V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS

[LRRP22]

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

[Angus]

Drool......I'd like to see your library please

And Scherf: Not sure what you mean...??

[Crumpp]

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

[Squire]

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

[Crumpp]

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

[Squire]

Probably did, probably didnt. Who knows, I was just clarifying where they were based, which was Scotland.

[Crumpp]

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

[Sable]

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:



Note 6.a.(2)(b) as it is in line with what Roger Freeman talks about in his 2nd paragraph below.



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

[Scherf]

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

[Angus]

THX!
Very nice page there!

[Crumpp]

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

[AKA_TAGERT]

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!

[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

[AKA_TAGERT]

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?

[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.

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