Author Topic: RAF 150 octane (Read 11408 times)

Scherf · « **Reply #75 on:** September 24, 2005, 01:50:05 PM »

Possibly your claim that 157 Sqn. was a 2nd TAF unit on anti-V1 ops.

Neil Stirling1 · « **Reply #76 on:** September 24, 2005, 02:10:03 PM »

V1 units. 11 July 1944.

Mustang III sqns 129,306, 315 and 316.

Neil.

Crumpp · « **Reply #77 on:** September 24, 2005, 02:53:41 PM »

Quote

Possibly your claim that 157 Sqn. was a 2nd TAF unit on anti-V1 ops.

Thanks Sherf!

I see the confusion. No attempt to "LIE" Milo. That was kind of a jerk thing to write. I was thinking 306th Squadron when I wrote that sentence.

Facts are the only aircraft that can be positively Identified as using 100/150 grade are those conducting V1 Defense.

Operationally it was the best solution for that mission. It gave wonderful performance when the motor was run at high manifold pressures and avoided the power destroying problems with cruise speed settings.

The V1 only had a range of 150 miles and flew around 400 mph. From Launch to impact was around 40 minutes at most.

All the best,

Crumpp

Neil Stirling1 · « **Reply #78 on:** September 24, 2005, 03:05:44 PM »

Facts are the only aircraft that can be positively Identified as using 100/150 grade are those conducting V1 Defense.

No V1's in Cornwall or in May

1944.http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Lizard.jpg

2nd TAF Clearance.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

Fuel now being introduced. 2nd TAF Spitfires.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/knob.jpg

2nd TAF Spit XIV's +21lbs boost.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/125wing-replacement-aircraft.jpg

Storage and use April 1945.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Supply.jpg

P51 marked 150 grade.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/78thfg-p51-150grade.jpg

Relevant Engine limitations Spit XXI

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/la187.html

Mossi FB VI Pilots Notes.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/FB+VI+a.jpg

Mustang IV Pilots notes.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Mustang+IV+pilots+notes..jpg

Neil.

Squire · « **Reply #79 on:** September 24, 2005, 04:57:17 PM »

It seems that there were issues with the Spit XIVs having fouling problems too, but they still used +21 lbs boost on 150, so evidence of "issues" does not=no extra boost.

Secondly, the RAF Mustangs also ran on the stuff...so again, I have to say there is no reason that USAAF Mustangs could not? Fouling issues aside.

It seems there were technical issues with the 150 fuel in both the RAF and USAAF of various sorts, but they used it nonetheless, because of the performance boost it gave. It it gave no improvement they would have stuck with 100/130, and dropped 150 fuel entirely.

...As for a more complete answer on the Q, it has aroused my curiosity enough I would like more sources on the 8th AF FC use of it in WW2. The real Q. is how widespread was its use in the USAAF P-51s on escort duty, not did they ever use it for such a thing.

I used to think Egyptologists were a strange bunch, but they have nothing on us eh? hehe.

Scherf · « **Reply #80 on:** September 24, 2005, 05:04:49 PM »

Heheh, no, no less strange than us.

On that note, beg your pardon but, some of us don't care a hoot about P-51 escort sorties - far more interested in important stuff like Mosquitos and *their* use of 150 Octane.

Cheers,

Scherf

MiloMorai · « **Reply #81 on:** September 24, 2005, 05:53:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
I see the confusion. No attempt to "LIE" Milo. That was kind of a jerk thing to write. I was thinking 306th Squadron when I wrote that sentence.

I am not Barbi who uses the 'liar' word continually.

I said you made a false statement. You did not even have the balls to say you changed your post listing those units you claimed were in the 2TAF. I would not have had to say anything if you could read and admit you made an error. Nice weasle job.

That is twice in this thread that you have accused people of calling you liar. Got a complex?

I hope you get a ghost writer for that book of yours.

Crumpp · « **Reply #82 on:** September 25, 2005, 09:09:35 AM »

Quote

Nice weasle job.

You ever just think that maybe you posted before someone was finished?

I think that is probably what happened with Neil. Then he went back and changed it again.

Let's look at the documentation:

Where does it clear 100/150 for the units to use on these trial results?

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Lizard.jpg

Where do you see the clearance to use 100/150 grade fuel on this document?

It simply states what the boost requirements will be the fuel is adopted. Notice the use of the future tense in the document not the present.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

A request to use the fuel from Jan 1945.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/knob.jpg

A document saying that the Spitfire Mk IVX can be delivered by March 21st 1945.

Not was delivered or is delivered. "Can be". All it proves is the intention to deliver the aircraft in March '44.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/125wing-replacement-aircraft.jpg

We already know supply was not the problem:

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Supply.jpg

Again, Nobody is claiming it did not see limited service nor that the allies did not have the intent to adopt the fuel.

What is a fact is the performance robbing technical difficulties they encountered.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/78thfg-p51-150grade.jpg

We already know the fuel was used limited quantities. What does any of the following technical set ups for the aircraft have to do with the extent of 100/150-grade usage?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/la187.html

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/FB+VI+a.jpg

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Mustang+IV+pilots+notes..jpg

Neil is obviously putting some time in researching this. We are however talking about the RAF. They did not destroy their records to keep them from falling into enemy hands nor were they bombed to oblivion.

The records are intact. Hundreds of copies of the order to instate 100/150-grade fuel would have been made in order to send one to every unit. Where are they?

I mean seriously? Are we going to start putting the BMW801F (TH) in the FW190?

I mean this document shows the production breakdown by month, right?

All the best,

Crumpp

Neil Stirling1 · « **Reply #83 on:** September 25, 2005, 09:46:04 AM »

Full service approval +25lbs for combat.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/25lbs_approval.jpg.

Read this again.

This fuel is NOW being introduced for use in modified engines of Spitfire LF IX, XIV, XVI, and XIX of 83 and 84 groups.

Can be completed.

.http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=complete&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname

Completed as in finished. Doc date 16th March 45 completed by 21st March.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/125wing-replacement-aircraft.jpg

102,000 tons of 150 grade approximately 4 weeks estimated consumption.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Supply.jpg

The records are intact.

Really? I take it you have never visited the NA then?

Neil

Angus · « **Reply #84 on:** September 25, 2005, 09:57:12 AM »

Yawwwnnnn.
So 150 oct was tested engines were corrected it was cleared distributed and saw quite some use.

I remember some wise guy stating that pouring high grade fuel into a tank was not so simple (that was from 87 to 100 which is rather easy) - anyway it seem's that using the 150 oct fuel was no big technical obstacle.

Neil Stirling1 · « **Reply #85 on:** September 25, 2005, 09:59:29 AM »

Yawwwnnnn.

Indeed.

Neil.

Crumpp · « **Reply #86 on:** September 25, 2005, 10:26:04 AM »

Wow!

I did miss that. So in Jan 1945, it is just being introduced to 2 Groups in the 2nd TAF?

Even though we have definative orders for use in March 1944?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/25lbs_approval.jpg

It took them almost a year to do the changeover? That makes no sense at all.
Granted they are different variants but come on, if the fuel was standard why didn't they just come from the factory set up to use it?

I mean the Luftwaffe did not have to set up the BMW801 to use C3? Sure some timing and plug changes went with the different grades of C3 but nothing that would take 10 months to implement.

Well maybe our orders are not so definitive after all?

All the best,

Crumpp

Neil Stirling1 · « **Reply #87 on:** September 25, 2005, 02:41:07 PM »

British history.

Originally 150 grade was to be used by A.E.A.F fighter aircraft that were to support Overlord. However this was cancelled some time in March 44 due to Spark plug problems.

However the V 1 appeard mid June 44 and those A.D.G.B sqns that were delegated the task of intercepting it were put on 150 grade.

Come 22nd September 150 grade use was suspended for these reasons.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/September+44.jpg

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/September+1.jpg

And the results of its use summarised here.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Summary.jpg

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Summary+2.jpg

Later in October 1944 it was decided to put the 2nd TAF on 150 grade, this starting 15-12-44.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/date.jpg

Indeed some aircraft did come from the factory ready to use 150 grade and +25lbs boost.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/MK+XVI.jpg

The fuel was not standard during 1944 and the extent of its RAF use unkown to me outside of 1944 A.D.G.B and 1945 2nd TAF.

Neil.

Kurfürst · « **Reply #88 on:** September 25, 2005, 03:33:29 PM »

Is there evidence that 150 grade was received by the 2ndTAF sqns that were proposed in November to run on higher boost?

And considering that there were spark plug problems not only in March 1944, but even in November 1944, ie. the documentations from that time issued to change the timing of ignition because of spark plug problems of the Merlin 266, which would effect every Mk XVI unit in the 2nd TAF. And if I recall you correctly, the 2nd TAF XVIs were soon banned from using anything higher than +18 lbs, ie. the 100 octane limit, in 1945.

The question of fuel supply is also there. Doing the modifictions alone means nothing, high boosts would be impossible without continous shipments of 150 grade fuel, which we all know was in limited supply, Britain being the only producer, and it`s avgas production was quite tiny compared to the US, but Britain also had to supply the entire 8th AAF fighter force with the high grade avgas.

Kurfürst · « **Reply #89 on:** September 25, 2005, 03:50:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
2nd TAF Spit XIV's +21lbs boost.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/125wing-replacement-aircraft.jpg

Hmm, interesting, but it doesn`t state they used the boost, just that they had the modifications to use the boost - IF the proper 150 grade fuel type was also delivered, at quite a late date.

Do you have evidence of shipments of 150 grade fuel to XIV units of the 2nd TAF?

Thinking of this how much planning and the actual case differs.

In September they though +25 lbs will be cleared for the XIV in 3 months.

3 months later, they still proposed just +21 boost, appearantly they were overly optimistic. They proposed fuel deliveries would start in December, but in fact they did not start until January 1945. And the first XIV aircraft were not modified for +21 boost (when R-R was supposed to work out problems to enable +25 lbs FOUR months ago...) until mid-March 1945. And the Mk21 test shows that the limitation was still +21 in SEPTEMBER 1945....

Whereas the MkXIVs pilot manual shows the following limiations :

And strictly speaking, Crumpp is correct in that there`s no real evidence to the widespread operational use of 150 grade, unless you count those anti-diver squadrons that I can count on one hand, and which appearantly operated on the fuel for the months the V-1 raids lasted (3 months).