Use of 150 octane fuel in the Merlin (Xylidine additive etc etc)

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
(Hildegrin) wrote:

Higher octane allows you to use higher boost pressures. It doesn't
create more boost, it just allows you to "overboost" the engine at
lower alts. Thus at rated alt and above, increased octane had no real
effect (it may have reduced power by a tiny amount, because the fuel
has a lower calorifc value, I think).


Yes, this is exactly right...some think that the higher the
Octane Rating the more "powerful" the fuel when actually high
Octane fuel is less 'powerful' that low Octane fuel. You get the
extra power because you can increase the Manifold Air Pressure
(boost) without causing DETONATION. This is the whole reason
behind high octane useage. Heavy detonation will trash an engine
in short order so you must prevent it.

Lead tetra ethyl is not short of energy, Gord.

The amount of TEL added makes little difference to the energy content
of a fuel becuase it is so small an amount. I don't even know how
much energy it releases upon combustion if it does so at all.

Thus cancelling your other post, Eunometic.

Ricardo, the great British engineer, developed the idea of using Tetra
Ehyle Lead (TEL) because he reasoned that the milky color of gasoline
was causing it to ignite due to to the transmision and absorbtion of
infra red radiation rather than burn smoothly. TEL acted as a
clarifying agent and this is how it increase the RON in a variable
displacement test engine. That was the theory at least.

In reality, TEL slows the burn rate of gasoline, thus allowing for more
spark advance and the elimiation of detonation.

snip of further cut and paste

Others have already hit on what effect higher octane ratings had. Peter
Stickney will probably have one of his great replies coming along soon
too. But here is a quick rundown on what 104/150 octane should provide
for a Merlin 266.

The US had an empirical formula for calculating MAP limits at different
PN. It is a little conservative, but gives a good ballpark figure.

((old MAP -7) * new PN/old PN) +7 = new MAP

So, 66.6 in Hg on 100/130 octane would give:

((66.6 - 7) * 150/130) +7
59.6 * 1.154 + 7 = 75.76 in Hg

The RAF actually used +25 psi, about 80.9 inches.

We know the Merlin 266 was rated at 66.6 in Hg, 1705 hp @ 5750 ft in low
blower. That is enough information to approximate how much power the
engine provides at any altitude.

We also know static pressure at 5750 ft is approx 24.20 in Hg. So,
dividing 66.6 by 24.20 gives us approx 2.75 for the pressure ratio that
the Merlin 266 provides in low blower.

Multiplying static pressure by the pressure ratio gives the manifold
pressure available at any altitude. 80.9 in Hg would be attainable up
to about 500 ft unrammed, and approx 82.4 in Hg at SL.

Since we know it produces 1705 hp @ 66.6 in Hg we can figure how much
it makes at 80.9 in Hg. 1705 * 80/66.6 gives about 2071 hp. Then you
have to take the difference in temp into account. Sqrt of absolute temp
at 5750 ft / absolute temp at 500 ft times 2071 hp.

(sqrt (276.86 / 287.36)) * 2071 = 2032 hp @ 500 ft.

(I'm using the 1976 standard atmosphere for all calculations, older
atmosphere models might provide slightly different figures)

This should be accurate +- about 1%. You can do the same thing for just
about any engine, provided you have an accurate base altitude, power and
MAP rating to start with. I cheated and created an Excel spreadsheet
that does all the work for me.

You need to make sure and use static ratings, a lot of RAF ratings are
with 350 or 400 mph RAM which will screw things up. RAM will cause a
higher rated altitude from the ram pressure, but lower power due to
compression heating.

Greg Shaw

In article , Gregory W
Shaw writes
Others have already hit on what effect higher octane ratings had. Peter
Stickney will probably have one of his great replies coming along soon
too. But here is a quick rundown on what 104/150 octane should provide
for a Merlin 266.

SNIP of great summary of relevant formulae

Thanks, Greg - that is a really handy ready-reckoner.

Much appreciated!

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

In article ,
(Gregory W Shaw) writes:
Others have already hit on what effect higher octane ratings had. Peter
Stickney will probably have one of his great replies coming along soon
too. But here is a quick rundown on what 104/150 octane should provide
for a Merlin 266.

The US had an empirical formula for calculating MAP limits at different
PN. It is a little conservative, but gives a good ballpark figure.

((old MAP -7) * new PN/old PN) +7 = new MAP

So, 66.6 in Hg on 100/130 octane would give:

((66.6 - 7) * 150/130) +7
59.6 * 1.154 + 7 = 75.76 in Hg

The RAF actually used +25 psi, about 80.9 inches.

We know the Merlin 266 was rated at 66.6 in Hg, 1705 hp @ 5750 ft in low
blower. That is enough information to approximate how much power the
engine provides at any altitude.

We also know static pressure at 5750 ft is approx 24.20 in Hg. So,
dividing 66.6 by 24.20 gives us approx 2.75 for the pressure ratio that
the Merlin 266 provides in low blower.

Multiplying static pressure by the pressure ratio gives the manifold
pressure available at any altitude. 80.9 in Hg would be attainable up
to about 500 ft unrammed, and approx 82.4 in Hg at SL.

Since we know it produces 1705 hp @ 66.6 in Hg we can figure how much
it makes at 80.9 in Hg. 1705 * 80/66.6 gives about 2071 hp. Then you
have to take the difference in temp into account. Sqrt of absolute temp
at 5750 ft / absolute temp at 500 ft times 2071 hp.

(sqrt (276.86 / 287.36)) * 2071 = 2032 hp @ 500 ft.

(I'm using the 1976 standard atmosphere for all calculations, older
atmosphere models might provide slightly different figures)

This should be accurate +- about 1%. You can do the same thing for just
about any engine, provided you have an accurate base altitude, power and
MAP rating to start with. I cheated and created an Excel spreadsheet
that does all the work for me.

You need to make sure and use static ratings, a lot of RAF ratings are
with 350 or 400 mph RAM which will screw things up. RAM will cause a
higher rated altitude from the ram pressure, but lower power due to
compression heating.

Great work Greg, and mighty close. (You forgot to factor in the
increased temperature at the lower altitude, which will reduce power
somewhat. It's one of those things where the 90/90 rule comes in -
teh first 90% of the accuracy in the analysis takes up teh first 90%
of the effort, and the last 10% takes up the other 90%!

I've been able to dig up the manufacturer's numbers, as reported in
_Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_, 1946.

For the Merlin 66, Standard Day, No Ram.
The Combat Ratings in Low Blower we
1705 HP @ 5,750', 3000 RPM/+18 Boost
2000 HP @ SL, 3000 RPM/+25 Boost

These are very close to your numbers, and the effect to the ambient
temperature on the charge air temerature probably make up the
differnce.

Just for the record, here are the numbers in High Blower:
1580 HP @ 16,000', 3000 RPM/+18
1860 HP @ 10,500', 3000 RPM/+25

Other Merlins were also rated for 3000R/+25 on teh 150 PN fuel.
The Merlin 24, with s single-stage, 2-speed blower produced a Combat
Power of:
Low Blower: 1640 HP @ 2,000'; 3000 RPM/+18
1730 HP @ 0'; 3000 RPM/+20.5 (The supercharger
couldn't produce +25# of Boost at Sea Level)
High Blower: 1500 HP @ 9,500'; 3000 RPM/+18
1780 HP @ 4,000'; 3000 RPM/+25

The Merlin 113/114 Series was also re-rated with 150 PN
I'm not sure what their boost limit was on 100/130 fuel, so I'll leave
it out, for now.

Merlin 130 Series engines were also able to use 150 Octane fuel:
Combat Power for a Merlin 130 was:
Low Blower: 1830 HP @ 5,500'; 3000 RPM/+20
2020 HP @ 1,500'; 3000 RPM/+25
High Blower: 1690 HP @ 18,000'; 3000 RPM/+20
1845 HP @ 14,250'; 3000 RPM/+25


Two-Stage supercharged Griffon engines (60 series) were also rated
with 150 PN.
Combat Power for a Griffon 69 was:
Low Blower: 2000 HP @ 6,750'; 2750 RPM/+21.0
2300 HP @ 500'; 2750 RPM/+25
High Blower: 1810 HP @ 21,000'; 2750 RPM/+21.0
2060 HP @ 15,750'; 2750 RPM/+25

TO show you what the effects are of some other approaches, here are
the numbers for an ADI equipped Packard Merlin, the V1650-9 used on
the P-51H:
War Emergency Power:
Low Blower: 1600 HP @ 11,800'; 3000 RPM/67"
1930 HP @ 10,100'; 3000 RPM/80"
High Blower: 1330 HP @ 23,000'; 3000 RPM/67"
1639 HP # 23,500'; 3000 RPM/80" (That's what the
sources say - quite frankly, the altitude number has
to be bogus. It should be around 18,800')

Definitely follow up with a visit to the Fourth Fighter Group Web
page. Mike Williams has done a fantastic job of collecting up data on
this subject and others, and in presenting it to us. Much of the data
is directly from Flight Test Reports of the A&AEE and Central Fighter
Establishment. You can't get any better than that.
It's well worth the time spent there.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney wrote:

Great work Greg, and mighty close. (You forgot to factor in the
increased temperature at the lower altitude, which will reduce power
somewhat. It's one of those things where the 90/90 rule comes in -
teh first 90% of the accuracy in the analysis takes up teh first 90%
of the effort, and the last 10% takes up the other 90%!


Thanks Peter,

I did take temp into account, that dropped power from 2070 to 2030 hp @
500 ft. Although I did fubar it a little, I used 5800 ft for the base
temp rather than 5750 ft, that would change power to 2033 hp instead of
2032 hp.

(sqrt (276.86 / 287.36)) * 2071 = 2032 hp @ 500 ft.

The change from 500 ft to SL drops power down to about 2026 hp. It looks
like I'm about 1% over published figures. Given the amount of slop
involved all around I'll take that. Particularly for something I can do
with a standard atmosphere chart and a $2.00 calculator in about 1
minute.

I have seen two different methods of calculating temp affects. I am
using (sqrt (old abs temp/ new abs temp)) * hp

I have also seen simpler version of old abs temp / new abs temp * hp

Using that method I come up with 1996 hp @ 500 ft and 1989 hp @ SL. It
could be that simple, a difference in calculation methods.

My spreadsheet is a bit more complicated, it takes blower power into
account as well. And being able to see hp/MAP at multiple altitudes
simultaneously allows me to do some curve fitting that makes for a bit
better accuracy.

I have used it for a number of engines successfully. Given two data
points, generally military power and WEP, I can typically get it to
match within .5 in Hg and 1-2 hp at all altitudes I have published data
for. Given the accuracy of the starting data and all the other slop that
is probably about as accurate as possible.


Definitely follow up with a visit to the Fourth Fighter Group Web
page. Mike Williams has done a fantastic job of collecting up data on
this subject and others, and in presenting it to us. Much of the data
is directly from Flight Test Reports of the A&AEE and Central Fighter
Establishment. You can't get any better than that.
It's well worth the time spent there.

I haven't visited there in about 6 months or so. I need to go back and
see what new stuff he has. Great resource.

Thanks for the additional Merlin & Griffon data, I'll add it to my
stash.

Greg Shaw

In article ,
(Gregory W Shaw) writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:

Great work Greg, and mighty close. (You forgot to factor in the
increased temperature at the lower altitude, which will reduce power
somewhat. It's one of those things where the 90/90 rule comes in -
teh first 90% of the accuracy in the analysis takes up teh first 90%
of the effort, and the last 10% takes up the other 90%!


Thanks Peter,

I did take temp into account, that dropped power from 2070 to 2030 hp @
500 ft. Although I did fubar it a little, I used 5800 ft for the base
temp rather than 5750 ft, that would change power to 2033 hp instead of
2032 hp.

(sqrt (276.86 / 287.36)) * 2071 = 2032 hp @ 500 ft.

The change from 500 ft to SL drops power down to about 2026 hp. It looks
like I'm about 1% over published figures. Given the amount of slop
involved all around I'll take that. Particularly for something I can do
with a standard atmosphere chart and a $2.00 calculator in about 1
minute.

It's certainly within the difference that you're going to find
between individual engines. ANd therefore, more than accurate enough.

The temperature factor that I was considering, though, was within the
supercharger, and, to split it a bit more, the temperature addition
contributed by the individual stages, with teh intercooling between
the Aux and Mainstage factored in. (Then there's the difference in
impeller efficiency that occurs as the conditions change - If you're
not careful, it can drive you sane! It's that old 90-90 rule again. )
It wasn't the HP value that I was getting different, but the altitude.
Even that was well within tolerance, so I'd say our models agree.

Not Criticism at all, but Congratulation.

I have seen two different methods of calculating temp affects. I am
using (sqrt (old abs temp/ new abs temp)) * hp

Which is the closest one, although there are aberrations. The
published data for teh V1650-7 (The engine used on later P-51Bs and
the P-51D, don't match up. Even the Specific Engine Characteristics
table in the Pilot's Operating Handbook doesn't seem quite right.

I have also seen simpler version of old abs temp / new abs temp * hp

Using that method I come up with 1996 hp @ 500 ft and 1989 hp @ SL. It
could be that simple, a difference in calculation methods.

The Standard Atmosphere of that time was a bit different, as well,
which could also account for it. THe thing with trying to nail down
these numbers is that they aren't that exact in reality. Every
engine's different, every engine wears differently, and every day is
different. They're never that close.

My spreadsheet is a bit more complicated, it takes blower power into
account as well. And being able to see hp/MAP at multiple altitudes
simultaneously allows me to do some curve fitting that makes for a bit
better accuracy.

Good show. I've some similar tools, myself. (Of course). It's turned
out to be a necessity in sorting out the Variable Speed blowers that
the Germans, and later, Pratt & Whitney used. The normal way to
presenting the performance numbers for tham is just too abstract, and
so it requires a lot of backfitting to sort them out.

I have used it for a number of engines successfully. Given two data
points, generally military power and WEP, I can typically get it to
match within .5 in Hg and 1-2 hp at all altitudes I have published data
for. Given the accuracy of the starting data and all the other slop that
is probably about as accurate as possible.

That's excellent. We'll have to compare notes sometime.

Thanks for the additional Merlin & Griffon data, I'll add it to my
stash.

Plenty more if you need it, Greg, just send me a list, and I'll se
what I can do.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Dave Eadsforth writes:


No, As with anythig else in Aviation (Or any other Engineering), it's
a balancing act. You can only get so much of a compression ratio out
of a Supercharger, for any given drive speed. In order to get more
boost, you've got to start with thicker air, so the Critical Altitude
actually decreases. When you're chasing V-1s, though, or fighting
against Me 109s, or Fw 190s, that's not a bad thing. The Daimler Benz
engines in the 109, by virtue of their variable-speed blowers, which
didn't require as much power to run at low altitudes, gave a big
advantage down low. The BMW 801 on an Fw 190 had a geared blower, but
the critical altitude for the low gear was very low, down near Sea
Level.
In order to improve altitude performance, you've got to increase the
compression ratio of the induction system, or add an axidizer to the
fuel-air mix to help it burn. This can be done by adding supercharger
stages (Basically one supercharger feeding another, like, say, a
Merlin 60 series engine, or the turbosupercharger/engine driven blower
setups on the P-47 and P-38, or piping something like Nitrous Oxide
into the induction system, as the Germans did.

The drawback is that
it takes more of hte engine's power, in the gear-driven examples, to
compress the air that much more. That means that at lower altitudes,
you're at a disadvantage. Or, you've got got to haul around a bunch
of tanks, regulators, pipes, valves, & all that for teh Nitrous
system. You've only got a limited quatity of Nitrous aboard, and you
can pretty much guarantee that it'll run out right when you need it.
Or, worse yet, the storage bottles could get damaged. Leaking
Oxidizers is a Bad Thing, especially when somebody's shooting at you.

More later, with real numbers attached.


Nitrous oxide was more a technique the Germans were forced into to
help overcome a German disadvantage in high octane or high test
aviation fuels rather than a paucity in thingking.

The Germans did have techniques for manufacturing octane and even
higher knock hydrocarbons their technology was however more cumberson
than the US technology and this limited their production rate. Why
this was I don't know. It may have had something to do with the fact
that they had access to only snythetic oils from fischer tropsch and
hydrogenation plants or their own small crude oil industry or
Romania's all of which are regarded as poor quality crudes.
(California crude was rather highly regarded). It may have just been
that they were unaware of the US techniques.

Nitprous oxide also was used only at higher altitudes: water methanol
injection was used at low altitude.

The Ta 152H has a watern methanol and nitorous oxide system. The
clipped wing Ta 152C has only water methanol for its BB603LA

The Jumo 213E had a two stage 3 speed supercharger WITH an induction
cooler. It still had water methanol and nitorus oxide (nickamed HA HA
system because Nitorus oxide was laughting gas)

Ta 152H Engine: Junkers Jumo 213E-1 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled
engine rated at 1750 hp for takeoff (2050 hp with MW 50 boost) and
1320 hp at 32,800 feet (1740 feet with GM 1 boost). Maximum speed: 332
mph at sea level (350 mph with MW 50 boost), 465 mph at 29,530 feet
with MW 50 boost, 472 mph at 41,010 feet with GM 1 boost. Service
ceiling was 48,550 feet with GM 1 boost. Initial climb rate was 3445
feet/minute with MW 50 boost. Weights were 8642 pounds empty, 10,472
pounds normal loaded, 11,502 pounds maximum. Wingspan 47 feet 41/2
inches, length 35 feet 1 2/3 inches, height 11 feet 0 1/4 inches, wing
area 250.8 square feet.

The Ta 152C-1 was powered by a Daimler-Benz DB 603LA twelve-cylinder
liquid cooled engine rated at 2100 hp (2300 hp with MW 50) for takeoff
and 1750 hp at 29,530 feet (1900 hp at 27,560 feet with MW 50). Armed
with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds, two
fuselage-mounted 20-mm MG 151 cannon with 250 rpg, and two
wing-mounted 20-mm MG252 cannon with 175 rpg. Maximum speed was 227
mph at sea level (356 mph with MW 50), 436 mph at 37,730 feet (460 mph
at 32,810 feet with MW 50). Initial climb rate was 3050 feet per
minute and service ceiling was 40,350 feet. Weights were 8849 lbs
empty, 10,658 lbs normal loaded, and 11,733 pounds maximum. Wingspan
was 36 feet 1 inch, length was 35 feet 6 1/2 inches, height was 11
feet 1 inch, and wing area was 290.89 square feet.

In article , The
Enlightenment writes
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message news:dbocvb-
...
In article ,
Dave Eadsforth writes:

SNIP of repeated material

Nitrous oxide was more a technique the Germans were forced into to
help overcome a German disadvantage in high octane or high test
aviation fuels rather than a paucity in thingking.

The Germans did have techniques for manufacturing octane and even
higher knock hydrocarbons their technology was however more cumberson
than the US technology and this limited their production rate. Why
this was I don't know. It may have had something to do with the fact
that they had access to only snythetic oils from fischer tropsch and
hydrogenation plants or their own small crude oil industry or
Romania's all of which are regarded as poor quality crudes.
(California crude was rather highly regarded). It may have just been
that they were unaware of the US techniques.

Nitprous oxide also was used only at higher altitudes: water methanol
injection was used at low altitude.

The Ta 152H has a watern methanol and nitorous oxide system. The
clipped wing Ta 152C has only water methanol for its BB603LA

The Jumo 213E had a two stage 3 speed supercharger WITH an induction
cooler. It still had water methanol and nitorus oxide (nickamed HA HA
system because Nitorus oxide was laughting gas)

Ta 152H Engine: Junkers Jumo 213E-1 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled
engine rated at 1750 hp for takeoff (2050 hp with MW 50 boost) and
1320 hp at 32,800 feet (1740 feet with GM 1 boost). Maximum speed: 332
mph at sea level (350 mph with MW 50 boost), 465 mph at 29,530 feet
with MW 50 boost, 472 mph at 41,010 feet with GM 1 boost. Service
ceiling was 48,550 feet with GM 1 boost. Initial climb rate was 3445
feet/minute with MW 50 boost. Weights were 8642 pounds empty, 10,472
pounds normal loaded, 11,502 pounds maximum. Wingspan 47 feet 41/2
inches, length 35 feet 1 2/3 inches, height 11 feet 0 1/4 inches, wing
area 250.8 square feet.

The Ta 152C-1 was powered by a Daimler-Benz DB 603LA twelve-cylinder
liquid cooled engine rated at 2100 hp (2300 hp with MW 50) for takeoff
and 1750 hp at 29,530 feet (1900 hp at 27,560 feet with MW 50). Armed
with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds, two
fuselage-mounted 20-mm MG 151 cannon with 250 rpg, and two
wing-mounted 20-mm MG252 cannon with 175 rpg. Maximum speed was 227
mph at sea level (356 mph with MW 50), 436 mph at 37,730 feet (460 mph
at 32,810 feet with MW 50). Initial climb rate was 3050 feet per
minute and service ceiling was 40,350 feet. Weights were 8849 lbs
empty, 10,658 lbs normal loaded, and 11,733 pounds maximum. Wingspan
was 36 feet 1 inch, length was 35 feet 6 1/2 inches, height was 11
feet 1 inch, and wing area was 290.89 square feet.

Thanks for this very useful summary - very much appreciated.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Dave Eadsforth wrote in message ...
In article , The
Enlightenment writes
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message news:dbocvb-
...
In article ,
Dave Eadsforth writes:

SNIP of repeated material

Nitrous oxide was more a technique the Germans were forced into to
help overcome a German disadvantage in high octane or high test
aviation fuels rather than a paucity in thinking.

The Germans did have techniques for manufacturing octane and even
higher knock hydrocarbons their technology was however more cumberson
than the US technology and this limited their production rate. Why
this was I don't know. It may have had something to do with the fact
that they had access to only snythetic oils from fischer tropsch and
hydrogenation plants or their own small crude oil industry or
Romania's all of which are regarded as poor quality crudes.
(California crude was rather highly regarded). It may have just been
that they were unaware of the US techniques.

Nitprous oxide also was used only at higher altitudes: water methanol
injection was used at low altitude.

The Ta 152H has a watern methanol and nitorous oxide system. The
clipped wing Ta 152C has only water methanol for its BB603LA

The Jumo 213E had a two stage 3 speed supercharger WITH an induction
cooler. It still had water methanol and nitorus oxide (nickamed HA HA
system because Nitorus oxide was laughting gas)

Ta 152H Engine: Junkers Jumo 213E-1 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled
engine rated at 1750 hp for takeoff (2050 hp with MW 50 boost) and
1320 hp at 32,800 feet (1740 feet with GM 1 boost). Maximum speed: 332
mph at sea level (350 mph with MW 50 boost), 465 mph at 29,530 feet
with MW 50 boost, 472 mph at 41,010 feet with GM 1 boost. Service
ceiling was 48,550 feet with GM 1 boost. Initial climb rate was 3445
feet/minute with MW 50 boost. Weights were 8642 pounds empty, 10,472
pounds normal loaded, 11,502 pounds maximum. Wingspan 47 feet 41/2
inches, length 35 feet 1 2/3 inches, height 11 feet 0 1/4 inches, wing
area 250.8 square feet.

The Ta 152C-1 was powered by a Daimler-Benz DB 603LA twelve-cylinder
liquid cooled engine rated at 2100 hp (2300 hp with MW 50) for takeoff
and 1750 hp at 29,530 feet (1900 hp at 27,560 feet with MW 50). Armed
with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds, two
fuselage-mounted 20-mm MG 151 cannon with 250 rpg, and two
wing-mounted 20-mm MG252 cannon with 175 rpg. Maximum speed was 227
mph at sea level (356 mph with MW 50), 436 mph at 37,730 feet (460 mph
at 32,810 feet with MW 50). Initial climb rate was 3050 feet per
minute and service ceiling was 40,350 feet. Weights were 8849 lbs
empty, 10,658 lbs normal loaded, and 11,733 pounds maximum. Wingspan
was 36 feet 1 inch, length was 35 feet 6 1/2 inches, height was 11
feet 1 inch, and wing area was 290.89 square feet.

Thanks for this very useful summary - very much appreciated.

Cheers,

Dave


You might find it interesting to know that the xylidine amine used to
produce the 150 octane fuel was also used by the Germans in their
"Tonka" series of hypergolic storable fuels (the oxidiser was nitric
acid generally). These fuels were intended for the X4 air to air
missile, the Wasserfall SAM and the BMW003R rocket/jet combo. The
Russians used Tonka more or less unchanged for their missiles post
WW2.

Therefor it can be concluded that the Germans were confident of of
being able to produce xylidine in quantity. The compound does however
have many isomers.

Nitric acid sound nasty but but it can't explode, evaporate or
spontaneously decompose when it gets too hot or too cold.

A great deal of info on German WW2 syn fuels can be found at
http://wwww/fischer-tropsch.org

In article , The
Enlightenment writes
Dave Eadsforth wrote in message news:xZSPrjAdETHAFw1$
...
In article , The
Enlightenment writes
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message news:dbocvb-
...
In article ,
Dave Eadsforth writes:

SNIP of repeated material

Nitrous oxide was more a technique the Germans were forced into to
help overcome a German disadvantage in high octane or high test
aviation fuels rather than a paucity in thinking.

The Germans did have techniques for manufacturing octane and even
higher knock hydrocarbons their technology was however more cumberson
than the US technology and this limited their production rate. Why
this was I don't know. It may have had something to do with the fact
that they had access to only snythetic oils from fischer tropsch and
hydrogenation plants or their own small crude oil industry or
Romania's all of which are regarded as poor quality crudes.
(California crude was rather highly regarded). It may have just been
that they were unaware of the US techniques.

Nitprous oxide also was used only at higher altitudes: water methanol
injection was used at low altitude.

The Ta 152H has a watern methanol and nitorous oxide system. The
clipped wing Ta 152C has only water methanol for its BB603LA

The Jumo 213E had a two stage 3 speed supercharger WITH an induction
cooler. It still had water methanol and nitorus oxide (nickamed HA HA
system because Nitorus oxide was laughting gas)

Ta 152H Engine: Junkers Jumo 213E-1 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled
engine rated at 1750 hp for takeoff (2050 hp with MW 50 boost) and
1320 hp at 32,800 feet (1740 feet with GM 1 boost). Maximum speed: 332
mph at sea level (350 mph with MW 50 boost), 465 mph at 29,530 feet
with MW 50 boost, 472 mph at 41,010 feet with GM 1 boost. Service
ceiling was 48,550 feet with GM 1 boost. Initial climb rate was 3445
feet/minute with MW 50 boost. Weights were 8642 pounds empty, 10,472
pounds normal loaded, 11,502 pounds maximum. Wingspan 47 feet 41/2
inches, length 35 feet 1 2/3 inches, height 11 feet 0 1/4 inches, wing
area 250.8 square feet.

The Ta 152C-1 was powered by a Daimler-Benz DB 603LA twelve-cylinder
liquid cooled engine rated at 2100 hp (2300 hp with MW 50) for takeoff
and 1750 hp at 29,530 feet (1900 hp at 27,560 feet with MW 50). Armed
with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds, two
fuselage-mounted 20-mm MG 151 cannon with 250 rpg, and two
wing-mounted 20-mm MG252 cannon with 175 rpg. Maximum speed was 227
mph at sea level (356 mph with MW 50), 436 mph at 37,730 feet (460 mph
at 32,810 feet with MW 50). Initial climb rate was 3050 feet per
minute and service ceiling was 40,350 feet. Weights were 8849 lbs
empty, 10,658 lbs normal loaded, and 11,733 pounds maximum. Wingspan
was 36 feet 1 inch, length was 35 feet 6 1/2 inches, height was 11
feet 1 inch, and wing area was 290.89 square feet.

Thanks for this very useful summary - very much appreciated.

Cheers,

Dave


You might find it interesting to know that the xylidine amine used to
produce the 150 octane fuel was also used by the Germans in their
"Tonka" series of hypergolic storable fuels (the oxidiser was nitric
acid generally). These fuels were intended for the X4 air to air
missile, the Wasserfall SAM and the BMW003R rocket/jet combo. The
Russians used Tonka more or less unchanged for their missiles post
WW2.

Therefor it can be concluded that the Germans were confident of of
being able to produce xylidine in quantity. The compound does however
have many isomers.

Nitric acid sound nasty but but it can't explode, evaporate or
spontaneously decompose when it gets too hot or too cold.

A great deal of info on German WW2 syn fuels can be found at
http://wwww/fischer-tropsch.org

Thanks for the link - I'll check it out.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth