Fw 190 - GM-1 bottles?

[Krusty]

predator,you really don't know what you're talking about. You may be factually correct, but you're trying to force an answer that just isn't correct.

Even on this grainy, camera-phone-quality video you can see a visible smoke stream trailing behind this 109G-6.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HUC7Y5XqB4&feature=related

Keep in mind that's a warbird and will not be flown at max power (probably not even close) to extend longevity.

You may very well be right about oil being belched on startup, but you continue to ignore the facts that others (who know more and have read more on it) have provided you. That doesn't account for the smoke stain accumulation shown in photos. Nor does it account for steady dark smoke trails throughout flight, not just startup.

You have LW pilots mention it, you have allied fighters and bomber gunners mention it, you have massive photographic proof, and also video proof. Why are you trying to make up some story to the contrary?

[PR3D4TOR]

Black smoke was just an indication that he was running full out, not of any particular boost he was using. The German fuels were coal-based.

That is what I take issue with from your post. Your last video (of the same 109 I posted a picture of earlier) is not running on German "coal-based" wartime synthetic fuel. The fuel is not the reason German aeroengines produced smoke.

From my first post:

Any smoke produced by German aero-engines had nothing to do with fuel quality, but probably more to do with running a very rich mixture to increase cooling of the cylinder heads at high boost levels. Even more so if GM-1 was being used.

The heavy staining on German planes is mostly from the startup of the engines which had inverted cylinders. Again nothing to do with the fuel.

Why do you think it's the fuel?

[Charge]

"Why do you think it's the fuel?"

Because any fuel which does not burn properly, as in over rich setting, produces particles that can be seen by naked eye?

I'm not sure if German aviation fuel was any cleaner in this sense a compared to that used by the allied. While its performance could only reach octane rating of 130 lead was used in it as in allied fuels. The amount of lead had to be kept relatively low due to lack of means to prevent lead deposit formation on spark plugs.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Composition%20and%20Specifications

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm

-C+

[PR3D4TOR]

"Because any fuel which does not burn properly..." Any fuel, yes. Incomplete combustion (for whatever reason) produces smoke particles. 100% complete combustion produces only gas (CO2) and water vapor.

Tetraethyl lead (TEL) was added in too insignificant amounts to produce visible smoke. TEL is still used in aviation gas at about 2 grams per gallon (100LL). WWII 100 octane avgas had about 5 gram TEL per gallon.

German 100 octane fuel was designated either C2 (natural) or C3 (synthethic). In late 1942, the Germans increased the octane rating of C3 fuel to 130 by using TEL. Later C3 fuel had very good rich mixture response (anti-knock value) and was almost equal to allied 100/150 fuel, and that high rich PN of the C3 was obtained without resorting to very high TEL content.

[Charge]

Did inverted Vs have bigger oil reservoirs than normal Vs? If not, then it would suggest that while both radials and Inverted Vs share the problem of oil seeping to cylinders when stationary, the oil consumption in flight was not bigger compared to normal V engines. Anybody has figures for e.g. Spit IX and 109G oil fill?

-C+

[MiloMorai]

A Spitfire IX carried 7.5gal or 34.125 ltr of oil.

Me109G-14 with DB605AM motor - 33kg (.91kg/ltr) or 30 ltr of oil.

[PR3D4TOR]

Oil consumption in flight was more of a problem associated with air cooling. When a water cooled engine gets up to proper operating temperature it's pretty tight. Air cooled cylinders not so much. Cold and standing still though, noting will stop that oil from seeping past the piston rings.

[Babalonian]

Why does/should one NEVER hand-rotate/prop a radial engine backwards/counter-prop-rotation?...  or rather, why does/should one ALWAYS hand-rotate them forward prior to starting?....

[PR3D4TOR]

Trick question? Pumping the oil into the intake tract isn't exactly the smartest thing to do. The oil will get sucked right back in when you try to start her up.