P-38 fuel

[Kutscha]

It looks like it was American fuel that caused problems for the P-38 and not British fuel.

[Ricky]

Oooh....

Where the heck did you find those?

[Kutscha]

Posted on the Ubi Il-2 board.

[GregP]

An altogether scathing indictment of the unilateral decision made, it it is true.

I'd have to verify that with something more authoritative than a game board, though. In all the other period stuff I have, the document ID is clearly stated on most pages, particularly the signature page, and here it is conspicuously missing.

Still, it gives us a place to start looking ...

[ickysdad]

Originally Posted by GregP

An altogether scathing indictment of the unilateral decision made, it it is true.

I'd have to verify that with something more authoritative than a game board, though. In all the other period stuff I have, the document ID is clearly stated on most pages, particularly the signature page, and here it is conspicuously missing.

Still, it gives us a place to start looking ...

Document ID?????

[Kutscha]

You will find Greg that that board has a fanatical membership when it comes to official documentation being required. Even Oleg Maddox will only accept official documentation.

[Lightning]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

It looks like it was American fuel that caused problems for the P-38 and not British fuel.

First of all, it is quite important to note that both of these documents were written in the middle of August 1943. It is therefore obvious that the anticipated problems with the 5.5 cc fuel were identified even earlier--perhaps by a month or more.

Referring to the "MINUTE SHEET," it is equally obvious that none of the first five cargoes of the U.S. "base material" had yet been delivered as of the time this sheet had been written. The sheet further states that all of this fuel was to be "leaded" (i.e. blended) in England. Therefore none of these first five cargoes was delivered to England as fully usable fuel containing 5.5 cc of lead.

The sheet goes on to say that the decision had already been made to either segregate the initial two cargoes or blend this base material so as not to exceed 5 cc lead. These actions would ensure that no 5.5 cc leaded fuel would be used in aircraft.

Turning to the "SECRET" document, paragraph 6.b. states that Allison engines could not use the 5.5 cc fuel. This leaves no doubt that this fuel was not to be used in any aircraft powered by Allison engines.

CONCLUSIONS

The problem had already been identified as early as mid summer 1943, before the the "base material" in question had even been delivered--much less blended and distributed to operational squadrons.

As stated earlier, corrective action (see MINUTE SHEET, paragraph 4) was instituted to ensure that 5.5 cc fuel would not be used.

The potential problem had been identified and addressed no later than August 1943--long before the onset of the cold, wet winter conditions over Britain and northern Europe during the winter of early 1944. These weather conditions were, therefore, not part of the problem with this fuel. As to altitude, the only aircraft actually named as having experienced problems--and these were spark-plug related problems--was the Allison-powered Mustang. (See SECRET document, paragraph 5.) This was certainly not a high-altitude fighter, and it did not have turbo supercharging as did the P-38.

The Engine failures that plagued P-38s occurred during the winter months of early 1944--roughly six months after the above problems wirh 5.5 cc leaded fuel were well known and addressed. there is no way that either the RAF or the USAAF would have allowed the use--much less the continued use--of this fuel in Allison-engined aircraft knowing full well that it would result in wide-spread engine failures in the escort fighters protecting the heavy bombers over Europe.

No, the problem with the 5.5 cc leaded fuel documented above was not the cause of the P-38 engine failures during February and March 1944. And if, by some remote chance, some of this fuel had gotten to the P-38 squadrons, it would have been the fuel mentioned in (b) of paragraph four of the MINUTE SHEET. In other words, British-blended fuel.

[Kutscha]

In other words, British-blended fuel.

Correction, British blended American fuel.

[Lightning]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Correction, British blended American fuel.

Pay particular attention to the hyphen between the words "British" and "blended" in my original sentence. "British-blended" fuel is fuel that has been blended by the British--regardless of its pre-blending origin. The term "British-blended" is a compound adjective modifying "fuel."

Also, the "base material" received from the U.S. was not fuel in-and-of itself. It was just that--"base material," so your use of the term "American fuel" is misleading.

Anyway, that whole line could have been left out of my reply without changing the facts or the concusions by one bit.

[ickysdad]

This fuel didn't cause the problem for the P-38 right?