V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS

[AKA_TAGERT]

Originally posted by Crumpp
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.


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

What part of detecting the problem before an engine failure do you not understand? By simply checking the valve clearances ever 25hr instead of ever 50hr they would detect the problem before it resulted in an engine failed.

Simple!

At which point they could do a valve job or swap the motor, two things they were well prepared to do in that they did it all the time even with 100/130.

Simple!

The only difference here is they would not be doing it more frequently.

Nice try, gold star for effort, but no sale!

[Scherf]

Don't worry, as soon as you corner him he'll pull some other issue out of his bellybutton which he for some reason hasn't mentioned before.

[Sable]

Originally posted by Crumpp

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.


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

Crump the formula that included the extra Ethyl Bromide that caused the more serious engine problems wasn't introduced until March 1945 (it says this very clearly in Freeman's book).  And it certainly didn't cause every engine used it in to lose hundreds of horsepower or fail completely in only 6 hours, as an entire fighter group tested it for months in the beginning of 1945 and okayed it.  Lastly, your repost of the 2nd page of that report (which I actually posted above) is actually dated Feb 1945, and is a request to supply the fuel to the 2 8th AF fighter groups that had moved to the continent (they were only there temporarily during the Ardennes battle).  It doesn't relate to the rest of 8th AF fighter command which was still based in england.

[Crumpp]

Crump the formula that included the extra Ethyl Bromide that caused the more serious engine problems wasn't introduced until March 1945 (it says this very clearly in Freeman's book).

Yep.  That was much better than the rash of fatal crashes in autumn 1944.

[LRRP22]

.

[LRRP22]

Originally posted by Crumpp
They were then assigned to the 2nd TAF and were primarily used for long range ground attack.

That's not correct, Crumpp.

No. 65 sqn was permanently removed from 2nd TAF in September of 1944 and transferred to Fighter Command's (ADGB) 11 Group.  The squadron provided Bomber Command daylight escort along with the rest of 150 Wing and 133 (Polish) Wing from Andrews Field until transferred to Fighter Command's 14 Group in Scotland on 16 January 45 where they replaced No. 315 (Polish) Squadron, who had been doing the same CC escorts since late November.  No. 19 Sqn joined No. 65 at Peterhead in early February.  From that point on, both squadrons flew low-level Coastal Command Mosquito and Beaufighter anti-shipping strike escorts to Norway until VE-Day.

Just for clarification- Fighter Command *is* ADGB, 2nd TAF is not.  No Merlin Mustangs were assigned to 2nd TAF after September of 1944- every squadron was assigned to ADGB/Fighter Command and did almost exclusively BC escort work.  The 24 August 44 order to convert all V-1650-7's to +25 lbs boost was an ADGB/Fighter Command order, not 2nd TAF.

The 65 sqn pilot combat report quoting 70" Hg was an ADGB/Fighter Command 14 Group pilot.  He was engaged in a Beaufighter escort on that day.

Even the performance is comparible at low altitudes.

630 to 650 kph at sea level?  Sure it is Crumpp, sure it is.    

LRRP

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Crumpp
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

First, you have produced nothing to support your argument on usage of 150 octane avgas within the 8th AF.

Second, no one asked you to post personal information. I asked the name of your contact at the AF Museum. You could do that via a private message. It's not silly to request that you support your assertion with something beyond your twisted reasoning. Acceptable behavior includes posting your bonafides to support your argument. Don't wish to do that? Then don't post an argument.

You wrote: "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."

Utter hogwash. Let's start with your disrespect towards those who post here. You talk like you are a published historian, which you are most certainly not. I personally know a large percentage of this country's published aviation writers and and aviation historians. You are not in that group by any stretch of your imagination. People within that group meet at least two of the following criteria or excel in the last one. 1) Former or current military pilots or military aviation experience. 2) Degree in one discipline of historical studies. 3) Have had their work published in the mainstream or scholastic print media.

We also have some extremely well read non-professionals, who study aviation history with great zeal. Your arrogant remark is an insult to these people as well.

Finally, considering how many hours you spend on this board, your final comment is especially disingenuous.

My regards,

Widewing

[Crumpp]

Lastly, your repost of the 2nd page of that report (which I actually posted above) is actually dated Feb 1945, and is a request to supply the fuel to the 2 8th AF fighter groups that had moved to the continent (they were only there temporarily during the Ardennes battle). It doesn't relate to the rest of 8th AF fighter command which was still based in england.

Got a page with the date on it?

"Pep" trials were finished in January and on 8 Feb 45 Technical Services noted that no maintenance was needed on the valves.

Of course we know the RAF test results were correct and the fuel damaged the engines causing a loss of power when flown for long periods at cruising speeds.

All the best,

Crumpp

[justin_g]

This Request for 100/150 grade falls in the Summer of 1944 when the 8th USAAF was trying to adopt the fuel.

But the page posted mentions in (2)(b) the addition of ethylene dibromide "at the present time" - a.k.a. "Pep" grade.

"Pep" trials were finished in January and on 8 Feb 45 Technical Services noted that no maintenance was needed on the valves.

How can that page be from mid '44 when it mentions something that didn't happen until the next year?!

[Sable]

Fortunately I have the whole report:



You can clearly see the date, Feb 1945.  It is also very clear that it is in reference only to supplying 8th AF units on the continent.



Note on this page it says clearly that the 8th AF decided to use 150 octane for their fighters despite the maintenance issues, in agreement with Mike and Neil's info, as well as Freeman's writing.



Note that this page mentions that the 8th AF fighter depots are modifying every airplane they process to use 150 octane fuel, and that they had to stop doing this at the depot level for F-6s (photo recon mustangs) because some of them were going to the 9th AF and having to be modified back to standard to use 100/130.

[AKA_TAGERT]

NIIIIIIIIIICE! Thanks Sable!

[Crumpp]

http://img129.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=3bb3c_150grade1.jpg

http://img147.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=0d511_150grade2.jpg

http://img132.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=eded3_150grade3.jpg

http://img133.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=4ccc1_150grade4.jpg

http://img145.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=e90b4_150_grade5.jpg

There was no 150-grade fuel ever produced in the US during the war.  145 grade was seen as the best compromise the technology could offer.  Even that was not produced in any substantial quantities and primarily for the Navy's newer aircraft.

That would leave England as the sole provider for both the RAF and the USAAF.

Assuming England provided 100 percent of the 100/150 grade fuel and the USAAF did not place a single drop in reserves, at the very most it would make up 30-50% of the fuel consumed.  

Now the assumption that nothing would have been placed in reserve is rather ludicrous.  The USAAF almost never met their strategic reserve requirements.  If we count a normal portion going to reserve, the actual use of 100/150 grade drops considerably below that 30-50%.

USAAF consumption and reserves for all aircraft in the European Theater, Barrel = 42 gallons:
 

USAAF fuel consumption in single engine fighters in Thousands of Gallons.  IIRC 384 gallons = 1 ton.
 

Which goes along exactly with the Historians of the USAF Museum say.  The fuel was never the standard.

1.  Yes attempts were made to adopt it.

2.  It had unforeseen technical issues which were, in spite of players claims, substantial.

Lastly, although the 8th USAAF was enthusiastic, the 9th USAAF summed up the operational performance increase of 100/150 grade:

 

Which simply make the fuel not worth it to fighter pilot who is watching is power decrease with every passing hour.  It would not be long until your performance is below what your could have achieved using the less corrosive 100/130 grade.

630 to 650 kph at sea level? Sure it is Crumpp, sure it is.

You should probably check the operational condition of the aircraft.  Both TAF ground attack fighters and Long range escorts mounted wing racks just as the FW-190G/F series.   The FW-190F/G series could do 580-600kph on the deck using C3 Eingspritzung.  Very comparible performance.

 

You keep wanting to the quote this performance:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-fig4.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/rae1501.html

As average Mustang III performance in spite of the fact the vast majority of these "performance" comparisons in these games are pure silliness.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

We can also check the consumption of the USAAF 100/130 grade fuel.

There is a definate drop in the consumption for a short period during the attempts to adopt 100/150 grade.  This is offset by a sharp increase in consumption  that rises above "pre-100/150 grade" levels just after Feb 45 when "pep" comes out and the real trouble with 100/150 grade begins.

 

Widewing, your post is not worthy of a reply.

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Assuming England provided 100 percent of the 100/150 grade fuel and the USAAF did not place a single drop in reserves, at the very most it would make up 30-50% of the fuel consumed.

No assuming as Great Britain, NOT England, did supply the 150 fuel.

P-51 - 269gal + 2x75gal dt = 419gal
B-17 - 2810gal
B-24 - 2710gal

The P-51's fuel load was 14.9% of the B-17's and 15.5% of the B-24's.

You should probably check the operational condition of the aircraft. Both TAF ground attack fighters and Long range escorts mounted wing racks just as the FW-190G/F series. The FW-190F/G series could do 580-600kph on the deck using C3 Eingspritzung. Very comparible performance.

Considering German fuel was having some troubles:

"From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost" (Butch2k).

[LRRP22]

Crumpp,

You know full-well that all 150 grade supplied to 8th AAF came from British production.  You also know full-well that only VIII Fighter Command of 8th AAF used 150 grade.  VIII FC was fully supplied with 150 grade from Summer '44 on, ther is no doubt about it.


The Mustang III at +25 lbs boost had a 30-40 kph speed advantage over the C3 Eingspritzung G/F's.  If you think a 30-50 kph speed advantage is 'comparable performance', then I guess you're right.  

LRRP