fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
If more people drank beer and had a good time then there would be fewer wars.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Die Illusion der Wunderwaffen has a very interesting nugget of information;
In the eight year period from 32-40 there were just under 21,000 college graduates in Germany. Of those just 271 has degrees in fields related to aircraft, while fields related to beer brewing had nearly 900.
Italy and Britain had a serious "Great Game" going in East Africa during the 1930s. German alliance with Italy destroyed their détente with Britain.
Why shouldn't 1930s Germany allow Italy to go their own way? German interests were in central Europe, not the Red Sea. And 1930s Germany badly needed British diplomatic support as a counterweight to Marxist France.
Yes, at least that's what I assumed as well (given the context was 1940/1941 and also relating to BoB and Operation Barbarossa), hence the comments on the Balkins campaign.I think the poster was referring to the German rescue of Italian ambition in North Arica, Greece and Yugoslavia. Italy's limited success in East Africa, notably in what was then British Somaliland, was a sideshow.
On a water free basis the total product contains approximately:
Isobutanol 14%
Methanol 63%
High alcohols and Ketones 15%
Hydrocarbons 5%
That would add to the argument for avoiding diesel fueled ground vehicles. Gas turbines aside, trying to engineer flex-fuel vehicles that can run on diesel/kerosene and gasoline is a total mess. Switching between different octane ratings and fuel blends within a range of alcohols/hydrocarbons/etc (all for spark ignition type engines) is a fair bit more practical than trying to mix diesel and gasoline supply logistics.It took NATO quite a number of years during the cold war to switch from gasoline to Diesel. Unfortunately they took a "multi-fuel" detour that added expense and time which makes a comparison somewhat more difficult. Some vehicles were supposed to get "multi-fuel" engines that would run on a variety of fuels with the only adjustment being a knob on the drivers control panel. I am not sure that Germany could afford a dual fuel (or more ) distribution/supply system for combat or military vehicles/aircraft. Using some of these alternative fuels for different "customers" may may more sense. AS in domestic transport systems, Bus, truck, and private cars and such. Leaving the combat arms with Gasoline.
That would add to the argument for avoiding diesel fueled ground vehicles. Gas turbines aside, trying to engineer flex-fuel vehicles that can run on diesel/kerosene and gasoline is a total mess. Switching between different octane ratings and fuel blends within a range of alcohols/hydrocarbons/etc (all for spark ignition type engines) is a fair bit more practical than trying to mix diesel and gasoline supply logistics.
That and having the majority of vehicles able to run on the highest quality standard fuel available is a big deal. (ie Avgas can be used as mogas in most cases when needed -though the reverse isn't necessarily true) Like modern logistics with kerosene type jet fuel being more or less universal for diesel and turbine engine use. (Naphtha type fuels like Jet-B aren't acceptable substitutes for diesel though, unlike Jet-A, JP-8, etc)
The case with alcohols is a bit different as well given you can have some of the cheap/common (ie nearly straight methanol) types actually potentially being compatible with high performance (aviation) needs but unattractive due to energy density. (being able to fuel aircraft with ground fuel in a pinch -if limiting range and some performance- while not risking detonation issues is an interesting consideration) Then again, if most fuel in general (ground and air) was predominantly butanol, that would be a bit more like 87 octane B4 avgas being used for nearly everything rather than lower octane rated fuels used for ground vehicles. (or even a bit better than B4)
Indeed. Most of the hypothetical fuel alternatives I was posing were in the context of setting up a new infrastructure pre-war and working towards making the entire German economy self-sufficient in terms of fuel production. (one structured around the most efficient liquid engine fuels able to be synthesized rather than focusing on trying to synthesize fuel closest to the existing gasoline market)Possibly, it depends on how soon you set things up. Trying to change supplies or supply chains after going to war can bring big headaches.
Yes, I was more speaking of potential rare cases where substituting fuel in emergencies would be more feasible than with conventional gasoline. (particularly in the case of methanol -combustion properties are pretty reasonable, but energy density is low -and injectors/carburetors tuned to denser energy fuels might provide insufficient flow rate; manual adjustment of the mixture would address this to some extent, but running full-rich might not be enough to compensate to run properly at full throttle)For aircraft use you have a few problems, as in close to to energy content per gallon isn't quite good enough. If you car has 10% less power climbing a hill does it really matter? If you are trying to get a loaded aircraft of the ground 10% less power could mean hitting the trees or not hitting the trees. Modern fuel systems in cars can compensate for a rather wide range of power and air/fuel mixtures and they can do it automatically with engine sensors and an on-board computer. WW II Carburetors aren't going to be quite so forgiving. Neither will mechanical fuel injection, While either can be set up to run a variety of fuels they need some adjustment or replacement parts to do it effectively.
I'd actually expect butanol to be more problematic than ethanol in this respect, possibly requiring diesel style fuel warmers or (as you say) a dedicated starter tank unless suitable high volatility blends were practical. (using too much benzene, toluene, and other less-volatile octane boosters have similar problems -in terms of pure hydrocarbons, most of the high octane ones are MORE easily vaporized, at least short of very large, extremely highly branched molecules)Alcohol (even butanol) has a problem vaporizing properly in cold temperatures making starting and warming up hard ( one of the reasons for even summer and winter gasoline and those of us old enough to remember manual chokes.) Butanol maybe much better than the other alcohols but even in Brazil (hardly a cold country) some ethanol powered cars came with "starter" fuel tanks for gasoline.
Some av-gas specs list not only a max Reid vapor pressure but a minimum Reid vapor pressure. In 1950 US military AV gas had a minimum of 5.5 lb/sq/in for all grades.
That would add to the argument for avoiding diesel fueled ground vehicles. Gas turbines aside, trying to engineer flex-fuel vehicles that can run on diesel/kerosene and gasoline is a total mess. Switching between different octane ratings and fuel blends within a range of alcohols/hydrocarbons/etc (all for spark ignition type engines) is a fair bit more practical than trying to mix diesel and gasoline supply logistics.
That and having the majority of vehicles able to run on the highest quality standard fuel available is a big deal. (ie Avgas can be used as mogas in most cases when needed -though the reverse isn't necessarily true) Like modern logistics with kerosene type jet fuel being more or less universal for diesel and turbine engine use. (Naphtha type fuels like Jet-B aren't acceptable substitutes for diesel though, unlike Jet-A, JP-8, etc)
The case with alcohols is a bit different as well given you can have some of the cheap/common (ie nearly straight methanol) types actually potentially being compatible with high performance (aviation) needs but unattractive due to energy density. (being able to fuel aircraft with ground fuel in a pinch -if limiting range and some performance- while not risking detonation issues is an interesting consideration) Then again, if most fuel in general (ground and air) was predominantly butanol, that would be a bit more like 87 octane B4 avgas being used for nearly everything rather than lower octane rated fuels used for ground vehicles. (or even a bit better than B4)
A Methanol based fighter, perhaps with a little hydrocarbon added to make a visible flame might have worked. Energetically methanol is less dense in terms of energy per unit mass but as it specific gravity is higher it partially compensates. It also has a high octane number which would help keep an engine small and efficient.
As to using methanol and ethanol, aren't these fuels hygroscopic? I remember reading that there were problems with alcohol fuels being researched for airliners because of this property, the effect being worse at high altitudes.
That might be useful for ground vehicles, but with the way Hesselman engines generally work, you'd not only need starter tanks for cold weather conditions, but for ALL starting and fuel switching during both warm-up and cool down.Of course you have now built a multifuel engine which is less efficient than those optimised for high grade petrol which is somewhat embarrassing if you do happen to have good fuel most of the time.
I know the Germans experimented with these Hesselman engines and they were widely used in Sweddish trucks in the 20s and 30s. Surprisingly the Germans were often short of relatively easy to synthesise diesel since so much effort had been put into making high octane aviation gasoline they had been forced to neglect diesel production. The solution was simply to mix gasoline with lubricating oil and use that as 'diesel fuel' substitute while backing of the throttle a bit to keep cylinder temperatures down.
If you were forced to use the cruder less refine Fischer-Tropsch in that era the solution would be to use a variety of engines: diesel, gasoline but mainly Hesselman Kerosene to exploit the various fractions obtained.
That seems impractical due to the power loss and fuel efficiency losses. Low cruise power is going to have lots of drawbacks, not to mention further complicating combat ability.I think an aero engine would do well running of 67 octane kerosene. The Low Compression ratio of the Merlin would make it suitable, it would only need a fuel injection system. The Jumo 211 might work as well with fuel injection mods and lower crown piston to drop the CR from about 6:5 to 6.
If methanol had been used as a standard fuel pre-war, the designs would already include such capacity in the first place and perhaps be constructed somewhat differently than existing aircraft. That said, even at that 70%, the sheer weight penalty of that added fuel would be of serious concern. Small fractions of methanol might be acceptable in aviation fuel, but on the whole you'd want an energy density at least close to gasoline (consistently higher octane ratings allowing increased efficiency would help make up some remaining difference there too, though).Methanol would also have made a good fuel. It's lean RON is 109.6 and despite its lower calorific value the higher compression ratio and density mean that the efficiency of the engine can be increased such that it's "miles per gallon is" 70% that of gasoline with the engine more powerful to boot.
The corrosion and hygroscopicity issues are mostly problems with methanol and ethanol, not heavier alcohols, though I already touched on that above.They are and it causes all sorts of problems and not just in the engines where they can have a corrosive effect but also in storage. Alcohol in fuels causes the fuels to decompose much more quickly. It's fine for relatively small amounts of specialised fuels, as in some racing cars, but poses problems when trying to supply and operate an air force (or airline).
Look up fuel phase separation and 'varnished' fuels to see some of the results.
For safety with ground handling in case of accidental fires. This would probably be more useful for ground vehicle use, though.Interested to know why you think that a visible flame is desireable?
I would think that having an invisible flame, or nearly so, would be of great benefit to aircraft operating at night. It would mean that the drag producing and performance affecting flame dampers would be less necessary.
Indeed, there were a good many bigger problems at hand before the sheer logistical issues of peak production capacity and efficiency would really be the dominant limiting factors.This is all very interesting, but how does it help overcome the shortages and then critical shortages of fuels experienced by the Germans during the war?
The first shortage to the Luftwaffe was not to operational units but support units, most importantly Training Command, and was brought about by a complete lack of long term planning and the increased usage by operational units involved in the invasion of the USSSR.
The second and fatal shortage was caused by a combination of loss of territory and being bombed into next week by the western allies, particularly the USAAF. Where some stocks of fuels existed the Germans found it almost impossible to move them over the rail networks ravaged by the bombing of the 'Transport Plan'. The canal and road systems were also attacked and were subject to the attentions of British and American fighter bombers whenever weather allowed.
All these alternative fuels have to be produced in plants that would surely have been targeted by the allied air forces.
But following the Blitzkrieg with digging in and preparing for a cold war was not part of the existing plans. (or fitting for Nazi doctrine in general)
Let alone dealing with Russian winters ...Even a literally cold war! The worn winter camouflage so beloved of aircraft modellers dates almost invariably from the first winter of the war in the east (41/42). The Luftwaffe did not have a permanent white camouflage aircraft lacquer available until the following winter. But then there was no intention to have to fight over one winter, let alone several.