Originally posted by Crumpp
Please read the rest of the thread. We know the 8th AF attempted to bring the fuel into General service. Technical issues prevented it. Lets stop going over the same ground please.
Crumpp,
We'll stop going over the same ground as soon as you stop making the same unsupported claims. 20,000 tons per month Crumpp- were did it go? Why are you ignoring all evidence other than your mis-interpretation and retrograde extrapolation of Freeman 'Mighty Eighth War Manual'? Since the 'Fuels' section of that work is the primary source for your claim that 150 grade wasn't widley intoduced into service until May of '45, why do you ignore the preceeding sentences that make clear that 100/150 grade had been in use for months by the time the 'Pep' formulation of 150 grade began operational testing in December of '44?
Why do we see repeated 8th AAF reference to the fuel and the related power settings in June, in July, in September, in November, in December, in March if they weren't using the fuel?
Why did the 8th AAF authorize the use of increased power settings on 100/150 grade for all three fighter types on 11 July 44 if the fuel had been tested and discarded during the Spring?
Why did CPT Leonard Carson of the 357th FG refer to the use of 72" Hg WEP on 25 July 44 over Paris if 150 grade had been discontinued?
Why was the 361st Fighter Group commenting on plug fouling related to the use of 100/150 grade in September of 44 if the Command was no longer using that fuel grade?
Why did the 78th Fighter Group immediately modify the engines of there brand new Mustangs to run at 72" Hg on 100/150 grade fuel upon receipt in December of '44?
Why do 78th FG pilots and ground crew refer to the use of 100/150 grade fuel post-December '44 if the fuel's use had been discontinued months before?
Why does now-MAJ Leonard Carson again refer to the use of 72" Hg during a 30 March 45 encounter with Me 262's?
Why does Freeman refer to the request of a couple of VIII FC groups to return to 100/130 grade fuel in March of '45 if the command was already using 100/130 grade? Why does Freeman state that the request was difficult to grant since the Command only had stocks of 100/150 grade on hand?
Merle Omstead, 357th FG Historian and wartime group Crew Chief, has repeatedly referred to the conversion to 100/150 grade in his works and the works of others. The first reference I've come across occurring in Roger Freeman's "Mustang at War" published in 1974. A contention that MSgt Olmstead has confirmed by personal correspondance.
In fact the 78th has the exact same marking.
That would go along with what Wrigth Patterson is saying.
The 370th FG was a 9th Air Force formation stationed on 'the Continent'. As you know, the 9th, on the Continent, never received 100/150 grade fuel. The 100/150 grade marking is no doubt related to the fact that the 370th was passed some former 8th AAF Mustangs when it converted from the P-38 in March of '45.
Wright Field successfully tested 100/150 grade in the Mustang during the March to May of '44 period. Have you run across that report in your exhaustive search?
P-51B-15-NA 43-24777
((Packard Merlin V-1650-7))
Performance Tests on P-38J, P-47D and P-51B Airplanes
Tested with 44-1 Fuel. (GRADE 100/150)
1. Flight tests were started on P-38J, P-47D, and P-51B airplanes at Wright Field on approximately 20 March 1944 in order to measure the performance and note any effect on flight characteristics when flown with 44-1 fuel. Tests on the P-51B have been completed but tests on the P-38J and P-47D have not been completed to date.
2. All tests were flown with the airplanes loaded to their maximum combat gross weight. The P-38J airplane tested was P-38J-15, AAF No. 43-28392, equipped with Allison V-1710-89 and 91 engines with Curtiss electric three blade propellers. Gross weight at take-off was 17,360 lbs. with the c.g. at 26.72%. The P-47D tested was AAF No. 42-26167 and was equipped with Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 engine and an A-23 turbo regulator. Gross weight at take-off was 13,320 lbs. with the c.g. at 29.5%, gear up. The P-51B tested was the P-51B-15, AAF No. 43-24777 and was equipped with a Packard V-1650-7 engine with a 11 ft. 2 in., four blade constant speed propeller. Gross weight at take-off was approximately 9680 lbs. The weight included 265 gal. of fuel, full oil, and no ammunition (85 gal. in auxiliary tank instead of ballast for ammunition).
3. There was no noticeable change in handling characteristics of any of the airplanes tested when operating at the higher powers which were obtainable with the 44-1 fuel. Only a slight increase in vibration was noted at the higher powers. On one long range test made with the P-51B, there was no apparent trouble due to the 44-1 fuel.
4. All performance data obtained on the P-51B is included in the attached curves. It will be noted that all tests were run with the wing racks installed. Speeds would be approximately 12 mph faster with the wing racks removed as shown by the dash line curve on the Speed vs Altitude Curve. Approximately 16 MPH increases in speed below critical altitude and approximately 600 ft. per minute increase in rate of climb below critical altitude was obtained by using the 75” Hg. Manifold pressure allowed by 44-1 fuel. No tests were made on this airplane with standard fuel.
Supply is not the issue, USE is the problem.
[/B]
If VIII Fighter Command didn't
use 20,000 tons per month, where did it go? Why did the Command continue to receive 18-20k tons per month if they weren't using it? Doesn't strike you as unimaginably stupid that VIII Fighter Command would continue to receive enogh 100/150 grade fuel to fuel 40+ squadrons month after month if the Command wasn't using that grade of fuel?
BTW, that 78th Fighter Group Mustang photo is a scan from my collection, so please don't try and dispute the origin.
Brent Erickson
.
