Crumpp, can we at least get the operation names correct.
Operation Diver:
IV. Operation Diver. Covers the history of the operations to combat the flying bombs, lists of sites, site layouts and locations.
http://www.ukfortsclub.org.uk/aldis/69/69_3.htmlThe archives project is likely to run for 3 years and in the first year 5 reports have been completed which vary considerably in size (some run to several volumes of text, sources, and gazetteers). Subjects completed to date are anti-aircraft artillery 191446, bombing decoys of WWII, Operations Diver, Overlord, and Anti-invasion.
http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev95_6/c20thdef.htm "Operation Crossbow" was the code name for a top-secret WWII mission to build and destroy a copy of a German V1 missile launch site. Working around the clock for 13 days in 1944, contractors built the full-sized facility on a remote part of the Eglin reservation. Today, portions of nine concrete and brick structures scattered over a 14-acre area are what remains of the complex. Several of the buildings remain virtually intact and show little damage from the many attempts over the years to destroy them. They offer mute testimony to one of WWII's great events.
http://www.eglin.af.mil/em/virtualtours/crossbow/The Operations are commonly confused as ones cover was the other.
The V1 Operation Crossbow built and the United States produced is on display at Wright Patterson:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap15.htmSquire says:
And the quoted NACA document, which apparently the "guy" at the USAF museum cant find (or anything else on the subject, apparently):
The NACA document from 1949 does not say what you are wishing it did say.
About 100/150 grade it says:
The fuel caused serious problems which robbed power on long range escort missions.
It was used extensively in Operation Diver. It was prematurely adopted and found unsuitable for long range escort.
Operation Diver was a huge operation. I have posted the specifics earlier.
Your confusing the reports comments about 93/110 with 100/150 grade:
In fact the report says that high aromatic content is useful for overcoming the problems found in high octane fuels. The fuel cannot contain any amines.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1949/naca-rm-9d13/index.cgi?page0002.gifFrom an allied analysis of the composition of C3:
Which is probably why in that same report the allies are wonder why C3 contained a higher concetration of aromatics.
I tend to think the NACA report 9D13 would not exist if 100/150 grade was useable.
So some guy on the internet says the "Special Projects" Tag has nothing to do with fuel?
Again, I will go with what The USAF Museum says on the 100/150 grade fuel use by the 8th USAAF.
Let's summarize: We've got multiple original documents, as well as many squadron accounts showing widespread use of 100/150 grade vs. your tortured interpretations of selected quotes. I think I'll stick with the documents, if you don't mind.
Yes let's summerize!
None of your documents dealing with the USAAF are from the command. They are all from the
Deputy Director of Supply.The fuel is listed in a post war NACA report concerning the exact problems encountered by the USAAF and RAF under cruising conditions.
The USAAF says the aircraft did not use the fuel in T.O.:
T.O. 02-1-38 Specified and Alternate Grade Fuel for Aircraft-Engine Combinations (2 Oct 1944, rev. 10 Feb 1945, rev. 20 May 1945)
100/150 grade should be an alternate, right?
The August 1945 P51 POH does not list 100/150 grade use either. You would think if it was so successful it would have been adopted? Especially when you consider that a few weeks before, the invasion of Japan was under consideration.
Well, since I was never permanent party at Benning
Neither was I. My first duty station was HAAF.
If you think your logistic documents are valid proof, remember being in the supply room and looking at all the crap that was never used!
All the best,
Crumpp
