Question about V-1610-3

[Shortround6]

I wasn't forgetting C-3 was synthetic. I was averaging the reported numbers. The samples averaged 40.5% aromatics and the numbers I got were averages of the samples. If they really did mix it at 50% aromatics, then it should not have been called C-3 anymore, but should have a different designation or the people in the field would not know why their engiens were running differently than the previous batch of fuel did............... I just haven't seen it. The samples I have seen are about 94 / 125 to 96 / 133 or so. If I see a report on a sample with higher numbers, it still has to be averaged in with the other samples.

C'mon, real is real. You can't take 10 samples and quote the highest one as the grade of the fuel, for German, British, American, or Japanese fuel. You have to take averages of many samples and assume the fuel they got was that or perhaps slightly better or worse.

I think this is part of the problem. The Germans didn't seem to assign a new fuel code to the later fuel (if it was different) and they didn't dye it a different color. This does NOT mean they didn't actually improve it however. What are dates of the fuel tests? If the one with the high reading is late war it may show that late war fuel was of the higher rating. If it was one of the first then it may be a faulty test or show the Germans didn't really know what they had in that batch, performance wise. And lets face it, the British and the Americans didn't KNOW what they had , performance wise, in either of their own 100 octane fuels in 1940.

All fuel is NOT 30 points better in rich condition than lean. Most 87 octane fuel may show little improvement in knock rating in rich conditions. This is why there is/was a 91/96 rated American fuel. Gasoline that will show such an improvement from rich to lean needs to made of different base stocks than fuel that shows little improvement, or it needs different refining or additives. It is almost always more expensive and in some cases the base stocks/additives are in short supply and are better used in making the 100/130 fuel (or equivalent) than making 'super trainer fuel'.

A post war booklet by the Ethyl Corporation ( written in part by Sam Heron I believe) with Navaer-06-5-501 and USAF T.O. No. 06-5-4 has a page giving some of the specifications for MIL-F-5572 fuels of 80, 91/96, 100/130 and 115/145 grades. It also gives the same specs for ASTM D910-48T fuels of 80/87, 91/98, 100/130, 108/135 and 115/145 grades. Some of the gum residue tests and such are different but of some interest to us is the fact that some of the "middle" grades differ in the amount of lead per gallon allowed. The MIL spec allows 4.6ml of lead per gallon of 100/130 while the ASTM spec only allows 3.0ml per gallon for instance.

 

[Ratsel]

Some are just quoting the early 1943 reports that have been around forever. In the last link I posted, which in it lists at least one other C3 blend, they would see a reformulated Direct Coal Liquefaction with much higher quality Naphtha C3/C4 gas, with less TEL content. Pretty good for just some glorified Coleman Camp Fuel.

 

[post76]

Speaking of efficiency, didn't it take more energy to make those fuels (C-3/4) than what they were getting back from it.
How much coal do you think it took to get enough top shelf C-3 to fuel a single aircraft?

 

[Ratsel]

I don't think they cared much. As far as how much coal, well thats one of the reasons for Operation Barbarosa.

 

[GregP]

My mistake Shortround,

I didn't specifically say it, but I suppose I might have implied 30 points better in rich condition. What I meant to say is a maximum of about 30 points better in rich condition. Thus it is highly unlikely to see a fuel that is rated at, say, 80 / 145. No such animal as far as I know. If it exists, I've never heard of it or seen proof of its existence.

Might be possible, but it wasn't made in WWII ...