swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,030
- Jun 25, 2013
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi Tomo,
I... ended with fuels called 115 / 145, sometimes mistakenly called grade 150 fuel. Nobody makes 115 / 145 fuel anymore except by special order.
I see your statement that the myth of British fuels being significantly different from U.S. fuels is dead and buried. I have not read anything that supports that other than posts in here, and have first-hand testimony from several P-38 pilots that the early P-38s DID have fuel-related problems that were cured. They were told it was the gasoline after the cure was effected. It took some 8 - 10 months because nobody sent any British fuels back to the U.S.A. for analysis. When they did, the difference in aromatics became known and the carburetor jets were changed, eliminating that issue. After that, it wasn't an issue as long as the fuel to be used was specified.
P-40s didn't seem to have much of a problem on "British fuels".
In WWII, aromatics were mostly Benzene and Benzene derivatives, used mainly to increase the Octane number. After an Octane rating of 100 (101 - 150), the term is "performance number." In WWII, we had gasoline with two ratings, the lean rating (cruise condition, leaned out), and the rich rating (full power, full rich). We started the war running 80 / 100 fuels (generally) and ended with fuels called 115 / 145, sometimes mistakenly called grade 150 fuel. Nobody makes 115 / 145 fuel anymore except by special order.
C-3 was also found to 40% aromatics (!), which is about twice that of British fuels. US fuels were less than 5% aromatics, and British fuel gave early P-38s fits when they got to the UK because the engines were set up for U.S. fuels. I have little doubt that the BMW 801 in the test was not very comfortable on U.S. fuel.
To answer your question, we used different additives to get high-performance number fuels and used less aromatics than did Europe. Neither is good or bad, just a fact. But the two different routes to higher Octanes burn differently when the mixture changes, and it isn't important which fuel you use as long as you know and jet for it.....
Yes, carb jets.
I have little doubt that the BMW 801 in the test was not very comfortable on U.S. fuel.
The 'C3 - Zusatzeinspritzung' system used the (excess) fuel as anti-detonant fluid. It was a factory modification, the excess fuel was sprayed in the eye of supercharger to cool the compressed air so increased boost might be used under the rated altitude
Many books say mid series FW190A-4/5 etc had MW50 water injection, this appears to be a misunderstanding by non-technical authors?
Another amusing error I find is that the 801TS motor is said to be turbo-supercharged! Assuming the author thought T=turbo S=supercharger
Slightly more reliable books have said that MW50 problems were solved and it was available on the 801TS/TH in the Fw190A-9/F-9, they quote a decent 2300HP for it.
The amount of mistakes that got repeated in English-language publications on German ww2 hardware is pretty big. People often either downplay the capability of German gear, or over-blow it. It would've been very good if someone actually posted exerpts from manuals, test reports and factory docs to prove their statement.
...
If you think information on German aircraft is often incorrect, it gets MUCH worse with Japanese aircraft.
...
Not really.
I am more interested in finding more information rather than commiserating about the lack of it.