View Single Post
  #5  
Old 20th August 2015, 00:13
Paul Thompson Paul Thompson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 421
Paul Thompson is on a distinguished road
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

Last edited by Paul Thompson; 20th August 2015 at 00:37. Reason: formatting
Reply With Quote