AHC: post-1942 Luftwaffe 'sanity options'

hammo1j

Donor
Top priority would be an earlier adoption of the R4M air to air missile. It is simple technology that could have become operational way before OTL March 1945. This could slow American bombing.

The same for centimetric radar for nightfighters. They had sets to copy from 1942 but never took advantage of this until March 45 too.
 
But they did not waste it, AFAIK. So more diesel engines need more production.

Production of diesel fuel will likely remain the same, unless we sink another milions of RM into new refineries/factories. Granted, consumption will increase, however transports and trainers weren't used on a scale remotely close to combat aircraft.

Wut?
Frisch-Thropsh and Bergius produce directly required fuel, contrary to cracking and oil refinery that separate high- from low-octane fuels. I never heard that synfuel production has diesel waste.

Table nicked from here (my remarks in italic):

Erzeugung in Jahrestonnen Anfang 1944
(Total) (out of that, from coal hydration)
Gesamt davon aus Kohlehydrierung
Flugbenzin 1.845.000 1.710.000
Autobenzin 1.575.000 310.000
Dieselöl 1.860.000 610.000
Heizöl 995.000 215.000
Schmieröl 753.000 35.000
Verschiedenes 260.000 35.000

Erzeugung in Jahrestonnen = production in tons per year.
Flugbenzin = AvGas; Autobenzin = gasoline for vehicles; Dieselöl = diesel fuel.
Heizöl = heating oil; Schmieröl = lubricating oil; Verschiedenes = diverse byproducts.
 

marathag

Banned
Frisch-Thropsh and Bergius produce directly required fuel, contrary to cracking and oil refinery that separate high- from low-octane fuels. I never heard that synfuel production has diesel waste.
Straight Line cooking gives you the fixed ratio of each time.
Indirect Coal liquefaction processes (F-T) is gasification of coal to a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, that are later combined to the desired hydriocarbon.
It takes more effort(and losses) to get to AvGas rather than Kerosene or Diesel
 
Straight Line cooking gives you the fixed ratio of each time.
Indirect Coal liquefaction processes (F-T) is gasification of coal to a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, that are later combined to the desired hydriocarbon.
It takes more effort(and losses) to get to AvGas rather than Kerosene or Diesel
Even though the avgas is made of shorter chain, lighter alkanes?

Is it because you need very pure octane?
 
Last edited:
The expense of the catalysts needed, from what I recall
Perhaps that is true but i all seems kind of counterintuitive. Why would the catalysts be any different for these fuels? Isn't the reaction the same? And shouldn't octane be formed prior to the carbon diesel molecules since they have a greater number of carbons added to the molecule?

Perhaps they had to crack the heavier fuels back to isooctane.
 

thaddeus

Donor
Wut?
Frisch-Thropsh and Bergius produce directly required fuel, contrary to cracking and oil refinery that separate high- from low-octane fuels. I never heard that synfuel production has diesel waste.

Straight Line cooking gives you the fixed ratio of each time.
Indirect Coal liquefaction processes (F-T) is gasification of coal to a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, that are later combined to the desired hydriocarbon.
It takes more effort(and losses) to get to AvGas rather than Kerosene or Diesel

my understanding the process involving lignite coal (described as "gently heating") was the one that produced 10% gasoline and 90% diesel.
 
Straight Line cooking gives you the fixed ratio of each time.
Indirect Coal liquefaction processes (F-T) is gasification of coal to a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, that are later combined to the desired hydriocarbon.
It takes more effort(and losses) to get to AvGas rather than Kerosene or Diesel
Exactly: I have never understood why Japan, that has worse syn-plants, did not produce naval syn-bunker-oil and spare natural oil for avgas. Columbus' Egg, maybe.

Table nicked from here (my remarks in italic):



Erzeugung in Jahrestonnen = production in tons per year.
Flugbenzin = AvGas; Autobenzin = gasoline for vehicles; Dieselöl = diesel fuel.
Heizöl = heating oil; Schmieröl = lubricating oil; Verschiedenes = diverse byproducts.
This table only says Germany produce syn-diesel, but I thought you had said syn-diesel was a waste of syn-avgas production.
If syn-diesel is a direct production of Bergius or F-T reactions the problem is only half-solved: yes, syn-diesel is easier to produce, but it still uses coal and plant-production.
BTW, a diesel FW190 behave differently than an avgas one, doesn't it?

EDIT:
my understanding the process involving lignite coal (described as "gently heating") was the one that produced 10% gasoline and 90% diesel.
IIRC no, syn-diesel is easier to produce, but it is not a by-product. That happens in cracking of natural oil.
 
Last edited:
This table only says Germany produce syn-diesel, but I thought you had said syn-diesel was a waste of syn-avgas production.
If syn-diesel is a direct production of Bergius or F-T reactions the problem is only half-solved: yes, syn-diesel is easier to produce, but it still uses coal and plant-production.
BTW, a diesel FW190 behave differently than an avgas one, doesn't it?

Not a waste, but a byproduct.
Fw 190 will not fly on diesel, and I would not advise pouring the diesel fuel in it's tanks even for emergency. Transports and trainers, on the other way...
 
my understanding the process involving lignite coal (described as "gently heating") was the one that produced 10% gasoline and 90% diesel.
Sounds like you don't get enough control over how big your molecules are and the size it favors is diesel.

You could crack it into smaller ones but it wouldn't be precise so only a fairly small fraction would probably be octane or even some smaller things like heptane and benzene (not gasoline; actual benzene), which should be acceptable at certain levels in gasoline if you put enough lead in it.

Could ethanol or methabol have been blended in to make better use of the fuel available and reduce the need for TEL to prevent knocking? I wonder if it might have been fessible to take ethane from natural gas and cracked petroleum and crack it into ethanol. Carbon monoxide can yield methanol.
 
Fw 190 will not fly on diesel, and I would not advise pouring the diesel fuel in it's tanks even for emergency. Transports and trainers, on the other way...
I was misundertood, I mean: is a diesel-engine'd airplane useful to train pilot for avgas-engine'd airplane? I use a diesel car and it behaves very differently than a gasoline one.

Not a waste, but a byproduct.
Ok, so it still use plant and coal, instead of natural diesel that is a "waste" of gasoline cracking.
 
Last edited:
Not a waste, but a byproduct.
Fw 190 will not fly on diesel, and I would not advise pouring the diesel fuel in it's tanks even for emergency. Transports and trainers, on the other way...
Sounds like you don't get enough control over how big your molecules are and the size it favors is diesel.

You could crack it into smaller ones but it wouldn't be precise so only a fairly small fraction would probably be octane or even some smaller things like heptane and benzene (not gasoline; actual benzene), which should be acceptable at certain levels in gasoline if you put enough lead in it.

Could ethanol or methabol have been blended in to make better use of the fuel available and reduce the need for TEL to prevent knocking? I wonder if it might have been fessible to take ethane from natural gas and cracked petroleum and crack it into ethanol. Carbon monoxide can yield methanol.
my understanding the process involving lignite coal (described as "gently heating") was the one that produced 10% gasoline and 90% diesel.
I try to be more clear: if I produce syn-avgas, is diesel an unavoidable by-product, as it is in natural oil refinery and cracking? AFAIK, no.
 
I was misundertood, I mean: is it useful a diesel-engine'd airplane to train pilot for avgas-engine'd airplane? I use a diesel car and it behaves very differently than a gasoline one.

Good question. I believe that the answer is yes. The diesel engine should respond differently than the avgas. I think it would be best to use gasoline engines for the advanced trainers.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, so it still use plant and coal, instead of natural diesel that is a "waste" of gasoline cracking.
With both, you have too much diesel relative to gasoline. Best to keep as many vehicles diesel as possible, I would think.
 
I try to be more clear: if I produce syn-avgas, is diesel an unavoidable by-product, as it is in natural oil refinery and cracking? AFAIK, no.
I believe that it is the same as in a natural refinery. I am not sure whether this problem can be improved by changing the conditions. I may read up on it.
 
I was misundertood, I mean: is it useful a diesel-engine'd airplane to train pilot for avgas-engine'd airplane? I use a diesel car and it behaves very differently than a gasoline one.

You don't just shove the healthy individuals into a hi-performance fighter and go your merry way. They start with gliders, then go into basic trainers (like the Bü 131; the candidates deemed not fit for the job are removed from further training), then on advanced trainers (like the Fw 56; again, the ones deemed not fit for the job are removed from further training), then you train them on actual combat aircraft. Basic trainers can use diesel engines.
 
Ar232 was a wonderful machine. I would trade all FW200's Bramo Fafnir for them: Do26 was a better V-LRMP. EDIT although not an opportunistic naval bomber, too frail as Norway showed.



Why diesel? There were different low-quality fuels (alcool) for training duties that avoid overloading Junkers.


Germans were already using diseal aircraft engines in the He-111 and other aircraft
The Jumo 205 diesel powerplant replaced the BMW VI. Nevertheless, the maximum speed remained in the 220–240 km/h (137–149 mph) bracket. This was increased slightly when the BMW 132 engines were introduced.[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111
Junkers Jumo 205
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205
 
Biggest problem the German air force faced was it was fighting too many enemies on too many fronts
1. Avoid war with America at all costs.
2. Air force needs to avoid supplying troops behind enemies lines.
3. Air force needs more secure radio codes.
4. Air force needs to pass naval airborne recon to the Navy
5. Promote Adolf Galland and retire Hermann Göring to be in charge of national parks.
6. Promote Albert Speer to control production of aircraft etc.

I am not sure if any of this will make a real difference. Hitlers problem go well beyond the need for air force reform.

Best book I have seen on the subject is
also in web site below
Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 - Ibiblio
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/index.html#index
I pretty much already said this and a bunch more in a previous post.
 
I believe that it is the same as in a natural refinery. I am not sure whether this problem can be improved by changing the conditions. I may read up on it.
AFAIK hydrogenization converts coal directly in the required fuel, while cracking separate diesel from gasoline and the like but diesel is yet existent.

Germans were already using diseal aircraft engines in the He-111 and other aircraft
The Jumo 205 diesel powerplant replaced the BMW VI. Nevertheless, the maximum speed remained in the 220–240 km/h (137–149 mph) bracket. This was increased slightly when the BMW 132 engines were introduced.[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111
Junkers Jumo 205
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205
I pretty much already said this and a bunch more in a previous post.
Problem is, aircraft diesel engines were inferior to gasoline one: Jumo 208 was tested in 1941 and it had less Kw than a 1939 gasoline engine.
Or Diesel is choosen for supply issues (like BV138 that was ressuplied by uboat diesel tanker or @tomo pauk idea of diesel trainer) or it is better to convert land unit to diesel and spare gasoline for avgas.
 
Last edited:
Top