Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

Can any members help with a query on Russian aviation fuel?
I understand there were five kinds based upon octane ratings; B-100, B-95, B-89, B-78, B-70. I suspect that little B-100 or B-95 reached fighter units and most used B-89. I assume B-78 was used by bombers and twin-engined transports while B-70 was used by trainers and the U-2/Po-2 but if anyone has more detailed information I would welcome clarification.
I have been informed this octane rating, and that of the German B4, C4 and what-ever fuel was used for trainers, was based upon the Motor Octane Number (MON) while the Allies used a higher rating based upon the Research Octane Number (RON).
Can anyone confirm this and provide the RON for Russian and German fuels?

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

A few links you might find interesting (you may have already found these):

(A Link was from removed here, see alternate links in post 4 below).

Regarding Soviet Aviation Gas, supposedly they received a lot of their fuel via lend-lease.
http://www.oilru.com/or/47/1006/

I have seen a source say that 59% of their aviation gas was via lend-lease.

There may be another factor at play here, as discussed in a few other threads:

http://www.broquet.co.uk/history.htm

http://www.carburetters.co.uk/Fuelcat.php

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/...oviet-service/

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

I urge caution be used if you click on the first link posted by RSwank above.
my Norton anti-virus blocked an attack by a fake web-page when I clicked on it.

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

Kurlannaiskos, this seems to be the same article as the first link only this is in Google Books. See if you get an error on it. Section starts with the heading:

"WWII and octane ratings."

https://books.google.com/books?id=Bn...alf%2C&f=false


The same article is pasted into this thread about half way down the page. Starts with the Sentence "During World War II Germany imported much of is oil from Rumania"

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...postcount=1425

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

Gentlemen,

I think that Ted has asked a very important pair of questions and I hope that forum members can bring their collective knowledge to bear to answer them directly.

There are two main points to clarify:

1. What aviation gasoline grades were used by the VVS and the Luftwaffe, respectively?

2. What were the MON and RON ratings of these gasoline grades?

I can contribute the following information:

1. I believe the main aviation gasoline type for Soviet combat aircraft during the mid and late-war period was 4B-78. The '4B' refers to the number of cubic centimetres (cm3) of an additive, usually 'R-9', per 1 kilogram (kg) of basic B-78 gasoline. The 'R-9' additive was an ethyl fluid which consisted of 55% Tetraethyl lead (TEL) and 35% ethylene dibromide, as well as 10% monochloro-naphthalene (MCN). In view of the large quantity of ethyl fluid used, 4B-78 was a highly leaded gasoline. This led to several problems, prominent among which was spark-plug fouling. The advantage of using the additive was that the effective octane number rose to 95, so the fuel could be used in higher performance engines with a higher compression ratio.

I believe that the majority of the 'R-9' ethyl fluid, or at least the majority of the Tetraethyl lead that was the main component of this fluid, was delivered to the USSR via Lend-Lease. Therefore, Lend-Lease was essential to all Soviet stocks of high-octane gasoline, not just the Allied gasoline grades that were imported in bulk.

2. Soviet industry used Motor Octane Number (MON) ratings, a method which produced lower octane ratings for the same fuel than the Research Octane Number (RON) would have done. Thus, the B-78 gasoline mentioned above had a MON rating of 78 but a higher RON rating. With the 'R-9' additive, as 4B-78, the gasoline should have had a rating of 95. This could vary significantly in practice as the fluid was often mixed with the basic gasoline in the field, where accurate measuring equipment was absent.

Regards,

Paul

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

My contribution, in fact "Altea"'s

- Aviation (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/)
- - Question on M.S.406 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/question-m-s-406-a-16642.html)

…
Altea

…Soviets had no 100 octane fuel until late in war,except from Lend Lease deliveries. With standard 94 one (in fact real octane number 91-92)…Some pilots remember 100 octanes (blue) LL use in their front-line Yaks, with a 20 km/h speed gain and some overheating. But nothing official issued from soviet industry… the 3Б-78 (and 4Б-78 used on M-82) soviet fuels always had 93-95 (and 95-96) o. number from 1939, with some quality fall to 91-92 in some midwar deliveries…
...
Altea

… The soviet 95 octanes fuel had exactly the behavior of a 95% iso-octane and 5% heptane mixture fuel on soviet CFR.

It (the 4B-78 ) was obtained by adding 4 cm cub of TEL to a natural 78 octanes kg raffinated from Bakou fuel. You can try owerdays, it’s still making 95 octanes by the same method.

Yaks were not using it, only M-82F/FN. The 2B-78 to 3B-78 mixtures for Klimovs 103A, 105, 106. And some 3.5B-78 for the M-107…
Germans were not using Eugène Houdry’s cracking methods, AFAIK. But soviets with american help, did. In 1943 they were building 6 such a reffineries under licence. So late in the war they had 95 (soviet number) basis fuels that could provide from 96 (1B-95) to 115 (4B-95) octane number fuels.

In 1942-1943 soviet fuel qulity had failed, because of , grozny , majkop production 78 basis reduction. Spits and Airacobras were simply using LL fuel supplys, if they were not derated.


- Aviation (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/)
- - The use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF pt 2 (orum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108.html)

…
Altea

Quote: Originally Posted by Nikademus (Post 568278) "Soviet fighter pilots found the British Hurricane to be outdated and cumbersome. Furthermore, the standard Soviet aviation fuel in 1941-42 was the B-70 formulation, with an octane rating between only 70 and 75. Since the Hurricane's Rolls-Royce Merlin engine was designed for a considerably higher octane rating the Soviet fuel wore them down rapidly, decreasing preformance and frequently causing flight accidents." Source: Black Cross/Red Star Vol II. (p.32)

Frankly, if being rigorous as an historian i won't prise Christer Bergstorm for his technical level, rather low...Soviet used natural refined fuels with B-59 to B-78 octanes marks, with some 1 to 4 cm cub TEL additives, that makes octane numbers quoted here:

TEL 1 2 3 4
Б-59 73 78 81 82
Б-70 80 85 87 88
Б-74 85 88 90 92
Б-78 87 92 93 95

So 3B-70 makes 87 octane numbers, so for 1.5B-74 or 1B-78.

Your Pe-2's Klimovs 105 worked on 91-95 octanes fuel that ranges (the highest being the best for safe margin) from 3.5 - 4 B-74 to 1.5 - 3.5 B-78.

The mark 75 never existed in soviet standards. (X) B-59 was mainly used in cars or old planes as R-5, Po-2, R-Zet...

Of course, LL deliveries were also massively* used, and some local made B-95 that could gave 96-115 octane numbers at the war's end, using Houdry's cracking methods (Shell patent).

* some sources quote 2 620 thousand tons!

_________________________________

I recall reading years ago, that one of the USSR's main offensive in 1944 was delayed a few days/a week on Stalin's order in order to get LL 100 oct fuel for a P-39 fighter division, which Stalin thought would make an important contribution to the air part of the offensive.

Juha

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

Hello Juha,

Thank you for your help!

To summarise what Altea wrote, the following appears to have been the case:

1. The 2B-78 and 3B-78 gasoline grades were used for the M-105 series engines and the 4B-78 for the M-82 series. Why did the M-82 use a higher quality fuel?

It is interesting that the M-107, a development of the M-105, used 3.5B-78, yet another variation!

2. The German C3 grade had an octane rating of 94, according to Soviet TsAGI (Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute) data. It is not stated whether this was a MON or RON rating, but I suspect they used the Cooperative Fuel Research (CFR) engine to measure MON ratings. This would not conflict with the German 100 octane rating of C3, since that should be a RON rating, which is always higher than the MON figure.

Altea quotes some Soviet source as saying that the Soviet 93 octane rating corresponded to the German 96 octane, because of different measurment procedures, which would reinforce the point above.

Soviet octane ratings for mixtures of basic gasoline and 'R-9' ethyl fluid are given in Alrea's very useful table. On the basis of this table, it would appear that there was no B-89 grade, contrary to Tango Echo Dog's initial post. 4B-70 and 3B-74 seem to be the most likely candidates for an 89 octane equivalent fuel.

Having written the above, I have to say that much remains unclear. The key questions that remain are as follows:

1. What fuel grades did the Soviets use for which aircraft? Was 4B-78 or 3B-78 the most common fuel used, or did this change over the course of the war?

2. What were the MON and RON ratings of German fuel and can these be directly compared to Soviet ratings?

3. As mentioned by Juha, how much Lend-Lease gasoline did the Soviets have and when?

I hope that some forum members might have statistics from the US side, on the quantity of aviation gasoline delivered to the USSR and the octane grades of this gasoline.

Regards,

Paul

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

Just an aside, but some accounts of the 617 Squadron raid on Tirpitz in September 1944 from Yagodnik near Archangel include statements that there was no high octane fuel available when the Lancasters first arrived. It had to be 'sourced' and brought to the airfield, which gave more time for the RAF aircrew toservice and prepare their aircraft. The weather was poor and would have prevented the raid taking place in the first few days anyway but had it been good weather there would have been a delay for lack of correct fuel.

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

Paul,
http://www.oilru.com/or/47/1006/

"The amount of high-octane aviation gasoline, converted into the metric system, was 1,197,587 tons, including 558,428 tons with octane numbers above 99."

Also, for those interested,
Aviation Gasoline Technology Transfer during the Second
World War: Japan, Germany and the U.S.A.

http://www.worldbhc.org/files/full%2...gyTransfer.pdf

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

Hello Bruce,

Thank you for mentioning this incident. A search through Leo McKinstry's book using the term "octane" suggests that the Russians provided their highly leaded gasoline for 617's flight back to Britain. This was 4B-78, in all likelihood, since this had both a high octane number and a high lead content. See link - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eDHF9gwqUF0C .

Soviet sources report that the Allison engines of Airacobras had very serious trouble with 4B-78, to the extent that this fuel could only be used for training missions at low boost. Given that there were quite a few P-39s and other Lend-Lease aircraft in the North in 1944, I am surprised that their Lend-Lease fuel stocks could not be spared for the Lancasters. This is perhaps a reflection of the poor state of Anglo-Soviet cooperation by this stage of the war.

Regards,

Paul

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

Hello Kutscha,

I've noted the figures in the oilru article, but I am slightly hesitant to trust conversions from long tons or US gallons into metric tonnes. The greater unanswered question is when exactly the USSR began receiving Lend-Lease gasoline and how deliveries changed over time, including in terms of octane ratings of the supplied fuel. I am sure there is something on this subject in one or more of the US archives, but it may prove difficult to find.

Thank you for the second link. Do you have an idea where the author might have got his figures for peak German and Japanese gasoline consumption? Getting a graph of comsumption and superimposing it on the equivalent Allied figures would be very enlightening!

Regards,

Paul

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

Hello Thomas
I'm very busy, on the LL fuel and oil deliveries, see Altea's answers, but IIRC the 2 620 000 metric tons is the amount of all oil products, and remember also the 6 refineries delivered by USA.
On M-82FN Forsage (1st gear only): 2500 rpm 1180+-10 mm Hg, the boost probably is the key., its close to the max boost allowed to Bristol Hercules radials with 100oct, 100/130 grade fuel (+8.25).
On the P-39 IAD, IIRC the question was the time needed to get the 100 oct fuel to the airfields used by the division.

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

I would like to thank all the members who have responded to my query on Soviet aviation fuel and especially Juha. They have provided a great deal of illumination but also added to the considerable confusion.
As Paul noted we remain uncertain exactly which fuels were supplied to which types of units. I am surprised, for example, given the Soviet Union's limited production and distribution resources that different fighter regiments might receive different categories of, for example, B-78. Where was the relevant additive added, at a forward base or at the refinery and if the latter how did the VVS supply organisation ensure the right fuel reached the right regiment without regularly falling foul of the loveable NKVD?
There is an added complication on the Russian reminisences website 'I Remember.' Many fighter pilots report received B-89 fuel yet even here there is a lack of uniformity. Pilots in the Aircobra equipped 68 GvIAp and 9 IAP report receiving B-78, although one from the latter unit mentions B-100, a 196 IAP pilot reported B-89 for his Aircobra/Yakovlev equipped regiment while another in the Yakovlev-equipped 867 IAP mentions B-86, B-90 and B-100.
If any member can bring order out of this chaos I would be very, very grateful

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

Hello TED
without delving my books, notes etc all I can say is that in Soviet performance graphs P-39Q performance is exeptionally shown for two fuel grades, 95oct and 100 oct.
IIRC Japanese added, at least on some SW Pacific islands, their additive in field, they put the amount needed into a barrel containing their standard aviation fuel, rolled and turned it over a while and voila, they had higher octane fuel.

Not much but maybe some help.
Juha

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

Once again I would like to thank members for their contributions on this subject.
I have been pondering upon the logistical and operational implications of the information supplied and, unless someone can provide more information, it wonder whether or not the Russians created a rod for their own backs?
Air operations require huge amounts of fuel and Soviet figures indicate that more than 694,500 tonnes of fuel were used by their air forces during the Second World War in Europe which, presumably, includes US imports of high octane fuel. Most historians agree that the Soviet Union fought the war with industrial and communications resources which, compared with friend and foe, were extremely limited and that they out-produced the Germans by severely restricting their military product ranges.
The oil industries of Germany, Great Britain and the United States met their air force requirements by producing a range of fuels with the necessary additives which could then be issued for use by for trainers, multi-engined and some single-engined combat aircraft as well as high performance fighters. Information produced by members indicate the Russians produced four basic octane fuels; B-59, B-70, B-74 and B-78 which needed additives to provide.higher octane ratings. But this implies that the VVS supply service faced a nightmare situation of up to 16 different variants ranging from 73 to 95 octane, some apparently for specific engines, and even this does not include the B-89 which several fighter pilots stated was used by their aircraft.
How then did the system work and what were the operational implications? The Soviet Union’s communications were stretched to the limit and yet it appears that instead of moving ready-mixed fuel it was having to move petrol, plus additives, despite the fact that every tonne of additive would mean one tonne less of petrol. It is surprising this was allowed.
Then where did they go?. Were they moved to the VVS’ regional or battalion support depots and mixed there or was final mixing performed at regimental level? Either way mixing additives with hundreds of tonnes of fuel would take a significant amount of time and surely delay deliveries and, in turn, restrict operations especially in the later stages of an advance when Red Army units were at the end of very strained supply lines.
This would suggest that either pre-mixed fuel was delivered to regiments and that the Soviet air commanders accepted the problems or, like their enemies and friends, they received pre-mixed fuel otherwise they would have complained directly to Stalin. Yet I know of no such action, although before Kursk there were complaints about the general lack of fuel.
It is worth noting that, if there were fuel supply problems , this might explain while German aces in fighters, bombers and ground attack seemed to fly significantly more sorties than their Russian counterparts.
Perhaps I am missing something but I would welcome any comment by members, especially those with an intimate knowledge of the wartime Soviet air forces to resolve this mundane, yet vital, issue.

Re: Soviet aviation fuel: More bang for the buck or the ruble?
 

The Soviets were producing only B-78 in 1940-41 this was their highest octane fuel at the time (aside from what they custom blended at the design bureaus) In 1940 they produced only 40,600 tons. In 1941 they planned to produce 200,000. It is for this reason that training on the aircraft that used B-78 was curtailed in the winter-spring of 1941 and resulting in few hours being logged by pilots on the newly delivered MiGs. They would not have survived without lend lease aid and the most critical part of that aid was the delivery of 6 refineries. The first I believe was delivered complete in 1942 only assembly required, instructions included and American Engineers sent to assist.

oquaig