Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing on December 12, 2008, 07:01:47 PM
-
Mike, one of the 8,800+ WWII documents in my collection is one detailing Aviation Gasoline production during the war. It discussed 150 octane fuel (and other high octane fuels).
I copied the relevant pages and posted them below. I didn't see any reference to the document on your website. I have a PDF copy of the report, but at 287 megs, it's too big to e-mail. I could burn a copy to CD if you want the whole thing.
Here the pages I refer to, and the top sheets as well.
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page1.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page2.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page3.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page4.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page5.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page6.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page7.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page8.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page9.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Interesting Read :salute
-
I think there's no need to burn to a CD - appears to be downloadable from here:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/studies2.asp
Not surprisingly, it's number 65, seems to be a simple right-click and save as...
-
Hello Widewing:
Thanks for bringing that document to my attention. I do have a copy of that report but it has been awhile since I've read through it. Thanks for the reminder. I'll work on weaving some of the material into the 100/150 Grade Fuel narrative. I think you've shared the heart of it that relates to improved fuels in the US during the later war years. Good stuff!
-
And hereby the myth about the 150 oct being in little use is .... completely busted ;)
-
Angus, you might want to read the whole text before commenting. :rolleyes:
Interesting document. :aok
-C+
-
Well, it shows they wanted more and could naturally not use it exclusively, but it's a far shot from old claims that it was in very very little use.
-
I only skimmed over it, but it looks like the Navy was involved. Can I have 150 in my F4U now?
;)
-
Imagine a Spixteen with it :devil
-
Imagine a Spixteen with it :devil
God no.
Lets give Spixteens 89 octane...
-
Mike, one of the 8,800+ WWII documents in my collection is one detailing Aviation Gasoline production during the war. It discussed 150 octane fuel (and other high octane fuels).
I copied the relevant pages and posted them below. I didn't see any reference to the document on your website. I have a PDF copy of the report, but at 287 megs, it's too big to e-mail. I could burn a copy to CD if you want the whole thing.
Here the pages I refer to, and the top sheets as well.
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page1.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page2.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page3.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page4.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page5.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page6.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page7.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page8.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/page9.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
WW,
Would be interesting to talk to someone on the maintenance side of things about their operational experience with 150. My old A&P teacher was chiefing Bear Cats way back - i'll see if he's still around to answer the question. Failing that, do you have any salty sources?
Wolf
-
Would be interesting to talk to someone on the maintenance side of things about their operational experience with 150.
That’s a good idea Wolf. Merle Olmsted of the 357th would have been a good one for that, however, if memory served he passed away not long ago. I’ve had some success finding documentation from supply, servicing and engineering:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/361st-24june44.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/359th-150grade-1jul44.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/78thfg-supply-dec44.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/78thfg-eng-rep-dec44.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/339th-fuel-report-1march45.jpg)
-
That’s a good idea Wolf. Merle Olmsted of the 357th would have been a good one for that, however, if memory served he passed away not long ago. I’ve had some success finding documentation from supply, servicing and engineering:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/361st-24june44.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/359th-150grade-1jul44.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/78thfg-supply-dec44.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/78thfg-eng-rep-dec44.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/339th-fuel-report-1march45.jpg)
My main concern is in terms of serviceability. We've already seen the reports of spark plug gap wear replacement at 50% of its rated service life. That stump never was cheap - 1 plug today runs in the neighborhood of $30 for a current engine - an R2800 using RHB36S is pushing $80 a plug - times 36 plugs. I could easily see reasons the Battalion S4 would balk at the idea of a PO of triple the spark plugs for any given outfit in some theater.
I'm not so concerned about the Merlin or any liquid inline because, pardon the pun, it was a 1 trick pony and had no life after the War outside tractor pulls and Reno. But if 150 was used for specific applications - i.e. running 5 minute alert intercepts, chasing down V1s where you need the extra anti-detonation margins of 150 and can afford to abuse the engine, then that I can honestly live with.
But coming from a maintenance background that has to live in the real world with financial and equipment limitations - unless we can demonstrate that the fuel was used in a specific capacity for a specific purpose and not just thrown into any old radial or inline, I don't think we are going to see it.
Catch my drift?
-
A set of plugs is cheaper than an aircraft.
And the prices are not todays antique prices.
-
To me the report WW posted clearly states that the improved fuels were only to be produced if that would not affect the quantities of 130 grade production. The situation looked good because it was seen that 130 grade fuel production objectives were going to be exceeded. However, later on in the document they saw that in the future there would be problems with aircraft gasoline production so would that actually mean that demands for 130 grade "basic" fuel would over-ride the needs for 145 grade fuel. Notice: 145 grade fuel, not 150. The 150 was seen a desirable product but it was not to be produced as was 145 grader. What is interesting is that the later document in thread only refer to 150 octane. IF the reference actually means 115/145 octane the early tests and their results done with real 150 grade fuel would be a different matter. What is the 150 grade referred in performance documents? Is it actually 145 grader or is it actual 150 grade fuel? What would be supplied to operational units? Or is the first report erroneous in a sense that the US gasoline production actually was able to produce sufficient amounts of "real" 120/150 grade fuel later on?
Quality?
The increase of tetraethyl was obviously giving leeway to 130 gasoline quality process and it could be used to keep the octane rating high and thus increasing production numbers. How did this reflect to 145 grade production? Or 104/150 as opposed to 120/150 octane? Is the 104/150 better distilled product and is the 120/150 done merely by increasing tetraethyl thus also boosting the lean mixture rating but causing also more problems in form of lead deposits when aircraft is flown in partial power. It seems that the toxicity claim and anecdotal evidence of pilots would support this. It also seems that 115/145 fuel was quite tetraethyl rich. If you do a performance test with better distilled 150 grade fuel would the performance be the same with poorer distilled 150 boosted merely with tetraethyl?
Production and consumption?
164 000 000 barrels of 130 grade in 1944 (1barrel=42gallons?) equals 6 888 000 000 gallons. Of course it has to be kept in mind that if half of the airforce would be bombers and half fighters the bombers would still have four or two motors so the share of total going fighters is quite small.
If we estimate a normal daily fuel usage of a P-51 to be around 250 gallons a 20 plane unit would fly a week with the amount of fuel stated in the latter document IF they flew every day tanks full. Just to give a perspective of what 35 000 gallons operationally means, roughly that is. (In practice there would be various amounts of fuel left in tanks after flights but then again fuel wasted in drop tanks or with lost aircraft etc etc.)
-C+
-
6.888.000.000 gallons in 1944 of the 130 grade (what boost level is that) is roughly enough to power ca 10.000 merlin engines at good or full power, 24 hrs a day for one year.
I recall some thread where there was data about what went to the bombers. AFAIK they would be running on lower octane fuels, and I think that would be a logical choice as well.
-
For those members with a real interest in the 150 grade fuel story please refer to:
100/150 GRADE FUEL (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html) P-51 Mustang Performance (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html), P-47 Performance Trials (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html), Spitfire Mk IX Performance Testing (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html), Spitfire Mk XIV Performance Testing (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV.html)
The shortest way I can think of to condense the history from the US side in the ETO goes something like as follows:
General Dwight D. Eisenhower was responsible for successfully landing an army on the continent, liberating the occupied countries in western Europe following which the Nazis could be defeated. He was convinced that 150 grade fuel would be a useful tool to enable him to meet those ends and saw to it that the 8th Air Force was supplied with this grade fuel. Eisenhower got what he wanted.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/11-2-44-doc.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/commendation-29may44.jpg)
The 100/150 grade fuel was produced in the UK and delivered to 8th AF fighter units.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/150-fuel-13-june44-b.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45-pg1.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45-pg2.jpg)
The story of fuels used in the Pacific is not yet clear and requires further research.
-
Merry christmas!
Being overfed and lazy, I ask if you have tests and data on the 130 fuel?
-
Merry christmas!
Being overfed and lazy, I ask if you have tests and data on the 130 fuel?
Hi Angus:
I find your request for data and tests on 130 grade fuel a little puzzling within the context of a thread regarding 150 grade fuel. Perhaps you were a bit too overfed and lazy when you posted that bit and meant 150 grade? If your interest is data and tests of aircraft operating with 130 grade fuel please have a look through the WWII Aircraft Performance (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/) site. I’m also feeling somewhat overfed and sleepy from holiday feasting to list them all. If you really meant data and tests utilizing 150 grade fuel I can list a few to get you started:
Flight Tests on the Lockheed, P-38J Airplane, AAF NO. 43-28392, Using 44-1 Fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38j-28392-level.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38j-28392-climb.jpg)
FLIGHT TESTS ON THE REPUBLIC, P-47D AIRPLANE, AAF NO. 42-26167, USING 44-1 FUEL (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg)
Report of 7-1/2 Hour War Emergency Test of Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 Engine using Power Plant Fuel 44-1 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/p-47-66inch.jpg)
P-47D released for 70 In. Hg MAP using 100/150 fuel with water injection, 24 June 1944 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf)
Flight Tests on the North American, P-51B-15 Airplane, AAF No. 43-24777, Using 44-1 Fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-24777.html)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-level.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-climb.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-level-blue.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-climb-blue.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-engdiv-na-flighttestdata.jpg)
Mustang IV T.K.589 (Packard Merlin V.1650-7), Position error of static vent and brief level speed trials (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/tk589.html)
75” Hg clearance for P-51 B (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-29april44.jpg)
Well, there’s a bunch more on the P-51 Performance page… (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html)
Spitfire J.L.165 with Merlin 66 at 25 lbs. Boost Pressure (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html)
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rrclimb.jpg)
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rrspeed.jpg)
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66_18_25.jpg)
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14at21.jpg)
Technical Note No.Aero.1501(Flight) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/rae1501.html)
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/125wing-replacement-aircraft.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/hawker-12lbs.jpg)
Merry Christmas! ;)
-
Does that answer what was 115/145 fuel that was referred in the topic document?
-C+
-
Egad. That Spit 14 at 150 +25 boost sea level gets me every time. 389 mph. Get 'er up to just a measley 4,000ft, and you're crackin the whip at over 400.
Please, please, PLEASE let this stuff in! :pray
-
Hi Rebel:
Generally speaking the Spitfire XIV was cleared and operated at +21 boost (2,200 max hp) when using 150 grade fuel. Speeds at low altitude would be more like 370 mph at sea level and 390 mph at 4,000 ft., give or take a few mph depending on condition of the aircraft. See: 610 Sqdn ORB (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no610orb.jpg), Spitfire XIV (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html), Deliveries of +21 Spitfire XIVs (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/125wing-replacement-aircraft.jpg), Griffon 65 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/griffon-65.pdf), Griffon 65 chart (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/griffonhp_b.jpg)
Some Griffon engines were cleared for +25 before war’s end though: +25 service approval (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/griffon-69.pdf). I don’t know how many, if any, saw operational use. When approval was granted to operate at +25 lbs in service in March 1945 there really wasn’t much need for it given conditions in Germany.
-
Hi Rebel:
Generally speaking the Spitfire XIV was cleared and operated at +21 boost (2,200 max hp) when using 150 grade fuel. Speeds at low altitude would be more like 370 mph at sea level and 390 mph at 4,000 ft., give or take a few mph depending on condition of the aircraft. See: 610 Sqdn ORB (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no610orb.jpg), Spitfire XIV (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html), Deliveries of +21 Spitfire XIVs (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/125wing-replacement-aircraft.jpg), Griffon 65 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/griffon-65.pdf), Griffon 65 chart (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/griffonhp_b.jpg)
Some Griffon engines were cleared for +25 before war’s end though: +25 service approval (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/griffon-69.pdf). I don’t know how many, if any, saw operational use. When approval was granted to operate at +25 lbs in service in March 1945 there really wasn’t much need for it given conditions in Germany.
Thanks, Mike.
<< pours coffee and gets into it.
Yeah, I'll take those speeds. That Spit XIV is my favorite- the circus freak of all Spits. Even the prop turns in the wrong direction! :)
-
Mike, I was wondering if you had the performance figures of the Spitfire XIV's in different fuel configurations late in the war.
I.e. climb rates/speeds of the FR.XIV, bubble canopy F.Mk.XIV, standard F.Mk.XIV ... all of them with the rear-fuselage fuel tanks.
My books state that the FR had 31 IG of fuel in the aft fuselage, the bubble-top (standard wings) with 66 and the standard F.XIV with 75.
-
So since 150 was used maybe we could have a perk option, like 5 or 10 perks for the good stuff then I could quit putting in my Vodka .......wait that wont work I put that in me :devil