« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: 100/150 grade use in the USAAF  (Read 8219 times)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2006, 10:00:40 PM »
Quote
There was a virtual stand down on modifying planes to use 115/145 fuel until it was made very clear under what circumstances the plane could use the new ratings.


So why is it so hard to believe they did the same with 100/150 grade?
Logged

Offline ShortyDoowap

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2006, 11:45:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Exactly, there would be both a TO and an SO for the fuel as per USAAF regs.  It had to be done.

All the best,

Crumpp


Again, those ratings come from the manufacturer.  US manufacturers didn't rate there engines on foreign fuels - which 100/150 was.  They rated them on standard US fuels.   It's understandable, then, why 100/150 wasn't included.

I also think you are being entirely inconsistent in your arguments.  You are suggesting that the statement that planes HAD to operate on the listed fuels was gospel.  Then you state 150 was used more than you originally thought.  If 150 was used at all, then the aforementioned rule must not have been as rigid as you suggest.   If no TO for 100/150 fuel exists, then that must not have been an absolute requirement, either.  

The preponderance of the evidence I've seen suggests 100/150 was the primary fule used in VIII FC.  I've heard of problems using that fuel, too.  What I haven't heard is that the use of 100/150 was abandoned.  

Right now, Crumpp, your argument is going no where.
Logged

Offline ShortyDoowap

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2006, 11:46:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
So why is it so hard to believe they did the same with 100/150 grade?


115/145 became THE standard AV fuel after that.
Logged

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2006, 12:01:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by ShortyDoowap
115/145 became THE standard AV fuel after that.


As mentioned before, the Mustangs operating off Iwo Jima escorting the B29s were using the 115/145 fuel.
Logged
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2006, 03:01:49 AM »
Doolittle was a genius when it came to Octane usage.  

Karaya
Logged
-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2006, 05:09:11 AM »
Quote
115/145 became THE standard AV fuel after that.


Quote
Crumpp says:
I found it very interesting that the United States in discussing the same topic and considering the state of engine technology, mission profiles, fuel development, production capacity, basically the whole picture settled on 100/145 grade as the next major aircraft fuel. The Germans settled on the equivalent to 100/143 for C3. So independently both nations came to the same conclusions on the state of fuel technology.



Quote
If no TO for 100/150 fuel exists, then that must not have been an absolute requirement, either.


Sure it was, only the fans thinks otherwise.

Says so right in the regulations:

 
Logged

Offline ShortyDoowap

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2006, 08:34:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
So independently both nations came to the same conclusions on the state of fuel technology.


Again, you've missed the point.  115/145 was a COMPROMISE fuel.  The US wanted 120/145 but it was easier to produce 115/145 in large quantities.  Therefore, your statement is wrong.  The US conlude the higher octane fuel was PREFERRED, but produced 115/145 for produtiona nd logistical reasons.


Quote
Sure it was, only the fans thinks otherwise.

Says so right in the regulations:


You've missed this point, too.  If a TO was absolutely required, then why was a SINGLE plane modified to utilize 100/150?  And we aren't talking about  one plane either, were talking about the whole of VIII Fighter Command.   Obviously, if NO TO exists, the rule wasn't hard and fast.
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2006, 09:04:20 AM »
Quote
Again, you've missed the point. 115/145 was a COMPROMISE fuel.


Quote
The US conlude the higher octane fuel was PREFERRED, but produced 115/145 for produtiona nd logistical reasons.


Not to be smart just to clarify, I am pretty sure you mean production and logistical reasons.

So lets examine what we know about 115/145 grade.

”They” being the services, preferred 100/150 grade but the realities prevented the preferred fuel from being produced.

I will buy that.

However I noticed that you leave one key portion those realities considered out of your post:
 

Engine technology certainly was a portion of the decision making process.  As the P38 engine failures and the consistently high failures with high-octane fuels all organizations experienced, the fuel was pushing the limits of the engines.  Granted these same engines had progressed beyond 130 grade limitations.

Quote
why was a SINGLE plane modified to utilize 100/150?


Because a TO is not required an emergency as stated in the regulations.  However the instructions are clear in covering emergency use.  If the fuel was to be officially adopted, a TO was required and would have been in the works at HQ, Air Technical Services.   The regulation is clear that commanders have the authority to use other fuels in an emergency based on sound technical advisement.  It is also clear that there is a process to be followed and outlines that process.  

It's not an official fuel yet so the orders are not published.

All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: February 05, 2006, 09:17:19 AM by Crumpp »
Logged

Offline ShortyDoowap

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2006, 04:47:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
I will buy that.


120/150, not 100/150.

Quote

However I noticed that you leave one key portion those realities


I already pointed that our in my previous quote.  You must have missed that.  

Clearly, with respect to engine performance, 115/145 still gave acceptable performance (not superior performance).  Otherwise, 120/150 would not have been preferred.   And it clearly says 115/145 was a compromise fuel, NOT the preferred fuel.
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2006, 05:51:30 PM »
Quote
And it clearly says 115/145 was a compromise fuel, NOT the preferred fuel.


Compromise yes.

Between:

Quote
Engine technology certainly was a portion of the decision making process. As the P38 engine failures and the consistently high failures with high-octane fuels all organizations experienced, the fuel was pushing the limits of the engines. Granted these same engines had progressed beyond 130 grade limitations.


All the best,

Crumpp
Logged

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2006, 03:59:03 AM »
Sadly, here the real proof of the use of high grade octane fuel by USAF:



Gatt ducks and runs away under fire ....
Logged
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline Gianlupo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5154
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2006, 04:45:48 AM »
Gatt, can you give me your address? I still have that GORE-TEX (R) flame resistant suit you lent me a while ago and my flak vest is in good shape! :D
Logged
Live to fly, fly to live!

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2006, 06:54:09 PM »
Nice Model Gatt, you build that?

All the best,

Crumpp
Logged

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2006, 12:25:09 AM »
Neg Crumpp ;),
its a huge 1/18 plastic model by 21st Century Toys. Take a look here:

http://www.badcataviation.com/21cetoai.html


P.S.: Grazie per gli auguri Gian! :)
Logged
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline Gianlupo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5154
100/150 grade use in the USAAF
« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2006, 04:16:24 AM »
Di niente! :) Next year I'll make you even a gift!
Logged
Live to fly, fly to live!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »