Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,472
- Dec 6, 2006
I have attached the document this came from.
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Info on the production of the various grades of fuel. Note that the 98 and 99 grades mostly stayed in the US. Also note the limited use of 6.0 cc TEL and the even more limited production of 115/145.Greg, please go over the time line for the P-38. There are two different issues with fuel at different times.
The early US fuel had little or no aromatics, this was in 1940 or so, If you want 100/125 or 100/130 you have to use aromatics. At least if you want to make fuel on a large scale.
When the Americans started to use the 20% (max it could be less) fuel there were all sorts of problems, including dissolving rubber parts in the fuel systems and self sealing tank liners, Jetting may very well have been a problem but the other problems were bigger. ALL of the problems were eventually solved. This is in regards to the early 100/130 fuel.
Early 100/130 fuel was limited to 3.0ccs of lead per US gallon and while there could be 20% aromatics in the fuel the types of aromatics may have been restricted. Use of aromatics is also restricted by the standard of BTUs per pound of fuel (18,700?) and most or all of the aromatics are lower than that so if you use too much of the aromatics in the blend you have somewhat lower than requirement heat value per pound.
At some point in 1942 (early?) they decide that if they use 4.0 cc of lead per US gallon they can get a lot more 100/130 fuel from the same amount of base stocks so that is approved (after testing to see about lead fouling) and in late 1942 or early 1943 they decide they need a lot more 100/130 fuel and the way to do that is to allow 4.6cc of lead per gallon and allow more of the heavy aromatics but still not exceeding about 20% total. everybody knew that this "new" 100/130 might cause problems and the engine makers began testing it with the engines at the beginning of 1943. Allison found they did have troubles under certain conditions and started working on a new intake manifold in the spring of 1943. It was being fitted to engines and P-38s in either November or December of 1943 but since it takes weeks to get a P-38 From California to Europe all the planes in theater had the old manifolds.
There may have been bad batches of fuel supplied to units in England, or batches of fuel that gave more trouble in P-38s than other aircraft.
However the constant referral to "British" fuel may be a bit unfair. The Entire 8th and 9th Air Force were using British fuel? America was shipping no 100/130 fuel to England at this time?
In any case, the switch from US 100 octane 2% aromatic fuel to the 20% aromatic fuel happened 1-2 years before the P-38 was used as escort by the 8th Air Force in 1943/44.
In fact the British and Americans were on their 3rd joint specification for fuel (1=100/125, 2=100/130 3cc lead , 3=100/130 4cc lead) using 20% aromatic fuel when the P-38s were England before being sent to North Africa at the end of 1942.
What the US was doing with old stocks of the 100 octane fuel with 2% aromatics at this time I have no idea, using it for training? sending it to engine makers to run in the engines with?
Was it all used up by the end of 1942? I don't know and won't guess. There is certainly a possibility that engines were being jetted wrong.
There is also the fact that engines that were used for training in the US were jetted for (and used different ignition timing) to suit them for 91 or 91/96 fuel used the training commands. Strict track was supposed to be kept of where these engines went but........ who knows????
There is certainly room for confusion as there were so many different fuel blends all with the same "name"
Combat radius for the P-47 and P-39N at 25000' were about the same with both having a 110 gal external tank.
Regarding the 110gal external tank, it is quoted in both books by Edwards Park on operations in NG in '42 and '43. He was very specific. He was there as a P-39 pilot in the 8th fighter group.
Not trying to disprove what you are claiming here, but when did the P-39N begin carrying the 110 gal external tank? The source I have concerning the P-47 with 108 gallon tanks states:
Sep, 1943-In the UK locally produced 108 gallon metal drop tanks for the P-47 start to become available, and also the locally-produced 108 gallon paper fuel tanks are now being delivered in increased quantity. These tanks give the P-47 a theoretical escort radius of 375 miles.
and...
Sep 27,1943-P-47s with drop tanks escort B-17s all the way to Emden, Germany, and destroy 21 enemy aircraft for the loss of one.
(America's Hundred-Thousand, page 288 - Francis Dean)
Anything similar to these direct quotes concerning the P-39 in the books you mentioned?
View attachment 578960
View attachment 578961
View attachment 578962
View attachment 578963
I have attached the document this came from.
Not taking exception - but the 'theoretical' 375 mile combat radius was for the P-47s modified at Depot with major wing mods to carry two 110gal tanks underwing. Looking at late March at earliest for group level TO&E of P-47D-15/-16 production equivalents.
Get Park's two books, "Nanette" and "Angels Twenty". First one is fiction, second based on fact. Same setting, same time. He was there. Quite specific about the 110gal tank on multiple occasions. Makes sense, almost the ideal size for a plane with 120gal internal. Everything else he says about the P-39 is dead on.Ok thanks Bill for the clarification. I believe Emden was roughly a 600 mile round trip.
Still would love to see the actual passages about the P-39 carrying the 110 gallon belly tank. I only saw references for the 75 gallon variety.
Get Park's two books, "Nanette" and "Angels Twenty". First one is fiction, second based on fact. Same setting, same time. He was there. Quite specific about the 110gal tank on multiple occasions. Makes sense, almost the ideal size for a plane with 120gal internal. Everything else he says about the P-39 is dead on.
Not taking exception - but the 'theoretical' 375 mile combat radius was for the P-47s modified at Depot with major wing mods to carry two 110gal tanks underwing. Looking at late March at earliest for group level TO&E of P-47D-15/-16 production equivalents.
Get Park's two books, "Nanette" and "Angels Twenty". First one is fiction, second based on fact. Same setting, same time. He was there. Quite specific about the 110gal tank on multiple occasions. Makes sense, almost the ideal size for a plane with 120gal internal. Everything else he says about the P-39 is dead on.
The Sound of Music was based on fact, well it was a fact that there was a war in Europe, but I don't think people burst into song so often, TBH.So one of your sources is fiction, and the other is "based on fact"?
Also, generally something described as "based on fact" is fiction as well.
Actually Von Trapp had been Austria-Hungary's most successful submarine commander in WW I and his first wife (mother of 7 of the children) was Robert Whitehead's (inventor of the self propelled torpedo) granddaughter.The Sound of Music was based on fact, well it was a fact that there was a war in Europe, but I don't think people burst into song so often, TBH.
I just can't stay away.P-39 Expert, post: 1549528, member: 73913"]What I read says the A-36 first flew in Sept '42 and entered combat in November. P-51A production (only 310 built) began March '43, switches to P-51B production in May '43. No P-51 series production occurred between October '42 and March '43 when the A-36 was being produced. Meaning the A-36 was a placeholder to keep production going until the P-51B could begin production.
Yes, No, No, and No.
1st production A-36 first flew Sept, 21 1942. 1st P-51A began production in November 1942, and first flew February 3, 1943. 1st P-51B-1 began in December 1942 and was completed in March, 1943 save engine not delivered until late April, then acceptance flight on May 5, 1943. At one time the 'placeholder A-36' and the P-51A and the P-51B-1 were all on the line at Inglewood at the same time.
A-36 began combat ops in June 1943, the (F-6) P-51-2-NA in December 1942, P-51A in November 1943, P-51B in December 1943.
IMPORTANT facts - the A-36 contract was dated April 1942, the P-51A contract was dated June 1942, The P-51B-5 contract was dated October 1942 (and serial number sequence began at the end of the P-51A) but the first P-51B (B-1) contract (dated 8-26-1942) was before the FIRST flight of the A-36A. If you devote any brain cells at all you have to understand that the Army had bought in to the Merlin Mustang before the first A-36 was delivered and the P-51A was in serial production -
Generally accepted dates of combat for the P-38 are very late '42 for Operation Torch and the SWP area. The earlier D/E models may have seen a little combat but had inferior performance to the later F/G models.
To those that don't research the topic, or have a different notion of combat that DOES Not include shooting down, a Japanese fighter in the Aleutians (8-4-42 by 54th FS P-38E) or over Iceland (8-14-42 by 27FS/1FG), then stand by your vague statement about 'generally accepted'.
The 1st FG P-38Fs began combat ops on 29 August 1942 with a Sweep by 94FS over French coast. The 14th FG flew first Sweep on October 2nd
Regarding 8th AF escort the first P-47 escort mission is listed as April 30 and was the first 8thAF mission to use at least 100 bombers. I also said that prior to that they were escorted by Spitfires which had ridiculously short range. What escort missions did the P-38s fly before they were transferred to N. Africa for Torch?
* April 8, 1943 for 4th, 56th and 78th FG P-47C. Rodeo between Dunkirk and Sangette.
September 1, 1942 for 1st FG P-38F. Sweep French/Belgian coast. During September the 1st FG flew Sweeps ahead of inbound VIII BC task forces over France and Belgium. First escort on 26 September but recalled due to weather. 2 October was first complete escort mission to Meaulte. 9 October to Lille,
October 21, 1942 for 14th FG 1st escort. Last mission before both the 1st, 14th and 82nd FG P-38F, 31st and 52nd FG Spitfire, and 350th P-39s prepared for move to North Africa.
Regarding the 200gal FERRY tank, it was just that. Not suitable for combat at escort altitude since it was unpressurized. Most don't consider escort missions to Holland, Belgium and a sliver of France to be meaningful. A Spitfire could take them that far. Even after getting the 110gal external tank they could only go 275 miles, about halfway to Berlin.
No, in your vernacular it was a 'placeholder'. That said, its first use with it on July 28 when 4th FG penetrated German airspace and ambushed a gaggle of forming Bf 10s and 109s near Emmrich. Scored 9-1-6 for the loss of 1.
"Most don't consider escort missions to Holland, Belgium and France to be meaningful".
First, the Spitfire could NOT take them past the coastline for any stretch and were used for Penetration escort, with P-47s picking up Target and Withdrawal.
Second, the entire fall/winter 1942 and spring 1943 was all about gaining strength and tactics for 8th AF BC and FC. You may choose to cite combat missions prior to Blitz Week and first Schweinfurt - Regensburg as "meaningless" - but why? True that the escort capability was woefully short compared to five months later - but the escort tactics of relay for Penetration/Withdrawal escort, formation assembly and navigation, friendly bomber Group ID recognition, Command radio co-ordination, combat experience, formation experience, flying in bad weather were HUGE factors in late 1943 through D-Day.
Most observers of Daylight bombing campaign in the ETO realize how important those factors were to introduce the P-51B to combat ready and skilled AAF fighter pilots who had to do what no other Air Force did, or could do - namely fight over German targets in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Rumania - taking off and returning in bad weather.
Personally, I would say they were Very Meaningful.
I stand by my original statements.
Stand Tall, at ease, smoke em' if you have 'em.
The first table can be found within this documentHi Reluctant Poster,
Regarding post #163, where did you find those data? I tried searching for the indicated source.
Very curious, and thank you for posting that!