Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[Crumpp]

It is as I stated, you simply do not just lower the engine oils viscosity when you mix gasoline products in it. Gasoline also acts as a solvent and that includes decreased oil film pressure resistance, like shear stress and tensile stress capabilities. It doesn't reduce wear in the sense that thinned out oil, using gasoline, works as a lower viscosity purpose refined oil, it makes it more fluid. What you do is that you only lower the viscosity but in the same time you alter its characteristics needed for other things besides flow. That's the difference.

It was good enough for the engineers to include it as the standard winter starting system on all Luftwaffe aircraft.

You can look in Teil 7 of the Flugzeug Handbuch for the FW-190 series for a more complete description.

Gasoline also acts as a solvent

Germans did not use natural petroleum fuels.....

Their avgas is more like a light oil with a distinctive burned coal smell to it. We have a few gallons to give White One's cockpit an authentic smell, LOL.

[kimosabi]

It was good enough because it was wartime and things had to be done. That doesn't mean it wasn't a compromise.

Avgas still needs to work as avgas, all gasolines are basically petroleum(oil) products, the biggest difference between oil and gasoline are additives and destillation. For a gasoline engine to run you need fuel with higher energy than oil, for that you need to add ingredients to it. Those ingredients usually also make it work as a solvent. Even though they had a "light oil" etc. they still had to use something that worked as gasoline. No chance in hell those engines put out their full output on "light oil".

[JtD]

While the fuel - oil mix certainly isn't good for the engine, it probably is still better to use it once every two weeks than having the engine being started up every hour for two weeks straight, only to be used once. Also, fuel is only one thing saved, it also saves a load of man hours, which is just as important.

[Blackdog_kt]

I'm honestly confused about the point being argued

From where i'm standing the whole thing reads like "we don't want to burn fuel warming up every hour, so we just use oil dilution to cut out the warm-up time from a possible scramble sequence".

Compromise or not, it was considered a good enough practice that most if not all USAF warbirds had an oil dilution system as well.

[kimosabi]

Well, my point regarding fuel was that the oil/fuel mixing stuff on the western front started as a fuel saving measure. Which two of you didn't believe until(hopefully) I posted a direct quote, and from there it went the usual forum way. Picking out one liners from my posts to find something else to argue etc. Either way, I'm done with that topic yo. Let's go back to how the LW got butthurt over BoB 'ol chaps!

[Blackdog_kt]

Ah, i see...you were arguing the reason behind it while i read it as "fuel savings is a direct consequence of oil dilution"...in any case it makes sense now, cheers

[Crumpp]

Well, my point regarding fuel was that the oil/fuel mixing stuff on the western front started as a fuel saving measure. Which two of you didn't believe until(hopefully) I posted a direct quote,

I had no contention on the fuel savings. I was pointing out that using a fuel oil mix to start the engine once was an improvement over the reduction in service life from continuous starts and ground runs.

You said it was bad for the engine, I pointed out the system became standard because it is better for the engine than the repeated ground runs.