Any news on 150 octane fuel?

I haven't followed the Mustang until recently, but is there any news on if it's getting an option for 150 octane fuel? Is it being worked on? Or have the devs said no? Just curious, haven't been able to find any info one way or the other. Seems like we should have the option for it though...

I haven't followed the Mustang until recently, but is there any news on if it's getting an option for 150 octane fuel? Is it being worked on? Or have the devs said no? Just curious, haven't been able to find any info one way or the other. Seems like we should have the option for it though...

As far as i know, there are no scheduled plans for it. I don't recall that ED had denied 150 fuel.

ED is very cautious about this topic.

Modeling 72" p-51 or 25 lbs spits is quite endeavor in DCS.

Second thing is that 150 octane conversion was only field conversion, no p-51 rolled out of factory with 72" WEP, so this case probably missing a lot of data needed to model this.

Lets hope that ED will finally fix 67" boost engine total fail issue. Since spitfire runs 67" too w/o problems in DCS.

Manual states this topic clear, Use it no longer then 5 min at a time or you risk damaging your engine. It says that more then 5 min = risk of damage = not certain damage.

I would be happy to be able to use WEP reliably.

Bump.

An option for the 100/150 grade fuel would be great, in particular for 2TAF.

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

A 150 octane option should be in DCS.

And when the Me262 will be released the 150 octane would ease severe Me-Mimimi pain.:pilotfly:

Fox

The biggest gain would go in to Spitfire, since P-51 USAF used 72" boost with 150 fuel which is very low boost gain compare to P-51 flown by RAF AKA MUSTANG MK which used 80" boost same as spitfire MKIX.

I hope so that we get 150 fuel some day in DCS

Mk IX would be a bloody killer with 25lbs boost.

I think it should get modeled in. Can u explain to me the endevor on adding it? Not being smart just curious

I think it should get modeled in. Can u explain to me the endevor on adding it? Not being smart just curious

i would imagine remoddling the engine fuel and temperature characteristics, meaning higher temps, less headroom for errors in handling and higher fuel consumption, not to mention with the new dm they would then have to worry about the enhanced characterists that i assume are coming with those changes.

also locating documents on changes done to the engine, fuel flow etc would need to be located which may be easier said then done as it was a field modification and not standard from factory, though i'm sure someone has found them in some other threads.

i for one would love to see 150 for the mustang and spitfire as at least after d-day it was being used enough to warrent substansial shipments of the fuel, i believe http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ has the numbers somewhere for 1944.

i'm still holding hope for the mk XIV Spitfire with the griffon engine though with ED' effort seemingly going toward a 1943 scenario i dont see us getting one.

i would imagine remoddling the engine fuel and temperature characteristics, meaning higher temps, less headroom for errors in handling and higher fuel consumption, not to mention with the new dm they would then have to worry about the enhanced characterists that i assume are coming with those changes.

 

also locating documents on changes done to the engine, fuel flow etc would need to be located which may be easier said then done as it was a field modification and not standard from factory, though i'm sure someone has found them in some other threads.

 

i for one would love to see 150 for the mustang and spitfire as at least after d-day it was being used enough to warrent substansial shipments of the fuel, i believe http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ has the numbers somewhere for 1944.

 

i'm still holding hope for the mk XIV Spitfire with the griffon engine though with ED' effort seemingly going toward a 1943 scenario i dont see us getting one.

Additional to this it would enquire whole FM revisit, because i have feeling that simply adding power to the engine will end up with wrong values simulated so whole thing had to be redone and cross checked with war time trials.

If that was so easy they would add 150 fuel long time ago.

Running higher octane fuel would reduce engine temperatures, so that would be welcome in the Mustang.

Running higher octane fuel would reduce engine temperatures, so that would be welcome in the Mustang.

Can you elaborate?

Because what i see is quite opposite

you can use more aggressive ignition timings temp will go higher

you can lean mixture more this will make engine hotter too

and you can use higher boost which as well increase engine temps.

Can you elaborate?

Because what i see is quite opposite

you can use more aggressive ignition timings temp will go higher

you can lean mixture more this will make engine hotter too

and you can use higher boost which as well increase engine temps.

The increased levels of Tetraethyllead acted as an anti-knock agent; when it burns it produces not only lead but also carbon dioxide and water. The small amounts of water and carbon dioxide could potentially act as a partial cooling agent whilst the lead quenches the pyrolysed radicals and thus kills the radical chain reaction that would sustain a cool flame, which causes the "knock" or "detonation".

The increased levels of Tetraethyllead acted as an anti-knock agent; when it burns it produces not only lead but also carbon dioxide and water. The small amounts of water and carbon dioxide could potentially act as a partial cooling agent whilst the lead quenches the pyrolysed radicals and thus kills the radical chain reaction that would sustain a cool flame, which causes the "knock" or "detonation".

This effect is too thin to overcome increased boost, ignition timings and more lean mixture.

But burning fuel makes water too so not much of the change here.

when used at the exact same setup then maybe yes but what's the point then.

From what I understand higher octane fuel takes more energy to ignite, so it pulls heat out of the engine to assist with combustion. I used to think the higher the octane the more 'flammable' the fuel is, but its quite the opposite. The higher the number goes the harder it is to ignite but the more energy it gives off once it ignites. That's how it was explained to me by the more experienced guys when we used to run AV gas in our moto x bikes anyway.

From what I understand higher octane fuel takes more energy to ignite, so it pulls heat out of the engine to assist with combustion. I used to think the higher the octane the more 'flammable' the fuel is, but its quite the opposite. The higher the number goes the harder it is to ignite but the more energy it gives off once it ignites. That's how it was explained to me by the more experienced guys when we used to run AV gas in our moto x bikes anyway.

It gives exact the same energy as lower octane fuel.

Difference is that is has higher temps margin where it can operate as intended.

Unless you are ruining leaner mixture more aggressive ignition timing or higher boost there is no power benefit from higher octane fuel.

Energy required for air fuel ignition is way to small to make any changes in whole engine temps. Main cooling factor of the fuel is due to fuel evaporation, this transition form liquid in to gas state require quite a lot of energy.

Air fuel mixture isn't ignited by piston or cylinder wall or valves, air fuel mixture is ignited by spark so only from spark higher octane fuel will draw more energy.

Higher octane rating is allowing air fuel mixture to survive higher temps and higher pressure w/o self igniting , this allow to run engine at higher ratings, more early ignition, or more lean AirFule for better economy or better power.