the US
> ignored this argument and did it their way.
compatibility. The Daryl USAAF sent the wrong fuel to Europe,
apparently under pressure, so sabotaged the wonder P-38Daryl.
You see the P-38 must be wonder, which requires USAAF
command to be somewhere between incompetent and criminal.
The rest of the post is what Daryl couldn't answer, so if you have
seen my previous reply there is no need to read further. The
claim about where the 8th AF went in November 1943 is a
really good example of Daryl fiction.
--------------------------------------------------------
Orval Fairbairn
Jun 4, 2013, 12:36:28 PM6/4/13
to
In article <XnsA1D4DCD7C45...@216.196.121.131>,
No -- "straw" is the approximate color of regular automotive gasoline. I
think that it was green, but 100LL is now green.
think that it was green, but 100LL is now green.
Daryl
Jun 4, 2013, 2:19:11 PM6/4/13
to
why it was abandoned and never introduced.
>
> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was used
> extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944 onwards.
> Please provide references to documents that prove it wasn't so.
tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a negative
but obviously, you can so do it.
>
>>> daryl
>>>
>>
>> I can see why this was looked into. the lead addon cost less than
>> upgrading to 115 octane and there was plenty of 100 octane in 1943.
>>
> Yet another non sequitur.
>
>> As for Teaching, I spent time as an Engine Specialtist on Recips and
>> Turbos for the United States Air Force. I am a retired member of the
>> United States Air Force. I would say that that is some pretty good
>> credentials. Well, at least better than most.
>>
>
> All that proves is that you know how to change a spark plug. It doesn't
> prove that you know anything about the history of aviation. Much of what
> you post shows that you don't. Knowing how to sail a boat doesn't make a
> person an expert on the Battle of Trafalgar.
pieces after the Pilots dumped the mess onto the tarmac. I can see why
you are having a problem. and I can see why you are misinformed in some
areas. You don't listen to the Mechanic who is obviously dumber than a
box of rocks. What's the first thing a competent Engineer does? He
asks the Pilot. The second thing he does is ask the Mechanic. What you
are showing is what we once called, "University Arrogance".
>
>> Since you brought it up, what are YOUR creds?
>>
>
> Over fifty years of studying aviation (including engineering at
> university and working in the industry). Knowing how to do research.
Considering I was involved in determining what causes some of the
accidents that doesn't make me any smarter. And I also attended at
least one University as well. And that doesn't make me any smarter
either. I would rather talk to that old Master Chief who may not have
ever attended any college but has loads of experience in the field than
some University Hack with little experience in the field. Not listening
to that Chief gets people killed and bad program implemented that gets
people killed. Experienced Pilots are only replaceable by another
Experienced Pilot. And if some cockamaney program gets the pilots
killed there are fewer Experience Pilots to available to replace that
experienced pilots. Ask Germany starting in 1943.
> Knowing how to reach conclusions from what I read. Admitting when I'm
> wrong.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 4, 2013, 2:26:03 PM6/4/13
to
On 6/4/2013 9:33 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> Note the final quarter to third of this post is the stuff Daryl avoided,
> put back in, it is not new text.
(mercy snip)
> Note the final quarter to third of this post is the stuff Daryl avoided,
> put back in, it is not new text.
Jeffie is just repeating himself and leaving out the later responses.
This means that this has become a never ending cycle. So be it but
let's get back to other discussions that can be more productive instead
of "The US didn't come into the war quick enough" type crap that I see
from jeffie.
(btw, jeffie, Jeff is the americanized version of your name and jeffie
would be a very young Jeff.)
daryl
Keith W
Jun 4, 2013, 2:39:29 PM6/4/13
to
Daryl wrote:
> On 6/4/2013 5:04 AM, Ramsman wrote:
>> In what way? You say that 100/150 was "tested not implemented". I
>> provided a technical report that says the opposite. Did you actually
>> read it? No moving of goalposts there. All you have done is post an
>> irrelevant list of problems. THAT's moving the goalposts.
>
> Your very own cite was about the Test, not the implementation. I
> posted why it was abandoned and never introduced.
>
>
>>
>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was used
>> extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944 onwards.
>> Please provide references to documents that prove it wasn't so.
>
> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of the
> tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a negative
> but obviously, you can so do it.
I will be pleased to do so
> On 6/4/2013 5:04 AM, Ramsman wrote:
>> In what way? You say that 100/150 was "tested not implemented". I
>> provided a technical report that says the opposite. Did you actually
>> read it? No moving of goalposts there. All you have done is post an
>> irrelevant list of problems. THAT's moving the goalposts.
>
> Your very own cite was about the Test, not the implementation. I
> posted why it was abandoned and never introduced.
>
>
>>
>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was used
>> extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944 onwards.
>> Please provide references to documents that prove it wasn't so.
>
> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of the
> tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a negative
> but obviously, you can so do it.
Start with the order for the conversion required issued by the
Commanding General AAF in March 1944
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1659.pdf
Move on to the progress report from the Engineering Office
of the AAF in July
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/359th-150grade-1jul44.jpg
Then move on to the report on its use issued in 1945
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
<Quote>
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.
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. 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. It was
decided that Grade 150 fuel was to be the only fuel available for AAF
fighter airplanes in the United Kingdom.
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". Deliveries of Grade 100/150
aviation fuel to AAF Stations commenced within a week of the landings in
France. The change over to 150 grade fuel necessitated the resetting of
all aneroid switches on the P-51s.
</Quote
and
<Quote>
150 grade fuel continued to be used by 8th AF units through 1944. 31 The
WER engine limitation for the P-51 continued to be 72" Hg. Eighth Air Force
Fighter Groups converted to a new blend of 150 grade fuel, with increased
amounts of ethylene dibromide (1� T) in early 1945. P.E.P, as the new
fuel was called, was tried in order to remedy lead fouling of spark plugs.
While spark plug fouling was eliminated, PEP was found to have an
undesirable effect on valve seats. As a result of excessive maintenance
required on the V-1650 engines, General Doolittle of the Eighth Air Force
decided in late March 1945 to revert to the normal 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel.
</Quote>
Keith
Keith W
Jun 4, 2013, 2:56:26 PM6/4/13
to
insult the smarter guy.
Keith
Keith W
Jun 4, 2013, 2:59:37 PM6/4/13
to
ALL British based combat units were using it by May 1940
The BOB started in July 1940 so your claim is flat out wrong.
Keith
tutall
Jun 4, 2013, 3:36:48 PM6/4/13
to
On Jun 4, 11:56 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
> > On 6/4/2013 9:33 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> > (btw, jeffie, Jeff is the americanized version of your name and jeffie
> > would be a very young Jeff.)
>
> Daryl wrote:
> > On 6/4/2013 9:33 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> > (btw, jeffie, Jeff is the americanized version of your name and jeffie
> > would be a very young Jeff.)
>
> I see we have reached the resort to ad hominem, If in doubt
> insult the smarter guy.
Cheers Geoffrey, well done.
> insult the smarter guy.
Daryl
Jun 4, 2013, 4:00:51 PM6/4/13
to
On 6/4/2013 12:39 PM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 5:04 AM, Ramsman wrote:
>>> In what way? You say that 100/150 was "tested not implemented". I
>>> provided a technical report that says the opposite. Did you actually
>>> read it? No moving of goalposts there. All you have done is post an
>>> irrelevant list of problems. THAT's moving the goalposts.
>>
>> Your very own cite was about the Test, not the implementation. I
>> posted why it was abandoned and never introduced.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was used
>>> extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944 onwards.
>>> Please provide references to documents that prove it wasn't so.
>>
>> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of the
>> tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a negative
>> but obviously, you can so do it.
>
> I will be pleased to do so
>
> Start with the order for the conversion required issued by the
> Commanding General AAF in March 1944
>
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1659.pdf
>
> Move on to the progress report from the Engineering Office
> of the AAF in July
>
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/359th-150grade-1jul44.jpg
Don't you see something wrong with this one? Even it got the grade
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 5:04 AM, Ramsman wrote:
>>> In what way? You say that 100/150 was "tested not implemented". I
>>> provided a technical report that says the opposite. Did you actually
>>> read it? No moving of goalposts there. All you have done is post an
>>> irrelevant list of problems. THAT's moving the goalposts.
>>
>> Your very own cite was about the Test, not the implementation. I
>> posted why it was abandoned and never introduced.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was used
>>> extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944 onwards.
>>> Please provide references to documents that prove it wasn't so.
>>
>> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of the
>> tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a negative
>> but obviously, you can so do it.
>
> I will be pleased to do so
>
> Start with the order for the conversion required issued by the
> Commanding General AAF in March 1944
>
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1659.pdf
>
> Move on to the progress report from the Engineering Office
> of the AAF in July
>
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/359th-150grade-1jul44.jpg
mixed up with the octane. It's calling it 150 octane. In reality, the
US never produced a 150 octane at all. The hottest put into production
was 125. There are so many things wrong using a 150 octane, it pretty
well is a book by itself. Like increasing the compression to some
really God Awful ration, plugs well beyond the capability of the day and
probably beyond even todays capability. No place does it say which fuel
it's talking about. Again, you assuming that it's the failed 100/150
instead of the successful 125/150.
>
> Then move on to the report on its use issued in 1945
>
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
>
> <Quote>
> 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.
> 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. 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. It was
> decided that Grade 150 fuel was to be the only fuel available for AAF
> fighter airplanes in the United Kingdom.
> 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". Deliveries of Grade 100/150
> aviation fuel to AAF Stations commenced within a week of the landings in
> France. The change over to 150 grade fuel necessitated the resetting of
> all aneroid switches on the P-51s.
> </Quote
>
in the Pacific. It didn't happen over night. This was in 1943. That
fuel you are saying was implemented certainly was and it was the 150
grade but it wasn't the over leaded 100/150 that pretty much burnt
valves (among other problems), it was the 125/150 which became available
in the Pacific in early 1945 for fighters. 150 is the grade, not the
octane. I see the same problem when using the P-51. Automically, it's
assumed it's a P-51D. While the A gets breaks it really shouldn't, the
B should feel slighted was it was actually a better fighter than the D.
Yes, the P-47 and the P-51B/C/D had some problems with that high of an
octane but the P-38 fell in lust with it. And, more importantly, the
B-29 loved it even more.
> and
>
> <Quote>
> 150 grade fuel continued to be used by 8th AF units through 1944. 31 The
> WER engine limitation for the P-51 continued to be 72" Hg. Eighth Air Force
> Fighter Groups converted to a new blend of 150 grade fuel, with increased
> fuel was called, was tried in order to remedy lead fouling of spark plugs.
> While spark plug fouling was eliminated, PEP was found to have an
> undesirable effect on valve seats. As a result of excessive maintenance
> required on the V-1650 engines, General Doolittle of the Eighth Air Force
> decided in late March 1945 to revert to the normal 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel.
> </Quote>
From your own quote
> While spark plug fouling was eliminated, PEP was found to have an
> undesirable effect on valve seats. As a result of excessive maintenance
> required on the V-1650 engines, General Doolittle of the Eighth Air Force
> decided in late March 1945 to revert to the normal 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel.
> </Quote>
<Quote>
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
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
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
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
only fuel available for AAF fighter airplanes in the United Kingdom. 24
<Unquote>
Translation: It wasn't used in June of 1944 since it was problematic as
the 100/150 and 104/150. But there was another 150 grade that was being
considered and that was the 125/150. This paragraph is rather confusing
with that respect.
From your own quote again:
<Quote>
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
Command requesting that it "be supplied immediately with grade 150
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
<Unquote>
25 Units means it's part of the test. Not that it was widely
distributed. And it was determine afterwards that the 100/150 caused
more problems than the increased high power gave back. It would have
increased the engine repair, overhaul and replacement over the 115/145
which cost more to make and was just becoming widely available. The
other positive was that the extra lead on the existing 100/130 fuel cost
much less than shipping more 115/145.
Just because it states it's either 150 octane or Grade 150 you
automatically assume it's the 100/150. When the 125/150 was accepted
and used late in the war but it is also Grade 150.
Keep digging. You still haven't shown where the 100/150 was widely
introduced into the Services.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 4, 2013, 4:09:41 PM6/4/13
to
light bomber squadrons only, What do you think they did with all that 87
octane they had? Did they pull a massive Exxon/Valdez to get rid of it?
No, they used it up without replacing it. Your quizzling with your
response. In Jan 1940 I already admitted that "Some" fighters were
using the 100/130. And that is a quote from you. But "Some" becomes
"All" in the same sentence. Rather conflicting, don't you think?
daryl
Ramsman
Jun 4, 2013, 4:46:55 PM6/4/13
to
used. Direct quotes:
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". Deliveries of
Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to AAF Stations commenced within a week of
the landings in France. The change over to 150 grade fuel necessitated
the resetting of all aneroid switches on the P-51s.
following power settings: (Typed table omitted)
150 grade fuel continued to be used by 8th AF units through 1944.
The WER engine limitation for the P-51 continued to be 72" Hg.
Eighth Air Force Fighter Groups converted to a new blend of 150 grade
fuel, with increased amounts of ethylene dibromide (1� T) in early 1945.
P.E.P, as the new fuel was called, was tried in order to remedy lead
fouling of spark plugs. While spark plug fouling was eliminated, PEP
was found to have an undesirable effect on valve seats. As a result of
excessive maintenance required on the V-1650 engines, General Doolittle
of the Eighth Air Force decided in late March 1945 to revert to the
normal 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel.
Technical Operations, Eighth Air Force issued a 4 April 1945 memorandum
Eighth Air Force Fighter Groups converted to a new blend of 150 grade
fuel, with increased amounts of ethylene dibromide (1� T) in early 1945.
P.E.P, as the new fuel was called, was tried in order to remedy lead
fouling of spark plugs. While spark plug fouling was eliminated, PEP
was found to have an undesirable effect on valve seats. As a result of
excessive maintenance required on the V-1650 engines, General Doolittle
of the Eighth Air Force decided in late March 1945 to revert to the
normal 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel.
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.
4. Maintenance difficulties can be summarized as follows:
a. P-38 (V-1710 Engine).
Spark plug leading was increased. The extent
of this leading was such that plug change was required after
approximately 15 hours flying. This conditions was aggravated
considerably by low cruising powers used to and from target areas, while
trying to get the maximum range possible. It was found, however, that
regular periods of high power running for a minute of two in most cases
smoothed out any rough running engines unless the cause was other than
leading.
b. P-47 (R-2800 Engine).
Spark plug fouling was the only maintenance
difficulty encountered during the period in which 150 grade fuel was
used. Spark plug life was reduced by about 50%, the same low power
cruising as described above being the principle cause for the extra
fouling. No deleterious effects on diaphragms, fuel hose or any other
rubber of synthetic rubber materials were noted.
c. P-51 (V-1650 Engines).
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. Using 130
grade fuel with 4� 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. 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, but final analysis proved that the only real
effect of the fuel was the lead fouling. Some units maintained that they
had some deteriorations of seals, but this was not borne our throughout
the command, nor was there any concrete evidence that it existed in the
units.
etc., etc. OK, so there were problems, but that doesn't have any effect
on the fact that 100/150 fuel was in use.
>
>>
>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was used
>> extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944 onwards.
>> Please provide references to documents that prove it wasn't so.
>
> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of the
> tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a negative
> but obviously, you can so do it.
>
See above.
>>
>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was used
>> extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944 onwards.
>> Please provide references to documents that prove it wasn't so.
>
> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of the
> tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a negative
> but obviously, you can so do it.
>
>
>>
>>>> daryl
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can see why this was looked into. the lead addon cost less than
>>> upgrading to 115 octane and there was plenty of 100 octane in 1943.
>>>
>> Yet another non sequitur.
>
> Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts.
fuel was used.
>
>>
>>> As for Teaching, I spent time as an Engine Specialtist on Recips and
>>> Turbos for the United States Air Force. I am a retired member of the
>>> United States Air Force. I would say that that is some pretty good
>>> credentials. Well, at least better than most.
>>>
>>
>> All that proves is that you know how to change a spark plug. It doesn't
>> prove that you know anything about the history of aviation. Much of what
>> you post shows that you don't. Knowing how to sail a boat doesn't make a
>> person an expert on the Battle of Trafalgar.
>
> Junior, I WAS part of that aviation history. I got to pick up the
> pieces after the Pilots dumped the mess onto the tarmac. I can see why
> you are having a problem. and I can see why you are misinformed in some
> areas. You don't listen to the Mechanic who is obviously dumber than a
> box of rocks. What's the first thing a competent Engineer does? He
> asks the Pilot. The second thing he does is ask the Mechanic. What you
> are showing is what we once called, "University Arrogance".
>
Irrelevant.
>>
>>> As for Teaching, I spent time as an Engine Specialtist on Recips and
>>> Turbos for the United States Air Force. I am a retired member of the
>>> United States Air Force. I would say that that is some pretty good
>>> credentials. Well, at least better than most.
>>>
>>
>> All that proves is that you know how to change a spark plug. It doesn't
>> prove that you know anything about the history of aviation. Much of what
>> you post shows that you don't. Knowing how to sail a boat doesn't make a
>> person an expert on the Battle of Trafalgar.
>
> Junior, I WAS part of that aviation history. I got to pick up the
> pieces after the Pilots dumped the mess onto the tarmac. I can see why
> you are having a problem. and I can see why you are misinformed in some
> areas. You don't listen to the Mechanic who is obviously dumber than a
> box of rocks. What's the first thing a competent Engineer does? He
> asks the Pilot. The second thing he does is ask the Mechanic. What you
> are showing is what we once called, "University Arrogance".
>
>>
>>> Since you brought it up, what are YOUR creds?
>>>
>>
>> Over fifty years of studying aviation (including engineering at
>> university and working in the industry). Knowing how to do research.
>
> Since I posted by sources of experience, how about you do the same thing.
>
> Considering I was involved in determining what causes some of the
> accidents that doesn't make me any smarter. And I also attended at
> least one University as well. And that doesn't make me any smarter
> either. I would rather talk to that old Master Chief who may not have
> ever attended any college but has loads of experience in the field than
> some University Hack with little experience in the field. Not listening
> to that Chief gets people killed and bad program implemented that gets
> people killed. Experienced Pilots are only replaceable by another
> Experienced Pilot. And if some cockamaney program gets the pilots
> killed there are fewer Experience Pilots to available to replace that
> experienced pilots. Ask Germany starting in 1943.
>
I have never worked as an engineer.
>
>> Knowing how to reach conclusions from what I read. Admitting when I'm
>> wrong.
>
> Obviously not.
>
opinions based on refusal to admit other people know more than you do.
Man up.
> daryl
>
--
Peter
Keith W
Jun 4, 2013, 4:48:53 PM6/4/13
to
Daryl wrote:
> On 6/4/2013 12:39 PM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2013 5:04 AM, Ramsman wrote:
>>>> In what way? You say that 100/150 was "tested not implemented". I
>>>> provided a technical report that says the opposite. Did you
>>>> actually read it? No moving of goalposts there. All you have done
>>>> is post an irrelevant list of problems. THAT's moving the
>>>> goalposts.
>>>
>>> Your very own cite was about the Test, not the implementation. I
>>> posted why it was abandoned and never introduced.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was
>>>> used extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944
>>>> onwards. Please provide references to documents that prove it
>>>> wasn't so.
>>>
>>> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of
>>> the tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a
>>> negative but obviously, you can so do it.
>>
>> I will be pleased to do so
>>
>> Start with the order for the conversion required issued by the
>> Commanding General AAF in March 1944
>>
>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1659.pdf
>>
No comment on this I note
> On 6/4/2013 12:39 PM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2013 5:04 AM, Ramsman wrote:
>>>> In what way? You say that 100/150 was "tested not implemented". I
>>>> provided a technical report that says the opposite. Did you
>>>> actually read it? No moving of goalposts there. All you have done
>>>> is post an irrelevant list of problems. THAT's moving the
>>>> goalposts.
>>>
>>> Your very own cite was about the Test, not the implementation. I
>>> posted why it was abandoned and never introduced.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was
>>>> used extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944
>>>> onwards. Please provide references to documents that prove it
>>>> wasn't so.
>>>
>>> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of
>>> the tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a
>>> negative but obviously, you can so do it.
>>
>> I will be pleased to do so
>>
>> Start with the order for the conversion required issued by the
>> Commanding General AAF in March 1944
>>
>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1659.pdf
>>
>> Move on to the progress report from the Engineering Office
>> of the AAF in July
>>
>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/359th-150grade-1jul44.jpg
>
>
> Don't you see something wrong with this one? Even it got the grade
> mixed up with the octane. It's calling it 150 octane. In reality,
> the US never produced a 150 octane at all. The hottest put into
> production was 125. There are so many things wrong using a 150
> octane, it pretty well is a book by itself. Like increasing the
> compression to some really God Awful ration, plugs well beyond the
> capability of the day and probably beyond even todays capability. No
> place does it say which fuel it's talking about. Again, you assuming
> that it's the failed 100/150 instead of the successful 125/150.
>
>
not the fictional 125/150
> This was in
> 1943. That fuel you are saying was implemented certainly was and it
> was the 150 grade but it wasn't the over leaded 100/150 that pretty
> much burnt valves (among other problems), it was the 125/150 which
> became available in the Pacific in early 1945 for fighters. 150 is
> the grade, not the octane. I see the same problem when using the
> P-51. Automically, it's assumed it's a P-51D. While the A gets
> breaks it really shouldn't, the B should feel slighted was it was
> actually a better fighter than the D. Yes, the P-47 and the
> P-51B/C/D had some problems with that high of an octane but the P-38
> fell in lust with it. And, more importantly, the B-29 loved it even
> more.
>
>> and
>>
>> <Quote>
>> 150 grade fuel continued to be used by 8th AF units through 1944. 31
>> The WER engine limitation for the P-51 continued to be 72" Hg. Eighth Air
>> Force Fighter Groups converted to a new blend of 150
>> early 1945. P.E.P, as the new fuel was called, was tried in order
>> to remedy lead fouling of spark plugs. While spark plug fouling was
>> eliminated, PEP was found to have an undesirable effect on valve
>> seats. As a result of excessive maintenance required on the V-1650
>> engines, General Doolittle of the Eighth Air Force decided in late
>> March 1945 to revert to the normal 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel. </Quote>
>
> From your own quote
> <Quote>
> 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,
>> to remedy lead fouling of spark plugs. While spark plug fouling was
>> eliminated, PEP was found to have an undesirable effect on valve
>> seats. As a result of excessive maintenance required on the V-1650
>> engines, General Doolittle of the Eighth Air Force decided in late
>> March 1945 to revert to the normal 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel. </Quote>
>
> From your own quote
> <Quote>
> 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
> one P-38 using 150 Grade fuel revealed an increase of speed and climb
> Keep digging. You still haven't shown where the 100/150 was widely
> introduced into the Services.
>
> daryl
Keith
Keith W
Jun 4, 2013, 4:50:41 PM6/4/13
to
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
Keith
Daryl
Jun 4, 2013, 7:53:22 PM6/4/13
to
plan in place to get the 100 octane made to replace it. The last time I
checked, 1937 was BEFORE the BoB.
Now admit that you are just trying to pick apart everything presented
and just stand it that a Yank might be right. And, for goodness sake,
get over it.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 4, 2013, 8:13:57 PM6/4/13
to
On 6/4/2013 2:48 PM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 12:39 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2013 5:04 AM, Ramsman wrote:
>>>>> In what way? You say that 100/150 was "tested not implemented". I
>>>>> provided a technical report that says the opposite. Did you
>>>>> actually read it? No moving of goalposts there. All you have done
>>>>> is post an irrelevant list of problems. THAT's moving the
>>>>> goalposts.
>>>>
>>>> Your very own cite was about the Test, not the implementation. I
>>>> posted why it was abandoned and never introduced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was
>>>>> used extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944
>>>>> onwards. Please provide references to documents that prove it
>>>>> wasn't so.
>>>>
>>>> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of
>>>> the tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a
>>>> negative but obviously, you can so do it.
>>>
>>> I will be pleased to do so
>>>
>>> Start with the order for the conversion required issued by the
>>> Commanding General AAF in March 1944
>>>
>>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1659.pdf
>>>
>
> No comment on this I note
None needed since it specified 150 without the octane. And it very well
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 12:39 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2013 5:04 AM, Ramsman wrote:
>>>>> In what way? You say that 100/150 was "tested not implemented". I
>>>>> provided a technical report that says the opposite. Did you
>>>>> actually read it? No moving of goalposts there. All you have done
>>>>> is post an irrelevant list of problems. THAT's moving the
>>>>> goalposts.
>>>>
>>>> Your very own cite was about the Test, not the implementation. I
>>>> posted why it was abandoned and never introduced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was
>>>>> used extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944
>>>>> onwards. Please provide references to documents that prove it
>>>>> wasn't so.
>>>>
>>>> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of
>>>> the tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a
>>>> negative but obviously, you can so do it.
>>>
>>> I will be pleased to do so
>>>
>>> Start with the order for the conversion required issued by the
>>> Commanding General AAF in March 1944
>>>
>>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1659.pdf
>>>
>
> No comment on this I note
could have been talking about the 100 that was never put into service
past testing or the 125 that was.
>
>>> Move on to the progress report from the Engineering Office
>>> of the AAF in July
>>>
>>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/359th-150grade-1jul44.jpg
>>
>>
>> Don't you see something wrong with this one? Even it got the grade
>> mixed up with the octane. It's calling it 150 octane. In reality,
>> the US never produced a 150 octane at all. The hottest put into
>> production was 125. There are so many things wrong using a 150
>> octane, it pretty well is a book by itself. Like increasing the
>> compression to some really God Awful ration, plugs well beyond the
>> capability of the day and probably beyond even todays capability. No
>> place does it say which fuel it's talking about. Again, you assuming
>> that it's the failed 100/150 instead of the successful 125/150.
>>
>>
>
> No I assume its talking about the real and used 100/150
> not the fictional 125/150
even today. It's used for small unlimited racing. The Motorcycle 4
stroke racers have also found it lately. For not existing, it's been
used for the last almost 60 years.
But I think the racers will find solice that you say it just can't exist.
100/150 ever got past 25 units and testing, something replaced the
100/130 that made a whole lot of fighters and the B-29 fly like banshees
without antiknock compound that was troublesome at best. You tell me
what replaced the 100/130 in the Pacific now? And don't say the 100/150.
>
>> This was in
>> 1943. That fuel you are saying was implemented certainly was and it
>> was the 150 grade but it wasn't the over leaded 100/150 that pretty
>> much burnt valves (among other problems), it was the 125/150 which
>> became available in the Pacific in early 1945 for fighters. 150 is
>> the grade, not the octane. I see the same problem when using the
>> P-51. Automically, it's assumed it's a P-51D. While the A gets
>> breaks it really shouldn't, the B should feel slighted was it was
>> actually a better fighter than the D. Yes, the P-47 and the
>> P-51B/C/D had some problems with that high of an octane but the P-38
>> fell in lust with it. And, more importantly, the B-29 loved it even
>> more.
>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> <Quote>
>>> 150 grade fuel continued to be used by 8th AF units through 1944. 31
>>> The WER engine limitation for the P-51 continued to be 72" Hg. Eighth Air
>>> Force Fighter Groups converted to a new blend of 150
>>> early 1945. P.E.P, as the new fuel was called, was tried in order
>>> to remedy lead fouling of spark plugs. While spark plug fouling was
>>> eliminated, PEP was found to have an undesirable effect on valve
>>> seats. As a result of excessive maintenance required on the V-1650
>>> engines, General Doolittle of the Eighth Air Force decided in late
>>> March 1945 to revert to the normal 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel. </Quote>
>>
>> From your own quote
>> <Quote>
>> 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
>>> to remedy lead fouling of spark plugs. While spark plug fouling was
>>> eliminated, PEP was found to have an undesirable effect on valve
>>> seats. As a result of excessive maintenance required on the V-1650
>>> engines, General Doolittle of the Eighth Air Force decided in late
>>> March 1945 to revert to the normal 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel. </Quote>
>>
>> From your own quote
>> <Quote>
>> 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,
around Jan of 1945. And since your 100/150 never made it past 25 units
(not 25 units of fighters, but 25 units of fuel, I can't find out what
that measure of unit is. It may have been 25 units as in flights) it
didn't make it into wide scale usage and was passed over for D-Day or
Operation Overlord and never revisited.
As for not existed, the 125/150 is still around today and used in
serious 4 stroke engines in both Aircraft Racing and Motorcycle Racing.
>
>> Keep digging. You still haven't shown where the 100/150 was widely
>> introduced into the Services.
>>
>> daryl
>
> Actually I have but you simply refuse to accept reality.
in combat. But before Operation Overlord it passed into obscurity since
the 115/145 was made available. You also proved that whenever anyone
says 150 fuel, it absolutely must be the 100/150 and the 125/150 never
existed. Yet the 125/150 is still used in those same aircraft that ran
it at the end of WWII, the racing P-51, F8F and others. It's also used
in Motorcycle racing, just not the 2 strokes.
Since the 115/145 is still used today (it's the dominant AVgas) and the
125/150 is used for racing purposes, and no one is using the 100/150, it
just might be that the 100/150 did do the nasty things the reports said
it did and it was passed over. Of course it was passed over. It never
made it into June 1944 and the test was cancelled sometime before that.
Live with it or not. Who cares. It can't be any good since it wasn't
an English Idea. Those bloody yanks never did anything right, Right?
daryl
Daryl
Jun 4, 2013, 8:22:14 PM6/4/13
to
On 6/4/2013 2:46 PM, Ramsman wrote:
(mercy trimmed)
Fact, they kept getting the two 150 grade fuels confused with each
other. The 100/150 and the 125/150. Which one still exists today?
Certainly not the 100/150. The 125/150 still is used for racing
purposes even today in those same engines and fighters that it was used
in WWII. The 125/150 was also part of the reason Prop Fighters were
reaching 490+ mph. I think the record held today for a prop fighter was
set by a F8F at 518 mph. But the normal F8F was still hitting 505 mph
while the P-51 was 490+. That was impressive in 1944 and equally
impressive today. And the racers, getting pretty much the same
performance as their late WWII counterparts run 125/150 to get that
performance.
I see where 115/145 is still around, I see where 125/150 is still around
but no 100/150. Why is that?
daryl
(mercy trimmed)
Fact, they kept getting the two 150 grade fuels confused with each
other. The 100/150 and the 125/150. Which one still exists today?
Certainly not the 100/150. The 125/150 still is used for racing
purposes even today in those same engines and fighters that it was used
in WWII. The 125/150 was also part of the reason Prop Fighters were
reaching 490+ mph. I think the record held today for a prop fighter was
set by a F8F at 518 mph. But the normal F8F was still hitting 505 mph
while the P-51 was 490+. That was impressive in 1944 and equally
impressive today. And the racers, getting pretty much the same
performance as their late WWII counterparts run 125/150 to get that
performance.
I see where 115/145 is still around, I see where 125/150 is still around
but no 100/150. Why is that?
daryl
Orval Fairbairn
Jun 4, 2013, 10:30:40 PM6/4/13
to
In article <kolvjk$iaa$1...@dont-email.me>,
Daryl <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote:
.........
being 100 LL (foe 100 Low Lead).
Grade 115/145 is available only on special order.
Daryl <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote:
.........
> >> daryl
> >
> > Actually I have but you simply refuse to accept reality.
>
> NO, you proved what I already stated. the 100/150 was tested including
> in combat. But before Operation Overlord it passed into obscurity since
> the 115/145 was made available. You also proved that whenever anyone
> says 150 fuel, it absolutely must be the 100/150 and the 125/150 never
> existed. Yet the 125/150 is still used in those same aircraft that ran
> it at the end of WWII, the racing P-51, F8F and others. It's also used
> in Motorcycle racing, just not the 2 strokes.
>
> Since the 115/145 is still used today (it's the dominant AVgas) and the
> 125/150 is used for racing purposes, and no one is using the 100/150, it
> just might be that the 100/150 did do the nasty things the reports said
> it did and it was passed over. Of course it was passed over. It never
> made it into June 1944 and the test was cancelled sometime before that.
>
As I posted earlier, Grade 115/145 is a rare gas, the dominant grade
> >
> > Actually I have but you simply refuse to accept reality.
>
> NO, you proved what I already stated. the 100/150 was tested including
> in combat. But before Operation Overlord it passed into obscurity since
> the 115/145 was made available. You also proved that whenever anyone
> says 150 fuel, it absolutely must be the 100/150 and the 125/150 never
> existed. Yet the 125/150 is still used in those same aircraft that ran
> it at the end of WWII, the racing P-51, F8F and others. It's also used
> in Motorcycle racing, just not the 2 strokes.
>
> Since the 115/145 is still used today (it's the dominant AVgas) and the
> 125/150 is used for racing purposes, and no one is using the 100/150, it
> just might be that the 100/150 did do the nasty things the reports said
> it did and it was passed over. Of course it was passed over. It never
> made it into June 1944 and the test was cancelled sometime before that.
>
being 100 LL (foe 100 Low Lead).
Grade 115/145 is available only on special order.
Daryl
Jun 4, 2013, 11:49:39 PM6/4/13
to
On 6/4/2013 8:30 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <kolvjk$iaa$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Daryl <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote:
>
> .........
>>>> daryl
>>>
>>> Actually I have but you simply refuse to accept reality.
>>
>> NO, you proved what I already stated. the 100/150 was tested including
>> in combat. But before Operation Overlord it passed into obscurity since
>> the 115/145 was made available. You also proved that whenever anyone
>> says 150 fuel, it absolutely must be the 100/150 and the 125/150 never
>> existed. Yet the 125/150 is still used in those same aircraft that ran
>> it at the end of WWII, the racing P-51, F8F and others. It's also used
>> in Motorcycle racing, just not the 2 strokes.
>>
>> Since the 115/145 is still used today (it's the dominant AVgas) and the
>> 125/150 is used for racing purposes, and no one is using the 100/150, it
>> just might be that the 100/150 did do the nasty things the reports said
>> it did and it was passed over. Of course it was passed over. It never
>> made it into June 1944 and the test was cancelled sometime before that.
>>
>
> As I posted earlier, Grade 115/145 is a rare gas, the dominant grade
> being 100 LL (foe 100 Low Lead).
>
> Grade 115/145 is available only on special order.
Don't doubt you for one minute. It makes sense that 100 LL which would
> In article <kolvjk$iaa$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Daryl <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote:
>
> .........
>>>> daryl
>>>
>>> Actually I have but you simply refuse to accept reality.
>>
>> NO, you proved what I already stated. the 100/150 was tested including
>> in combat. But before Operation Overlord it passed into obscurity since
>> the 115/145 was made available. You also proved that whenever anyone
>> says 150 fuel, it absolutely must be the 100/150 and the 125/150 never
>> existed. Yet the 125/150 is still used in those same aircraft that ran
>> it at the end of WWII, the racing P-51, F8F and others. It's also used
>> in Motorcycle racing, just not the 2 strokes.
>>
>> Since the 115/145 is still used today (it's the dominant AVgas) and the
>> 125/150 is used for racing purposes, and no one is using the 100/150, it
>> just might be that the 100/150 did do the nasty things the reports said
>> it did and it was passed over. Of course it was passed over. It never
>> made it into June 1944 and the test was cancelled sometime before that.
>>
>
> As I posted earlier, Grade 115/145 is a rare gas, the dominant grade
> being 100 LL (foe 100 Low Lead).
>
> Grade 115/145 is available only on special order.
be the old rating of slightly different than the old 100/130 was but
close enough. It would also be the cheapest to make and still meet the
aviation requirements outside of racing.
The 115/145 would be for high compression using supercharging and
probably in a class or two or three of racing.
I did find an application for the old 125/150 in racing. It's pretty
exotic and very expensive and used for (for lack of a better word)
Unlimited Fighters and Motorcycles. This stuff is so hot that in order
to run it, Rods are changed in the P-51 Merlins to Allison Rods. The
P-51 is constantly clocked at over 490 mph and the F8F has been clocked
at 508 mph. One speed run for the F8F was 518 mph which that record
stands today. By 1945, the Allied Fighters prop and one German prop
Fighter were equal to these race machines of today. It shows that the
WWII Fighter Designers for Props had absolutely reached the limits of
their technology.
daryl
Keith W
Jun 5, 2013, 3:27:47 AM6/5/13
to
The question is NOT was 1937 before the BOB it is were RAF fighters
using 100 octane before the BOB which started in July 1940 ?
The answer is clearly yes as we know it was first issued to RAF
units in January and was being used in combat in May.
> Now admit that you are just trying to pick apart everything presented
> and just stand it that a Yank might be right. And, for goodness sake,
> get over it.
>
> daryl
Keith
Keith W
Jun 5, 2013, 3:44:35 AM6/5/13
to
was in use when they were manufactured.
Truth is 125/150 never existed - fess up now or provide proof
that the USAAF EVER used it.
Keith
Keith W
Jun 5, 2013, 3:58:42 AM6/5/13
to
Come on name the supplier , that should be easy
Here's a hint for you , the highest octane racing fuel readiliy
available is E85 with an motor octane rating of 108 and its
not a grade of gasoline, its actually 85% ethanol
The drag racing boys sometimes use VP C23 which is
rated around 119 but that is a specially formulated
fuel for racing engines that get torn down and rebuilt after every
few races and which use nitrous injection.
Neither were ever issued by the USAAF
Keith
Geoffrey Sinclair
Jun 5, 2013, 9:38:40 AM6/5/13
to
"Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
news:kolb7b$8o9$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 6/4/2013 9:33 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> Note the final quarter to third of this post is the stuff Daryl avoided,
>> put back in, it is not new text.
>
> (mercy snip)
Ah good, expectations met, Daryl needs to run away, since
>> Note the final quarter to third of this post is the stuff Daryl avoided,
>> put back in, it is not new text.
>
> (mercy snip)
Daryl's fiction is in real trouble.
> Jeffie is just repeating himself and leaving out the later responses.
sentence that Daryl could cope with, put back the text Daryl
deleted. Hence how Daryl then claims I was doing the deleting,
despite leaving in the evidence to show how Daryl is wrong.
Makes things easy.
> This means that this has become a never ending cycle.
bad claims, like where the 8th AF attacked in November 1943.
The Daryl response to a list of 8th AF raids 20 October to 3
November 1943,
"The majority of the target were NOT in Germany"
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
"Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
"Before 1937, they ran 87 octane. By 1939, in time for Dunkirk,
the fighters were running 100"
the fighters were running 100"
"Going into the war, both 100 and 87 were being used by the RAF"
On US use of 87 octane,
"The USAAF didn't."
Not even the fact if the USAAF was supplying the wrong grade of
fuel to the ETO and only the ETO then the US leadership has serious
charges to answer.
> So be it but let's get back to other discussions that can be more
> productive instead of "The US didn't come into the war quick enough" type
> crap that I see from jeffie.
something he said to others. As per the deleting claims at the
start.
Daryl's words,
"Oh, that's right, the US didn't enter the war until 1944 and didn't do any
daylight bombings either."
> (btw, jeffie, Jeff is the americanized version of your name and jeffie
> would be a very young Jeff.)
It is interesting Daryl thinks he cannot actually cope with someone
> would be a very young Jeff.)
he considers to be a child. Gives a solid clue about how bad the
fiction is.
Meantime the spelling Jeffrey, mainly as a family name, has been
around for centuries. Daryl is wrong again.
"Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
Ramsman
Jun 5, 2013, 10:46:12 AM6/5/13
to
it as showing that 100/150 fuel was merely tested and rejected. He isn't
going to accept it as truth.
I also posted direct quotes from the report, but there has been no
response so far, not that I expect any, because the only meaningful
reply from him would be an admission that he's wrong.
Keep up the good work, I appreciate the research you do into other
topics as well.
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.
>
>
Peter
David E. Powell
Jun 5, 2013, 12:01:35 PM6/5/13
to
I hate to barge in, but comparing RAF fuel stocks and allocations in
1940 with total Allied ones in the British Isles in 1942 is a tricky
business.
One must remember that in 1940 the US was sending fuel to Britain but
also supporting a peacetime fuels industry at home under "almost
peacetime" conditions.
In 1942, the US had moved to heavy civilian fuels rationing and the
oil and petrochemical industry was definitely in an "all skate"
profile for the war effort.
Not sure how other events impacted the fuel situation, The UK had lost
supplies from the Far East, but the US had stopped selling oil to
Japan. The main thing as far as supplying Britain was getting the
stuff across the Atlantic with the U-Boats at their peak effectiveness
out there.
1940 with total Allied ones in the British Isles in 1942 is a tricky
business.
One must remember that in 1940 the US was sending fuel to Britain but
also supporting a peacetime fuels industry at home under "almost
peacetime" conditions.
In 1942, the US had moved to heavy civilian fuels rationing and the
oil and petrochemical industry was definitely in an "all skate"
profile for the war effort.
Not sure how other events impacted the fuel situation, The UK had lost
supplies from the Far East, but the US had stopped selling oil to
Japan. The main thing as far as supplying Britain was getting the
stuff across the Atlantic with the U-Boats at their peak effectiveness
out there.
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 12:21:47 PM6/5/13
to
On 6/5/2013 1:58 AM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 2:46 PM, Ramsman wrote:
>>
>> (mercy trimmed)
>>
>> Fact, they kept getting the two 150 grade fuels confused with each
>> other. The 100/150 and the 125/150. Which one still exists today?
>> Certainly not the 100/150. The 125/150 still is used for racing
>> purposes even today in those same engines and fighters that it was
>> used in WWII. The 125/150 was also part of the reason Prop Fighters
>> were reaching 490+ mph. I think the record held today for a prop
>> fighter was set by a F8F at 518 mph. But the normal F8F was still
>> hitting 505 mph while the P-51 was 490+. That was impressive in 1944
>> and equally impressive today. And the racers, getting pretty much
>> the same performance as their late WWII counterparts run 125/150 to
>> get that performance.
>>
>> I see where 115/145 is still around, I see where 125/150 is still
>> around but no 100/150. Why is that?
>>
>> daryl
>
> So who supplies this 125/150 Daryl ?
>
> Come on name the supplier , that should be easy
>
It sure is. You go to an Unlimited Air Race and ask them. Enjoy your trip.
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 2:46 PM, Ramsman wrote:
>>
>> (mercy trimmed)
>>
>> Fact, they kept getting the two 150 grade fuels confused with each
>> other. The 100/150 and the 125/150. Which one still exists today?
>> Certainly not the 100/150. The 125/150 still is used for racing
>> purposes even today in those same engines and fighters that it was
>> used in WWII. The 125/150 was also part of the reason Prop Fighters
>> were reaching 490+ mph. I think the record held today for a prop
>> fighter was set by a F8F at 518 mph. But the normal F8F was still
>> hitting 505 mph while the P-51 was 490+. That was impressive in 1944
>> and equally impressive today. And the racers, getting pretty much
>> the same performance as their late WWII counterparts run 125/150 to
>> get that performance.
>>
>> I see where 115/145 is still around, I see where 125/150 is still
>> around but no 100/150. Why is that?
>>
>> daryl
>
> So who supplies this 125/150 Daryl ?
>
> Come on name the supplier , that should be easy
>
> Here's a hint for you , the highest octane racing fuel readiliy
> available is E85 with an motor octane rating of 108 and its
> not a grade of gasoline, its actually 85% ethanol
find running in a Chevy Pickup or any other flex fueled vehicle. Yes,
there are a ton of Chevies and Fords racing down the interstates running
this special blend of yours. Who writes your material. You could go on
the road with this as a comedian.
>
> The drag racing boys sometimes use VP C23 which is
> rated around 119 but that is a specially formulated
> fuel for racing engines that get torn down and rebuilt after every
> few races and which use nitrous injection.
get around the rules. The mix ended up with about a 108 or 109 octane.
115/145 was still available at your local airport. But in those
classes we had to run pump automotive gas. We just nudged the rules a
bit. Like a conversation I had with another racer in a heads up
race........ He asked, "Okay, how did you cheat". I answered, "What
makes you think I cheated?"........ He answered, "I cheated and you beat
me". We both passed NHRA and AHRA tech easily. Oh, the Class? B
Modified for NHRA and Super Modified for AHRA with a car called Green
Machine, 1965 GTO with a lot of modifications, 1967, 1968 and early
1969. What stopped that racing? A very extreme reduction in income and
a new location (SEA).
We had to run pump gas. Alters could run Ethynol. Top Fuel Dragsters
run 90% nitromethane and 10% methanol. In the US, your fuel blend would
probably be somewhere between altered and A Dragster where a myriad of
exotic fuels will be found. And all of them are custom blends by
aftermarket companies if you plan on winning. And none of these exotic
fuels were ever used in the USAAF or any aircraft during WWII.
You are still trying to add more BS into the Ballgame. Your mistake is
not knowing I was an extreme Motorhead from a very early age. Rural
People had a tendency to be that way since we were around it as
children. Some went dirt track and then Paved Ovals, some of us went to
the Drag Strips by way of the Dirt Tracks. Traded my old 25 buck rust
bucket with the 200 dollar roll cage for a nice and shiny 5000 dollar
Goat with a 500 buck roll cage. Took me a short time to learn how to
make right hand turns.
All us dreamed of having a world class Top Fuel. And we all were pretty
well up on the fuels used just not in the income bracket. And the only
classes that Avgas made it into were the various Stock Classes; stock,
modified and pro where you had to run Pump Gas.
>
> Neither were ever issued by the USAAF
daryl
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 12:23:54 PM6/5/13
to
material but it's world class comedy material. You should be on a
stage. Whinny.....Oh, here comes one now.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 12:50:48 PM6/5/13
to
culture is different than mine was. You grew up, maybe, tweaking that 4
banger running pump gas. I grew up busting all the rules you were
under. All of the fuel blends and origins are not going to be available
for what we did on the internet. You guarded your fuel blend like it
was a national secret as with other "Tricks".
You talk about failed logic, try this.
Logic Problem: Today's Unlimited Air Racers must use Petroleum based
fuels and run at around 500 mph (the pretty much limit the prop can
handle without special blades that they can't run). In early 1945, the
P-51H was running over 490 MPH. The only real difference between these
two is the changing of the rods in the engine from the Merlin Rods to
the tougher Allison Rods.
Login Question: What is the difference in the fuels used to get 500 mph
in early 1945 versus the fuels used today to get almost that same speed?
And where did it come from? We know 100 octane and 115 octane
couldn't do it. Now, what fuels were used?
daryl
Dean Markley
Jun 5, 2013, 1:12:55 PM6/5/13
to
Dean
Orval Fairbairn
Jun 5, 2013, 1:39:43 PM6/5/13
to
In article <komc82$4tn$1...@dont-email.me>,
Yes -- is called Mach limitation -- primarily on prop efficiency,
followed by airframe limiting Mach number. When the blades reach their
critical Mach number, their ability to provide thrust goes to hell.
followed by airframe limiting Mach number. When the blades reach their
critical Mach number, their ability to provide thrust goes to hell.
Keith W
Jun 5, 2013, 1:46:56 PM6/5/13
to
settings while the second is at aviation rich settings. So in the case
of 100/130 you have an octane rating of 100 in the cruise regime
with a lean mixture but 130 for takeoff with the mixture set to rich.
Keith
Orval Fairbairn
Jun 5, 2013, 1:49:10 PM6/5/13
to
In article <3f0a14fe-ff84-4b3b...@googlegroups.com>,
The lower number refers to the equivalent octane rating with a
fully-leaned mixture; the higher number refers to that rating at a
full-rich mixture setting.
fully-leaned mixture; the higher number refers to that rating at a
full-rich mixture setting.
Keith W
Jun 5, 2013, 2:12:45 PM6/5/13
to
Keith
Keith W
Jun 5, 2013, 2:17:53 PM6/5/13
to
Daryl wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 1:58 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2013 2:46 PM, Ramsman wrote:
>>>
>>> (mercy trimmed)
>>>
>>> Fact, they kept getting the two 150 grade fuels confused with each
>>> other. The 100/150 and the 125/150. Which one still exists today?
>>> Certainly not the 100/150. The 125/150 still is used for racing
>>> purposes even today in those same engines and fighters that it was
>>> used in WWII. The 125/150 was also part of the reason Prop Fighters
>>> were reaching 490+ mph. I think the record held today for a prop
>>> fighter was set by a F8F at 518 mph. But the normal F8F was still
>>> hitting 505 mph while the P-51 was 490+. That was impressive in
>>> 1944 and equally impressive today. And the racers, getting pretty
>>> much the same performance as their late WWII counterparts run
>>> 125/150 to get that performance.
>>>
>>> I see where 115/145 is still around, I see where 125/150 is still
>>> around but no 100/150. Why is that?
>>>
>>> daryl
>>
>> So who supplies this 125/150 Daryl ?
>>
>> Come on name the supplier , that should be easy
>>
>
> It sure is. You go to an Unlimited Air Race and ask them. Enjoy
> your trip.
So you have no answer in fact.
> On 6/5/2013 1:58 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2013 2:46 PM, Ramsman wrote:
>>>
>>> (mercy trimmed)
>>>
>>> Fact, they kept getting the two 150 grade fuels confused with each
>>> other. The 100/150 and the 125/150. Which one still exists today?
>>> Certainly not the 100/150. The 125/150 still is used for racing
>>> purposes even today in those same engines and fighters that it was
>>> used in WWII. The 125/150 was also part of the reason Prop Fighters
>>> were reaching 490+ mph. I think the record held today for a prop
>>> fighter was set by a F8F at 518 mph. But the normal F8F was still
>>> hitting 505 mph while the P-51 was 490+. That was impressive in
>>> 1944 and equally impressive today. And the racers, getting pretty
>>> much the same performance as their late WWII counterparts run
>>> 125/150 to get that performance.
>>>
>>> I see where 115/145 is still around, I see where 125/150 is still
>>> around but no 100/150. Why is that?
>>>
>>> daryl
>>
>> So who supplies this 125/150 Daryl ?
>>
>> Come on name the supplier , that should be easy
>>
>
> It sure is. You go to an Unlimited Air Race and ask them. Enjoy
> your trip.
>
>
>> Here's a hint for you , the highest octane racing fuel readiliy
>> available is E85 with an motor octane rating of 108 and its
>> not a grade of gasoline, its actually 85% ethanol
>
> That's pump gas for alternate fueled engines. The same fuel you might
> find running in a Chevy Pickup or any other flex fueled vehicle. Yes,
> there are a ton of Chevies and Fords racing down the interstates
> running this special blend of yours. Who writes your material. You
> could go on the road with this as a comedian.
>
number and the fact that it delivers peak torque earlier.
>
>>
>> The drag racing boys sometimes use VP C23 which is
>> rated around 119 but that is a specially formulated
>> fuel for racing engines that get torn down and rebuilt after every
>> few races and which use nitrous injection.
>
> In the 60s, we mixed sunoco 260 (97 octane) with 115/145 115 octane to
> get around the rules. The mix ended up with about a 108 or 109
> octane. 115/145 was still available at your local airport. But in
> those
Maybe because it never existed huh
Oh by the way didnt you claim to be in the Air Force back then ?
Keith
Keith W
Jun 5, 2013, 2:19:58 PM6/5/13
to
The rel problem in 1942 was the number of unescorted tankers
the Germans were sinking in the Gulf Of Mexico
Keith
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 3:29:26 PM6/5/13
to
correctly.Just walk away from this.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 3:42:55 PM6/5/13
to
the C-133. By designing recesses before the blade tips, it allowed the
blade tips to go supersonic. The recess was right where the blade would
be running at transonic. Both were well above the 518 limit set by the
standard props on the F8F. The drawback is, just about the only thing
noisier than either one is a Saturn V Rocket.
daryl
Dean Markley
Jun 5, 2013, 3:55:20 PM6/5/13
to
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:46:56 PM UTC-4, Keith W wrote:
> Dean Markley wrote:
>
>
> Dean Markley wrote:
>
>
> > Someone clarify something for me regarding terminology? just what
>
> > does a double designation such as 100/150 mean or refer to? I
>
> > understand straight octane numbers but I'm confused by all the
>
> > 100/150, 115/145, etc?
>
> >
>
> > Dean
>
>
>
>
>
> The numbers refer to the anti-knock rating at aviation lean mixture
>
> settings while the second is at aviation rich settings. So in the case
>
> of 100/130 you have an octane rating of 100 in the cruise regime
>
> with a lean mixture but 130 for takeoff with the mixture set to rich.
>
>
>
> Keith
Thanks Keith and Orval for the clarification!
>
> > does a double designation such as 100/150 mean or refer to? I
>
> > understand straight octane numbers but I'm confused by all the
>
> > 100/150, 115/145, etc?
>
> >
>
> > Dean
>
>
>
>
>
> The numbers refer to the anti-knock rating at aviation lean mixture
>
> settings while the second is at aviation rich settings. So in the case
>
> of 100/130 you have an octane rating of 100 in the cruise regime
>
> with a lean mixture but 130 for takeoff with the mixture set to rich.
>
>
>
> Keith
Dean Markley
Jun 5, 2013, 3:59:13 PM6/5/13
to
Dean
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 4:05:28 PM6/5/13
to
your area and ask them. Oh, that's right, they never are in your area
since it's done one state over from here.
>
>>
>>
>>> Here's a hint for you , the highest octane racing fuel readiliy
>>> available is E85 with an motor octane rating of 108 and its
>>> not a grade of gasoline, its actually 85% ethanol
>>
>> That's pump gas for alternate fueled engines. The same fuel you might
>> find running in a Chevy Pickup or any other flex fueled vehicle. Yes,
>> there are a ton of Chevies and Fords racing down the interstates
>> running this special blend of yours. Who writes your material. You
>> could go on the road with this as a comedian.
>>
>
> I'll leave the comedy to you, E85 is chosen for its high octane
> number and the fact that it delivers peak torque earlier.
Many vehicles are flex but don't say it on their specs unless you read
real close. The Chevy 1500 and the Ford F-150 are both flex engines.
Whatever the type of fuel, the sensors adjust the engine to run at
optimal levels for each one. They can run any grade of Gasoline as well
as the E85.
E85 means it's 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Less than a mile up the
road is a station that sells it It's used in racing. You can use it to
race to the supermarket for your food, race to the feed store, rac.......
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> The drag racing boys sometimes use VP C23 which is
>>> rated around 119 but that is a specially formulated
>>> fuel for racing engines that get torn down and rebuilt after every
>>> few races and which use nitrous injection.
>>
>> In the 60s, we mixed sunoco 260 (97 octane) with 115/145 115 octane to
>> get around the rules. The mix ended up with about a 108 or 109
>> octane. 115/145 was still available at your local airport. But in
>> those
>
>
> Gee Daryl how come you werent using the superior 120/150 ?
>
> Maybe because it never existed huh
I have used 115/145 to blend in with Sunoco 260 to raise the Octane
Rating and still pass tech inspection. Guess those typos are hard for
you to keep track of.
>
> Oh by the way didnt you claim to be in the Air Force back then ?
others, let's use a few words that you either won't understand or will
not know the real meaning. AFterburner, Tricare, the difference in
standard and prime. Now, fire up that google and get to work.
Afterall, we all know if it's not in google it can't exist.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 4:10:40 PM6/5/13
to
included the 133 in with the Bear H that has a 575 top speed. Just got
a bit lazy on that one.
Daryl
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 4:11:20 PM6/5/13
to
daryl
Keith W
Jun 5, 2013, 4:46:30 PM6/5/13
to
> You talk about failed logic, try this.
>
> Logic Problem: Today's Unlimited Air Racers must use Petroleum based
> fuels and run at around 500 mph (the pretty much limit the prop can
> handle without special blades that they can't run). In early 1945,
> the P-51H was running over 490 MPH. The only real difference between
> these two is the changing of the rods in the engine from the Merlin
> Rods to the tougher Allison Rods.
>
> Login Question: What is the difference in the fuels used to get 500
> mph in early 1945 versus the fuels used today to get almost that same
> speed? And where did it come from? We know 100 octane and 115 octane
> couldn't do it. Now, what fuels were used?
>
> daryl
during 1945. The AAF test results for the P-51D and P-51H are
available for the world to see at
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html
and
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-64161.html
Bottom line is top speeds were 439 mph for the P-51D and 450
mph for the P-51 using 100/150 fuel (class 44-1)
Racing aircraft are stripped of everything not needed for the race
and are specially prepped to remove drag so can be expected to be
quicker.
Keith
Keith W
Jun 5, 2013, 4:58:18 PM6/5/13
to
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/mdc/c-133.page
Note that the Bear has twice the engine power of the C-133 and
a swept wing.
Keith
Keith W
Jun 5, 2013, 5:06:02 PM6/5/13
to
Daryl wrote:
> On 6/4/2013 2:46 PM, Ramsman wrote:
>
> (mercy trimmed)
>
> Fact, they kept getting the two 150 grade fuels confused with each
> other. The 100/150 and the 125/150. Which one still exists today?
> Certainly not the 100/150. The 125/150 still is used for racing
> purposes even today in those same engines and fighters that it was
> used in WWII. The 125/150 was also part of the reason Prop Fighters
> were reaching 490+ mph. I think the record held today for a prop
> fighter was set by a F8F at 518 mph. But the normal F8F was still
> hitting 505 mph while the P-51 was 490+. That was impressive in 1944
> and equally impressive today. And the racers, getting pretty much
> the same performance as their late WWII counterparts run 125/150 to
> get that performance.
>
> I see where 115/145 is still around, I see where 125/150 is still
> around but no 100/150. Why is that?
>
> daryl
Yet you cannot tell us where it can be found
> On 6/4/2013 2:46 PM, Ramsman wrote:
>
> (mercy trimmed)
>
> Fact, they kept getting the two 150 grade fuels confused with each
> other. The 100/150 and the 125/150. Which one still exists today?
> Certainly not the 100/150. The 125/150 still is used for racing
> purposes even today in those same engines and fighters that it was
> used in WWII. The 125/150 was also part of the reason Prop Fighters
> were reaching 490+ mph. I think the record held today for a prop
> fighter was set by a F8F at 518 mph. But the normal F8F was still
> hitting 505 mph while the P-51 was 490+. That was impressive in 1944
> and equally impressive today. And the racers, getting pretty much
> the same performance as their late WWII counterparts run 125/150 to
> get that performance.
>
> I see where 115/145 is still around, I see where 125/150 is still
> around but no 100/150. Why is that?
>
> daryl
Sounds fishy to me.
Keith
Joe Osman
Jun 5, 2013, 5:12:23 PM6/5/13
to
On Monday, June 3, 2013 1:09:38 AM UTC-4, i...@svpal.org wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:orfairbairn-EE48...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net: > The highest rating was Grade 115/145, "purple gas" and was used in all > the big recips until the jets replaced them. There were Canadian military bases up to the early 80's where the ramp pump island could handle everything from 87 (100hp Cessna/Piper) up to 115 (R3350). IBM
My father had a large water injection carb in our garage that he used to run avgas in his car. He worked at the ABE (Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton) airport right after WWII and was partially paid in avgas and flying lessons.
Joe
> Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:orfairbairn-EE48...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net: > The highest rating was Grade 115/145, "purple gas" and was used in all > the big recips until the jets replaced them. There were Canadian military bases up to the early 80's where the ramp pump island could handle everything from 87 (100hp Cessna/Piper) up to 115 (R3350). IBM
My father had a large water injection carb in our garage that he used to run avgas in his car. He worked at the ABE (Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton) airport right after WWII and was partially paid in avgas and flying lessons.
Joe
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 5:45:37 PM6/5/13
to
on this one. Just more BS in the ballgame.
> and
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-64161.html
Done in combat trim including bomb racks and full fuel tanks as well as
all the other equiipment and shells for the 6 guns.
>
> Bottom line is top speeds were 439 mph for the P-51D and 450
> mph for the P-51 using 100/150 fuel (class 44-1)
>
> Racing aircraft are stripped of everything not needed for the race
> and are specially prepped to remove drag so can be expected to be
> quicker.
478. Now strip it a bit further and you hit 490 mph. They hit 490 mph
in racing in the early 50s with the P-51. Not much has changed since
the same basic rules and restrictions exist even today as it did back
then.
You also leave out the fact that the blower was set to 67 inches to
attain that. They limited the blower to make the whole Aircraft last
longer. The Boost could be used higher than that and, when a pilot gets
in trouble, often was. P-51 Pilot A gets bounced by 6 long nosed
FW-190s. He can't stay and fight. You are boxed in. You see an
opening and you take it. You run. You set your engine to the maximum
power it can produce. You allow the boost to go higher than 67 inches
as "Suggested" in the manual and pick a direction (not just left and
right, but up and down as well) that increases the likelyhood of your
survival. And you keep your foot in as long as it holds together or
until you put enough distance for safety. It's time to go home. You
might make it or you may have to punch out since you probably smoked
your engine. But you will make it home even if it's riding in the back
of a wagon pulled by a donkey. The Experienced Pilot gets another plane
and goes out again.
P-51 Pilot B (that's you) keeps it within the books and don't get out.
The plane is lost and one more stupid pilot is lost. No big loss.
WE had birds return from a mission where they got into trouble and
dumped everything they had to survive. Engine Changes, full NDIs and
the temporary grounding of the AC while it was pieced back together. No
one found fault with the pilot for staying alive.
The way to get experienced pilots in combat is to have some of them push
the limits to the aircraft beyond the book and make it home. Pilot A
survives and Pilot B (you) die. Maybe pilot A does die but he's done
absolutely everything humanly and mechanically possible to survive.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 5:47:26 PM6/5/13
to
they are going to tell you, forget it. I hear Reno is wonderful during
the Reno Air Races.
Daryl
Ramsman
Jun 5, 2013, 5:48:51 PM6/5/13
to
On 04/06/2013 21:46, Ramsman wrote:
> On 04/06/2013 19:19, Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 5:04 AM, Ramsman wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2013 00:52, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 6/3/2013 5:26 PM, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 6/3/2013 5:13 PM, Ramsman wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/06/2013 23:41, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ah yes, ignore the fact Daryl is wrong when it comes to
>>>>>>>> Hurricanes using the improved 1944 octane 100/150 ratings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No Aircraft or anything else use a 100/150 fuel. It never
>>>>>>> existed and still doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try reading this, Daryl (or Arndt Lite, as I prefer to think of
>>>>>> you):
>>>>>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Do tell us what you used to teach. Illogicality, Non Sequiturs,
>>>>>> Moving The Goalposts, Random Capitalisation and Anglophobia? Plus,
>>>>>> of course, Lockheed And The P-38 Wonderplane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference between the 100/150 (only tested not implemented) was
>>>>> e amount of lead added to it. 6 cc of lead per X number of gallons
>>>>> for the 150 verus 4 cc of lead to the 130.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even though it did show an increase in performance since you could
>>>>> run a higher boost, the negatives far out weighed the positives.
>>>>>
>>>>> a. Decreased spark plug life. b. Increased rate of replacement of
>>>>> synthetic rubber parts in contact with the fuel. c. Probable
>>>>> increase of spark plug fouling trouble under low power cruise
>>>>> conditions. d. General increased engine flight line maintenance on
>>>>> all three engines probably resulting from the higher power operation.
>>>>> e. Generally increased engine deposits and ring sticking tendencies
>>>>> particularly on V-1710-89 and -91 engines. f. Higher relative
>>>>> toxicity of the fuel necessitates more careful handling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like YOU are trying to move the goalposts.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> In what way? You say that 100/150 was "tested not implemented". I
>>> provided a technical report that says the opposite. Did you actually
>>> read it? No moving of goalposts there. All you have done is post an
>>> irrelevant list of problems. THAT's moving the goalposts.
>>
>> Your very own cite was about the Test, not the implementation. I posted
>> why it was abandoned and never introduced.
>>
> Read it. I doubt if you have. It states quite clearly that 100/150 was
> used. Direct quotes:
>
Have you read it yet? Perhaps the long words and the lack of pictures
are putting you off.
> 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". Deliveries of
> Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to AAF Stations commenced within a week of
> the landings in France. The change over to 150 grade fuel necessitated
> the resetting of all aneroid switches on the P-51s.
>
> By early July 1944 the 8th AF fighter aircraft were operating at the
> following power settings: (Typed table omitted)
>
> 150 grade fuel continued to be used by 8th AF units through 1944. The
> WER engine limitation for the P-51 continued to be 72" Hg. Eighth Air
> Force Fighter Groups converted to a new blend of 150 grade fuel, with
> increased amounts of ethylene dibromide (1½ T) in early 1945. P.E.P, as
> the new fuel was called, was tried in order to remedy lead fouling of
> spark plugs. While spark plug fouling was eliminated, PEP was found
> to have an undesirable effect on valve seats. As a result of excessive
> maintenance required on the V-1650 engines, General Doolittle of the
> Eighth Air Force decided in late March 1945 to revert to the normal
> 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel.
>
> 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.
>
> 4. Maintenance difficulties can be summarized as
> follows:
>
> a. P-38 (V-1710 Engine).
>
> Spark plug leading was increased. The extent
> of this leading was such that plug change was required after
> approximately 15 hours flying. This conditions was aggravated
> considerably by low cruising powers used to and from target areas, while
> trying to get the maximum range possible. It was found, however, that
> regular periods of high power running for a minute of two in most cases
> smoothed out any rough running engines unless the cause was other than
> leading.
>
> b. P-47 (R-2800 Engine).
>
> Spark plug fouling was the only maintenance
> difficulty encountered during the period in which 150 grade fuel was
> used. Spark plug life was reduced by about 50%, the same low power
> cruising as described above being the principle cause for the extra
> fouling. No deleterious effects on diaphragms, fuel hose or any other
> rubber of synthetic rubber materials were noted.
>
> c. P-51 (V-1650 Engines).
>
> 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. 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. 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, but final analysis proved that the only real
> effect of the fuel was the lead fouling. Some units maintained that they
> had some deteriorations of seals, but this was not borne our throughout
> the command, nor was there any concrete evidence that it existed in the
> units.
>
> etc., etc. OK, so there were problems, but that doesn't have any effect
> on the fact that 100/150 fuel was in use.
>>
What have you go to say to all that, Daryl? A lot of uncharacteristic
silence from you so far.
>>>
>>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was used
>>> extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944 onwards.
>>> Please provide references to documents that prove it wasn't so.
>>
>> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of the
>> tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a negative
>> but obviously, you can so do it.
>>
>
> See above.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> daryl
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can see why this was looked into. the lead addon cost less than
>>>> upgrading to 115 octane and there was plenty of 100 octane in 1943.
>>>>
>>> Yet another non sequitur.
>>
>> Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts.
>
> Perhaps, but nonetheless irrelevant to the discussion of whether 100/150
> fuel was used.
>>
>>>
>>>> As for Teaching, I spent time as an Engine Specialtist on Recips and
>>>> Turbos for the United States Air Force. I am a retired member of the
>>>> United States Air Force. I would say that that is some pretty good
>>>> credentials. Well, at least better than most.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All that proves is that you know how to change a spark plug. It doesn't
>>> prove that you know anything about the history of aviation. Much of what
>>> you post shows that you don't. Knowing how to sail a boat doesn't make a
>>> person an expert on the Battle of Trafalgar.
>>
>> Junior, I WAS part of that aviation history. I got to pick up the
>> pieces after the Pilots dumped the mess onto the tarmac. I can see why
>> you are having a problem. and I can see why you are misinformed in some
>> areas. You don't listen to the Mechanic who is obviously dumber than a
>> box of rocks. What's the first thing a competent Engineer does? He
>> asks the Pilot. The second thing he does is ask the Mechanic. What you
>> are showing is what we once called, "University Arrogance".
>>
> Irrelevant.
>
>>>
>>>> Since you brought it up, what are YOUR creds?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Over fifty years of studying aviation (including engineering at
>>> university and working in the industry). Knowing how to do research.
>>
>> Since I posted by sources of experience, how about you do the same thing.
>>
>> Considering I was involved in determining what causes some of the
>> accidents that doesn't make me any smarter. And I also attended at
>> least one University as well. And that doesn't make me any smarter
>> either. I would rather talk to that old Master Chief who may not have
>> ever attended any college but has loads of experience in the field than
>> some University Hack with little experience in the field. Not listening
>> to that Chief gets people killed and bad program implemented that gets
>> people killed. Experienced Pilots are only replaceable by another
>> Experienced Pilot. And if some cockamaney program gets the pilots
>> killed there are fewer Experience Pilots to available to replace that
>> experienced pilots. Ask Germany starting in 1943.
>>
> Your prejudices and inverted snobbery are showing. For your information,
> I have never worked as an engineer.
>
>>
>>> Knowing how to reach conclusions from what I read. Admitting when I'm
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Obviously not.
>>
> OK, prove where I am wrong. Facts, cites, quotes, not just biased
> opinions based on refusal to admit other people know more than you do.
>
I'm still waiting.
> Man up.
>
>> daryl
>>
>
>
--
Peter
> On 04/06/2013 19:19, Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 5:04 AM, Ramsman wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2013 00:52, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 6/3/2013 5:26 PM, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 6/3/2013 5:13 PM, Ramsman wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/06/2013 23:41, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ah yes, ignore the fact Daryl is wrong when it comes to
>>>>>>>> Hurricanes using the improved 1944 octane 100/150 ratings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No Aircraft or anything else use a 100/150 fuel. It never
>>>>>>> existed and still doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try reading this, Daryl (or Arndt Lite, as I prefer to think of
>>>>>> you):
>>>>>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Do tell us what you used to teach. Illogicality, Non Sequiturs,
>>>>>> Moving The Goalposts, Random Capitalisation and Anglophobia? Plus,
>>>>>> of course, Lockheed And The P-38 Wonderplane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference between the 100/150 (only tested not implemented) was
>>>>> e amount of lead added to it. 6 cc of lead per X number of gallons
>>>>> for the 150 verus 4 cc of lead to the 130.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even though it did show an increase in performance since you could
>>>>> run a higher boost, the negatives far out weighed the positives.
>>>>>
>>>>> a. Decreased spark plug life. b. Increased rate of replacement of
>>>>> synthetic rubber parts in contact with the fuel. c. Probable
>>>>> increase of spark plug fouling trouble under low power cruise
>>>>> conditions. d. General increased engine flight line maintenance on
>>>>> all three engines probably resulting from the higher power operation.
>>>>> e. Generally increased engine deposits and ring sticking tendencies
>>>>> particularly on V-1710-89 and -91 engines. f. Higher relative
>>>>> toxicity of the fuel necessitates more careful handling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like YOU are trying to move the goalposts.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> In what way? You say that 100/150 was "tested not implemented". I
>>> provided a technical report that says the opposite. Did you actually
>>> read it? No moving of goalposts there. All you have done is post an
>>> irrelevant list of problems. THAT's moving the goalposts.
>>
>> Your very own cite was about the Test, not the implementation. I posted
>> why it was abandoned and never introduced.
>>
> Read it. I doubt if you have. It states quite clearly that 100/150 was
> used. Direct quotes:
>
Have you read it yet? Perhaps the long words and the lack of pictures
are putting you off.
> 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". Deliveries of
> Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to AAF Stations commenced within a week of
> the landings in France. The change over to 150 grade fuel necessitated
> the resetting of all aneroid switches on the P-51s.
>
> By early July 1944 the 8th AF fighter aircraft were operating at the
> following power settings: (Typed table omitted)
>
> 150 grade fuel continued to be used by 8th AF units through 1944. The
> WER engine limitation for the P-51 continued to be 72" Hg. Eighth Air
> Force Fighter Groups converted to a new blend of 150 grade fuel, with
> increased amounts of ethylene dibromide (1½ T) in early 1945. P.E.P, as
> the new fuel was called, was tried in order to remedy lead fouling of
> spark plugs. While spark plug fouling was eliminated, PEP was found
> to have an undesirable effect on valve seats. As a result of excessive
> maintenance required on the V-1650 engines, General Doolittle of the
> Eighth Air Force decided in late March 1945 to revert to the normal
> 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel.
>
> 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.
>
> 4. Maintenance difficulties can be summarized as
> follows:
>
> a. P-38 (V-1710 Engine).
>
> Spark plug leading was increased. The extent
> of this leading was such that plug change was required after
> approximately 15 hours flying. This conditions was aggravated
> considerably by low cruising powers used to and from target areas, while
> trying to get the maximum range possible. It was found, however, that
> regular periods of high power running for a minute of two in most cases
> smoothed out any rough running engines unless the cause was other than
> leading.
>
> b. P-47 (R-2800 Engine).
>
> Spark plug fouling was the only maintenance
> difficulty encountered during the period in which 150 grade fuel was
> used. Spark plug life was reduced by about 50%, the same low power
> cruising as described above being the principle cause for the extra
> fouling. No deleterious effects on diaphragms, fuel hose or any other
> rubber of synthetic rubber materials were noted.
>
> c. P-51 (V-1650 Engines).
>
> 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. 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. 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, but final analysis proved that the only real
> effect of the fuel was the lead fouling. Some units maintained that they
> had some deteriorations of seals, but this was not borne our throughout
> the command, nor was there any concrete evidence that it existed in the
> units.
>
> etc., etc. OK, so there were problems, but that doesn't have any effect
> on the fact that 100/150 fuel was in use.
>>
What have you go to say to all that, Daryl? A lot of uncharacteristic
silence from you so far.
>>>
>>> There is a vast amount of documentation stating that 100/150 was used
>>> extensively, including by the 8th AF from mid-June 1944 onwards.
>>> Please provide references to documents that prove it wasn't so.
>>
>> There is NO documentation where 100/150 was used at all outside of the
>> tests that both the English and the US made. I can't prove a negative
>> but obviously, you can so do it.
>>
>
> See above.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> daryl
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can see why this was looked into. the lead addon cost less than
>>>> upgrading to 115 octane and there was plenty of 100 octane in 1943.
>>>>
>>> Yet another non sequitur.
>>
>> Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts.
>
> Perhaps, but nonetheless irrelevant to the discussion of whether 100/150
> fuel was used.
>>
>>>
>>>> As for Teaching, I spent time as an Engine Specialtist on Recips and
>>>> Turbos for the United States Air Force. I am a retired member of the
>>>> United States Air Force. I would say that that is some pretty good
>>>> credentials. Well, at least better than most.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All that proves is that you know how to change a spark plug. It doesn't
>>> prove that you know anything about the history of aviation. Much of what
>>> you post shows that you don't. Knowing how to sail a boat doesn't make a
>>> person an expert on the Battle of Trafalgar.
>>
>> Junior, I WAS part of that aviation history. I got to pick up the
>> pieces after the Pilots dumped the mess onto the tarmac. I can see why
>> you are having a problem. and I can see why you are misinformed in some
>> areas. You don't listen to the Mechanic who is obviously dumber than a
>> box of rocks. What's the first thing a competent Engineer does? He
>> asks the Pilot. The second thing he does is ask the Mechanic. What you
>> are showing is what we once called, "University Arrogance".
>>
> Irrelevant.
>
>>>
>>>> Since you brought it up, what are YOUR creds?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Over fifty years of studying aviation (including engineering at
>>> university and working in the industry). Knowing how to do research.
>>
>> Since I posted by sources of experience, how about you do the same thing.
>>
>> Considering I was involved in determining what causes some of the
>> accidents that doesn't make me any smarter. And I also attended at
>> least one University as well. And that doesn't make me any smarter
>> either. I would rather talk to that old Master Chief who may not have
>> ever attended any college but has loads of experience in the field than
>> some University Hack with little experience in the field. Not listening
>> to that Chief gets people killed and bad program implemented that gets
>> people killed. Experienced Pilots are only replaceable by another
>> Experienced Pilot. And if some cockamaney program gets the pilots
>> killed there are fewer Experience Pilots to available to replace that
>> experienced pilots. Ask Germany starting in 1943.
>>
> Your prejudices and inverted snobbery are showing. For your information,
> I have never worked as an engineer.
>
>>
>>> Knowing how to reach conclusions from what I read. Admitting when I'm
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Obviously not.
>>
> OK, prove where I am wrong. Facts, cites, quotes, not just biased
> opinions based on refusal to admit other people know more than you do.
>
I'm still waiting.
> Man up.
>
>> daryl
>>
>
>
--
Peter
Keith W
Jun 5, 2013, 6:46:27 PM6/5/13
to
Hint I know what fuels are available at Reno
and 125/150 is NOT on the list.
Keith
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 8:43:33 PM6/5/13
to
100/130 (it's equiv is 100LL). There is a 119, was a 108, and more as
time goes by. By your own reasoning (faulty reasoning) since I can't
buy 100/130 anymore it never existed.
For the Unlimited Racers you honestly think you are going to get an
answer on that question? It's like asking a Top Fueler exactly what he
runs. One of the fastest ways to get escorted out of the pits.
You can stop this nonsense anytime. Just step away from the keyboard.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 10:40:05 PM6/5/13
to
On 6/4/2013 10:36 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <XnsA1D4DCD7C45...@216.196.121.131>,
>> news:orfairbairn-0B04...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> When I started flying in 1959, there were several grades of avgas
>>> available at the pump: 80/87(red), 91/96 (I forget the color)
>>
>>
>> "Straw" I think...
>>
>> IBM
>
> No -- "straw" is the approximate color of regular automotive gasoline. I
> think that it was green, but 100LL is now green.
>
115/145 was purple.
daryl
> In article <XnsA1D4DCD7C45...@216.196.121.131>,
>> news:orfairbairn-0B04...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> When I started flying in 1959, there were several grades of avgas
>>> available at the pump: 80/87(red), 91/96 (I forget the color)
>>
>>
>> "Straw" I think...
>>
>> IBM
>
> No -- "straw" is the approximate color of regular automotive gasoline. I
> think that it was green, but 100LL is now green.
>
115/145 was purple.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 10:40:38 PM6/5/13
to
Daryl
Daryl
Jun 5, 2013, 10:41:46 PM6/5/13
to
On 6/5/2013 3:48 PM, Ramsman wrote:
>>
>
> I'm still waiting.
Please be hold your breath while you wait.
Daryl
>>
>
> I'm still waiting.
Please be hold your breath while you wait.
Daryl
Orval Fairbairn
Jun 6, 2013, 12:03:32 AM6/6/13
to
Daryl
Jun 6, 2013, 2:03:19 AM6/6/13
to
the Grade the other says it's the Antiknock Properties. Like they tried
in 110/150, you can easily change the Grade by adding more lead,
antiknock compound, octane booster, etc.. Adding more lead gummed up
engines after awhile and antiknock compound separates at high altitudes.
Octane boosters are expensive.
There are so many variables tried on the 100/130 but only the increased
lead was renamed to 100/150. The ones with just the antiknock compound
that was widely used in ETO was still called 100/130. But you could
argue that even that should have been changed to something like 108/140
or higher since it allowed a higher boost on Turbos and Superchargers.
It did give a nice increase at low to medium levels but the R2800 and
the V1710 both had problems with it at high altitude. But it was still
labeled 100/130. You don't get something for nothing.
Using Adding Lead enables you to increase boost due to a get more power
because the lead transfers heat better. It worked well at high power
but gummed things up in cruise mode. This is why it was tested in early
1944, discounted for Operation Overlord, tested again after D-Day and
discounted again because of the availability of 115/145 that had the
right amount of lead in it.
The only way to increase the real Octane Rating without refining it from
the gitgo is to use octane boosters and that was just not financially
viable.
All 3 can change the amount of compression that you can do before it
predetonates. All 3 were tried and the antiknock was the most widely
used. Even with the antiknock compound, the 100/130 fuel was still
called 100/130 until the 115/145 hit the scene and didn't require any
antiknock compound added and didn't gum up the high performance engines.
Daryl
Ramsman
Jun 6, 2013, 3:51:19 AM6/6/13
to
On 06/06/2013 03:41, Daryl wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 3:48 PM, Ramsman wrote:
>
>>>
>>
Daryl has snipped my request for proof that what I posted was wrong.
> On 6/5/2013 3:48 PM, Ramsman wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> I'm still waiting.
>
> Please be hold your breath while you wait.
>
> Daryl
>
>
>
the other posters), having quoted written evidence of the actual use of
100/150.
Keep digging that hole Daryl, with any luck you'll soon be out of sight.
Just like the real Arndt.
--
Peter
Keith W
Jun 6, 2013, 4:18:28 AM6/6/13
to
the truth ?
The reason neither 100/130 or 115/145 are no longer available is
that both contained lead in concentrations ranging from 4 to 6
grams per US gallon.
Keith
Daryl
Jun 6, 2013, 5:44:01 AM6/6/13
to
like a little puppy dog. Now, spot, go fetch.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 6, 2013, 5:48:00 AM6/6/13
to
different blend but it's still equivalent to 115/145. You can call a
rose by any other name but it's still a rose.
daryl
Ramsman
Jun 6, 2013, 6:00:24 AM6/6/13
to
schoolboy insults instead of any evidence to back up your bluster.
--
Peter
Keith W
Jun 6, 2013, 7:25:51 AM6/6/13
to
We must start referring to these fuels by an appropriate name
120/150 will henceforth be Darylite1
lead free 115/145 will be Darylite2
While both are claimed to be wonder fuels but neither can actually be bought
Keith
tutall
Jun 6, 2013, 10:07:45 AM6/6/13
to
On Jun 6, 3:00 am, Ramsman <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Still not man enough to admit you're wrong. All you have is pathetic
> schoolboy insults instead of any evidence to back up your bluster.
>
No no no, he's also got Reno, and a fascination with some sort of
> Still not man enough to admit you're wrong. All you have is pathetic
> schoolboy insults instead of any evidence to back up your bluster.
>
racing that you don't. Which makes him an expert on claims about
Fighters, Dunkirk, 1937, the BoB, fuel mixtures and their historical
usage. And Reno. Also he's a Yank. Never forget that.
Wish he weren't, but there ya go.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Jun 6, 2013, 10:22:46 AM6/6/13
to
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:7ae77e2e-5427-4129...@v2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>I hate to barge in, but comparing RAF fuel stocks and allocations in
> 1940 with total Allied ones in the British Isles in 1942 is a tricky
> business.
If you had said 1943 it would have been more accurate, the US
presence in Britain at the end of 1942 was small compared to the
UK (or just RAF) consumption.
> One must remember that in 1940 the US was sending fuel to Britain but
> also supporting a peacetime fuels industry at home under "almost
> peacetime" conditions.
Yes, and domestic demand was picking up as the economy came
further out of the depression, plus UK demand was rising as they
switched to taking fuel from the closest sources.
> In 1942, the US had moved to heavy civilian fuels rationing and the
> oil and petrochemical industry was definitely in an "all skate"
> profile for the war effort.
It took time to do this, and then came laying of pipelines to free US
tankers from effectively coastal service.
> Not sure how other events impacted the fuel situation, The UK had lost
> supplies from the Far East, but the US had stopped selling oil to
> Japan. The main thing as far as supplying Britain was getting the
> stuff across the Atlantic with the U-Boats at their peak effectiveness
> out there.
The loss of the Dutch East Indies mainly hurt Australia, otherwise
they were simply too far away/small to have a real impact.
"British" tanker losses to end November 1941 were around 2.1 million
tons, balanced by under 3.1 million tons of gains, mostly the tanker
fleets of countries the Germans had invaded. (850,000 tons was
new construction.). So the fleet was around 4.2 million tons.
The US non great lakes tanker fleet was 2.76 million tons in 1939,
plus there was another 470,000 tons under the Panamanian flag.
In the December 1941 to May 1942 period the allies lost 1.85
million tons of tankers, and another 750,000 June to August
mainly off the US coast and in the Caribbean. Allied tanker
tonnage went backwards to at least December 1942 and it took
until the end of 1943 to get back to the end of 1941 position.
After that the gains were more than a million tons per quarter more
than the losses. Even so to help ease the shortage tankers were
allowed out of convoy when crossing the Atlantic in 1944.
Oil was important enough for the UK to have an official history on
the subject, Oil by D.J. Payton-Smith. It even has a section titled,
"100 Octane Spirit: A Special Problem."
The allies formed a joint shipping commission, to decide what shipping
could be allocated to each theatre.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
news:7ae77e2e-5427-4129...@v2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>I hate to barge in, but comparing RAF fuel stocks and allocations in
> 1940 with total Allied ones in the British Isles in 1942 is a tricky
> business.
If you had said 1943 it would have been more accurate, the US
presence in Britain at the end of 1942 was small compared to the
UK (or just RAF) consumption.
> One must remember that in 1940 the US was sending fuel to Britain but
> also supporting a peacetime fuels industry at home under "almost
> peacetime" conditions.
Yes, and domestic demand was picking up as the economy came
further out of the depression, plus UK demand was rising as they
switched to taking fuel from the closest sources.
> In 1942, the US had moved to heavy civilian fuels rationing and the
> oil and petrochemical industry was definitely in an "all skate"
> profile for the war effort.
It took time to do this, and then came laying of pipelines to free US
tankers from effectively coastal service.
> Not sure how other events impacted the fuel situation, The UK had lost
> supplies from the Far East, but the US had stopped selling oil to
> Japan. The main thing as far as supplying Britain was getting the
> stuff across the Atlantic with the U-Boats at their peak effectiveness
> out there.
The loss of the Dutch East Indies mainly hurt Australia, otherwise
they were simply too far away/small to have a real impact.
"British" tanker losses to end November 1941 were around 2.1 million
tons, balanced by under 3.1 million tons of gains, mostly the tanker
fleets of countries the Germans had invaded. (850,000 tons was
new construction.). So the fleet was around 4.2 million tons.
The US non great lakes tanker fleet was 2.76 million tons in 1939,
plus there was another 470,000 tons under the Panamanian flag.
In the December 1941 to May 1942 period the allies lost 1.85
million tons of tankers, and another 750,000 June to August
mainly off the US coast and in the Caribbean. Allied tanker
tonnage went backwards to at least December 1942 and it took
until the end of 1943 to get back to the end of 1941 position.
After that the gains were more than a million tons per quarter more
than the losses. Even so to help ease the shortage tankers were
allowed out of convoy when crossing the Atlantic in 1944.
Oil was important enough for the UK to have an official history on
the subject, Oil by D.J. Payton-Smith. It even has a section titled,
"100 Octane Spirit: A Special Problem."
The allies formed a joint shipping commission, to decide what shipping
could be allocated to each theatre.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Jun 6, 2013, 10:22:48 AM6/6/13
to
"Ramsman" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:UaIrt.81290$fH3....@fx22.fr7...
> On 05/06/2013 14:38, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> "Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
>> Historical Study 65.
>>
>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
>>
>
> I posted this link a couple of days ago,
Yes, thanks, that is where I took it from.
> and Daryl/Arndt Lite dismissed it as showing that 100/150 fuel was merely
> tested and rejected. He isn't going to accept it as truth.
Correct, the P-38Daryl is far too important, along with delusions
of being a fuel expert. So the fiction is rolled out even if it means
accusing the US of sabotaging the war effort.
> I also posted direct quotes from the report, but there has been no
> response so far, not that I expect any, because the only meaningful reply
> from him would be an admission that he's wrong.
He is just one of those people who make a mess while considering
themselves superior to the people cleaning it up.
> Keep up the good work, I appreciate the research you do into other topics
> as well.
Thanks as well as to all the others who have given their support,
including a belated thank you from a few weeks ago now.
news:UaIrt.81290$fH3....@fx22.fr7...
> On 05/06/2013 14:38, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> "Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
>> Historical Study 65.
>>
>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
>>
>
> I posted this link a couple of days ago,
Yes, thanks, that is where I took it from.
> and Daryl/Arndt Lite dismissed it as showing that 100/150 fuel was merely
> tested and rejected. He isn't going to accept it as truth.
Correct, the P-38Daryl is far too important, along with delusions
of being a fuel expert. So the fiction is rolled out even if it means
accusing the US of sabotaging the war effort.
> I also posted direct quotes from the report, but there has been no
> response so far, not that I expect any, because the only meaningful reply
> from him would be an admission that he's wrong.
He is just one of those people who make a mess while considering
themselves superior to the people cleaning it up.
> Keep up the good work, I appreciate the research you do into other topics
> as well.
Thanks as well as to all the others who have given their support,
including a belated thank you from a few weeks ago now.
Ramsman
Jun 6, 2013, 11:52:43 AM6/6/13
to
On 06/06/2013 15:22, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> "Ramsman" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:UaIrt.81290$fH3....@fx22.fr7...
>> On 05/06/2013 14:38, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>>> "Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
>>> Historical Study 65.
>>>
>>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
>>>
>>
>> I posted this link a couple of days ago,
>
> Yes, thanks, that is where I took it from.
>
I didn't express that very well. I wasn't pointing it out to you, it was
> "Ramsman" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:UaIrt.81290$fH3....@fx22.fr7...
>> On 05/06/2013 14:38, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>>> "Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
>>> Historical Study 65.
>>>
>>> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
>>>
>>
>> I posted this link a couple of days ago,
>
> Yes, thanks, that is where I took it from.
>
just preceding the next part of the sentence. It's difficult sometimes
to convey the tone one wants in writing.
>> and Daryl/Arndt Lite dismissed it as showing that 100/150 fuel was merely
>> tested and rejected. He isn't going to accept it as truth.
>
> Correct, the P-38Daryl is far too important, along with delusions
> of being a fuel expert. So the fiction is rolled out even if it means
> accusing the US of sabotaging the war effort.
>
>> I also posted direct quotes from the report, but there has been no
>> response so far, not that I expect any, because the only meaningful reply
>> from him would be an admission that he's wrong.
>
insults. I've now been made a member of a not-very-exclusive group.
> He is just one of those people who make a mess while considering
> themselves superior to the people cleaning it up.
>
>> Keep up the good work, I appreciate the research you do into other topics
>> as well.
>
> Thanks as well as to all the others who have given their support,
> including a belated thank you from a few weeks ago now.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.
>
>
Peter
Orval Fairbairn
Jun 6, 2013, 12:49:40 PM6/6/13
to
In article <kooshh$4lv$1...@dont-email.me>,
Yes -- that is what I posted. It is the color of 91/96 that I do not
recall.
recall.
Orval Fairbairn
Jun 6, 2013, 1:01:59 PM6/6/13
to
In article <kop8el$rnm$1...@dont-email.me>,
The antiknock properties determine the grade. The oil companies did a
lot of fuel research and came up with a number of ways to boost the
octane rating, among which were the addition of tetraethyl lead (TEL),
aromatics and combinations thereof.
To scavenge the lead from high=lead fuels, the most common scavenger is
trichloryl phosphate (TCP) which is often used in 80-octane engines to
scavenge the lead deposits from 100LL.
>
> There are so many variables tried on the 100/130 but only the increased
> lead was renamed to 100/150. The ones with just the antiknock compound
> that was widely used in ETO was still called 100/130. But you could
> argue that even that should have been changed to something like 108/140
> or higher since it allowed a higher boost on Turbos and Superchargers.
> It did give a nice increase at low to medium levels but the R2800 and
> the V1710 both had problems with it at high altitude. But it was still
> labeled 100/130. You don't get something for nothing.
>
> Using Adding Lead enables you to increase boost due to a get more power
> because the lead transfers heat better. It worked well at high power
> but gummed things up in cruise mode. This is why it was tested in early
> 1944, discounted for Operation Overlord, tested again after D-Day and
> discounted again because of the availability of 115/145 that had the
> right amount of lead in it.
TEL acts as a detonation suppressant; some aromatics possess higher
equivalent octane ratings.
>
> The only way to increase the real Octane Rating without refining it from
> the gitgo is to use octane boosters and that was just not financially
> viable.
That is done now. The problem now is that you cannot ship leaded fuels
via pipeline, since it can contaminate the unleaded automotive fuel.
>
> All 3 can change the amount of compression that you can do before it
> predetonates. All 3 were tried and the antiknock was the most widely
> used. Even with the antiknock compound, the 100/130 fuel was still
> called 100/130 until the 115/145 hit the scene and didn't require any
> antiknock compound added and didn't gum up the high performance engines.
>
(See above.)
> Daryl
lot of fuel research and came up with a number of ways to boost the
octane rating, among which were the addition of tetraethyl lead (TEL),
aromatics and combinations thereof.
To scavenge the lead from high=lead fuels, the most common scavenger is
trichloryl phosphate (TCP) which is often used in 80-octane engines to
scavenge the lead deposits from 100LL.
>
> There are so many variables tried on the 100/130 but only the increased
> lead was renamed to 100/150. The ones with just the antiknock compound
> that was widely used in ETO was still called 100/130. But you could
> argue that even that should have been changed to something like 108/140
> or higher since it allowed a higher boost on Turbos and Superchargers.
> It did give a nice increase at low to medium levels but the R2800 and
> the V1710 both had problems with it at high altitude. But it was still
> labeled 100/130. You don't get something for nothing.
>
> Using Adding Lead enables you to increase boost due to a get more power
> because the lead transfers heat better. It worked well at high power
> but gummed things up in cruise mode. This is why it was tested in early
> 1944, discounted for Operation Overlord, tested again after D-Day and
> discounted again because of the availability of 115/145 that had the
> right amount of lead in it.
equivalent octane ratings.
>
> The only way to increase the real Octane Rating without refining it from
> the gitgo is to use octane boosters and that was just not financially
> viable.
via pipeline, since it can contaminate the unleaded automotive fuel.
>
> All 3 can change the amount of compression that you can do before it
> predetonates. All 3 were tried and the antiknock was the most widely
> used. Even with the antiknock compound, the 100/130 fuel was still
> called 100/130 until the 115/145 hit the scene and didn't require any
> antiknock compound added and didn't gum up the high performance engines.
>
> Daryl
Orval Fairbairn
Jun 6, 2013, 1:03:56 PM6/6/13
to
In article <pBXrt.76639$6y4....@fx03.fr7>,
No -- it is because the demand (primarily from airlines) went away when
the airlines switched over to turbines.
the airlines switched over to turbines.
Daryl
Jun 6, 2013, 1:48:26 PM6/6/13
to
With the color coding of today, I would think it would have been brown
or red.
daryl
Daryl
Jun 6, 2013, 1:50:34 PM6/6/13
to
> lead free 115/145 will be Darylite2
teach yours nor were you taught yourself.
>
> While both are claimed to be wonder fuels but neither can actually be bought
daryl
Daryl
Jun 6, 2013, 1:53:51 PM6/6/13
to
daryl
Ramsman
Jun 6, 2013, 2:14:11 PM6/6/13
to
is doing any bullying as far as I can tell. You're the one who's
behaving badly by throwing insults around and denying the truth when
it's presented to you.
If I were feeling uncharitable I'd tell you you can't spell kowtow, but
as I'm not, I shan't.
--
Peter
Daryl
Jun 6, 2013, 2:30:26 PM6/6/13
to
daryl
Dave Anderer
Jun 6, 2013, 6:37:43 PM6/6/13
to
>> On 6/4/2013 10:36 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>> In article <XnsA1D4DCD7C45...@216.196.121.131>,
>>> Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>> news:orfairbairn-0B04...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> When I started flying in 1959, there were several grades of avgas
>>>>> available at the pump: 80/87(red), 91/96 (I forget the color)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Straw" I think...
>>>>
>>>> IBM
>>>
>>> No -- "straw" is the approximate color of regular automotive gasoline. I
>>> think that it was green, but 100LL is now green.
>>>
A small correction - 100LL is blue.
>>> In article <XnsA1D4DCD7C45...@216.196.121.131>,
>>> Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>> news:orfairbairn-0B04...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> When I started flying in 1959, there were several grades of avgas
>>>>> available at the pump: 80/87(red), 91/96 (I forget the color)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Straw" I think...
>>>>
>>>> IBM
>>>
>>> No -- "straw" is the approximate color of regular automotive gasoline. I
>>> think that it was green, but 100LL is now green.
>>>
Jim Wilkins
Jun 6, 2013, 8:55:39 PM6/6/13
to
"Dean Markley" <dama...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f0a14fe-ff84-4b3b...@googlegroups.com...
since there is more fuel to evaporate and not enough oxygen to burn
all of it (the meaning of "rich").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
http://www.airtalk.org/use-of-150-octane-fuel-in-the-merlin-xylidine-additive-etc-vt26367.html
"The fuel itself didn't require such changes, just the increased
pressure and forces from running the engine at higher power settings."
Water has even more antiknock effect, but since it doesn't burn it
reduces power, unless the engine is retuned to take advantage of the
higher octane rating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)
Basically this means increasing the maximum cylinder pressure, either
by increasing the mechanical compression ratio or by allowing the
supercharger to force in more mixture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_effective_pressure
jsw
news:3f0a14fe-ff84-4b3b...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Someone clarify something for me regarding terminology? just what
> does a double designation such as 100/150 mean or refer to? I
> understand straight octane numbers but I'm confused by all the
> 100/150, 115/145, etc?
>
> Dean
Rich mixtures have the higher octane rating because they burn cooler,
> Someone clarify something for me regarding terminology? just what
> does a double designation such as 100/150 mean or refer to? I
> understand straight octane numbers but I'm confused by all the
> 100/150, 115/145, etc?
>
> Dean
since there is more fuel to evaporate and not enough oxygen to burn
all of it (the meaning of "rich").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
http://www.airtalk.org/use-of-150-octane-fuel-in-the-merlin-xylidine-additive-etc-vt26367.html
"The fuel itself didn't require such changes, just the increased
pressure and forces from running the engine at higher power settings."
Water has even more antiknock effect, but since it doesn't burn it
reduces power, unless the engine is retuned to take advantage of the
higher octane rating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)
Basically this means increasing the maximum cylinder pressure, either
by increasing the mechanical compression ratio or by allowing the
supercharger to force in more mixture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_effective_pressure
jsw
Daryl
Jun 6, 2013, 11:02:57 PM6/6/13
to
Knocking is just a sound caused by detonation. This usually happens
when not all the fuel is ignited and it detonates further along the
power stroke. Normal detonation is where the fuel is ignited by the
spark plug and it's a nice smooth and even burn. When you get improper
detonation, it's when you get the second detonation. The knocking sound
you hear is where the various engine parts transmit a sound, say, at
6400 hz. improper detonation pits the pistons, etc.. It's more
annoying in the short run in the loss of power but it only causes
problems in the long run in engine wear. IT's not caused by too high of
a compression. It's caused by the tune of the engine not matching the
fuel/air mixture. Your engine has to be running on the rich side to get
detonation which will make a knocking sound. Too lean will cause
another problem which is much more destructive. Detonation (or the
sound of knocking) does not cause engine fires, explosions or ..... But
it will make a nice rooster tail out the exhaust stacks. The easy fix
is to retune your engine to match the fuel. This might not be so easy.
You can increase your compression to match the fuel or run octane
booster, or increase your boost, run hotter plugs, and a few other
things so you can get a complete burn or proper detonation. The
knocking sound is where a cylinder or more than one cylinder is giving
off a harmonic vibration and you hear the knocking sound. If too much
compression exists, another problem can occur: pre detonation.
Pre Detonation is the really bad thing. It happens when the temp is too
high, the compression is too high, the air/fuel mixture is too lean
etc.. for the fuel you are running. The examples I am going to use
assumes you have the proper advance. When it is caused by heat, the
fuel will compress and fire before the plug detonates. This causes
backfiring through the intake, blown heads, shattered pistons, snapped
rods, broken cranks, etc.. This is the bad one that causes engine fires
and engine failures. Supercharged engines will be able to take this
phenomena much better than the TurboCharged engines. Running too lean
can cause the same problem where the detonation may happen even before
the top dead center. When it gets so bad that it's before TDC then your
engine will pretty much start destroying itself one cylinder at a time.
The fix is to lower your boost pressure, run more water injection,
increase your octane, and sometimes, retune your engine including jets.
What they did in ETO was lower the boost ratings, boost the water
injection and try and retune the engines. Remember, it's also altitude
dependent. The higher you go the more boost you are going to need. In
combat, a Pilot will not be religiously monitoring his boost and can
easily over boost.
It's hard to duplicate either one these days. But in the older auto
engines, increasing the spark advance too far and you get one problem,
decreasing the spark advance you get the other problem. Remember when
they gas changed in 1974? The knocking AND the predetonation that was
going on back then before the engines became so computer controlled?
The lead was removed from the fuels, they ran hotter, etc.. Pretty much,
the problems experienced in the WWII fighter engines was rediscovered
around 1974. I just loved the knocking of the engine and the engine
would not shut down immediately when you shut the engine off.
Let's not keep confusing detonation with pre detonation. They are
completely different things and some aircraft had the detonation while
others ended up with pre detonation. The Antiknock Compound was no help
for predetonation which some engines had a problem with. It worked only
with detonation problems.
daryl
Ramsman
Jun 7, 2013, 7:01:17 AM6/7/13
to
demonstrated the truth of the saying that you can't educate pork, thanks
to your outstanding pig-headedness. A worthy successor to Tarver, Venik
and Arndt.
Killfiling you isn't really an option, as your entertainment value is
too great.
Must go now, I need to get some onions to accompany your next load of tripe.
--
Peter
Daryl
Jun 7, 2013, 7:07:51 AM6/7/13
to
It's going to be a very long exchange. This might take years, I have time.
daryl
Geoffrey Sinclair
Jun 7, 2013, 9:42:26 AM6/7/13
to
"Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
news:koqi2r$8qb$3...@dont-email.me...
> I NEVER cowtow to bullies. Not on the Net and certainly not in real life.
At least that means no bowing while looking in the mirror, or
towing cows. Is this the time to mention the comedy song
"Cows with guns"?
Meantime, someone who expects others believe what he
prefers, no matter how wrong, refuses to believe he is
wrong, then insults the people telling the truth. Classic bully.
As often the people who are the biggest part of the problem
think they are the solution.
Daryl is unwilling to change the fiction. Not even the obvious
bad claims, like where the 8th AF attacked in November 1943.
The Daryl response to a list of 8th AF raids 20 October to 3
November 1943,
"The majority of the target were NOT in Germany"
On 100 octane usage,
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
"Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
"Before 1937, they ran 87 octane. By 1939, in time for Dunkirk,
the fighters were running 100"
"Going into the war, both 100 and 87 were being used by the RAF"
On US use of 87 octane,
"The USAAF didn't."
Not even the fact if the USAAF was supplying the wrong grade of
fuel to the ETO and only the ETO then the US leadership has serious
charges to answer.
"Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
Historical Study 65.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
news:koqi2r$8qb$3...@dont-email.me...
> I NEVER cowtow to bullies. Not on the Net and certainly not in real life.
towing cows. Is this the time to mention the comedy song
"Cows with guns"?
Meantime, someone who expects others believe what he
prefers, no matter how wrong, refuses to believe he is
wrong, then insults the people telling the truth. Classic bully.
As often the people who are the biggest part of the problem
think they are the solution.
Daryl is unwilling to change the fiction. Not even the obvious
bad claims, like where the 8th AF attacked in November 1943.
The Daryl response to a list of 8th AF raids 20 October to 3
November 1943,
"The majority of the target were NOT in Germany"
On 100 octane usage,
"Before BoB, all fuels were 87 octane even in fighters"
"Bombers primarily used the 87 octane almost the entire war"
"Before 1937, they ran 87 octane. By 1939, in time for Dunkirk,
the fighters were running 100"
"Going into the war, both 100 and 87 were being used by the RAF"
On US use of 87 octane,
"The USAAF didn't."
Not even the fact if the USAAF was supplying the wrong grade of
fuel to the ETO and only the ETO then the US leadership has serious
charges to answer.
"Aviation Gasoline Production and Control", Army Air Forces
Historical Study 65.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages