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

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
Slightly off track - the Germans did not seem to place the same level
of importance on recce that the Brits and USAF did. Me109s could (some
did) carry a camera in the aft fuselage like the recce P51s (F6?). A
lightened waxed Me109F or G would have a very good chance of
completing a recce pass on an in-and-out basis flown at max speed on a
curving descent or in-and-out at naught feet (prop tips above the wave
tips).


The Me-109G-8 recce variant had a camera in the aft fuselage and did
conduct some photo recon missions over the channel area in 1944.

Keith

In article , Keith Willshaw
writes

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
. com...
Slightly off track - the Germans did not seem to place the same level
of importance on recce that the Brits and USAF did. Me109s could (some
did) carry a camera in the aft fuselage like the recce P51s (F6?). A
lightened waxed Me109F or G would have a very good chance of
completing a recce pass on an in-and-out basis flown at max speed on a
curving descent or in-and-out at naught feet (prop tips above the wave
tips).


The Me-109G-8 recce variant had a camera in the aft fuselage and did
conduct some photo recon missions over the channel area in 1944.

Keith



Hi Keith,

Do you happen to know whether these were conducted at high level, low
level, or the max speed altitude for the 109G-8?

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

In article , WaltBJ
writes
Slightly off track - the Germans did not seem to place the same level
of importance on recce that the Brits and USAF did. Me109s could (some
did) carry a camera in the aft fuselage like the recce P51s (F6?). A
lightened waxed Me109F or G would have a very good chance of
completing a recce pass on an in-and-out basis flown at max speed on a
curving descent or in-and-out at naught feet (prop tips above the wave
tips). It appears to me that the 86R was declared a 'clay pigeon' when
the LW found out Spits and Mosquitoes, appropriately modifed, could
get up that high. Why the LW didn't use 'hot-rodded' photofighters is
beyond me. Maybe they swallowed the 'XX' turned spies' reports as
gospel.
Walt BJ

Yes, the success of agents like 'Garbo' in feeding duff stuff to the
German High Command was remarkable.

Without wanting to go wildly off-topic, there was a programme on UK TV a
few nights ago ('Spitfire Ace') that had some very useful stuff on the
mentality of the RAF versus the that of Luftwaffe in 1940. The RAF
(through the vision and efforts of Dowding) had created a parless air
defence system, while the Luftwaffe had concentrated overmuch on the
lionisation of its individual pilots. I think that by 1944 the Allies
had developed a war machine that was thorough enough to filter out most
flakey thinking and to concentrate on the real issues. If the Luftwaffe
in 1944 was still relying on the whims of 'gifted individuals' (Hitler,
Goering), who would have prided their own (uncriticised) judgement then
a lot of bad ideas would have good through and a lot of good ideas would
have been turned away.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

: Yes, the success of agents like 'Garbo' in feeding duff stuff to the
: German High Command was remarkable.

The familiar problem, as far as I know:
Too many different intelligence services, every
one a part of the personal empire of a different
Nazi leader, and unwilling or unable to cooperate.
And of course the 'Abwehr' leaked like a sieve.

The Germans did produce recce versions of fighters,
usually with fewer guns and more fuel; in addition
to cameras of course. But I suspect the Bf 109 was
just less adaptable to the task than the Spitfire.
It was even smaller.

The Spitfire had inherited a D-shaped leading edge
structure from its direct ancestor, the Supermarine
227, which used this as a condensor for its
steam-cooled Goshawk engine. This made a great fuel
tank for the long-range reconnaissance versions.
With better fuel and more powerful engines, these
models could also operate at higher weights and
reach higher altitudes than Bf 109s.

On the other hand Ju 88s were less suitable for
reconnaissance than Mosquitoes, because they were
bigger and slower. Still, the Germans did develop
a high-performance recce aircraft in the Ar 234A.

Emmanuel Gustin

In article , Emmanuel.Gustin
writes
Dave Eadsforth wrote:

: Yes, the success of agents like 'Garbo' in feeding duff stuff to the
: German High Command was remarkable.

The familiar problem, as far as I know:
Too many different intelligence services, every
one a part of the personal empire of a different
Nazi leader, and unwilling or unable to cooperate.
And of course the 'Abwehr' leaked like a sieve.

The Germans did produce recce versions of fighters,
usually with fewer guns and more fuel; in addition
to cameras of course. But I suspect the Bf 109 was
just less adaptable to the task than the Spitfire.
It was even smaller.

The Spitfire had inherited a D-shaped leading edge
structure from its direct ancestor, the Supermarine
227, which used this as a condensor for its
steam-cooled Goshawk engine. This made a great fuel
tank for the long-range reconnaissance versions.
With better fuel and more powerful engines, these
models could also operate at higher weights and
reach higher altitudes than Bf 109s.

On the other hand Ju 88s were less suitable for
reconnaissance than Mosquitoes, because they were
bigger and slower. Still, the Germans did develop
a high-performance recce aircraft in the Ar 234A.

Emmanuel Gustin

Thanks for that!

Re. the Ar 234A, I believe that this machine made a number of attacks on
the UK, but I do not know when. Do you happen to have any rough dates?

Also, do you happen to know if the Ar 234 (of any mark) was ever used as
a recce machine over the UK prior to D-Day?

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Dave Eadsforth wrote in message ...
In article , WaltBJ
writes
Slightly off track - the Germans did not seem to place the same level
of importance on recce that the Brits and USAF did. Me109s could (some
did) carry a camera in the aft fuselage like the recce P51s (F6?). A
lightened waxed Me109F or G would have a very good chance of
completing a recce pass on an in-and-out basis flown at max speed on a
curving descent or in-and-out at naught feet (prop tips above the wave
tips). It appears to me that the 86R was declared a 'clay pigeon' when
the LW found out Spits and Mosquitoes, appropriately modifed, could
get up that high. Why the LW didn't use 'hot-rodded' photofighters is
beyond me. Maybe they swallowed the 'XX' turned spies' reports as
gospel.
Walt BJ

Yes, the success of agents like 'Garbo' in feeding duff stuff to the
German High Command was remarkable.

Without wanting to go wildly off-topic, there was a programme on UK TV a
few nights ago ('Spitfire Ace') that had some very useful stuff on the
mentality of the RAF versus the that of Luftwaffe in 1940. The RAF
(through the vision and efforts of Dowding) had created a parless air
defence system, while the Luftwaffe had concentrated overmuch on the
lionisation of its individual pilots.

Honestly this sounds like Brits patting themselves on the back while
not looking at the strategic and tactical issues the Germans faced.
(sadly this is a sort of anasthetic as the UK goes down a sewer)


I think that by 1944 the Allies
had developed a war machine that was thorough enough to filter out most
flakey thinking and to concentrate on the real issues. If the Luftwaffe
in 1944 was still relying on the whims of 'gifted individuals' (Hitler,
Goering), who would have prided their own (uncriticised) judgement then
a lot of bad ideas would have good through and a lot of good ideas would
have been turned away.


German thinking was predicated on the need to fight a short and sharp
war as a nation sourunded by hostile countries. Avoiding a war of
attrition was essential and avoiding a war on German territory was
also essential. The nation was physically to small and to devoid of
materials to handle a war in any other way and not loose thus
substantial offensive capability was emphasised but it was all up
front: resources were not devoted to reinforcements. This was the
thinking even before the Nazis came to power.

Much of the German work on Microwaves and Proximity fuses (which
inspired British research) was suspended because the anything that
could not be ready in 2 years would be a waste. It seems that at
this point that many of the German might have beens got caned.
Examination of this period is perhaps where it might be said that
Germany's technical may be said to lie. It migh also just lay in the
fact that Germany lacked the resources to develop them. The Tiazard
commision handed the proximity fuse and magnetron on a platter for the
USA to develop. The Germans just culled.

The excelent Freya and Wurzburg Radars were not integrated into a
defensive system because the bomber naviagation aids were considered
more important.





Cheers,

Dave

In article , The
Enlightenment writes
Dave Eadsforth wrote in message
news:s9BISHBVA3GAFw82
...
In article , WaltBJ
writes
Slightly off track - the Germans did not seem to place the same level
of importance on recce that the Brits and USAF did. Me109s could (some
did) carry a camera in the aft fuselage like the recce P51s (F6?). A
lightened waxed Me109F or G would have a very good chance of
completing a recce pass on an in-and-out basis flown at max speed on a
curving descent or in-and-out at naught feet (prop tips above the wave
tips). It appears to me that the 86R was declared a 'clay pigeon' when
the LW found out Spits and Mosquitoes, appropriately modifed, could
get up that high. Why the LW didn't use 'hot-rodded' photofighters is
beyond me. Maybe they swallowed the 'XX' turned spies' reports as
gospel.
Walt BJ

Yes, the success of agents like 'Garbo' in feeding duff stuff to the
German High Command was remarkable.

Without wanting to go wildly off-topic, there was a programme on UK TV a
few nights ago ('Spitfire Ace') that had some very useful stuff on the
mentality of the RAF versus the that of Luftwaffe in 1940. The RAF
(through the vision and efforts of Dowding) had created a parless air
defence system, while the Luftwaffe had concentrated overmuch on the
lionisation of its individual pilots.

Honestly this sounds like Brits patting themselves on the back while
not looking at the strategic and tactical issues the Germans faced.
(sadly this is a sort of anasthetic as the UK goes down a sewer)

While I agree that we, as a nation, should be organising our lives
better these days, there is no doubt that the British air defence system
of 1940 was unmatched anywhere else in the world, and no-one, not even
the Germans, dare to claim that Goering's boasts of 1940 held water.

I think that by 1944 the Allies
had developed a war machine that was thorough enough to filter out most
flakey thinking and to concentrate on the real issues. If the Luftwaffe
in 1944 was still relying on the whims of 'gifted individuals' (Hitler,
Goering), who would have prided their own (uncriticised) judgement then
a lot of bad ideas would have good through and a lot of good ideas would
have been turned away.


German thinking was predicated on the need to fight a short and sharp
war as a nation sourunded by hostile countries. Avoiding a war of
attrition was essential and avoiding a war on German territory was
also essential.

The surrounding countries were only hostile because of Hitler's
belligerence - he could have been a peaceful leader had he so chosen.
As for laying odds on a short war - having contingency plans in case
your lightning strike does not work is fundamental to military planning.

The nation was physically to small and to devoid of
materials to handle a war in any other way and not loose thus
substantial offensive capability was emphasised but it was all up
front: resources were not devoted to reinforcements. This was the
thinking even before the Nazis came to power.

Germany had many resources to spare in the early years of the war.
Their industry was still working single shifts until things got really
bad. While Hitler was telling the German people about how well things
were going, Churchill was telling the British that we had to get a
wiggle on or lose - and our industry went to 100 percent from 1940
onwards.

Much of the German work on Microwaves and Proximity fuses (which
inspired British research)

Um...they told us about their work in these fields?

was suspended because the anything that
could not be ready in 2 years would be a waste.

Not a waste, a strategic error - no-one to blame but themselves.

It seems that at
this point that many of the German might have beens got caned.
Examination of this period is perhaps where it might be said that
Germany's technical may be said to lie. It migh also just lay in the
fact that Germany lacked the resources to develop them.

Poor prioritization - no-one to blame but themselves. The proximity
fuse was a small printed circuit that any small group of radio men could
have taken forward - there was no great industrial effort needed here.

The Tiazard
commision handed the proximity fuse and magnetron on a platter for the
USA to develop. The Germans just culled.

Good prioritisation on Tizard's part - hand the designs over to the
people who can mass produce immediately.

The excelent Freya and Wurzburg Radars were not integrated into a
defensive system because the bomber naviagation aids were considered
more important.

Integration was a matter laying telephone connections and training a
limited number of staff. If you have started a war, and it has gone
pear-shaped, and your efforts have simply created a hostile world around
you, air defence should then be recognised as a priority. After 1942
the allies were no longer fighting a war dictated by German initiatives
- they were fighting according to their own.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

(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.

Water injection also results in higher engine power in a slightly
different manner. Without water the fuel controls supply more
fuel than the engine needs, this very rich mixture cools the
charge in the cylinders lowering the pressure and so prevents
detonation. With water, the fuel mixture is automatically leaned
considerably by the 'de-richment valve' therefore producing more
power.
--

-Gord.

"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.

Water injection also results in higher engine power in a slightly
different manner.

No. Water injection only prevents the connecting rod bearings from being
destroyed by detonation. Much the same as an EGR valve on automobile
engines injecting exast gas into the manifold.

"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.

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.

Higher RON number do two things: First they eliminate pre-ignition due
to hot surfaces or the high temperatures caused by compression.
Second they prevent explosive combustion. Combustion should be a
controlled burn at subsonic velocities along a wavefront caused by
thermal conduction explosive combustion (not the technical term) means
that the combustion becomes supersonic and is propagated by infra red
radiation simultaneously in the mixture rather than smoothly along a
wavefront.



Water injection also results in higher engine power in a slightly
different manner.

No. Water injection only prevents the connecting rod bearings from being
destroyed by detonation. Much the same as an EGR valve on automobile
engines injecting exast gas into the manifold.

Water injection does two things:

1 It lowers the temperature of the charge thus preventing preignition.
2 It increase the density of the air and thus allows more air into the
combustion chambers and allows the supercharger to compress the same
amount of air for less work.

When engines are run rich the oversupply of fuel also cools the air in
the same way. Side effect is loss of efficiency and flames and smoke
from exhaust which your enemy can use to guage your intentions.