Octane rating

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Octane rating

Post by Historiker »

ORIGINAL: inqistor
ORIGINAL: Historiker
ORIGINAL: inqistor

Another fun fact:
Since 1944, there was no maintenance of planes on Japanese Carriers (no specialized crew onboard). They were supposed to be serviced only, when ships reached port.
Can you give me a source for that?
I am pretty sure it was in one of documents about Japanese Carriers, but I have lots of it, and hard to guess which one.

Take a look at this part from page 23 of TMJ AT A-11 "Aeronautics Targets: Aircraft arrangements and handling, facilities in Japanese Naval Vessels" 4th February 1946. Although I am sure, this is not the exact document I was reading it

Image
great, thank you!
I am actually working on an article about carriers (though focused on the Shi-Lang), so this is awesome! [:)]

http://www.scribd.com/haraoi_conal/d/48 ... ssels-1946
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Octane rating

Post by Historiker »

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
Additionally since so many American men had been tinkering with cars before going into uniform, it raised the baseline quality of the mechanics quite a bit.
and just to take this a bit off topic It seems a shame that "car mechanic" is not really a respected profession anymore. My village only has one. Fortunately he is good but the lack of completion has made him expensive. I think the emphasis on everybody getting a higher degree has really devalued skilled craftsman and tradesman. Maybe thats just my part of the world. Everybody out there have a good auto mechanic or dare I say can perform there own basic car repairs?
That's why my MA is useless if I want to emmigrate to Australia, but if I were a decend craftsmen, they would immediately let me in...
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11125
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Octane rating

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: JWE

Well, here's a good one for our technical experts to comment on in this regard.

Forget who it was, but somebody taught the boys at Taiwan to fly reeeally leeean so they could get to PI and still have a couple minutes of combat power. As I recall, they were at cylinder temp red-line tho whole way. Maybe one of our experts could comment on how this was done. Maybe one of our experts could comment on what would have happened with a plane designed for a higher octane fuel and a higher head temperature. Could our planes have gone lean and gotten that much better range characteristics?
They did ... remember the P-38 mission that got Yamamoto? They were using that "trick".

Allies just didn't use for the norm as they didn't plan missions with such tight tolerances. They used looser tolernances in general => higher odds of success. There are plenty of exceptions to this (Doolittle's Raid, etc.), but they really are the exception and we know them as such.

IJ planned missions much tighter .. look at the fighter coverage over Guadacanal from Rabaul. Extreme limits for the Zero. Did it work? Yes and no. They got coverage, but lost a lot of a/c and pilots. I don't think the allies would have done it. Maybe one or two missions as a surge, but not as routine. In the end most of us think that the coverage from Rabaul is a bad idea. Right?
Pax
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11125
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Octane rating

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

It goes to maintenance in general. The US was just better at providing the support and structure for maintaining complex machines. I've read that the US had a ton of kids that were used to tinkering with farm machinery when they were called up. Internal combustion engines were not unusual for them so the transition into a more complex engine maintenance was not that far of a leap. It was probably true for all engineering disciplines from aircraft mechanic to SeaBee. Education was highly regarded at the time and not at the expense of blue collar skills. This may have also been true in Germany, Australia and England but perhaps not so much in Japan. No doubt Japan had some excellent mechanics with the very best being on the CV's that were the equal of the Allies, after that it may have dropped off. Combine that with a disrupted supply chain, inter-service stupidity, sometimes poor fuel, some malnutrition and a fundamental disregard for human lives and you have an increasingly separate situation

All true. The Japanese were able to mitigate this early on by providing lavish training for a very small force. When they tried to rapidly expand their quality dropped sharply.


Well, this plus the fact that only a small proportion of the Japanese population had been educated up to the high school level. Many rural Japanese's (the majority) education did not go beyond grammar school level. You can make a good soldier out of this material but not necessarily a good mechanic.

We use this a lot in this forum, and I have to laugh. Mechanics in the US in the 40's hadn't finished high school either. At least out here in the West. All those guys were off the farm or ranch. Schooling stopped at 6th or 7th grade mostly. Formal education wasn't needed to fix a car, pratical experience with it was. Also in the 40's, most farms were still draft horse. Tractors were a luxury that family farms simply didn't have. At the time (according to the photos on the wall), our COOP had one, and only one. You got it maybe 4 - 5 days per year.

So, yes American kids were fascinated by cars/tractors and worked on them when they could. Japanese kids would have been too. Granted, not nearly as much access, but they would have been used to repairing/fixing/making much of the same un-motorized equipment as American farmers. i.e. they would have had pretty good mechanical skills because you needed those to survive at that time. How to use a hammer, a wrench, a screwdriver, etc.

I don't think the manpower training issue was all that big a deal. I really beleive it was more about parts and inventory management. The allies had a surfeit of parts after about '43, the IJ never enjoyed that.
Pax
User avatar
JohnDillworth
Posts: 3104
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:22 pm

RE: Octane rating

Post by JohnDillworth »

I don't think the allies would have done it. Maybe one or two missions as a surge, but not as routine. In the end most of us think that the coverage from Rabaul is a bad idea. Right?
I don't think the allies would have done it. Maybe one or two missions as a surge, but not as routine. In the end most of us think that the coverage from Rabaul is a bad idea. Right?

Not so sure. The US was plenty willing to let a p-51 or P-47 escort bombers into the heart of the Reich. That had to be 6 plus hours each way ,no? That is a long, long time to be sitting on your parachute. At least the bomber crews could move around. Had to effect pilot effectiveness to. You could not be as fresh as the other guy after being stuck in the plane for 6 hours
Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7690
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Octane rating

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Refining methods in the 40's were pretty standard across the board. The real difference lay in the crude. The US was refining at that time principally TX and PA crudes, which are considered quite "sweet". This means both light and very few impurities. The Venezuela and Mexico crudes imported at the time (and continue today) are the opposite, quite heavy and a lot of heavy metals => more difficult to refine.

Don't forget California. In the 1940s California was the #2 oil producer in the US. Pennsylvania was not producing that much at that point. It's early finds had mostly played out.

The largest single oil field in the US is in California (west of Bakersfield - Midway/Sunset) and the Navy owned a very large chunk of oil property until the 1990s. All the oil/fuel available in Los Angeles in game represents the oil produced from Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles. The LA area as well as the Bay Area has many refineries to refine this oil.

In the 1940s most of the CA oil was light, sweet crude, but the stuff produced today is very heavy. Some of the refineries have been converted to crack the heavy oil so as to produce gasoline.

My sister is a petroleum geologist who was doing production in Midway-Sunset back in the 80s. I think she mostly works Canadian exploration these days.
US used those mostly for bunker oil refined along the Texas coast. Separate refineries were built just to handle those crudes.

Venezuela to this day is very dependent on the US for refining their crude. refineries specifically designed to handle Venezuelan crude were built on the US Gulf Coast. They've tried making deals with other countries to sell their crude, but they can't get a very good price because of the low quality and nobody else can refine it.

Mexico was one of the top producers in the Western Hemisphere for 60+ years. They too produced mostly light, sweet crude in the 1940s, but their production has been getting heavier in recent years. Their fields are also showing serious signs of depletion. A geophysicist friend said he was looking at Mexico's production numbers and they are falling off a cliff. In another decade they will be only a minor producer. The next question about Mexico is what they are going to do financially when the oil is gone.
Japan was of course working with DEI crudes in the main. [;)] Those are middle, not sweet, but not terribly bad either. So, in the refining process of then, yes, IJ AV Gas would have had more impurities. 50 hours though is neglible as far as the gas contaminants from the oil are concerned. 500 - 1000 hours maybe you will see some effects (metal fatigue from trace elements), but I'm not even sure of that. You have to remember that air engines get a lot more maintenance than your car and parts like cylinders are designed to be replaced. Also, war is hard on equipment. More likely to replace a cylinder due to war damage or over boost than due to gas contaminant.

The Japanese were predominantly using DEI oil because the US refused to sell enough to them. I think the DEI/Borneo oil varied quite a bit ranging from some light, sweet to heavy.

Aircraft engines usually had fairly short combat lives before they were pulled and rebuilt. To stay lightweight, a lot of aircraft engines made more use of aluminum. Aluminum did have some nice properties like very good heat dissipation (better than iron, copper is about the only thing better), but aluminum also is a soft metal with some properties that aren't so great.

Steel can take a given load indefinitely. If you put steel under tension, as long as it doesn't rust and it isn't enough to distort the steel initially, it will hold up to that tension pretty much forever. Aluminum in the same loading situation will start to crack and eventually shatter.

This is why aluminum aircraft are routinely checked for aircraft cracks. The Aloha Airlines 737 that had the top pop off back around 1990 had it happen because the constant pressurization and depressurization cycles weakened the airframe. (In a very ironic twist the day before that accident Boeing announced a new 737 convertible model which was supposed to convert between cargo and passenger load very easily).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

Bill
WIS Development Team
User avatar
ilovestrategy
Posts: 3614
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:41 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

RE: Octane rating

Post by ilovestrategy »

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

....Who the hell is WITPAE Black Ops? Helppppppppppppppppp.................

Oh my....ROFL LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [:D]
After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!
Image
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11125
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Octane rating

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
I don't think the allies would have done it. Maybe one or two missions as a surge, but not as routine. In the end most of us think that the coverage from Rabaul is a bad idea. Right?
I don't think the allies would have done it. Maybe one or two missions as a surge, but not as routine. In the end most of us think that the coverage from Rabaul is a bad idea. Right?

Not so sure. The US was plenty willing to let a p-51 or P-47 escort bombers into the heart of the Reich. That had to be 6 plus hours each way ,no? That is a long, long time to be sitting on your parachute. At least the bomber crews could move around. Had to effect pilot effectiveness to. You could not be as fresh as the other guy after being stuck in the plane for 6 hours
Yes, but that was with normal/standard carb settings and well within DT ranges here. A long flight, sure. pushing the range of the fighter? Not really. I'm referring to putting together missions right at the edge of the envelope in terms of range of your aircraft. Where the pilot has only a few minutes over target and then he has to swim home. I'd have to ask Gene what the planning basis was but I'll bet not less than 20 minutes fuel reserve (cruise).

For the Zero to make Lunga from Rabaul, they had to play with the carb settings all the way, and then only a few minutes over target. Really max range. Take any damamge at all, and you have to swim home. That P-38 mission is one of the few that I can recall that the US did that for .... it stands out because they did it. It's talked about that way ... they had only a few minutes of loitering at the ambush point. If Yamamoto's aircraft is early or late, they miss him.
Pax
User avatar
steamboateng
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:10 pm
Location: somewhere in Massachusetts

RE: Octane rating

Post by steamboateng »

Somewhat OT; but to cotribute to the general conversation:
Mexican and Venuzualan crudes were a 'sour crude'; having a relatively high sulphor content. A tanker load of that stuff was smelt all over the ship! The refining process generally could not remove all the sulphor without special processing. Sulphor, when burned, left an abrasive ash, i.e engine wear. As mentioned above, residual heavy metals also contributed to engine wear.

Shipboard bunkers:
Marine bunker fuels were a mixture of the heavy residues left after the distillation process, and cut with low grade distillates to bring it within the relevent API standards.
Generally there were two flavors of bunkers:
'Bunker C'-commercial grade bunkers suitable for merchant ship use; a heavy fuel with a specific gravity in the .985-.999 range. This fuel had to heated to approx. 220-230 deg. F to lower the viscosity enough to be efficiently atomized at the burner.
'Navy Special'-A heavy fuel mixed to USN standards. It was lighter than Bunker C, with a specific gravity in the .985 range. This fuel was heated to 180 deg. F for efficient atomization.
The USN specification for bunkkers was aimed at obtainining a 'cleaner' fuel. Heavy metals, specifically vanadium, contributed to the deterioration of boiler fireside brickwork. This condition was known as 'spalling'; which caused the firebrick to flake away.
Diesel fuels containing vanadium also contribute to excessive engine wear, valve fouling, etc.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Octane rating

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Reno Air Race guys tune their engines and make up their own mix of fuels for their planes. Some of the octane ratings are insanely high. Over 200 if I remember right. Some of the additives are so nasty the pit crews need to wear hazmat suits to handle the fuel.

The US made 100 and 140 octane fuel. 100 was the most commonly used, but some planes used 140. The B-29 is the only one I recall using 140 off the top of my head.

I know today they Europeans use a different calculation to come to octane ratings. A European 87 octane rating is closer to 91 by the American calculations. I ran into this with a friend who is a British immigrant and a motorhead. He was wondering why British cars performed better on lower octane fuels than the same car with the same engine in the US.

To elaborate on what Warspite said, the higher the octane rating, the slower burning the fuel is. A low octane fuel burns very quickly, so the cylinders basically get a quick hammer blow. High octane fuel burns slowly, so the cylinders get a smoother, longer push. That's why higher octane fuel gets more oomph out.

I know the Germans essentially had 87 and 91 octane during the war. I'm not sure what ratings the Japanese had. I wouldn't be surprised if they were going as low as 81 octane near the end. I know they were using turpentine for some fuel (probably a blend) at the end of the war.

Bill

You hit the key word right there. "Tune" When we say an engine 'designed' for higher octane fuel it's essentially saying the engine is already pre-tuned to use level of octane fuel likely to be put into it. Aircraft engines are designed to handle high pressures and stresses and depending on the level of use/combat will quickly wear anyway. So a 'well made' and maintained Ki-84 for example, could utilize 100o. fuel if it was properly tuned for it after construction. Key is in the maintenance and quality control which is where the Japanese industry really fell by the wayside by 1944. As for the norm.....iirc the Japanese preferred a 92octane level fuel but as you said this requirement dipped as the war tightened it's logistical grip. I recall a missive from Ki-84 drivers in the PI's complaining about having to use below 92o. fuel to ferry their aircraft there.
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Octane rating

Post by mdiehl »

Nikadmeus, all of that is just wrong. You can get an engine to run on almost any octane. You can't TUNE an engine that was designed for 87 octane to disperse heat just as fast with 100 Octane unless you design the entire engine from the get go to disperse the heat from burning higher octane fuel. That means bigger air intake and oil coolers for starters. Likewise, you can't get more HP out of an engine designed for 87 octane by "TUNING" it for 100 Octane. You get exactly the same compression because compression is entirely a function of the change in cylinder combustion-chamber volume through the piston stroke.

So no, putting 100 Octane in a Ki-84 doesn't get you a "better Ki-84." It gets you a Ki-84 that has an even-briefer-than-usual service life. The only reason to put 100 Octane in a Ki-84 would be if you suspected that the 87 Octane you're taking in delivery is really impure or not reallty an 87 octane fuel.

Given the choice between a Ki-84 knocking and crudding up because the 87 Octane is reallty 80 octane, versus 100 Octane, you'd use the 100 Octane. Given the choice between a Ki-84 running on a clean 87 Octane versus 100 Octane, you'd use the 87 Octane because the plane performs the same. You can't "tune it" to get higher performance out of the 100 Octane fuel. All you can do is shorten the service life of the engine by burning the wrong fuel.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Octane rating

Post by JWE »

I think even these days, there's still some planes that have manual mixture controls; not the bling-blings, but the little puddle hoppers. And it used to be, maybe 50 years ago, that some planes had a "spark" control. Back then, when I was learning to fly, I asked the stupid question, "hey, what's this for?" and got told, "nothing you need to know about, so DON'T TOUCH IT!!". Woof !! Eventually learned that "spark" advanced or retarded the timing by a degree or two, either way. It was empirical. You leaned out, watched the cylinder temp gauge, and fiddled with 'spark' to get 'temp' to a minimum. Worked really good for long flights (Hey, Davis Island to Freeport is a loong way in a Piper Arrow). Learned from Dad who grew up flying biplanes and ended up flying F4Us in 1945. He's not famous, he's not even a hot-shot: he's just a good pilot who knows his airplane and values his ass. He's one of the 7 physicians who established the US Kidney Foundation, and he was the guy who was flying the kindeys around. Me and my sisters spent lots of hours in a cockpit when we were growing up.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Octane rating

Post by Nikademus »

interesting. lol. DONT TOUCH IT!

I can visualize that scene. [:D]
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11125
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

Octane rating - What it gets you

Post by PaxMondo »

If I'm building an engine, and I do, one of the first things I do is settle on the octane of fuel I intend to burn.  Because that is going to set my compression ratio.  High octane fuel, as it does not pre-detonate in the compression stage (think diesel engine), allows an engine designer to go with higher compression ratios.  Referring here to compression prior to any boost.  So, with 86 octane at sea level, I can go with 8:1 compression.  With 96 octane, I might get 10:1 or maybe 10.5:1.  This gets me more power per revolution because I can pack more air/fuel mix into the combustion chamber each cycle.  Simple.

Ok, not simple.  Why?  Because I have a big bag of tricks here.  Remember, the goal is to get max expansion per combustion cycle.  The common way is via fuel/air.  But as I stated earlier, water has some nice expansion characteristics as well.  Methanol is even more interesting as it has the expansion of water but also it will burn.  And it lower the freeze point.  This is just the fuel side. 

Now I have to look at the air side.  I can use turbo (exhaust gas driven) or super (mechanical driven) chargers.  Used together and these are called twin chargers.  Turbos are nice as they are efficient, but they have lag.  It takes time for the exhaust gas to spin up the blower and get power.  Supers are great for response, but they take direct engine power to drive so not as efficient.  Twins are just ideal, they just cost $$$ and are maintenance pigs.  But I love'em.  You get the benefits of both, high cruise power at low rpm and then a rocket when you "pull the tit" (engage the super blower).

Take your blower arrangement and add in water/methanol injection and you can control pre-detontation with almost any reasonable fuel.  Especially now with onboard computer and detontation sensors.

So now at the very final analysis, all that high octane fuel gets you is more power per drop of fuel as it has more energy per liter.  But you can always squirt a little more fuel in to compensate as the volume of fuel in the combustion stroke is awful small.

Proof of this pudding, even in 40's is that the Germans with very similar octane issues were able to maintain engine performance.

As an engine designer do I prefer high octane fuel?  Sure.  Can I work around it?  Yep.  Do racers use high octane?  Yep.  But now you are talking about comparisons where 0.1% horsepower differences are going to win or not and engine designs that are measured in very short lifetimes (NASCAR = 5 hours, NHRA 5 minutes).  Neither of these examples apply to us.  We need engines good for 100's or even 1000's of hours.  I design mine to be good for 50,000 miles (+1000 loaded hours).
Pax
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11125
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Octane rating

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: JWE

I think even these days, there's still some planes that have manual mixture controls; not the bling-blings, but the little puddle hoppers. And it used to be, maybe 50 years ago, that some planes had a "spark" control. Back then, when I was learning to fly, I asked the stupid question, "hey, what's this for?" and got told, "nothing you need to know about, so DON'T TOUCH IT!!". Woof !! Eventually learned that "spark" advanced or retarded the timing by a degree or two, either way. It was empirical. You leaned out, watched the cylinder temp gauge, and fiddled with 'spark' to get 'temp' to a minimum. Worked really good for long flights (Hey, Davis Island to Freeport is a loong way in a Piper Arrow). Learned from Dad who grew up flying biplanes and ended up flying F4Us in 1945. He's not famous, he's not even a hot-shot: he's just a good pilot who knows his airplane and values his ass. He's one of the 7 physicians who established the US Kidney Foundation, and he was the guy who was flying the kindeys around. Me and my sisters spent lots of hours in a cockpit when we were growing up.
Yep, absolutely. Not sure they still build'em, but there are still a lot of them flying with both fuel mix and spark advance pilot controls.

I do the same thing when I have to pass inspection. Lean it way out, retard the spark. Pass the emissions test, have the testers look under the hood and try to figure out how the heck I am passing, ('68 Mustang with 302 4bbl, 5spd, and a moderate cam aren't supposed to pass) get back home and retune it back up. [;)] Have to do it every July. Pass every year by a mile.
Pax
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Octane rating - What it gets you

Post by Historiker »

That's one of the great things about this game. With it's avarage player age of well above 40, the combined knowledge through experience and education is astonishing.
Just imaging asking such a qeustion in a "Counterstrike" or "Battlestations Midway" forum... [:D]
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Octane rating

Post by JWE »

Thank you Glen for the PM, but I really don't know jack about military airplanes. I fly planes like I ride motorcycles, a fun way to get to there from here. I'm just an ordinary dude. There's lots of people who know oh so much more about airplanes in a military context.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Octane rating - What it gets you

Post by Nikademus »

nicely put Pax.

[:)]
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Octane rating

Post by mdiehl »

That was a good summary, PaxMondo. The upshot is the engine has to be designed to make use of the higher octane fuel. Which is of course the whole point. Just adding higher octane fuel to an engine designed for a different octane fuel and then fussing with the "tuning" isn't going to get you better performance.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Octane rating

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Yep, absolutely. Not sure they still build'em, but there are still a lot of them flying with both fuel mix and spark advance pilot controls.
Don't think they do anymore. Some are still flying, but the regulations are killing them. They exist, but they are hanger queens. Oh, too bad.
I do the same thing when I have to pass inspection. Lean it way out, retard the spark. Pass the emissions test, have the testers look under the hood and try to figure out how the heck I am passing, ('68 Mustang with 302 4bbl, 5spd, and a moderate cam aren't supposed to pass) get back home and retune it back up. [;)] Have to do it every July. Pass every year by a mile.
You sound like my kind of pilot, Pax. Although you play with planes that I wouldn't be allowed close to, except in the back seat, sounds like you have all that stuff wired. I got a ride, once, a long time ago. A really long time ago. And in and out of the clouds, up into the sun, and then diving torquewise into the capital cumulus. Flipping upside-down and doing an inside loop to resurrect on a cloud top. WooF !!
I think you are someone who can undertand the simple thrill of flying.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”