RAF 150 octane

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Considering most Typhoon sorties, ie. in Normandy barely lasted more than 15-30mins with just flying a few miles to the frontline and back, it`s not hard to add up many quick sorties this way.

Ie, how do you compare that to 5-6 hour escort sorties of the USAAF, or 1-2 hour interception sorties of the Reichsverteidigung? Apples and oranges.

LOL planes in the air.  Sorties lasting about an hour minimum for the Tiffies.  The Operational hours and sorties flown were similar with the operational hours being a bit more.

Since you want to set ground rules for what a sortie is now, then how do you compare those short interception flights of the LW to the long range sorties of the USAAF from England?

Using your own argument against the Tiffie sorties counting and giving every LW fighter sortie a 2 hour limit and the USAAF sorties from England 6 (although we know the bomber sorties were longer and fighter sorties lasted longer too on occasion)  Then it's 169080 operational sortie hours for just the 8th AF alone to 20000 operational hours for the LW fighters.

apples and oranges wouldn't you say?

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Considering most Typhoon sorties, ie. in Normandy barely lasted more than 15-30mins with just flying a few miles to the frontline and back, it`s not hard to add up many quick sorties this way.  

So now sorties only count if they last x amount of time, where x is defined as whatever number will deny the most RAF sorties while maximizing the allowed Luftwaffe sorties?

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Squire
I have Vol I and Vol II of "2nd TAF" by Chistopher Shores, im wating for Vol 3 to become available. Probably the best source on that air force, and very detailed.

As far as all this stuff about 8:1 and 10:1 and 20:1, its mostly mythology. Local air combats took place between small units usually. "On paper" OOBs does not indicate the ratio of friend to foe in most air combats in WW2.

Im going to paraphrase some from "2nd TAF" Vol II.:

"411 Sqn met 12 Bf 109s"

"403 Sqn encountered 40 Bf 109s"

"401 Sqn undertook a sweep, met 40 190s"

I wont bother going through the entire book, but rest assured there are many reports like that. Did it always happen that way? of course not. I am illustrating that BOTH sides fighter units would run across equal or larger enemy forces on many occasions, because that was just "the fortunes of war", the side to see the other 1st and attack, usually did better.

It made no difference to a Typhoon sqn that ran across 3 Staffels of 109s that "on paper" the allies outnumbered the Germans by X ammount, thats hardly going to help them in the next 10 minutes, is it?

And therin lies the danger of getting into the statistics and graphs game, yet it always ends up with "Show me the numbers!"

LOL gotta wonder why I keep responding in these threads

Guess I better give it a rest

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Karnak



Wotan gave a mid 1941 introduction for the Bf109F.  I wonder why his date is so far off of yours as he is also a Luftwaffe fan.

"Deliveries of the BF 109 F-1 to the Lw began in autumn of 1940. The new version first saw action in October 1940 with Stab/JG 51, where Werner Mölders, as early as October 6th according to other sources, flew his first sortie in a Friedrich on October 25, 1940. From the beggining of November I./JG 51also received several BF 109 F-1 machines.
The first known loss of one of these aircrafts ocurred on November 11, 1940, when the Staffelkapitän of 1./JG 51, Oblt.GeorgClaus, failed to return following an engagement off the British coast. "

"Deliveries of the F-2, the first major production variant , began in January 1941."

Finally, the F-4 saw action in June, 1941 (maybe that was Wotan said...)


source: Messerschmitt BF 109F, G & K series- an illustrated study- Prien /Rodeike

[Crumpp]

For some reason, you want to turn the fact that a new anti-plug fouling formulation ('Pep') was tested by the 355th FG in December of '44, into a claim that the standard formulation had been withdrawn from service at some prior date. Again, the evidence lends zero support to that contention.

If you read the rest of the thread you will see the technical difficulties of 100/150 grade use in the P51.

Well Wright Patterson has no record of it.  The TO which specifies what fuel USAAF were authorized to use:

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)
 

All USAF fighter aircraft are listed with 130-grade fuel recommended, or alternate grade 91/96.  No provision is listed for use of alternate 100/150 grade fuel.

General widespread use of any other fuel would be published in a T.O., Lrrp2.

Not a memo from supply.

The Military does not work that way.  Logistics gets equipment, it does not tell you how to use or authorize it. MACOM's do that.  In this case, HQ USAAF would have issued a T.O. with instructions to the aircrews on both the modifications and use of 100/150 grade.

The argument of "its a British fuel" holds no water. Why?

It's a USAAF fighter.

I am continuing to search various archives.

It's denied because the ' 8 vs 1' dogfight was far from the norm. As you know, those vast numbers of USAAF fighters were spread over equally as vast areas. No doubt that the Allies greatly outnumbered the JG's in the last year of the war, but air battles between elements of similar size were far more common than you would like to admit. Almost invariably, the better-trained Allied pilots came out on top during those engagements.

I should set you down with some of the Luftwaffe veterans.  You can set them straight.  According to them, the days of equal numbers in air battles ended in the beginning of 1944.

Surely you do not believe the allied fighters had to wander the skies of Europe searching for LW fighters in 1944?

I mean, those German fighters certainly would not be targeting the bombers or using airfields to operate?

Of course the allies did not have radar either to guide them.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Squire]

"Deliveries of the F-2, the first major production variant , began in January 1941."

Same time as the Spit Vb.

Any of which can be found in any # of sources, this supposed to be controversial? How did we even get on this track?

...Crummp, if the USAAF 8th FC quit using 150 grade then there is going to be a book somewhere that states just that. Or a doc somewhere. We have sources indicating its use, so I have to say the onus is on you to show it was stopped, because so far you dont have anything except that there were increased maintenance problems, which is not the same thing, despite the reaching.

In regards to the Luftwaffe pilots, well, maybe you need to sit down with some RAF/RCAF ones, and they can tell you about how they always outnumbered the enemy, in every encounter.

[Crumpp]

despite the reaching.

There is no reaching Squire and it's not Crumpp saying.

It's Freeman and the USAF saying it is unlikely.

So far none of the USAAF documentation shows it's use.  

The USAF Museum says it use was unlikely as there are no T.O.'s published covering it.

All the best,

Crumpp

[LRRP22]

It's very simple then, Crumpp-  please explain where that 20,000 tons per month of 150 grade allocated to VIII Fighter Command was going?  Please explain the repeated reference to its use by VIII FC fighter groups.

It was a British fuel, refined by the British and provided to the USAAF, in Britain, by the British.  Wright Field tested the fuel and approved of its use.  Period.  


The mechanical problems from June to December of '44 were limited to plug fouling if certain cruise practices weren't observed.  That's it.  The 'Pep' formulation of 1945 cured the fouling problem but caused valve problems instead.   The valve problems resulted in some unknown number fo groups requesting a return to 100/130 grade fuel during the last month of the war.  It doesn't appear that that request was granted.  


You can search archives all you want, Crumpp, but Neil Stirling has already done just that and produced the origianl source documentation that proves you wrong.  Are we now going to get into another ridiculous argument over whether or not 'the Continent' means Great Britain as you attempt to ignore the source documentation?  No amount of selective quoting and obvious misinterpretation is going to change that.  Sorry, but I'm just not interested in more of your sophistry.

Originally posted by Crumpp
If you read the rest of the thread you will see the technical difficulties of 100/150 grade use in the P51.

Well Wright Patterson has no record of it.  The TO which specifies what fuel USAAF were authorized to use:



General widespread use of any other fuel would be published in a T.O., Lrrp2.

Not a memo from supply.

The Military does not work that way.  Logistics gets equipment, it does not tell you how to use or authorize it. MACOM's do that.  In this case, HQ USAAF would have issued a T.O. with instructions to the aircrews on both the modifications and use of 100/150 grade.

The argument of "its a British fuel" holds no water. Why?

It's a USAAF fighter.

I am continuing to search various archives.



I should set you down with some of the Luftwaffe veterans.  You can set them straight.  According to them, the days of equal numbers in air battles ended in the beginning of 1944.

Surely you do not believe the allied fighters had to wander the skies of Europe searching for LW fighters in 1944?

I mean, those German fighters certainly would not be targeting the bombers or using airfields to operate?

Of course the allies did not have radar either to guide them.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Hehe:
"It's very simple then, Crumpp- please explain where that 20,000 tons per month of 150 grade allocated to VIII Fighter Command was going? Please explain the repeated reference to its use by VIII FC fighter groups."

I told ya it was used for cooking. Sauerkraut and sausage BTW

And for Kuffie, - I recommend you browse upward and read Guppy's inputs very carefully.
Then I'll tell you more of how to cook bratwurst with 150 oct fuel

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by LRRP22
My point exactly.  Even the officially awarded victories were well above the actuall losses suffered by the opposition- and that applies to the Luftwaffe claims system as much as it does to that of the Allies.  The myth that the Luftwaffe system was vastly more accurate than that of the Allies simply isn't born-out.  Reading works such as Urbanke's 'Green Hearts' and Caldwell's JG26 works indicate that overclaiming by a factor of two to four was common amongst those units.  And before you say that they were just claims, how do you explain the fact that the pilots from those various units, as well as the units themselves, are credited with virtually all those claims to this day?   After all, Hartmann's 352 victories include claims that were made on the last day of the war, how could those have possibley been 'officially' confirmed?  Didn't the Luftwaffe claims system's supposedly stringent process require months to 'officially' confirm a victory?  Didn't it break down completley in the last months of the war?

.

Always wondered about the LW superior way of confirming kills. After all, if all their claims were correct the BoB would have been over in less than 2 weeks.

Hopefully I can find the reference that says that after the introduction of the Mossie early on LW pilots were awarded 2 kills for shooting down 1 Mossie as they were that hard to catch.

Mossie might not have been a wonder weapon, but it sure impressed the hell outta Goering!!!

Jan 1943 - Herman Goering quote.
"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy.

The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that?

There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war's over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

Another reference I am hoping to find again is a top LW ace refusing to fly the late model 109s because the built quality was crap.


One question - Why stop at the Mk XIV as the ultimate WW2 Spit, the F.21 entered service (91 sqn) in Jan 1945. Originally destined to built in the 1000's, production halted shortly after VE day after only 120 had been delivered. 455-460mph at 25,600ft.

[Crumpp]

It doesn't appear that that request was granted.

The instructions to convert the Mustang  to use 100/150-grade would be published in the form of a Technical Order and supplement the POH for the 8th USAAF.

Perhaps you can produce the USAAF T.O. for the P51D to use the fuel?

Wright Patterson cannot.  I tend to believe them.  After all their mission is:
 

The museum identifies, searches for, acquires, preserves, refurbishes, displays or stores, and manages items of historical or technological significance to the USAF.  

They say it's use was most likely very rare in the 8th USAAF.  

It makes sense given the performance robbing technical difficulties of 100/150 grade and the fact that there is very little performance differences between 72" and 67".

All the best,

Crumpp

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Crumpp
The instructions to convert the Mustang  to use 100/150-grade would be published in the form of a Technical Order and supplement the POH for the 8th USAAF.

Perhaps you can produce the USAAF T.O. for the P51D to use the fuel?

Wright Patterson cannot.  I tend to believe them.  After all their mission is:
 


They say it's use was most likely very rare in the 8th USAAF.  

It makes sense given the performance robbing technical difficulties of 100/150 grade and the fact that there is very little performance differences between 72" and 67".

All the best,

Crumpp

Neil can correct me if I'm off, but I believe that the above photo was taken in April of 1945, the aircraft itself being delivered to the 78th FG in January. It is placarded for 100/150 avgas.. So were the P-47Ms.

Why would they specify 100/150 if it were not available?

My regards,

Widewing

[Krusty]

I'm no expert, and I tend to stay out of these back-and-forth arguments (dare I call them posts?) for the most part.

But I don't think that plane's being delivered. Not if it's already got a kill mark on it. EDIT: It's also already been given a name and has nose art on it. That means it's been in service at least long enough for the pilot to get a kill in it and customize the paint job.

EDIT2: Never mind, I mis-read your post.

[milian]

oh jeebus, has everyone missed the "SPEC.PROJ.NO 92917-R" painted above the 100/150?

Just what was special project no 92917-R?

[Angus]

Göring's quote was very good.
He also gave quite a comment when Mustangs were first spotted deep inside Germany. At first he did not belive that single engined fighters could venture that far, - when it was confirmed he said "Now we have lost" (the airwar)