Author Topic: V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS  (Read 3971 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #60 on: January 21, 2006, 04:59:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Again,

None of the USAAF TO's for fuel authorize the use of 100/150 grade.  According to the USAF Museum it is highly unlikely the fuel was ever adopted for mainstream use.

All the best,

Crumpp


The Air Force Museum, or at least some that work there; are not always reliable as sources.

I got into a figurative brawl with some folks over Dr. Hallion's screwed up XP-86 test timeline, despite the fact that I had photocopies of the airplane's log book right in front of me. At the time he was the official USAF historian and was working overtime to discredit the overwhelming evidence that the XP-86 beat the XS-1 in the race to exceed Mach 1. Unfortunately for Hallion, all he came up with was a time line to dispute the dates of the XP-86 flights. Too bad the log book of the aircraft AND that of the pilot disagrees with his conclusion, as well as North American documents, and records from Edward AFB (then called Muroc Field).

When I called the Museum to get their input, they were at a complete loss. They were not even aware of the discussion among historians about the issue.

As a source, I would rate the USAF Museum as poor. You'd do much better simply visiting Bolling AFB and searching records yourself.

By the way, some of the biggest gaffs I've seen were those made by Museums and their staff.

Of all the various sources used by historians, original documents are considered the most reliable. Neil has supplied a large collection of this type (primary source documents). Historians will accept his evidence as factual, while ignoring an un-named source from a museum.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Debonair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #61 on: January 21, 2006, 05:10:34 PM »
How'd that research on the race to Mach 1 come out?
Welch or Yeager?

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2006, 05:10:51 PM »
Quote
Of all the various sources used by historians, original documents are considered the most reliable. Neil has supplied a large collection of this type (primary source documents). Historians will accept his evidence as factual, while ignoring an un-named source from a museum.




This guys is a Historian and has contact with Neil.  He also has access to plenty of documentation on the subject which he checked including the TO's for fuel autorized in USAAF planes.


All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: January 21, 2006, 05:13:56 PM by Crumpp »

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #63 on: January 21, 2006, 05:19:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
This guys is a Historian and has contact with Neil.  He also has access to plenty of documentation on the subject which he checked including the TO's for fuel autorized in USAAF planes.


All the best,

Crumpp


What's his name?

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #64 on: January 21, 2006, 05:20:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Debonair
How'd that research on the race to Mach 1 come out?
Welch or Yeager?


Welch.... and Yeager wasted a time-out asking for a review.


My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Sable

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #65 on: January 21, 2006, 05:29:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp


Supply of what was difficult??  Could it be 100/130 grade?  You think?

Well that fits what the USAF says.  An attempt was made to adopt to fuel but it just did not pan out.

But that wouldn't fit our gaming agenda would it.  It must be they suddenly came up short on all the 100/150 grade they were stockpiling.

All the best,

Crumpp


Crumpp, you are just picking bits and pieces out of context to support your agenda and not reading the whole thing.

It says quite clearly:

Quote
Despite reservations in some quarters, all 8th Air Force fighter groups went over to 100/150 fuel between july and late september 1944.


Quote
As a result, 'PEP' 100/150 was being supplied to all fighter groups by March.


Quote
Enthusiasm for the new fuel waned quickly and in the same month some units requested a return to 100/130.  As the old grade had been largely replaced by 100/150 octane, supply was difficult.


All the historical documents on both Neil and Mike's site, and that I've been able to find support this.  There are statements from veterans who worked on the planes and flew them that agree with this.  There are pictures of 8th AF P-51s in active fighter groups that were REMARKED by hand for 150 octane fuel.  The only counter-argument I've heard is that the omnipotent guy you talked to working at the AF museum doesn't agree.

No one is trying to dispute that there were maintenance problems caused by the 150 octane.  But despite those problems, the 8th AF used the 150 octane fuel in their fighters from summer of 44 until the end.

From a numbers standpoint, that would mean that P-51s and P-47s running 150 octane and higher boost levels probably saw more action then ANY of the perk planes in the game right now, not to mention the 3 gun LA-7 that is currently #2 on the useage list in the MA.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #66 on: January 21, 2006, 05:37:16 PM »
Quote
Enthusiasm for the new fuel waned quickly and in the same month some units requested a return to 100/130. As the old grade had been largely replaced by 100/150 octane, supply was difficult.


Read what that says.

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)

Does not allow the use of 100/150 grade fuel in USAAF planes.

Without a doubt an attempt was made to adopt the fuel.  You can check the 8th USAAF single engine fighter fuel consumption vs the "supply" of 100/150 grade to get a good picture of its use.

And of course go ahead and assume no fuel reserve when you do the calcs.

I am not posting the documentation I have on these boards nor do care what "history" gamers present.  If it takes more than a few minutes of my time, it is not worth a reply on these boards.

All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: January 21, 2006, 05:39:43 PM by Crumpp »

Offline Debonair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #67 on: January 21, 2006, 05:56:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
Welch.... and Yeager wasted a time-out asking for a review.


My regards,

Widewing


Thanks, thats what I'd read at the Jordan Publishing web site

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #68 on: January 21, 2006, 06:22:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp

I am not posting the documentation I have on these boards nor do care what "history" gamers present.  If it takes more than a few minutes of my time, it is not worth a reply on these boards.


Is this your way of saying "I can't produce what I don't have"?

Who is your historian contact at the USAF Museum, or don't you want to say that either?

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #69 on: January 21, 2006, 06:39:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Debonair
Thanks, thats what I'd read at the Jordan Publishing web site


Well, that's my site...  ;)

I also wrote about this briefly in Flight Journal Magazine a few years ago, as part of a piece on the XF-90.

Rolland "Bee" Beaumont was asked about his experience flying the XP-86. He replied:

"Then I went over to the other side of North America and there was this gleaming swept wing fighter, the first time I had seen an aircraft with swept back wings other than a brief glimpse of a ME262 in Germany, and that's what I was going to fly. I had a session with the test pilot George Welsh who was a marvellous man - I got on with him at once, we spoke the same language. He told me that this was a particularly critical time to come and fly it because Chuck Yeager had been more or less credited with being the first man to fly at the speed of sound with the Bell XS-1, but this was on the strict instructions of the Pentagon, since this was a government sponsored programme.

North American had been ordered by the Pentagon not to announce the fact that they had flown the Sabre at the same time as the XS-1 and probably even a few days earlier - that had been suppressed because the XS-1 had to be seen to be the first one to achieve the speed of sound and with a USAF test pilot, Chuck Yeager. So I said this was jolly interesting and he said "Well, it's more interesting than that, because since all that happened the USAF has been saying they want to fly it too."

About a month before I got there an American test pilot had reached Mach 1 in the Sabre and now it was my turn. I had a very good briefing; I knew exactly what to do and how to do it. I wasn't told that I could fly at Mach 1, but I thought this is a chance in a million, I'll do it. It was a very straight forward aeroplane, wonderful to fly and I saw Mach 1 on the Mach meter.

In the debriefing afterwards there was a certain amount of confusion and George Welsh, the project pilot, said "This is going to cause a ruckus when it gets around!" I said I hope it wouldn't cause embarrassment, and he said "No problem, we've handled these things before. Undoubtedly, you're the third chap to have done it in this aircraft; I don't think the authorities gave us the authority to tell you to do it." So I said "Well, you didn't tell me to do it did you? You just told me it had done that and I didn't see any reason why I shouldn't have a go", and that's the way we left it.

Then years went by and I was fascinated to see earlier this year the book called 'Aces Wild' by Al Blackburn, who was a colleague test pilot for the North American company working with George Welsh who wrote his memoirs last year. He's recounted all of this and made it absolutely clear that in his view, the P-86 achieved Mach 1 a few days before Chuck Yeager did it in the XS-1 and this Brit Beamont did it May 1948, so an interesting story."

So, Beaumont was the third pilot to exceed Mach 1 in the XP-86 right in the middle of USAF cover-up of Welch's first two flights.

You can read Beaumont's interview on the web, here.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #70 on: January 21, 2006, 07:13:14 PM »
Quote
Is this your way of saying "I can't produce what I don't have"?


Whatever you want to think, Widewing.

Most likely though it means just what it says:

I am not posting the documentation I have on these boards nor do I care what "history" gamers present.  If it takes more than a few minutes of my time, it is not worth a reply on these boards.

And figure the odds of me posting names and contacts of professional relationships.  As I stated, Neil knows him.

I would certainly trust his unbiased opinion more than yours, "Mr P47M won the European Air War."

All the best,

Crumpp

Offline AKA_TAGERT

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #71 on: January 21, 2006, 07:52:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Look at the timeline Tagert.

The war was over by the time the "fix" was decided and the USAAF certainly did not use 100/150 grade in the post war period until the fuel technology for high octane fuels improved.
Nah, just look at what was said, and note  the problem was not a show stopper, they had a simple work around, check the valve clearances ever 25hr instead of ever 50hr.

No Big Deal!

Not a problem, at least not one that couldn’t be dealt with.

Nice try though, I have to give you credit on how fast you can spin around.. One breath the material is to be respected, next breath the material is to be ignored! All that spinnin would make a ballerina proud!

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #72 on: January 21, 2006, 08:16:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Whatever you want to think, Widewing.

Most likely though it means just what it says:

I am not posting the documentation I have on these boards nor do I care what "history" gamers present.  If it takes more than a few minutes of my time, it is not worth a reply on these boards.

And figure the odds of me posting names and contacts of professional relationships.  As I stated, Neil knows him.

I would certainly trust his unbiased opinion more than yours, "Mr P47M won the European Air War."

All the best,

Crumpp


As usual you distort and blow smoke when faced with the "put up or shut up" challenge.

Moreover, you have to be a professional to have professional relationships. I suspect your professional relationships might require a  professional fertilizer salesmen.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #73 on: January 21, 2006, 08:37:34 PM »
Quote
“Every little thing counts,” says Jeff Dorton of Automotive Specialists. “You can’t take any quick steps around a good valve job. There’s more power around the bottom of the valve seats to the top of the valve seats than just about anywhere else in the engine. It’s that critical. If you don’t have the valve seat right, the angles are off, or it’s not concentric, the valve is not going to seat and it’s just not going to make power. Basically, it’s not going to be efficient, and you’ve really got to have that part of it really efficient to make the most power.”


http://stockcarracing.com/techarticles/78578/

Sure to you as a gamer it was no big deal if your engine lost hundreds of horsepower over a very short time period.  Your computer shape will never lose power.

To a fighter pilot having to fly few hours just to get to combat it made a little more difference.

See what you do not seem to understand is that when your missions last 6 hours it only takes a few hours before those "benefits" you see on your very short time period and small sample of test flight's are gone.  Your aircraft is performing worse than if you had just used a less corrosive fuel.

Hence the reason it was not put into widespread use.  As I said, simply bounce the requirement off of the actual consumption even assuming no reserve.  

The fix was a new formula with less ethly bromide in May 1945, not a simple valve check and an acceptance of the earlier plug fouling problem.  Hence why the fuel was never adopted for USAAF use at all.  After the war all thoughts of using it were put aside.

What you are trying to claim makes perfect sense only to a gamer.
:aok

This Request for 100/150 grade falls in the Summer of 1944 when the 8th USAAF was trying to adopt the fuel. It has nothing to do with the large number of fatal crashes from aircraft suddenly losing power which led to the withdrawal of the fuel.
 

All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: January 21, 2006, 08:43:17 PM by Crumpp »

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS
« Reply #74 on: January 21, 2006, 08:40:43 PM »
Quote
As usual you distort and blow smoke when faced with the "put up or shut up" challenge.


Actually Widewing, I think I have posted numerous documents on these forums to back up anything I have said.

However your request is simply silly and beyond the standards of acceptable behavior.

You might want others to post your personal information on the internet at some gaming site.  Most do not.  It's called respect.

All the best,

Crumpp