Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-02-2012, 01:32 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Just explain to everyone why it is that people far more qualified than you say the fuel was blended at the refineries,
It says they made the 100 grade stock. The article explains how they making regular gasoline stock using catalytic cracking produced a stock pure enough to be have alkylation it was made into 100 grade fuel stock.

Of course they blended the alkylates at the refinery. Stockyards do not have the equipment to do that kind of operation. Stockyards today do not perform alkylation either.

Fuel stock is what gets shipped from the refinery. It is not the fuel that goes into airplane tanks.

Even aircraft oil requires blending. An extreme example is for Lycoming engines that you can find oil that is already blended or you must blend it yourself. There is an mandatory service bulletin that requires certain Lycoming engines to use LW-16702. Lycoming highly recommends the additive for all of their engines.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/supp...dfs/SB471B.PDF

Here you can buy the additive and blend it yourself....

Quote:
Avco Lycoming has approved oil additive LW-16702 that contains an anti-scuffing agent and can dramatically reduce engine wear. This additive is applicable to all Avco Lycoming piston aircraft engines, and factory recommends use at every oil change or every 50 hours, whichever occurs first.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...iladditive.php

Or you can buy the oil already blended:

Quote:
Contains additive LW16702 which reduces engine wear and corrosion.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...shelloils3.php

Either way, if you fly a certain Lycoming engine, you must have use it.

Last edited by Crumpp; 04-02-2012 at 01:36 PM. Reason: added link to service bulletin
  #2  
Old 04-02-2012, 09:24 PM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

As per usual Crumpp, you have not explained anything by diverting into modern peacetime practices.

Please explain why the RAF issued 62,000 tons of 100 Octane between July and end of October 1940, consumed 52,000 tons, yet just over 15,000 tons was needed to fly every defensive sortie flown between July 10 and October 6?

And, no I don't care what happens in the private aviation business now, it would be good if you could explain: what happened to some 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in 1940?

May I repeat that?

What happened to 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel?

The rest of your claims - that only 16 Squadrons ever used the stuff until sometime in September - are based on Morgan and Shacklady which, as I have explained very carefully, based their claims on a pre-war planning paper, which is a highly suspect way of explaining what happened in wartime, when Britain was facing a full scale air assault and the possibility of invasion.

In fact the entire section of the use of 100 Octane fuel in Morgan and Shacklady is a deeply flawed analysis of what happened in 1940. For example, they claim that lots of tankers carrying 100 Octane were sunk by U-Boats etc, but provide absolutely NO evidence to back the claim up. In fact something like 78 tankers (Barbi's figures) were sunk between September 1939 and November 1940 while 1,150 unloaded their cargoes in Britain during the same period. Just because Morgan and Shacklady are great at describing the technical details of Spitfires it doesn't mean that they have a complete grasp of all historical events of the times.

All Crumpp can come up with is absolutely nothing. Why he wants to believe so fervently - so religiously (evidence of things unseen) and rigidly - that the RAF used very limited amounts of 100 Octane fuel is beyond me, and I don't really care. I have far more important things to do than bother with his nonsense and blather any more.

Last edited by NZtyphoon; 04-02-2012 at 09:30 PM.
  #3  
Old 04-02-2012, 10:33 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

I see Eugene is doing his usual song and dance routine evading answering direct questions.

He knows he is wrong about only 16 squadrons but as he is never wrong, he won't admit he is wrong. If he was so sure of only 16 squadrons, then why hasn't he given their numbers.

Which 16 squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were using 100 fuel in September Eugene?

Which squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were still using 87 fuel in September Eugene?

We won't get an answer, as like Barbi, he expects others to do his research and then won't believe the research of others when presented.
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.