Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Jester on January 13, 2006, 11:22:27 AM
-
Am doing a little research and have hit a stump. Does anyone have a source on how many V-1 "Flying Bombs" were shot down by each type of Allied Aircraft?
(http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/4557/v18oc.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Only thing I have found so far is 230 by the P-51.
Tks. :aok
-
I've seen the number 480 quoted very often for the mossie, but I have a video copy of an old B&W film which says the mossie shot down 620 (going from memory here) V-1s in the first 9-week barrage.
Would be neat to have these in-game. I heard the Russkie WarBirds ripoff artists managed to coad V-1s into their pirated version.
-
Yea, would love to see them in AH on the appropriate ETO maps as AI targets. They would launch at random times at random fixed targets and maybe you would get an automated warning from radar on the Text Buffer if you were near the area they were heading , kind of like a radar steer. Need to be able to take out the launch sites as well - they could stay down the same time ack was set for.
Would be a great historical thing to add to the AvA.
:aok
-
Does anyone have a source on how many V-1 "Flying Bombs" were shot down by each type of Allied Aircraft?
The figures are usually given as:
Tempest 638
Mosquito 428
Spitfire 303
Mustang 232
Others 158
-
Thanks Nashwan! YOU IS DA MAN! :aok
Intersteing to see Mossies got more kills than Spits did! Wouldn't have thought that.
I have also found where the P-61 BLACK WIDOW got a couple and the P-47 THUNDERBOLT had some kills but no hard numbers.
Tks again. !
-
Just had a look in "Mosquito" by Sharp and Bowyer, which is pretty much the Bible of All Things Mossie.
It says that seven Mosquito squadrons on anti-Diver ops full-time (includes 96, 219, 409, 418, 85 and 157 squadrons, I believe 605 is the other one) claimed 471 flying bombs, with "part-time" anti-Diver squadrons (must include 456, 25, 68, 264 and various other squadrons, along with assorted HQ, Station, and at least one Operational Training Unit aircraft) claiming another 152. This corresponds to the 620 given in the video referred to above.
Part of the confusion may result from the fact that as of 5 July 1944, V-1s destroyed over land only counted as half an enemy aircraft destroyed - over the sea it was a full e/a. Don't ask me how this affects numbers reported for Tempests and the like - since they are Not Mosquitos I don't care.
-
How fast did the V-1 fly?
-
Around 600-650 km/h...
-
Speed close to 400 mph at rather low altitude which is more than 600 km/h.
(1.609x 400)
But, they were not all the same, - some were slower, some faster.
I knew a pilot who had some business with those in a P51C.
I do not know what boost he was running on (65 SQN was his time of the game and I don't have exact dates). But anyway his words were that at low altitude the V-1 would be faster than the P51, the P51 needing a shallow dive to catch up, - while the Tempests and the Spit XIV were able to run the V-1's down on level speed.
-
Originally posted by Jester
Intersteing to see Mossies got more kills than Spits did! Wouldn't have thought that.
Contrary to what simulation games would have people believe, the Mosquito was actually regarded as fast.
The Spitfire pilot at the 2001 Con, Jack (I don't remember his last name), flew Spit Vs, IXs, XIVs and P-47Ms.The last two are not exactly seen as slow. His one flight in the Mossie was brief, but the impression it left was one of speed.
The dumbest mission he flew was to escort Mosquitos in Spitfire Mk IXs. He said the Spits had to fly at full throttle just to keep up with the Mossies.
These are not the impressions Mossies in sims give.
-
ya them Mossies are made almost entirly of wood
-
Originally posted by the Lazy ace
ya them Mossies are made almost entirly of wood
and nearly invisible to radar.
-
Kind of an off the wall question, but IIRC wasn't the prefered way to kill them flying alongside and bumping the wing to make it spin out so you didn't blow yourself up? If so what percentage of downed V1's were taken out this way vs. shooting?
-
You have to remember its a case of operational assignment as well, the RAFs ADGB (Fighter Command) was the command tasked with the problem, therefore, the USAAF fighters would not have had the # of "anti-diver" sorties as the RAF. The P-47 could certainy have done well, but it wasnt an assigned a/c to that mission.
I beleive the Mosquitos assigned to ADGB were pressed into service as well, which explains the large # of kills for them. There wasnt a lot of LW activity over Britain in mid 1944. The Mossie also had much more loiter time for V-1 BARCAP.
-
The tip-off kill was done, and photographed, but the standard was hammering them down with .50's or Hizookas at the longest range possible. No wonder, fly at 420 mph or so into an exploding ball only a 1000 feet ahead of you. (that's 2000-2500 lbs of TNT).
From explosion from being into the disintergration spot would take you some 3 seconds on that speed.
BTW, maybe I forgot to mention. Christopher Shore's "Aces High II" covers the V-1 "Aces" as well as additional information to be added to AH I.
Hehe, "Aces High". Older than the HTC "Aces High", yet younger than the movie (WWI movie with Malcolm McDowell and many other fine gentlemen)
-
Or maybe I'm wrong. Not sure when Shores started his work, bu I saw the movie in 1979 or so.
-
I remember that movie, it had Christopher Plummer and Mcdowell in it. :)
Would give anything for a decent WW1 sim, I may check out that Over Flanders Fields mod for CFS3.
Anybody have it?
-
Yes, yes, - Plummer got killed if I remember right.
Speaking of such, "blue max" was quite a film as well.
-
On the deck a damper free Mossie would be faster than the the Spit XVI.
V1's
Main reason May 1944 LF IX's got 150 octane 25lbs boost, July 1944 XIV's got 150 octane 21lbs boost.
Both were capable of catching them.
Around the same time Mossies were using 150 grade in their wingtanks? only.
Karnak -
What would you like to see on the eventual remodel?
I would guess
B IV added
FB VI dampers removed.
Add one of the NFs - NF.30?
Oh 4k bombload option would be nice.
Something the Mossie pilots used to brag about - Could carry the same bombload as a B-17, only faster.
Your choice?
-
Originally posted by Geary420
Kind of an off the wall question, but IIRC wasn't the prefered way to kill them flying alongside and bumping the wing to make it spin out so you didn't blow yourself up? If so what percentage of downed V1's were taken out this way vs. shooting?
Terry Spencer tipped one in his Spit XII after he ran out of ammo. It was NOT the normal way to do it.
First was "Junior" Collier in a Spit XIV of 91 Squadron. He too had run out of ammo first.
image is from Terry Spencer's logbook of a cartoon done by Tom Slack to commemorate Terry's effort.
Tough to do in a clipped Spit.
(http://brew.clients.ch/SpencerLogbook.gif)
-
all good
(http://truemetal.org/metalwallpaper/images/aceshigh.jpg)
(http://www.dacre.org/flash/www/gb100004.jpg)
(http://graphic-illusion.com/ace1.jpg)
-
Contrary to what simulation games would have people believe, the Mosquito was actually regarded as fast.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1137307818_mossien2o.jpg)
-
Hi All:
I believe the 150-octane in wing tanks was the method used to test comparative performance, not the way it was used on operations. Neither Sharp and Bowyer in "Mosquito" nor Lewis Brandon (157 Squadron) in his memoirs describe the Mossies getting a mix of fuels, just that they went over to 150. Incidentally, Brandon says that to combat the V-1s, 157 got strengthened noses, stub exhausts, 150-octane and +24lbs boost, and that with the exception of the stubs, these modifications were retained when they went back onto bomber support ops.
A number of mossie crew have written of chasing fast V-1s going like bats out of hell and therefore uncatchable, followed by much slower-moving ones, which the Mossies then overshot.
Incidentally, the first V-1 shot down by an allied aircraft was claimed by a Mossie of 605 Squadron, which actually brought it down in a level tail-chase after having to turn through 180 degrees to pursue it.
Of all the variants I'd like to see added to AH, it would be the B.XVI - the B.IV has the same bomb load as the FB.VI, without all the yummy cannon, so probably wouldn't see much use. The NF.30 probably would only get used if Combat Tour ever does night bombing.
-
Holy cow! A hotrod N2O injected mosquito!
Is that 394 mph at 2000 feet ?!
Bozon
-
Bozon -
Mossie was faster on the deck than the much overhyped Spit XVI.
Which Merlins do our Mossies have? 25's I assume?
Scherf - Thought of the NF.30 for people who might want to just have what is essentially a fast Mosquito fighter variant:
379 mph (609km/h) at 6,000ft (1829m) - NF.30 in MS gear.
394 mph (634km/h) at 13,800ft (4206m) - NF.30 in FS gear.
424 mph (682km/h) at 26,500ft (8075m) - NF.30 in FS gear.
4x20mm cannons + 500lb bomb load + DTs
That performance would make it a lot more surviveable in the MA and would maybe even bring about an increase in use.
But your right about the B IV.
Revised list
FB VI
B XVI (with the 4k bomb load option I assume)
NF.30
-
I'd say BRING IT IN HTC.
We have several of the ultimate and 1945 aircraft available anyway.
And the glazed-nose and bomber-only mossie could easily follow in a patch - not so much graphic work.
Ok, we have the Arado which is faster. But the Mossie gets into business faster with a much quicker takeoff and climb.
Anyway, obviously the Mossies have not been harvested to the limit into AH.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I'd say BRING IT IN HTC.
We have several of the ultimate and 1945 aircraft available anyway.
And the glazed-nose and bomber-only mossie could easily follow in a patch - not so much graphic work.
Ok, we have the Arado which is faster. But the Mossie gets into business faster with a much quicker takeoff and climb.
Anyway, obviously the Mossies have not been harvested to the limit into AH.
First losses I could find
NF.30 is pre July 44
B XVI is pre Nov 43
So not even 1945 stuff.
-
No wonder that both RAF and LW pilots said they were faster than anything.
I recall a tale where 190's gave up on a low-level tail-chase outside Jutland. Well, the Mossies outran them. It was on these boards but I haven't found it again. Anyone?
-
Hi Kev:
Sharp and Bowyer show the NF.30 first going into service on 21 June 1944, with 219 Squadron. First kills by this type were on 21 July 1944, again with 219 Sqn.
They also say 139 Squadron first took the B.XVI on operations on 10/11 February 1944, with both 109 and 105 Squadrons following on the first two days of March.
So, not 1945, as you say.
Angus, you may be referring to the sortie on 14 April 1944 when two Mossies of 418 Squadron went on a tear through Minensuchstaffel 5./MSGr 1 off Sjaelland's Point, then across Kastrup, then left behind two 190s which tried to intervene.
Bozon, I think that 394 mph docco is actually a combined scan from two separate documents. Neil Stirling has better information on that one, I don't have a National Archives reference.
I see comments on this thread and the other about the Mossie being "re-done". Is this something's which been decided?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Karnak -
What would you like to see on the eventual remodel?
Required:
Mosquito B.Mk IV with Merlin 21s.
Mosquito FB.Mk VI with Merlin 25s and no flame dampers
Mosquito B.Mk XVI with Merlin 72/73s or 76/77s (counter rotating!)
I would like to see:
Mosquito F.Mk II powered by Merlin 21, 22 or 23s
Mosquito NF.Mk XIII with Merlin 25s
Mosquito NF.Mk 30 with Merlin 72s.
Mosquito F.Mk II:
Max speed: 366mph at 22,000ft
Armament: four 20mm Hispano Mk II cannon (150rpg) and four .303 Browning machine guns (500rpg)
Why: First fighter and nightfighter version of the Mossie, entered service in late 1941.
Mosquito B.Mk IV:
Max speed 382mph at 22,000ft
Armament: four 500lbs bombs or four 250lb bombs.
Why: First bomber version of the Mossie. Entered service in early 1942 and was the main Mossie bomber version until the Mk XVI began to supplant it in 1944.
Mosquito FB.Mk VI:
Max speed: 387mph at 13,000ft, about 355mph on the deck.
Armament: four 20mm Hispano Mk II cannon (150rpg or 175rpg) and four .303 Browning machine guns (500rpg or 720rpg), four 500lb bombs or four 250lb bombs or two 500lb bombs and eight rockets or two 250lb bombs and eight rockets.
Why: Most common Mossie that served in many theaters and in many roles. One of the most versatile aircraft of WWII. Entered service in July, 1943.
Mosquito NF.Mk XIII:
Max speed: 394mph at 13,800ft, 379mph at 6,000ft, 350mph at sea level
Armament: four 20mm Hispano Mk II cannon (150rpg)
Why: First dedicate Mosquito night fighter. Thimble nose with just the cannons. Entered service in late 1943/early 1944.
Mosquito B.Mk XVI:
Max speed: 408mph at 28,500ft with 4,000lb bomb, 419mph after release. 329mph at sea level with 4,000lb bomb, 333mph after release. (speeds without dampers)
Armament: One 4,000lb bomb or six 500lb bombs (two under the wings)
Why: Second major Mossie bomber and a good perk bomber. Counter rotating props on a level bomber! 408mph is faster than the Ar234 while bomb laden. Entered service in late 1943/early 1944. Declared obsolete in April, 1949.:p
Mosquito NF.Mk 30:
Max speed: 424mph at 26,500ft, 400mph at 13,500ft, 338mph at sea level.
Armament: four 20mm Hispano Mk II cannon (250rpg, IIRC) and two 500lb bombs.
Why: The final and best Mosquito fighter of WWII. Bull nosed and entered service in mid-1944. The best night fighter of WWII.
Together these would cover the Mosquito very well. I'd like a FB.Mk XVIII to play with, but it does have a couple of really good reasons not to be added. 1) it was very rare. 2) it would destabilize several aspects of gameplay.
The Mk IV, Mk VI and Mk XVI are the most crucial though.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
I see comments on this thread and the other about the Mossie being "re-done". Is this something's which been decided?
I heard no rumors about the mossie but like all planes it is in que for redoing to AHII standards. If it will take part in "combat tour" (which I hope it will) HTC will probably do it sooner then planes not intendent to be in it.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Scherf
Hi Kev:
Sharp and Bowyer show the NF.30 first going into service on 21 June 1944, with 219 Squadron. First kills by this type were on 21 July 1944, again with 219 Sqn.
They also say 139 Squadron first took the B.XVI on operations on 10/11 February 1944, with both 109 and 105 Squadrons following on the first two days of March.
So, not 1945, as you say.
Agreed on the NF.30
But a little sceptical on the XVI, one of the first losses of a XVI was in Nov 43, so it had to enter service prior to then. As Karnak says late 43 sometime.
-
Originally posted by Geary420
Kind of an off the wall question, but IIRC wasn't the prefered way to kill them flying alongside and bumping the wing to make it spin out so you didn't blow yourself up?
Preferred, well, maybe for the about SIX times it was done.
And those happened when the pilot had run out of ammuniation.
And they did not bump the wing.
The pilots flew close enough placing their wingtip near the V-1 wingtip, messing the airflow and causing the V-1 to stumble out of its path, making a mess of the gyros. There was no actual contact at all.
-
I like the cut eyes on the V-1 looking back at the spitty. :D
-
Originally posted by Grendel
And they did not bump the wing.
The pilots flew close enough placing their wingtip near the V-1 wingtip, messing the airflow and causing the V-1 to stumble out of its path, making a mess of the gyros. There was no actual contact at all.
Both methods were used...disturbing the air flow and the bumbinng with the wing tip.
Shooting them down was of course easily the most common method.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Speed close to 400 mph at rather low altitude which is more than 600 km/h.
(1.609x 400)
But, they were not all the same, - some were slower, some faster.
I knew a pilot who had some business with those in a P51C.
I do not know what boost he was running on (65 SQN was his time of the game and I don't have exact dates). But anyway his words were that at low altitude the V-1 would be faster than the P51, the P51 needing a shallow dive to catch up, - while the Tempests and the Spit XIV were able to run the V-1's down on level speed.
Angus,
No. 65 Sqn and the rest of 122 Wing were flying from France during the period of the V-1 threat and were not involved in anti-Diver operations.
The three squadrons of 133 (Polish) Wing and 316 (Polish) squadron conducted anti-Diver op's from the beginning of July until late August/Early September. All four of those squadrons ran at 81" Hg boost on 100/150 grade. They were plenty fast enough to catch V-1's in level flight.
LRRP
-
Originally posted by Grendel
Preferred, well, maybe for the about SIX times it was done.
And those happened when the pilot had run out of ammuniation.
And they did not bump the wing.
The pilots flew close enough placing their wingtip near the V-1 wingtip, messing the airflow and causing the V-1 to stumble out of its path, making a mess of the gyros. There was no actual contact at all.
Grendel,
No. 316's Mustang III FB377 had to have a wing tip replaced from damage incurred while 'tipping' a V-1. Tipping wasn't the preferred method, but it was used.
LRRP
-
if the krauts were smart enough and knew about it, they should have fitted prox fuses to V1's so if anything did try tipping it.... BOOM
-
Originally posted by Furball
if the krauts were smart enough and knew about it, they should have fitted prox fuses to V1's so if anything did try tipping it.... BOOM
I uderstand that they did so as soon as they heard about it being done.
As was said though, it happened only a few times. It gets blown out of proportion.
-
Bear in mind though, that gunning them down could result in a nice fireball, 2500 lbs or so blowing up. Fly into that at 400 mps, - you have some 3 seconds before it goes up, - quite a bump!
-
Oh, LRRP22:
"Angus,
No. 65 Sqn and the rest of 122 Wing were flying from France during the period of the V-1 threat and were not involved in anti-Diver operations"
I am still diving into this history. Remember though, that a big batch was fired at Holland (Rotterdam? Amsterdam?) After the 65 sqn was based in Normandy. They went roughly Normandy, Bruxelles, and as a whole or a part perhaps back to the UK. Will have a look in a book in daylight tomorrow (sneaking in computerroom, - wife &daughter sleeping)
Good night all ;)
-
World War II V-1 footage (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3059398965468095168&q=v1)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, LRRP22:
"Angus,
No. 65 Sqn and the rest of 122 Wing were flying from France during the period of the V-1 threat and were not involved in anti-Diver operations"
I am still diving into this history. Remember though, that a big batch was fired at Holland (Rotterdam? Amsterdam?) After the 65 sqn was based in Normandy. They went roughly Normandy, Bruxelles, and as a whole or a part perhaps back to the UK. Will have a look in a book in daylight tomorrow (sneaking in computerroom, - wife &daughter sleeping)
Good night all ;)
Hiya Angus,
122 Wing was detached from 2nd TAF and returned to the UK during late September 44. The Wing was assigned to Andrews Field/11 Group ADGB on 14 October for Bomber Command escort. 65 sqn (followed by No. 19) moved to Peterhead, Aberdeen and 14 Group for Coastal Command escort on 16 January 45 were they remained until VE-Day.
Mustang units did return to anti-Diver duties for much of March of 45 but 65 sqn was in Scotland at that time. It is possible that 65 sqn may have encountered V-1's in some manner while on the Continent, but they weren't flying at Fighter Command's +25 lbs boost at that time.
Brent Erickson
-
Nice.
Yup, they were moved to east Anglia late in September, Andrews in Oct, and to Scotland in Jan. By that time, my guy was off action.
I rather suspected they didn't fly overboosted Mustangs, for he said they needed a shallow dive to catch them, while the Tempest and Spit XIV guys could run them down. All fits I guess.
Aces High, Volume II covers many of the doodlebug hunters, but I don't have it yet ;)
-
Wouldn't buy it just for the V-1 stuff Angus.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Nice.
Yup, they were moved to east Anglia late in September, Andrews in Oct, and to Scotland in Jan. By that time, my guy was off action.
I rather suspected they didn't fly overboosted Mustangs, for he said they needed a shallow dive to catch them, while the Tempest and Spit XIV guys could run them down. All fits I guess.
Aces High, Volume II covers many of the doodlebug hunters, but I don't have it yet ;)
Hello Angus,
No. 65 definitely didn't use +25 lbs boost while they were on the Continent. At some point after assignment to Fighter Command they almost certainly did transition, did but it sounds like that was after your friends time in the squadron. In his combat report of 5 April 45, F/Lt. Pearson of 65 refers to "opening up to 70 inches" while catching a JG5 109 off the coast of Norway.
Brent
-
Drool......I'd like to see your library please ;)
And Scherf: Not sure what you mean...??
-
Pearson of 65 refers to "opening up to 70 inches" while catching a JG5 109 off the coast of Norway.
They were then assigned to the 2nd TAF and were primarily used for long range ground attack.
Not very different from the FW-190G series or F series using C3-Einspritzung. Even the performance is comparible at low altitudes.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
No. 65 Sqn was based with 14 Group in Scotland, doing long range escort for Coastal Command off of Norway. They were transferred back from 2 TAF in the Fall of 1944, and remained in the UK untill VE Day.
From the RAFs official site : http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h65.html
-
In December the Squadron converted to Mustangs which were used in the fighter-bomber role and in June 1944 No. 65 had moved to Normandy where it supported the army until September 1944.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h65.html
Where the Mustangs probably used 100/150 grade after it was approved for 2nd TAF use in August, 1944 on their ground attack missions.
The Squadron was then moved to East Anglia to act as fighter escorts for Bomber Command's daylight raids over Germany until January 1945 when it moved back to Scotland to provide similar services to Coastal Command attacking shipping off Norway and Denmark.
Where they probably did not use 100/150 grade unless they were assigned to 2nd TAF or ADGB for anti-diver operations.
http://www.rafcommands.currantbun.com/Fighter/65F.html
Alot of people want to see just what they wish too for a game.
USAAF conclusions on 100/150 grade:
In view of the inconclusive nature of test results, it is not possible to make any definite decision concerning the operational use of nominal grade 104/150 fuel and the attending higher emergency power ratings.
Only three of the nine original test aircraft finished the specified test.
There is a whole second part to this story........one that involves rapid loss of power due too corrosive effects of the fuel when flown under long duration flight conditions.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
The technical problems presented by ultra high octane fuels would not be solved until post war.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Probably did, probably didnt. Who knows, I was just clarifying where they were based, which was Scotland.
-
Probably did, probably didnt. Who knows, I was just clarifying where they were based, which was Scotland.
Right, which does not alter anything that I posted.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
USAAF conclusions on 100/150 grade:
The very next line of the report:
c. At this station, only very minor malfunctions and failures were traced specifically to the action of the nominal grade 104/150 fuel.
And from another USAAF report:
Conclusions
1. Based on tests conducted to date, it is concluded that use of PPF 44-1 in fighter aircraft permits higher power operation which increases airplane performance.
2. Disadvantages resulting from the use of PPF 44-1 fuel in fighter aircraft may be summarized as follows:
a. Decreased spark plug life.
b. Increased rate of replacement of synthetic rubber parts in contact with the fuel.
c. Probable increase of spark plug fouling trouble under low power cruise conditions.
d. General increased engine flight line maintenance on all three engines probably resulting from the higher power operation.
e. Generally increased engine deposits and ring sticking tendencies particularly on V-1710-89 and -91 engines.
f. Higher relative toxicity of the fuel necessitates more careful handling.
And another AAF report describing maintenance related issues:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/282_1092759114_us2.jpg)
Note 6.a.(2)(b) as it is in line with what Roger Freeman talks about in his 2nd paragraph below.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/Fuels.jpg)
The timeline for the 8th AF seems to be:
3/44-6/44 - a couple squadrons are testing 150 octane operationally
6/44-9/44 - all US 8th AF fighter groups convert over to 150 octane
12/44-2/45 - 355th FG tests 150 octane with additional ethyline dibromide, which was added to try and reduce spark plug fouling and related engine failures
3/45 - all other 8th AF fighter groups get supplied with the new 150 octane fuel with the additional ethyline dibromide
5/45 - due to an increase in engine failures they revert to 150 octane with less ethyline dibromide
It seems that the initial 150 octane used operationally from 6/44 to 3/45 did increase spark plug maintenance, but wasn't nearly as problematic as the later mixture which caused valve problems. In spite of their maintenance problems the 8th seems to have been able to get large numbers of fighters out on operations while keeping fighter losses low as can be seen from the following links.
http://www.8thafhs.org/combat1944b.htm
http://www.8thafhs.org/combat1944b.htm
-
Originally posted by Angus
Scherf: Not sure what you mean...??
Sorry, should have been more precise. The second edition of Aces High is a massive and meticulously well-researched piece of work. However, in terms of the V-1 war, the list only extends down as far as those pilots who claimed five or more, which of course makes them aces but which also vastly reduces the number of pilots acknowledged. Also, in many cases where pilots claimed 5 or more in terms of both enemy aircraft and V-1s, the dates of the V-1 claims are not given - likely because the V-1 stuff did not appear in the list of Combats & Casualties, though I'm guessing there.
An excellent (but I don't believe totally complete) list is here:
http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/aces1/ww2-allied-v1_aces.html
-
THX!
Very nice page there!
-
Look,
Whatever history you want to plug for your game is no skin off my nose.
Note 6.a.(2)(b) as it is in line with what Roger Freeman talks about in his 2nd paragraph below.
Sure, keep reading Roger Freemans second paragraph very carefully. Start at the sentence that begins "However,Contrary to Technical Services Findings..."
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Whatever history you want to plug for your game is no skin off my nose.
Be careful, backpedaling that fast, you might get you pant leg caught in the chain!
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure, keep reading Roger Freemans second paragraph very carefully. Start at the sentence that begins "However,Contrary to Technical Services Findings..."
I have read it, and in summary it describes the problem, the work around the problem, and the ultimate fix. i.e.
Roger Freemans the mighty eigth
It was found that there was additive separation when fed to the engine, forming hydrobromic acid which attacked the valve seats. In May the British had made a decision to supply 100/150 containing less ethylene dibromide as additional sparking plug maintenance was preferred to the short engine life, a decision with which 8th Air Force concurred.
SAVVY?
Originally posted by Crumpp
All the best,
Same to you!
-
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
-
So, let me see if I am following you on this.. It is ok to pick and choose the parts of that paragraph you want to believe? Seems to be, in that in one breath you quote the mighty eight as if god himself wrote it in stone, i.e.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure, keep reading Roger Freemans second paragraph very carefully. Start at the sentence that begins "However,Contrary to Technical Services Findings..."
And in the next breath you want to ignore the mighty eight as if written on the back of a napkin, specifically the part that said
Roger Fremans Mighty Eight
As the old grade had been largely replaced by 100/150, supply was difficult
To which you reply with, ie
Originally posted by Crumpp
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.
Huh! Is that how it works? That does make it easy! Pick out the parts you like and ignore the parts you don’t like.. Man I did not know that was valid to do?
-
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.
Which is exactly what the USAF says happenend.
As the old grade had been largely replaced by 100/150, supply was difficult
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
-
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
-
How'd that research on the race to Mach 1 come out?
Welch or Yeager?
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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:
Despite reservations in some quarters, all 8th Air Force fighter groups went over to 100/150 fuel between july and late september 1944.
As a result, 'PEP' 100/150 was being supplied to all fighter groups by March.
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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. (http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuff/2005/bee/bee.htm)
My regards,
Widewing
-
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
-
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!
-
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
-
“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.
(http://img106.potato.com/loc260/th_655fa_150_grade_8th_AF.jpg) (http://img106.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc260&image=655fa_150_grade_8th_AF.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
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
-
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.
: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.
(http://img106.potato.com/loc260/th_655fa_150_grade_8th_AF.jpg) (http://img106.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc260&image=655fa_150_grade_8th_AF.jpg)
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!
-
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.
-
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.
: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.
(http://img106.potato.com/loc260/th_655fa_150_grade_8th_AF.jpg) (http://img106.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc260&image=655fa_150_grade_8th_AF.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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?!
-
Fortunately I have the whole report:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/282_1092759081_us1.jpg)
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.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/282_1092759114_us2.jpg)
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.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/282_1092759146_us3.jpg)
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.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/282_1092759819_us4.jpg)
-
NIIIIIIIIIICE! Thanks Sable!
-
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:
(http://img139.potato.com/loc83/th_47e94_Stocks_of_fuel.jpg) (http://img139.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc83&image=47e94_Stocks_of_fuel.jpg)
USAAF fuel consumption in single engine fighters in Thousands of Gallons. IIRC 384 gallons = 1 ton.
(http://img143.potato.com/loc103/th_9afea_fuelgallonsconsumed.jpg) (http://img143.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc103&image=9afea_fuelgallonsconsumed.jpg)
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:
(http://img12.potato.com/loc117/th_aa046_9th_AF.jpg) (http://img12.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc117&image=aa046_9th_AF.jpg)
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.
(http://img142.potato.com/loc153/th_98437_mustang_level_150.jpg) (http://img142.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc153&image=98437_mustang_level_150.jpg)
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
-
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.
(http://img128.potato.com/loc209/th_87656_130_grade_consumption.jpg) (http://img128.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc209&image=87656_130_grade_consumption.jpg)
Widewing, your post is not worthy of a reply.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
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).
-
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
-
The P-51's fuel load was 14.9% of the B-17's and 15.5% of the B-24's.
The breakdown for fighter fuel consumption is clearly listed, Milo. Even at the requested supply quantities, it amounts to a rather small percentage of the fuel consumed.
Here we can see that just as clearly, the P51 made up the vast majority of the 8th USAAF FG's:
(http://img141.potato.com/loc235/th_c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg) (http://img141.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc235&image=c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg)
As the numbers of P51's using 100/150 grade increased in proportion to the ever growing number of aircraft, we should see a decline in the consumption. In fact it only dips for a very short time period in the fall/winter. By the middle of Feb. 1945 comsumption of 100/130 grade in Europe shoots back above the levels required in the early fall.
This hardly indicates a massive switch to a different fuel.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
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.
The Speed charts for the Mustang III are posted above.
FW-190G under different configurations with C3-Einspritzung, uncorrected speeds:
http://img143.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=ac01f_FW190speed.jpg
The FW-190 series had a positive correction of 20-26kph depending on the calculations at that speed.
http://img131.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=9879c_EB_104correction.jpg
http://img111.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=011c0_FW190A3f.jpg
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
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.
[/b]
No argument here.
Originally posted by Crumpp
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 .... SNIP
[/b]
And here we go into wild conjecture. This is all addressed on Mike and Neil's page. Go here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html) and then read the very first section Intial Testing and Proposals. Read all the linked documents completely. Then scroll down to the section Into Service with the USAAF Eighth Air Force, and pay particular attention to this link (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/26-5-44-doc.html).
In particular it says:
5. The matter of supplying 150 grade fuel has been taken up with the Air Ministry. There is now approximately 30,000 tons of this fuel in storage at Stanlow. The production of 150-grade fuel is sufficient to take care of the fighter stations of the VIII Fighter Command based on their present rate of operations.
So we can see that there was already a reserve of 150 octane being built up before it went into operational use.
If you look in the link above you can see there is additional information, as well as estimates of peak 8th AF requirements. Mike and Neil's site then goes on to describe delivery of the fuel to 8th AF fighter stations, once again with multiple documents to back this up.
Next we have this document which talks about production and supply of 150 octane fuel in November of 44.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/Nov44150grade_1doc.jpg)
Note that the production supply is 12 million US gallons, while the USAAF requirement is about 7.5 million US gallons (which nicely matches the 6 million UK gallon approximation given above for typical monthly requirement for the 8th AF fighter command). It also states that future demand will increase as RAF demand for the fuel increases, but ultimate demand will still fall below maximum production output. We can see from this that there were clearly adequete supply and reserve for 8th AF fighter command operations.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Lastly, although the 8th USAAF was enthusiastic, the 9th USAAF summed up the operational performance increase of 100/150 grade:
(http://img12.potato.com/loc117/th_aa046_9th_AF.jpg) (http://img12.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc117&image=aa046_9th_AF.jpg)
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.
[/b]
Unfortunately, the 9th AF's opinion on the worth of 150 octane fuel, as well as your opinion on it's worth are immaterial. What is important is that the 8th AF did choose to use the fuel, which is spelled out quite clearly.
We can see from the documents, veterans statements and photos:
that the 8th AF tested it, found it's use acceptable and worthwhile, found adequete supply, delivered it to their airfields (replacing the old grade), and used it operationally from summer of 1944 through the end of the war in europe. We can also see from 8th AF Fighter Command operational record, that while they were increased maintenance issues brought on, it never caused enough accidents or aborts to hamper operations.
Originally posted by Crumpp
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.
(http://img142.potato.com/loc153/th_98437_mustang_level_150.jpg) (http://img142.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc153&image=98437_mustang_level_150.jpg)
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
Actually I would point to the charts on this (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html) page as giving an accurate example of Mustang performance. They bear out the 10-15mph speed increase below critical altitude described in the reports above.
And with regard to 100/130 consumption, given that both 8th AF bomber command, and the 9th AF used this grade of fuel it's no surprise that it continued to be used in large quantities. Especially given that the 9th AF really got busy with their tactical mission after D-Day.
-
Army Air Forces Statistical Digest (http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables.html)
Gasoline Consumption of Airplanes with units in ETO (PDF) (http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t186and187.pdf)
-
Yes please check it out since everyone seems to have missed me posting it:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t186and187.pdf
All the best,
Crumpp
-
And with regard to 100/130 consumption, given that both 8th AF bomber command, and the 9th AF used this grade of fuel it's no surprise that it continued to be used in large quantities. Especially given that the 9th AF really got busy with their tactical mission after D-Day.
The 9th AF argument does not hold water nor do any of the other smoke/mirrors posted. I said from the begining that having supply documents is not the same as operational documents. The 9th was under the North African fuel distribution district and not Europe.
(http://img13.potato.com/loc204/th_92c9d_World_Wide_fuel_distribution.jpg) (http://img13.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc204&image=92c9d_World_Wide_fuel_distribution.jpg)
If you guys want to your game shape to be faster, I will support it.
Just don't try and pass it off as history which inspite of Widewings attempted character assasination, comes from a reliable source at the USAF Museum.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The breakdown for fighter fuel consumption is clearly listed, Milo. Even at the requested supply quantities, it amounts to a rather small percentage of the fuel consumed.
Here we can see that just as clearly, the P51 made up the vast majority of the 8th USAAF FG's:
Clearly? :rofl
Better do another scan, for that one is unreadable.
You said USAAF. Nice squirm.
In Dec 44, ETO fighters:
P-51 - 1515
P-47 - 1735
For the complete list: http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t089.pdf
The P-47 carried ~40% more internal fuel, so it can be seen which a/c burned more fuel, never mind that the P-47 often flew 2 missions/day while the P-51s usually flew only every 2 or 3 days with the bombers.
Be sure the Fw190F/G could do 600kph on the deck. To bad that German fuel had some problems:
"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).
-
Sable Says:
Actually I would point to the charts on this page as giving an accurate example of Mustang performance. They bear out the 10-15mph speed increase below critical altitude described in the reports above.
Look down the page, that is Neils chart I posted that comes from your link.
Please bother to read what I post before you simply refute it due to some game shape paranoia.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
In Dec 44, ETO fighters:
Milo,
The topic is 100/150 grade use. At the moment the bone of contention is the 8th Fighter Commands supposed full time adoption of the fuel.
Not the USAAF in Europe as it there is no contention the fuel was used anywhere else.
The chart I posted is specifically from the 8th Fighter Command:
(http://img141.potato.com/loc235/th_c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg) (http://img141.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc235&image=c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg)
Please read the topic.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"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).
T
You keep posting this?? What does this have to do with this thread??
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You keep posting this?? What does this have to do with this thread??
Because you introduced it with your claim for the Fw190's speed.
Very comparible performance.
So hard to get compariable speed with crappy fuel.
-
Well considering the test I posted is an earlier 1943 test and the formula for C3 increased it's rating to mid 140's by 1945 who knows what the performance would have been.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Well considering the test I posted is an earlier 1943 test and the formula for C3 increased it's rating to mid 140's by 1945 who knows what the performance would have been.
Be sure, with 'C3 and B4 having 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'.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The 9th AF argument does not hold water nor do any of the other smoke/mirrors posted. I said from the begining that having supply documents is not the same as operational documents. The 9th was under the North African fuel distribution district and not Europe.
Crumpp, you are the one using smoke and mirrors.
This (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/26-5-44-doc.html) clearly shows that the 8th AF monthly demand for 150 octane is expected to be in the range of 6-7.5 million IMP gallons (7.2-9 million US gallons) and that this was withing the supply capacity of UK production.
This document:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/Nov44150grade_1doc.jpg)
clearly shows that the monthly requirement of 150 octane is 20,000 tons (7.5 million US gallons) and states that this is within the supply capacity of UK production.
From this (http://www.8thafhs.org/combat1944b.htm) link we can add up the 8th AF fighter sorties for Nov of 1944, and see that they flew 12,836 operational sorties for the month. At this point most of the 8th AF fighters were P-51s, which could carry a max of 489 US gallons (this total includes 2 110 gallon drop tanks). Now supposing for the sake of argument that they used every drop of gas on every operational sortie that month, that only totals 6.3 million US gallons used. Given that the fighters never used all of their gas (if they did, large numbers of them would have been failing to make it home), and often didn't even need to drop their tanks, this puts us well under the 7.5 million US gallon supply requirement of 150 octane with room to spare for training, local flights, maintenance, waste, etc.
The link you posted which is labeled "Gasoline consumption of airplanes with units in ETO" shows a consumption by fighters of 10.8 million US gallons. It makes no mention of fuel grade, or airforce. Simply that the units were "in ETO". Logically we would assume it is showing both 8th and 9th AF consumption given that the consumption total is FAR beyond the operational requirement of the 8th AF. Especially given that we have other documents that clearly state the 8th AF's supply and requirements for 150 octane fuel, and that those requirements much more closely match their actual useage based on operational sorties. This makes it clear that the 8th AF had enough supply of 150 octane fuel for all of their operational sorties.
(I also totaled the sorties for August 1944, just to give another random sample - 17,546 x 489 gallons = 8.6 million total, well below the 14.7 million on your chart for Aug 44 - and a large percentage of these missions were short range fighter bomber attacks in france which would have used much less fuel, and no drop tanks so 8th AF fighter consumption was almost certainly much lower then the 8.6mil I arrived at)
When we combine this with the fact that we also have docs showing that they tested the aircraft with the 150 octane fuel, found it worthwhile to use, delivered it to the stations (replacing the old 100/130), and used it, along with statements from pilots and ground crew describing using the fuel operationally, and photos of aircraft remarked for use with 150 octane fuel, it's an open and shut case in favor of Freeman's overview.
With regard to the actual performance of the fighters, the charts and reports on Neil's site clearly list the state of the aircraft. If you bother to read, a number of them are tested with wing racks installed. Clearly, there is a performance increase in both speed and RoC.
-
clearly shows that the monthly requirement of 150 octane is 20,000 tons (7.5 million US gallons) and states that this is within the supply capacity of UK production.
Be sure, Sable.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/150pn.jpg )
-
The link you posted which is labeled "Gasoline consumption of airplanes with units in ETO" shows a consumption by fighters of 10.8 million US gallons. It makes no mention of fuel grade, or airforce. Simply that the units were "in ETO". Logically we would assume it is showing both 8th and 9th AF consumption given that the consumption total is FAR beyond the operational requirement of the 8th AF. Especially given that we have other documents that clearly state the 8th AF's supply and requirements for 150 octane fuel, and that those requirements much more closely match their actual useage based on operational sorties. This makes it clear that the 8th AF had enough supply of 150 octane fuel for all of their operational sorties.
I posted both documents Sable so that the comparision could be made between 100/130 consumption and that document.
Your going to walk me through your assumption. Going off the supply document the 8th USAAF requirements does not meet more than 30-50 percent of the consumption of total fuels used by 8th USAAF FG.
The 9th AF is not part of the ETO, it is part of the MTO for command and part of the North Africa district for fuel distribution. Completely different command.
You can stop posting the USAAF memo from supply, I have a copy and used those requirements myself.
How many times are you going to make me repost this?
http://img13.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc204&image=92c9d_World_Wide_fuel_distribution.jpg
Now that it is clear the European fuel district is the 8th USAAF a some facts stand out that have no explaination under the "8th AF fighters permanently adopted 100/150 grade" theory.
1. There is a clear increase in 100/130 grade consumption by the European Fuel district after the trouble with "pep" develops.
2. The steady drop in 100/130 grade consumption is consistant with the timeline of attempt to the adopt 100/150 grade fuel.
3. The 8th USAAF FG's were decreasing in numbers during January, Feburary and March, so the consumption of 100/130 grade should exhibit a decline not a sharp sudden increase.
Numbers and type of fighters in 8th USAAF FC:
http://img141.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc235&image=c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg
100/130 grade overseas consumption:
http://img128.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc209&image=87656_130_grade_consumption.jpg
(I also totaled the sorties for August 1944, just to give another random sample - 17,546 x 489 gallons = 8.6 million total, well below the 14.7 million on your chart for Aug 44 - and a large percentage of these missions were short range fighter bomber attacks in france which would have used much less fuel, and no drop tanks so 8th AF fighter consumption was almost certainly much lower then the 8.6mil I arrived at)
You do not have to figure fighter consumption, it is listed in the document I posted. If 100/150 grade became the standard then monthly requirements (assuming no reserve) should match up in the ball park of consumption. In fact the monthly requirement requested should easily exceed consumption with the excess being the reserve. Instead it does not come anywhere near either matching or exceeding it. The stated requirement does not even make up 50 percent of the fighter consumption in the ETO.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
ETO fighter consumption in thousands of US gallons:
http://img143.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc103&image=9afea_fuelgallonsconsumed.jpg
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I said from the begining that having supply documents is not the same as operational documents.
Would this also apply to an order to use a certain fuel not being proof of it being used operationally?
Or do we get back to having two standards for proof depending on whether its Allied or LW?
Not specifally aimed at you, but it seems that allied have to provide a document signed by Jesus countersigned by God to even be considered as proof.
Whereas the LW just need a soggy beermat signed in crayon by Herr Mickey Mouse and Frau Minnie mouse to be considered gospel.
As I said not specifically aimed at you, but I would hope you would agree the same standard should apply to all.
i.e. squadron level documents showing what is claimed.
-
GENTLEMEN, how about lets get back to the subject of the thread, "V-1 KILLS", or move the "Gas Wars" next door to another thread.
Think you guys have pretty much beaten this "High Test Horse" to death. :rolleyes:
Tks.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I posted both documents Sable so that the comparision could be made between 100/130 consumption and that document.
Your going to walk me through your assumption. Going off the supply document the 8th USAAF requirements does not meet more than 30-50 percent of the consumption of total fuels used by 8th USAAF FG.
The 9th AF is not part of the ETO, it is part of the MTO for command and part of the North Africa district for fuel distribution. Completely different command.
[/b]
Crumpp, the 9th AF WAS based in the ETO. Your document doesn't specify that it is talking about just the 8th AF, and doesn't specify "ETO in terms of supply chain". It just says "In ETO" which would literally mean located in the ETO. It is vague, whereas the documents specifically listing the 8th AF requirements and supply are very specific. Your interpretation of that document to discredit every other piece of evidence to the contrary is in disagreement with all the other documents, statements of 8th AF veterans, photos, and a published historian.
Originally posted by Crumpp
How many times are you going to make me repost this?
http://img13.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc204&image=92c9d_World_Wide_fuel_distribution.jpg
[/b]
This doc is nearly unreadable, and has no date. The 9th AF was originally founded as a Middle East Air Force in 1942. It was based in North africa and so it obviously would have fallen into the MTO during this time frame. But in Oct of 1943 it moved to England, and was most certainly part of the ETO in the time frame we are talking about. Furthermore, as I showed above the fuel consumption totals you posted are FAR beyond what 8th Fighter Command could have used on it's own, seeing as we know how many operational sorties they flew. Also the fuel consumption totals you posted make no mention of what grade it refers to. Because of this it's only logical to make the assumption that the document is showing both 8th and 9th AF consumption, and that the supply chain document is from an earlier date when the 9th AF was actually based in the MTO.
Originally posted by Crumpp
1. There is a clear increase in 100/130 grade consumption by the European Fuel district after the trouble with "pep" develops.
2. The steady drop in 100/130 grade consumption is consistant with the timeline of attempt to the adopt 100/150 grade fuel.
3. The 8th USAAF FG's were decreasing in numbers during January, Feburary and March, so the consumption of 100/130 grade should exhibit a decline not a sharp sudden increase.
Numbers and type of fighters in 8th USAAF FC:
http://img141.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc235&image=c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg
100/130 grade overseas consumption:
http://img128.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc209&image=87656_130_grade_consumption.jpg
[/b]
Crumpp your 100/130 fuel consumption doc shows WORLDWIDE consumption by the USAAF. That means it includes, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 20th Air Forces! It's showing the consumption of every bomber, fighter, transport, and trainer in every air force the US had. To try and draw conclusions about the consumption of the 8th alone just from this document, and then to say that those conclusions are correct inspite of the fact that documents specific to the 8th disagree with your conclusions is preposterous! Not only that, but the large spike you are refering to in Feb/Mar of 1945 is largely made up from an increase in Zone of the Interior consumption! (that is airplanes in the US!)
All the documents that actually say specifically 8th Air Force lead us to the conclusion that there was more then enough supply of 150 octane fuel to meet the requirements they list. Calculating the approximate requirement based on the number of operational sorties we know they flew leads us to agree with this point - there was clearly more then enough supply of 150 octane fuel to meet the demand of the operational sorties flown by the 8th AF fighter command.
At this point there is no reason to argue the supply question any further. The only counter evidence you have presented is based on making guesses from charts that offer no data specific to the 8th Air Force.
-
The 8th USAAF FG's were decreasing in numbers during January, Feburary and March, so the consumption of 100/130 grade should exhibit a decline not a sharp sudden increase.
4thFG - returned to USA Nov 45
20thFG - returned to USA Oct 45
55thFG - in Germany
56thFG - returned to USA Oct 45
78thFG - returned to USA Oct 45
339thFG - returned to USA Oct 45
352cdFG - returned to USA Nov 45
353rdFG - returned to USA Oct 45
355thFG - in Germany
356thFG - returned to USA Nov 45
357thFG - in Germany
359thFG - returned to USA Nov 45
361stFG - returned to USA Nov 45
364thFG - returned to USA Nov 45
479thFG - returned to USA Nov 45
So what FGs left?
-
Originally posted by Jester
GENTLEMEN, how about lets get back to the subject of the thread, "V-1 KILLS", or move the "Gas Wars" next door to another thread.
Think you guys have pretty much beaten this "High Test Horse" to death. :rolleyes:
Tks.
Good Idea! Chuck the horse in the pit and move on...
-
the germans had a piloted version of the v1
-
Alfred Price says the difference in V-1 speeds was down to manufacturing variation, as the production wasn't held to aircraft tolerances.
-
i know of a instant if i remember correctly a tympest or a typhoon pilot tip a v-1 over
-
So what FGs left?
Look at the document Milo.
http://img141.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc235&image=c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg
That chart is produced by the USAAF.
All the documents that actually say specifically 8th Air Force lead us to the conclusion that there was more then enough supply of 150 octane fuel to meet the requirements they list.
You have a request from supply but nothing from the Operational HQ ordering the use.
Again, the document that dictates the ALL the types of fuel authorized in USAAF aircraft by type does not list 100/150 grade as authorized.
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)
A Technical Order would have most certainly been issued to cover the fuel usage along with instructions on the modifications to the aircraft.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Where does it say FG. It only gives the number of operational fighters
Your conclusion is incorrect.
The number of FGs in the 8th did not decrease in number. :rolleyes:
-
The 8th USAAF FG's were decreasing in numbers
They are decreasing in numbers....
Read the chart:
http://img141.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc235&image=c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg
Your assumption I meant units instead of aircraft is rather moronic unless you simply did not bother to look at the document I posted.
I tend to think that is what happenend.
Or maybe you think all those P51's were assigned to the 8th Quatermaster instead of an FG?
Typical.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Oh, not the reading problem issues again.
Ok. - allies were low on good fuel, didn't handle it anyway, and all those hundred's of V-1's they caught were Hizooka HO's.
Is the horse dead yet?
-
Yup Angus, Crumpp is having troubles with English, again. Now, if he could write properly he would have said:
The number of a/c in the FGs of the 8thAF were decreasing.
That is not what he said, dispite his chart.
quote:
The 8th USAAF FG's were decreasing in numbers
You are writing a book, Crumpp. :eek: :(
Keep wiggling.
-
You are writing a book, Crumpp.
Yes. I promise that won't be in it, Milo.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You have a request from supply but nothing from the Operational HQ ordering the use.
Again, the document that dictates the ALL the types of fuel authorized in USAAF aircraft by type does not list 100/150 grade as authorized.
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)
A Technical Order would have most certainly been issued to cover the fuel usage along with instructions on the modifications to the aircraft.
All the best,
Crumpp
While the 150 octane fuel may not appear on the approved list in that technical order, we can see from evidence that the highest levels of command in the ETO and USAAF approved of its use. The engines were tested with the fuel at higher boost levels and it was found to be satisfactory. The fuel was tested operationally, and afterwards the 8th AF requested that it be supplied to it's fighter groups. Men who flew and worked on airplanes for the 8th AF's fighter groups specifically mention modifying the aircraft, and using the fuel and higher power settings operationally. We have photos of aircraft remarked for use with 150 octane fuel. And we have documents from the USAAF supply command in europe stating that the 8th used 150 octane, and was modifying every replacement fighter they recieved to use that grade of fuel.
From Mike and Neil's web site:
Here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/11-2-44-doc.html) we have a memo from Eisenhower, Supreme Commander in theater specifically requesting the components to produce 150 octane fuel in the UK for the express purpose of improving fighter performance.
Here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/13-2-44-doc.html) we have Hap Arnolds reply, stating that their tests concur with the 8th's results and suggesting they proceed with caution with the Allison engines.
Here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/75inch-clearance-v-1650-7.jpg) we have the test results from material command showing that the V-1650 (P-51's merlin) will operate at the higher rating with 150 octane fuel. You can also find these same docs for the Allison and Pratt & Whitney engines of the P-38 and P-47.
Here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p51b-24777.html) we have test results from Wright Patterson with the ultimate recommendation:
A. It is recommended that the war emergency rating of the V-1650-7 engine as installed on the P-51B airplane and using 44-1 fuel be increased to 75 in. Hg. manifild pressure and 3000 RPM.
Once again we can find the same recommendations for the P-38 and P-47.
These tests, along with the operational squadron tests (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/25225-doc.html) obviously sold 8th fighter command, as we can see that they requested the fuel be delivered to the 8th FC stations (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/26-5-44-doc.html).
With regard to modifications to the aircraft, note that it says:
3. The modifications necessary on the planes, to obtain the maximum efficiency from the fuel, can be carried out on the airfields during normal servicing of the planes between missions without taking them out of service. It is understood no special equipment or parts are required for the present change over, but the PPF project equipment should come forward from the U.S.A. as it may be required later.
We've aleady talked about supply, so I won't go into that except to point out this (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/361st-24june44.jpg) document. Note paragraph c.
During the week ending 18 June 1944, 100 octane gasoline in our storage tanks was replaced by the 150 octane grade.
Note that no P-51s took part in the testing by 3 squadrons in spring and early summer of 44, and the PEP testing in early 45 was carryed out by the 355th FG. The 361st, and the other groups noted below would all be using it operationally.
On this (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html) page at the bottom we find statements by pilots and groundcrew of the 357th and 78th Fighter groups describing modifying aircraft for 150 octane, using 150 octane oprationally, and using the higher WEP settings operationally.
On top of that we have photos of Mustangs in operational fighter groups remarked for use with 150 octane fuel.
From Mike and Neil's site:
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/78thfg-p51-150grade.jpg)
78th Fighter Group
And some I found on my own:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/mcaffee-353FG.jpg)
353rd Fighter Group
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/487fs150.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/487fs150-crop.jpg)
352nd Fighter Group
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/357th150octcrop.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/357th150octcrop2.jpg)
357th Fighter Group
Finally in the memo from 9th AF that I linked in a previous post it states:
Eighth Air Force decided to use 100/150 fuel in their fighters ...
and
All of the replacement fighter aircraft being processed by Base Air Depot Area for the Eighth Air Force, are being equipped with the necessary modifications for use of grade 150 fuel.
In the preceeding posts we debated supply, and it's clear that there was supply. Here we can see that there was approval for use of the 150 octane fuel at the highest levels of command, that it was tested sucessfully, and that it was used operationally.
To argue otherwise based on the 150 octane fuel not appearing on the "approved" list in some technical order, is much like talking to a person standing before you and arguing they don't exist because you don't have a copy of their birth certificate.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Again, the document that dictates the ALL the types of fuel authorized in USAAF aircraft by type does not list 100/150 grade as authorized.
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)
I'm just noticing that the last revision of that T.O. is listed as May 20th, 1945. After V-E Day. Do you happen to have an earlier revision of it? It seems likely that after hostilities ceased, and with accidents on the rise and groups asking to return to 100/130 fuel, that the 100/150 PEP fuel would have been removed. That would certainly fit with the other evidence presented above, and with Freeman's summary of 150 octane useage.
-
We need to come up with a name for when a thread becomes a Crumpp against the everyone else brawl
or maybe superimpose bruce lee's face on one of these icons (http://hitechcreations.com/forums/images/dot_newfolder.gif) to denote the fact
-
Are this pictures autentic ? They look a bit strange. Isn't a photoshop job? :confused:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/487fs150-crop.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/kracerx/mcaffee-353FG.jpg)
-
Somewhere in the UK National Archives is a post war (just) document proposing excess 150 grade be reblended down to a lower grade.
Leaves 3 possiblities -
1) There was an excess of fuel at the end of war because of higher production.
2) There was an excess of fuel at the end of war because of lack of use.
3) Both the above.
Draw your own conclusions based on the rest of the thread.
-
WOW! Great summary Sable! Thanks goes out to you and milo for pulling all this togther and to MW himself for taking the time to put all this info up on his websight! S! To you all and thanks!
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
Are this pictures autentic ? They look a bit strange. Isn't a photoshop job? :confused:
The first is taken from pg. 47 of Squadron Signal Publications "Walk Around P-51D" by Larry Davis. ISBN 0-89747-360-4
The second can be found at http://www.web-birds.com/8th/353/mcaffee.jpg.
-
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT
WOW! Great summary Sable! Thanks goes out to you and milo for pulling all this togther and to MW himself for taking the time to put all this info up on his websight! S! To you all and thanks!
Well most of the credit I think goes to Mike and Neil. The first time I read about higher boost levels being run by Mustangs was years ago, reading "Kit" Carson's combat reports describing the use of 72" of manifold pressure. At the time I thought "Must be a typo, or just a failure of memory - everyone knows that the peak manifold pressure on the Mustang was 67". But thanks to all of their work we now know differently. The pictures I found because I saw the shot of the 78th FG P-51 remarked and thought "BS, I've never seen that before and there would have to be others if that was real." Well after spending a few hours digging through my books and searching the web, sure enough there were others.
-
Originally posted by Sable
To argue otherwise based on the 150 octane fuel not appearing on the "approved" list in some technical order, is much like talking to a person standing before you and arguing they don't exist because you don't have a copy of their birth certificate.
:lol :rofl :lol
-
We have a Web page:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/11-2-44-doc.html
And another Webpage that replies "Let's use some caution":
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/13-2-44-doc.html
These tests, along with the operational squadron tests obviously sold 8th fighter command, as we can see that they requested the fuel be delivered to the 8th FC stations .
And they certainly did. Nobody is denying there was great enthusiaum for the fuel. However it's use was short lived as serious power development problems occurred and it fell out of favor after Feb 45.
That is exactly what Freeman says and the absence of published Technical Orders or technical instructions on the conversion points to this.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
There must have been one heck of a lot of 150 fuel in storage with 114,919,000 Impgal produced :eek: for it not to be used.
Yup, be sure, the Brits were idiots for producing so much useless fuel.
-
Oh, come on Crumpp, EVERYBODY had problems with hi-fi-juices, so they were used when needed. But the Allies sure had stocks of them.
Not much use for them when the LW is flat on the ground is it?
-
EVERYBODY had problems with hi-fi-juices
Exactly. The fuel technology was just not at that level yet.
so they were used when needed.
Yes they were used within their specialties. 100/150 grade was best used for short duration high speed flights like a ground attack or interception mission. It was a good fit for the majority of the RAF's mission profiles.
For the USAAF requirements to fly for hours at cruising speeds on long duration escort mission does not fit the fuels characteristics.
As Freeman points out "loss of power" is a serious issue to any fighter pilot.
Do you happen to have an earlier revision of it?
No I don't but I am looking for it myself. I feel the revision's will in fact unlock the mystery.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Ehh, Crumpp, although I rather agree on you on the fuel problems, or as you put it:
"Exactly. The fuel technology was just not at that level yet. "
I still slightly disagree. It's not all about the fuel, it's about engines, duration, reliability, maintanence, spares, logistics and all.
Why buy the last HP's on a rape-price if not needed??