Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data [Archive] - Page 4

Glider

03-22-2012, 09:55 AM

Kurfurst
It is a shame that you concentrate on throwing accusations around but don't reply to any questions or supply any evidence.
Whatever you may think I have always supplied papers to support my positions, and often one will support another. The papers are often copies of originals from the NA and are complete. I do not rely on unsubstantiated postings as being the definitive line, neither do I ignore the other persons view. If there is a contridiction I try to find the more accurate path.
Wherever possible I give access to everyone the links and encourage them to make up their own minds examples include the pilots notes and the War Cabinet Minutes.

I do not claim to have a perfect case, but a strong one whereas yours is at best weak supported mainly by bluster.

I stand by my case and the evidence put forward to support it.

Your case stands on two main items,
1) the pre war objective of 16 fighter squadrons and 2 bomber squadrons
2) Pips posting,

All I and others have asked is for you to support any part of Pips posting not even all of it with some documentation, some official record. On the 16 + 2 supply anything that shows that the roll out of 100 Octane was limited to the 16 + 2.
Tragically we are still awaiting your evidence to support anything, anything at all and all you can turn to is bluster and accusation.

As I said I stand by my case, am happy to let the evidence support it and let people decide on the evidence for and against the use of 100 Octane

Kurfürst

03-22-2012, 10:27 AM

Kurfurst
It is a shame that you concentrate on throwing accusations around but don't reply to any questions or supply any evidence.

If that's true you were talking to yourself in the last 750 + posts. Interesting.

I do not claim to have a perfect case, but a strong one whereas yours is at best weak supported mainly by bluster.

Actually, you only have rhetoric like the above.

I stand by my case and the evidence put forward to support it.

Well let's see it. Do you have a paper saying 100 octane is to be/was introduced to all Squadrons? No.

Your case stands on two main items,
1) the pre war objective of 16 fighter squadrons and 2 bomber squadrons.
2) Pips posting,

It's rather dishonest to constantly try to misrepresent other people's positions, for lack of proof on your own point.

You dismiss 1 by claiming it was changed, but have presented no evidence of any change intended.

You dismiss 2 by the arguement that you have not seen the papers yourself, called a researcher a liar and a fraud, yet I have asked perhaps a hundred times to see the meeting file in its completeness, and not the cropped version you deem fitting to share. You never answered that, and refused to show the whole file to anyone even if its not a problematic at all. You stick to showing only select papers from it. I think it speaks for itself.

3, Morgan and Shacklady. You dismiss them for god-knows-what reason.

4, Your own papers of the May 1940 and previous meetings all which say 100 octane was issued only to select units. You dismiss that as 'a typo in the document'. Sure, right, if the papers don't say what you say, the papers are in error, not you.

5, Actual consumption figures of 87 and 100 octane fuel between May 1940 - November 1940 which all show that 87 octane was dominant fuel used until October 1940, and issues oddly increased when Fighter Command activies. You dismiss that claiming that it refers to fuel consumed by other commands, but supplied again no evidence.

6, Spitfire manuals noting both 87 and 100 octane limits at the time. You dismiss them with the weird argument that despite the manual is clearly marked June 1940, it refers to Spitfire variant which according to you, was already withdrawn from service and sent to training units where it supposedly used 87 octane (no evidence presented) before it even entered service...(!).

7, ... and the very fact that the small circle of die-hard RAF fans who are claiming that 100 octane was the only fuel used operationally were completely unable to show ANY kind of evidence for it in 10 years of desperate and fruitless research.

All which are in perfect agreement and logically follow each other and do not need the mountain of 'explaining', twisting and dismissal which you seem to rely on when the documentary evidence do not support your case.

Tragically we are still awaiting your evidence to support anything, anything at all and all you can turn to is bluster and accusation.

IMHO what is tragic is that you actually believe that you can sell this silliness and expect people suddenly forget about the whole thread and what was posted. Like I said, if I supposedly haven't supplied 'anything at all', what were you posting about in the last 700 post...? What were you trying to dismiss so desperately?

As I said I stand by my case, am happy to let the evidence support it and let people decide on the evidence for and against the use of 100 Octane

They have already decided against your claims, as did the developers. So now you change the argument, and say that you are arguing for the use of 100 octane - a fact everybody knows for 70 years and agrees with - from your original obscenely silly claim that each and every operational sortie, unit and station was using 100 octane fuel, and not a single one used 87 octane, ever, so the developers just got everything wrong, and this sim should only represent the best and most potent plane variants the RAF had in 1940, and all lesser variants should be removed, mission designers, server should not be able to decide for themselves, whether they buy your story or not, it needs to be enforced on them.

In your world, it happened overnight, universally, by the touch of a magic wand, and in complete secrecy which is why there's no written trace of it.

So why should I or anyone waste any more time on you, tell me? You're unable to give a convincing case, behave like a fanatic, and do not even present an intellectual challenge or interesting evidence. You merely repeat the same over and over again, try to win the debate by having the last word, and when people got bored with it, you call them out like a child..

So present your evidence or just don't expect me to be bothered by this ruckus.

Glider

03-22-2012, 10:31 AM

Check posting 697

Kurfürst

03-22-2012, 10:41 AM

I checked it, its incoherent nonsense IMO.

Now answer the question why every paper speaks of select squadrons, and none of all squadrons, thank you.

Glider

03-22-2012, 11:07 AM

Kurfurst
My case is outlined in the posts 681/682 that cover my belief in the definition of the words select. It shows the development path of the process. I recognise that you will never agree with me or I with you but that isn't important.
What is important is that third parties see the arguments and evidence for both and are able to make up their own mind.

All I am asking you again is to support or even define your case. You believe that select is a limited number that is clear, but what you believe that number to be we don't know. Is it the 16 + 2, is it the 30+ squadrons we have combat records for, is it something between the two, is it simply less than 100% of fighter the squadrons? Tell us what is your belief

So lets start with something simple:-

a) How many RAF fighter squadrons do you belive used 100 Octane in the BOB?
b) How do you support that view?

Ernst

03-22-2012, 11:26 AM

Al Schlageter

03-22-2012, 11:34 AM

5, Actual consumption figures of 87 and 100 octane fuel between May 1940 - November 1940 which all show that 87 octane was dominant fuel used until October 1940, and issues oddly increased when Fighter Command activies. You dismiss that claiming that it refers to fuel consumed by other commands, but supplied again no evidence.

What evidence have you supplied Barbi that the numbers for 87 fuel are only for Fighter Command?

Glider

03-22-2012, 11:51 AM

Evidence re use in Other Commands, permisson given 7th August.

lane

03-22-2012, 12:15 PM

Knocks the air out of Eugene's argument of 16 squadrons.

"By July 31 1940, there 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using 100 octane fuel."

Pity the article doesn't mention the number of Hurricanes using 100 octane fuel.

Same thoughts here regarding no mention of Hurricanes... Spitfires are covered though ;)

Al Schlageter

03-22-2012, 12:18 PM

Will we are waiting for Eugene to post his RAF OoB, here is the OoB for 53 Spitfire and Hurrican squadrons, from the official RAF site.

1 Squadron

Stations: Tangmere 23 June 1940, Northolt 1 August 1940, Wittering 9 September 1940

3 Squadron

Stations: Wick 23 May 1940, Castletown 2 September 1940, Turnhouse 14 September 1940, Dyce 9 October 1940, Castletown 12 October 1940

17 Squadron

Stations: Debden 19 June 1940, Tangmere 19 August 1940, Debden 2 September 1940, Martlesham Heath 8 October 1940

19 Squadron

Stations: Fowlmere 25 January 1940, Duxford 3 July 1940, Fowlmere 24 July 1940, Duxford 30 October 1940

32 Squadron

Stations: Biggin Hill 4 June 1940, Acklington 28 August 1940

41 Squadron

Stations: Catterick 8 June 1940, Hornchurch 26 July 1940, Catterick 8 August 1940, Hornchurch 3 September 1940

43 Squadron

Stations: Tangmere 31 May 1940, Northolt (D) 23 July 1940 to 1 August 1940, Usworth 8 September 1940

46 Squadron

Stations: Digby 13 June 1940, Duxford 18 August 1940, Digby 19 August 1940, Stapleford Tawney 1 September 1940

54 Squadron

Stations: Rochford 25 June 1940, Hornchurch 24 July 1940, Catterick 28 July 1940, Hornchurch 8 August 1940, Catterick 3 September 1940

56 Squadron

Stations: North Weald 4 June 1940, Boscombe Down 1 September 1940

64 Squadron

Stations: Kenley 16 May 1940, Leconfield 19 August 1940, Boscombe Down 1 September 1940, Biggin Hill 13 October 1940, Coltishall 15 October 1940

65 Squadron

Stations: Hornchurch 5 June 1940, Turnhouse 28 August 1940

66 Squadron

Stations: Coltishall 29 May 1940, Kenley 3 September 1940, Gravesend 11 September 1940, West Malling 30 October 1940

72 Squadron

Stations: Acklington 6 June 1940, Biggin Hill 31 August 1940, Croydon 1 September 1940, Biggin Hill 14 September 1940, Coltishall 13 October 1940, Matlask 30 October 1940

73 Squadron

Stations: Church Fenton 18 June 1940, Castle Camps 5 September 1940

74 Squadron

Stations: Hornchurch 25 June 1940, Wittering 14 August 1940, Kirton-in-Lindsey 21 August 1940, Coltishall 9 September 1940, Biggin Hill 15 October 1940

79 Squadron

stations: Biggin Hill 5 June 1940, Hawkinge 2 July 1940, Sealand 11 July 1940, Acklington 13 July 1940, Biggin Hill 27 August 1940, Pembrey 8 September 1940

85 Squadron

Stations: Debden 22 May 1940, Croydon 19 August 1940, Castle Camps 3 September 1940, Church Fenton 5 September 1940, Kirton-in-Lindsey 23 October 1940

87 Squadron

Stations: Church Fenton 26 May 1940, Exeter 5 July 1940

92 Squadron

Stations: Pembrey 18 June 1940, Biggin Hill 8 September 1940

111 Squadron

Stations: Croydon 4 June 1940, Debden 19 August 1940, Croydon 3 September 1940, Drem 8 September 1940

145 Squadron

Stations: Tangmere 10 May 1940, Westhampnett 31 July 1940, Drem 14 August 1940, Dyce 31 August 1940, Tangmere 9 October 1940

151 Squadron

Stations: North Weald 20 May 1940, Stapleford Tawney 29 August 1940, Digby 1 September 1940

152 Squadron

Stations: Arklington 1 October 1939, Warmwell 12 July 1940

213 Squadron

Stations: Arklington 1 October 1939, Warmwell 12 July 1940

222 Squadron

Stations: Kirton in Lindsay 4 June 1939, Hornchurch 29 August 1940

229 Squadron

Stations: Wittering 26 June 1940, Northolt 9 September 1940

232 Squadron

Stations: Sumburgh 17 July 1940, Castletown 18 September 1940, Skitten 13 October 1940, Drem 24 October 1940

234 Squadron

Stations: Arklington 1 October 1939, Warmwell 12 July 1940

238 Squadron

Stations: Middle Wallop 20 June 1940, St Eval 14 August 1940, Middle Wallop 10 September 1940, Chilbolton 30 September 1940

242 Squadron

Stations: Aldergrove 20 July 1940

249 Squadron

Stations: Leconfield 18 May 1940, Church Fenton 8 July 1940, Boscombe Down 14 August 1940, North Weald 1 September 1940

253 Squadron

Stations: Kirton-in-Lindsey 24 May 1940, Turnhouse 21 July 1940, Prestwick 23 August 1940, Kenley (A) 29 August 1940, Kenley (G) 16 September 1940

257 Squadron

Stations: Arklington 1 October 1939, Warmwell 12 July 1940

263 Squadron

Stations: Grangemouth 28 June 1940, Drem 2 September 1940

266 Squadron

Stations: Wittering (D) 7 April 1940, Wittering (C) 14 May 1940, Tangmere 9 August 1940, Eastchurch 12 August 1940, Hornchurch 14 August 1940, Wittering 21 August 1940

302 Squadron

Stations: Leconfield 13 July 1940, Northolt 11 October 1940

303 Squadron

Stations: Northolt 22 July 1940, Leconfield 11 October 1940

310 Squadron

Stations: Duxford 10 July 1940

312 Squadron

Stations: Duxford 29 August 1940, Speke 26 September 1940

401 Squadron

Stations: Middle Wallop 21 June 1940, Croydon July 1940, Northolt Mid-August 1940, Prestwick 11 October 1940

501 Squadron

Stations: Croydon 21 June 1940, Middle Wallop 4 July 1940, Gravesend 25 July 1940, Kenley 10 September 1940

504 Squadron

Stations: Castletown 21 June 1940, Catterick 1 September 1940, Hendon 5 September 1940, Filton 26 September 1940

601 Squadron

Stations: Tangmere 17 June 1940, Debden 19 August 1940, Tangmere 2 September 1940, Exeter 7 September 1940

602 Squadron

Stations: Drem 28 May 1940, Westhampnett 13 August 1940

603 Squadron

Stations: Turnhouse 5 May 1940, Hornchurch 27 August 1940

605 Squadron

Stations: Drem 28 May 1940, Croydon 7 September 1940

607 Squadron

Stations: Usworth 5 June 1940, Tangmere 1 September 1940, Turnhouse 10 October 1940

609 Squadron

Stations: Northolt 19 May 1940, Middle Wallop 5 July 1940

610 Squadron

Stations: Gravesend 26 May 1940, Biggin Hill 2 July 1940, Acklington 31 August 1940

611 Squadron

Stations: Digby 10 October 1939

615 Squadron

Stations: Kenley 20 May 1940, Prestwick 29 August 1940, Northolt 10 October 1940

616 Squadron

Stations: Leconfield 6 June 1940, Kenley 19 August 1940, Coltishall 3 September 1940, Kirton-in-Lindsey 9 September 1940

Glider

03-22-2012, 12:29 PM

check my posting 746 it might of of use

Al Schlageter

03-22-2012, 12:40 PM

check my posting 746 it might of of use

I saw it Glider. Will be interesting to compare with what Eugene posts.

Flanker35M

03-22-2012, 03:44 PM

S!

The informational/educational value of this thread gets watered by you guys throwing insults and sticking to whatever agenda you might have. I found the discussion very interesting but too much "barbi/eugene/whatever" crap cluttering the info presented. Everyone wants the last word..But luckily can filter the crap and digest on the actual data hidden between the ePeen contests and insults :D

winny

03-22-2012, 03:48 PM

Osprey

03-22-2012, 06:31 PM

Looks like Kurfurst got permanently banned from Wikipedia. If you read into this he upset a lot of respected editors by constantly editing articles. They frequently mention an agenda that he has, it would be quite an amusing read if these weren't real people he was wasting the time of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Block_review_requested_for_Kurf urst

ACE-OF-ACES

03-22-2012, 06:52 PM

That does not suprise me at all.. Other than it took this long for wiki to ban him

RCAF_FB_Orville

03-22-2012, 07:50 PM

Some people like our good Hungarian friend Kurfurst-Barbarossa-Isegrim's reputations precede them in flight sim and other flight discussion forums....Best to say no more and leave it at that. :)

I'll refrain from saying anything disparaging as this plays into their hands and is not necessary anyway....Glider in particular has conducted himself remarkably well and very gracefully in this very one sided 'discussion' (AKA absolute Naysayer hammering) in which for no good or justifiable reason whatsoever he has already been quite outrageously dubbed a 'Liar' by a certain party, 99.9% of people can see this is most certainly not so, carry on mate.

Don't play the 'tit for tat' game with some people, even when provoked. Whatever the temptation. You are better than me because I would have lost my rag a LONG time ago lol....I can have a very short fuse at times, its a flaw, and that is why I am not participating this time around. :grin: That's what some want, a shutdown suits these people to a T, because they have nothing else. Nobody needs any help here anyway...doing a grand job. :)

Some people, naming no names, just want to watch the world burn. They have no interest in the actual truth of a matter, still less in objectivity; the concept of intellectual honesty and rigour is an alien one, and the whole MO can be summed up as follows.

And thus in his considered view, what does not suit....Cannot be true.

Fortunately, for our purpose it really does not matter one jot what some one like this 'thinks' (again naming no names, and not necessarily here ;)).....when they are so patently wrong and consistently and embarrassingly made to look very foolish and debunked.*

Keep up the good work chaps, and keep up the demolition job with the trusty sword and shield of corroborated Primary and secondary source evidence and Truth, the avalanche of which is very apparent and compelling to any reasonable person reading this thread. Bravo.

I learned long ago that trying to have a 'reasonable debate' with some people (naming no names) is effectively impossible when they are absolutely devoid of reason themselves. Some people still think the Earth is flat (no, I'm not one of them. :)) and that Mankind co-existed with Dinosaurs etc. What can you do?

Don't worry about it. Be happy. :grin:

Osprey

03-22-2012, 08:39 PM

ahh, just wondered why you copy/pasted those!

By the way Osprey, i love the specs of your computer, if only i had the money:)

Hard work and dedication and such a beast could be yours. Mine is watercooled ;) Look at these visuals!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UTyyps_cCk

Osprey

03-22-2012, 09:13 PM

Some people, naming no names, just want to watch the world burn.

There you have it Orville. I'm now starting to wonder about the psychological makeup of such a character. He's an 'odd one out' for sure, even worthy of study.

What may seem strange is obviously perfectly normal for him, he cannot see just how ridiculous he looks to other people, otherwise he would learn and adjust his behaviour. This is perfectly apparent from years of agenda driven vandalism of historical information sites where the same mantra and irritation is driven against some of the most studious people to write on the internet. I conclude that asking him why he is like this and why we would be interested must seem strange to him, rather like other people being very interested in what I had for breakfast this morning - it wouldn't make sense would it?

winny

03-22-2012, 09:13 PM

Osprey

03-22-2012, 09:21 PM

I am watching the posts. My personal conclusion is:

For sure the 100 octane was present. But to me there is no evidence that the all fighters used 100 octane. How many is difficult to say.

If i was the developer i ll model the 100 octane, 87 octane, and C-3 for the Germans and let the mapmakers decide.

Obviously 100 octane was not a panacea and not one of the main reasons for the Luftwaffe failure. The battle was fierce and the acs were very well matched. RAF loses were great even with the 109s and Luftwaffe operating in the limits of its logistics and radius. In other scenarios the Spits were not so succesfull.

It's not difficult to say, there are dozens of papers posted here listing operational squadrons.

I'm going to take a wild stab at this and suggest that you fly Luftwaffe. I'm guessing this based on your request for C3 (which frankly I have very limited knowledge of, other than, I gather, a tiny minority of aircraft were trying it out). Therefore I conclude that you would consider it to your advantage to have underperforming RAF to fight online. Fine, enjoy it. But if you could take off the flying hat and put on the historian hat, for a moment, and evaluate the documents posted (AND I MEAN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS) then you should be able to deduce that the RAF had it and used it on the front line for all fighting squadrons.

Fortunately I make maps for our server so I'll make sure that 100 is available if 1C can get around to finishing what they started.

Osprey

03-22-2012, 09:27 PM

Just a quick post about the Trimpell oil refinery figure of 384 spits in 19 squadrons.

I have a copy of the order of battle for fighter command on 1st August 1940.

Guess how many operational spitfire squadrons are listed, in total, all sectors and groups..? Yep, 19.

So that says to me that, as I suspected.. All of fighter commands spitfire squadrons had been converted by the end of July. All of them.

Now somebody please debunk me.

Edit: if you want me to list them, and where they were stationed I will.

Sometimes you do not need to prove what was done, but what wasn't done!

We have Kurfurst numbness to thank for a lot of this. Had it not been for his myopic granite stance you fine chaps wouldn't have pulled all of this info together in one place and thrashed out the situation via logic and elimination. And you can bet your bottom dollar that if the Spitfires had it then so did every Hurricane squadron too.

What would be wonderful is if you guys could get all of this together and publish it online as evidence because as long as 'he' has air in his lungs he will pollute history.

Osprey

03-22-2012, 09:45 PM

lol, you only need read the first part, Kurfurst is quoting Dr Gavin Bailey (http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/) as his source

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=299183&postcount=161

But here's what Dr Bailey had to say about Kurfurst in September 2009.

"Kurfurst, this seems to be the third occasion when you have attempted to use my work to support a conclusion on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain which I have explicitly rejected. You have been asked, repeatedly, to desist. You cannot claim to be unaware of my views on the matter, having been confronted by them on a previous occasion when I challenged you on the misuse of my work on the forums of www.ww2aircraft.net.
Note my comments there on 31 January 2009.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-during-bob-16305.html
...nothing in my work either can or should be used by people attempting to argue that 100-octane fuel was not in widespread use in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. That position is contradicted by a mass of original evidence cited in my work (and elsewhere). The next time anyody attempts to produce carefully-selected references from my work to contradict the historical use of 100-octane fuel by the RAF in the Battle of Britain, please refer them back to my original article which if nothing else should provide them with sufficient primary source evidence to disabuse them of that notion.
I also refer you to my post of 7 February 2009, which concludes;
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-during-bob-16305-4.html
My thesis, if this requires further clarification after my original posting on this forum, is that 100-octane fuel was supplied from a diversity of sources within and outside the US (in contrast to the received wisdom), but also was in widespread use during the Battle of Britain, as a mass of incontravertable primary source evidence demonstrates (in conformity with the received wisdom). Yes, you have quoted one decision mentioned in my article about the planned use of 100-octane fuel in selected squadrons in 1939. However you then ignore the text and references which then indicate that this decision was overtaken by others. Highlighting that first decision without exploring the subsequent changes to it is either mistaken or dishonest. If you cite my work again, I would ask you to make it clear that I have explictly and publically disagreed with your revisionist appreciaton of the use of 100-octane in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain.
Your apparent need to misrepresent and distort the works of others discredits your thesis out of hand. Your apparent willingness to repeat this misrepresentation and distortion after being challenged by the author of that work themselves does you even less credit.
Gavin Bailey"

41Sqn_Banks

03-22-2012, 10:27 PM

I don't think further discrediting is needed, this will only get the thread locked and it doesn't provide any new information/proof/evidence on the subject.

Ernst

03-22-2012, 10:44 PM

It's not difficult to say, there are dozens of papers posted here listing operational squadrons.

I'm going to take a wild stab at this and suggest that you fly Luftwaffe. I'm guessing this based on your request for C3 (which frankly I have very limited knowledge of, other than, I gather, a tiny minority of aircraft were trying it out). Therefore I conclude that you would consider it to your advantage to have underperforming RAF to fight online. Fine, enjoy it. But if you could take off the flying hat and put on the historian hat, for a moment, and evaluate the documents posted (AND I MEAN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS) then you should be able to deduce that the RAF had it and used it on the front line for all fighting squadrons.

Fortunately I make maps for our server so I'll make sure that 100 is available if 1C can get around to finishing what they started.

Yes i fly the Luftwaffe. And even with this 100 octane is possible to perform very good against any Spitfire since i would fly within the performance envelope of the 109. Above the 5000m the 100 octane advantage was lost. I simply have to fly in my terms and fly higher were the 109 was better. And engage and disengage at high speeds.

One of the articles posted above to prove the 100 octane use also says that since the most of the air fighting in BoB was above the 4000m the 100 octane were not a panacea, and any advantage were minimized or lost.

Put what UFO do you want in you server they ll go earth in flames. :cool: My pleasure will be higher in disapointing the overconfident spitfire pilots. The 109s difficulties acctualy is because the pilots are trying to counter the spits lower than 4000m or even in deck.

ACE-OF-ACES

03-23-2012, 01:50 AM

Your apparent need to misrepresent and distort the works of others discredits your thesis out of hand. Your apparent willingness to repeat this misrepresentation and distortion after being challenged by the author of that work themselves does you even less credit.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hAha0lFT7X0/TbVmgSt36XI/AAAAAAAAA2M/Fx71dkQYpPM/s1600/smoking-gun-789143.jpg

Robo.

03-23-2012, 07:27 AM

Yes i fly the Luftwaffe. And even with this 100 octane is possible to perform very good against any Spitfire since i would fly within the performance envelope of the 109. Above the 5000m the 100 octane advantage was lost. I simply have to fly in my terms and fly higher were the 109 was better. And engage and disengage at high speeds.

This is very true, the 100 octane fuel, even if modelled correctly (whatever that means) in the sim will not cause any revolution in flying, it certainly won't make RAF crates fly like rockets. I find this thread most amusing in many ways and I appreciate the mix of hilarious humour of certain Hungarian posters, and useful information.

Put what UFO do you want in you server they ll go earth in flames. :cool: My pleasure will be higher in disapointing the overconfident spitfire pilots. The 109s difficulties acctualy is because the pilots are trying to counter the spits lower than 4000m or even in deck.

This part I can't agree with I am afraid. In the sim as it is, the 109 is very much superior to any Mk.I RAF fighter in terms of speed and especially climb rate, which is most useful in dogfight. Even as a good RAF pilot you would be struggling against well flown Emils. Once he goes vertical he can do whatever he likes with you and you will have to make him make some mistake in order to succeed. Especially so down low. If you get higher up though, cards are turning around 15-16k and above that you've got good chance of outflying the 109. That's why I believe many 109 pilots prefer to counter the RAF on low altitudes and keep doing so with great success. Things are quite different higher up provided you know what you're doing.

There won't be no dissapointment if I get shot down as a Spitfire Mk.Ia pilot as I know I am pulling the shorter straw with my a/c performance and I must compensate with skill and often with luck in order to succeed. I assure you that with your tactics as you describe it, any skilled RAF pilot would not let himself shot down so easily unless outnumbered by several 109s and I certainly would like to see myself going 'down in flames' when I meet you up in 20k where I usually loiter. You'd be lucky to make it back to France in one piece (probably saving yourself in a dive with quite a few .303 vent holes). Same situation in 5000k, I'd be lucky to make it home.

I understand though what you're point is - it's the tactics in the first place and with that I agree.

Glider

03-23-2012, 08:13 AM

The interesting thing is that when flying in the BOB, I prefer the 109.

However as we all know, the unique situation in this period, is that seldom in air combat have the two planes been so well matched. Each has its advantages and its disadvantages but victory normally goes to the pilot who grabs the opportunity and / or has the tactical advantage.

NZtyphoon

03-23-2012, 08:16 AM

This part I can't agree with I am afraid. In the sim as it is, the 109 is very much superior to any Mk.I RAF fighter in terms of speed and especially climb rate, which is most useful in dogfight. Especially so down low. If you get higher up though, cards are turning around 15-16k and above that you've got good chance of outflying the 109. That's why I believe many 109 pilots prefer to counter the RAF on low altitudes and keep doing so with great success. Things are quite different higher up provided you know what you're doing.

Granted the 100 Octane was used at lower altitudes, but read what this November 1939 paper says about the speed advantage it confers; 28/34 mph up to 10,000 feet (para 8.) Before people go on about "its only for five minutes" how long does the average combat take? 30 seconds to 1 minute at the most? - even a few mph at the right time can make a big difference. Added to this was the CS propeller fitted to all frontline RAF fighters by early August, which improved climb performance at all altitudes, and the differences between the 109 and Spitfire are not that great.

NZtyphoon

03-23-2012, 06:14 PM

1) It's rather dishonest to constantly try to misrepresent other people's positions, for lack of proof on your own point.

2) You dismiss 2 by the arguement that you have not seen the papers yourself, called a researcher a liar and a fraud, yet I have asked perhaps a hundred times to see the meeting file in its completeness, and not the cropped version you deem fitting to share. You never answered that, and refused to show the whole file to anyone even if its not a problematic at all. You stick to showing only select papers from it. I think it speaks for itself.

3, Morgan and Shacklady. You dismiss them for god-knows-what reason.

5, Actual consumption figures of 87 and 100 octane fuel between May 1940 - November 1940 which all show that 87 octane was dominant fuel used until October 1940, and issues oddly increased when Fighter Command activies. You dismiss that claiming that it refers to fuel consumed by other commands, but supplied again no evidence.

So present your evidence or just don't expect me to be bothered by this ruckus.

1) Dr Gavin Bailey thinks the same. He has invited Kurfürst to email him http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/ to discuss the matter.

2) Kurfürst has not seen the Pips papers, which were presented eight years ago as a summary in a members only forum, so the thread and the discussion surrounding Pips' "evidence" is not readily available. As Captain Doggles noted Pips himself admitted that they might have been misleading. For Kurfürst to pin 100% faith on papers he has not seen then demand 100% proof from others is a bit rich to say the least.

3) Morgan and Shacklady's claims about heavy tanker losses do not stack up. Cabinet papers show 1,157 tankers arriving in Britain September 1939 - November 1940. 78 tankers were sunk in the same time period.

5) And what exactly did other Commands use for fuel? An absurd claim to make in light of the fact that Bomber Command, for example, was engaged in intensive operations against invasion preparations - coincidentally, when Sealion was called off on September 17 and the invasion fleet began to disperse fuel consumption of Other Grades (not 87 Octane) tapered off as well. The fuel capacity of a Wellington, for example was 750 imp gallons; for Coastal Command a Sunderland needed 2,552 imp gal. Does this help explain why other grades of fuel were dominant?

Kurfürst has presented no evidence but continues to demand others present theirs then, when more than enough evidence is presented, continues to whine about small details or simply restates his original position as gospel.

lane

03-23-2012, 06:59 PM

This might help. This is the RAF Order of Battle as reported to FC at 09.00 on the 13th July giving squadrons, bases and the operational status, I only hope you can read them. These are the original reports posted to FC as held in the NA

Nice document Glider. Thanks for sharing!

NZtyphoon

03-23-2012, 08:31 PM

Question: How much fuel was needed to fly all defensive sorties flown by FC during the battle? (revised - previous posting included Hooton Sep 23-29: 4,825 defensive sorties, which are already included in James' figures)

The Battle of Britain T.C.G. James: 51,364 sorties, day & night July 10 - Sept 30: Hooton’s Eagle in Flames Sep 30 – Oct 6: 1,782 defensive sorties.

Total = 53,146 sorties to October 6

1 imperial gallon of 100 Octane = 7.1 pounds ("Oil" by D.J Peyton-Smith the official British war history on the oil and petroleum industry during WW2 page xvii "Note on Weights and Measures"):

1 ton of 100 octane = 2,240 lbs divided by 7.1 = 315.5 imp gal

Fuel Capacities:

Defiant I = 97 imp gal
Hurricane I = 90 imp gal
Spitfire I & II = 84 imp gal
Total 271 imp gal

divided by 3 = 90.3 imp gal

315.5 divided by 90.3 = 3.5 fuel loads per ton of fuel

53,146 divided by 3.5
Answer: 15,184 tons of fuel

total 100 Octane fuel issued between July 11 and October 31 = 62,000 tons:

fuel consumed = 51,000 tons - 16,563 tons = 35,816 tons available for other purposes.

The only engines cleared to use 100 Octane fuel were Merlin II, II, X(? Flight 1938 article), XII and Bristol Mercury XV.

1) Was 100 octane fuel available to Fighter Command? Yes

2) Was there enough 100 octane fuel available to cover all sorties flown by Fighter Command during the battle? Yes

3) Was enough 100 Octane fuel distributed and used throughout the battle to allow Fighter Command to fly all 53,146 sorties from July to 6 October? Yes, with more than enough left over to allow Blenheim IVs of Bomber Command and Coastal Command to operate, and more than enough to allow for secondary duties.

Can anyone explain what happened to all that fuel if only half of FCs frontline fighters were allowed to use it?

winny

03-23-2012, 08:46 PM

Can anyone explain what happened to all that fuel if only half of FCs frontline fighters were allowed to use it?

I knew the Fighter pilots were putting in their cars, I just didn't realise how much!

Or maybe they were drinking it?

;)

Robo.

03-23-2012, 08:50 PM

(...)and the differences between the 109 and Spitfire are not that great.

I understand, my comment was purely regarding the in-game performance as it is at this moment.

Anyway, thanks very much for the information, your research is appreciated, I bet I am not alone here reading these documents with interest. Cheers for that NZ (and others, too!)

Crumpp

03-25-2012, 05:17 PM

1) Was 100 octane fuel available to Fighter Command? Yes

Was 100/150 grade available to FC? Yes

2) Was there enough 100 octane fuel available to cover all sorties flown by Fighter Command during the battle? Yes

Was there enough 100/150 grade to cover all sorties flown? Yes

(It is called strategic reserves...)

We all know what happened when the same group of people started using the logic on that one.

Can anyone explain what happened to all that fuel if only half of FCs frontline fighters were allowed to use it?

Sure, some of consumed fuel was used in aircraft and all of it issued to the fields operating those aircraft. It appears that we have 16 squadrons on 31 July 1940 and we still have 16 squadrons by September.

You take a very very simplistic view. You do realize that in December 1944, the USAAF in Europe, had 4 billion barrels of aviation gasoline issued out and some 12 billion in reserve.

The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

Until then, it appears the RAF is simply building up the logistical base required to support the eventual change to 100 grade.

I will scan those Order of Battle charts from the RAF today.

Crumpp

03-25-2012, 05:18 PM

Can we see the rest of that document Glider?

Glider

03-25-2012, 05:25 PM

You can have anything that I have but which document in particular are you looking for, I posted a number of different ones. If its the Order of Battle I have posted this on posting 746

Al Schlageter

03-25-2012, 06:35 PM

Was 100/150 grade available to FC? Yes
The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

And you refuse to to understand that 87 fuel was used by other RAF Commands besides FC.

NZtyphoon

03-25-2012, 08:28 PM

Was there enough 100/150 grade to cover all sorties flown? Yes

1)We all know what happened when the same group of people started using the logic on that one.

2)The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

1)Prove the first statement ie: I want to see the thread that you keep trumpeting as proof that 100/150 grade was not used.

2) If you're too obtuse to understand that "Other Grades" (not just 87 Octane) were used by Bomber Command, Coastal Command, etc which used big aircraft with large fuel tanks - eg Wellington 750 gallons - that's your pigeon. It is a lame argument, but then all of your arguments are lame.

Glider

03-25-2012, 10:57 PM

The heat is rising again and I believe that people need to calm down and the best way is for some simple questions to be asked and to get some replies.

The latest focus of conversation is the fuel that was used.

We know that Bomber Command did approx 10,600 combat sorties during the BOB (data from Bomber Command Diary page 91, period 26 June to 13 October) plus a lot of training flights number unknown. I don't pretend to know the size of the tanks on Bomber Command aircraft but can safely assume that they are a lot bigger than a SE fighter.

Crump
The question I have is simple, do you agree that they would have used 87 octane until late August / September when they were allowed to use 100 Octane as per the paper I posted?

Edit
For the period 10 May to 25th June BC undertook approx 5,100 sorties

NZtyphoon

03-26-2012, 02:29 AM

The heat is rising again

The latest focus of conversation is the fuel that was used.

We know that Bomber Command did approx 10,600 combat sorties during the BOB (data from Bomber Command Diary page 91, period 26 June to 13 October) plus a lot of training flights number unknown. I don't pretend to know the size of the tanks on Bomber Command aircraft but can safely assume that they are a lot bigger than a SE fighter.

Crump
The question I have is simple, do you agree that they would have used 87 octane until late August / September when they were allowed to use 100 Octane as per the paper I posted?

Edit
For the period 10 May to 25th June BC undertook approx 5,100 sorties

The heat is rising again because we have had exactly this same "conversation" before. Crumpp has had people take the time to explain very carefully where his reasoning is flawed, yet he is parroting exactly the same stuff again as though he hasn't bothered absorbing anything that's been presented. Why should any of us waste any more time on this inanity? :rolleyes:

Anyway the only info I can find on the fuel capacity of British bombers/Coastal Command aircraft is:
Vickers-Armstrong Wellington = 750 imp gallons Whitley, probably similar; Hampden about the same as Blenheim?

Short Sunderland = 2,550 imp gal

And I still want the the url for the thread on 100/150 grade fuel, and not just Crumpp/Barbi's interpretation.

Crumpp

03-26-2012, 03:29 AM

NZtyphoon

03-26-2012, 03:49 AM

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/219105-FW-190-D9-vs-Spit-25lbs-on-Full-Real?p=3217673&viewfull=1#post3217673

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/219105-FW-190-D9-vs-Spit-25lbs-on-Full-Real?p=3358320&viewfull=1#post3358320

-Berger, Monty and Street, Brian Jeffrey.Invasion Without Tears. Toronto, Canada: Random House, 1994 (1st ed) ISBN 0-394-22277-6

And that's all? That's all Crumpp can put forward to somehow "prove" that the RAF didn't use 100 Octane fuel in 1940? What have either of these two replies got to do with fuel stockpiles or any of the other nonsense Crumpp has been spouting?

NZTyphoon, Once again.....

In the pursuit of gamers proving 100/150 grade was the standard fuel of the RAF, documents were produced that showed hundreds of thousand of tons of the fuel being moved around various stations and brought into the RAF logistical system in anticipation of the fuel being adopted.

The operational use turned out to be extremely limited and for a very short period of time before it was withdrawn from service.

As noted, the whole story ever increasingly reminds old participants of the 150 grade-fiasco of lane and co. The agenda of 'all the RAF fighter Command was using 150 grade' was pressed with the same fortitude, documents were manipulated and doctored for support the same, until documentary evidence become clear and it turned out that 'all +25 lbs Mark IXs using 150 grade' were in fact but two Sqns on operational trials, the '+25 lbs Mk XIVs' lane was pushing for never existed due to technical troubles, those '+25 RAF Mustang IIIs of the RAF in 1944' were again just two Sqns who have seen the enemy about twice, once over France and once over the North Sea, were and proposed use of 150 grade in the 2nd TAF's IX units was recalled after a month of operation in 1945 - a fact that lane still omits from his website articles. ;)

The 100 octane story/agenda is the same, with the same old origins, methods and smokescreen - though I am sure its can be presented as better case than what turned out to be the truth about 150 grade (giggles).

Reading the whole thread presented by Crumpp shows nothing like the story Barbi tells; in fact far from proving Mike Williams aka lane wrong, or showing any evidence of "manipulated or doctored documents" Crumpp congratulated Mike on his research - which is about all Crumpp got right. Just another example of how Barbi is prepared to stretch and manipulate the truth in an effort to discredit other members of this forum.

Sorry, if Crumpp thinks the thread he has presented as "evidence" proves his case, that the RAF built up reserves of 100 octane without using it, he is dreaming. All it proves is that that Barbi and co have lost the debate and have nothing practical to say.

Glider

03-26-2012, 04:03 AM

CRUMPP/NZ
I admit to not giving a damn about 150 octane, this thread is about 100 Octane in the BOB.

Crumpp, can I ask you to confirm that your belief is that Bomber Command used 87 Octane during the BOB period until 100 octane was released for general use in all front line commands in August.

NZtyphoon

03-26-2012, 06:05 AM

Not accounting for non-operational flights (I've just checked the link given for old RAF records, one of the ORB's, iirc for 56 Sqn states that 159 non-operational - ie. training, setup - flying hours were accumlated by the Squadron in the first week of August 1940 alone.

This roughly translates to 25-30 tons of avgas, for a single fighter Squadron, for a week, or about 100-120 tons per month if the first week of August was typical. How many Fighter Squadrons were there, 60 or so..? Works out at roughly 6-7000 tons per month for the entire comand. And at this point not a single operational sortie was flown yet..

It does not take into account bombers that consumed many times that of a fighter on a single sortie, or non operational flight. Its a good educated guess that a single bomber Squadron would consume about 5 times as much avgas than a fighter Squadron - and we know some Blenheim Squadrons were involved. How much fuel that would be, say 500 tons of avgas per month per Bomber Squadron? With just two Blenheim Squadrons we are at 1000 tons for non-operational flights. So we are 7-8000 tons with the two Blenheim Squadrons a month.

It does not account for requirements for engine manufacturers to test run engines etc. IIRC in 1944 the British aviation industry required some 2000 tons of 150 grade avgas per month for testing, run-in purposes. Engines have to run-in, and so do newly produced aircraft.. let's assume they needed the same amount in 1940m too. Engines have to be run in before they are safe for full power - the Germans iirc prescribed 15 hours for DB 605AM running time before full ratings could be used and there wouldn't be too much wear or risk of failure. Lets assume 15 hours for the RAF in 1940, which received about 500 new fighters a month, and probably twice the number of engines, at low-power consumption of 25 gallons/hour. That's 15x1000x25=ca. 1700 tons per month.. pretty close.

Hmm. We have 10 000 tons of 100 octane per month, assuming 60 Fighter Squadrons and 2 Blenheim Squadrons are using 100 octane and flying regular non-operational missions, and that the manufacturers also run-in their engines and planes properly instead of placing a 'Hope you get lucky' sticker on them upon delivery.

But at this point, not a single flight was made against the Luftwaffe using 100 octane fuel.

Trouble is, according to the consumption figures, for example in August 1940 an avarage of 10 000 tons of 100 octane was consumed for all the above purposes AND operational flights. There's simply not enough high octane fuel for all that for all Squadrons, hence why about 2/3s-3/4 of the consumption is 87 octane.

Of course the figures above are just a rough guess, but then again simply dividing fuel/hurri tank capacity is even rougher..
Post #784 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=402400#post402400)

How much 100 octane fuel was needed to fly all 53,146 defensive sorties flown by FC to October 6? Total = 15,184 tons of fuel

total 100 Octane fuel issued between July 11 and October 31 = 62,000 tons:

fuel consumed July 1 - Oct 31 = 51,000 tons - 16,563 tons = 35,816 tons available for other purposes.

NLS61

03-26-2012, 01:20 PM

Post #784 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=402400#post402400)

How much 100 octane fuel was needed to fly all 53,146 defensive sorties flown by FC to October 6? Total = 15,184 tons of fuel

total 100 Octane fuel issued between July 11 and October 31 = 62,000 tons:

fuel consumed July 1 - Oct 31 = 51,000 tons - 16,563 tons = 35,816 tons available for other purposes.

How much was destroyed du to enemy action?

ACE-OF-ACES

03-26-2012, 02:35 PM

What have either of these two replies got to do with fuel stockpiles or any of the other nonsense Crumpp has been spouting?
nothing but a..

http://pioneerminister.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/diversion.jpg

Al Schlageter

03-26-2012, 04:11 PM

How much was destroyed du to enemy action?

Not 35,816 tons worth.;)

Osprey

03-26-2012, 04:54 PM

Kurfurst still won't give up his propaganda campaign. After being banned is editing Wikipedia articles without asking and trying to sneak it under admins noses by IP address

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.101.5.223

Just how many pro-Germany WW2 100 octane aircraft loons are there in Budapest these days?
http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/86.101.5.223#Comments

Glider

03-26-2012, 05:49 PM

How much was destroyed du to enemy action?

As far as I am aware little if any. 100 Octane was stored in underground tanks that were well camouflaged and away from ports and other obvious choke points.

NZtyphoon

03-26-2012, 07:06 PM

How much was destroyed du to enemy action?
According to the Official War History book Oil by D.J Payton-Smith "Losses of stocks were almost negligible; only about 7 per cent of naval stocks and 3 per cent of civil stocks were lost in Britain by enemy action between July 1940 and June 1941. The Army and Royal Air Force lost no stocks at all." p. 137.

Unfortunately for Barbi and Crumpp it still leaves 35,816 tons of 100 Octane fuel available for "other" purposes, apart from FC frontline duties, including supplying FC with all their requirements for transfer flights, training etc, plus supplying engine manufacturers, MUs, repair depots, carrier pigeons, fighter-pigeons and bomber-pigeons etc. It also meant that Blenheims of BC and Coastal Command were able to fly frontline operations.

ACE-OF-ACES

03-26-2012, 07:28 PM

Gabelschwanz Teufel

03-26-2012, 10:07 PM

Crumpp

03-27-2012, 04:23 PM

35,816 tons

You think they only had a two to one reserve......on fuel??

:)

Al Schlageter

03-27-2012, 04:46 PM

You think they only had a two to one reserve......on fuel??

:)

:rolleyes: So :( when reading comprehension is lacking.

Osprey

03-27-2012, 05:02 PM

You think they only had a two to one reserve......on fuel??

:)

You think that they wouldn't use any of it in wartime, but store it up?

NZtyphoon

03-28-2012, 12:46 AM

You think they only had a two to one reserve......on fuel??

:)

Actually the 35,816 tons of 100 Octane consumed was used to cook sausages and eggs and and toast lots of Crumppets.

(He used exactly the same arguments against the RAF using 100/150 grade fuel - Crumpp, who doesn't know the differences between fuel reserves, fuel issued and fuel consumed, likes to believe that the RAF specialised in storing fuel reserves of high grade aviation fuel like squirrels and never using the stuff, unlike the generous Germans who used high octane fuel like it was water.) :rolleyes:

ACE-OF-ACES

03-28-2012, 02:44 AM

Actually the 35,816 tons of 100 Octane consumed was used to cook sausages and eggs and and toast lots of Crumppets.

(He used exactly the same arguments against the RAF using 100/150 grade fuel - Crumpp, who doesn't know the differences between fuel reserves, fuel issued and fuel consumed, likes to believe that the RAF specialised in storing fuel reserves of high grade aviation fuel like squirrels and never using the stuff, unlike the generous Germans who used high octane fuel like it was water.) :rolleyes:
LOL!

But be carful what you say 'here' because Kurfurst might use your quote at 'wiki' as source of proof as to why 100 octane was not aval for Spits and Hurris ;)

Skoshi Tiger

03-28-2012, 03:04 AM

NZtyphoon

03-28-2012, 09:18 AM

Just as an aside, What was the storage life for the fuel, (both 100 and 87 Octaine)? Less than a year? Modern fuels degrade over time (visibly noticable by the gums and varnishes that seperate from the fuel and discolour it) and would cause all sorts of issues in use. The Fuel companies advise not keeping fuel stored for any great length of time.

I would assume they would have used some sort of rolling reserve system that as new shipments of fuel would be put into storage and the older stock sent out to be used. Does anyone know how they managed their fuel reserves?

I found this pdf file Collective Knowledge on Aviation Gasolines (http://www.e0pc.com/mba.pdf) which, if you scroll down to pages 21 & 22 says:
"A petrol researcher named Charles F. Kettering and his assistant Thomas Midgley, and later Midgley‘s colleague Thomas Boyd, did about ten years of research on various fuel formulations and additives to both address the pinging noises heard in engines and to find a way to elongate the petroleum crude oil reserves (Kovarik, 1994/1999).

Shortly after its discovery, tetra-ethyl lead became ―‘Kettering‘s magic anti-knock fluid‘ (Kovarik, 1994/1999) that would provide the anti-knock margin necessary for engines to be designed both more efficiently to burn the fuel more fully in the combustion chambers and to generate more horsepower (Kovarik, 1994/1999). Lead was added to lower quality petroleum in low percentage volumes and this in combination with more effective combustion in the engines was recognized as an effective method for stretching the usage of refined crude oil products to help address oil shortage issues (Kovarik, 1994/1999).

Without going too much into detail about its advantages over other fuel additives to reduce knock, tetra-ethyl lead did not have a high freezing point, did not gum while in storage, did not lower the overall energy content or BTUs, and very little of it was needed to provide the benefits it was designed to deliver (Kovarik, 1994/1999). Tetra-ethyl lead did attack parts of the engine if too much was left behind after combustion, thus the need to use a scavenger such as bromide which achieved market dominance to meet this purpose (Kovarik, 1994/1999). Overall, tetra-ethyl lead became the low percentage additive of choice to help alleviate demands on oil reserves and to prevent knock even though health concerns over its manipulation had already been brought to the public‘s attention from its onset (Kovarik, 1994/1999)." This is wrong in that TEL didn't stop gumming altogether, but probably helped reduce it to manageable levels over a longer storage life.

The current shelf-life for 100 Octane (100LL) is about a year. (http://abovegroundfuelstoragetanks.com/fuel-storage/2011/avgas/) There's also an article here (http://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Avgas.html).

The Air Ministry produced books called the Aeroplane maintenance and Operation Series No. 16 "Aeroplane Fuel and Oil Systems" (http://www.transportstore.com/book.cfm/7466/1412/Aeroplane_Fuel_and_Oil_Systems__Dealing_with_the_M aintenance_and_Repair_of_the_Fuel_and_Oil_Systems_ on_Representative_Types_of_Aeroplanes_with_notes_o n_Testing_Aeroplane_Fuel_MOLLOY_E_ed) which had a chapter on Testing Aeroplane Fuel. While this does not specify a shelf life it describes the testing regime to ensure that aviation fuel is able to be used: for 87 Octane fuel it specifies "(a) Existent gum = not more than 100 milligrams per litre, by evaporative glass test (b) Potential gum = not more than 100 milligrams per litre after heating at 35° C. for 20 hours." Presumably testing was carried out from the fuel storage facilities all the way down to Squadron level.

Osprey

03-28-2012, 04:52 PM

Crump wouldn't happen to fly blue by any chance would he?

ACE-OF-ACES

03-28-2012, 05:00 PM

Crump wouldn't happen to fly blue by any chance would he?
He actully claims (or at least did) he plays NO PC games what so ever..

Which IMHO is funny, in an odd way, either way you look at it (true or false)

Osprey

03-28-2012, 07:12 PM

In that case why would he hang around a gaming forum disagreeing with majority opinion without evidence......

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NVVaosKw4z4/TsWcFUHS8EI/AAAAAAAAAF4/RDOq2aZa27E/s1600/cutetroll.jpg

Flanker35M

03-28-2012, 07:19 PM

S!

This fuel testing is done today also every day to ensure that no contaminants or similar enter the plane. Sure the methods are a bit better though. Leave out the smack talk etc. and this thread is very interesting.

ACE-OF-ACES

03-28-2012, 11:00 PM

In that case why would he hang around a gaming forum disagreeing with majority opinion without evidence......
Bingo!

That is one of the 'funny' thing I was referring too..

I am sure he considers it some sort of 'duty' on his part to set things right in the simmer world! Because god knows a guy with a pilot's license trumps anything said by a guy without a pilot's license! Some (most?) pilots are funny like that! Which reminds me of a little joke..

If your in a room full of people..

Question.. Do you know how to tell who are the pilots in the room?
Answer.. Easy, they are the ones that during any introduction point out they are pilots

Example

You: Hi my name is Dave what is your name?
Pilot: Hello my name is Eugene, I am a pilot!

Gabelschwanz Teufel

03-28-2012, 11:25 PM

The wristwatch. It's the wristwatch that's the giveaway. Every time.

Skoshi Tiger

03-29-2012, 12:32 AM

Bingo!
Because god knows a guy with a pilot's license trumps anything said by a guy without a pilot's license! Some (most?) pilots are funny like that!

Cool! I'ld better start mentioning it a bit more often. Did you know I've got a ..... Hang on! Do you need a current medical certificate??????

;)

Crumpp

03-29-2012, 03:09 AM

What was the storage life for the fuel,

Don't confuse the sweetened stock with the blended fuel you put in your tank. Blending does not occur until the gas is leaving the storage facility and heading for the pump to be sold or put into a vehicle to be used. Once it is blended, it is considered consumed.

All the 100LL stock is made one time per year. It is not blended though until it is sold to an airport. The Reid Vapor Pressure tolerances of aviation fuel are much more stringent than automotive fuel.

The Energy Information Administration says the switch between the two fuels happens twice a year, once in the fall (winter blend) and again in the spring (summer blend). Summer-blend gasoline is typically more expensive to produce than the winter blend, and it won’t affect vehicle performance or the durability of the engine and fuel system, according to the EPA.

http://ask.cars.com/2009/02/whats-the-difference-between-summerblend-gasoline-and-winterblend-gasoline-does-it-affect-my-cars-pe.html

You can get away with blending automotive fuel twice per year for the most part.

Airplane fuel does not work that way. My old Socata used to have vapor lock issues because I did not fly for months when I was away on business. The plane would sit with full tanks in the hanger. By the time I got to fly it, the conditions had changed from when it blended to maintain Reid VP and I would end up hitting the auxiliary fuel pump all the time to keep my fuel pressure up so the engine would not quit. Once that gas was out of my tanks, I did not have to use the aux pump except for start, takeoff, and landing.

NZtyphoon

03-29-2012, 03:40 AM

Next point is "consumed" does not mean it was put in an airplane and used up. Aircraft fuel has a specific shelf life to it. Once mixed it is distributed and considered consumed. For example, 100LL stock is refined only ONCE per year in the United States. The stock is then distributed to the holding yards. When it is dispensed to the airports, the final mix of that stock occurs and it becomes 100LL fuel. Just because the airport buys 15,000 gallons does not mean it will be sold and go into airplanes by the time the shelf life is over. That is why airport managers keep data on fuel sales!

That does not mean they mixed up a huge batches of 100 grade to be "disposed of" either. In many cases fuel can be converted back to stock and then again to a lower grade. It is still 100 grade that is consumed whether it comes back to the holding yard or not!

This is why the same reasoning that was used to "prove" the 100/150 grade extent of use was so flawed. First the strategic stocks must be maintained and once the fuel is mixed, it is "consumed". Nothing to do with it being blown out the exhaust pipe of an airplane.

Airplane fuel does not work that way. My old Socata used to have vapor lock issues because I did not fly for months when I was away on business. The plane would sit with full tanks in the hanger. By the time I got to fly it, the conditions had changed from when it blended to maintain Reid VP and I would end up hitting the auxiliary fuel pump all the time to keep my fuel pressure up so the engine would not quit. Once that gas was out of my tanks, I did not have to use the aux pump except for start, takeoff, and landing.

And what exactly do intensive wartime operations of military aircraft have to do with what US civil aviation does with fuel blended and used for peacetime civilian operations? Socata's sitting in hangers for months? So What? For instance, the standard practice of the RAF was to fill the tanks of their fighters asap after landing to avoid vapour locks, condensation etc - there was no time for fuel to deteriorate through sitting around in a hanger for months waiting for something to happen. By Crumpp's reasoning the RAF mixed up small batches of 100 octane fuel then let it sit around, or tested it to see if it would work, instead of using as much as possible at a time when the country was facing full scale air assault!

Confusing peacetime civilian practice with military practice during wartime, and saying that the same constraints apply to the use of aviation fuel is just nonsense. It is just another red herring by someone who doesn't want to admit that he has no arguments left against FC using 100 octane fuel for all of its front line operations by Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants throughout the Battle of Britain.

ACE-OF-ACES

03-29-2012, 02:41 PM

It is just another red herring by someone who doesn't want to admit that he has no arguments left against FC using 100 octane fuel for all of its front line operations by Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants throughout the Battle of Britain.
Agreed 100%

Now.. as I said a dozen or so pages ago..

Why are you guys wasting your time arguing with this less than a handful bunch of biased nay-sayers?

I think you guys should start a group PM here to pull all this data togther into a nice little package and submit it to someone that actully maters here in the real world.. i.e. Luither.

Luither has shown in the past to be someone with an open mind, that is to say if you provide him the data he will make the change if the change can be made.

PS if you need a place to post your result I can offer up my website as a place to post your 'summary' of all this data

www.flightsimtesting.com

Al Schlageter

03-29-2012, 04:14 PM

I am still waiting for the 40 plus Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons that only used 87 fuel during the whole BoB from the Dynamic Duo.

Eugene still hasn't produced the OoB he said he would post.

ACE-OF-ACES

03-29-2012, 04:24 PM

Well don't hold your breath! ;)

But seriosly.. You guys really need to stop wasting your time with these guys.. Put them on ignore and lets work togther to put togther a package for Luiter.

fruitbat

03-29-2012, 05:51 PM

Osprey

03-29-2012, 08:06 PM

NZtyphoon

03-30-2012, 12:15 AM

Well don't hold your breath! ;)

But seriosly.. You guys really need to stop wasting your time with these guys.. Put them on ignore and lets work togther to put togther a package for Luiter.

I agree - this thread has long run its course; if Barbi and Crumpp and co want to believe in their horse pucky let 'em - I nominate and second Ace to be organiser. 8-)

Al Schlageter

03-30-2012, 12:30 PM

A little graphic I put together using info from this thread, the official RAF website and the Spit Perf website. It is from July 1 to Sept 30 1940.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3503/bobdeploy7.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/214/bobdeploy7.jpg/)

Osprey

03-30-2012, 12:51 PM

Nice, but can we have is in .xls?

Al Schlageter

03-30-2012, 01:04 PM

xls is not a savable extension in SmartDraw.

ACE-OF-ACES

03-30-2012, 02:12 PM

I nominate and second Ace to be organiser. 8-)
Well.. if no one else wants to do it I can hurd the cats! ;)

Ill start a group PM this weekend.. We can discuss our goals and work from there. S!

Crumpp

03-31-2012, 12:42 AM

By Crumpp's reasoning the RAF mixed up small batches of 100 octane fuel then let it sit around, or tested it to see if it would work, instead of using as much as possible at a time when the country was facing full scale air assault!

No...you did not read the link.

Once a fuel is blended, it is considered consumed just I told you before. I just pointed out the error in fact you are making.

My personal belief is the RAF operated 16 squadrons on the fuel as that is what our facts say. No need to build a house of cards based on crude, one-dimensional, speculation and factual error.

Crumpp

03-31-2012, 01:54 AM

Here is a PPT presentation on the tax issues of gasoline production. The important take away is the Terminal does the blending from Gasoline stocks(see page 8 ). Now there are different types of gasoline stocks. You don't use car gasoline stock to produce 100LL aviation fuel. Just like 100 grade aviation fuel used during WWII, 100LL has its own blend-stock but like all gasoline products it must be blended at the terminal just before delivery to the customer to make the finished product.

http://www.api.org/meetings/topics/taxation/upload/Gasoline_Blendstocks_and_Midstream_Business_Oscar_ Garza-2.pdf

Al Schlageter

03-31-2012, 02:23 AM

No...you did not read the link.

Once a fuel is blended, it is considered consumed just I told you before. I just pointed out the error in fact you are making.

My personal belief is the RAF operated 16 squadrons on the fuel as that is what our facts say. No need to build a house of cards based on crude, one-dimensional, speculation and factual error.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sure Eugene, that is why this paper says 'weekly issues' instead of the word 'weekly consumption'.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/weekly-issues-100octane.jpg

Lots of gum flapping without listing those 16 squadrons.

NZtyphoon

03-31-2012, 05:28 AM

My personal belief is the RAF operated 16 squadrons on the fuel as that is what our facts say. No need to build a house of cards based on crude, one-dimensional, speculation and factual error.

Which is exactly what you're doing, and you will clearly stick to your core belief come hell or high water. Not a problem. ;)

If you want to continue to believe that for some obscure reason the RAF issued 62,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel, then consumed 52,000 gallons, while only needing some 16,000 tons to fly every sortie flown between July 10 and October 6 then okay, that's your pigeon. :cool:

If you want to stick to the story that the RAF only allowed 16 squadrons to use the fuel, based on an abbreviated, pre-war transcript of what was probably a lengthy discussion - go ahead. :cool:

If you honestly believe that modern peacetime practices equate to 1940s wartime conditions when, as I will repeat - because you can't seem to grasp this tiny issue - the RAF was fighting off a full scale air assault, hey go for it! :rolleyes:

Alec Harvey-Bailey, The Merlin in Perspective, (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Derby, 1983)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/rolls-royce-100oct.jpg

W.G. Dudek and D. R. Winans, excerpt from AIAA Paper No. 69-779, Milestones in Aviation Fuels, (Esso Research and Engineering Company, New York 1969.)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/Page_16_from_AIAA-42363-319.jpg

A. R. Ogston, excerpt from History of Aircraft Lubricants (Society of Automotive Enginees, Inc. Warrendale, PA USA), p. 12.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/aircraft-lubricants-pg12.jpg

Just explain to everyone why it is that people far more qualified than you say the fuel was blended at the refineries, then shipped to Britain as 100 Octane fuel? (Not forgetting, either, that 100 octane was also blended in Britain, which is why some of the Beaconhill fuel was set aside as a sample.) And please explain why people, who are far more qualified than you, tell us that the switchover to 100 Octane for all Spitfires and Hurricanes was in March 1940?

And please explain why the same rules don't apply to other grades of aviation fuel? Why is it that you accept entirely the proposition that the RAF can issue and consume 87 Octane fuel, which is also blended, in large quantities and you have no similar objections? Hmmm? Why apply this logic ONLY to 100 Octane fuel?

Glider

03-31-2012, 05:12 PM

My personal belief is the RAF operated 16 squadrons on the fuel as that is what our facts say. No need to build a house of cards based on crude, one-dimensional, speculation and factual error.

You are of course free to believe what you like but you cannot claim any facts, for instance.

a) You do not know which squadrons
b) You do not know which stations
c) You do not know how it was to be distributed
d) You do know the roll out schedule,
e) You do not even know if the schedule was kept at 16 fighter squadrons as the last para states that this is subject to change.

Now if you can prove any of the above, you might have a case as without any proof you do not have any facts

Can you list the facts you do have.

41Sqn_Banks

04-01-2012, 07:31 AM

You are of course free to believe what you like but you cannot claim any facts, for instance.

a) You do not know which squadrons
b) You do not know which stations
c) You do not know how it was to be distributed
d) You do know the roll out schedule,
e) You do not even know if the schedule was kept at 16 fighter squadrons as the last para states that this is subject to change.

Now if you can prove any of the above, you might have a case as without any proof you do not have any facts

Can you list the facts you do have.

Indeed. The 16+2 squadrons were planed, and we don't have a document that proofs that the numbers of the plan were reached, not reached or even exceeded.
Of course we have the combat reports that show way more squadrons. Remains the "rotation theory" but this is clearly wrong. There are combat reports of 41 Squadron that proof the use of 100 octane fuel during their time in Hornchurch (11 Group) and few days later when they were back in Catterick (13 Group).

Al Schlageter

04-01-2012, 09:53 PM

Now, now Banks stop providing facts that will be ignored by Eugene. He has ignored them before, so why do you think he will not ignore them again.

Sturm_Williger

04-02-2012, 12:46 AM

NZtyphoon

04-02-2012, 04:01 AM

Well, this thread is both quite interesting and yet also rather demented in its last 50 pages or so.

From all the arguments and counter-arguments posted, it seems clear that the following can be derived :
100 octane fuel was used by ( a substantial number of/a lot of/quite a few ) Fighter Squadrons.
87 octane may have been used by ( a few/some ) Squadrons as well.

Therefore the ideal solution would be for the Devs to model both and allow Mission-builders to determine airfield availability.

Isn't this what most (all ? ) of us would prefer to see ?

Demented? :rolleyes: Considering that those with little or no evidence to prove their case -
ie: that the RAF only allowed 1/3rd to 1/2 of the frontline fighter squadrons (Hurricane, Spitfire, Defiant) to use 100 Octane fuel -
were hiding their lack of evidence behind a smokescreen of bluster, red-herrings and diversions "...a tale told by an Idiot, full of Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing."

while demanding 100% iron-clad proof, down to the last crossed t and dotted i, that the RAF allowed all front-line fighter units to use 100 Octane fuel throughout the B of B - things got a little...demented. ;)

Apart from anything else the amount of 100 Octane fuel issued and consumed, versus the amount needed to accomplish all of the frontline daylight sorties carried out by Fighter Command from July through October 1940, should be enough on its own to show that the probability that all front-line Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants used 100 Octane fuel throughout the battle, is extremely high.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

Arthur Conan Doyle

Glider

04-02-2012, 12:47 PM

I would agree with Sturm in that the developers will use both fuels and let the mission builders make the call. If the misson is over N Ireland then 100 octane wouldn't be needed anyway as there wouldn't be any 109's. If they insist on 87 octane in no 11 group then I can imagine what response they would get.

The reason I first joined the thread was to ensure that the misson builders were not limiting the RAF to 16 squadrons as that was patently wrong.

Crumpp

04-02-2012, 01:02 PM

16 squadrons as that was patently wrong.

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

Crumpp

04-02-2012, 01:32 PM

Just explain to everyone why it is that people far more qualified than you say the fuel was blended at the refineries,

It says they made the 100 grade stock. The article explains how they making regular gasoline stock using catalytic cracking produced a stock pure enough to be have alkylation it was made into 100 grade fuel stock.

Of course they blended the alkylates at the refinery. Stockyards do not have the equipment to do that kind of operation. Stockyards today do not perform alkylation either.

Fuel stock is what gets shipped from the refinery. It is not the fuel that goes into airplane tanks.

Even aircraft oil requires blending. An extreme example is for Lycoming engines that you can find oil that is already blended or you must blend it yourself. There is an mandatory service bulletin that requires certain Lycoming engines to use LW-16702. Lycoming highly recommends the additive for all of their engines.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/service-bulletins/pdfs/SB471B.PDF

Here you can buy the additive and blend it yourself....

Avco Lycoming has approved oil additive LW-16702 that contains an anti-scuffing agent and can dramatically reduce engine wear. This additive is applicable to all Avco Lycoming piston aircraft engines, and factory recommends use at every oil change or every 50 hours, whichever occurs first.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/lycoiladditive.php

Or you can buy the oil already blended:

Contains additive LW16702 which reduces engine wear and corrosion.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/aeroshelloils3.php

Either way, if you fly a certain Lycoming engine, you must have use it.

Al Schlageter

04-02-2012, 01:38 PM

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

You continually fail to name those 16 squadrons despite pilot reports saying at least 22 squadrons using 12 boost which required 100 fuel before July.

You have yet to produce that OOB you said you would. Sure they did :rolleyes: as my graphic shows.

Osprey

04-02-2012, 03:07 PM

From all the arguments and counter-arguments posted, it seems clear that the following can be derived :

87 octane may have been used by ( a few/some ) Squadrons as well.

Actually this is the part that hasn't been proved, because there is no evidence of it whatsoever aside from a couple of training flights becoming embroiled on the odd occasion (listed by Glider). The problem is that one or two people have taken this lack of any evidence as reason enough that it was so widespread as not to be worth mentioning, anywhere, ever.

Aside from that I agree, modelling both would be best for very early war scenarios.

Osprey

04-02-2012, 03:10 PM

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=401901&postcount=772

This is only the Spitfire squadrons. Please don't make the suggestion that Hurricanes were all on 87 for god's sake.

ACE-OF-ACES

04-02-2012, 03:13 PM

Hey Guys

Got a little busy this last weekend, was not able to put out the group PM, so don't feel left out if you didn't get the PM! I hope to get to it this week!

Glider

04-02-2012, 06:35 PM

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by .

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

I would like you to read your source, If you look at it you will find they are one and the same and there isn't one that says 16 squadrons were using 100 octane in September.

If there is I would be glad to see it but I am certain that you don't have one that says, sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel to quote your words.
If you cannot supply such a source, I would like an explanation as to why you are saying that you have such a paper and don't.

Crumpp

04-02-2012, 07:50 PM

NZtyphoon

04-02-2012, 09:24 PM

As per usual Crumpp, you have not explained anything by diverting into modern peacetime practices.

Please explain why the RAF issued 62,000 tons of 100 Octane between July and end of October 1940, consumed 52,000 tons, yet just over 15,000 tons was needed to fly every defensive sortie flown between July 10 and October 6?

And, no I don't care what happens in the private aviation business now, it would be good if you could explain: what happened to some 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in 1940?

May I repeat that?

What happened to 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel?

The rest of your claims - that only 16 Squadrons ever used the stuff until sometime in September - are based on Morgan and Shacklady which, as I have explained very carefully, based their claims on a pre-war planning paper, which is a highly suspect way of explaining what happened in wartime, when Britain was facing a full scale air assault and the possibility of invasion.

In fact the entire section of the use of 100 Octane fuel in Morgan and Shacklady is a deeply flawed analysis of what happened in 1940. For example, they claim that lots of tankers carrying 100 Octane were sunk by U-Boats etc, but provide absolutely NO evidence to back the claim up. In fact something like 78 tankers (Barbi's figures) were sunk between September 1939 and November 1940 while 1,150 unloaded their cargoes in Britain during the same period. Just because Morgan and Shacklady are great at describing the technical details of Spitfires it doesn't mean that they have a complete grasp of all historical events of the times.

All Crumpp can come up with is absolutely nothing. Why he wants to believe so fervently - so religiously (evidence of things unseen) and rigidly - that the RAF used very limited amounts of 100 Octane fuel is beyond me, and I don't really care. I have far more important things to do than bother with his nonsense and blather any more.

Glider

04-02-2012, 09:39 PM

Glider you have seen the sources. They are already posted in this thread.

I am not interested in wasting my time hunting them down to be re-posted. Read the thread, please.

I will scan the OOB's but on my time not yours.

Your right, I have seen the sources and they don't say what you claim. Please note item 8.

So just to sum up the outstanding questions which are outstanding with you

1) Have you any evidence to support the 16 squadron idea
2) If you believe that it was a rotational issue so only 16 squadrons were using 100 octane at any one time, is there anything to support your theory
3) I am not that interested in your OOB as I posted one from the official archives which clearly showed more than 16 squadrons in the front line 10, 11, 12 Group at any one time. I am confident that if your supported your views then you would have posted them in double quick time

So I must repeat you may have your belief but you do not have any facts, none at all.

I believe the following to be the source that you are using, if you have more than that then please let us know because they are not in this thread:-

Al Schlageter

04-02-2012, 10:33 PM

I see Eugene is doing his usual song and dance routine evading answering direct questions.

He knows he is wrong about only 16 squadrons but as he is never wrong, he won't admit he is wrong. If he was so sure of only 16 squadrons, then why hasn't he given their numbers.

Which 16 squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were using 100 fuel in September Eugene?

Which squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were still using 87 fuel in September Eugene?

We won't get an answer, as like Barbi, he expects others to do his research and then won't believe the research of others when presented.

Crumpp

04-02-2012, 11:04 PM

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9835/boboob.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/11/boboob.jpg/)

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/4720/boboob2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/boboob2.jpg/)

I have them for every few weeks over the course of the entire battle. The facts are the RAF maintained a rather vigorous rotation schedule.

Crumpp

04-02-2012, 11:15 PM

I see Eugene is doing his usual song and dance routine evading answering direct questions.

No, I just ignore you for the most part. ;)

NZtyphoon

04-02-2012, 11:37 PM

No, I just ignore you for the most part. ;)

Nope, you just ignore the stuff you have no answers for, because you have no evidence to back up your fervent beliefs, just like your pal Barbi. So, you want to ignore people who have legitimate questions you won't answer? You're on my ignore list, because you just ain't worth bothering with. :cool:

Al Schlageter

04-03-2012, 12:06 AM

So which squadrons were using 12lb boost and 100 fuel?

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/4720/boboob2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/boboob2.jpg/)

Glider

04-03-2012, 06:26 AM

So which squadrons were using 12lb boost and 100 fuel?

That is the core of the issue and one that would bury this rotation theory.

Its interesting as we know from papers that Drem had 100 octane and that Drem is a satallite station of Turnhouse which means that Turnhouse had 100 octane. Take that a stage further, it means that on the 30 Sept Drem in Scotland had 3 squadrons and 2 flights using 100 Octane i.e. a fifth of the RAF supply of 100 Octane was in Scotland

41Sqn_Banks

04-03-2012, 07:23 AM

41 Squadron definitely had 100 octane fuel while operating from Catterick in 19 June 1940, 11 August and 15 August. They also had 100 octane fuel while operating from Hornchurch and satellite Manston at the dates between.
In June they frequently operated from satellite station Hartlepool.

Flanker35M

04-03-2012, 07:42 AM

41Sqn_Banks

04-03-2012, 08:15 AM

S!

I wonder why you guys outright deny rotation of squadrons. That is mentioned even in memoirs of Johnnie Johnson, Geoffrey Wellum etc. that squadrons were pulled back for resting, refitting, training for new planes etc. Pilots were too tired to fight and losses did cut the effectiveness of a squadron. Are you so obsessed with this 100 Octane Crusade that you fail to see the trees from the wood? This same rotation was used throughout the war by Allies and even today rotation is a principle used by armed forces.

No one is denying the rotation of squadrons. There is the theory that a squadron used 100 octane fuel when at a certain location (e.g. 11 Group) but didn't used it when rotated to another location(e.g. 13 Group). This would mean that not mroe than 30 squadrons used 100 octane fuel but maybe only 16 squadrons at the same time.

The point is: If a squadron used 100 octane fuel in 11 Group and also in 13 Group this mean a) either 100 octane fuel was used in 11 and 13 Group
b) or the fuel was transferred together with the squadron (which is of course very unlikely)

Case a) and the reported use 100 octane fuel in at least 30 squadrons proofs that the "16 squadron" limit was not effective.

What will be next you guys want? Luthier slaps in 100 Octane to all Sissies and Hurricanes. Next you start the crusade that it was not 5min clearance for maximum boost but indefinite time and engines suffered no damage even some exceeded it? With the kiddyplay CEM we have now 100 Octane and 5min limit will be abused to hell and back, like the 25lbs boost Sissyfire Mk.IX in IL-2 1946. CEM is a joke and simplistic at the moment.

It's well documented that +12 boost was a overload condition. The 5min real-life limitation of course doesn't mean the engine is dead after 5min 1sec. IIRC there is a document that states that engine life drops from 100hours to 20hours if +12 boost is used.
It's a gaming convention to use the real-life limitation as a trigger for engine damage, this has nothing to do with the negative effects in real-life.

You call names like Eugie and Barbi and still sit on your high horse to be the High Priests of Truth? You fall in to the same pit like everyone and pat eachother in the back in a circle for this. This thread could have been a VERY INFORMATIONAL one without this mud being slung and stubborn dug in attitudes seen. None of you know EXACTLY what happened or how things were no matter how many documents you scan. There is more than just a few scans seen here. I bet none of you would have the time to go through the archives in such manner that you would know in detail what happened. Now merely scratching the surface.

Agreed.

And bottom line is that Luthier does not need to put in to CoD this 100 Octane at all. Just changes the FM and voilá..you got it. Small text in GUI to tell which version you fly. And the crowd cheers. But it does not turn your planes into some magic X-Wings ;) I fly offline for different testing purposes BOTH red and blue planes, online mainly blue as I have done so since I started flying online 1997. So do not pull the blue bias on me ;) This is a GAME after all.

The benefits of +12 boost and 100 octane fuel are documented, there is a increase of speed and climb rate below FTH.

It may not add s-foil servomotors, lasers and a droid but at least it installs a warp drive, photon torpedoes and a Vulcan science officer ;)

Osprey

04-03-2012, 08:19 AM

Flanker, you are blue biased, it's really clear in your attitude. How can one claim to be impartial yet call one aircraft an insulting nickname? Please stop doing that.

addman

04-03-2012, 08:20 AM

NZtyphoon

04-03-2012, 10:18 AM

S!
You call names like Eugie and Barbi and still sit on your high horse to be the High Priests of Truth? You fall in to the same pit like everyone and pat eachother in the back in a circle for this. This thread could have been a VERY INFORMATIONAL one without this mud being slung and stubborn dug in attitudes seen. None of you know EXACTLY what happened or how things were no matter how many documents you scan. There is more than just a few scans seen here. I bet none of you would have the time to go through the archives in such manner that you would know in detail what happened. Now merely scratching the surface.

No-one is claiming to know EXACTLY what happened, and if you bother to read things properly instead of merely skimming through you will see that. What is important is the weight of evidence which shows that it is more than likely that FC used 100 Octane fuel for all daylight, frontline Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant sorties flown throughout the B of B.

If you knew anything at all about historical research - not just the kind of stuff dreamed up on many internet sites - you would know that finding 100% iron-clad evidence for anything is well nigh impossible, and most genuine historians understand that, and do their research accordingly.

The fact is that those who have very little evidence against the use of 100 octane fuel have spent the best part of this thread disputing, sneering at, and ridiculing every single scrap of evidence presented by people like Glider and lane, who have actually spent hours trawling through thousands of documents, usually at a great deal of expense. They have also spent a great deal of time sneering at, attacking and ridiculing Glider and lane and anyone else they happen to disagree with. So, accuse people of "sitting on a high horse" all you like - if you have been subjected to the same treatment, by these same people, over several websites, for years, you would probably be on a high horse as well.

As for your last little sneer? Have you ever bothered spending hours trawling through archives? Or is this just a little smart-alec throwaway line designed to make you feel good about yourself?

Al Schlageter

04-03-2012, 11:37 AM

Note: errors in the 2 OoBs that Eugene posted

July - Turnhouse - 243 squadron - no such accredited BoB squadron
Sept - Kenley - 233 squadron - no such accredited BoB squadron

There was a 253 squadron though.

Flanker35M

04-03-2012, 12:26 PM

S!

NZ Typhoon. Do you think I do NOT have access to historical data? For example the people of Finnish Virtual Pilots(part of that too) has access to the war archives here and the amount of stuff to trawl through is immense. And this from an Air Force smaller than RAF, but older ;) So do not preach to me about researching. I also did go through original documents on planes from pilot's notes to mechanic side of things. So please keep the insults to yourself, with all respect. I have resorted to it as well so I am not even claiming to be a saint ;)

Osprey, I want only accurate values in a GAME. Do not call this a "simulator" as it is far from it or has very few really modelled things. Compared to those simulators I see at work in military this is just a console port, if you get the picture ;) I fly blue because it offers more challenge than red. But I fly red too to learn their planes, so no bias here. And testing is fun, no matter which side. When you work with real fighter aircraft the more you see how little we have in this game, or any other title "simulated". Knowledge increases the pain so to say. The day I see a game that has been modelled without blue or red goggles I will be more than happy. But for now we have what we have, pot and kettle fights :)

Flanker35M

04-03-2012, 12:42 PM

S!

S-Foils and all that was funny Banks. Good one! I agree on the benefits of the fuel, but it seems many think it will be the I-Win button when it is not. After all it is the pilot, not the plane. CoD has the chance to be THE game when fixed and still waiting for that. Meanwhile have to settle what we have now :) I shoot down some and I get shot down..part of the game :) No hard feelings as this is a hobby in my scarse past time.

ACE-OF-ACES

04-03-2012, 01:59 PM

That's correct, if you are getting shot down a lot today you will get shot down a lot tomorrow too even if you have rocket fuel in your tanks.

*runs for cover from the incoming bombardment*
And this guy and his buddies accuse me of hit-n-run troll tatics just to stir up trouble.. Got to love the double standards..

Anyway, adults are trying to have a discussion here.. that has nothing to do with how many times you get shot down in the game.. please take your net elseware

ACE-OF-ACES

04-03-2012, 02:16 PM

The fact is that those who have very little evidence against the use of 100 octane fuel have spent the best part of this thread disputing, sneering at, and ridiculing every single scrap of evidence presented by people like Glider and lane, who have actually spent hours trawling through thousands of documents, usually at a great deal of expense.
If the less than a handful (three or so) of 100 octane nay-sayers were consistent with their 'standards' of proof..

I could cut them some slack

But, as it turns out they are not

On that note, If you want to see something real funny.. As in Kurfurst dropping his standards of proof to nil

Ask Kurfurst about flettner tab usage on the 109K-4 ailerons..

A few years back he was on a campaign to have Oleg change the 109K-4 FM to include flettner tabs on the ailerons..

His so called proof for doing so was based on a couple of pictures of mostly drawings not actual planes

And 'that' was enough proof as far as Kurfurst was concerned to change the 109K-4 FM.

Even though there are dozens and dozens of WWII pictures of actual 109K-4s shown without flettner tabs, and even though there is a famous WWII German test pilot report stating all the problems associated with flettner tabs

Mater of fact.. I think this was one of the reason he got banned from wiki

Osprey

04-03-2012, 06:21 PM

Osprey, I want only accurate values in a GAME. Do not call this a "simulator" as it is far from it or has very few really modelled things. Compared to those simulators I see at work in military this is just a console port, if you get the picture ;) I fly blue because it offers more challenge than red. But I fly red too to learn their planes, so no bias here. And testing is fun, no matter which side. When you work with real fighter aircraft the more you see how little we have in this game, or any other title "simulated". Knowledge increases the pain so to say. The day I see a game that has been modelled without blue or red goggles I will be more than happy. But for now we have what we have, pot and kettle fights :)

I agree, and that's what we are after by this very thread, so how you can deride the work of others without so much as reading and absorbing what they are saying before commenting is a little rude don't you think? I would like as much accuracy as a computer can muster, advantages, disadvantages, the lot.

I find your comment about working with aircraft condescending at best though. It's like you are telling us that you work with real aircraft so you should be listened to, yet also stating the bleedin' obvious that a computer game is not real. You are stating this because?

Finally, I am staggered if you think that blue is more of a challenge than red. It's pretty obvious what major, and thoroughly inaccurate, advantages blue have right now. Please do not complain when things get evened up, because they will, and you are going to find the Spitfire a world of pain for you.

S!

S-Foils and all that was funny Banks. Good one! I agree on the benefits of the fuel, but it seems many think it will be the I-Win button when it is not. After all it is the pilot, not the plane. CoD has the chance to be THE game when fixed and still waiting for that. Meanwhile have to settle what we have now :) I shoot down some and I get shot down..part of the game :) No hard feelings as this is a hobby in my scarse past time.

I'm confused Flanker, a moment ago you stated that it's a game, doesn't compare etc, and now you say it has a chance to be the best and that fighter tactics play such a big part. I agree with the latter and I would suggest that the former is mostly separated mainly by a few million £'s worth of hydraulics.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, on red are after an 'I-win' solution. I would argue that plenty on blue do though - take Kurfurst here for example, and even yourself who has an active dislike of Spitfires (you frequently call it a Sissyfire - why? Can you not recognise it is one of the most defining aircraft of the World? Do you not love flight?).
Most red fliers I know are historian types, re-enactors, and are not interested in competition at all. I'm one of them, I've flown competition in the USL and been a member of teams winning closed and open pit. I have nothing to prove, I want to enjoy a hobby and learn about this history, and replicate it as accurately as possible. I get really p*ssed off with these types who believe in hype and seek advantage at every turn.

5./JG27.Farber

04-03-2012, 06:47 PM

Is this 869 posts about 100 Octane fuel? :confused:

I have only one thing to say. More of a question if you will.

If these results were gathered about how fast an aircraft goes, would that data not already include the 100 octane fuel? As it is well known most RAF fighters flew on it is it not already included in the data?

:roll:

bw_wolverine

04-03-2012, 06:48 PM

This argument continues to be ridiculous.
There should be no debate that 100 octane was used in the battle. You'd be far better off telling all the red pilots to stop using DeWilde in 4 of 8 guns, because THAT'S a valid argument.

The REAL issue here isn't even anything to do with COMBAT in the game. I just want a Spitfire that flies like a Spitfire. End of story. I want to roar by Dover Castle doing a level 280+ MPH. I want to be able to flip the boost cut out and really feel it.

Any of those things going to win me more dog fights? Maybe in one or two, but the majority of the combats I get in? No. The majority of the combats I get in that I win are the result of superior positioning. That's not going to change.

So I put it thusly:
If the Spitfires are not modelled correctly, and everyone seems to AGREE on this, then fix it. I don't even understand where we got onto this 87 vs 100 argument ANYway. Where in the game does it say that 87 is being used? In the performance of the aircraft? That could be because of ANY number of reasons, including that the devs just plain screwed it up.

If ANY planes aren't being modelled correctly, fix them.

The biggest cause of all these arguments? Missions are not being made to reflect actual operations. The planes are performing roles they didn't perform during this simulated era, so its NO WONDER that we're getting people complaining that things aren't working out "right".

No more objectives for RED that involves bombing targets in the interior of France. The Battle of Britain was a fight for SURVIVAL. DEFENCE. PROTECTION OF GREAT BRITAIN. Fat lot of good I'll do shooting down the Luftwaffe masses if I'm just north of Paris. And 100octane fuel won't even get me back in time. If Bleheim pilots want targets to bomb, give them some! Just don't make those targets critical to Red winning the map.

Osprey

04-03-2012, 07:38 PM

Yes indeed Farber. The fuel gave an increase in performance up to FTH and we want that modeled. If it's modeled with 87 then the Spitfire will be slower than the 109 below 16 kft, which wasn't true when 12lbs was used and thus the reason this is on post 1 zillion is because a couple of people want a slower Spitfire in game than what was represented in the BoB.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
There is a graph on spitfireperformance.com which shows a considerable advantage but I would like to see more official data than the one displayed before I could be sure about that. This is the one they have vs the E-1 plus other data, some of it official.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-109espeed.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-109eclimb.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-109e-eng.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/db601englimits.jpg

roll rate
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bank45.gif

Dive acceleration is not here but combat reports all state that the 109 got away comfortably. Steep climbing turns are the opposite in game as IRL where the 109 should stall first on a 120mph climbing turn.

Osprey

04-03-2012, 07:42 PM

bw_wolverine

04-03-2012, 07:56 PM

And this. I totally agree, although I am personally not bothered about ATAG's choice of mission. Our server (Air Combat Group) runs historical missions, as do other servers, and that is a personal choice for the punter.

I'm really looking forward to the JG27 campaign regardless of FM anyway.

Yep. As soon as ACG Server is back up and running, I'll be all over it.

Flanker35M

04-03-2012, 08:06 PM

S!

Osprey, english is not my first language so some posts can sound harsh. What I meant with working with planes is that I bet most people here have only been in a Cessna or an airliner, seen planes in an airshow etc. Very few actually fly planes or maintain and work with the inner parts of a plane or with their weapons systems, depot level repairs and maintenance etc. When you do that and are in contact daily with real fighter jocks the flaws and limitations of a simulator/game become more and more obvious. So there it is: Game.

Spitfire was a great plane but IMO a bit over glorified. It did not win the BoB or WW2 alone, Hurricane did the grunt of the work in BoB for example. In other theatres it fared like any other fighter, but it suffered from same as Bf109: short range. It had it's vices too ;) Sissyfire came from the idiotically modelled 25lbs Mk.IX which everyone and their aunt/granny/uncle flew and touted it being historical. The Spitfire is still a graceful sight, but for me the Bf109 has a sweet spot always.

Osprey, you contradict yourself a bit. You say the Sissyfire will be the "world of pain" for blue. Is that the only plane that will be checked by Luthier? Flying blue is a challenge and with the comment "world of pain" you just confirmed it ;) How about later when the Fw190A's whack the Sissyfire Mk.Vb silly? The tables turn later with Mk.IX to more even etc. The circle goes on and on. So there is no "world of pain", just adaptation to the changing situation :) And when you learn to fly blue against the reds flying red is a breeze. Agree?

So after all..this is a game we enjoy to play. That's it. Sure creates heated debates but still we play. And tactics work in this game in most situations as the features(FM/DM/CEM etc.) of the game make it possible.

Well, over with this. I think all just want a game that is as accurate as possible within the constraints of our hardware and software.

Osprey

04-03-2012, 08:44 PM

Fair enough Flanker. Regarding your point though I don't think it compares tbh. I don't see how a modern pilot flying Eurofighter fly-by-wire and using BVR systems has anything remotely similar to the fighters of 1940. In actual fact things are moving closer to 'games' anyway with pilotless drones flown from California in Iraq and Afghanistan. The comparison is pointless, we have what we have.

Regarding the Spitfire and glory, this has nothing to do with facts which is what we are dealing with. What has the fuel discussion in this thread got to do with whether somebody wrote a book, told a story or made a film about the Spitfire and it's endevours? We are dealing with facts, not romantic fiction. I would argue that the 109 has the problem with glory because (a) so few survived and so much data was destroyed as Germany lost, and (b) it was all a part of German propaganda to state how Germany had such an amazing machine. Some people live this romance and cannot understand how Germany lost with such a superior fighter, they big it up way way too much imho.
All I can say about the Spitfire is that it was an excellent short range local supremacy fighter which was extremely versatile.

The BoB could've been won without the Hurricane, but not without the Spitfire.

PS, I flew 190A for years in '46, P-51, P-40 mainly. The USL makes squadrons fly allied and axis so you will fly all. I have no preference but accurate representation.

PPS, I can't understand why you carry over the 25lber insult into CoD. It's not here, and it wasn't in the list in Spits v 109s nor Warclouds either anyway.

~S~

Crumpp

04-03-2012, 11:56 PM

The point is: If a squadron used 100 octane fuel in 11 Group and also in 13 Group this mean a) either 100 octane fuel was used in 11 and 13 Group

Again, I don't know the answer and neither does anyone else in this thread.

I am sure the RAF would want data on continuous operational use. That is the whole purpose of operational trials. It would make sense to have some of the 16 squadrons that converted use the fuel continuously.

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.

Al Schlageter

04-04-2012, 12:48 AM

Again, I don't know the answer and neither does anyone else in this thread.

I am sure the RAF would want data on continuous operational use. That is the whole purpose of operational trials. It would make sense to have some of the 16 squadrons that converted use the fuel continuously.

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.

Another song and dance routine. :(

How much 100 fuel did the RAF use during the BoB?

How much reserve stock of 100 fuel did the RAF have at the end of the BoB?

We are all still waiting for you to name these 16 squadrons that used 100 fuel.

Seadog

04-04-2012, 01:25 AM

Glider you have seen the sources. They are already posted in this thread.

I am not interested in wasting my time hunting them down to be re-posted. Read the thread, please.

I will scan the OOB's but on my time not yours.

All you have to do is provide evidence that even a single RAF FC Hurricane/Spitfire combat sortie was flown with 87 octane fuel.

Please demonstrate that just one sortie out of the tens of thousands made during the BofB was flown with 87 octane fuel.

NZtyphoon

04-04-2012, 04:30 AM

Another song and dance routine. :(

How much 100 fuel did the RAF use during the BoB?

How much reserve stock of 100 fuel did the RAF have at the end of the BoB?

We are all still waiting for you to name these 16 squadrons that used 100 fuel.

Forget it - Crumpp is a waste of time; the boy just wants to believe want he wants to believe. :rolleyes: But, then again, let's pursue that line of thinking...

Interestingly, reserves of "Other Grades" of aviation spirit got progressively lower than those of 100 octane fuel throughout 1940 -
May 1940: 294,000 tons of 100 Octane v 298,000 tons "Other Grades";
August: 404,000 tons 100 octane v 230,000 tons "Other Grades";
November:440,000 tons v 257,000 tons "Other Grades".

Were one to follow Crumpp's entirely :confused: :rolleyes: "logic" the RAF wasn't using "Other Grades" of fuel either, except on operational trials, lest those reserves got below "believable levels" - take the :confused: :rolleyes: Crumpp logic far enough and the RAF wasn't using any fuel...sort that one out :!: :grin: :grin:

If we take Crumpp's logic another way those 16 Squadrons (aircraft type(s) not specified) consumed 51,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in "operational trials" between July and end of October 1940. So, assuming the 16 squadrons were a mix of Hurricane and Spitfire units:

1 gal 100 Octane= 7.1 lbs: 1 ton = 2,240 lbs divided by 7.1 = 315.5 gal of fuel per ton.

Hurricane = 90 Gal
Spitfire= 84 gal
Average= 87 gal

315.5 divided by 87 gal = 3.6 fuel loads per ton of fuel: 51,000 tons consumed X 3.6 = 183,600 sorties flown during operational trials! = 11,475 sorties by each of the 16 Squadrons. But Wait There's More! According to Crumpp only some of the 16 squadrons would have used 100 octane continuously:!: :grin:

Flanker35M

04-04-2012, 06:07 AM

S!

Osprey, the fighter pilots can judge how a plane behaves, jet or not. Not sure how RAF or others train but here they have to fly against propellor/turbo prop planes to simulate a slower target that still can pose a threat if it gets guns on you even for a short time.

My main point was the plane itself though, be it WW2 or modern plane, it has systems/subsystems and a structure. When you work with them on a daily basis you get a fairly good idea how for example damage would affect the plane or a system. This leads to the DM we have that has oddities, or should we say features, which boils down to the fact our home computer systems simply are not capable of calculating what would happen. Instead we have something like "X happens to Y part commence action Z" or at worst case hitpoint pools on areas. Have even 1 point left and it will not break or affect plane behaviour.

An example. Finns bought from RAF Hurricanes 1939-40. The Brits themselves told during evaluations that planes in service lost 10-20mph from their speed fairly quickly due wear/tear and fatigue, especially those Hurricanes that still had fabric covered wings. Those wings caused problems to Finns as well, they "ballooned" in a dive and at least one plane was lost due the fabric was torn off. So restrictions had to be set for their dive speeds. Just an example.

In game we do not have wear/tear or fatigue that cumulates. Still the same old "Refly with a factory fresh plane". So if this could be modelled in some believeable way then CEM and how you fly would become much more important. Now it is not. Just balls to the walls, fiddle a bit here and there and good to go. Again..a GAME.

I flew red quite a bit in old IL-2 in different occasions. So was not stuck to blue only. Main ride was still the biggest underdog Bf109G-6 Early without the 30mm. Blue pilots are called Luftwhiners, Luftwaffles etc. so Sissyfire will stick ;)

But thanks you for a good reply Osprey, appreciate that :)

NZtyphoon

04-04-2012, 08:06 AM

S!

Osprey, the fighter pilots can judge how a plane behaves, jet or not. Not sure how RAF or others train but here they have to fly against propellor/turbo prop planes to simulate a slower target that still can pose a threat if it gets guns on you even for a short time.
An example. Finns bought from RAF Hurricanes 1939-40. The Brits themselves told during evaluations that planes in service lost 10-20mph from their speed fairly quickly due wear/tear and fatigue, especially those Hurricanes that still had fabric covered wings. Those wings caused problems to Finns as well, they "ballooned" in a dive and at least one plane was lost due the fabric was torn off. So restrictions had to be set for their dive speeds. Just an example.

In game we do not have wear/tear or fatigue that cumulates. Still the same old "Refly with a factory fresh plane". So if this could be modelled in some believeable way then CEM and how you fly would become much more important. Now it is not. Just balls to the walls, fiddle a bit here and there and good to go. Again..a GAME.

Most air forces have Dissimilar Air Combat courses; the NATO air forces, for example have flown several exercises, mostly jet v jet http://www.rtbot.net/dissimilar_air_combat_training
http://www.100squadronassociation.org.uk/history6.html

The turbo-prop Tucanos in the RAF are used for Basic Fast Jet Training -they don't seem to be used to train jet pilots in attacking slower targets;

http://www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/training.cfm

All aircraft would have their critical areas, where too much wear and tear, or badly fitted fairings etc could have a drastic effect on achieving maximum performance; one problem with the Spitfire I remember reading about was that as the engine cowlings were constantly removed and replaced, they could be bent slightly out of shape, leaving gaps which could reduce top speed by 15-20 mph. Sometimes rubber hammers were needed just to fit them back in place and secure the Dzus fasteners. The German system in which the engine cowlings used built in stringers to provide strength and structural stability, and strong quick release latches which almost automatically closed gaps to a minimum, was much better from an engineering and maintenance pov. I wouldn't have the foggiest idea of how such factors could be replicated in IL2.

Osprey

04-04-2012, 09:27 AM

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.

Believable to whom? You?

You have a reserve tank on your own aircraft. So let us say that you are flying along and run out of fuel in the main tank and you're over the sea somewhere. According to your logic you will decide not to switch over and use it because a reserve is a reserve after all, it's not to be used.

I 'believe' that the UK would've used up every drop if they had to. I 'believe' that all engines were converted in the event that Germany invaded and we had to throw the lot at them from the other groups. It wouldn't make sense to keep converting back and forth.

Osprey

04-04-2012, 09:39 AM

@Flanker, I try not to use Luftwhiner but it's different because it focus's on a type of person who flies exclusive blue and complains in order to gain game advantage. Kurfurst is a Luftwhiner. Sissyfire is directed at the aircraft ergo the pilots choice of ride. All he need do is have some success in what was a very successful aircraft of the time, and this has no reflection on personality, he need not complain about the enemy ever to gain that tag. This is why it's just a plain insult, because it is not earned or deserved. You say it's because of the 25lber but you apply it to all Spitfires.

You should remember that it was common for German pilots who had been shot down by Hurricanes to claim it was a Spitfire, such was their respect for what was an excellent machine.

Al Schlageter

04-04-2012, 11:10 AM

Guys don't let Eugene sidetrack you. This is his SOP to deflect the conversation away from a specific subject, in this case the 16 squadrons that only used 100 fuel during the BoB. Ignore what ever he says until he produces the 16 squadron numbers. Then we can concentrate on his next wrong statement > there wasn't enough 100 octane fuel.

Blakduk

04-04-2012, 11:21 AM

This thread has gotten away from the topic that initially drew my attention to it.
On this topic I am not so much interested in how the game's flight models are set up- i'm much more concerned with the distortion of history that has previously won the day.

There is abundant evidence that the RAF Fighter Command was using 100 octane as their standard fuel in early 1940, before the outbreak of the Battle of Britain- that evidence has been obtained by an impressive amount of work by a few posters here on this forum and others. There is no evidence to the contrary, only rumors and misguided beliefs that border on delusions.

With regard to flight models- that is another topic entirely that should be separate from this thread.
BTW- i tend to fly blue a lot lately as people online have figured out how to win flying red and are tending to crowd onto the red bandwagon

Glider

04-04-2012, 11:50 AM

Again, I don't know the answer and neither does anyone else in this thread.
I think we do. We know that stations across the country were equipped with 100 octane including those in Scotland

I am sure the RAF would want data on continuous operational use. That is the whole purpose of operational trials. It would make sense to have some of the 16 squadrons that converted use the fuel continuously.
1940 is nothing to do with operational trials. If you can find anything to support that then please post it. 1940 is about using it in action

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.
Again this is rubbish. Using 10,000 tons a month there was more than enough fo Fighter Command and at that rate they had a 2 1/2 year stockpile. Put it another way, do you know any country that had a 2 1/2 year stockpile, of anything.

I am afraid that you continue to put forward nothing more than conspiracy theorys.

NZtyphoon

04-04-2012, 01:02 PM

I think we do. We know that stations across the country were equipped with 100 octane including those in Scotland

1940 is nothing to do with operational trials. If you can find anything to support that then please post it. 1940 is about using it in action

Again this is rubbish. Using 10,000 tons a month there was more than enough fo Fighter Command and at that rate they had a 2 1/2 year stockpile. Put it another way, do you know any country that had a 2 1/2 year stockpile, of anything.

I am afraid that you continue to put forward nothing more than conspiracy theorys.

Do you think Crumpp needs to be reminded that Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons of Fighter Command had converted to 100 Octane fuel in February 1940, and several Hurricane squadrons used it operationally during the Battle of France, May 1940? I mean it makes his whole theory about operational trials by 16 selected squadrons throughout the Battle of Britain look a little silly :roll: :-| and I'm sorry, I know it's jolly inconvenient for Crumpp, who's built up a resistance to evidence, but sometimes the plain, unvarnished facts have a bad habit of getting in the way of a comfortable delusion. :???:

king1hw

04-04-2012, 05:06 PM

All Variants should be made flyable up until the end of Dec25th1940. It would make the game play and mission building more interesting and in my opinion make us all better pilots. Since I have been involved with this sim many keep the advances of tech at bay is ignorant to the facts.

PLEASE add and fix Spits, Hurries and 109 variants and this would end tomorrow. Except it seems that the developer will not listen to this plea. I for one would like to see this sim become the best but all this is pushing people back to il2 1946 Mod either HSFX 5.0.1 or UP3.0 RC4 or 4.11.

We as dedicated servers are looking for help in this matter. A lot of the allied flyers are tired of plane set and servers not offering a competing planes. Also not having a beu and welly or even a defiant is sad. Heck even a MKIIB Hurry could carry a 250lb bomb. Are you afraid that they were 12lb boost and you would have to model it, or because they are 2 stage engines. I for one have reloaded il2 1946 and swore that I would not. I began setting up a server for my squad mates to meet there demands because CloD will not build a solid crowd. AND THEY COULD RIGHT NOW! IMHO

So if any developers read this get on the ball and get CLoD Game I purchased on track which I waited 7years for.

Thanks for listening.

King

KG26_Alpha

04-04-2012, 06:44 PM

Due to reported posts

Ok fellas can we please keep the ego's and name calling out of the thread and try to have an adult discussion regarding the topic please.

This is the only warning there will be.

That applies to all of you.

Have fun

Osprey

04-05-2012, 09:05 AM

ACE-OF-ACES

04-05-2012, 06:00 PM

Can somebody please update the bugtracker with the 100 octane boost issue please

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/projects/cod

This needs to encompass the boost needle animation, the increase in power and all the other FM effects such as limits, temperatures etc.

I would recommend that 41Banks does it, he is an admin on the bugtracker and knows all about the discussions in this thread. :)
I would not recommend that..

First off it is not a bug by definition..
Second it will just give the biased hand full of 100 octane nay sayers another place to repeat their dribble

I see this issue as more of a historic information update.. Where we provide the information to the people who can actually change things.. That is to say, even if you were able to change the minds of the hand full of 100 octane nay sayers, they have no say let alone any power to change anything. Basically you don't need them so best to stop wasting time talking to them, or worse yet arguing with them! The only people who mater here is Luither and his team.. And based on past experience (P38 ROC increase) if you take the time to do the leg work and provide them the info, they will make the change if the change can be made. Therefore I would not post any request for change in the open forum, just gives the biased nay sayers an excuse to chime in. The best thing to do is submit it to Luither via a PM or email! You guys have already done all the leg work! All that is left is to organize the info, stick a bow on it and give it to Luither

Crumpp

04-06-2012, 04:09 AM

who's built up a resistance to evidence

There is no resistance to evidence. I just don't call random clippings of documents out of context combined with assumption evidence.

Let me give you an example. We still heavily research the airplanes we restore to get them right. I have Hans Sanders flight reports, BMW's initial, endurance, and Rechlin's test flights, the operational test squadrons, the time frame the motor was tested, an emergency order from BMW directing the engine to be modified and the new boost pressure to be use AT ONCE, the Chief Technical Officer of the Luftwaffe war diary entries clarifying the new boost was just a straight manifold pressure increase without the use of any ADS and it would be operationally approved in February 1945 for the BMW801D2 to use 1.8ata.

You know, I am still not ready to say it happened. Wanting and doing are too different things. I deal with real airplanes and it takes time to enact some very simple changes. Couple of years ago, an AD came out on Cessna 310 circuit breakers. This isn't a special circuit breaker, just replacing the outdated design with a modern standard aviation circuit breaker. Planes were down for months and the FDSO was writing extensions left and right so people could fly. The demand had simply exceeded the ability to make the breakers. Of course, in times of national emergency it will go quicker but still won't be simply "poofed" into existence.

You are talking about running the engine at 3 times its original design maximum capacity. Really guy? You think just changing the fuel did that?

You think they did that without extensive testing to ensure they did not lose all of their aircraft? You think they just said, "Great!! everybody use this right now all at once!!" Who cares about logistics or technical mumbo jumbo....

I don't think so.

NZtyphoon

04-06-2012, 07:01 AM

There is no resistance to evidence. I just don't call random clippings of documents out of context combined with assumption evidence.
No, you take just one pre-war document discussing 16 Squadrons by September 1940, and stick to that no matter what.

*Please name the 16 Squadrons, and describe the logistical arrangements the RAF made to ensure that only 16 Squadrons of fighters were supplied with the fuel, with your documented evidence please.

*Please explain how it was possible for only 16 squadrons to fly operational trials on 100 octane, yet 62,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel was issued, with 51,000 tons of it being consumed while only about 15,000 tons was needed to fly all defensive frontline sorties flown between July and 6 October 1940 - and provide some documented evidence please.

*In a previous post you made a claim that reserves of 100 Octane would have sunk to "unrealistically low levels" had the RAF used 100 Octane for all defensive sorties flown during the Battle of Britain. You have not yet provided any documentary evidence for this, plus you have ignored the fact that reserves of other grades of fuel progressively sunk well below the levels of those for 100 Octane fuel throughout 1940.

You are talking about running the engine at 3 times its original design maximum capacity.
So you think the Merlin was designed to run at about 400 hp? Unfortunately the Merlin II and III were designed for much higher power than that - in fact the Merlin was tested and approved for +12lb boost by November 1939 and the Merlin XII for 12½ lbs boost with no ill effects (attach 1)

You think they did that without extensive testing to ensure they did not lose all of their aircraft? You think they just said, "Great!! everybody use this right now all at once!!" Who cares about logistics or technical mumbo jumbo....

I don't think so.

Nope, that's just your assertion - you completely ignore the fact that testing of the Merlin on 100 Octane fuel and +12lbs boost was completed in November 1939. You also ignore the fact that the same document observes that there were adequate reserves of 100 Octane available to allow the conversion of all Hurricanes and Spitfires to use +12 boost. (attach 1);

*You completely ignore the fact that squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes had converted to 100 Octane by February 1940;

*You completely ignore the fact that Hurricane Squadrons of the BEF in France, as well as home based units used 100 Octane in combat in May 1940. Bearing this in mind please explain why the RAF decided to continue to use 16 Squadrons for "operational testing purposes only" until at least September, and please provide documented evidence for this assertion. Then, once again, please explain how these 16 Squadrons - and some Blenheim units - between them consumed 52,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in three months while doing "operational testing".

*You are the one asserting that all the RAF was interested in doing throughout the Battle of Britain was making operational trials of 100 Octane, so kindly provide some documentary evidence for this claim; and please don't bother using a pre-war document, nor the fact that Morgan and Shacklady cite the document - all that proves is that the country was not yet at war and facing full scale air attack.

Until you provide some evidence you can stop dissing all the evidence presented by Glider, lane et al as " random clippings of documents combined with assumption", because the only thing you have presented is assumption, assertions and surmises - based on modern, civilian peacetime practices, which you seem to think is a reflection of what happened in 1940, while a nation was undergoing full scale attack - with absolutely no evidence to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove.

Osprey

04-06-2012, 08:15 AM

I would not recommend that..

First off it is not a bug by definition..
Second it will just give the biased hand full of 100 octane nay sayers another place to repeat their dribble

I see this issue as more of a historic information update.. Where we provide the information to the people who can actually change things.. That is to say, even if you were able to change the minds of the hand full of 100 octane nay sayers, they have no say let alone any power to change anything. Basically you don't need them so best to stop wasting time talking to them, or worse yet arguing with them! The only people who mater here is Luither and his team.. And based on past experience (P38 ROC increase) if you take the time to do the leg work and provide them the info, they will make the change if the change can be made. Therefore I would not post any request for change in the open forum, just gives the biased nay sayers an excuse to chime in. The best thing to do is submit it to Luither via a PM or email! You guys have already done all the leg work! All that is left is to organize the info, stick a bow on it and give it to Luither

The bug tracker is for all issues, enhancements, corrections. It is moderated by a handful of hand-picked guys, and it is reviewed by Luthier and B6 directly. It's there precisely because it is the way to handle change requests of all types in software, we just don't do it by PM. Others should not be able to edit somebody else's item.

It is more than FM, the boost cut out just plain doesn't work, the boost pressure gauge shows incorrect boost levels when cutout is engaged and the engine overheats with damage way before the specified times of use in the pilots notes - these are bugs.

It needs raising in the tracker.

ACE-OF-ACES

04-06-2012, 03:36 PM

and it is reviewed by Luthier and B6 directly. It's there precisely because it is the way to handle change requests of all types in software, we just don't do it by PM.
That may well be..

But

We have had similar bug/error/request threads in the past.. Even the original IL-2 had such thread.. And based on my experience with getting changes made to several planes in IL-2, most notable was the P38J ROC, your better off going direct to the source via PM or e-mail. For example I posted for months in the open forum (than the ubi IL2 forums) about the error in the P38J ROC and got no where.. Than I sent Oleg an e-mail with a short to the point message pointing out the error.. He e-mailed me back with one question, to which I responded with the answer, and the next IL2 patch corrected the P38J ROC error. wala change we can belive in! ;)

As this thread will prove.. Posting in the open forum does have an up side, that being you get input from like minded people (read team effort).. The down side is you get input from the biased nay sayers that have no proof what so ever, but will do everything in their power to keep planes they don't like operating below their historic values.

So once you got your info, and you don't see any new info coming from the discussion, best to cut it off because keeping it open only gives the biased nay sayers another opportunity to spew their rant..

As you have seen in the past few pages.. They will never answer your questions.. In that they know any attempt in doing so will only prove how wrong they are.. So instead they will just keep ignoring those questions and either go off on some tangent topic or re-iterate something they already said that has already been debunked..

They are the purest definition (poster boys) of a waste of time!

Every min you spend typing to them is a min you could have spent typing up a report to send to 1C.

Osprey

04-06-2012, 04:38 PM

You're not listening mate, forums and PM's are not how change requests are handled in the real world. The fact that Oleg chose this in the past underlines just what an unprofessional process he must have there. Anyway, I'm not going to argue about it, I make my living out of software QA so I'll just be smug and say that I know what I'm talking about.
It needs raising as a CR, but if you want to spam Luthiers inbox go ahead.

ACE-OF-ACES

04-06-2012, 04:44 PM

You're not listening mate
Hardly..

I hear what your saying about that bug thread..

And I hear you about how things should work in a perfect world..

But as we all know the world is not perfect.. So i''ll just be smug and say that I know what works.. but if you want to contine to argue with the nay sayers in the open forum go ahead.

Osprey

04-06-2012, 04:55 PM

It's not a thread or an open forum, it's a database. We're not talking about a perfect world, it's just basic software development process.

ACE-OF-ACES

04-06-2012, 05:41 PM

It's not a thread or an open forum, it's a database. We're not talking about a perfect world, it's just basic software development process.
Ah.. my bad

I thought you were refering to one of the bug threads here in this forum.. That link you provided is a much more formal softare issue tracking system.. We use something simular (in house) where I work for the software I write.. With that said.. what section are you posting the 100 octane request in? I assume the 'Feature' section and not the 'Bug' section? Again, sorry for my misunderstanding! The day I saw your post I had just seen a bug list posted in this forum and I ASSumed you were refering to that thread! My bad!

Glider

04-06-2012, 07:39 PM

There is no resistance to evidence. I just don't call random clippings of documents out of context combined with assumption evidence.

.
I have asked you a couple of times once in the forum and once in a PM to let me know which document you are referring to as being out of context and I would do everything I can to ensure that you get everything I have. I even offered to get you a full copy of the paper you have concerns about

To date you haven't told me which ones you are referring too just that you are getting your own.

What I do ask, is that you stop running down the papers that I have posted until you can prove that they are out of context or in any way misleading.

If they are then I will apologise to one and all and leave this forum for good. However if they are not miseading or out of context then I expect you to apologise for this accusation.
If you cannot support your theory that the RAF only had 16 squadrons of fighters using 100 Octane at any one time then I expect you to withdraw that theory and apologise for wasting everyones time. Is that fair enough?

I repeat that I believe my case to be a strong case not a perfect one, but I have at least supplied a number of documents covering, all aspects of the case. Which is a lot more than can be said for the 16 squadron theory

Al Schlageter

04-06-2012, 11:59 PM

Glider and NZt have made good posts so there is nothing to add.

I would still like to know which 16 squadrons were the only squadrons to use 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel. To help with the selection of these 16 squadrons the following are the Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons that participated in the BoB:

Hurricane
No. 1 (Canwpore) Squadron RAF JX (squadron code)
No. 3 Squadron RAF OQ
No. 17 Squadron RAF YB
No. 32 Squadron RAF GZ
No. 43 (China-British) Squadron RAF FT
No. 46 (Uganda) Squadron RAF PO
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron RAF US
No. 73 Squadron RAF TP
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron RAF NV
No. 85 Squadron RAF VY
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron RAF LK
No. 111 Squadron RAF JU
No. 145 Squadron RAF SO
No. 151 Squadron RAF DZ
No. 213 (Ceylon) Squadron RAF AK
No. 229 Squadron RAF RE
No. 232 Squadron RAF EF
No. 238 Squadron RAF VK
No. 242 (Canadian) Squadron RAF LE
No. 245 (Northern Rhodesia) Squadron RAF DX
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron RAF GN
No. 253 (Hyderabad) Squadron RAF SW
No. 257 (Burma) Squadron RAF DT ALERT
No. 263 (Fellowship of the Bellows) Squadron RAF HE
No. 501 (County of Gloucester) Squadron AuxAF SD
No. 504 (City of Nottingham) Squadron AuxAF TM
No. 601 (County of London) Squadron AuxAF UF
No. 605 (County of Warwick) Squadron AuxAF UP
No. 607 (County of Durham) Squadron AuxAF AF
No. 615 (County of Surrey) Squadron AuxAF KW
No. 1 (401) Squadron RCAF (Canadian) YO
302 (City of Poznan) Squadron (Polish) WX
303 (Warsaw - Kosciuszko) Squadron (Polish) RF
No. 310 (Czechoslovak) Squadron (Czech) NN
No. 312 (Czechoslovak) Squadron (Czech) DU

Spitfire
No. 19 Squadron RAF QV (squadron code)
No. 41 Squadron RAF EB
No. 54 Squadron RAF KL
No. 64 Squadron RAF SH
No. 65 (East India) Squadron RAF YT
No. 66 Squadron RAF LZ
No. 72 (Basutoland) Squadron RAF RN
No. 74 Squadron RAF ZP
No. 92 (East India) Squadron RAF QJ
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron RAF UM
No. 222 (Natal) Squadron RAF ZD
No. 234 (Madras Presidency) Squadron RAF AZ
No. 266 (Rhodesia) Squadron RAF UO
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron AuxAF LO
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron AuxAF XT
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron AuxAF PR
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron AuxAF DW
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron AuxAF FY
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron AuxAF QJ

Al Schlageter

04-07-2012, 12:15 AM

Good post #982 Ace.

I will add that only the fighter bases used by Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons using 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel that are on the CloD map need be considered. It will cut down immensely on the data that has to be collected and sent to 1C. All other bases are irrelevant for the game though not for history.

NZtyphoon

04-07-2012, 07:44 AM

Just a word on how British airbases were supplied with aviation fuel: according to the Official War History "Oil" starting in 1938 the British built a network of pipelines which distributed fuel from ports, refineries, (eg; Stanlow), through a series of Air Force Distribution Centres - small, well protected fuel bunkers, to airfields (p.64). The airfields themselves did not store large quantities of fuel;

from The Battle of Britain Then and Now Vol V.:

Debden: Sector Station had fuel storage for 72,000 gallons or 228 tons.(p. 190)
Kenley, Sector Station, had fuel storage for 35,000 gallons or 110 tons (p. 46) - with two to three squadrons operating from a sector station how long would it take to use up the fuel stored on site?

Westhampnett, had storage for 24,000 gallons of aviation fuel, or 76 tons (p. 42):
Many of the smaller airbases did not have fixed fuel storage, relying on petrol bowsers (tanker trucks to Americans).

The unit responsible in 1940 for the distribution of Aviation Spirit and Explosives was 42 Maintenance Group, which was formed in Jan 1939 http://www.rafweb.org/Grp04.htm

Osprey

04-07-2012, 08:20 AM

Ah.. my bad

I thought you were refering to one of the bug threads here in this forum.. That link you provided is a much more formal softare issue tracking system.. We use something simular (in house) where I work for the software I write.. With that said.. what section are you posting the 100 octane request in? I assume the 'Feature' section and not the 'Bug' section? Again, sorry for my misunderstanding! The day I saw your post I had just seen a bug list posted in this forum and I ASSumed you were refering to that thread! My bad!

lol, no worries, just oversight. I was worried for a second that you were doing a Kurfurst on me ;)

Well I think there are multiple related problems but the main would be

Bug: Boost cut out does not apply boost power to the spitfire or hurricane and the boost gauge does not read 12lbs. According to the pilots notes it should.......blah blah.....FTH.....blah

Missing Feature: FMB, option to add either 87 or 100 octane fueled RAF aircraft to a mission. The flight models would be different for each type when full power is applied.

NZtyphoon

04-08-2012, 05:06 AM

Going waaay back is this observation: (I've added some of the units which reported the use of 100 Octane.)

Cross-referencing references to +12lbs boost in combat reports with the dates that the squadron involved were stationed at certain airfields we can see that 100 octane fuel was available for certain at the following airfields from at least the following months:

RAF North Weald (11 Group) in February: 151 Sqn, 56 Sqn
RAF Drem (13 Group) in February: 111Sqn, 602 Sqn,
RAF Rochford (11 Group) in March:
RAF Digby (12 Group) in March: 611 Sqn
RAF Hawkinge (11 Group) in May: 610 Sqn (June)
RAF Hornchurch (11 Group) in May: 54 Sqn. 41 Sqn (July) 603 Sqn (August)
RAF Tangmere (11 Group) in May
RAF Duxford (12 Group) in May:19 Sqn
RAF Gravesend (11 Group) in June
RAF Catterick (12 Group) in June: 41 Sqn (August)
RAF Biggin Hill (11 Group) in July: 72 Sqn, 92 Sqn
RAF Kenley (11 Group) in August: 64 Sqn, 66 Sqn
RAF Northolt (11 Group) in August
RAF Westhampnett (11 Group) in August: 602 Sqn
RAF Middle Wallop (10 Group) in August: 234 Sqn, 609 Sqn
RAF Leconfield (12 Group) in August: 616 Sqn.
RAF Croydon (11 Group) in September: 222 Sqn
RAF Warmwell (10 Group) in September: 152 Sqn

18 Airbases - not Squadrons which have combat reports confirming the use of 100 Octane fuel between Feb - Sept 1940;

20 squadrons preliminary count - er- er - I though someone said only 16 Squadrons used 100 Octane, pending an "eventual change" meaning (say) 10 airbases - er - how do 20 Sqns go into 16? (Feel free to add other squadrons/airbases).

Why has someone not bothered mentioning Blenheims also using 100 Octane while, some time ago, acknowledging that Blenheims used 100 Octane fuel? Has this since been retracted, or just -conveniently - forgotten about?
The meeting notes you posted seem to confirm that Bomber command was using 100 Octane in the Blenheim's.

More to the point why is it that more than a year later someone is still arguing over the number of Squadrons using 100 octane - apart from wasting time and sheer bloodymindeness? :roll:

Crumpp

04-08-2012, 08:51 PM

18 Airbases

That does not mean every airplane on the field was using 100 octane.

You have 18 squadrons by that list by sometime in September.

You only have 16 squadrons thru August.....

You have 12 squadrons in July.....

10 Squadrons in June....

9 in May......

5 squadrons in March....

4 Squadrons in February....

Seems a much more realistic deployment schedule for operating the engines at 3 times their design capacity.

Crumpp

04-08-2012, 09:00 PM

So you think the Merlin was designed to run at about 400 hp?

If that is what the engine produces at maximum continuous...YES.

Get a Spitfire Mk I POH and read the maximum continuous rating. That is the maximum power the engine is designed to safely and reliability produce.

Mixture control Normal = +4 1/2 lbs at 2600rpm

Why do you think the RAF called +12lbs "a definite overload condition"?

fruitbat

04-08-2012, 09:00 PM

That does not mean every airplane on the field was using 100 octane.

You have 18 squadrons by that list by sometime in September.

You only have 16 squadrons thru August.....

You have 12 squadrons in July.....

10 Squadrons in June....

9 in May......

5 squadrons in March....

4 Squadrons in February....

Seems a much more realistic deployment schedule for operating the engines at 3 times their design capacity.

Speculation on your part, without one shread of evidence, because its what you want to believe:rolleyes:

Crumpp

04-08-2012, 09:05 PM

Speculation on your part, without one shread of evidence, because its what you want to believe

No, actually I am just taking you guys at your word. He stated he cross referenced the logs with the time period and bases.

I just counted the squadrons by month and dropped the repeats....

Al Schlageter

04-08-2012, 09:17 PM

At least 28 squadrons using 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel before Sept 1940

By Month

No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 92 (East India) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940 H
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron pre BoB S

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 3 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 17 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 19 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 54 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 73 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940 H
No. 41 Squadron June 1940 S
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940 S
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron June 1940 S

No. 145 Squadron July 1940 H

No. 64 Squadron 5 Aug 1940
No. 65 (East India) Squadron 12 Aug 1940 S
No. 234 (Madras Presidency) Squadron 18 Aug 1940 S
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron 31 Aug 1940 S
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron 15 Aug 1940 S

Seems a much more realistic deployment schedule for operating the engines at 3 times their design capacity.

What!!! The Merlin had only a design capacity of 3-400hp. Unbelievable, truly. How ever did Rolls-Royce ever get over 1500hp from the Merlin 45M and 55M engines?

NZtyphoon

04-08-2012, 09:19 PM

No, actually I am just taking you guys at your word. He stated he cross referenced the logs with the time period and bases.

I just counted the squadrons by month and dropped the repeats....

This is Priceless! :grin::grin::grin::-P:-P

Name the 16 squadrons you claim were the only ones using 100 Octane fuel on operational trials - with documentary evidence please.

Explain how 16 squadrons managed to chew through 52,000 tons, that's 16,405,633 gallons of 100 Octane fuel while on operational trials - with documentary evidence please. In fact, considering that the "trials" started in February, explain how 16 squadrons chewed through about 74,000 tons, 23,346,748 gallons of 100 Octane fuel February - September 1940, with documentary evidence please.

Explain the logistical arrangements the RAF made to supply only 16 squadrons with 100 octane fuel, with documentary evidence please.

Prove that the Merlin was rated at 400hp with documentary evidence, thank you.

lane

04-08-2012, 09:30 PM

NZtyphoon, add 65 squadron at Manston during August (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/65-quill-12aug40.jpg) (when they were not at Hornchurch).

Post 372 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=394251&postcount=372) demonstates that all the Hurricane units with the AASF and Air Component in France required 100 octane fuel and that 100 octane was held at the Aerodromes and depots.

Combat reports show that 11 Group Reinforcements in France also used 100 octane fuel.

From: Brian Cull, Bruce Lander and Heinrich Weiss, Twelve Days in May, (Grub Street, London, 1999), p. 309

"On 17 May the following Hurricane units were represented in France: 1, 3, 17, 32, 56, 73, 79, 85, 87, 111, 145, 151, 213, 229, 242, 245, 253, 501, 504, 601, 607, and 615 Squadrons."

Various Combat Reports from Hurricane units in France during May 1940 noting boost cut out used, +12 lbs, etc. signifying use of 100 octane fuel:

1 Squadron, 11 May 1940, F/O Paul Richey (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/richey-pg76.jpg)
3 Squadron, 14 May 1940, Sgt. R. C. Wilkinson (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/rcw-pg6.jpg)
17 Squadron, 18 May 1940, F/O C. F. G. Adye (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/17-adye-18may40.pdf)
17 Squadron, 19 May 1940, F/O C. F. G. Adye (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/17-adye-19may40.pdf)
56 Squadron, 18 May 1940, P/O F. B. Sutton, (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/sutton-pg80.jpg)
73 Squadron, 14 May 1940, F/O E. J. Kain (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/monks-pg98.jpg)
79 Squadron, 14 May 1940, P/O D. W. A. Stones (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/stones-pg32.jpg)
79 Squadron, 20 May 1940, Sgt. L.H.B. Pearce (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/79-pearce-20may40.jpg)
85 Squadron, 10 May 1940, S/L J.O.W. Oliver, (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/85-oliver-10may40.jpg)
87 Squadron, 15 May 1940, P/O R. P. Beamont (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-beamont-15may40.jpg)
87 Squadron, 18 May 1940, F/Lt I. R. Gleed (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-gleed-18may40.jpg)
87 Squadron, 19 May 1940, F/Lt I. R. Gleed (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-gleed-19may40.jpg)
151 Sqquadron, 18 May 1940, S/L E. M. Donaldson (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/donaldson-151sqdn-18may40.pdf)
151 Squadron, 18 May 1940, P/O John Bushell (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/bushell.html)
229 Squadron, 28 May 1940, Sgt. J. C. Harrison (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/229-harrison-28may40.jpg)
229 Squadron, 29 May 1940, P/O C. M. Simpson (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/229-simpson-29may40.jpg)
245 Squadron, 28 May 1940, P/O K. B. McGlashan (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/245-mcglashan-28may40.jpg)

Al Schlageter

04-08-2012, 10:36 PM

NZtyphoon

04-08-2012, 11:05 PM

Lane, it doesn't matter how many squadrons are shown using 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel, the fact is there was only 16 squadrons that did so and that was in testing, there was never enough 100 octane fuel and the Merlin would blow itself to smithereens if more than 4.5lb of boost was used. :rolleyes:

Hey, I'm confident that Crumpp will trumpp everyone with extensive documentation, proving beyond doubt that the RAF kept all of its 100 Octane fuel in strategic reserve while only allowing 16 squadrons to use maybe 74,000 tons to cover intensive operational trials - in which only some squadrons would use the fuel full time - in order to convince the RAF that the fuel worked in Merlin engines rated for 400hp. Its gonna happen. Have faith. :cool:

Al Schlageter

04-10-2012, 04:17 AM

So much for the 1/3 power.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18865

irR4tiOn4L

04-10-2012, 08:28 AM

Can somebody give me some cliff notes on this and what's wrong with which planes atm? I hear a lot of tips for the 109 vs spit suggesting the 109 dive away/use superior speed. So was the 109 faster, if the spit was supposed to have 12lb boost and 100 octane fuel? How should the 109 fight the spit if the spit was in fact faster, climbed better and outturned it?

Was the G50 really as bad as it is ingame? How is it that it has a higher HP:KG ratio by some margin than the Hurricane yet the latter is practically the equal of the Spit/109 ingame?

All around confused here.

Crumpp

04-12-2012, 08:26 PM

41Sqn_Banks

04-12-2012, 09:17 PM

The July of 1940 Spitfire Mk II manual clears the Merlin III engine for use of 100 Octane fuel and notes +12lbs may be used.

I think there is a typo in this sentence. Not sure if you mean Spitfire I or Merlin XII.

Glider

04-12-2012, 11:13 PM

Crumpp Interesting find, can I ask if you can show the page where it mentins the fuel to be used?
If it doesn't then it would be refering to the early war 87 octane as that was the only fuel available. The date of the Pilots Notes is not a definitive statement as was proved by Kurfursts version of the Mk II pilots notes which had an incorrect date.
Other clues would be the instructions re the prop normally around the mid 20's section and the fitting of armour plate for pilots protection normally around item 40.

Look forward to seeing the above.

PS How are you getting on re the proving of 16 squadrons?

Crumpp

04-12-2012, 11:40 PM

The date of the Pilots Notes is not a definitive statement as was proved by Kurfursts version of the Mk II pilots notes which had an incorrect date.

I thought Kurfurst proved someone photo-shopped that version.

PS How are you getting on re the proving of 16 squadrons?

I have not seen anything that proves there were any more by September. What I have seen is misuse of information such as a single Inspection and Test certificate to build a case the entire RAF was using 100 octane or failure to explain an illogical use to reserve ratio.

Do you know what a Cylinder head spigot is?

In order to use +12lbs on the Merlin engine, you had to replace the heads with a new design with a increased spigot depth of .020. There were two authorized heads being manufactured to convert engines. One could use the existing rings while the other required a specific set of rings to be installed. Once that was done, the fuel metering system had to be modified. You can figure they would have had a 4 to 1 stock of heads before they started modifying aircraft. They would maintain that ratio even if it limited the size of the force they could convert.

In that memo dated 20 March 1940, it states this will be done as service maintenance. That means it was done on the equivalent of an annual inspection. So depending on when the aircraft made its service maintenance inspection is when it would be modified. Of course, Air Forces generally do it on an hourly basis such as 100 hrs, 200 hrs, 500 hrs up to 2000hrs. The Focke Wulf FW-190 was a 10/200hrs schedule for example. That is a 200 hour inspection can be done 10 times before the aircraft is sent depot level maintenance for overhaul.

Al Schlageter

04-13-2012, 12:29 AM

I have not seen anything that proves there were any more by September.

Quite dodging the question. What are squadron numbers for these 16 squadrons.

Fill in the blanks __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ .

NZtyphoon

04-13-2012, 01:17 AM

Spitfire Mk I Pilots Operating Notes, dated June 1940:

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/3246/spitfiremkijune1940.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/862/spitfiremkijune1940.jpg/)

This is an Inspection and Test Certificate for a specific aircraft with a Merlin Mk III engine. Inspection and Test Certificate is probably the same as an FAA Form 337 allowing major modification for research or testing purposes. Note the document clears a single aircraft by serial number on 28 February 1940. The July of 1940 Spitfire Mk II manual clears the Merlin III engine for use of 100 Octane fuel and notes +12lbs may be used.

That is not the Spitfire Mk I but rather the Spitfire Mk II. There is nothing authorizing the Spitfire Mk I to use +12lbs in any of the Operating Notes.

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/444/inspectionandtestcertif.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/689/inspectionandtestcertif.jpg/)

And? All that it means is that the Pilot's notes, which you say were printed in June 1940, did not show 100 Octane fuel.

The problem is that any changes to the notes, before the next issue was printed, were altered through sets of amendments which were noted in the inner front cover of the book, and by gummed slips which amended the text in the appropriate locations. All this shows is that this particular set of notes was not amended. Look in the front cover of the notes and you will see this.

Better still how about showing all of us the front covers, including the inner fly leaf and index pages which show the date these notes were printed?

Attachment 3 shows that Merlins in Hurricanes of 151 Sqn had been converted to 100 Octane in February 1940.

The certificate, printed in February 1940, specifically discusses one aircraft, for sure, however, there are TWO problems:

1) There were no Mk II Spitfires in production in February 1940, and the engine is described as a Merlin III, although the power ratings suggest a Merlin XII which, as attach 1 shows, had been cleared to use +12.5 lbs boost.

2)Clearly this was a Spitfire I being used to either type test a Merlin XII or test a Merlin III at higher boost pressures. All it proves is that this particular certificate belonged to a test aircraft. How does this prove that this aircraft was the only Spitfire using 100 Octane fuel, and how did this lone Spitfire manage to chew through 52,000 tons of the stuff?

You have not explained why it is that there is a great deal of evidence showing that Merlin IIIs were modified and rated to use +12lbs boost and there are combat reports showing this. And why did Dowding feel compelled on 1 August 1940 to issue a general notice to all squadrons warning them against excessive use of +12 boost when only 16 Squadrons were using the fuel? http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

NZtyphoon

04-13-2012, 01:27 AM

You can figure they would have had a 4 to 1 stock of heads before they started modifying aircraft. They would maintain that ratio even if it limited the size of the force they could convert.

In that memo dated 20 March 1940, it states this will be done as service maintenance. That means it was done on the equivalent of an annual inspection....So depending on when the aircraft made its service maintenance inspection is when it would be modified.

* AP1590B/J.2-W (attached) 20 March 1940 (the "memo") states that the modifications were "already being done" as service maintenance, with no mention of it being done as an "annual inspection" (nor does it mention the service intervals of aircraft) - the "annual inspection" is pure speculation on your part, with no evidence, as per usual.

* AP1590B/J.2-W goes on to say that "Newer engines will already have Mod.No.Merlin/136 embodied" meaning all production engines from March 1940 did not have to be modified because Mod No. Merlin/77 (modified spigots Merlin/64 plus modified piston rings) was incorporated on the production line as a production modification (Mod.No. Merlin/136). But you didn't mention that inconvenient fact - just another example of your misreading/misuse of documentation.

How many Merlin IIIs built before March 1940 would have still been in operational use by July? The modifications Mod/64,77 & 154 also applied to Merlin IIs not many of which would have been in service by July 1940.

Much of the rest of AP1590B/J.2-W describes modifications needed to the cut-out valve, then it sets out the engine's operating limits and is a general note for pilots.

* The comment about a "4 to 1 stock of heads" is pure blather and speculation on your part, with no documented evidence, and with no relevance to AP1590B/J.2-W.

Once again, for your benefit Crumpp:

*Explain how the RAF ensured that only 16 squadrons used the fuel - with documentation. Explain why at least 30 Squadrons - Hurricanes Defiants and Spitfires - report the use of 100 octane fuel when you insist only 16 squadrons used it - with documentation please.

*Explain what happened to at least 52,000 tons of 100 octane fuel with documentation.

*List the 16 squadrons authorised to participate in trials, with documentary evidence showing they were only participating in trials.

*Prove that the Merlin III was designed for only 400hp - with documentation.

All the rest is a smokescreen, showing your total lack of evidence for anything you say.

I have not seen anything that proves there were any more by September. What I have seen is misuse of information such as a single Inspection and Test certificate to build a case the entire RAF was using 100 octane or failure to explain an illogical use to reserve ratio.

The only one misusing/misrepresenting information is your good self -

* You have not explained, for example, why the "use to reserve ratio" of Other Grades of aviation fuel, including 87 Octane, were lower during the battle than 100 Octane fuel, reserves of which continued to increase throughout?

Please answer these specific questions instead of dodging them, as per usual.

28_Condor

04-13-2012, 02:16 AM

41Sqn_Banks

04-13-2012, 07:01 AM

See this (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=400342&postcount=696) post for the relevant pages of AP1565A Vol. I that cover +12 Boost and 100 Octane.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=8859&d=1332111633
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=8860&d=1332111638
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=8861&d=1332111649
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=8862&d=1332111659
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=8863&d=1332111666

Note Sec. 2 Para XII where the increase of boost to +12 is mentioned. Note Sec. 8 Para 7 the use is "authorized" for short period and when 100 octane is used. Also note the "List of Content" of Sec. 8, it shows Sec. 8 was issued with A.L. 6 in July 1940.

In order to use +12lbs on the Merlin engine, you had to replace the heads with a new design with a increased spigot depth of .020. There were two authorized heads being manufactured to convert engines. One could use the existing rings while the other required a specific set of rings to be installed. Once that was done, the fuel metering system had to be modified. You can figure they would have had a 4 to 1 stock of heads before they started modifying aircraft. They would maintain that ratio even if it limited the size of the force they could convert.

Note that Sec. 8 Para 7 also refers to AP1590B Vol. I (manual of Merlin II and III) for the required modifications. IIRC in this manual only Mod 154 (modification that limits the boost to +12) is mentioned as required and the other modifications are recommended. I will look these pages up later. EDIT: The manual states that both mods are required.

The July of 1940 Spitfire Mk II manual clears the Merlin III engine for use of 100 Octane fuel and notes +12lbs may be used.

Please correct this statement. It's unlikely that the Spitfire II manual (which has a Merlin XII engine) clears anything for the the Merlin III engine.

Robo.

04-13-2012, 07:21 AM

According to some sources, the test certificate (this 'Page 40' document) is from testing of Merlin III improvements - of what has later become the Merlin XII. Unfortunately, without the rest of this paperwork (previous 39 pages) we can only assume what exactly is that all about I am afraid...

Anyway, knowing RR habit of testing and 'breaking' engines while improving parts that fail first to get more power, this makes perfect sense to me. Ratings of both Merlin XII and Merlin III are well documented and researched - Merlin in perspective pg. 155 and onwards states all ratings according to improvements along from III to XII:

R.M.1.S. (Merlin III)

combat power: 1310hp, 3000rpm, 9000ft., +12lbs
(combat power: 1440hp, 3000rpm, 5500ft., +16lbs - Sea Hurricane only)
take off: 880hp, 3000rpm, +6.25lbs.
cruising: 2600rpm, +4.5lbs.
climbing: 2600rpm, +6.5lbs.

R.M.2.S. (Merlin III, as R.M.1.S. but with increased take-off power on 100 octane fuel, superseded by the use of combat ratings on R.M.1.S.)

combat power: 1000hp, 3000rpm, 15500ft.,+6.25lbs.
take off: 1000hp, 3000rpm, +8.25lbs.
cruising: 2600rpm, +4.5lbs.
climbing: 2600rpm, +6.5lbs.

R.M.3.S. (as Merlin IV but higher supercharger gear ratio (note was 8.588 on Merlin III, is 9.089 on Merlin XII) and 100 octane fuel. For Spitfire II)

combat power: 1280hp, 3000rpm, 10500ft.,+12lbs.
take off: 1175hp, 3000rpm, +12.5lbs.
cruising: 2650rpm, +7bs.
climbing: 2850rpm, +9lbs.

R.M.4.S. was regarding further improvements on Merlin XII, but was never production type; superseded by Merlin 45

Glider

04-13-2012, 07:57 AM

CRUMPP
Your reply doesn't give the additional pages of the pilots notes that would give some indication as to the type of Spitfire we are looking at.

Can you give us a link to the rest of the pilots notes so we can review them in detail. You will understand as the sheet from the pilots notes shown don't mention a date.

As I said if it doesn't mention the fuel then it almost certainly refer to an early version of the Spitfire. By June 1940 we know from combat and squadron records that 100 octane was in use and this would be reflected in the pilots notes.

One last thing, where do the pilots notes state 400 hp? or have we dropped that theory?

Al Schlageter

04-13-2012, 09:18 AM

Glider, it is even less HP than that. Morgan and Shacklady in Spitfire: The History gives 990 hp for early Merlin engines. So that would be 330hp according to Eugene's generalization.

Eugene is a little short on specifics, isn't he? But that is understandable when a document shows a times 2.5 increase in hp over what he claims at a lower boost level. Until he comes up with specifics, it is only so much smelly shovel from him.

I have not seen anything that proves there were any more by September. What I have seen is misuse of information such as a single Inspection and Test certificate to build a case the entire RAF was using 100 octane or failure to explain an illogical use to reserve ratio.

:rolleyes: So squadron log books and pilot reports are garbage. Sure. :rolleyes:

Quite dodging the question. What are the squadron numbers for those 16 squadrons.

Fill in the blanks __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ .

NZtyphoon

04-13-2012, 10:21 AM

Until he comes up with specifics, it is only so much smelly shovel from him.

:rolleyes: So squadron log books and pilot reports are garbage. Sure. :rolleyes:

Quite dodging the question. What are the squadron numbers for those 16 squadrons.

Fill in the blanks __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ .

And while you're about it Crumpp,

* Please explain why the Merlin III was cleared to use +12lbs boost, and instructions were issued for all Merlin engines to be modified to use 100 octane fuel and +12lbs boost in November 1939? Please explain what "it is understood there are adequate reserves of [100 Octane] fuel for this purpose." means?

* Please explain why it was that several squadrons were using 100 Octane fuel in February 1940? Then explain when the RAF decided to restrict the fuel's use to operational trials. Properly documented, of course.

* Please provide documentation showing that the RAF was engaged in nothing more than "operational trials" from Feb - Sept 1940.

*Then explain why A.P1590B.J.2-W states that all production engines from March 1940 were fitted with the necessary modifications on the production line, contradicting your convoluted explanation that a limited number of Merlins might have been modified, based on a 4 to 1 head reserve?

* Please provide documentary evidence that a reserve of 4 heads to 1 was required by the RAF?

* Please explain why Hurricane squadrons based in France used 100 Octane fuel operationally during May 1940, when you insist the RAF needed to use 16 squadrons to engage in "operational trials" up to September.

* Then please explain why you now insist that no Spitfire Is used 100 octane fuel, based on a single, so far undated, set of pilot's notes, when there are squadron and combat reports clearly showing that emergency +12 lbs boost was used by Spitfire, Hurricane and Defiant units?

* Please explain the administrative and logistical arrangements FC put in place to ensure that only 16 squadrons were able to use 100 octane fuel.

* Please explain what happened to at least 52,000 tons of 100 octane fuel. Provide documentary evidence showing that the stuff was merely sent back to reserves, was stored, or rejected for use.

You have been asked several times to come up with some decent evidence to prove that your speculative spin is correct - instead all we have been treated to is your usual evasion and evidence avoidence. Please, stop wasting everybody's time, including your own.

Glider

04-13-2012, 02:49 PM

NZtyphoon

04-13-2012, 10:25 PM

The writer Michael Korda, who served in the RAF, said in his latest book ("With Wings Like Eagles") that the RAF as a whole was served by american 100-octane fuel since 1939. And that was the advantage used against the German fighters that had fuel injection (but 87 octane fuel).

The British only really manufactured the fuel of 87 octane. It was Dowding who insisted that the British government to acquire the fuel from the Americans.

The British were manufacturing the iso-octane needed to produce 100 Octane fuel at Heysham, Billingham and Stanlow in Britain, while there were other sources of 100 Octane fuel from the Dutch East Indies, Trinidad etc, mostly from the British Shell Company and Anglo-American Oil Co, so it's not correct to say that all 100 Octane fuel came from the United States. (see attachments)

For Crumpp's benefit: the Trimpell article states that by 31 July 1940 there were 384 Spitfires in 19 Squadrons using the fuel, as well as PR Spitfires -

* On 13 July the OOB's show 19 Spitfire squadrons; in addition there are 31 Hurricane squadrons and 2 Defiant.

Crumpp can sneer all he likes, but this alone scuppers his blind addiction to 16 fighter squadrons.

Al Schlageter

04-14-2012, 04:03 PM

NZt, there is that river in Egypt called the da nile.;)

Kwiatek

04-14-2012, 05:42 PM

I think some forgot about these:

Pilot's Notes. Spitfire I Aircraft. AP 1565.

Merlin III Engine limitation:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1pn2-a.jpg

28_Condor

04-14-2012, 05:54 PM

Thanks for the info, NZtyphoon!

The author probably meant the largest supplier. The book is well written, but not detailed. I think the author wanted to emphasize the drama of the fuel transported by sea in wartime ;)

28_Condor

04-14-2012, 09:27 PM

For Crumpp's benefit: the Trimpell article states that by 31 July 1940 there were 384 Spitfires in 19 Squadrons using the fuel, as well as PR Spitfires -

* On 13 July the OOB's show 19 Spitfire squadrons; in addition there are 31 Hurricane squadrons and 2 Defiant.

Interesting! That would mean a mission built historically at least 4/5 of the available fighters should have the option of 100 octane! And almost all squads spits...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_officially_accredited_Battle_of_Britain_sq uadrons

Very good research, NZtyphoon!

NZtyphoon

04-14-2012, 10:10 PM

Interesting! That would mean a mission built historically at least 4/5 of the available fighters should have the option of 100 octane! And almost all squads spits...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_officially_accredited_Battle_of_Britain_sq uadrons

Very good research, NZtyphoon!

Not my research - thank Glider and lane in particular, who have spent hours delving into archives - note that it can cost about £3.50 to copy each of the files (?), so it adds up - and who have presented these, and many other papers, time and again in this thread, only to have them sneered at, dismissed as being "scraps of paper used out of context", or a "misuse of information" or "propaganda" by the likes of Barbi and Crumpp, who have not presented a shred of real evidence showing that the majority of frontline RAF fighters were still using 87 Octane fuel during the battle.

As for misusing and misrepresenting material? Not so long ago Crumpp, in post #921 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110&page=93) for example, quoting A.P.1590B of March 1940 (attachment), tried to make out that the modifications needed on Merlin IIs and IIIs to use 100 Octane fuel were so extensive that very few of them could be modified in time for the battle...

What he conveniently left out is that the necessary modifications had already been introduced on the production lines, and the document was discussing modifying older engines to the required standards.

Starting way back in post #376 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110&page=58) Crumpp, quoting from a pre-war paper said:
That is the RAF built up a strategic reserve and it was not until September 1940 that 16 squadrons from Fighter Command converted to 100 octane.

Crumpp has been asked time and again to present documentary evidence that only 16 squadrons of RAF fighters used 100 Octane fuel, and that the RAF went ahead with its pre-war plans, regardless of the fact that a full scale air assault was underway, but of course he has not come up with anything.

Sure, some of consumed fuel was used in aircraft and all of it issued to the fields operating those aircraft. It appears that we have 16 squadrons on 31 July 1940 and we still have 16 squadrons by September.

The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

Until then, it appears the RAF is simply building up the logistical base required to support the eventual change to 100 grade.

He has not explained how the RAF managed to issue 61,000 tons or 19,245,500 imperial gallons of 100 Octane fuel July - October 1940, consumed 52,000 tons (16,406,000 gal), while needing only 15,184 tons (4,790,552 gal) to fly all defensive sorties, day and night, flown between 10 July - 6 October 1940 post #784 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110&page=79). And all the while the reserves of 100 Octane fuel continued to increase.

He has not explained how only 16 squadrons of single-engined fighters managed to consume all that fuel. Instead we get blather about "strategic reserves".

Nor has Crumpp explained, and it has not yet registered with him, that heavy bombers, flying boats etc were all still using 87 Octane fuel, which might explain why it was "predominate".

Crumpp has had all of this explained very carefully, time and time again, but has continued to insist, and will continue to insist that he alone is right. If nothing else it's entertaining. :grin:

28_Condor

04-14-2012, 10:54 PM

Not my research - thank Glider and lane in particular, who have spent hours delving into archives - note that it can cost about £3.50 to copy each of the files (?), so it adds up - and who have presented these, and many other papers, time and again in this thread, only to have them sneered at, dismissed as being "scraps of paper used out of context", or denied as "propaganda" by the likes of Barbi and Crumpp, who have not presented a shred of real evidence showing that the majority of frontline RAF fighters were still using 87 Octane fuel during the battle.

My congratulations then also for Glider and Lane ;)

As a university researcher I know and recognize good research ;)

I think this whole collection of documents should be taken seriously by Luthier!

NZtyphoon

04-15-2012, 07:12 AM

I think some forgot about these:

Pilot's Notes. Spitfire I Aircraft. AP 1565.

Merlin III Engine limitation:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1pn2-a.jpg

If I read things rightly this is where we came in...about 94 pages ago! :grin::grin::grin: Really, this thread has run its course - if Crumpp wants to continue with his evidence avoidance, fact evasion, all round inability to respond to direct questions and general time wasting he can do so alone. I have far more important things to do with my life.

28_Condor; lane, aka Mike Williams has an excellent site here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/) Well worth the time to go through.

28_Condor

04-15-2012, 06:49 PM

Thanks again, Typhoon

I do not advocate the balance of planeset, because to me it makes no sense ...

But as they say in my language, "we need to put all cards on the table" (hope that makes sense in English :grin: )

If 100-octane fuel was used it had to be represented in the CLOD, no doubt :!:

Kurfürst

04-15-2012, 11:07 PM

If I read things rightly this is where we came in...about 94 pages ago! :grin::grin::grin: Really, this thread has run its course - if Crumpp wants to continue with his evidence avoidance, fact evasion, all round inability to respond to direct questions and general time wasting he can do so alone. I have far more important things to do with my life.

Actually, you don't have more important things to do with your life. It's sad.

You are insecure and frustated, and anyone with some brain matter sees that you are just trying to get some reassurance and attention. Confident people do not get a heart attack over every issue or different opinion, nor they seem to be hell bent on to follow people to various discussion boards just to bark at them all day like you do.

You quite simply do not have a life, and it shows. You seem to think its important to follow up your discussion partners to various forums and continue your pathethic little feud there as well, and you probably think you are a smart and extremely cunning person if you constantly scheme and try organize a lynch gang via PM. To me it just proves you have no priorities for life.

Maybe you even like to entertain yourself you are some sort of expert of the subject or a historian - you try so hard to portray yourself as such at wiki - where you spend the rest of your day. Maybe this has something to do that you can't even seem to be able to finish your studies for long-long years now. Too much time on forums and scheming on wikipedia to always have the last word, eh? But, I am sure you find it satisfying enough.

Others have noted as well that the thread had become increasingly demented. That's a curious observation, since all I can see is your posts: big words thrown about by a child. Myself, I haven't even bothered to make a post a single post in the last 200 posts or so. But you seem to be enjoying talking to yourself very much, and hoping for some response, so there you go, this is the only one you'll get to disabuse you of any illusions.

You cannot seem to get why others attidude towards you have become, as you put it, an 'all round inability to respond to direct questions'. Let me clarify that for you. I think I can speak in Gene's name, too when I say that we are not responding to you because you are well past of taken seriously. You don't have anything to say anyway, so we do not waste any time on you. Capiche?

Al Schlageter

04-16-2012, 12:16 AM

More like you Barbi, and Eugene, have nothing to say in response to the overwhelming evidence that 100 octane fuel was in widespread use during the BoB.

Your 16 squadrons that were the only squadrons that used 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel has been busted thoroughly.

28_Condor

04-16-2012, 12:29 AM

The most boring in this forum are these type of personnal attack :(

I want reference of research, not opinions...

I started with wikipedia too (why not?):

A meeting was held on 16 March 1939 to consider the question of when the 100 octane fuel should be introduced to general use for all RAF aircraft, and what squadrons, number and type, were to be supplied. The decision taken was that there would be an initial delivery to 16 fighter and two twin-engined bomber squadrons by September 1940.[26] However, this was based on a pre-war assumption that US supplies would be denied to Britain in wartime, which would limit the numbers of front-line units able to use the fuel.[27] On the outbreak of war this problem disappeared; production of the new fuel in the US, and in other parts of the world, increased more quickly than expected with the adoption of new refining techniques. As a result 100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940.[28] [N 1]
(...)
[28] Payton-Smith, D J. Oil: A Study of War-time Policy and Administration. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1971. (no ISBN) SBN 1-1630074-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain#100_octane_aviat ion_fuel

If this is wrong I want references about ;)

Glider

04-16-2012, 08:00 AM

Kurfurst
Your last posting, I believe they call that a very reflective piece.

Sutts

04-16-2012, 08:03 AM

Yes, Kurfürst argument totally busted.

Sutts

04-16-2012, 08:05 AM

Actually, you don't have more important things to do with your life. It's sad.

You are insecure and frustated, and anyone with some brain matter sees that you are just trying to get some reassurance and attention. Confident people do not get a heart attack over every issue or different opinion, nor they seem to be hell bent on to follow people to various discussion boards just to bark at them all day like you do.

You quite simply do not have a life, and it shows. You seem to think its important to follow up your discussion partners to various forums and continue your pathethic little feud there as well, and you probably think you are a smart and extremely cunning person if you constantly scheme and try organize a lynch gang via PM. To me it just proves you have no priorities for life.

Maybe you even like to entertain yourself you are some sort of expert of the subject or a historian - you try so hard to portray yourself as such at wiki - where you spend the rest of your day. Maybe this has something to do that you can't even seem to be able to finish your studies for long-long years now. Too much time on forums and scheming on wikipedia to always have the last word, eh? But, I am sure you find it satisfying enough.

Others have noted as well that the thread had become increasingly demented. That's a curious observation, since all I can see is your posts: big words thrown about by a child. Myself, I haven't even bothered to make a post a single post in the last 200 posts or so. But you seem to be enjoying talking to yourself very much, and hoping for some response, so there you go, this is the only one you'll get to disabuse you of any illusions.

You cannot seem to get why others attidude towards you have become, as you put it, an 'all round inability to respond to direct questions'. Let me clarify that for you. I think I can speak in Gene's name, too when I say that we are not responding to you because you are well past of taken seriously. You don't have anything to say anyway, so we do not waste any time on you. Capiche?

When people start talking like that it is clear they've lost the argument. Let's give it a rest now please.

Kurfürst

04-16-2012, 08:22 AM

The most boring in this forum are these type of personnal attack :(

I want reference of research, not opinions...

I started with wikipedia too (why not?):

(...)
[28] Payton-Smith, D J. Oil: A Study of War-time Policy and Administration. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1971. (no ISBN) SBN 1-1630074-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain#100_octane_aviat ion_fuel

If this is wrong I want references about ;)

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

Its not too difficult to find out that the editor falsifying wikipedia was Minorhistorian, NZTyphoons local handle. ;) He was busy pushing that agenda (and equally busy removing any references to the German use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle in all articles. As a matter of fact, he seems to be very busy degrading any Luftwaffe related article).

He added the line "100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940" and 'quoted' Payton-Smith, because wikipedia generally require references, but in reality Payton-Smith says such thing nowhere.

It's quite simply that our friend NZTyphoon wanted his own opinion represented there, and to give weight to it he falsified the source.

Quite a bit like when lane manipulated the May 1940 paper on his website. ;)

fruitbat

04-16-2012, 08:44 AM

Glider

04-16-2012, 08:58 AM

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

How many times have you had temporary bans from editing items on Wikipedia? I think it was eight, but it might have changed by now.

NZtyphoon

04-16-2012, 09:02 AM

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

Its not too difficult to find out that the editor falsifying wikipedia was Minorhistorian, NZTyphoons local handle. ;) He was busy pushing that agenda (and equally busy removing any references to the German use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle in all articles. As a matter of fact, he seems to be very busy degrading any Luftwaffe related article).

He added the line "100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940" and 'quoted' Payton-Smith, because wikipedia generally require references, but in reality Payton-Smith says such thing nowhere.

It's quite simply that our friend NZTyphoon wanted his own opinion represented there, and to give weight to it he falsified the source.

Quite a bit like when lane manipulated the May 1940 paper on his website. ;)

:grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin: :-P:-P:-P:-P

This from the "editor" who has been blocked from editing in Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kurf%C3%BCrst) because of his disruptive and contentious attitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Block_review_requested_for_Kurf urst)

after being blocked several times before: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kurf%C3%BCrst/Archive_1) then tried to sneak in again under his ISP no. and has been blocked - again: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.101.5.223)

and his "contributions" like these: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Kurf%C3%BCrst&offset=&limit=500&target=Kurf%C3%BCrst) and these - (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Kurf%C3%BCrst&offset=20090721121200&limit=500&target=Kurf%C3%BCrst) meant degrading every article on Allied equipment he could lay his paws on while busily promoting everything German, and tying up the discussion pages with endless conflicts because of his constant abuse of references. That he takes himself so seriously - priceless! :grin::grin::grin:

Kurfürst

04-16-2012, 10:33 AM

Gee Jeff, you really have sooo many more important issues in your life, eh? :D

I note though that you are very silent about that falsified 'quote' from Payton-Smith you have inserted into that article I mentioned.

I can't be bothered to go into lenghts about your latest rant, but its suffice to say that you have been deeply involved in degrading articles on Wikipedia. You have been especially bent on degrading articles about the Bf 109 and Fw 190, for whatever reason, I guess its some sort of sick way to express your admiration to the Spitfire.

Your "contributions" are largely limited to the passion of deleting and falsifying information in that article. You seem to be hell bent on inserting false climb rates and engine ratings for the 109K (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain&diff=483479261&oldid=478579188), deleting referenced specs for the G-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants&diff=prev&oldid=484142786), removing references to Mine shells use in the Battle of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain&diff=323024774&oldid=322906255), repeatedly removing references to German 100 octane production with the pretext that they are 'almost impossible to access' (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain&diff=483479261&oldid=478579188) and so on.

Who do you think you are kidding? Its all too obvious from the above edits what your agenda is, and that you have nothing better to do with your life than this petty for of existence. As for the block on wikipedia, I recall you had a buddy there with, let's just say, an interesting psychological profile, who was going after my edits, kept removing them, just like he did get into conflict with every other editor. He was, much like yourself, a student in his early 20s having nothing better to do with his life than to edit wikipedia all day, and getting his daily satisfaction from it. He was blocked repeatedly for his behaviour, and eventually normal interaction with others was just too much to him and he quit. As for me, I was simply blocked by an admin who has a record of going after German editors and seeked an excuse to do so, despite the fact that all my edits were constructive. It doesn't really matter, because I have already brought up all the articles I wanted to sufficiently good level that not much work is needed there.

Anyone who has edited wiki fully knows that it has its share of frustrated nutjobs who lead a miserable life and try to be someone on the internet. They have all the day for scheming and 'wikipolitics', because having the last word there is their life's only satisfaction and purpose. NZTyphoon/Minorhistorian's day are basically spent like this - he amuses himself as some sort of ultimate expert, deciding over the validity other people's contributions, posting ridiculus warnings on their talk page about 'disruptive' edits, stalking them, and reporting them to the administrators if he can't have his way. He pretty much does the same here, as he only registrered to this discussion board to stalk me because of his earlier frustrations he couldn't yet work out for himself, and he goes on for a hundred posts frothing about me and more recently Crumpp just to get a response. I guess its the peak of his day when he finally gets one. :D

I am sorry to say but I can't be bothered about it. :D

ACE-OF-ACES

04-16-2012, 02:18 PM

Anyone who has edited wiki fully knows that it has its share of frustrated nutjobs who lead a miserable life and try to be someone on the internet.

http://www.goenglish.com/GoEnglish_com_ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack.gif

28_Condor

04-16-2012, 05:12 PM

Well, since Wikipedia is not reliable ... :rolleyes:

I searched on google scholar and found dozens of pages just the same opinion: the RAF used 100 octane at the beginning of the Battle of Britain.

Scientific knowledge is built upon scientific consensus.

Please, someone show me a literature review that contradicts the dogma of the 100 octane in the RAF ...

Here are some of the references that I gathered in google academic (only those with full text or intelligible):

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2008/August%202008/0808battle.pdf

http://portal.acs.org/preview/appmanager/corg/memberapp?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=924&content_id=WPCP_007595&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1

http://books.google.com.br/books?hl=pt-BR&lr=&id=I0GqF4xtmuMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA17&dq=100+octane+Battle+of+britain&ots=TBEzmSEerK&sig=9i-uZeT21hp0Y3QMcY-UKNpHNa8#v=onepage&q=100%20octane%20Battle%20of%20britain&f=false

http://web.mit.edu/~bmich/Public/16.82/AIAA-6946-976.pdf

http://212.24.128.164/data/veda-a-vyzkum/publikace/what_to_do_20_century.pdf#page=77

This issue impacts the credibility of CLOD as a simulator and should be treated based on more extensive research.

winny

04-16-2012, 05:22 PM

Gee Jeff, you really have sooo many more important issues in your life, eh? :D

I note though that you are very silent about that falsified 'quote' from Payton-Smith you have inserted into that article I mentioned.

I can't be bothered to go into lenghts about your latest rant, but its suffice to say that you have been deeply involved in degrading articles on Wikipedia. You have been especially bent on degrading articles about the Bf 109 and Fw 190, for whatever reason, I guess its some sort of sick way to express your admiration to the Spitfire.

Your "contributions" are largely limited to the passion of deleting and falsifying information in that article. You seem to be hell bent on inserting false climb rates and engine ratings for the 109K (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain&diff=483479261&oldid=478579188), deleting referenced specs for the G-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants&diff=prev&oldid=484142786), removing references to Mine shells use in the Battle of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain&diff=323024774&oldid=322906255), repeatedly removing references to German 100 octane production with the pretext that they are 'almost impossible to access' (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain&diff=483479261&oldid=478579188) and so on.

Who do you think you are kidding? Its all too obvious from the above edits what your agenda is, and that you have nothing better to do with your life than this petty for of existence. As for the block on wikipedia, I recall you had a buddy there with, let's just say, an interesting psychological profile, who was going after my edits, kept removing them, just like he did get into conflict with every other editor. He was, much like yourself, a student in his early 20s having nothing better to do with his life than to edit wikipedia all day, and getting his daily satisfaction from it. He was blocked repeatedly for his behaviour, and eventually normal interaction with others was just too much to him and he quit. As for me, I was simply blocked by an admin who has a record of going after German editors and seeked an excuse to do so, despite the fact that all my edits were constructive. It doesn't really matter, because I have already brought up all the articles I wanted to sufficiently good level that not much work is needed there.

Anyone who has edited wiki fully knows that it has its share of frustrated nutjobs who lead a miserable life and try to be someone on the internet. They have all the day for scheming and 'wikipolitics', because having the last word there is their life's only satisfaction and purpose. NZTyphoon/Minorhistorian's day are basically spent like this - he amuses himself as some sort of ultimate expert, deciding over the validity other people's contributions, posting ridiculus warnings on their talk page about 'disruptive' edits, stalking them, and reporting them to the administrators if he can't have his way. He pretty much does the same here, as he only registrered to this discussion board to stalk me because of his earlier frustrations he couldn't yet work out for himself, and he goes on for a hundred posts frothing about me and more recently Crumpp just to get a response. I guess its the peak of his day when he finally gets one. :DI

I am sorry to say but I can't be bothered about it. :D

Congratulations! I've been on the Internet since '94 and this is the single most hypocritical post I have ever seen.

Every single point you made can be levelled at you. X10

Edit: and the absence of any form of argument other than personal attacks is also noted.
Oh and don't kid yourself - people aren't stalking you, they are stalking the facts

Glider

04-16-2012, 05:38 PM

Every single point you made can be levelled at you. X10

Which is why I called his previous posting, a reflective posting.

Al Schlageter

04-16-2012, 05:40 PM

Barbi goes on these berserker rants when he gets pwnd.

Eugene disappears from a thread to escape admitting he is wrong.

Kurfürst

04-16-2012, 05:49 PM

Well its always refreshing to hear some mature arguments gentlemen. Please do carry on.

Dear Condor,

I will look into the papers you have provided, though in my opinion not much new is surfacing in the thread, some people just like to repeat themselves. As others have correctly observed, this thread long took a demented course ever since some people graced us with their enduring presence. Most of us, and I dare to say correctly, already drawn the conclusion that the amount of Stations/Squadrons operating on 100 octane fuel cannot be ascertained - although its well known and undoubted for 70 years that it was used - we lack sufficient evidence to form an educated opinion about its extent.

Glider

04-16-2012, 06:20 PM

Well that is a slight change on your position. On another forum you believed that it was a Pips posting ie approx 145 fighters, which was enough for about 7 squadrons with a few in reserve

Kurfürst

04-16-2012, 06:36 PM

Well that is a slight change on your position. On another forum you believed that it was a Pips posting ie approx 145 fighters, which was enough for about 7 squadrons with a few in reserve

I fear that you have not yet quite understood my position.

Pips noted that in May 1940 the British decided to stop the roll out of 100 octane and limit it to apprx. 25% of the force.

We of course know from the papers in AVIA 282 that in May 1940 the British indeed noted that they have supplied 100 octane to select fighter stations and a number of bomber stations.

Pips also noted that later when the supply situation eased they decided to continue with the changeover. Pips noted that the changeover was completed by the late autumn.

We also know from the same AVIA papers that it was not until early August 1940 the British finally decided to authorize 100 octane use for all operational aircraft. Of course it was just that, an authorization. The actual steps took some time.

From the fuel consumption and issue papers we know that 87 octane was the primary fuel, and 100 octane issues only increased towards late September 1940.

28_Condor

04-16-2012, 06:49 PM

Dear Condor,

I will look into the papers you have provided, though in my opinion not much new is surfacing in the thread, some people just like to repeat themselves. As others have correctly observed, this thread long took a demented course ever since some people graced us with their enduring presence. Most of us, and I dare to say correctly, already drawn the conclusion that the amount of Stations/Squadrons operating on 100 octane fuel cannot be ascertained - although its well known and undoubted for 70 years that it was used - we lack sufficient evidence to form an educated opinion about its extent.

Unfortunately I did not have access to the stuff paid for, but these seem more clearly explained the use of 100-octane:

The paper covers over fifty years of aviation gasoline development, beginning with a description of the Wright brothers’ 12 horsepower engine and their use of below 40 octane gasoline. Early investigations of the detonation phenomenon are described and the means developed to suppress knock by improving fuel quality. Why the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine of the RAF Spitfire was found to require a special 100 octane fuel for the Battle of Britain is explained.

But even "the amount of Stations/Squadrons operating on 100 octane fuel cannot be ascertained" the amount of fuel existed:

The most dramatic benefit of the earliest Houdry units was in the production of 100-octane aviation gasoline, just before the outbreak of World War II. The Houdry plants provided a better gasoline for blending with scarce high-octane components, as well as by-products that could be converted by other processes to make more high-octane fractions. The increased performance meant that Allied planes were better than Axis planes by a factor of 15 percent to 30 percent in engine power for take-off and climbing; 25 percent in payload; 10 percent in maximum speed; and 12 percent in operational altitude. In the first six months of 1940, at the time of the Battle of Britain, 1.1 million barrels per month of 100-octane aviation gasoline was shipped to the Allies. Houdry plants produced 90 percent of this catalytically cracked gasoline during the first two years of the war.

If that amount was really enough there is no reason to suppose that the british would not use it in yours fighters.

28_Condor

04-16-2012, 07:53 PM

The most correct would be to have the 100 octane as an option for missionbuilders.

Each server would built their missions according to their historical consciousness:

1/5, 1/3, 4/5, whatever it is, what can not is to deny the existence and use of 100 octane :!:

Seadog

04-16-2012, 08:42 PM

Al Schlageter

04-16-2012, 09:18 PM

Pips noted that in May 1940 the British decided to stop the roll out of 100 octane and limit it to apprx. 25% of the force.

From the fuel consumption and issue papers we know that 87 octane was the primary fuel, and 100 octane issues only increased towards late September 1940.

LOL, he we go again with the Pips paper :rolleyes: while ignoring the number of squadron over and above the 16 +2 that used 100 octane fuel.

You continually fail to supply a breakdown of which RAF Commands received what fuel.

A single bomber in BC carried enough fuel to fuel an entire squadron of Spitfires or Hurricanes.

Al Schlageter

04-16-2012, 09:55 PM

We also know from the same AVIA papers that it was not until early August 1940 the British finally decided to authorize 100 octane use for all operational aircraft. Of course it was just that, an authorization. The actual steps took some time.

Can I quote this line when 1C does late war with the 109K-4 and 1.98ata?

NZtyphoon

04-16-2012, 11:22 PM

Same old same old; Adam-Barbi doesn't have a single scrap of evidence to prove anything he claims, so he'll just go over the same old ground again, with the same old arguments.:lol: :lol:

Crumpp

04-16-2012, 11:34 PM

Let’s look at some of the facts being supplied.

First we have this document:

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/2343/100octane29oct40.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/571/100octane29oct40.jpg/)

Estimates...estimates for consumption and estimates future stocks two months ahead of 29 Oct 1939.

Estimates = best educated guess. An estimate is not a fact. While interesting, it means nothing for establishing the extent of use of 100 grade. It does establish the fact in October 1940 the United Kingdom had just over half the 800,000tons of 100 Octane in strategic reserve they initially required. There was a shortage of 100 Octane fuel.

We have evidence that some 100 Octane was used as early as 16 February 1940. This squadron log definitively states the aircraft are converted and using the fuel.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7303/151orb16feb40.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/215/151orb16feb40.jpg/)

It is a fact; this unit was using 100 grade. However, that does not mean the RAF had adopted the fuel or it was in widespread use.

A technical order for conversion of the aircraft had not even been published at that time. It is highly unlikely that the RAF was in the process of widespread conversion to 100 Octane without disseminating the technical knowledge to convert the airplanes in the force.

Technical Order dated March 1940:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2397/ap1590b.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/ap1590b.jpg/)

The technical order tells us the major work required to convert an engine by replacing the cylinder heads, in some cases piston rings, and altering the fuel metering system. It also gives us the plan to make the conversions. Airplanes were to be converted when their service inspections where due. In order to make this conversion, there must be an adequate supply of the new cylinder heads and parts in the inventory to replace the old ones. Somebody has to make the parts required and distribute them.

These squadron log entries prove that the conversion was taking place. It does not show that they were using 100 octane fuel. The only fact it shows is that the planes were converted according to the plan laid out in the technical order.

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5323/no611100oct.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/no611100oct.jpg/)

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/2448/no74100oct.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/849/no74100oct.jpg/)

Looking at this document, we know for a fact nobody in the United Kingdom was using any sizable quantity of 100 Octane fuel before June of 1940.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7208/100octconsumptionbob.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/140/100octconsumptionbob.jpg/)

That would make sense given the other facts we have at hand.

1. There was no technical order or instructions to convert until March 1940.
2. Conversion required major work and a supply of cylinder heads to be in the manufactured and distributed to the inventory.
3. Conversion was done on the periodical major inspection schedule of the aircraft when it was down for service anyway.
4. None of the POH's list +12lbs as authorized before June 1940. If it was the major fuel, those instructions would eclipse the instructions for 87 Octane.
5. There were no stocks in any quantity of 100 Octane fuel at any airfields prior to June 1940.
6. 100 Octane fuel does not become the major fuel on hand at any airfields until October 1940.
7. In October of 1940, the United Kingdom as just half the Strategic Reserve required of 800,000 tons. In other words, there is a shortage of 100 Octane fuel in the United Kingdom.

Even after June 1940, 100 Octane does not come anywhere close to eclipsing 87 Octane use. It represents on 27% of the fuel on the airfields during July thru August.

In September, 100 Octane represents 37% of the fuel on hand at the airfields. In October the increase is significant with 47% of the total fuel at the airfields being 100 Octane. The other 53% in October is still 87 Octane.

That concludes the facts at hand. All of this points to the biggest fact of all, we don't know for sure at this point.

Lastly lets address why I believe the 16 squadrons over simplistic calculations.

Now the 16 squadrons is found in two sources. First Morgen and Shacklady list RAF Fighter Command as having 16 squadrons for Fighter Command and 2 Squadrons for Bomber Command by September of 1940. The Trimpell Oil Company also confirms this plan. They list 19 squadrons and 384 Spitfires using the fuel by 31 July 1940. If we count squadrons listed in both sources:

16 squadrons in Fighter Command + 2 Squadrons in Bomber Command + 1 PRU unit in Coastal Command = 19 Squadrons.

16 Spitfire squadrons in Fighter Command = 352 A/C at the establishment of 22 A/C per squadron enacted in July 1940.

That leaves 32 Aircraft for Coastal Commands PRU unit.

Both sources seem to agree and their conclusions are close enough on the 16 squadrons. Those conclusions are backed by the Aircraft Operating Instructions and the airfield stocks as listed in the United Kingdom’s Table II - Consumption report and Strategic Reserve situation.

That 16 squadrons using 100 Octane fuel during the Battle of Britain puts the reserve to consumption ratio at a much more believable rate and the accounts for the inventory lag of replacing cylinder heads. In short, from a logistical standpoint, it is much more credible and is agrees with the evidence found in the aircraft operating instructions.

Now several second hand sources make the statement that 100 Octane was the predominate fuel for Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. This is true depending on the dates you choose to end the battle. On 15 September, I would say it was unlikely that 100 Octane was the predominate fuel. However by December 1940 it did become the predominate fuel and by the German date for the end of the battle, May 1941 when the bombers were transferred to the east, 100% of the RAF was using 100 Octane fuel.

Crumpp

04-16-2012, 11:41 PM

wikipedia

Is a joke in academic circles. Including it as a source at the college I graduated from was an automatic failure.

Read Wikpedia's own General Disclaimer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

NZtyphoon

04-17-2012, 12:12 AM

Crumpp

04-17-2012, 01:11 AM

all this paper is doing is estimating consumption for November and December 1940

No it estimates more than consumption, it estimates deliveries of the fuel and increases in strategic stocks.

As I pointed out, the only fact it does relate is:

Crumpp says:
It does establish the fact in October 1940 the United Kingdom had just over half the 800,000tons of 100 Octane in strategic reserve they initially required. There was a shortage of 100 Octane fuel.

Your statement about the squadron log:

NzTyphoon says:
the squadron was operational on 100 Octane fuel in February

1. There was no fuel at the airfields in any quantity. See the Table II consumption document. It is therefore unlikely this is any kind of widespread operational use.

2. Yes, that squadron used the fuel in February but no technical instructions were in widespread dissemination.

3. If the fuel was standard by June 1940, it would have eclipsed the 87 Octane Operating Instructions.

Read AP1590B properly Crumpp; nowhere does this document mention overhauling aircraft, nor does it mention "service inspections". Just to make things especially clear to you:

Paragraph 4 states "Newer engines will already have Mod.No.Merlin/136 embodied" meaning that the conversion was already being undertaken on the production line.

This document refers to older engines being brought up to the same standards:

Paragraph 4 states ...Mod.No.Merlin/77 is already being done as service maintenance

As per usual you have utterly misrepresented what these documents are saying.

Who said anything about overhauling the aircraft? Do you know what a service inspection is NzTyphoon? It is the equivalent of an annual or a FAR 21.183 100 Hour inspection.

There is no misrepresentation and the language is quite similar to Service Bulletins and Airworthiness Directives in use today.

It clearly states the two methods of compliance by part number with the technical order and specifies which one will be incorporated in future production engines. The 900(+) Single Engined fighters using the Merlin already in service will have to be converted along with the maintenance stock of Merlin engines.

It means they have to manufacture quite a few new cylinder heads and rings. That is why the conversion will take place during the cyclic service inspection.

Al Schlageter

04-17-2012, 01:32 AM

We have yet to see the identity of these 16 fighter squadrons from you Eugene.

Yet there is documentation that there was more than 16 squadrons with Hurricanes and Spitfires using 100 octane fuel even before the BoB started.

By Month

No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 92 (East India) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940 H
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron pre BoB S

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 3 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 17 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 19 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 54 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 73 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940 H
No. 41 Squadron June 1940 S
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940 S

There was NO SHORTAGE of 100 octane fuel. Total consumption for the whole of the BoB didn't come anywhere near what was in stock before the BoB started.

1. There was no technical order or instructions to convert until March 1940.

If there was no TO till March, then how did 611 Sqn convert in Feb?

Crumpp

04-17-2012, 01:55 AM

then how did 611 Sqn convert in Feb?

Wrong question....

How did they know all the technical answers to publish instructions in March?

Answer....

They tested it over a period of time in a number of aircraft to get the data required.

Total consumption for the whole of the BoB didn't come anywhere near what was in stock before the BoB started.

Not at the required consumption to stock ratios....

Pretty much ends my conversation with you so I will put you back on the ignore list.

28_Condor

04-17-2012, 03:05 AM

Frankly, it is very difficult to follow this discussion ...

For me it is easier to understand articles that have reviewed the literature and where I can draw conclusions:

Palucka, Tim. The Wizard of Octane. American Heritage of Invention & Technology, 20. 3 (Winter 2005): 36-45.
Resume: IF, AS THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SAID, the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, then one can assert with equal justice that the Battle of Britain was won at the Stevens Hotel, in Chicago, on November 18, 1938. It was there, at the annual meeting of the American Petroleum Institute, that Arthur E. Pew, vice president and head of research of the Sun Oil Company, described his company's extraordinary new catalytic refining process. Using it, he said, Sun was turning what was normally considered a waste product into gasoline-and not just ordinary gasoline, but a highoctane product that could fuel the era's most advanced airplanes. That process would make a crucial difference in mid-1940, when the Royal Air Force started filling its Spitfires and Hurricanes with 100-octane gasoline imported from the United States instead of the 87 octane it had formerly used. Luftwaffe pilots couldn't believe they were facing the same planes they had fought successfully over France a few months before. The planes were the same, but the fuel wasn't. In his 1943 book The Amazing Petroleum Industry, V. A. Kalichevsky of the Socony-Vacuum Oil Company explained what high-octane gasoline meant to Britain: "It is an established fact that a difference of only 13 points in octane number made possible the defeat of the Luftwaffe by the R.A.F. in the fall of 1940. This difference, slight as it seems, is sufficient to give a plane the vital `edge' in altitude, rate of climb and maneuverability that spells the difference between defeat and victory."

Bailey, Gavin. The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain. English Historical Review; Apr2008, Vol. 123 Issue 501, p395-411, 17p, 3 Charts
Resume: The article focuses on the supply of 100-octane fuel during the battle of Great Britain. Aviation historians have advanced the supply of 100-octane aviation fuel as critical American contribution to the battle. A study of the contemporary Air Ministry records in the Public Record Office shows that this assertion can be challenged. The challenge can be made on the grounds of the aircraft performance benefit involved, as showed by contemporary Royal Air Force (RAF) testing, and on the national origin attributed to 100-octane fuel supplies. The records reveal that contrary to the assertion of aviation history, the supply of 100-octane fuel to RAF in time for use in the battle must be attributed to pre-war British planning and investment on the rearmament period of the late nineteen-thirties.

My only conclusion is that only in this forum I read the statement that 100-octane did not have a role in the Battle of Britain (statement supported by the devs? :confused: ) ... and not supported in a peer-reviewed article...

NZtyphoon

04-17-2012, 03:22 AM

Who said anything about overhauling the aircraft?

You did, right here:

A technical order for conversion of the aircraft had not even been published at that time. It is highly unlikely that the RAF was in the process of widespread conversion to 100 Octane without disseminating the technical knowledge to convert the airplanes in the force.

There is no misrepresentation and the language is quite similar to Service Bulletins and Airworthiness Directives in use today.

It clearly states the two methods of compliance by part number with the technical order and specifies which one will be incorporated in future production engines. The 900(+) Single Engined fighters using the Merlin already in service will have to be converted along with the maintenance stock of Merlin engines.

It means they have to manufacture quite a few new cylinder heads and rings. That is why the conversion will take place during the cyclic service inspection.

You have no idea what technical service documents were published between November 1939 and February 1940, so claiming that none had been published is completely wrong.

The designation AP1590B J.2-W indicates that there were documents before this one

Read AP1590B J.2-W properly Crumpp - it refers to older production Merlins

Paragraph 4 states

1) [B].Mod.No.Merlin/77 is already being done as service maintenance "is already being done" means that the parts and the information needed was available before March 1940.

2)"Newer engines will already have Mod.No.Merlin/136 embodied" "Will already" means that production engines built before March 1940 incorporated the modifications.

7. In October of 1940, the United Kingdom as just half the Strategic Reserve required of 800,000 tons. In other words, there is a shortage of 100 Octane fuel in the United Kingdom.

Once again utter nonsense. You are still obsessed with a pre-war document to decide what happened in wartime when a country was under attack. Reserves of 100 Octane never reached 800,000 tons - in 1941, when all services had converted to the fuel, reserves reached a peak of 527,000 tons in February before steadily declining.

Not at the required consumption to stock ratios....

Strategic reserves of "Other Grades", including 87 Octane fuel, got far lower than 100 Octane in August 1940; 230,000 tons cf 404,000 tons of 100 Octane. Your "required consumption to stock ratio..." is completely erroneous

August 1940

Consumption of "Other Grades" = 26,000 tons plus reserves of 230,000 tons = 256,000 tons of other grades. Heavy bombers, flying boats etc were still consuming 87 Octane fuel considering that big aircraft with big fuel tanks were using the fuel the difference in consumption is a little easier to understand.

Consumption of 100 Octane
10,000 tons plus 404,000 tons in reserves = 414,000 tons of 100 Octane

Get it clear in your mind Crumpp - only 15,000 tons of fuel was needed to cover all operational defensive sorties flown by Merlin powered aircraft of Fighter Command right through the battle. You have never explained what happened to the remaining 36,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel consumed, and you never will. Instead, as per usual, you continue to evade some very basic questions.

Al Schlageter

04-17-2012, 04:03 AM

The testing had been done long before mass conversions began early in 1940.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/24sept38-spitfire-100oct-approval.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/6dec38-100octanefuel.jpg

Then there is the document of Dec 1939 for stocking of 21 operation bases and 18 other bases with 100 octane fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/7dec39-100oct-issue.jpg

Notice North Weald is one of those stations. How many times have we heard from you that no mods could be done without proper documentation/orders? So 611 Sqn must have done the conversion without proper authorization.

However did RAF FC conduct operations after Oct 1940 when 100 octane fuel was the fuel of FC as it still hadn't reached 800,000 reserve tons?

As can be seen there was no worries about 100 octane fuel,
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/100octane-annexure-2april40.jpg

Even at the end of 1941 there still wasn't a reserve of 800,000 tons.

We have yet to see the identity of these 16 fighter squadrons from you Eugene.

Crumpp

04-17-2012, 04:32 AM

"Will already" means that production engines built before March 1940 incorporated the modifications.

There is nothing in that technical bulletin that reads engines produced before March 1940 will have the modification.

Once again, if it was the standard fuel in service, the Operating Instructions would reflect that.

They would not continue to publish 87 Octane Operating limits with scant references to the ability to use 100 Octane. They would publish the 100 Octane limits and the 87 Octane would be a foot note or a supplemental instruction.

Where is the 100 Octane fuel at the airfields in March??

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9708/100octconsumptionbob2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/100octconsumptionbob2.jpg/)

Al Schlageter

04-17-2012, 04:58 AM

Where is the 100 Octane fuel at the airfields in March??

Some must have been at North Weald for 151 Sqn and 611 Sqn.

Some must have been at Drem for 111 Sqn.

Glider

04-17-2012, 05:07 AM

Someone needs to learn how to read a chart. The 23,000 ton figure for Mar to May 1940 is in the centre of the chart and is a combined figure for 100 and 87 octane fuel.

Al Schlageter

04-17-2012, 05:09 AM

Someone needs to learn how to read a chart. The 23,000 ton figure for Mar to May 1940 is in the centre of the chart and is a combined figure for 100 and 87 octane fuel.

More like just learn to read.

Glider

04-17-2012, 05:15 AM

Error

Crumpp

04-17-2012, 05:15 AM

611 Sqn

They were not using 100 Octane at least by the log entry posted in this thread.

combined figure for 100 and 87 octane fuel.

The footnotes would point that out.

Clearly, 87 Octane is the only aviation fuel available before June 1940.

Once again, this is reflected in the Operating Instructions as well.

If 100 grade was the standard, it would be the standard in the Operating Instructions.

Crumpp

04-17-2012, 05:18 AM

The estimated paper is dated October 1940 not 1939.

Typo...I know the paper is October 1940.

Crumpp Says:

In October of 1940, the United Kingdom as just half the Strategic Reserve required of 800,000 tons.

Al Schlageter

04-17-2012, 05:47 AM

We have yet to see the identity of these 16 fighter squadrons from you Eugene.

41Sqn_Banks

04-17-2012, 06:39 AM

You have no idea what technical service documents were published between November 1939 and February 1940, so claiming that none had been published is completely wrong.

Exactly. For example Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III. 2nd Edition January 1939. It doesn't mention +12 boost, it mentions that a unspecific higher boost than +6 1/4 can be used for take-off by operating the boost-control cut-out.
It doesn't mention any modification, only that 100 octane fuel must be used. (Note that the 4th Edition from April 1940 mentions that "sparking plugs approved to withstand this high boost must be used", so if there was any modification required in January 1939 it would have been mentioned.)
It does however state that this higher boost setting has to be determined on the ground before it is used by listening if there is detonation.

The 4th Edition from April 1940 now gives +12 boost and as already said mentions that specific sparking plugs must be used and that the boost-control cut-out has to be modified to limit boost to +12 boost.
Looks like in April the cylinder head modification was no longer required (maybe because all engines had been modified).

NZtyphoon

04-17-2012, 09:27 AM

There is nothing in that technical bulletin that reads engines produced before March 1940 will have the modification.

Once again, if it was the standard fuel in service, the Operating Instructions would reflect that.

They would not continue to publish 87 Octane Operating limits with scant references to the ability to use 100 Octane. They would publish the 100 Octane limits and the 87 Octane would be a foot note or a supplemental instruction.

Where is the 100 Octane fuel at the airfields in March??

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9708/100octconsumptionbob2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/100octconsumptionbob2.jpg/)
Read AP1509B again, properly it says:

"Newer engines will already have Mod.No.Merlin/136 embodied" it means what it says - new engines on the production lines - engines being built before the issue of this document - were already being fitted with the modifications. Older engines were also being modified.

Ever heard of wartime emergency modifications Eugene? - that means that normal, peacetime practices of leisurely annual maintenance are suspended in favour of ensuring that the latest modifications are embodied as quickly as possible in as many frontline units as possible.

A prime example:Starting on June 22 1940, in co-operation with de Havilland, the RAF mounted a crash program to ensure all of its frontline Merlin engine fighters were fitted with Constant Speed propellers (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1943/1943%20-%202888.html?search=spitfire)

"Minutes of a meeting held on June 22nd with the Senior Technical Officer of Fighter Command relate that de Havillands would start the conversion at twelve Spitfire stations on Tuesday, June 25th (less than a week after the first test flight) and could provide twelve men capable of supervising a
station apiece; that the firm estimated that each squadron would take ten days to convert, and that all Spitfire squadrons could be completed by July 20th. The same minutes recorded that de Havillands had put in hand the production of 500 conversion sets, without contract cover, and that these would be coming out at the rate of 20 sets daily from June 24th, two days later. Supermarines were to be supplied with 20 sets per week from June 25th for aircraft coming off the production line; this would mean that two-thirds of the Spitfire production from that day onward would be "constant-speed...."

The conversion called for this constant-speed unit; a small shaft drive to connect it to the engine; four external engine oil pipes; a complete cockpit control with conduit, and detail parts. The airscrews did not have to be changed, having been designed for constant-speeding, but each had to be dismantled to move the index pins so as to give full pitch range....As Rolls-Royce could not, consistent with other heavy demands, produce the quill shafts for driving the c.s. units, or the engine oil pipes, the data were given to de Havillands and the facilities of the Gipsy engine factory were pressed into service to make over 1,000 sets of these parts. Everybody in the D.H. organisation who could contribute anything was transferred to this job....
The working times of the D.H. engineers during the ensuing weeks averaged about 105 to 110 hours (15 to 16 hours a day), with instances of 130 and up to 150 hours (19 to 21½ hours out of the 24). At some squadrons as many as four and five Spitfires were converted and test-flown in a day....
An entry dated Friday, August 2nd, records that by then, 44 days after the test flight of the first converted Spitfire, the production of conversion sets for all existing Spitfires (more than 800 sets, fulfilling the schedule of 20 a day) was complete, and they had therefore started producing for the Supermarine assembly line; De Havillands then had 400 Hurricane conversion sets in hand and expected to convert a total of 700, after which constant speed airscrews would be embodied in the new aircraft." (Before you dismiss this as "propaganda" this information is reproduced, almost word for word, in Morgan and Shacklady)

Wartime emergency: de Havilland worked overtime to manufacture, distribute and fit the CS conversion without a formal contract. In 44 days more than 800 propellers had been modified. Nothing like a wartime emergency to spur things along. And just to be clear, the same can apply to Merlins.

Crumpp

04-17-2012, 11:57 AM

It doesn't mention +12 boost, it mentions that a unspecific higher boost than +6 1/4 can be used for take-off by operating the boost-control cut-out.

Let's see this unspecific boost!

The June 1940 Operating Instructions make no mention whatsoever for a higher boost at take off.

Read AP1509B again, properly it says:

It is being read properly. That is backed up by the logs.

Notice the engine is modified during Service Inspection:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/2448/no74100oct.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/no74100oct.jpg/)

engines being built before the issue of this document

LMAO!! It specifics which method of compliance will be used in production. It does not say a single thing about engines produced in the past!!

Crumpp

04-17-2012, 12:01 PM

A prime example:Starting on June 22 1940, in co-operation with de Havilland, the RAF mounted a crash program to ensure all of its frontline Merlin engine fighters were fitted with Constant Speed propellers

Not a prime example, a very atypical example and heroic effort on the part of DeHavilland.

I am sure you would love to think this was normal.

a small shaft drive to connect it to the engine; four external engine oil pipes; a complete cockpit control with conduit, and detail parts.

Is extremely easy when compared to the technical level of producing a cylinder head.

lane

04-17-2012, 12:02 PM

Yet there is documentation that there was more than 16 squadrons with Hurricanes and Spitfires using 100 octane fuel even before the BoB started.

By Month

No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 92 (East India) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940 H
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron pre BoB S

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 3 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 17 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 19 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 54 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 73 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940 H
No. 41 Squadron June 1940 S
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940 S

Here's two more that come to mind:

245 Squadron, May 1940, Hurricane (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/245-mcglashan-28may40.jpg)
264 Squadron, May 1940, Defiant (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/264-welsh-29may40.pdf)

lane

04-17-2012, 12:10 PM

Some must have been at North Weald for 151 Sqn and 611 Sqn.

Some must have been at Drem for 111 Sqn.

602 Squadron also at Drem
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/602-16feb40-100octane.jpg

lane

04-17-2012, 12:20 PM

Read the first paper dated October 29 properly Crumpp: Deduct Estimated Consumption Nov/Dec - all this paper is doing is estimating consumption for November and December 1940 - it has absolutely nothing to do with actual fuel consumed July- October 1940.

Hi NZtyphoon,

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/100octane-29oct40.jpg

The important figure to my mind on that document is simply 100 Octane Fuel Stocks in U.K. 29.10.40 = 423,400 tons.

Stocks of 100 octane at the end of December 1940 was 499,000 tons:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/100oct-stocks-39-40.jpg

lane

04-17-2012, 12:26 PM

Someone needs to learn how to read a chart. The 23,000 ton figure for Mar to May 1940 is in the centre of the chart and is a combined figure for 100 and 87 octane fuel.

Yes, just as the Total for 1st Yr. = 267 refers to 100 Octane and Other Grades.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/100oct-consumption-bob.jpg

lane

04-17-2012, 12:28 PM

Exactly. For example Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III. 2nd Edition January 1939. It doesn't mention +12 boost, it mentions that a unspecific higher boost than +6 1/4 can be used for take-off by operating the boost-control cut-out.
It doesn't mention any modification, only that 100 octane fuel must be used. (Note that the 4th Edition from April 1940 mentions that "sparking plugs approved to withstand this high boost must be used", so if there was any modification required in January 1939 it would have been mentioned.)
It does however state that this higher boost setting has to be determined on the ground before it is used by listening if there is detonation.

The 4th Edition from April 1940 now gives +12 boost and as already said mentions that specific sparking plugs must be used and that the boost-control cut-out has to be modified to limit boost to +12 boost.
Looks like in April the cylinder head modification was no longer required (maybe because all engines had been modified).

My copy confirms your statement:

Emergency +12 lbs./sq. in. Boost Operation: Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/pilots-notes-merlin3-pg6.jpg

41Sqn_Banks

04-17-2012, 12:32 PM

Let's see this unspecific boost!

As said, there is no fixed boost value specified. The possible boost value had to be determined individually before the take-off. I will dig out the pages ASAP.

The June 1940 Operating Instructions make no mention whatsoever for a higher boost at take off.

It does:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=8861&d=1332111649
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=8863&d=1332111666

Well, as long as you are not doing a "long period take-off" ...

335th_GRAthos

04-17-2012, 12:37 PM

I am sorry to jump into this discussion (I would prefer to burn in my burning Bf109 with a properly exploding central fuel tank than post in this thread, LOL) but I there is something that raised my curiocity:

I am looking at the numbers for the first year of war (Sep.'39 - Aug.'40)
Did anybody notice that the line Total for first year numbers make no sense?
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9708/100octconsumptionbob2.jpg

Just wonder what the reason may be for this discrepancy.

~S~

lane

04-17-2012, 12:54 PM

I am looking at the numbers for the first year of war (Sep.'39 - Aug.'40)
Did anybody notice that the line Total for first year numbers make no sense?

Actually, the figures do add up and do make sense. The figures given are Monthly Average Consumption in thousands of tons.

For the 1st Year of War Sept.-Nov.'39, 16 is given as the monthly average, in thousands of tons, for that 3 months period.
With that understanding (16x3) + (14x3) + (23x3) + (10x3) + (26x3) = 267

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/100oct-consumption-bob.jpg

Al Schlageter

04-17-2012, 01:14 PM

Here's two more that come to mind:

245 Squadron, May 1940, Hurricane (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/245-mcglashan-28may40.jpg)
264 Squadron, May 1940, Defiant (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/264-welsh-29may40.pdf)

Thanks lane though I am really only interested in Spit and Hurrie squadrons.

Did 245 still use 100 fuel after it went to Aldergrove in July 1940?

NZtyphoon

04-17-2012, 01:15 PM

Let's see this unspecific boost!

The June 1940 Operating Instructions make no mention whatsoever for a higher boost at take off.

It is being read properly. That is backed up by the logs.

Notice the engine is modified during Service Inspection:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/2448/no74100oct.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/no74100oct.jpg/)

LMAO!! It specifics which method of compliance will be used in production. It does not say a single thing about engines produced in the past!!

If you can't read properly that's your problem; the form says absolutely nothing about what type of inspection K9878 is undergoing, and the final sentence says END change to 100 Octane, referring to the fact that the entire unit has gone over to 100 Octane by 16 March 1940, PRE dating AP1590B which is dated 20 March 1940 and confirming what AP1590 says, that Merlin engines were already being modified.

Crumpp

04-17-2012, 03:32 PM

If you can't read properly that's your problem;

I can read very well. The entry complies with the technical instructions found in A.P. 1590B/J.2W. It does not mean they are using 100 Octane fuel.

Once again, where is in any significant quantity of the fuel at the airfields in March 1940? Answer is there is no fuel in any significant quantity. Your own documentation shows that. Problem is you gamers are so bent on finding what you need that you do not see any other outcome.

Once again, if 100 Octane fuel is not listed as the primary Operating Instructions even in June 1940.

For example Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III. 2nd Edition January 1939.

I have the June 1940 version. All previous instructions are included in the later version AND any technical orders are incorporated. That is a fact.

If the later version of the Operating Instructions does not include it, you can bet the earlier did not.

That looks like somebodies photo-shop work.

Crumpp

04-17-2012, 03:37 PM

Yes, just as the Total for 1st Yr. = 267 refers to 100 Octane and Other Grades.

Baloney.

Total is just that...TOTAL for the year.

In 1938 they had 100 Octane in quantity?? No they did not.

I don't think it has anything to do with the columns above it. Can you prove it does not?

Crumpp

04-17-2012, 04:24 PM

Well, as long as you are not doing a "long period take-off" ...

It is not at take off. The +12lbs is allowable up to 1st Gear FTH.

Even in June 1940, 100 Octane has not eclipsed 87 Octane as the predominate fuel. The Pilots Operating Instructions would have published with the latest data. This is reflected in Table II as no significant quantities of 100 Octane exist at the airfields.

If the technical instructions were published in March then that gives them 4 months until the update is published.

The Operating Notes still list 6 1/2lbs as the 5 minute all out emergency setting for the engine as the most common configuration.

The limiting operational conditions does not make any mention at all of 100 Octane.

Frankly, it is very difficult to follow this discussion ...

For me it is easier to understand articles that have reviewed the literature and where I can draw conclusions:

Palucka, Tim. The Wizard of Octane. American Heritage of Invention & Technology, 20. 3 (Winter 2005): 36-45.
Resume: IF, AS THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SAID, the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, then one can assert with equal justice that the Battle of Britain was won at the Stevens Hotel, in Chicago, on November 18, 1938. It was there, at the annual meeting of the American Petroleum Institute, that Arthur E. Pew, vice president and head of research of the Sun Oil Company, described his company's extraordinary new catalytic refining process. Using it, he said, Sun was turning what was normally considered a waste product into gasoline-and not just ordinary gasoline, but a highoctane product that could fuel the era's most advanced airplanes. That process would make a crucial difference in mid-1940, when the Royal Air Force started filling its Spitfires and Hurricanes with 100-octane gasoline imported from the United States instead of the 87 octane it had formerly used. Luftwaffe pilots couldn't believe they were facing the same planes they had fought successfully over France a few months before. The planes were the same, but the fuel wasn't. In his 1943 book The Amazing Petroleum Industry, V. A. Kalichevsky of the Socony-Vacuum Oil Company explained what high-octane gasoline meant to Britain: "It is an established fact that a difference of only 13 points in octane number made possible the defeat of the Luftwaffe by the R.A.F. in the fall of 1940. This difference, slight as it seems, is sufficient to give a plane the vital `edge' in altitude, rate of climb and maneuverability that spells the difference between defeat and victory."

Bailey, Gavin. The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain. English Historical Review; Apr2008, Vol. 123 Issue 501, p395-411, 17p, 3 Charts
Resume: The article focuses on the supply of 100-octane fuel during the battle of Great Britain. Aviation historians have advanced the supply of 100-octane aviation fuel as critical American contribution to the battle. A study of the contemporary Air Ministry records in the Public Record Office shows that this assertion can be challenged. The challenge can be made on the grounds of the aircraft performance benefit involved, as showed by contemporary Royal Air Force (RAF) testing, and on the national origin attributed to 100-octane fuel supplies. The records reveal that contrary to the assertion of aviation history, the supply of 100-octane fuel to RAF in time for use in the battle must be attributed to pre-war British planning and investment on the rearmament period of the late nineteen-thirties.

My only conclusion is that only in this forum I read the statement that 100-octane did not have a role in the Battle of Britain (statement supported by the devs? ) ... and not supported in a peer-reviewed article...

The answer to the question of the extent of 100 Octane all depends on when you place the dates of the Battle of Britain. September 15th 1940 as an end date is a post war and has nothing to do with Fighter Command's actions in context.

The RAF official history takes the battle out to the end of October 1940 when German Daylight raids ceased. Other histories end the battle in December 1940:

On 9th September 1940, No 92 Squadron, with Geoffrey Wellum now operational, was moved back to 11 Group, to Biggin Hill, one of the most famous Fighter Stations, and to the Sector that experienced the most ferocious fighting during the Battle of Britain. Although they were entering the fray towards the end of the Battle, by December 1940, No 92 Squadron would claim 127 enemy aircraft destroyed.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/theaircraft/92sqngeoffwellum.cfm

The German's end the battle in May 1941 when their bombers where transferred to the east and offensive operations against England were called off.