Admiralty aircraft fuels and lubricants as of 1 April 1943.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Admiralty Fleet Order 1470/43.

1470.—Naval Aircraft—Aero-Engine Fuels and Lubricants (A.M.R. 2293/42.—1.4.1943.)

This order is the authority for the use of all Naval aircraft engine fuels and lubricants and replaces Leaflet A.P. 1464/C.37, on which it is generally based and overrules any other Air Publications.

2. The undermentioned fuels and lubricants are in use for Naval aircraft:—
(i) Fuels

Stores Ref.	Nomenclature	Specification	Colour
34A/135	73 octane	RDE/F/73	Orange
34A/59	87 octane	DTD.230	Blue
34A/113	90 octane	RDE/F/90	Blue-green
34A/75	100 octane	RDE/F/100	Green

(ii) Lubricants

Stores Ref.	Specification	Key Letter	Description
Tropical :—
34A/114	DTD.472 (C), Type No. 1	T	120-sec. viscosity.
34A/144	DTD.472 (C), Type No. 2	S	120-sec. viscosity with additive No. 2.
34A/NIY	Intava Green Band	T	120-sec. viscosity.
Temperate:—
34A/32	DTD.472 (B), Type No. 1	X	100-sec. viscosity.
34A/115	DTD.472 (B), Type No. 2	Y	100-sec. viscosity with additive No. 1.
34A/116	DTD.472 (B), Type No. 3	Z	100-sec. viscosity with additive No. 2.
34A/154	Intava Red Band, I.A.A.745.	X	100-sec. viscosity.
Arctic:—
34A/152	DTD.472 (A), Type No. 1	R	80-sec. viscosity.
34A/33	DTD.472 (A), Type No. 2	W	80-sec. viscosity with additive No. 2.

Note.—(i) Specification D.T.D. 472 (B) has superseded the previous specification D.T.D. 109, but bears the same Stores Reference number.
(ii) Intava Red Band is superseding Aeroshell 100, but supplies of the latter may be used up.

3. The correct fuel and lubricant for each type of engine are shown in the Appendix.

4. To ensure that fuel and oil tanks are filled with the fuel and oil appropriate to the type of engine installed in the aircraft, the octane number of the fuel, and the key letter of the lubricant, are to be stencilled in figures and letters not less than one inch high on a suitable part of the aircraft covering adjacent to the relevant filling orifice or connection, thus :—
(i) Fuels—(Red letters and figures)
73 only
87 or higher
90 or higher
100 only.

(ii) Lubricants—(Letters in night colour)
T/X/X, T/X/W etc. The first letter is the key letter for the tropical oil, the second for the temperate oil, and the third for the arctic oil.

Existing markings for fuel and lubricant on all aircraft are to be checked and amended as necessary.

5. Alternative lubricants.—(i) Shore-based aircraft should use, as far as supplies permit, the appropriate oils quoted in the Appendix.

(ii) Ship-borne aircraft should use Intava Red Band IAA. 745, Stores Reference 34A/154, in place of oils with key letters X, Y, Z, R, W, S. Additional stocks of DTD.472 (C), Type No. 1 oil, Stores Reference 34A/114, should be carried for use with engines for which oil to key letter T is specified.

(iii) Where the oils specified for use in ship-borne aircraft are not available, the appropriate oil for shore-based aircraft may be used until supplies of the correct grade can be obtained; or vice versa. As far as possible, such alternatives should not be taken in bulk in order to avoid mixing in the storage tanks.

(iv) In emergency only, lubricant to key letter X may replace all the oils shown.

(v) If, in view of supply difficulties, the correct oil cannot be obtained, the following alternatives are permitted :—
(a) American engines - S may replace T.
(b) Bristol, Napier and de Havilland engines. - Z may replace S, or vice versa; W may replace R.
(c) Rolls-Royce engines - X may replace Y, which is becoming obsolescent and the supply of which may be discontinued, since recent facts have shown that its use does not increase engine reliability, as was previously supposed.

6. Fuel—general.—(i) No engine may be run on a fuel of lower octane value than that shown in the Appendix.

(ii) With the exception of de Havilland Gipsy Major I and Gipsy Six I, which must use an unleaded fuel such as 73 octane (Stores Reference 34A/135), or "D.T.D. 230 base", all engines may use fuels of higher octane value than that, specified in the Appendix if the supply position or other conditions so demand, i.e. 90 octane may replace 87 octane, and 100 octane may replace both 90 or 87 octane fuels.

(iii) Certain aircraft require the addition of 6 per cent, ethyl alcohol (denatured with aviation fuel) to the fuel, for the prevention of ice formation in the carburettors (vide C.A.F.O. 164/42). All aircraft when using this addition are to use 100 octane fuel only, and this overrides any contrary instructions in the Appendix.

(iv) All tankers, bowsers, etc., are to be marked to show the octane number of the fuel, or type of lubricant they contain. Details of a standardised system of marking are given in leaflet A.P. 1464/G.112.

Appendix

(i) Climatic conditions—definition :—
Tropical—when a screen temperature exceeding 80° F. persists for more than 12 hours.
Temperate—normal temperatures.
Arctic—(a) When a screen temperature below 32° F. persists for more than 12 hours.
(b) Shore-based aircraft in the U.K. are to use "Arctic" oil during the period 1st November to 31st March.

(ii) Table of approved Fuels and Lubricants

1​	2​	3​	4​	5​
Consumable	Fuel	Lubricant
Aero-engine type	min. Oct.	Tropical	Temperate	Arctic
American
Lycoming, R.680-13 .	90​	T	T	X
Pratt & Whitney—
Wasp Jr., R.985-SB.2, -AN.2, -AN6B	87​	T	X	X
Wasp, R.1340-S.3H.1 .	87​	T	X	X
Twin Wasp Jr., R.1535-SB.4G	87 (a)	T	X	X
Twin Wasp, R.1830-SC.3G	87​	T	X	X
Twin Wasp, R.1830-S.3C.4G .	100​	T	X	X
Twin Wasp, R.1830-86.	100​	T	X	X
Double Wasp, R.2800,-10,-8	100​	T	X	XI
Ranger, V.770-6	90​	T	T	X
Wright—
Whirlwind, R.975-E.3	87​	T	T	T
Cyclone, GR.1820-G.105A	90​	T	T	T
Cyclone, GR.1820-G.205A-2	90​	T	T	T
Cyclone, GR.1820-G.205A-3	100​	T	X	X
Cyclone. GR. 1820-40	100​	T	X	X
Double Cyclone, R .2600-8	100​	T	T	T
British
Armstrong Siddeley—
Cheetah IX, X	90​	X	X	R
Tiger VI	87​	X	X	R
Bristol—
Mercury VIIIAS	87 (b)	S	X	R
Mercury XX	87​	S	X	R
Mercury 30	90​	S	X	R
Pegasus III, VI, X, XX .	87​	S	X	R
Pegasus 30	87​	S	X (d)	R
Perseus XII	87​	S	X	R
Perseus XIIC, XVI	87​	S	Z	W
Taurus II, XII	100​	S	Z	W
de Havilland—
Gipsy Major I	73 (c)	X	X	R
Gipsy Queen I, III	87​	X	X	R
Gipsy Queen II	87​	X	X	X (e)
Gipsy Six I	73 (c)	X	X	R
Gipsy Six II	87​	X	X	R
Napier—
Rapier VI	87​	X	X	R
Rolls-Royce—
Kestrel I, X, 30	87​	X	X	X
Merlin II	87​	X	X	X
Merlin III , VIII	87 (b)	X	X	X
Merlin XX, 30, 32, 45, 46	100​	Y	Y	Y
Griffon II	100​	X	X	X

(a) 100 Octane fuel to be used operationally.
(b) 100 Octane fuel to be used if advantage is to be taken of the higher powers associated with the operation of the boost regulator cut-out. In this case, the fuel marking on the aircraft should be amended accordingly. See relevant engine A.P. leaflets.
(c) Where unleaded 73 octane fuel is not available, unleaded base aviation spirit (minimum 68 octane) may be used.
(d) If the normal oil inlet temperature limitations, viz. : Cruising 80C., climbing 90C., emergency 100C. cannot be adhered to, limitations of 90C., 100C. and 110C. respectively may be assumed provided that either Intava Red Band IAA.745 or D.T.D.472 (B) Type No. 3 oil is used.
(e) If R can be used when Proctor Mod. 1/48 or 11/509 and Gipsy Mod. 969 are embodied.

(C.A.F.Os. 2184/41, 2421/41—not in annual volume—are cancelled.) (C.A.F.Os. 163/42, 1964/42 and 2471/42 are cancelled.)

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Geoffrey Sinclair,

Thanks for this. I have been looking for the AM Specification designations for the 73 and 90 octane grades for quite a while.

 

[msxyz]

How did the British measure octane rating at the time? Lean, Rich, an average of the two or some other method? Are there are reports of the chemical composition of the gasoline types with the min-max values allowed for various hydrocarbons families?

 

[Mike Williams]

How did the British measure octane rating at the time? Lean, Rich, an average of the two or some other method? Are there are reports of the chemical composition of the gasoline types with the min-max values allowed for various hydrocarbons families?

This comes to mind: Grade 100/150 Fuel specification

 

[Shortround6]

How did the British measure octane rating at the time? Lean, Rich, an average of the two or some other method? Are there are reports of the chemical composition of the gasoline types with the min-max values allowed for various hydrocarbons families?

How did they measure it or how did they label it?
Not the same thing.

In Jan 1943 all 100 octane fuel in British service should have been 100/130, they were not buying/accepting 100/115 or 100/125 or any other grade of 100 fuel.

So any fuel stickers, stencils, signs, placards could simply say 100 and not 100/130 and not confuse anybody.

Anything higher than 100/130 wasn't in service yet and wouldn't be until sometime in 1944. Not sure when the navy got any.
For the men handling the fuel tanks and refueling all they needed to know was the 4 different fuel grades and on most carriers they only had two types of fuel to worry about.
87 octane or 100 octane. The 73 octane was used in training aircraft and the 90 octane was used in certain American engines.

What the refineries and government agents buying and testing the fuel were doing was a lot different.
But they were trying to blend fuel and test fuel to fit into one of those categories.

A batch of 95/110 fuel for instance is way too expensive to manufacture and sell as 90 grade and it will knock and detonate below the limits for either rich or lean in an engine set up for 100/130 fuel.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

These are very rough figures just to give a guideline, of course a deeper breakdown is possible, but this is a pretty good
overview. I`m fairly certain that "Kybol" was only used by the Germans sporadically near the end of the war when the standard
fuel specifications were no longer possible to meet and emergency measured were needed.

 

[Mike Williams]

D. J. Payton-Smith's Oil is worth a read.

 

[special ed]

A bit of trivia regarding the waste war causes. In my early 20s I listened to several friend's fathers who worked in the refineries below New Orleans during WW2. When the German subs were having their happy days along the Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, Avgas stored at the refineries had to be burned off because the refining process could not be shut down or slowed. When tankers were not at the ports, there was no place for the fuel. When I asked why some of it could not be used by civilians whose gas was rationed, I learned if war gas went to unauthorised civilians, it meant time in Federal prison.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

How did the British measure octane rating at the time? Lean, Rich, an average of the two or some other method? Are there are reports of the chemical composition of the gasoline types with the min-max values allowed for various hydrocarbons families?

Probably worthwhile to try a pair of monographs published in one book by the Harvard Business School in 1950, titled: The Development of Aircraft Engines, by Robert Schlaifer, and Aviation Fuels by S D Heron. It is usually known as Development of Aircraft Engines and Fuels. The sub-title Two studies of relations between Government and Industry.

Available at HathiTrust Digital Library | Millions of books online (along with a lot more)
Normally you can only read online or download one page at a time, an aggregator called "Hathi Download Helper" is available from
Hathi Download Helper which will pull down the individual pages and merge them into a PDF file.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

How did the British measure octane rating at the time? Lean, Rich, an average of the two or some other method? Are there are reports of the chemical composition of the gasoline types with the min-max values allowed for various hydrocarbons families?

It is VERY complicated once you get into details, but essentially, the Germans were (as far as I can see) the first to realise that the actual Octane number varied tremendously with air/fuel ratio (probably they were the first to seriously investigate it as they were using very high levels of aromatics in their fuels which produce the biggest change). This was somewhere in the mid 1930`s.

Everyone else was just making a single point (fixed air temperature, fixed ignition advance, fixed inlet pressure etc etc) test of the fuel on a CFR (cooerative fuel research) single cylinder test engine, and calling that the"Octane number" (RON or MON depending on the specific parameters chosen).

The British switched over to a method whereby the fuel was required to satisfy minimum anti knock conditions at a rich AND lean setting, the Americans were slightly delayed in doing the same which is what led to the a lot of the 100 octane coming from American refineries having to be slightly doped in Britain to satisfy the dual point (rich/lean) specification.

Not long afterwards Britain and the USA agreed upon a set of specifications with two point measurement, which is (as has been posted above already in that extracted book page) what became the 100/130 specification. 130 being the rating at rich. There is essentially no difference between the 100 octane fuel the RAF was using in 1940 and "100/130" being used by the Allies until the end of the war, the 130 merely represents an agreed change in testing designation.

I.e, if you syphoned the tanks of a Spitfire in the Battle of Britain, and tested it to the specification in 1945, it would meet the 100/130 standards.

I wrote a brief essay on that a couple of years ago. Essentially, a fixed Octane number is pretty much worthless junk from the perspective of the engine designer,
and means almost nothing when it is derived from a generic test engine running at conditions which are totally irrelevant to a multi cylinder military
aero engine. It is even possible under certain circumstances for a real engine to make LESS power on a fuel of higher octane number, if that octane number
has been measured at just one point. (Parrifinitic and Aromatic fuels give RADICALLY different maximum boost numbers at rich and lean, so at Rich,
a German C3 fuel from 1940 (which we would rate about 95 Octane) would in many circumstances give more power at rich mixture that Allied 100.
(we actually know this from tests on a Centaurus cylinder done by Shell in 1942, who tried C3 and Allied 100 fuel on it).

Its astonishing to me that the single point octane number is still used today at all. Its only really useful as little more than a "label" to put
on barells to make sure the barells are all the same type, than a number which is in absolute terms of any direct use to someone designing
an aero engine. This changes a bit if you are contemplating two fuels, which are of the same family with only tiny changes in composition, in
which case if they will be used in the same engine, you CAN use the octane number to give some vague notional guess about the performance
change one will give over the other.

It gets even more comlicated too, because the effect is not even linear, i.e if you get 5% more knock free boost by going from 90 to 95 Octane, this
will be a completely different number if you go from 95 to 100, even though its a "change of 5 points". Its a pretty rubbish scale to be honest,
and its only survived because its better than not having a scale of some sort.

I would compare trying to evaluate different engines by the fuel octane number, as arguing about the drag of totally different aircraft
using the frontal areas as the comparator, when you dont know the drag coefficient. Its entirely possible for an aircraft to have LOWER
absolute drag with a larger frontal area, if it uses that area better and so has a lower drafg coefficient. I`m not sure if thats a great analogy,
but perhaps it helps.

Engine Fuel Octane Ratings - A Short History

Very early in the development of internal combustion engines, it was realised that different fuels produced knock at wildy different conditions than others. At that time, no standard test engines existed - and any standard rating system was therefore impossible.

www.linkedin.com

 

[Mike Williams]

Probably worthwhile to try a pair of monographs published in one book by the Harvard Business School in 1950, titled: The Development of Aircraft Engines, by Robert Schlaifer, and Aviation Fuels by S D Heron. It is usually known as Development of Aircraft Engines and Fuels. The sub-title Two studies of relations between Government and Industry.

Available at HathiTrust Digital Library | Millions of books online (along with a lot more)
Normally you can only read online or download one page at a time, an aggregator called "Hathi Download Helper" is available from
Hathi Download Helper which will pull down the individual pages and merge them into a PDF file.

Good recommendation and speaking of which, this chapter is on point. Development of Aviation Fuels, Chapter VIII (S. D. Heron)

 

[Shortround6]

I.e, if you syphoned the tanks of a Spitfire in the Battle of Britain, and tested it to the specification in 1945, it would meet the 100/130 standards.

From what I have read it might be a bit lower in in the BoB fuel. It might have been possible for some of the fuel to be 100/130 but most of it varied from 100/115 to 100/120.
Sense they had no way to test it at the time (test procedure did not exist) the product did vary a bit.

The British switched over to a method whereby the fuel was required to satisfy minimum anti knock conditions at a rich AND lean setting, the Americans were slightly delayed in doing the same which is what led to the a lot of the 100 octane coming from American refineries having to be slightly doped in Britain to satisfy the dual point (rich/lean) specification.

This was complicated by the British and Americans specifying two different fuel mixtures. The British 100 octane had to contain 20% aromatic compounds which gave it the rich mixture response, they knew it gave better rich mixture response but they couldn't measure how much.
The Americans specified a 100 octane mix that could not contain more than 2% aromatic compounds and it had no hope of reaching 120-130 rich mixture. American planes had trouble with British fuel as the high aromatic compounds tended to dissolve certain rubber compounds in the fuel system, like seals, gaskets, and some self-sealing fuel tank liners.

Also be careful when reading old books between the difference between fuel from "America" and fuel from "the America's" which included fuel from Trinidad, Tobago and Venezuela.
Trying to "dope" American fuel from 1939-40 which was pretty much 100/98-102 fuel could take a lot of work. And that is correct, some the fuel when later tested was actually below 100 octane when under rich conditions. American refineries could make fuel to British specifications but that was not USAAC fuel or even American fuel for airlines trying to use 100 octane fuel (Most air lines were using 91 octane but thinking of changing to 100 octane for some routes)

Not long afterwards Britain and the USA agreed upon a set of specifications with two point measurement, which is (as has been posted above already in that extracted book page) what became the 100/130 specification. 130 being the rating at rich. There is essentially no difference between the 100 octane fuel the RAF was using in 1940 and "100/130" being used by the Allies until the end of the war, the 130 merely represents an agreed change in testing designation.

According to what I have read (and it does a vary a bit) this is correct with the exception being they changed the specification for allowable lead content twice from 3.0cc per US gallon to 4.6cc per US gallon in the 2nd change. This coincided with the increase in allowable heavy aromatics which caused some of the trouble with the P-38s. It also may have caused more plug fowling in certain engines and using certain spark plugs? It did allow very large increases in production of 100/130 fuel (which still met the knock limits) from the same base stocks of oil.
There were a whole more going into fuel than simple knock ratings.

It gets even more comlicated too, because the effect is not even linear, i.e if you get 5% more knock free boost by going from 90 to 95 Octane, this
will be a completely different number if you go from 95 to 100, even though its a "change of 5 points". Its a pretty rubbish scale to be honest,
and its only survived because its better than not having a scale of some sort.

The actual numbers on the PN scale are
87 octane......................68.29 PN
90 octane.....................73.68 PN
95 octane.....................87.50 PN
98 octane.....................93.33 PN
100 octane ................100 PN.

S. D. Heron was one of the men that developed the PN scale (Performance Number) as there is no such thing as octane numbers higher than 100.
100 octane is a knock rating of fuel that is 100% Isooctane.
Any aviation fuel rating over 100 is done on the PN scale.
You can add stuff to 100% Isooctane to get higher knock ratings. Like adding 1.3ml of TEL will get you to 130.25 PN.
100% Isooctane is extremely expensive stuff.

What numbers have been used on automotive gas pumps or what numbers have been used for car racing or octane boosters in auto-parts stores are up to whatever the advertising departments want to use.

I am not sure a really good book on aviation fuel exists unless Calum knows of one.
My reading/books are from the British/American view point and heavy biased toward S D Heron. since that was what was available.

S D Heron was also responsible for this.

Published in 1951 and is a bit more technically orientated than the Harvard Business school book which is a bot more to the government and business cooperating in war time to get things done point of view rather than a technical history although Heron did rather well covering the basics.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I am not sure a really good book on aviation fuel exists unless Calum knows of one.

There are lots of books and papers and archive papers with "good bits in them", but I don't think there is a single one you can read where you can
sit down afterwards and think "oh ok, I get it now".

Even Herons book, is actually pretty light on a lot of details, if you are really into the specifics, and like most, contains essentially zero material
on what was happening in Germany - and without wishing to denigrate Herons book which is of course priceless, without detailed perspective
on what the opponent was doing, its hard to gauge Allied efforts with perspective in a way that the technical stuff makes as much sense as it
ought to.

Like most such books, it suffers greatly because it was written a fair while after the war, and even the people who did most of the work at the time
frequently had no access to the kind of documents they had in wartime, most returned to "civilian life" and so a lot of stuff comes from vague recollections
and half remembered reports.

Although not really about fuels, I think a good example of this is Hookers autobiography Not Much of an Engineer, which everyone raves about but
I found faintly disappointing, as I was after a lot of detail, which isnt there. I was told by someone at RR, that Hooker wrote most of it when
he was extremely ill not long before he passed away. Which probably explains some peoples complaints about the book that it concentrates on
him talking about his old friends, and not much about science, he was I suspect feeling his time was just about up and probably was mostly
just feeling sad about missing his friends. So these post-war books by even the top people are rarely as useful as a technical resource as they
would have been had they been written in the late 40`s, minds fresh and full of energy.

I started writing an essay:
"WW2 Aviation Fuel Logistics, Production and Performance"

But I have stalled at 4000words because I cant write more until I get several large files copied from NARA, which is currently
for all practical purposes, closed (the last time I checked was about a month ago), looks like its now "sort of opened", but
we`ll see.

A very partial list of things you can start reading to begin piecing things together is below, you can find several of these
just by googling the titles.

==============

"Germany's Synthetic Fuel Industry 1927-45"
Anthony N. Stranges
Department of History
Texas A&M University

"Early Liquid Fuels and the Controversial Octane Number Tests"
E. L. Marshall
Newcomen Society

"Report on the Petroleum and Synthetic Oil industry of Germany"
Ministry of Fuel and Power
HM Stationary Office 1947

1966 Centenary Edition of the Royal Aeronautical Society Journal
(several very good papers on WW2 technology)

"Aviation Fuel Logistics"
Kew National Archives
POWE 34/14

"Fuel Knock Rating by the US Army Air Corps Method with Modified CFR Engine"
March 1939
Kew National Archives
AVIA 6/8607

"A Short History of Aviation Gasoline Development, 1903—1980", Alexander R. Ogston, SAE Transactions
Vol. 90, Section 3: 810614––811014 (1981), pp. 2587-2600,

"Oil as a Factor in the German War Effort 1933-1945, Chiefs of Staff Committee, Technical Sub-Committee on Axis Oil"
Kew National Archives
AIR-8/1019

There are vast amounts of detailed data on the chemistry and some more
general information on the Fischer Tropsch archive, much of which is
online, but searching it is.... "interesting"

 

[Shortround6]

Heron wrote another book,

History of the Aircraft Piston engine

A Brief Outline

And it is brief
About 8in high and 5.5in wide and 130 pages including the index.
Published in 1961 by the Ethyl Corporation

It is also the view point of one man who was working in one narrow area of the field at different times.
His knowledge of reduction gears and propellers may be a bit lacking for instance.

Heron says he was talked into writing the book as there was no good history then (1960-61) avaliable and most of men involved in the early history were passing on. He does say his first try was mostly written by memory and when reviewed by others it was said that his memory was frequently faulty. There were revisions and corrections.

One thing I just ran across while looking at it again was that he said he no idea of how the German fuel injection system worked in regards to mixture control. He ran across a paper that explains it and put the reference section near the end.
He says he was in ill health when working on the book.

The short preface was written by James H. Doolittle, Lt. General USAF (Ret.)

 

[JDCAVE]

Calum: since you are on this thread, do you happen to know if the Hydrierwerke Scholven A.G. plant at Scholven Buer was operational in late December, 1944? I have a reference that indicates it may not have been serviceable. Dad was part of the force that bombed it December 29, 1944.

Sorry for the thread drift!

 

[msxyz]

Interesting discussion and thanks to all those who have replied to my answer (too long to quote).

I think it's interesting to know exactly the methodology used in determining the properties of various fuels because what we call 'gasoline' is just a "soup" of different hydrocarbons with different properties. The feedstock used to produce gasoline is also different from one source to another.

Gasoline obtained by simple distillation can be very different depending on the feedstock used, so much in fact that countries that used only this straight method (i.e.Italy) had to specify different levels of additives like TEL or ethanol, depending on the source, to obtain similar burning characteristics.

To obtain uniform gasoline of higher quality the industry has to resort to energy intensive methods to selectively convert certain hydrocarbon compounds into others. This is true also today. That's why certain oils, from certain parts of the world, are held in higher regard; because it's easier to convert them into useful compounds while for others, lengthy and energy intensive processes are needed. The alternative is a complete synthesis starting from different feedstock like coal or methane: the end result is of even higher quality (and less undesirable compounds that must be filtered out, like sulphur) but, in time of war, it's complicated and -again- most of the methods known are also quite energy intensive.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

do you happen to know if the Hydrierwerke Scholven A.G. plant at Scholven Buer was operational in late December, 1944?

Difficult to say, most of the plants were on/off production due to bombing for the last quarter of 1944 at some stage.

All this says is that production from Scholven was comletely stopped some time in the last quarter of 1944,
its unclear when or if it resumed.

Kew National Archives
AIR-8/1019 "Oil as a Factor in the German War Effort"
Page 134

There is probably a file somewhere specifically on Scholven, but you might end up at the Bundesarchiv
in Freiburg to find it, although these also look promising....

Search results: Scholven | The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee the survival of today's information for tomorrow and bring history to life for everyone.

discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Sadly looks like the USSBS did not sent a team to study Scholven

Did your Father leave you with any photographs etc of the raids ?

 

[JDCAVE]

Thanks for that Calum. That is useful. I have all of the available strike photos for dad's Sorties. However, there are about 10 ops for which none exist anywhere. Sometimes the camera carried colour film and I have seen no examples of these and some ops have no photos at all. As far as oil plants go, I have a good strike photo for F/Lt Barlow for Bottrop, September 27, 1944 and a good one of dad's for Mathias Stinnes, March 24, 1945. For these, there is no ambiguity about the location of the plants.

I will post these when I get home tomorrow.

jim

 

[Admiral Beez]

Once the Merlin powered aircraft embarked the carriers also had to make room for coolant. Memories of the Nimrod and Fairey III and their liquid cooled RR Kestrel and Napier Lion engines I suppose.

Though could these engines be cooled with straight distilled water from the carrier's evaporators? Was glycol or antifreeze necessary?

 

[Shortround6]

I believe the Kestrel and Lion used water.

Glycol storage is minimal, unlike engine oil, the water and later glycol was supposed to stay in the engine.
Oil was used up in flight, the coolant was not supposed to be used up.

not saying there weren't leaks but they didn't usually require several gallons after each flight.