RAF 150 octane

[Scherf]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Your showing production not consumption.

No, I'm not.

From Neil's post of 9:58 a.m. above:

Total aero fuel production. 663,348 tons, of which 55.7% was 150 grade. [That's 369,484 tons if you calculate, but the docco says 369,385.]

57,000 tons left 31st May 1945.

That's 312,000 tons consumed.





Give or take 484.836 tons, or thereabouts.

But it's still a lot of cooking.


Angus, you still ain't said whether I can have your eggs.

[Squire]

"It seems extremely unlikely that it had anything at all to do with the use of 150 grade fuel."

Yes, but it comes in handy to hatch yet another theory.

The Truth, Is Out There...the mystery of the "R". Oh yes. Oh yes indeed.

[Crumpp]

57,000 tons left 31st May 1945.

Where do you see that?

Neil says:

57,000 tons left 31st May 1945

28,000 tons left 7th September 1945.

Please post the documents this came from and show that it includes the strateagic reserves.  The intention was to adopt 100/150 grade without a doubt.  In looking toward that goal, some production would have gone toward those reserves.

Unless of course we want to pretend that only the Axis needed strateagic reserves and every drop of allied fuel produced went into an operational aircraft.

"It seems extremely unlikely that it had anything at all to do with the use of 150 grade fuel."

Really?  Got something to prove that?  I cannot find a single P51D not marked for 100/150 grade that does not have the "Special Project" marking.

It very nicely follows what the USAF historians say!

All the best,

Crumpp

[LRRP22]

Crumpp,

It seems that you're having a really hard time understanding the difference between the 'Pep' formulation of 1945 and the original '1 Theory of Etheline Dibromide' used in VIII FC from June '44 to February '45, and by the RAF for the duration.  It is not the testing and introduction of the 'Pep' formulation that is at issue here, it is the use of the standard formulation for the nine months prior to the introduction of the 'Pep' 1.5 Theory of Etheline Dibromide formula.  You simply can't explain away the 20,000 tons of 150 grade supplied to VIII FC as 'production' and not 'consumption'.  VIII Fighter COmmand didn't produce a single drop of 100/150 grade fuel, ever.  They simply received and consumed it, period.

Your demand to see a T.O. from Wright Field is nothing more than another maneuver intended to ignore the obvious and allow you to further your pet theory.  Mostly though, you just don't want to admit that you're wrong.  Ever.

Also, please don't lecture me on the 'confusion' between Supply and Operations in the military-  I spent ten years in the Infantry.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Your showing production not consumption.

 

That is good of you to guess, Lrrp2.  

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.

If you notice the T.O. which does list the authorized fuel was REVISED during some significant time periods.


 

Those dates fit for:

from Roger Freemans' MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR MANUAL.



The units recieve "Pep" in March however, continuing on page 218:




Makes sense that the T.O. revisions are the adoption of 100/150 grade fuel after completion of the operational trials in Feb. 1945.  Then in May 1945, the fuel was withdrawn from service.

 

Seems to be some confusion in this thread between the roles and differences between supply and operations.

This is just Logisitic doing their job, Lrrp2.

All this memo does is point out current production vs. projected requirements from late November 1944.

It is not an order to begin using the fuel.

All the best,

Crumpp

[LRRP22]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Really?  Got something to prove that?  I cannot find a single P51D not marked for 100/150 grade that does not have the "Special Project" marking.

It very nicely follows what the USAF historians say!

All the best,

Crumpp [/B]

Do you have anything to prove that 'Special Project' had anything at all to do with the use of 150 grade?  NO, you don't.

Considering that you've seen a grand total of 2 photos of P-51D's marked for 100/150 grade, both P-51D-20-NA's, I'd say your sample size is a bit on the slim side.  

Now, please to explain the presence of the same 'Special Project' marking on P-51D's marked for 100/130 grade?  How about the fact that the two photos showing '100/150 grade' abviously had the '3' changed to a '5'?  

Besides, the second photo is of a 370th FG kite that was assigned to the Ninth AAF on The Continent and wasn't using any formula of 100/150 grade no matter how it is marked.



.

[Squire]

Apparently this has all been hashed over on the IL-2 boards as well, where even more docs were produced indicating USAAF usage.

Here is the link, for those interested:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9991053533/p/38

And the quoted NACA document, which apparently the "guy" at the USAF museum cant find (or anything else on the subject, apparently):

"It is understood that numerous changes were made in American aircraft at British bases utilizing this fuel so that, according to some reports, it caused no more mechanical troubles or servicing difficulties than did Grade 100/130."

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Squire
Apparently this has all been hashed over on the IL-2 boards as well, where even more docs were produced indicating USAAF usage.

Here is the link, for those interested:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9991053533/p/38

And the quoted NACA document, which apparently the "guy" at the USAF museum cant find (or anything else on the subject, apparently):

"It is understood that numerous changes were made in American aircraft at British bases utilizing this fuel so that, according to some reports, it caused no more mechanical troubles or servicing difficulties than did Grade 100/130."

A lot of the same guys playing through the debate too.

[Scherf]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Please post the documents this came from and show that it includes the strateagic reserves.

Perhaps you mean AIR 25/616.

[Guppy35]

I have come across a few references to 8th Mustang pilots  using 72 " WEP.  This was possible with 100/150 fuel

The limit for 100/130 was 67" WEP.

Any explaination for this?

[Guppy35]

Got some info regarding the Special Projects tag from a Mustang junkie.  He's digging through his stuff for info on 100/150 Tech Orders.  He's not sure if he has anything but says he has a fairly complete collection of Mustang tech orders.

"the Special Proj. Numbers were an identification of
contracts to which aircraft were assigned for
distribution to different Theatres of War. 92048R was
a block of aircraft for the ETO - the "R" stands for
Replacement, i.e. to fill gaps for aircraft lost in
accidents or combat. an "N" suffix depicted "New
Issue" aircraft - i.e. when an unit converted to
P-51's from a different type, or when an unit was
formed in the field and the initial equipent of
aircraft was sent.
These numbers were issued in ascending numerical order
for all types of aircraft - but contained within one
assigned particular project number (for example
92048R) were only P-51D's.

I fortunately have a lot of information regarding
Project Numbers for individual aircraft - some of
these Project numbers were augmented by Theatre
designations, especially in the CBI & PTO.  

The Proj. Numbers do not have anything to do with the
type of fuel used, though."

[Crumpp]

Well what other P51 Special Projects could have been going on?

Now, please to explain the presence of the same 'Special Project' marking on P-51D's marked for 100/130 grade?

Please post them!  I have yet to come across any!

That is the proof of your claim all P51's were "Special Projects".

Any explaination for this?

Sure!

Without a doubt 100/150 grade was in operational trials with the 8th USAAF with some units until aircraft started dropping from the sky.  When "Pep" was adopted,  it most likely entered general service from Feb. 1945. When Wright Patterson could not find a suitable replacement for the valve seats nor could they correct the lead fouling issues it was withdrawn.  Not surprising as these are common issues with high octane fuels.  The NACA solved them post war by adding a much higher percentage of aromatics.

So yes, you will find P51's that used the fuel.  

To claim it was:

 

used in VIII FC from June '44 to February '45, and by the RAF for the duration.

For a general service use is simply not factual.  

In the RAF it was a special purpose fuel used in Operation Diver and later by a two Groups in the 2nd TAF.

The RAF missions fit the profile the fuel could be operated on, short duration high speed profiles.

That has been covered.

The 8th USAAF is covered above.

Also, please don't lecture me on the 'confusion' between Supply and Operations in the military- I spent ten years in the Infantry.

So, are you the burrito chef at Taco Bell, now?

How much time do you have at the traffic light on Victory?

All the best,

Crumpp

[Squire]

Light a fire under his butt to get us some more info if he's a "Mustang nut."

I used to know a few back when I was with the Warbirds community (lots there), they all lived and breathed P-51 ETO history. I dont think I have many left I can contact.

Went down to the Boeing Museum of Flight once, and actually talked to a P-51 ETO ace, who was in town for a 31st FG get together. I dont recall his name now. Sure would come in handy to be able to talk to him again.

Actually, crew chief vets would be the ones to ask, they worked and serviced the a/c after all. Sadly im sure many are no longer with us.

[MiloMorai]

Crumpp, can we at least get the operation names correct.

Operation 'Crossbow' - The code name given to operations designed to counter the threat from German secret weapons, the V-1 and V-2.   These included both offensive measures before and during the attacks as well as defensive measures once the attacks had begun.

No such opertion called Diver. http://www.rafweb.org/Ops_Europe.htm Diver was the code name given to the V-1.

[LRRP22]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Well what other P51 Special Projects could have been going on?

 

Please post them!  I have yet to come across any!

That is the proof of your claim all P51's were "Special Projects".

 

Sure!

Without a doubt 100/150 grade was in operational trials with the 8th USAAF with some units until aircraft started dropping from the sky.  When "Pep" was adopted,  it most likely entered general service from Feb. 1945. When Wright Patterson could not find a suitable replacement for the valve seats nor could they correct the lead fouling issues it was withdrawn.  Not surprising as these are common issues with high octane fuels.  The NACA solved them post war by adding a much higher percentage of aromatics.

So yes, you will find P51's that used the fuel.  

To claim it was:

 

For a general service use is simply not factual.  

In the RAF it was a special purpose fuel used in Operation Diver and later by a two Groups in the 2nd TAF.

The RAF missions fit the profile the fuel could be operated on, short duration high speed profiles.

That has been covered.

The 8th USAAF is covered above.

 

So, are you the burrito chef at Taco Bell, now?

How much time do you have at the traffic light on Victory?

All the best,

Crumpp

Well, since I was never permanent party at Benning- just OSUT and jump school, I didn't spend a lot of time on Victory Drive.  

20,000 tons a month to VIII Fighter Command, Crumpp, 20,0000 tons.  It's just not going to go away, no matter how much you spin and twist...

As for the "Special Projects" thing, it appears I was right, now doesn't it?  

Let's summarize:  We've got multiple original documents, as well as many squadron accounts showing widespread use of 100/150 grade vs. your tortured interpretations of selected quotes.  I think I'll stick with the documents, if you don't mind.

.

[Scherf]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
No such opertion called Diver.

I think you may be wrong there.