Better octane more fuel?

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
Post Reply
User avatar
Redbaron1908
Member
Posts: 2023
Joined: 31 Dec 2002, 18:52
Location: Texas

Better octane more fuel?

#1

Post by Redbaron1908 » 12 Dec 2003, 05:20

Hello,

I am intrested in knowing if the Germans were able to produce fuel of better quality could they have had more milage in their transports. If so would it have been a significant number overall in which the Germans would be able to use more veichles or so?

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003, 04:44
Location: Chicago
Contact:

#2

Post by R.M. Schultz » 12 Dec 2003, 10:04

Higher octane fuel gives better performance in engines, but I don't know if it gives better efficiency. I have read that planes such as the Spitfire and Mustang were actually inferior to the ME109 and FW190 and only matched them in performance by using a much higher octane fuel.


User avatar
Grünherz
Member
Posts: 1152
Joined: 07 May 2003, 10:13
Location: California

better octane...

#3

Post by Grünherz » 12 Dec 2003, 10:56

R.M. Schultz wrote:Higher octane fuel gives better performance in engines, but I don't know if it gives better efficiency. I have read that planes such as the Spitfire and Mustang were actually inferior to the ME109 and FW190 and only matched them in performance by using a much higher octane fuel.
Regarding the Mustang...where did you read this? The P-51 Mustang was much more aerodynamic than the ME-109 (Laminar(sp???)-flow wings, lack of counter-balances and other protuberances, plus longer range, etc.). The Me-109 was really obsolescent by the end of the war.
Spitfire...short range but excellent manoueverablity. The FW-190's had a great roll rate but later versions were burdened by excessive "extra" armament for attacking bombers and tanks.
I don't really know the true answers but would appreciate your sources for this.
Tom

Hop
Member
Posts: 571
Joined: 09 Apr 2002, 01:55
Location: United Kingdom

#4

Post by Hop » 12 Dec 2003, 14:13

I have read that planes such as the Spitfire and Mustang were actually inferior to the ME109 and FW190 and only matched them in performance by using a much higher octane fuel.
Standard allied aviation fuel was 100 octane. Standard for the Germans was B4 (87 octane) and C3 (96 octane)

Early war many of the German fighters ran on B4, but that changed later in the war.

For example, if we look at planes from 1944/45, the Mustang had a max speed of around 450 mph, the Spitfire XIV around 450 mph, both on 100 octane. The Fw190D9 about 420 - 430 on C3 (96 octane). The 109 around 450 on C3. Bear in mind the 109 was much smaller than either the Spit or Mustang, with less range than either, and poor manoeuverability compared to the Spit. The 190 had a high wingloading, and poor manoeuverability compared even to the Mustang (although it had good roll rate).

Late in the war, the allies introduced 100/150 octane fuel, where the rich mixture octane rating was effectively 150 octane. The Germans introduced widespread usage of water/methanol injection, which serves as an octane booster.

Increasing octane doesn't increase power. Higher octane reduces the chance of early detonation, so extra power can be developed by increasing the manifold pressure. That's usefull at lower levels, where the change from 100 to 150 octane added about 30 mph to the speed of most allied fighters, but made little difference to the top speeds which are achieved at higher altitudes.

The Germans couldn't make large ammounts of fuel with that sort of octane rating, so they used water/methanol injection instead. It performs exactly the same function as higher octane, it retards detonation, allowing higher boost pressures. The 109, for instance, was limited to 1.8ata manifold pressure on C3, but in March 45 1.98ata on C3 and MW50 was authorised. (50/50 mix of water methanol).

Again, there was little effect on maximum speed, but performance at low altitudes was much better.

User avatar
Redbaron1908
Member
Posts: 2023
Joined: 31 Dec 2002, 18:52
Location: Texas

#5

Post by Redbaron1908 » 12 Dec 2003, 14:51

Hello,

Thanks for all of the intresting replies, would this also be the case for cars and tanks or would it be diffrent?

User avatar
K-9
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: 24 Sep 2003, 18:40
Location: Romania

#6

Post by K-9 » 12 Dec 2003, 15:26

I think higher octane fuel burns faster sa you can't expect longer endurance, but better performance.

About the FW-190: this airplane was a flying engine with guns -a lot of power, high speed, heavy weapons, excelent armour -ideal for hits against bomber formations, bun not so good for dogfight: the Spitfire, or a Yak can easily win a dogfight with a FW-190 -they can perform manouvers that would stall a FW, a FW-190 can only outrun them.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003, 04:44
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: better octane...

#7

Post by R.M. Schultz » 12 Dec 2003, 23:31

tscrawford wrote:Regarding the Mustang...where did you read this?
"Why the Allies Won," by Richard Overy,  New York : W.W. Norton, 1997.

User avatar
KnightMove
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 24 Oct 2003, 00:31
Location: Austria

#8

Post by KnightMove » 13 Dec 2003, 01:44

The Mustang was actually pretty much superior to both German standard fighters, the Me 109 and the FW 190 - in speed, and at least at high altitude in everything. You can't reduce this on the fuel.

User avatar
Mauser K98k
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 04:29
Location: Colorado

#9

Post by Mauser K98k » 13 Dec 2003, 04:04

K-9 wrote:I think higher octane fuel burns faster sa you can't expect longer endurance, but better performance.
Actually, higher octane fuel burns slower. That allows a higher compression ratio (or supercharging boost)--hence more power--without detonation.

User avatar
Steve Arthur
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 29 Sep 2002, 07:21
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: better octane...

#10

Post by Steve Arthur » 13 Dec 2003, 06:08

"Why the Allies Won," by Richard Overy,  New York : W.W. Norton, 1997.[/quote]


This is a good book, though I continue to question some of his conclusions...Sorry off hand without checking my notes I've made I can't provide examples. If you have the chance, read " A War to be Won" Millet.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#11

Post by Harri » 13 Dec 2003, 20:16

The basic problem was that to produce high octane fuel Germans wasted raw oil. Allied only mass produced low octane fuel and added led which made it high octane fuel. They could design all their engines to use high octane fuel but Germans had to continue producing less efficient engines. This also restricted the development of aircraft engines in Germany.

Actually during the war Germans developed jet engines partly because of this "octane problem". This solution was "found" too late because restictions also in use of certain metals (in addition to allied bombings) were major reasons for delays and bad endurance of first jet engines.

tiger001
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 28 Oct 2008, 18:43

Re:

#12

Post by tiger001 » 01 Dec 2014, 20:34

KnightMove wrote:The Mustang was actually pretty much superior to both German standard fighters, the Me 109 and the FW 190 - in speed, and at least at high altitude in everything. You can't reduce this on the fuel.
the fw 190 d9 is a match and superior to the p51
the fw190 is match for p47
the bf109 is match for p51 109 had better armament and more were destroyed to taxing incidents then to any allied action
now the Ta152 (which there is proof of it being produced albiet in small numbers) was superior to any piston engined allied fighter of the time but
the me262 was light years ahead it doesnt matter about the piston engined jagers if you have a jet turbined powered me262 which is vastly superior in EVERY way...


youll find this out by studying kill ratios the germans were quite simply the best
somewhere i read someone stupidfly claim that "germans accounted kills due to engine numbers thus b17=4 kills p51=1 kill
which is total rubbish as 1 b17= 1 kill 4 b17=4 kills its just stated by people who cant handle the fact that the germans were better and the ONLY reason they lost was
americas blatant violation of the hague conference and the geneva convention about neutrality
and the fact that they shifted into high gear in 1943 and that they were basically alone against 51 nations
blah blah blah

Post Reply

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”