Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[Al Schlageter]

If by June 1940, 30 squadrons were operating 100 Octane, then almost the entire force would need the +12lbs boost instructions instead of the 87 Octane. The Operating Notes would have reflected this and the 100 Octane limits would have been included.

So your Pilot notes are incomplete. That is, they are missing the Amendments.

Instructions issued 20-3-40.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ap1590b.jpg


We have yet to see the identity of these 16 fighter squadrons from you Eugene.

[41Sqn_Banks]

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.

Here is the page from "Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III, 2nd Edition January 1939".
As I'm holding it in my hands right now I can assure you that it is not photo-shopped.

Actually I was wrong, the use of higher boost than +6 1/4 was according to this manual not only allowed for take-off but also for emergency.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Pilots Operating Limitations, June 1940:

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/3246/spitfiremkijune1940.jpg

All out 5 minute Emergency rating as listed in June 1940:

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9640/alloutemergencyratingju.jpg

If by June 1940, 30 squadrons were operating 100 Octane, then almost the entire force would need the +12lbs boost instructions instead of the 87 Octane. The Operating Notes would have reflected this and the 100 Octane limits would have been included.

That is a fact and how it works.

Please read the other pages from the manual, e.g.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=8861&d=1332111649
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=8863&d=1332111666

[41Sqn_Banks]

So your Pilot notes are incomplete. That is, they are missing the Amendments.

Not necessarily. Air Publications have a "disclaimer" at the first page. Orders or leaflets are the overriding authority in case they are contradicting to the initial publication or a amendment list. So even if it wouldn't be mentioned in the Pilot's Notes of June 1940 (which it is, see post above), the leaflet from March that authorized the use would have priority.

[Osprey]

12lbs boost, get voting

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

[Glider]

I

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.

Can I ask again for a link to the notes you are looking at or the parts where they refer to the propeller in use or the section on protection for the pilot.

The notes you quote do not seem to tie up to what is know about the updated version of the Spitfire in use during the BOB.

I am happy to be wrong but would like to look into it in more detail

[Al Schlageter]

Do try to clue in Eugene.

1. testing of 100 octane fuel was completed in 1939.

2. conversion to 12 lb boost was started in early 1940.

3. before the BoB started, ~30 squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes are known to have been converted to 12 lb boost. These squadrons would be those that would most likely come in contact with the Luftwaffe.

4. by the end of the BoB, Fighter Command had converted to 12lb boost.

5. there was never a shortage of 100 octane fuel.

6. stock of 100 octane fuel had doubled by the time the BoB ended.

7. the 800,000 tons of 100 octane reserve was not reached till late 1941.

8. 87 octane fuel was the predominant fuel used by the RAF as other Commands and units used 87 octane fuel.

9. 100 octane was the predominant fuel used by Fighter Command.

10. the 16 + 2 was a pre-war plan that was scraped due to the national emergency.

[Crumpp]

Please read the other pages from the manual, e.g.

I have read those Banks. You misunderstand what I wrote. A.P. 1590B/J.2-W is incorporated into the June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes.

If the aircraft in service were most commonly using 100 Octane, those limits would be the ones listed under the limiting Operating Conditions of the Pilots Operating Notes.

That is how it works.

The 87 Octane limiting operating conditions are published as the predominate operating limits of the aircraft in June 1940. References to 100 Octane are minor footnotes denoting specialized circumstances that are not the common configuration.

[Al Schlageter]

Not necessarily. Air Publications have a "disclaimer" at the first page. Orders or leaflets are the overriding authority in case they are contradicting to the initial publication or a amendment list. So even if it wouldn't be mentioned in the Pilot's Notes of June 1940 (which it is, see post above), the leaflet from March that authorized the use would have priority.

Yes that too. :) He still does not have an complete Pilot Notes.

[Crumpp]

Can I ask again for a link to the notes you are looking at

I don't have a link Glider. These are not posted on some website but part of my collection. I scan the pages and post them.


The notes you quote do not seem to tie up to what is know about the updated version of the Spitfire in use during the BOB.

Exactly. Quite a large "Fly in the Ointment" for silly claims like:

before the BoB started, ~30 squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes are known to have been converted to 12 lb boost. These squadrons would be those that would most likely come in contact with the Luftwaffe.


100 octane was the predominant fuel used by Fighter Command.

And depending on the dates you pick for the battle to be over:

by the end of the BoB, Fighter Command had converted to 12lb boost.

You wonder why I question what you claim "is known." Facts are it is not known.

[Crumpp]

there was never a shortage of 100 octane fuel.

What?? There was a shortage of 100/130 grade on several occasions during the war.

There are several reports on the aviation gasoline situation available at both Maxwell AFB and Dayton OH.

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9093/stocksoffuel.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/stocksoffuel.jpg/)

[Osprey]

Redbeard Rum.

[Glider]

I don't have a link Glider. These are not posted on some website but part of my collection. I scan the pages and post them.

So can you scan and show us the sections I have asked for?

[JG5_Thijs]

Hello all,

With great interested I’ve been following the discussion regarding the use of 100 octane fuel by the RAF in the Battle of Britain. I decided to look up some scientific articles, but could only find the following:

Gavin Bailey, ‘Narrow margin of criticality: The question of the supply of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain’ English Historical Review volume 123 number 501 (2008) p 394-411. (This article was quoted earlier by 28_Condor on page 98 of this thread, he, however, did not quote the article fully since there are some interesting points that Bailey brings up regarding the impact of 100 fuel use.)

There are some interesting things in this article regarding the use of 100 octane fuel and the performance of the Spitfire Mk I and II. A short summary. First a quick summary of the availability of 100 octane fuel, then the operational usefulness of 100 octane fuel.

Bailey on the availability of 100 octane fuel

Bailey states that at the time the war broke out there was 153,000 tons of 100 octane fuel in stock, compared to 323, 000 tons of other aviation fuels. In February 1940 the stock of 100 octane fuel had risen to 220,000 tons. In May 1940 fighter units began converting to 100 octane fuel and there was plenty of 100 octane fuel available for the duration of the Battle of Britain.(406)

Note by me about 100 octane being used in the game in this respect: This quote above, and the other information provided by other people on this forum, makes me conclude that use of 100 octane fuel was widespread during the BoB. It would therefore be fine to program RAF planes with 100 octane, or give the option to mission builders to choose between 87 and 100 octane fuel.
This, however, is not say anything on the great improvement of 100 octane fuel gives over 87 octane fuel as claimed by many authors and people on this forum.

Bailey on what other authors write about the use of 100 octane fuel:

He says that other authors argue that the use of 100 octane fuel from America was one of the critical advantages for British fighters during the battle, he does not agree with this vision.(394-395) Bailey argues that it tends to be forgotten that the widespread use of 100 octane fuel is in the same time period as the introduction of the constant-speed, variable pitch propeller which offers a much larger performance increase than the new fuel alone. (395)

To demonstrate this Bailey uses two tables:

The following table shows a test of a Spitfire Mk Ia and Spitfire Mk II (399)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57983337/Spit_100Oct_1.PNG

Spitfire MK I test with a fixed propeller.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57983337/Spit_100Oct_2.PNG

Table 1: There is only a marginal improvement in the rate of climb and maximum speed comparing both planes in the first table. There is however, a dramatic increase between a Spitfire with a fixed propeller and the newer variable pitch one. See table 2 (401)

Bailey concludes that the main advantage of 100 octane fuel was at lower altitudes, but was marginal at best at higher altitudes.(401) His table demonstrate that there is actually a drop in top speed at higher altitudes.

Bailey on the boost of the Merlin engine

The author gives the following information about the boost increase that was achieved by 100 octane fuel: Normal limitation on the supercharger compression of a Rolls-Royce Merlin III with 87 octane fuel was +6.25 inch above atmospheric pressure. The introduction of 100 octane fuel increased this to +12 for short periods, not exceeding 5 minutes.(398)


Take off to 1,000 ft — 3,000 rpm at +7 psi/+12.5 psi;
Maximum climb (1-hr. limit) — 2,850 rpm at +7 psi/+9 psi;
Combat (5 min. maximum) — 3,000 rpm at +7 psi/+12 psi.
(This chart is about Spitfire MK II with 100 octane boost which Baily took from the following source: Air Ministry, Air Publication 1565B, Pilots Notes, Spitfire IIA and IIB Aeroplanes, Merlin XII Engine (anonymous Air Ministry publication, London, 1940, amended 1942).)

Conclusion by Bailey:

He concludes that the dramatic performance increase because of 100 octane is overrated and that other, earlier, authors wrongly claim that there is. These other authors forgot that the variable pitch prop was the real source of the dramatic performance increase of RAF planes which they contribute solely to 100 octane fuel.

Comment by me regarding the information given above: It seems that an increase from 87 to 100 octane fuel (but with a variable pitch for both) only leads to a marginal improvement. Whether the planes in this game are modelled correctly is not within the scope of this argument.

Regards,

Thijs

[Crumpp]

Pilots Operating Limitations, June 1940:

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/3246/spitfiremkijune1940.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/641/spitfiremkijune1940.jpg/)

All out 5 minute Emergency rating as listed in June 1940:

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9640/alloutemergencyratingju.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/alloutemergencyratingju.jpg/)

If by June 1940, 30 squadrons were operating 100 Octane, then almost the entire force would need the +12lbs boost instructions instead of the 87 Octane. The Operating Notes would have reflected this and the 100 Octane limits would have been included.

That is a fact and how it works.

Glider says:
So can you scan and show us the sections I have asked for?

Already done.

[Crumpp]

I don't have a link Glider. These are not posted on some website but part of my collection. I scan the pages and post them.



Exactly. Quite a large "Fly in the Ointment" for silly claims like:


Milo Morani says:
before the BoB started, ~30 squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes are known to have been converted to 12 lb boost. These squadrons would be those that would most likely come in contact with the Luftwaffe.

Milo Morani says:
100 octane was the predominant fuel used by Fighter Command.

And depending on the dates you pick for the battle to be over:

Milo Morani says:
by the end of the BoB, Fighter Command had converted to 12lb boost.

You wonder why I question what you claim "is known." Facts are it is not known.

See above, Glider.

[NZtyphoon]

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, Crumpp Crumpp, kindly explain how it is that 52,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel was consumed between July 1940 and October 1940 if, as you claim, only 16 Squadrons were using 100 Octane - so far you have made a lot of fuss regarding fuel shortages etc but you have not explained where 52,000 tons of it went.

Only 15,000 tons was needed to complete all defensive sorties flown by Merlin engined fighters - so again please explain to everyone what happened to 35,000 tons of 100 octane fuel?

I want documentation from you to prove your case, not conjecture.

Prove that there were frontline Merlin engined squadrons using 87 Octane fuel during the battle - I mean combat reports, squadron ORBs and other such documentation - evidence NOT your conjecture.


That looks like somebodies photo-shop work.

And so do your "June 1940" pilot's notes which you claim embody A.P. 1590B/J.2-W, but, conveniently, haven't shown. I want to see the front cover, inner cover and the relevant fly leaf which has the date.

You misunderstand what I wrote. A.P. 1590B/J.2-W is incorporated into the June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes.


Then why haven't you shown the relevant pages in the first place, including A.P. 1590B/J.2-W? - better still show us the relevant pages, listed above, including the date of publication.

[Al Schlageter]

And depending on the dates you pick for the battle to be over:


Still haven't clued in Eugene have you?

All your talk of 87 octane fuel being the predominant fuel is for the whole of the RAF.

Bomber Command had at least 24 squadrons when war broke out. Each a/c in those squadrons carried enough fuel to fuel a squadron of fighters.

[Al Schlageter]

What?? There was a shortage of 100/130 grade on several occasions during the war.

What the hell does 100/130 fuel, which wasn't even around during BoB, have to do with 100 octane fuel?

We still haven't seen from you the identity of the 16 squadrons that you say were the only squadrons converted to 12 lb boost.

[kendo65]

Great post JG5_Thijs. Thanks.

[Seadog]

The following table shows a test of a Spitfire Mk Ia and Spitfire Mk II (399)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57983337/Spit_100Oct_1.PNG
Table 1: There is only a marginal improvement in the rate of climb and maximum speed comparing both planes in the first table...

Bailey concludes that the main advantage of 100 octane fuel was at lower altitudes, but was marginal at best at higher altitudes.(401) His table demonstrate that there is actually a drop in top speed at higher altitudes.

Bailey on the boost of the Merlin engine

The author gives the following information about the boost increase that was achieved by 100 octane fuel: Normal limitation on the supercharger compression of a Rolls-Royce Merlin III with 87 octane fuel was +6.25 inch above atmospheric pressure. The introduction of 100 octane fuel increased this to +12 for short periods, not exceeding 5 minutes.(398)


Take off to 1,000 ft — 3,000 rpm at +7 psi/+12.5 psi;
Maximum climb (1-hr. limit) — 2,850 rpm at +7 psi/+9 psi;
Combat (5 min. maximum) — 3,000 rpm at +7 psi/+12 psi.
(This chart is about Spitfire MK II with 100 octane boost which Baily took from the following source: Air Ministry, Air Publication 1565B, Pilots Notes, Spitfire IIA and IIB Aeroplanes, Merlin XII Engine (anonymous Air Ministry publication, London, 1940, amended 1942).)

Conclusion by Bailey:

He concludes that the dramatic performance increase because of 100 octane is overrated and that other, earlier, authors wrongly claim that there is. These other authors forgot that the variable pitch prop was the real source of the dramatic performance increase of RAF planes which they contribute solely to 100 octane fuel.

Comment by me regarding the information given above: It seems that an increase from 87 to 100 octane fuel (but with a variable pitch for both) only leads to a marginal improvement. Whether the planes in this game are modelled correctly is not within the scope of this argument.

Regards,

Thijs

The performance figures given in your post are for the MkI/IIaircraft using 6.25/8.8lb boost and the actual performance test results verifying this can be seen here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

but the data you quote also states the maximum boost as 6.25lb/9lb respectively, which explains the small margin of improvement of the MkII over the MkI, especially as the MkII is somewhat heavier as well.

Thus neither aircraft was using the 5min/12lb boost combat rating of the engine which was only possible when using 100 octane fuel. By way of comparison a Hurricane I could achieve ~323mph at 10,000ft by using 100 octane fuel/12lb boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-l1717-cal.jpg

and here's the RAE data for a Spitfire I with various boost levels:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg

A RAF memo from 1939 confirms all the above:

It will be noted from the service reports that an approximate increase in speed due to the use of emergency 12lb boost of 28/34mph is obtained depending upon the altitude flown up to 10,000ft.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg.

[28_Condor]

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:



OK, But in which scientific article I can read this information? :confused:



Interesting: I read again the CLIFFS OF DOVER AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS checklists by Composite Aviation Regiment 2nd Guards (OP2GvSAPINST 3710.1A 15 July 2011) and there all aircrafts are operating on 100 octane (frist part), and in the second part you can read:

Errata
Additional Aircraft
Known Sim Inaccuracies or Limitations
Operating Limits and Procedures for Non-Standard (87 Octane, Fixed Pitch Props) or Non-Pilotable (Anson) Aircraft

Meanwhile, in the A2A Spits: :grin:

Types You Can Fly
We have three Spitfire models available, the Mk Ia, fitted with a Merlin III engine designed for 87 octane fuel, +6 psi max boost, or a Mk II
with a Merlin XII, designed for the higher 100 octane fuel, beefier block, slightly increased supercharger, and capable of a higher +12 psi.

[41Sqn_Banks]

If the aircraft in service were most commonly using 100 Octane, those limits would be the ones listed under the limiting Operating Conditions of the Pilots Operating Notes.

That is how it works.

The 87 Octane limiting operating conditions are published as the predominate operating limits of the aircraft in June 1940. References to 100 Octane are minor footnotes denoting specialized circumstances that are not the common configuration.

So how do you know it worked that way? Source please.

Here is evidence that it didn't work that way:

Hurricane I "operational limitations" May 1941 (thanks Klem):

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9164&d=1334674718
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9165&d=1334674727

Spitfire I "operational limitations" January 1942 (I'm sure someone has a better copy of this)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9175&d=1334723739
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9176&d=1334723745

Merlin II, II and V "operational limitations" November 1940

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9177&d=1334724557
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9178&d=1334724563
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9179&d=1334724569

In all of these publications 100 octane fuel and +12 is only a "minor footnote" and the "All out" limit is given as +6 1/4.

[41Sqn_Banks]

And the explanation for this is given in Pilot's Notes General (1st Edition 1941, not the 2nd Edition).

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9180&d=1334727256
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9181&d=1334727263

We know that the Merlin II and III was designed for 87 octane and therefore the operational limits are always given for 87 octane.

[lane]

So how do you know it worked that way? Source please.

Here is evidence that it didn't work that way:

Hurricane I "operational limitations" May 1941 (thanks Klem):

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9164&d=1334674718
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9165&d=1334674727

Spitfire I "operational limitations" January 1942 (I'm sure someone has a better copy of this)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9175&d=1334723739
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9176&d=1334723745

Merlin II, II and V "operational limitations" November 1940

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9177&d=1334724557
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9178&d=1334724563
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9179&d=1334724569

In all of these publications 100 octane fuel and +12 is only a "minor footnote" and the "All out" limit is given as +6 1/4.

Nice 41Sqn_Banks, thanks for sharing :)

[NZtyphoon]

I have read those Banks. You misunderstand what I wrote. A.P. 1590B/J.2-W is incorporated into the June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes.


Okay, so how about showing the pages incorporating A.P. 1590B/J.2-W, plus the front cover, inner cover and fly leaves confirming the date of publication?

[Crumpp]

Spitfire I "operational limitations" January 1942

The change jumps right out at you. Go compare the operating limits page I posted from June 1940 with the page from January 1942.

You should see it plain as day. If you don't I will point it out to you later.

Why do you think they republished the Operating notes in January 1942? The Spitfire Mk I was not the latest Spitfire Mark at that time. However, 100 Octane was common by that date and required a republication of the notes.

[Osprey]

Face it Crump, even Kurfurst has realised that 100 was in full use - he lost the argument and disappeared. You remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting the war on some island right up to the 1970's.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-C-Ryukyus/img/USA-C-Ryukyus-4.jpg

Chaps, there's a bug raised about the boost on the bugtracker that I need to update so I will grab this latest stuff for it so it can finally be implemented into the sim.

[41Sqn_Banks]

The change jumps right out at you. Go compare the operating limits page I posted from June 1940 with the page from January 1942.

You should see it plain as day. If you don't I will point it out to you later.

Why do you think they republished the Operating notes in January 1942? The Spitfire Mk I was not the latest Spitfire Mark at that time. However, 100 Octane was common by that date and required a republication of the notes.

So even with 100 octane fuel being the common fuel in January 1942, the "All out" limit remained +6 1/4. So obviously there is no relation between introduction of 100 octane fuel and the fact that the "All out" limit remained +6 1/4.

Fact is that the June 1940 manual already included all information needed by the pilot for the use of 100 octane and +12 boost:
- The use of 87 octane and 100 octane fuel is allowed (see Section 1 "Fuel", I will provide the page later)
- The boost-control cut-out allows to obtain +12 boost
- The use of the boost-control cut-out is allowed in emergency cases for short periods and when 100 octane is used

The fact that the January 1942 manual introduces an additional limitation of the fuel for operational and training units doesn't outweigh the fact that there not a single line in the June 1940 manual that would prevent the use of 100 octane fuel of whole Fighter Command in June 1940.
It doesn't proof that they did, but it doesn't proof that they didn't - which is your claim.

[Glider]

See above, Glider.

All I see is someone who will not scan and post the sections that I am now asking for, a third time, as I am confident that those sections on the Propeller and the pilot protection would give us a good idea as to which version of the Spitfire your pilots notes refer to.

Can you even tell us where you got them so I can obtain a copy?

I should remind you that you accused me of posting selective and misleading papers. My reply was to ask which paper you are talking about and I would give you everything I have on those papers or get a full copy for you when I am next at the NA which will be next week. You have not yet told me which paper of mine you were referring to and the offer is still open until next week. I have made this offer twice.

Some people who would think that this insistance on two sets of rules, one for when you post papers, and one where others post papers as a little dodgy?

Kurfurst, if you are reading this the offer is open to both of you. I am going for other purposes so will not spend a lot of time on this topic, but if you can agree one paper I will supply it.

[Al Schlageter]

Crumpp still is evading identifying the 16 squadron that he claims were the only squadrons that used 100 octane fuel.

[Crumpp]

So even with 100 octane fuel being the common fuel in January 1942, the "All out" limit remained +6 1/4. So obviously there is no relation between introduction of 100 octane fuel and the fact that the "All out" limit remained +6 1/4.


Yes!!

Read the instructions for using +12lbs boost. First you have to override the normal controls and it emphasized that it is a very overloaded condition.

+12lbs is almost 3 times more pressure than the engine was designed to handle.

The modifications to the cylinder heads changes the frequency harmonics in order to reduce the incidence of cylinder head cracking. It does not increase the design strength of the engine.

BMW did the same thing when attempting to raise the motor to 1.8ata in the BMW801D2. The service trials resulted in a high incidence of cylinder cracks so they changed the cylinder barrel liners to ones that conformed harmonically under the new load.

Think of a tuning fork, if you want to change the frequency you adjust the length of the tines. To change the frequency in the merlin III, they added .020 inches to the spigot.

[winny]

If we are now taking the 1938-9 Spitfire pilot's notes literally (like Crumpp is) then we also need to replace the reflector sight with an iron sight, remove the bullet proof glass and at least 30 other modifications that were in the original notes that were simply out of date in 1940.

The pilot's notes were written using the 2nd production Mk1 (it went specifically to the RAF for this exact purpose)

Like it says in the front of the notes.

"Air Ministry Orders and Vol. II leaflets as issued may affect the subject matter from time to time. It should be understood that amendment lists are not always issued to bring the publication into line with orders or leaflets and it is for holders of this book to arrange the necessary link up.

When an order or leaflet contradicts any portion of this publication an amendment list will generally be issued, but when this is not done, the order or leaflet must be taken as the over-riding authority"


I'd like to see a scan of the amendment certificate in the front of this "June 1940" pilot's note book.

[Robo.]

Yes!!

Read the instructions for using +12lbs boost. First you have to override the normal controls and it emphasized that it is a very overloaded condition.

Yes of course, but it was possible therefore it should be possible in the sim, too. No matter how you look at it, I really try hard to see your point, but you're wrong on so many levels I am afraid. Why are you doing this anyway? :o

+12lbs is almost 3 times more pressure than the engine was designed to handle.

It is approximately 2 times more than original nominal rating. And the RR engineers have had slightly different approach to getting more power from their designs - testing, breaking and consequently reinforcing what breaks first, hence so many mods and pilot notes amendmets that seem to confuse you.

+16lbs was 3 times more pressure and it was still used on Sea Hurricanes on the very same engine for obvious reason - no problem except drastically limited lifespan of the engine.

Honestly, Crumpp :eek::eek::eek:

[41Sqn_Banks]

Crumpp is right that +12 boost is about 3 times higher than the maximum continuous rating (+ 4 1/2), which is the highest rating that is not considered a overload condition (see attachment). I don't know if this was the rating the engine was designed for.

IIRC we know that +12 boost reduced the life-time to about 20 hours instead of 100 hours at maximum continuous rating.

[Al Schlageter]

The 12lb boost was a reduction from the 17lb boost that there normally would be. Yes there are references to this boost of 17lb. The boost was cut back to 12lb for reliability.

Crumpp still is evading identifying the 16 squadron that he claims were the only squadrons that used 100 octane fuel.

[Robo.]

Crumpp is right that +12 boost is about 3 times higher than the maximum continuous rating (+ 4 1/2), which is the highest rating that is not considered a overload condition (see attachment). I don't know if this was the rating the engine was designed for.

I see what he means now, thank you. It doesn't make much sense though - engines are designed for certain HP and that was never achieved at max. continuous rating as far I can tell.

[41Sqn_Banks]

I see what he means now, thank you. It doesn't make much sense though - engines are designed for certain HP and that was never achieved at max. continuous rating as far I can tell.

Rolls Royce gives 990 b.h.p as "international power rating" (+ 6 1/4 Boost with 2,600 RPM at 12,250 feet), see http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9178&d=1334724563.

Don't we have to convert the boost values to ata before we compare them make a statement about the factor between them? Otherwise the atmospheric pressure offset is not eliminated.

[Seadog]

I see what he means now, thank you. It doesn't make much sense though - engines are designed for certain HP and that was never achieved at max. continuous rating as far I can tell.

Actually 12lbs of boost is not "three times" what the engine was designed for; 4lbs of boost = 15psi (1 atmosphere) + 4psi = 19psi while 12lbs = 15psi (1 atmosphere) + 12psi = 27 psi, so 12lb of boost is actually about 1.5x the pressure level.

This can be more easily seen by using inches of mercury instead of lbs of boost:

inches of mercury (inHg)or absolute pressure = Pounds per square inch of boost or gauge pressure.
80 inHg= +25 lbf/in² boost
67 inHg= +18 lbf/in² boost
61 inHg= +15 lbf/in² boost
46 inHg= +8 lbf/in² boost
44.5 inHg= +6 lbf/in² boost

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Face it Crump, even Kurfurst has realised that 100 was in full use - he lost the argument and disappeared.
Funny part is five or so years ago these two were viewed as the end all be all souce of info at the ubi and other forums!

Back then only a few people saw through thier biased smoke screens

Thus I can not tell you how happy it makes me to see so many more people comming to the same conclusion!

S!

[Osprey]

If you have not voted chaps, then you need to.

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

I would appreciate one of the well written and thorough performance explanations on the bug report please to cover each type we have in the sim. Luthier will need it.

Sod Crump, we have the issue raised to the mods, issue the coups-de-grace via the Bugtracker

[Robo.]

Rolls Royce gives 990 b.h.p as "international power rating" (+ 6 1/4 Boost with 2,600 RPM at 12,250 feet), see http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9178&d=1334724563.

Don't we have to convert the boost values to ata before we compare them make a statement about the factor between them? Otherwise the atmospheric pressure offset is not eliminated.

My point is that early Merlin were not designed to operate at 4.5lbs. boost max. I am aware of the conversion issues and I only tried to point out that Crumpps assumtion was wrong.

[41Sqn_Banks]

My point is that early Merlin were not designed to operate at 4.5lbs. boost max. I am aware of the conversion issues and I only tried to point out that Crumpps assumtion was wrong.

According to this article (http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/the-development-of-rolls-royce-merlin-engine.html) the Merlin was designed as "1,100 hp-class" engine to fill the gap between the 700 hp Peregrine and the 1,500 hp Vulture.

However I don't think Crumpp claims that the Merlin was limited to +4 1/2 boost at any time, if he does he will certainly provide a document to support this claim. I think he consider the "maximum continuous rating" of every engine as the design goal and uses this value to compare different engines. He's free to do so. Others consider the maximum power, and some may use the takeoff power. It doesn't matter, the engine remains the same.

[NZtyphoon]

According to this article (http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/the-development-of-rolls-royce-merlin-engine.html) the Merlin was designed as "1,100 hp-class" engine to fill the gap between the 700 hp Peregrine and the 1,500 hp Vulture.

However I don't think Crumpp claims that the Merlin was limited to +4 1/2 boost at any time, if he does he will certainly provide a document to support this claim. I think he consider the "maximum continuous rating" of every engine as the design goal and uses this value to compare different engines. He's free to do so. Others consider the maximum power, and some may use the takeoff power. It doesn't matter, the engine remains the same.

The first document, dated November 1939, confirms that after modifications the Merlin II and III were cleared for using 100 Octane and +12 boost, and confirms the potential limits of the engine as +17 lbs. It also shows that modifications to the boost control cut out were already in hand:

Paragraph 9: "The modification to the boost control cut out to limit the maximum boost to 12 lbs sq. in. are simple and in hand (otherwise full throttle would give about 17 lbs sq. in.)

It also confirms that stocks of 100 Octane were considered high enough to allow Merlins to use it, contrary to Crumpp's opinion, based as it is on a pre-war document.

Paragraph 11: The decision on this question (conversion of Merlins for +12 lbs boost) must be dependent to a large extent on sufficient stocks of 100 Octane fuel; but as it is understood there are adequate reserves of this fuel for the purpose it is accordingly recommended that approval...be given forthwith.

So far Crumpp has not shown us the relevant pages to confirm his "pilot's notes" are from June 1940, nor has he shown the relevant details of how A.P.1590B/J.2-W was already incorporated into them, as he claimed here:
I have read those Banks. You misunderstand what I wrote. A.P. 1590B/J.2-W is incorporated into the June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes.

If the aircraft in service were most commonly using 100 Octane, those limits would be the ones listed under the limiting Operating Conditions of the Pilots Operating Notes.

That is how it works.

The 87 Octane limiting operating conditions are published as the predominate operating limits of the aircraft in June 1940. References to 100 Octane are minor footnotes denoting specialized circumstances that are not the common configuration.

I am seriously thinking he has evaded the question. Tsssk tsssk. :shock: :rolleyes:

[Crumpp]

the "maximum continuous rating" of every engine as the design goal

It is the design goal. Maximum continuous is the power the engine is designed to develop and maintain.

It represents 100% of the power capability of an aircraft engine. Anything over that is an overload condition and will shorten the life of the engine.

Typically you see overload capability in take off ratings, sometimes climb ratings, and in emergency ratings.

It is the power the engine can produce at 100% capability that is the primary focus.

[28_Condor]

Gavin Bailey, ‘Narrow margin of criticality: The question of the supply of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain’ English Historical Review volume 123 number 501 (2008) p 394-411. (This article was quoted earlier by 28_Condor on page 98 of this thread, he, however, did not quote the article fully since there are some interesting points that Bailey brings up regarding the impact of 100 fuel use.)

Thijs

The download link didnt work :-P

You can make the file available here? Thank you! :)

[NZtyphoon]

It is the design goal. Maximum continuous is the power the engine is designed to develop and maintain.

It represents 100% of the power capability of an aircraft engine. Anything over that is an overload condition and will shorten the life of the engine.

Typically you see overload capability in take off ratings, sometimes climb ratings, and in emergency ratings.

It is the power the engine can produce at 100% capability that is the primary focus.


However I don't think Crumpp claims that the Merlin was limited to +4 1/2 boost at any time, if he does he will certainly provide a document to support this claim. I think he consider the "maximum continuous rating" of every engine as the design goal and uses this value to compare different engines. He's free to do so. Others consider the maximum power, and some may use the takeoff power. It doesn't matter, the engine remains the same.

Not so long ago Crumpp claimed that the Merlin was only capable of generating 400hp...

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?


I asked: 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

So he is trying to claim the Merlin III's maximum designed continuous power rating was +4 1/2 lbs at 2600rpm, and about 400hp.

[41Sqn_Banks]

So he is trying to claim the Merlin III's maximum designed continuous power rating was +4 1/2 lbs at 2600rpm, and about 400hp.

I don't know if power at maximum continuous rating was 400hp, I've never seen a value for it. Rolls Royce always give International Rating, Maximum Rating and Maximum Take-off Rating. Sometimes Minimum Take-off Rating (this is at maximum allowed take-off boost with minimum allowed RPM, which is only important for fixed propellers).

Maximum continuous rating (1,15ata 2000 PRM) of DB601A was 810hp (@0km) to 860hp (@5km). As the maximum output is almost the same we can assume that the Merlin has a comparable power at continuous rating.

Here is the (not so serious) protocol from the design meeting at Rolls-Royce when they thought about their new high performance fighter engine. Engineer A is a daredevil, he likes fast, loud and dangerous stuff. Engineer B is a square and a careful engineer, he likes reliably stuff.
Engineer A: "I think with that design we should get 1,100hp maximum output. That's a great improvement compared to the 700hp of the Peregrine. Image how fast our fighters will fly with that. What do you think?"
Engineer B: "Hmm ... yes this should give about 800hp at a reasonable engine life of 100 hours between overhaul. I'm cool with that."
Engineer A: "Yeah whatever ... So we define our design goal as 1,100hp maximum and 800hp continuous output. Deal?"
Engineer B: "Deal! Let's do it!"

Later at Air Ministry ...

Engineer B: "This is our new engine design. We estimated it will will produce 800hp ..."
Engineer A: *facepalm*
Air Ministry: "What? The Germans build engines with 1000hp maximum output! You are useless!"
Engineer A: "May I interrupt? The 800 hp is the continuous rating, the maximum output will be 1,100hp."
Air Ministry: "... OK now that sound good. We want 900 engines delivered in 3 month. ... Oh and next time just tell me the maximum output. At Air Ministry we like fast, loud and dangerous stuff."

While leaving Air Ministry ...

Engineer A: "I told ya!"
Engineer B: "..."

[winny]

There's a book called "Britains war Machine" that I found last night. It contains a section devoted to the supply, use and production of 100 octane fuel.

It explains the whole Trimpell (Trinidad - ICI - Shell) refinery set up and says that the "shortage of 100 octane is a myth"

It's available as an e-book.

[Glider]

Not so long ago Crumpp claimed that the Merlin was only capable of generating 400hp...



I asked:


So he is trying to claim the Merlin III's maximum designed continuous power rating was +4 1/2 lbs at 2600rpm, and about 400hp.

Must be a hell of a design to get 340 ish mph on 400 HP. Imagine what it could do with a decent engine in it

[lane]

I don't know if power at maximum continuous rating was 400hp, I've never seen a value for it. Rolls Royce always give International Rating, Maximum Rating and Maximum Take-off Rating.

Test certificates on fairly early Merlin II/III running on 87 octane show:

Rated power 990 b.h.p. at 2600 r.p.m. 12,250 feet at 6 1/4 lbs/sq.in. boost
Maximum power 1030 b.h.p at 3000 r.p.m. 16,250 feet at 6 1/4 lbs/sq.in. boost

The power curves at 12,250 feet give 829 b.h.p. at +4.2/2400 with Merlin II No.2855 and 822 b.h.p. at +4.2/2400 with Merlin III No.7491.

Merlin II installed in K.9787 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787_test_certificate.jpg)

Merlin III installed in N.3171 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171-test-certificate.jpg)

See also Merlin II & III ratings as shown in the The Merlin in Perspective, (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Derby, 1983) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin3-rating.jpg)

[41Sqn_Banks]

Power curves of Merlin XX:
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2815/powercurves.jpg

[Crumpp]

Not so long ago Crumpp claimed that the Merlin was only capable of generating 400hp...


Quote:


Baloney, re-read what I wrote. IF that is what it produced at maximum continuous...

Operative word being IF....

In the english language, IF denotes a conditional clause or supposition.

As for posting any pages, I am on a laptop. My old Desktop is getting repaired and going to my daughter. I have a new desktop being built but it will be a week or so before it is ready.

[Crumpp]

If you look at Banks chart, you will see that Merlin XX is a ~625 hp at 4 1/2 lbs at sea level on a standard day.

On a summer day, it would considerably less at ground level on most airfields in England.

Why? Engine power is a function of atmospheric density. That is why superchargers were invented to slap a band-aid on that fact to try and overcome it.

Of course, some one will stand up to defend their gameshape and think I am slighting their favorite cartoon.

NO, I am only pointing out that Banks chart is a good one for you guys to understand how engines work in airplanes. It is a fact that the 100% power capability of the Merlin II and III is 4 1/2lbs MS gear as listed in all the Pilots Operating Notes.

[Robo.]

NO, I am only pointing out that Banks chart is a good one for you guys to understand how engines work in airplanes. It is a fact that the 100% power capability of the Merlin II and III is 4 1/2lbs MS gear as listed in all the Pilots Operating Notes.

If you intend to stick to this logic that's fair enough. As long as the engines in the sim produce correct amount of power at either of these settings used in real life, e.g. +6.25lbs. or +12lbs. as it is the case of early Merlins, I am happy.

MS gear is not Merlin II or III related btw. No matter how you look at it, the final result is exactly the same. And so is the reality that at this moment, what the title of this thread says is true, unfortunately.

[41Sqn_Banks]

If you intend to stick to this logic that's fair enough. As long as the engines in the sim produce correct amount of power at either of these settings used in real life, e.g. +6.25lbs. or +12lbs. as it is the case of early Merlins, I am happy.

MS gear is not Merlin II or III related btw. No matter how you look at it, the final result is exactly the same. And so is the reality that at this moment, what the title of this thread says is true, unfortunately.

Yes it's all fine. Changing the definition doesn't change the engine.


+4.5 is 100% ...; +6.25 is 108% ...; +12 is 138% of "maximum continuous" boost
+4.5 is 92% ...; +6.25 is 100% ...; +12 is 127% of "all out/climb/take off" boost
+4.5 is 72% ...; +6.25 is 79% ...; +12 is 100% of "emergency" boost

[Osprey]

There's a book called "Britains war Machine" that I found last night. It contains a section devoted to the supply, use and production of 100 octane fuel.

It explains the whole Trimpell (Trinidad - ICI - Shell) refinery set up and says that the "shortage of 100 octane is a myth"

It's available as an e-book.

ISBN number please?

[Osprey]

If you look at Banks chart, you will see that Merlin XX is a ~625 hp at 4 1/2 lbs at sea level on a standard day.

On a summer day, it would considerably less at ground level on most airfields in England.

Why? Engine power is a function of atmospheric density. That is why superchargers were invented to slap a band-aid on that fact to try and overcome it.


I don't know where you are from Crump but there's no such thing as a standard day in England. We have a hosepipe ban here, yet as I write it's chucking down a ton of rain - typically British.

According to your logic the German engines are also affected, so they must be producing loads of power over in standard France but by the time they arrived in sunny England they were down to a couple of hundred HP. :cool:

[41Sqn_Banks]

If you look at Banks chart, you will see that Merlin XX is a ~625 hp at 4 1/2 lbs at sea level on a standard day.

I don't think you are reading the chart correctly. If you following and extending the line of +4.5 boost to sea level the rpm is decreasing at the same time which gives lower bhp.

However I've found a better source for the power of Merlin XX. It has a max. economic cruise rating of +4 boost and 2,650 rpm which gives 800bhp at sea level and 900bhp at FTH MS gear. Reference: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-curve-c1.jpg

So even if we assume that the Merlin III and XX are comparable (I wouldn't do it, to much guesswork in it but anyway ...) this would give for the Merlin III between 800 and 900bhp (which is achieved at lower boost but slightly higher rpm) from sea level to FTH, which is supported by the 830bhp (which is achieved at lower boost and lower rpm, so actual power is higher) given by lane.

BTW: The Maximum cruising rating is +7 boost and 2,650 rpm which gives 1000bhp at sea level and over 1100 at FTH MS gear.

[Seadog]

NO, I am only pointing out that Banks chart is a good one for you guys to understand how engines work in airplanes. It is a fact that the 100% power capability of the Merlin II and III is 4 1/2lbs MS gear as listed in all the Pilots Operating Notes.

What complete $#^&%@!

100% power is full throttle, full boost, just like any IC piston engine.

[winny]

ISBN number please?


Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War - David Egerton
Hardcover: 464 pages
Publisher: Allen Lane; First Edition edition (31 Mar 2011)
Language English
ISBN-10: 0713999187
ISBN-13: 978-0713999181

It's on Amazon.
EDIT:
Here's the page I was refering to.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/BWM1.jpg

It then goes on to explain the sources of this fuel.
Kurfurst will hate it but the stock figures are from Gavin Bailey's paper..

[Crumpp]

I don't know where you are from Crump but there's no such thing as a standard day in England.

All - righty then....

[Crumpp]

If you intend to stick to this logic that's fair enough. As long as the engines in the sim produce correct amount of power at either of these settings used in real life, e.g. +6.25lbs. or +12lbs. as it is the case of early Merlins, I am happy.

MS gear is not Merlin II or III related btw. No matter how you look at it, the final result is exactly the same. And so is the reality that at this moment, what the title of this thread says is true, unfortunately.


All it does Robo is point out how much of an overloaded condition +12lbs was on the engine.

[Crumpp]

What the hell does 100/130 fuel, which wasn't even around during BoB, have to do with 100 octane fuel?



Do you know what 100 Octane fuel is, Milo?

[winny]

All it does Robo is point out how much of an overloaded condition +12lbs was on the engine.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. There was a war on you know..

[Robo.]

All it does Robo is point out how much of an overloaded condition +12lbs was on the engine.

RR approved overload during the war? Fair enough, should be in game. ;)

[NZtyphoon]

Baloney, re-read what I wrote. IF that is what it produced at maximum continuous...

Operative word being IF....

In the english language, IF denotes a conditional clause or supposition.

As for posting any pages, I am on a laptop. My old Desktop is getting repaired and going to my daughter. I have a new desktop being built but it will be a week or so before it is ready.

Fair enough, you did say If. So in about a week you'll be showing the pages incorporating A.P. 1590B/J.2-W, plus the front cover, inner cover and fly leaves confirming the date of publication? Much appreciated. :-)

[Crumpp]

I don't know where you are from Crump but there's no such thing as a standard day in England. We have a hosepipe ban here, yet as I write it's chucking down a ton of rain - typically British.

According to your logic the German engines are also affected, so they must be producing loads of power over in standard France but by the time they arrived in sunny England they were down to a couple of hundred HP. :cool:

Osprey,

This is the kind of baloney that adds nothing to the credibility of participants in this thread.

It concretely demonstrates you have no idea how aircraft work.

Standard Day exists everywhere in aviation and is very important. It is the atmospheric conditions that most of the data you see is converted too. Aircraft performance varies greatly based on density altitude, including your engines power development.

And yes, conditions do change but not based on any countries borders. Why do you think the very first thing Air Traffic Control will relay to you as a pilot, is the altimeter setting?

Issue the altimeter setting:

1. To en route aircraft at least one time while operating in your area of jurisdiction. Issue the setting for the nearest reporting station along the aircraft's route of flight:



http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/atc0207.html

[Crumpp]

RR approved overload during the war?

Yes, after you replace the cylinder heads and/or piston rings. Then you must modify the fuel metering system.

As they state, it is a definate overload condition!!

[Crumpp]

In all of these publications 100 octane fuel and +12 is only a "minor footnote" and the "All out" limit is given as +6 1/4.


In the January 1942 edition it is definitely NOT a minor footnote. It is included in paragraph 1 above the operating limitations. They even specify January 1942 - ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS: 100 Octane ONLY

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/3447/spitfireijanuary194202.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/593/spitfireijanuary194202.jpg/)

The technical order for this modification was not published until February 20, 1940.

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/2397/ap1590b.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/607/ap1590b.jpg/)

This is not a minor modification nor is it an easy one from a manufacturing standpoint. Cylinder heads are a major component. Two heads have to be produced for every engine on the assembly line. All of the engines in the RAF inventory also have to have new cylinder heads produced as well. It is not going to happen overnight.

Milo Morani posted the instructions for Pilot Operating Notes earlier in this thread. The way it works is any technical instructions or service bulletins kept with the Operating Notes and act as updates as they are published.

When a new edition of the Operating Notes is published, all technical instructions issued since the previous Operating Notes edition are incorporated into the new edition of the Operating Notes.

That means we should see a mirror reflection of the January 1942 Operating Notes in our June 1940 edition if 100 Octane fuel was the standard and our technical instruction dated February 20, 1940 was intended for all operational aircraft.

Our June 1940 notes should alert the pilot in the operating that 100 Octane is the fuel for ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS just like the January 1942 edition IF 100 Octane is the standard fuel in use.

June 1940 Edition:

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/1957/june1940.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/844/june1940.jpg/)

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/3246/spitfiremkijune1940.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/545/spitfiremkijune1940.jpg/)

They do not reflect anything about 100 Octane fuel in the operating limits and nothing about it being for ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS.

This timeline of a gradual phase in of 100 Octane fuel begining in June 1940, becoming significant in October 1940, and operational conversion by December 1940 is evident from two sources.

You can see this in the Pilot's Operating Notes and the amount of fuel available at the airfields prior to June 1940. 100 Octane use is insignificant until October 1940. Proir to June 1940 we do not see a “combined” amount available at the airfields unless folks are now going to start claiming 100 Octane was in widespread use in 1938!!

I am sure that will be the next argument.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9708/100octconsumptionbob2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/19/100octconsumptionbob2.jpg/)

[Kurfürst]

and here's the RAE data for a Spitfire I with various boost levels:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg

A RAF memo from 1939 confirms all the above:

I've always wondered who had really drawn that graph. :D

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst will hate it but the stock figures are from Gavin Bailey's paper..

Actually I like Gavin Bailey's paper.

It says 100 octane was introduced to 'select' Squadrons in May 1940, and I cannot find any statement or reference in it or anything that would support the every-last-Hurricane-even-in-Northern-Scotland-was-running 100 octane theory.

Though as others has noted the paper is more concentrating on dispelling the 'myth' of dependency of US 100 octane fuel supplies, argues to downplay the significance of extra performance of 'US 100 octane' versus the extra performance by the addition of 'pure British' CSP units, and has overall quite a bit of anti-american tone, perhaps due to nationalistic grievance about the UK becoming a sort of a US satellite state after the war.

Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks :D :D :D eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.

[Glider]

Crumpp
I think I can truly say that I have never seen such rubbish posted from someone who pretends and likes to believe that they know about aircraft.

The first document supports the contention that operational units had 100 octrane and non operational units had 87 octane. Something that has been said from the start.

The Alterations and Precautions Paper
This has three main sections:-
a) Modified Boost Control
The modifications as outlined in the paper are very straightforward and can easily be undertaken. Basically you drill two holes and reassemble the cut out valve, to pretend this is a major task shows a massive disrespect to the ground crew and support teams.
b) Modified Cylinder Top Joint
This change is already incorporated in new engines and is already being addressed in normal mainantence, so nothing to be done there
c) You need 100 Octane fuel

Which is what we have been saying from the start.

Your Pilots Notes dated June 1940
I do not believe for a moment that these are from June 1940. Reason is simple, it doesn't mention any fuel type. In June 1940 we know for certain from combat reports and station/squadrons records that 100 Octane was in use in a number of squadrons. If the type of fuel isn't mentioned then it can only be because only one type of fuel exists and that puts the pilots notes in 1938/9. Crumpp has been asked many times to supply other parts of the Pilots Notes to help us tie this issue down. His refusal to do so I believe speaks volumes.

Consumption Chart
The figures up to May are combined 87/100 octane figures which is why they are in the centre, a junior school student could work that one out.

These figures are for the RAF not Fighter command and I draw your attention to the figure for August 1940 36,000 tons of fuel were used by the RAF. In September 37,000 tons almost the same but the proportion of 100 Octane had gone up, In October 35,000 tons again a figure in the same ball park and 100 octane proportion again went up.

The question is, What changed between August and October? The reply is again very simple All operational Commands were Authorised to use 100 Octane in August. As the units in Bomber Command and Coastal Command switched over, so the proportion of 100 Octane increased.

Its also worth noting that in April 1941 when we all (I think) agree that 100 Octane was in use in Operational Commands the split between 87 Octane and 100 Octane was still 50/50. Training, Transport, BOAC, manufacturers and other non operational flights, use a lot of fuel.

[Kurfürst]

The question is, What changed between August and October? The reply is again very simple All operational Commands were Authorised to use 100 Octane in August. As the units in Bomber Command and Coastal Command switched over, so the proportion of 100 Octane increased.

Funny but the the August 1940 document you posted does not say this at all, that the authorization only effects Bomber Command and Coastal Command.

It says all operational aircraft. That includes Fighter Command, too. This whole 'other commands' is entirely your brainchild David, the paper simply does not use such term as 'other'.

I guess is rather plain and simple, in May 1940 select fighter units of Fighter Command which were 'concered' by the decision switched over to 100 octane, and in early August all operational aircraft of Fighter (etc.) Command(s) were authorized to follow their example.

I guess the newborn optimism was fueled (getit?) by the fact that compared to the rather low stocks of reserves in the spring of 1940, the avgas stocks significantly increased by the summer as a result of shipments from the Middle East.

The fuel issue papers show that the process did not actually start until late September, by which time the great day fighter battles were over.

[Glider]

Actually I like Gavin Bailey's paper.


Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks :D :D :D eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.

Re the Above I think its worth noting Gavins responce and I leave the reader to decide. For those who wish to check up I am confident that Gavin will respond to anyone contacting him at the University where he works using the details on his paper.

Dear 'Kurfurst'. In response to your claims that I am impersonating myself, I would like to point out that my contact details (including an email and postal address) have been publicly-available since the publication of the relevant article, e.g. on the EHR website, here -

The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain -- Bailey CXXIII (501): 394 -- The English Historical Review

I note that, to this point, I have received no communication from you or anybody claiming to be you in regard to confirming my identity, despite having received several emails and letters from others in regard to my EHR article.

I also note that you post under a pseudonym without revealing your full identity.

It is clear that you disagree with the content and conclusions of my research, but I am afraid if you want to refute them, you will be required to engage with the sources which have been cited. Until you do so, and based on the evidence you have posted so far in this thread, your disagreement has no merit.

You go on to state the following -

I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point.

[NZtyphoon]

Actually I like Gavin Bailey's paper.

It says 100 octane was introduced to 'select' Squadrons in May 1940, and I cannot find any statement or reference in it or anything that would support the every-last-Hurricane-even-in-Northern-Scotland-was-running 100 octane theory.

Though as others has noted the paper is more concentrating on dispelling the 'myth' of dependency of US 100 octane fuel supplies, argues to downplay the significance of extra performance of 'US 100 octane' versus the extra performance by the addition of 'pure British' CSP units, and has overall quite a bit of anti-american tone, perhaps due to nationalistic grievance about the UK becoming a sort of a US satellite state after the war.

Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks :D :D :D eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.

You can email Dr Bailey here and repeat these allegations to him (http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/): he still wants to discuss a little matter of you repeatedly misrepresenting his copyrighted paper, despite being asked not to several times. As for your sick, cowardly little comments about "anti American bias" - totally expected from a low-life like you.

Better still, because you have made such public allegations in this forum, how about a Forum administrator email Dr Bailey just to confirm that your allegations are true, and clear this up for all time?

[Glider]

Funny but the the August 1940 document you posted does not say this at all, that the authorization only effects Bomber Command and Coastal Command.

It says all operational aircraft. That includes Fighter Command, too. This whole 'other commands' is entirely your brainchild David, the paper simply does not use such term as 'other'.

I guess is rather plain and simple, in May 1940 select fighter units of Fighter Command which were 'concered' by the decision switched over to 100 octane, and in early August all operational aircraft of Fighter (etc.) Command(s) were authorized to follow their example.

I guess the newborn optimism was fueled (getit?) by the fact that compared to the rather low stocks of reserves in the spring of 1940, the avgas stocks significantly increased by the summer as a result of shipments from the Middle East.

The fuel issue papers show that the process did not actually start until late September, by which time the great day fighter battles were over.

As so often your reply leaves more questions. If as is believed by Crumpp that 16 squadrons used 10,000 tons of 100 octane, then when 60 squadrons used 100 Octane the figure should be what, 30-40,000 tons of 100 Octane, PLUS Bomber and Coastal Command. But the figure never went to anything like that figure. So explain that and support it and you have a case.

PS I never said Bomber and COastal Command I used the correct quote.

[Kurfürst]

I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point. [/I]

Since I have already responded to that on the other board (in a new thread - the moderators were forced to close the first one because of this 'gbailey' login's hysterics), I can copy-paste that here too.

But the short story: whoever the guy was posting under the gbailey handle had absolutely no idea of German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain, simply lied about the documents, or was wishful.

I have tracked down the document the guy was referencing (he refused to post it or anything) and found the following:



This opinion was posted already in the other discussion, but unfortunately it was not possible due to refute it because the premature closing of that thread due to the behaviour of the poster.

However, the notion and implication that the only 100 octane fuel used by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain originates to British stocks of 100 octane fuel, captured from British airfields in France after the premature leave by the British Army in June 1940 is a dangerous myth, which needs to be promptly refuted, before any credence is attributed to it. Even if I did not want to engage in continuing that discussion here, given that the title discusses the RAF use of such fuel in 1940, the above repetence of it warrants a proper refutation of the claim by poster 'gbailey'.

Some of the documents already posted from the Australian archieves already show that already in 1938 the British were concerned of German 100 octane fuel developments and the capacity to produce this fuel on an industrial scale. Please refer back to these before proceeding further.

Please also refer to the German datasheet of the DB 601N. This type of engine was developed for German 100 octane 'C-3' fuel use, and went into mass production in late 1939 (October 1939 via Manfred Griehl to be exact)

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/datasheets/601N_Emil.jpg

It extremely puzzling, to say the least, why would the Germans decide to mass produce an engine, specifically made for 100 octane fuel use, without having any own stock of 100 octane fuel. And then equip whole wings of fighters, bombers, and zestoerers with the said engine.

As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance.

It should be noted, however, that during the war, there were different octane ratings used for aviation gasoline. Allied states generally preferred to give octane rating at its rich mixture, while the Germans preferred the CFR method, which gave the octane rating at weak mixture.

The bottomline of the story, the green 'C-3' type fuel that the Germans were calling 96 octane fuel by the CFR method, was the equaivalent of 96/110 octane fuel as the Allies would call it. In other words, actually a bit better at rich mixture and for knock resistance than ordinary 100 octane fuel.

Also it is evident from these documents that the British were aware of the existance and use of German 100 octane - for simplicity's sake lets ignore for a moment it superior qualities and call it the same since the summer of 1940.

Examples of such fuel were found and analysed in crashed Ju 88 and Me 110 aircraft. The use in the former type is especially interesting as the types capable of taking advantage of higher octane fuel were DB 601N-powered Bf 109Es and Bf 110Cs. These latter were already in service by July 1940. By the automn, 1200 DB 601N engines were delivered, divided amongst Bf 110, Bf 109 units, Bf 109F production and reserve engines. Priority was given to Bf 110 units until the automn for these engines. The use of 100 octane C-3 thus may appear to be superflous in German bomber aircraft, nevertheless is was an existing practice.

The British report do not seem to mention 100 octane fuel found in Bf 109s, but this may be due to the limited scope of the report. See the image of Bf 109E-4/N, W.Nr. 1190, 'White 4', is being unloaded by Curtiss workers. The Emil belonged to 4. Staffel Staffel of JG 4, and was flown by Uffz. Horst Perez on, when it was shot down on the 30th September 1940 over East Dean during the Battle of Britain. Note the fuel triangle with the '100' label, pointo to 100 octane fuel and the DB 601N.

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/files/109E4N_20Sept1940b_DFC.jpg

As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - www.kurfurst.org

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106387d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_000.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106388d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_001.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106389d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_003.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106390d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_005.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106391d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_007.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106392d1253525093-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_table.jpg



Needless to say, 'gbailey' did not respond to this and disappeared from the board forever.

I found it interesting that a 'gbailey' login appeared very shortly on that board after NZTyphoon registered to that board.

Even more curiously, one of the most important things in NZTyphoon's life is deleting content from wikipedia that refers to 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. It's an interesting parallel to note that the 'gbailey' handle also denied 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe.

I guess everybody can put two and two together. ;)

[NZtyphoon]

Since I have already responded to that on the other board (in a new thread - the moderators were forced to close the first one because of this 'gbailey' login's hysterics), I can copy-paste that here too.

But the short story: whoever the guy was posting under the gbailey handle had absolutely no idea of what he was talking about or simply lied about the documents.

I have tracked down the document the guy was referencing (he refused to post it or anything) and found the following:



Needless to say, 'gbailey' did not respond to this and disappeared from the board forever.

I found it interesting that a 'gbailey' login appeared very shortly on that board after NZTyphoon registered to that board.

Even more curiously, one of the most important things in NZTyphoon's life is deleting content from wikipedia that refers to 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. It's an interesting parallel to note that the 'gbailey' handle also denied 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe.

I guess everybody can put two and two together. ;)

:grin::grin::grin::grin: You really have to become a comedian Barbi - which thread are you referring to? WW2 Aircraft forum ,from which you have been banned? - if so post the link to this new thread, and to your specific posting, so we can all see.

As for Wikipedia? I didn't take anything out, just tidied up the mess you left behind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain#100_octane_aviat ion_fuel)

[Kurfürst]

You can email Dr Bailey here and repeat these allegations to him (http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/): he still wants to discuss a little matter of you repeatedly misrepresenting his copyrighted paper, despite being asked not to several times.

Well if Dr. Bailey wants to discuss the contents with Dr. Kurfurst he is welcome to do so at kurfurst.org@gmail.com.

As for your sick, cowardly little comments about "anti American bias" - totally expected from a low-life like you.

Well that's MA., Dr. iur 'low-life' for you. What are your scientific creditentials, long-time student in a not-so-well known NZ educational establishment, Mr. NZTyphoon? :D

[Seadog]

I've always wondered who had really drawn that graph. :D


Do you wonder who wrote the memo stating a 28/38 mph increase in speed under 10,000ft?
It will be noted from the service reports that an approximate increase in speed due to the use of emergency 12lb boost of 28/34mph is obtained depending upon the altitude flown up to 10,000ft.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg.

Do you wonder who wrote this graph:


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-l1717-cal.jpg

and do you wonder why these numbers are all so consistent? Are you trying to imply that 12lb boost will not result in an increase in speed over 6.25lb boost?

It also seems that you are trying to imply that the RAE Spitfire I data for 12 and 16 lbs boost was falsified? I really hope that this is not the case.

[Seadog]

It says 100 octane was introduced to 'select' Squadrons in May 1940, and I cannot find any statement or reference in it or anything that would support the every-last-Hurricane-even-in-Northern-Scotland-was-running 100 octane theory.



I have repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence of even a single Spitfire/Hurricane 87 octane operational squadron combat sortie during the BofB. This should be an easy task if, as you contend, the majority of RAF FC Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons were using 87 Octane fuel.

So I'll issue the challenge again and again, until you answer it or admit that your contention is unsupported by the historical record.

[Glider]

As for the use of 100 Octane in the BOB by the Luftwaffe I don't have an interest, it was your personal attacks that were totally unfounded and are still well out of order.

What does interest me is your refusal to adress any questions put to you, the most recent being in my last reply in 1077.

PS I thought you were a lawyer

[Kurfürst]

As for the use of 100 Octane in the BOB by the Luftwaffe I don't have an interest, it was your personal attacks that were totally unfounded and are still well out of order.

Can you specify these so called 'personal attacks'?

What does interest me is your refusal to adress any questions put to you, the most recent being in my last reply in 1077.

Well if you are interested in realistic fuel consumption requirements, for example the British estimated that 15 000 tons / month of 150 grade fuel was to be neccessary for the 25 Sqns of Spitfires in the 2nd TAF that converted to the fuel in 1945. 1000 tons/month was required by engine manufacturers, 20 000 tons / month by the 8th AAF, and a just couple of Squadrons in Fighter Command in England required 2000 tons/month.

Your opinion that a mere 10 000 tons would be enough for 60 s-e Sqns at a very high operational activity PLUS several Blenheim Squadrons is ill-founded IMHO, given the above.

[NZtyphoon]

Waiting for you to post that link to the thread in which you claim to have sent Dr Bailey packing.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp
I think I can truly say that I have never seen such rubbish posted from someone who pretends and likes to believe that they know about aircraft.

The first document supports the contention that operational units had 100 octrane and non operational units had 87 octane. Something that has been said from the start.

The Alterations and Precautions Paper
This has three main sections:-
a) Modified Boost Control
The modifications as outlined in the paper are very straightforward and can easily be undertaken. Basically you drill two holes and reassemble the cut out valve, to pretend this is a major task shows a massive disrespect to the ground crew and support teams.
b) Modified Cylinder Top Joint
This change is already incorporated in new engines and is already being addressed in normal mainantence, so nothing to be done there
c) You need 100 Octane fuel

Which is what we have been saying from the start.

Your Pilots Notes dated June 1940
I do not believe for a moment that these are from June 1940. Reason is simple, it doesn't mention any fuel type. In June 1940 we know for certain from combat reports and station/squadrons records that 100 Octane was in use in a number of squadrons. If the type of fuel isn't mentioned then it can only be because only one type of fuel exists and that puts the pilots notes in 1938/9. Crumpp has been asked many times to supply other parts of the Pilots Notes to help us tie this issue down. His refusal to do so I believe speaks volumes.

Consumption Chart
The figures up to May are combined 87/100 octane figures which is why they are in the centre, a junior school student could work that one out.

These figures are for the RAF not Fighter command and I draw your attention to the figure for August 1940 36,000 tons of fuel were used by the RAF. In September 37,000 tons almost the same but the proportion of 100 Octane had gone up, In October 35,000 tons again a figure in the same ball park and 100 octane proportion again went up.

The question is, What changed between August and October? The reply is again very simple All operational Commands were Authorised to use 100 Octane in August. As the units in Bomber Command and Coastal Command switched over, so the proportion of 100 Octane increased.

Its also worth noting that in April 1941 when we all (I think) agree that 100 Octane was in use in Operational Commands the split between 87 Octane and 100 Octane was still 50/50. Training, Transport, BOAC, manufacturers and other non operational flights, use a lot of fuel.

All operational Commands were Authorised to use 100 Octane in August.


Please just post the Spitfire Pilot Operating Notes from August. They will match the January 1942 and specify ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS if you claim is true. I highly doubt you can post them. Yes, changing fuel type is a big deal in aircraft. You can bet they published a new edition to the Pilot Operating Notes.

Post that August 1940 Operating Notes and it is Argument over, end of discussion.

[Crumpp]

The figures up to May are combined 87/100 octane figures which is why they are in the centre, a junior school student could work that one out.



Just like the 1938 figure is combined. Really? I highly doubt it.

If 100 Octane was on the airfields in significant amounts, it would reflect on that document.

It does not and you can read the Operating Notes to see that 87 Octane is the most common fuel in June 1940.

[NZtyphoon]

Just like the 1938 figure is combined. Really? I highly doubt it.

If 100 Octane was on the airfields in significant amounts, it would reflect on that document.

It does not and you can read the Operating Notes to see that 87 Octane is the most common fuel in June 1940.

What 1938 figure? You can doubt all you like, provide some evidence that this meant there was no 100 Octane fuel available.

It is quite clear that in May 1940 Hurricanes of the BEF in France were using 100 Octane fuel. Starting 7 May 1940 we have 660,056 gallons, 2111 tons of 100 octane in France: this was before the balloon went up:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/AASF-fuel-stocks-7may40.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/AASF-fuel-stocks-pg1.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/AASF-fuel-stocks-pg2.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/AASF-fuel-stocks-pg3.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/AASF-fuel-stocks-pg4.jpg



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/Petrol-RAF-component-15may40.jpg


Note too that there is another grade of fuel mentioned in the second to last document D.T.D.224 (77 Octane) which was used in light aircraft "Trinidad Leaseholds Limited" (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938%20-%201223.html?search=77%20octane) the documents on fuel consumption say "Other Grades" meaning 87 Octane fuel wasn't the only other type of fuel being used.

You continue to fail to mention that 87 Octane was being used by heavy bombers and flying boats in June 1940.

You have not yet accounted for 52,000 tons of 100 Octane being used by 16 squadrons between July and October, in spite of being asked several times.

You have not provided any documentation showing proof of the logistical arrangements the RAF used to ensure only 16 squadrons ran on 100 Octane for "intensive operational trials".

While you're asking others to post the August 1940 Pilot's Notes how about you post the relevant information requested for your "June 1940" notes, viz: front cover, inner front cover, fly leaves showing date and the A.P1590B you insist is inserted? You can still scan and you don't need a PC to post them.

[camber]

Dear Kurfurst,

I can't agree with your characterisation of your interaction with Gavin Bailey, (author of The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain; the English Historical Review) and reading through it seems very unlikely that there was a mischevious impersonator in the mix.

Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks :D :D :D eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.

The thread in question is only a click away
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-during-bob-16305-5.html

I will quote the most relevant parts. The original thread is above in case you wish to check whether Gavin Bailey dropped his approach of professionalism and became rude or inappropriate at any point.

To me this is not going ape in a childish fashion:

Dear 'Kurfurst'. In response to your claims that I am impersonating myself, I would like to point out that my contact details (including an email and postal address) have been publicly-available since the publication of the relevant article, e.g. on the EHR website, here -

The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain -- Bailey CXXIII (501): 394 -- The English Historical Review

I note that, to this point, I have received no communication from you or anybody claiming to be you in regard to confirming my identity, despite having received several emails and letters from others in regard to my EHR article.

I also note that you post under a pseudonym without revealing your full identity.

It is clear that you disagree with the content and conclusions of my research, but I am afraid if you want to refute them, you will be required to engage with the sources which have been cited. Until you do so, and based on the evidence you have posted so far in this thread, your disagreement has no merit.

You go on to state the following -

I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point.

The mods note that the discussion is heated and (rather lazily) ask both parties to desist. Gavin Bailey quite reasonably points out he is the wronged party.
Micdrow,

In threads on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain hosted on this site, the poster known as Kurfurst has, aside from accusing me of making false claims;

1. Misrepresented and selectively distorted the results of my published work (in 'Hurricane vs.Bf-110' thread, on 1 January 2009 and repeated subsequently).

2. Ignored citations from original Air Ministry documents which disprove his belief (my post as 'gavinb' in 'Use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF during BOB' on 31 January 2009).

3. Been unwilling or unable to supply proof of his assertions when challenged (e.g. my post on 7 February 2009).

4. Accused me of lying about my identity without, apparently, having taken the most elementary steps to confirm it (his post of 5 June 2009). He has subsequently repeated this accusation elsewhere.

I suggest my responses have been entirely reasonable attempts to prevent somebody misrepresenting my work during which I have had to deal with accusations that I have impersonated myself. This would be comic if it wasn't for the issues of integrity which are involved. Having re-read my posts on this forum, I believe they have been a) entirely on-topic and b) remarkably civil in tone in the circumstances.

In the end the mods rather apologetically (to Gavin) lock the thread so not to have to deal with it.

Sadly, camber

[CWMV]

Jesus tap dancing Christ, can all of you just present your evidence, nock off the character assassination crap and for the love of God grow up?
My God...just....my God!

Edit: Kurfurst, crump, nztyphoon et al, just what exactly do you all gain in this?

[Seadog]

20 000 tons / month by the 8th AAF,



So 8th AAF required 20,000 tons/month? How many squadrons and aircraft in 8th AAF?

[Robo.]

I am sure that will be the next argument.

There is no argument whatsoever :grin: There is just you having this ridiculous claims (like a child covering its own eyes thinking ''if I can't see them, then they can't see me yay'').

You're wrong on so many levels (100 octane fuel stock and usage, early Merlin operational ratings)yet you keep on going stubbornly. :o Why are you doing this? Are you actually interested in fixing the FM in the sim? Do you actually fly Cliffs of Dover?

[gavinb]

Jesus tap dancing Christ, can all of you just present your evidence, nock off the character assassination crap and for the love of God grow up?
My God...just....my God!

Edit: Kurfurst, crump, nztyphoon et al, just what exactly do you all gain in this?

The problem here is the behaviour of one poster in particular.

In the case of nztyphoon at least, he is accurately posting information from a previous 'discussion' elsewhere in which Kurfurst misrepresented my reserarch and my personal views. I note Kurfurst is doing this again to further his own rather selective and ahistoric views on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain.

In my case I went to the trouble of researching the issue and then publishing an article on it in a respected peer-review publication. I've received a fair number of inquiries as a response, most of which have been genuine expressions of interest from people interested in the subject, and I've generally been happy to pass on further details from my research in response. However, since Kurfurst started up in about 2009 I've had about as many inquiries from people questioning me on the basis of what they've read about my work in online debates started by Kurfurst.

In the case of Kurfurst, nobody claiming to be him has ever attempted to contact me before repeatedly misrepresenting my views, and then accusing me of impersonating myself, and all on public forums. This has been done on ww2aircraft.net, wikipedia and now here.

This is discreditable to the point of being comic, but in my view a more serious issue for anybody who wants these internet dicussion forums to be taken seriously is the way in which more responsible contributors are forced on to an equivalent level with participants such as Kurfurst by the editorial approach on forums such as this. There is no illusiary middle-ground to be found here; Kurfurst's behaviour has clearly been (and apparently remains) ahistorical mendacity. Anybody in any doubt about this should familiarise themselves with the details of Kurfurst's behaviour as posted previously.

One minor result of this is that I don't feel any encouragement to contribute anything to sites like this or ww2aircraft.net because there is little or no value to be had from being pressured by lies to engage in 'debates' where genuine information and discussion is so consistently distorted by the activities of trolls.

I don't gain anything from this. Quite the opposite. In fact, even when I don't participate in the discussion, as a result of Kurfurst's behaviour I am forced to waste time that I would prefer to spend completing a new book in dealing with three-year old canards which have already been refuted. But the alternative is that the only exposure many will have to my work is through the wilful distortions of Kurfurst. Therefore I'm indebted to people like nztyphoon who have actually taken the trouble to challenge Kurfurst's views and accurately represent mine. The evidence posted by several people in response to Kurfurst has been genuinely informative, and I'd like to thank them for the effort.

One last point. I'm not that concerned with specific responses to Kurfurst, as he has been refuted before, and given his inability to modify his views or posting behaviour in response to evidence, continued debate with him is a waste of time and effort. However, the allegation that I hold anti-American views is a new departure, and I'd like to respond to that here.

In my view, the development of the Anglo-American alliance was both a fundamentally-important objective of British strategy, and was also critical to a successful outcome of the Second World War. However, any understanding the historical reality of how that alliance developed and how that war was fought must proceed from the historical evidence, regardless of any impact that has on post facto anti- or pro-American or British views held more than sixty years later.

If anybody wants to, they can contact me via the email address given on my departmental website -

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/

In the meantime, I suggest a more constructive approach would be to ignore Kurfurst and concentrate on the evidence other posters have already provided here and elsewhere which refutes Kurfurst's views but is also of larger historical interest.

Gavin Bailey

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

The problem here is the behaviour of one poster in particular.

In the case of nztyphoon at least, he is accurately posting information from a previous 'discussion' elsewhere in which Kurfurst misrepresented my reserarch and my personal views. I note Kurfurst is doing this again to further his own rather selective and ahistoric views on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain.

In my case I went to the trouble of researching the issue and then publishing an article on it in a respected peer-review publication. I've received a fair number of inquiries as a response, most of which have been genuine expressions of interest from people interested in the subject, and I've generally been happy to pass on further details from my research in response. However, since Kurfurst started up in about 2009 I've had about as many inquiries from people questioning me on the basis of what they've read about my work in online debates started by Kurfurst.

In the case of Kurfurst, nobody claiming to be him has ever attempted to contact me before repeatedly misrepresenting my views, and then accusing me of impersonating myself, and all on public forums. This has been done on ww2aircraft.net, wikipedia and now here.

This is discreditable to the point of being comic, but in my view a more serious issue for anybody who wants these internet dicussion forums to be taken seriously is the way in which more responsible contributors are forced on to an equivalent level with participants such as Kurfurst by the editorial approach on forums such as this. There is no illusiary middle-ground to be found here; Kurfurst's behaviour has clearly been (and apparently remains) ahistorical mendacity. Anybody in any doubt about this should familiarise themselves with the details of Kurfurst's behaviour as posted previously.

One minor result of this is that I don't feel any encouragement to contribute anything to sites like this or ww2aircraft.net because there is little or no value to be had from being pressured by lies to engage in 'debates' where genuine information and discussion is so consistently distorted by the activities of trolls.

I don't gain anything from this. Quite the opposite. In fact, even when I don't participate in the discussion, as a result of Kurfurst's behaviour I am forced to waste time that I would prefer to spend completing a new book in dealing with three-year old canards which have already been refuted. But the alternative is that the only exposure many will have to my work is through the wilful distortions of Kurfurst. Therefore I'm indebted to people like nztyphoon who have actually taken the trouble to challenge Kurfurst's views and accurately represent mine. The evidence posted by several people in response to Kurfurst has been genuinely informative, and I'd like to thank them for the effort.

One last point. I'm not that concerned with specific responses to Kurfurst, as he has been refuted before, and given his inability to modify his views or posting behaviour in response to evidence, continued debate with him is a waste of time and effort. However, the allegation that I hold anti-American views is a new departure, and I'd like to respond to that here.

In my view, the development of the Anglo-American alliance was both a fundamentally-important objective of British strategy, and was also critical to a successful outcome of the Second World War. However, any understanding the historical reality of how that alliance developed and how that war was fought must proceed from the historical evidence, regardless of any impact that has on post facto anti- or pro-American or British views held more than sixty years later.

If anybody wants to, they can contact me via the email address given on my departmental website -

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/

In the meantime, I suggest a more constructive approach would be to ignore Kurfurst and concentrate on the evidence other posters have already provided here and elsewhere which refutes Kurfurst's views but is also of larger historical interest.

Gavin Bailey

Hello Dr Bailey. Rest assured that people who have been around many aviation and simming interest forums know all about a certain parties maliciously disruptive MO, their propensity to level scurrilous and completely unfounded allegations, and willfully mendacious behavior. He is still permanently banned from 'Warbirds' ww2aircraft.net, as well as serving a life time ban from editing wiki.

As you are well aware, there are very good and justifiable reasons for this, despite the many warnings he has had, as well as temporary bans (on other forums too) he will not adjust his behaviour. The leopard never changes its spots. Though of course it is all some elaborate 'grand conspiracy' and nothing whatsoever to do with the poster themselves actual conduct. Its just other people.

It really doesn't matter what he or Kettenhunde-Crummp 'think', as anyone with a modicum of intellect can see that their 'arguments' such as they are, hold no water. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that only 16 (or even 19) squadrons were using 100 octane in the Battle of Britain for some kind of 'test purpose' (or safety, or supply problems), it was in use and tested well before (dating back to the Battle of France, as has been conclusively shown), with primary source evidence.

To maintain that the pre war Morgan-Shacklady document, predating the BoB by some 18 months, represents what actually happened in practice, when there is an avalanche of corroborated evidence in this thread to the contrary (well done to all concerned), is simply risible. When one examines the facts, there is really no 'controversy' whatsoever regarding the widespread FC use of 100 octane fuel in the BoB. Its not unlike the deliberate types of 'Faux-controversy' manufactured by for example Creationists under the guise of 'fact' with rubbish like Intelligent design, when in fact there is no controversy in the scientific community at large at all.

Some people seem to have a problem with understanding the basic requirement to qualify a statement or assertion with actual evidence. They can 'believe' what they want of course, but its not quite good enough for the purpose of historiographical inquiry. As you of course are well aware, hehe.

People are still waiting for the mountain of combat reports detailing the allegedly predominant use of 87 octane fuel in the BoB by fighter command, which if this were true (and it most certainly is not) would of course be a relative cinch to find. They also eagerly await the infamous '16 squadrons' designated for 100 octane use, with proof and details of their supply during the battle itself. Strangely, this information is conspicuous by its absence and does not appear to be forthcoming.

I believe that the vast majority of reasonable, thinking people know why. :)

Anyway, don't worry Gavin. We know. Case closed.

Cheers.

[Kurfürst]

It appears that another 'gbailey' handle appeared again, strangely enough he seems to appear everywhere where NZTyphoon appears, and continues to evade to answer the questions. As usual lot of pompous and empty hot air is vented, without adressing the issue of his(?) former false and/or ill-informed claims about German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.

We have seen that this 'gbailey' login has taken an ahistorical stance and appears to have taken a complete denial on the production of German synthetic 100 octane, and its operational use by the Jagd- and Zestörerverbanden during the Battle of Britain. He advances an ahistorical, and I think its approriate to say, partisan thesis that the Luftwaffe had no access to its own produced 100 octane supplies, and had to do with captured British stocks.


I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point. [/I]

To support this claim, the abovementioned document was referred to by this 'gbailey' login, which was supposed to support that the only 100 octane fuel found in crashed German aircraft during the Battle of Britain was of British origin.

An alarming result of the examination of this paper, as far as the credibility and expertise of the 'gbailey' login is concerned, is that the referred to trail of documents was positively misquoted, its contents were falsified and presented in a misleading manner.

Reviewing the document, presented below show that the British correctly identified German-produced C-3 grade 95/115 in several downed aircraft's tanks, chiefly Bf 110 destroyers, and curiously, even Ju 88 bombers. The latter case is interesting given that the bombers gained nothing from using higher grade fuels, their engines having been designed for 87 octane fuels and boost levels. There's also a wealth of sources by German and other authors, showing the details of LW HQ meetings making reference to operational use of German domestic produced synthetic 100 octane fuel, as well as photographic, oral etc. evidence.

Needless to say, this makes the whole claim and poses serious question about the true identity and credibility of the said login handle. One would believe that it is a minimum professional standard for any, even an amateur historian to report the contents of historical documents accurately and true to their full contents, and not selectively or falsified, as was the case.

I am absolutely certain that anyone with an actual degree in history would follow these basic requirements to the letter, which is why a serious doubt can be raised whether this 'gbailey' login is who he who claims himself to be. I am sure the actual Gavin Bailey has high professional standards which are evident from the article presented in the English historical review, and in which I did not find any trace of a reference of 'widespread' operational use of 100 octane fuel by the RAF. It surely mentions the use of such fuel by select fighter squadrons starting in May 1940, and the main line seems to be to downplay the importance of the fuel as far as fighter aircraft performance is concerned, and the importance of American supplies.

Therefore, a very strange strong divergence can be observed between the statements of Dr. Gavin Bailey in the article represented in the English Historical Review, and the statements of the login handle 'gbailey' who's appearance is always coincided with the appearance of NZTyphoon, who also seems to be in denial of German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.

If 'gbailey's claimed identity is true, I am afraid that would be even more concerning, as there is a proven misrepresentation of a historical source and probably worthy to the attention of the Rector of Dundee University, as well as Professor Black and Professor Dobson, for further investigation into professional standards and lack of civil conduct in the public, which may pose questions about the suitability of the candidate, who refuses to address the question directly, upon having been caught in the act.



The notion and implication that the only 100 octane fuel used by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain originates to British stocks of 100 octane fuel, captured from British airfields in France after the premature leave by the British Army in June 1940 is a dangerous myth, which needs to be promptly refuted, before any credence is attributed to it. Even if I did not want to engage in continuing that discussion here, given that the title discusses the RAF use of such fuel in 1940, the above repetence of it warrants a proper refutation of the claim by poster 'gbailey'.

Some of the documents already posted from the Australian archieves already show that already in 1938 the British were concerned of German 100 octane fuel developments and the capacity to produce this fuel on an industrial scale. Please refer back to these before proceeding further.

Please also refer to the German datasheet of the DB 601N. This type of engine was developed for German 100 octane 'C-3' fuel use, and went into mass production in late 1939 (October 1939 via Manfred Griehl to be exact)

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/datasheets/601N_Emil.jpg

It extremely puzzling, to say the least, why would the Germans decide to mass produce an engine, specifically made for 100 octane fuel use, without having any own stock of 100 octane fuel. And then equip whole wings of fighters, bombers, and zestoerers with the said engine.

As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance.

It should be noted, however, that during the war, there were different octane ratings used for aviation gasoline. Allied states generally preferred to give octane rating at its rich mixture, while the Germans preferred the CFR method, which gave the octane rating at weak mixture.

The bottomline of the story, the green 'C-3' type fuel that the Germans were calling 96 octane fuel by the CFR method, was the equaivalent of 96/110 octane fuel as the Allies would call it. In other words, actually a bit better at rich mixture and for knock resistance than ordinary 100 octane fuel.

Also it is evident from these documents that the British were aware of the existance and use of German 100 octane - for simplicity's sake lets ignore for a moment it superior qualities and call it the same since the summer of 1940.

Examples of such fuel were found and analysed in crashed Ju 88 and Me 110 aircraft. The use in the former type is especially interesting as the types capable of taking advantage of higher octane fuel were DB 601N-powered Bf 109Es and Bf 110Cs. These latter were already in service by July 1940. By the automn, 1200 DB 601N engines were delivered, divided amongst Bf 110, Bf 109 units, Bf 109F production and reserve engines. Priority was given to Bf 110 units until the automn for these engines. The use of 100 octane C-3 thus may appear to be superflous in German bomber aircraft, nevertheless is was an existing practice.

The British report do not seem to mention 100 octane fuel found in Bf 109s, but this may be due to the limited scope of the report. See the image of Bf 109E-4/N, W.Nr. 1190, 'White 4', is being unloaded by Curtiss workers. The Emil belonged to 4. Staffel Staffel of JG 4, and was flown by Uffz. Horst Perez on, when it was shot down on the 30th September 1940 over East Dean during the Battle of Britain. Note the fuel triangle with the '100' label, pointo to 100 octane fuel and the DB 601N.

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/files/109E4N_20Sept1940b_DFC.jpg

As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - www.kurfurst.org

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106387d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_000.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106388d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_001.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106389d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_003.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106390d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_005.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106391d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_007.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106392d1253525093-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_table.jpg

I believe the fact that the 'gbailey' handle consistently evades to address the question of possible misrepresentation - either willfully or out of ignorance - of historical documents and the German use of 100 octane in the Battle of Britain can be considered an answer to the question of credibility and identity as well.

[NZtyphoon]

For my part I am deeply angry that Dr Bailey has had to field the effects of Kurfurst's constant abuse of his research, even though he is not a part of this or any other forum. I could not care less what Kurfurst says let alone thinks about me, because it has long been a part of his MO to abuse those who oppose him on this and on other forums, from which he has been mostly banned; what I will not tolerate is his cowardly and behind-the-back abuse of people, such as Dr Bailey, who carry out genuine work, and who have a balanced and scholarly approach to historical research. I lost my temper earlier because of this and I apologise to CWMV and others on this forum, for allowing myself to sink to that level. :(

Kurfurst is on my ignore list permanently, and I suggest that everyone else in this forum do likewise. It is simply a waste of time attempting to "debate" any issues with him without the risk of ending up being entangled in prolonged and usually circular and fruitless argument - witness the 110 pages to this thread - and I begrudge the hours I have wasted responding to his nonsense. :cool:

[Osprey]

Osprey,

This is the kind of baloney that adds nothing to the credibility of participants in this thread.

It concretely demonstrates you have no idea how aircraft work.

Standard Day exists everywhere in aviation and is very important. It is the atmospheric conditions that most of the data you see is converted too. Aircraft performance varies greatly based on density altitude, including your engines power development.

And yes, conditions do change but not based on any countries borders. Why do you think the very first thing Air Traffic Control will relay to you as a pilot, is the altimeter setting?



http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/atc0207.html

You keep referring to your PPL as a licence for you to be a know-it-all. There you go again confusing modern day process in the USA with that of wartime Britain in 1940. That's what 'balony' really is.

So, what's a 'standard day' in England Crump? And what evidence do you have that this information was relayed to aircrew as they scrambled? According to your own logic, if you cannot provide this as proof then it didn't happen.

[Glider]

Kurfurst
Can I point out one rather large significant problem in the paper that you quote the the use of Captured Fuel in the Luftwaffe during the BOB

The Paper Gavin quotes is :-
direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

Gavins reference Paper covers November 1939 to September 1940 and was produced in Nov 1940

Your paper covers the period Summer 1940 to Autumn 1943

They are different Papers. If you are going to comment on someones work, at least get the right paper.

To try and compare fuel consumption i n the BOB to the situation in 1944 is comparing Pears and Bananas, the planes were different, they had bigger tanks, drop tanks were used. But you know this its a tactic you have tried before. We are talking about the BOB so stick with it.

[winny]

Here are some records of fuel import and consumption from the National Archive

I'm in the process of getting all of the Oil related memos and Cabinet meetings.

I had to zip them up because they are to big as PDF's

Contents: Cabinet Papers.zip

War Cabinet Oil Position December '39
War Cabinet Oil Position March '40
War Cabinet Oil Position June '40
War Cabinet Oil Position July '40
Memo on the completion of the Thornton plant - November '40

I will add anymore that I find.

[Osprey]

I will never put Kurfurst on ignore because I want to know he posted so I can give him a right slagging off.

Kurfurst, you are such a knob - perhaps you and Crump should meet up for a cock-in.

[winny]

Here are all the Oil Position reports I could find for 1940

Oil position papers 1.zip contains the 16th, 20th, 21st, 23rd, 24th and 25th weekly Oil Position War Cabinet Reports

Oil position papers 2.zip contains the 27th, 28th, 32nd and 40th

Monthly Oil Position.zip has July, September, October and November '40

100 oct plants has a couple of memos about 100 octane production in the UK

I haven't read them all yet, but some people here may find them usefull.

I'm gonna look at 1939 next.

EDIT : I didn't explain what these are.. They are all War Cabinet documents detailing the import, consumption, production etc of all types of fuel for the Air Force, Navy and Civil.

[Crumpp]

So, what's a 'standard day' in England Crump?

Pretty much the same as everywhere else for low altitude and subsonic aerodynamics.....

For a standard reference, a concept called a standard day is used. In aviation, everything is relatedto standard day conditions at sea level, which are 29.92 in-Hg (1013.2 mb) and 15°C (59°F). Inthe lower atmosphere, and thus for most aviation applications, a 1000 foot increase in altitude willresult in a pressure decrease of approximately 1 in-Hg (34 mb) and a temperature decrease of 2°C(3.5 °F). These values are the standard day pressure and temperature lapse rates.

http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-303/P-3030021.htm

There you go again confusing modern day process in the USA with that of wartime Britain in 1940.


There is thing called the Paris Convention of 1919. It is what gives British Aircraft the authority to fly in other countries, including the USA.

What it says in summary, we will all do things the same way regarding airplanes and meet the same standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paris_Convention_of_1919

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst
Can I point out one rather large significant problem in the paper that you quote the the use of Captured Fuel in the Luftwaffe during the BOB

The Paper Gavin quotes is :-
direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

Gavins reference Paper covers November 1939 to September 1940 and was produced in Nov 1940

Your paper covers the period Summer 1940 to Autumn 1943

They are different Papers. If you are going to comment on someones work, at least get the right paper.

They are not different papers. They are subsequent reports in the same trail of papers, prepared by the same men, working for the Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee.

The report quoted by 'gbailey' deals only with German 87 octane fuel samples, and the subsequent papers deal with German 100 octane fuel samples. But they are prepared by the same people - D. A. Howes of Anglo American Oil for example is listed just the same in samples I have posted - in the same format, and follow each other in the files, and reference to the other reports, so its very hard to miss the fact that you are not looking at the whole paper.

Of course if you are set out to prove that the American contribution of high octane aviation fuel was not significant, and the Brits could do it all by themselves, you might also want to 'prove', by omitting otherwise available information that those poor Germans had to do with whatever British 100 octane stock they could find.

Of course such views become very comical, when you know that Germany was producing domestically all its 100 octane needs, while Britain was importing it or later given by Lend-Lease, and in fact that British desire in 1938 for 100 octane was fueled by fear that German synthetic plans could essentially produce as much 100 octane as they wanted, and Britain did not want to be left behind in the technology race.

Either its quite simply intellectually dishonest to say the Germans had nothing else but 87 octane fuel, and relied on captured British 100 octane stock, because a report on German 87 octane fuel samples - surprise surprise! - lists only 87 octane fuel samples and one British 100 octane sample. Especially when the next report in the pile of papers says that German 100 octane fuel samples were found in 110s, 88s etc. in the same period.

That may even be a honest mistake, but in that case the 'research' was very superficial and amateurish.

Either case, whoever he is, his opinion is sadly mistaken and instead of addressing it and admitting the mistakes, he resorts to incivility and thin verbal diarrhea.

I would also like to know your version. Do you believe the Germans did not use 100 octane in the Battle of Britain? Do you believe that the only 100 octane they had access to was captured British stocks?

To try and compare fuel consumption i n the BOB to the situation in 1944 is comparing Pears and Bananas, the planes were different, they had bigger tanks, drop tanks were used. But you know this its a tactic you have tried before. We are talking about the BOB so stick with it.

Well, again 25 (was it 30 with XIVs..?) Squadrons of Spitfires in 1945 required 15 000 tons of avgas per month. Their tanks were the same size, their sortie times were again pretty much the same lenght as those of 1940.

But let's forget about the 2nd TAF. I've just found a rather interesting table which shows the ratio of combat hours and non-operational hours flown by a plane sorties/time for planes on hand with combat units (i.e. the ones in OTU, storage, manufacturer's flight testing is not included) in mid-1943.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom%20Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0004-0006%20Item%201A.pdf

For Spitfires in NW Africa, an average of 13.2 combat sorties were flown per plane per month, the average combat hours flown per month per plane was 18.5 hours, the non-operational hours flown per month per plane was 19.7 hours. Hourly consumption was 49.7 gallons/hour.

The ratio for P-47s in the UK was very similar, it was 16.3 hours per month for combat sorties and 17.3 for non-operational flights.

So combat sorties amounted quite typically to about just 40% of the total consumption. The remaining 60% is non-operational flights in combat units, which none of your calculations take into account, nor the requirements of bomber command's Blenheim Sqns.

[gavinb]

Kurfurst,

I don't want to further encourage your behaviour by responding, but in this case I can't help myself.

If 'gbailey's claimed identity is true, I am afraid that would be even more concerning, as there is a proven misrepresentation of a historical source and probably worthy to the attention of the Rector of Dundee University, as well as Professor Black and Professor Dobson, for further investigation into professional standards and lack of civil conduct in the public, which may pose questions about the suitability of the candidate, who refuses to address the question directly, upon having been caught in the act.

I look forward to the results of your contact with Professors Dobson and Black, particularly as I share an office with Tony Black, and regularly speak to Alan Dobson who was my PhD supervisor and who remains a respected colleague. I suspect all three of us would welcome the entertainment at the moment.

Their email addresses are available on the same web page as I provided earlier, which also has my email address (in case that was presenting you with any difficulties).

Hopefully you will not experience the same difficulty contacting them as you seem to have experienced in contacting me to date. I can assure you that any complaint you make will be regarded with the merit it deserves.

In that respect, in case you want any pointers in how to research and present genuine historical inquiry, I direct you to Tony's excellent second edition of The History of Islamic Political Thought from the Prophet to the Present, and Alan's recent and commendable FDR and Civil Aviation.

Gavin Bailey

[Crumpp]

Pretty much the same as everywhere else for low altitude and subsonic aerodynamics.....



http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-303/P-3030021.htm




There is thing called the Paris Convention of 1919. It is what gives British Aircraft the authority to fly in other countries, including the USA.

What it says in summary, we will all do things the same way regarding airplanes and meet the same standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paris_Convention_of_1919


Osprey,

It is a fact the January 1942 Pilots Operating Notes for the Spitfire Mk Ia stating 100 Octane is for ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS. That fact is a very damning piece of evidence for any argument all operational units converted at any date before January 1940.

It is a huge "fly in the oinment" to the crowd claiming Fighter Command converted in the Spring 1940. People in this thread have bought into a position based on logistical documentation and not on operational documentation.

The Operating Notes are operational documentation and the logistical documentation showing the fuel supply at the airfields confirms Morgan and Shacklady's research of around 16 squadrons sometime in September 1940.

The argument the document combines fuel at the airfields from 1938 until June 1940 does not hold up to scrutiney. Why?

The process for manufacturing 100 Octane gasoline cheaply and in quantity only existed for one year in 1938.

The first full-scale commercial catalytic cracker for the selective conversion of crude petroleum to gasoline went on stream at the Marcus Hook Refinery in 1937.

http://www.nacatsoc.org/history.asp?HistoryID=30

Before catalytic cracking, making 100 Octane fuel was possible only in small quantities and it was very expensive to manufacture.

In 1936 the United States decided to adopt 100 Octane. The Aeronautics Branch of the Department of Commerce, NACA, and Department of Defense laid out a ten year plan to convert all aviation to 100 Octane fuels. The first to convert would be the USAAF and their experience would be used to convert all Civil Aviation. Before any of that could begin, the first priority was finding a way to make 100 Octane cheaply and in quantity. That was not a possibility until 1937.

I highly doubt the Air Ministry had 100 Octane fuels in any substantial quantity in 1938.

[fruitbat]

It is a huge "fly in the oinment" to the crowd claiming Fighter Command converted in the Spring 1940.


As is all the operational squadron records posted that say otherwise to your position that you keep ignoring.

I trust them not you, someone who can't even distinguish modern day peace time rules and regs with that of a war in 1940.

[Crumpp]

I don't want to further encourage your behaviour by responding



Please both of you drop the attacks on each other and just discuss the facts. Acting immaturely does not add credibility to anyone.

[Crumpp]

As is all the operational squadron records posted that say otherwise to your position that you keep ignoring.


Fruitbat,

I have not ignored any evidence at all. Re-read those squadron logs, please. The technical order specifies aircraft will be converted on their schedules Service Inspections. When that conversion is complete, by convention it will be a logbook entry. Most importantly, if they are actually using the fuel that will also be a specific logbook entry by convention. It will plainly state they are using 100 Octane. Not only will their aircraft be logged as converted, it will be logged they are actually using the fuel.

A single entry of aircraft being converted does not mean they are running around using 100 Octane fuel, only that the aircraft is capable of using it if available and authorized. When my aircraft was converted to use auto fuel, it too got a logbook entry noting it was Supplemental Type Certificated for auto fuel. The aircraft was properly placarded too. That does not mean autofuel is in my fuel tanks!!

It just means the airplane has the capability to use it.

It is the exact same thing with the conversion to 100 Octane. You just can't put the fuel in the tanks and fly off. The airplane has to be placarded, major changes done to the engine, and the proper knowledge given to the pilots as well those that maintain the aircraft. Why, because it is the law and that law conforms to international aviation convention that has been in place since 1919.

The conversion was done on a schedule at the annual Service Inspection. That is what gave the manufacturer time to make the cylinder heads and logistics to distribute them. Once the Operational conversion was ready to adopt 100 Octane fuel, new Operating Notes would be published reflecting that change as we see in January 1941. There is some lag time. I would bet the RAF began conversion in June 1940 and fully converted sometime in December or November, 1940 before the wartime British end dates for the Battle of Britian. That is why you find references to the RAF converting during the battle.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Fruitbat,

I have not ignored any evidence at all. Re-read those squadron logs, please. The technical order specifies aircraft will be converted on their schedules Service Inspections. When that conversion is complete, by law it will be a logbook entry.

That does not mean they are running around using 100 Octane fuel, only that the aircraft is capable of using it if available. When my aircraft was converted to use auto fuel, it too got a logbook entry noting it was Supplemental Type Certificated for auto fuel. The aircraft was properly placarded too. That does not mean autofuel is in my fuel tanks!!

It just means the airplane has the capability to use it.

It is the exact same thing with the conversion to 100 Octane. You just can't put the fuel in the tanks and fly off. The airplane has to be placarded, major changes done to the engine, and the proper knowledge given to the pilots as well those that maintain the aircraft.

That was done on a schedule at the annual Service Inspection. That is what gave the manufacturer time to make the cylinder heads and logistics to distribute them. Once the conversion was ready, new Operating Notes would be published reflecting that change as we see in January 1941. There is some lag time. I would bet the RAF converted sometime in December or November, 1940 before the wartime British end dates for the Battle of Britian. That is why you find references to the RAF converting during the battle.

So what about the combat reports that show the use of +12 boost, which was only allowed in when 100 octane fuel was used?

[fruitbat]

So what about the combat reports that show the use of +12 boost, which was only allowed in when 100 octane fuel was used?

exactly.

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst,

I don't want to further encourage your behaviour by responding, but in this case I can't help myself.

If 'gbailey's claimed identity is true, I am afraid that would be even more concerning, as there is a proven misrepresentation of a historical source and probably worthy to the attention of the Rector of Dundee University, as well as Professor Black and Professor Dobson, for further investigation into professional standards and lack of civil conduct in the public, which may pose questions about the suitability of the candidate, who refuses to address the question directly, upon having been caught in the act.

I look forward to the results of your contact with Professors Dobson and Black, particularly as I share an office with Tony Black, and regularly speak to Alan Dobson who was my PhD supervisor and who remains a respected colleague. I suspect all three of us would welcome the entertainment at the moment.

Their email addresses are available on the same web page as I provided earlier, which also has my email address (in case that was presenting you with any difficulties).

Hopefully you will not experience the same difficulty contacting them as you seem to have experienced in contacting me to date. I can assure you that any complaint you make will be regarded with the merit it deserves.

In that respect, in case you want any pointers in how to research and present genuine historical inquiry, I direct you to Tony's excellent second edition of The History of Islamic Political Thought from the Prophet to the Present, and Alan's recent and commendable FDR and Civil Aviation.

Gavin Bailey

I see your response again is limited again to venting out bit of hot air. I hope you now feel relieved and content, and shall find engaging in academic debate less stressful on your capacity to defend your (mistaken) point of view.

Alas, I must note that you still failed to properly address your earlier attempt to misrepresent the historical truth, so I must take your deep and lasting silence on issue of misrepresenting historical sources as a sign that you have recognized your error and you have choose to revoke your earlier nonsense about the German 100 octane use in the Battle.

I hope your future 'research' in the subject of the Luftwaffe aviation fuels shall be far more successful, less amateurish than your earlier attempts showed. On my part, I have found the debate most rewarding, given the end result and your hollow but futile arrogance.

[fruitbat]

I see your response again is limited again to venting out bit of hot air........ given the end result and your hollow but futile arrogance.

writing about yourself?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I see your response again is limited again to venting out bit of hot air.
http://fitskitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/shutterstock_77277250-Guy-in-Mirror.jpg

[ATAG_Snapper]

So what about the combat reports that show the use of +12 boost, which was only allowed in when 100 octane fuel was used?

"If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, flies like a duck......then, by gawd, it IS a duck." A 100-octane duck! :grin:

[Glider]

They are not different papers. They are subsequent reports in the same trail of papers, prepared by the same men, working for the Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee.
They are different papers. We are looking at the BOB and its that period that is of interest. Obviously things changed latere but in the BOB period it looks as if the Luftwaffe used captured stocks for at least some of their aircraft.

I haven't read the paper but trust official documents

I do not doubt that the same people prepared later papers but we are looking at the BB period



Of course if you are set out to prove that the American contribution of high octane aviation fuel was not significant, and the Brits could do it all by themselves, you might also want to 'prove', by omitting otherwise available information that those poor Germans had to do with whatever British 100 octane stock they could find.
It does look like that in the BOB period doesn't it.


Of course such views become very comical, when you know that Germany was producing domestically all its 100 octane needs, while Britain was importing it or later given by Lend-Lease, and in fact that British desire in 1938 for 100 octane was fueled by fear that German synthetic plans could essentially produce as much 100 octane as they wanted, and Britain did not want to be left behind in the technology race.
Unfortunately Germany never did produce sufficient for its needs


Either its quite simply intellectually dishonest to say the Germans had nothing else but 87 octane fuel, and relied on captured British 100 octane stock, because a report on German 87 octane fuel samples - surprise surprise! - lists only 87 octane fuel samples and one British 100 octane sample. Especially when the next report in the pile of papers says that German 100 octane fuel samples were found in 110s, 88s etc. in the same period.
Not the same period a later period, your own paper proves it.


That may even be a honest mistake, but in that case the 'research' was very superficial and amateurish.
This from the man who never even tried to get a copy of the Pips posting is pretty good.


Either case, whoever he is, his opinion is sadly mistaken and instead of addressing it and admitting the mistakes, he resorts to incivility and thin verbal diarrhea.
Important note, we know who he is, we know where he works, we know that he is open to being contacted, we know know who he works with, we know nothing about you. As for resorting to incivility, do you really want me to go through this thread and list the jibs and worse that you have aimed at everyone? More importantly do you want me to list the questions you have refused to reply to?

I would also like to know your version. Do you believe the Germans did not use 100 octane in the Battle of Britain? Do you believe that the only 100 octane they had access to was captured British stocks?
I don't know and am not guessing, but it makes sense that the Luftwaffe would use RAF stocks probably in addition to some of their own. Its valuble fuel and there is no point pouring it away. There is no doubt that the report was very specific in saying that the only example was RAF stock, that you can rubbish or deny but doesn't alter that fact that is what the report says..



So combat sorties amounted quite typically to about just 40% of the total consumption. The remaining 60% is non-operational flights in combat units, which none of your calculations take into account, nor the requirements of bomber command's Blenheim Sqns.

I go from evidence which can be measured not made up calculations, there is the old phrase that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. However I did point out that operational vs non operational consumption in May 1941 was approx 50%.

[Kurfürst]

They are different papers. We are looking at the BOB and its that period that is of interest. Obviously things changed latere but in the BOB period it looks as if the Luftwaffe used captured stocks for at least some of their aircraft.

I haven't read the paper but trust official documents

Certainly. The papers quite clearly state the British first captured samples of German synthetic, 'Green' C-3 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain. That is to say, the claim that the Germans were relying completely on captured British 100 octane stocks is demonstrated to be false and unfounded, and against what is said in the very series of reports.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106389d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_003.jpg
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106390d1253524530-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_005.jpg


I do not doubt that the same people prepared later papers but we are looking at the BB period

Yes, we should look at the BoB period.

The papers say the British obtained four samples of German produced synthethic C-3 in the BoB period:

Sample GF 28 from a Ju 88, in 'Summer of 1940'.
Sample 40/41 from a Bf 110, on '27 September 1940'.
Sample GF 31 from a Bf 110, in 'Automn 1940'.
Sample GF 32 from a Bf 110, in 'Automn 1940'.

All of these were samples of German produced 100 octane fuel. Summer of 1940, 27 September 1940, Automn of 1940 does sound like BoB period to me.

They list one sample of what is believed captured British 100 octane.

Denial in the face of this evidence is beyond comic.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106392d1253525093-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_table.jpg

It does look like that in the BOB period doesn't it.

Again, four samples of German 100 octane, one sample of British 100 octane was found in the BOB period and listed in these papers. To claim the only sample was found and it was from British source is simply false and ill-informed.

Unfortunately Germany never did produce sufficient for its needs

That's a curious statement. It does seem to me that in the first half of 1941, practically all of the German first line fighters (Bf 109E/N, Bf 109F-1, F-2) were running on 100 octane fuel.

Not the same period a later period, your own paper proves it.

Again my own paper lists samples of German produced 100 octane fuel, from Summer of 1940, 27 September 1940, Automn of 1940, which does sound like the same BoB period.

This from the man who never even tried to get a copy of the Pips posting is pretty good.

Claimed by the man who repeatedly lies that I did not try to get a copy of Pips posting despite I have made clear several times that I did contact pips and searched the online archives. Cute.

Important note, we know who he is, we know where he works, we know that he is open to being contacted, we know know who he works with, we know nothing about you.

Well I know he appears everywhere NZTyphoon appears, he has misrepresented a piece of historical evidence, made a revisionist claim about the German use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle, refuses to post his papers, and does not answers any questions.

That's more than enough for me to assert his level of credibility, whoever he is.

As for resorting to incivility, do you really want me to go through this thread and list the jibs and worse that you have aimed at everyone? More importantly do you want me to list the questions you have refused to reply to?

Please do. Go ahead an entertain me. I can go an list how many times I have answer the same questions you keep asking, and how many times you have refused to post the full contents of the papers you are referring to, despite repeatedly asked.

I don't know and am not guessing, but it makes sense that the Luftwaffe would use RAF stocks probably in addition to some of their own. Its valuble fuel and there is no point pouring it away. There is no doubt that the report was very specific in saying that the only example was RAF stock, that you can rubbish or deny but doesn't alter that fact that is what the report says..

Well again the report is indeed very specific about that the British found several samples of C-3, and readily acknowledged its use during the Battle of Britain. You seem to be in denial of German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.

Its interesting though. You claim all British fighter squadrons were using 100 octane during the Battle and deny that the Germans were using their own 100 octane at the same time. A not so well hidden agenda perhaps..?

I go from evidence which can be measured not made up calculations, there is the old phrase that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. However I did point out that operational vs non operational consumption in May 1941 was approx 50%.

Well its hard evidence, but we seem to agree to dismiss NZTyphoon's calculations on the ground of it's unreliability and gross simplicity.

[winny]

All pages taken from the National Archive, from various weekly or monthly Oil Position reports.
All are available free to download from the NA's website.
http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-3-43.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-4-42b.jpg

from the same report
http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-4-42.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-4-50.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-5-19.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-6-6.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-42-27b.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-42-27.jpg

Consumption from start of war.
http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/Consumption.jpg

What shortage are we talking about...?

[Crumpp]

So what about the combat reports that show the use of +12 boost, which was only allowed in when 100 octane fuel was used?

Those are good evidence only when placed in context in a timeline. Without context, they are useless.

[fruitbat]

they show the date.:rolleyes:

[Osprey]

It is a huge "fly in the ointment" to the crowd claiming Fighter Command converted in the Spring 1940. People in this thread have bought into a position based on logistical documentation and not on operational documentation.


The trouble for you is that this is a fly in your ointment.

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

I would have mentioned 'crowd' but I don't think "Crump & Kurfurst" constitutes one lol

Frankly, you and your bumpal can say whatever you like - the game is over, and in the end not only have you lost but you've lost credibility too. You mug lmao

[Crumpp]

The trouble for you is that this is a fly in your ointment.

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

I would have mentioned 'crowd' but I don't think "Crump & Kurfurst" constitutes one lol

Frankly, you and your bumpal can say whatever you like - the game is over, and in the end not only have you lost but you've lost credibility too. You mug lmao


Who cares??

I don't play Cliffs of Dover. I only went to graduate school for aeronautical sciences, own/operate aircraft, and restore WWII fighters. My interest is purely personal without any stake in your game.

That is why I ignore you unless something peaks my interest.

You guys paid for a game and IMHO, the developers should give you what you want to enjoy it. If facts were opinion and the majority opinion mattered; we would not have things like civil rights law.

[winny]

Who cares??



Judging by the number of posts you've written in this thread, I'd say you care.

And I don't play CloD either. Rubbish rig.

[Glider]

Certainly. The papers quite clearly state the British first captured samples of German synthetic, 'Green' C-3 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain. That is to say, the claim that the Germans were relying completely on captured British 100 octane stocks is demonstrated to be false and unfounded, and against what is said in the very series of reports.

I don't deny that this is interesting but your still looking at the wrong paper. Its also interesting that they were only used in me110 and Ju88 aircraft which were outclassed in combat when fighting spitfires and Hurricanes. So the Luftwaffe may have had some but it didn't have an im pact on the fighting and clearly it was in small numbers.




That's a curious statement. It does seem to me that in the first half of 1941, practically all of the German first line fighters (Bf 109E/N, Bf 109F-1, F-2) were running on 100 octane fuel.
But when the DB 605 was first built it was for B4 not the C3 fuel, different versions of the engine were built for the different fuel and for most of the war the 109 normally used B4.



Claimed by the man who repeatedly lies that I did not try to get a copy of Pips posting despite I have made clear several times that I did contact pips and searched the online archives. Cute.
There is a difference and its a large one. All my statements are supported by documents which are posted. However you failed and you did admit to me that you hadn't tried the Australian Archive the one place that was supposed to have it.




Well I know he appears everywhere NZTyphoon appears, he has misrepresented a piece of historical evidence, made a revisionist claim about the German use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle, refuses to post his papers, and does not answers any questions.

That's more than enough for me to assert his level of credibility, whoever he is.

You have his details, send him an e'mail, then you will know, thats what researchers do isn't it, check facts?

I should add that he also appears where I appear. He hasn't misrepresented any facts and you don't have the paper you claimed to have, i.e. the one up to October 1940 which he was quoting from. In other words the misrepresentation, is yours, not his.



Please do. Go ahead an entertain me. I can go an list how many times I have answer the same questions you keep asking, and how many times you have refused to post the full contents of the papers you are referring to, despite repeatedly asked.

I have offered three times for you to tell me which paper you are talking about and if I don't have the entire paper, I will get it for you next week when I go to the NA, this offer is still open until Monday, call my bluff.


Well again the report is indeed very specific about that the British found several samples of C-3, and readily acknowledged its use during the Battle of Britain. You seem to be in denial of German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.
No I am not. I clearly said that I didn't know but it made sense to use the 100 Octane as well as German fuel. Nowhere did I deny the use of German use of 100 Octane. Please post where I said what you claim, if you cannot then at least read my posting before replying.


Its interesting though. You claim all British fighter squadrons were using 100 octane during the Battle and deny that the Germans were using their own 100 octane at the same time. A not so well hidden agenda perhaps..?
I believe this to be the case but believe that my case is a strong but not perfect one. Again I repeat that I have never said that the Luftwaffe didn't use German 100 octane.



Well its hard evidence, but we seem to agree to dismiss NZTyphoon's calculations on the ground of it's unreliability and gross simplicity.

His calculations have a far more logical set of assumptions than yours, but you are correct, I don't rely on calculations.

[Crumpp]

they show the date.:rolleyes:

Yes and they tell you that unit was using the fuel on that date. They don't say "All Operational Units" nor do they say if the unit was using it on any other day.

Again, the 1942 Pilots Operating Notes for the Spitfire Mk I is a damning piece of evidence against the claim "All Operational Units".

[Seadog]

It says 100 octane was introduced to 'select' Squadrons in May 1940, and I cannot find any statement or reference in it or anything that would support the every-last-Hurricane-even-in-Northern-Scotland-was-running 100 octane theory.



I have repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence of even a single Spitfire/Hurricane 87 octane operational squadron combat sortie during the BofB. This should be an easy task if, as you contend, the majority of RAF FC Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons were using 87 Octane fuel.

So I'll issue the challenge again and again, until you answer it or admit that your contention is unsupported by the historical record.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Judging by the number of posts you've written in this thread, I'd say you care.
LOL.. good point!

[fruitbat]

Yes and they tell you that unit was using the fuel on that date. They don't say "All Operational Units" nor do they say if the unit was using it on any other day.

Again, the 1942 Pilots Operating Notes for the Spitfire Mk I is a damning piece of evidence against the claim "All Operational Units".

And how many units were actually flying the Mk1 in 1942, lol.

[Crumpp]

All pages taken from the National Archive, from various weekly or monthly Oil Position reports.
All are available free to download from the NA's website.
http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-3-43.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-4-42b.jpg

from the same report
http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-4-42.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-4-50.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-5-19.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-6-6.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-42-27b.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/cab68-42-27.jpg

Consumption from start of war.
http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/Consumption.jpg

What shortage are we talking about...?

Interesting but you cannot answer operational questions with logistical answers.

If you compare the fuel at the airfields in September 1939 with the strategic reserves of 87 Octane you can get an idea of the ratio's they used.

Usually it is about 40:1 between Strategic Reserves and point of use. 16,000 tons at the airfields in September thru November 1939 leaves us ~8,000 tons per month.

Strategic Reserves of 87 Octane from 31 August 1939 to 7 December 1939 is (323,000 + 309,00)/2 = 316,000 tons

316,000 tons / 8,000 tons = 35.5

Now, they will maintain that ratio as best they can. It represents the 18 weeks of fuel in reserve.

So with 146,000 tons of fuel, roughly 3825 tons was usable. Now that 8,000 tons per month is training and administrative flying, not operational. When the war starts, 3825 tons is less than a quarter of the fuel required to conduct operational, training, and administrative flying.

Anyway, it is interesting but not applicable because it is logistical documentation and not operational.

[Osprey]

Who cares??

I don't play Cliffs of Dover. I only went to graduate school for aeronautical sciences, own/operate aircraft, and restore WWII fighters. My interest is purely personal without any stake in your game.

That is why I ignore you unless something peaks my interest.

You guys paid for a game and IMHO, the developers should give you what you want to enjoy it. If facts were opinion and the majority opinion mattered; we would not have things like civil rights law.


You make me laugh Crump. You are 'special' aren't you!

[Crumpp]

And how many units were actually flying the Mk1 in 1942, lol.


Exactly Fruitbat....

It is an indicator of the importance of the change over to 100 Octane.

Do you really think if it occurred earlier they would not have immediately republished the Operating Notes?

Of course they would have republished them. It was a legal requirement from the Air Ministry by convention and our June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes would appear with the same notation for "ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS - 100 OCTANE ONLY".

The fact none of the operational documentation reflects that notation prior to January 1942 is a huge indicator.

[winny]

Interesting but you cannot answer operational questions with logistical answers.

If you compare the fuel at the airfields in September 1939 with the strategic reserves of 87 Octane you can get an idea of the ratio's they used.

Usually it is about 40:1 between Strategic Reserves and point of use. 16,000 tons at the airfields in September thru November 1939 leaves us ~8,000 tons per month.

Strategic Reserves of 87 Octane from 31 August 1939 to 7 December 1939 is (323,000 + 309,00)/2 = 316,000 tons

316,000 tons / 8,000 tons = 35.5

Now, they will maintain that ratio as best they can. It represents the 18 weeks of fuel in reserve.

So with 146,000 tons of fuel, roughly 3825 tons was usable. Now that 8,000 tons per month is training and administrative flying, not operational. When the war starts, 3825 tons is less than a quarter of the fuel required to conduct operational, training, and administrative flying.

Anyway, it is interesting but not applicable because it is logistical documentation and not operational.

Absolute rubbish. I posted these documents in response to the repeated claims made that there was a shortage of 100 octane fuel. There wasn't.

So, you're saying that the British sat on over 100,000 tons of fuel because they needed a reserve? When the threat of invasion was looming...?
.

For operational documentation see the combat reports.

[Kurfürst]

I don't deny that this is interesting but your still looking at the wrong paper. Its also interesting that they were only used in me110 and Ju88 aircraft which were outclassed in combat when fighting spitfires and Hurricanes. So the Luftwaffe may have had some but it didn't have an im pact on the fighting and clearly it was in small numbers.

Its the a different paper, same series of reports. I think its unnecessary to debate this any further.

As for the use of 100 octane, initially it was used by 3 Wings of 110s and 1 Wing of 109s (JG 26). The British quite simply did not found samples of 100 octane in downed 109s, which is not surprising considering they only got a couple of dozen samples. The fact that some Ju 88s were also running on 100 octane were found is interesting, considering that they would be unlikely to benefit from it at all. I would agree it did not have much effect on the fighting, save for the 110s. The stock 109s already had more than enough performance.

As for outclass, I would disagree. Looking at the increase of output from the 601N, I would estimate that 110 could do about 550-560 kph at altitude, ie. as fast as Spitfires and much faster than Hurricanes, 109E with the 601N were likely to get about 590 kph - much faster than anything else out there at altitude.

110s had priority initally, in the automn a 4th Gruppe was converted to 601N/100 octane. 109s at first were limited to one Gruppe (wing), then it October it was decided that they should get priority for 601Ns.

The complete story is described in the General of the Luftwaffe meetings by Mankau and Patrick, which I summerized briefly recently:

Currently Il-2:COD does not model the Luftwaffe's 100 octane fighters. These were equipped with the DB 601N in Bf 110C and Bf 109E, and hence received the suffix of /N to their designation (ie. Bf 109E-4/N, E-5/N, E-7/N etc.)

DB 601N powered variants appeared since July 1940, the start of the Battle. Approximiately half the Bf 110C and one Gruppe (Wing) of Bf 109E was using the 100 octane engine during the Battle, so the numbers, especially 110 were significant.

The 100 octane units can be identified as the following: III/ZG 26, Erpobunggruppe 210, II/ZG 26, II/ZG 76, one Gruppe of JG 26.

The DB 601N featured increased ratings and altitude performance. It ran on the Luftwaffe's C-3 fuel, of 95 (lean) and 110 (rich) performance. The 601N entered production in the end of 1939.

Power curve for DB 601N as installed in Emil (Bf 109F version had more powerful supercharger)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/341/109edb601npowercurvebw.jpg/

100 octane use in the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain:

On the 12 July 1940 General der Luftwaffe meeting, it was noted that DB 601N engines are to be installed primarly into Bf 110s, then its followed in the serial production Bf 109E.

On the 19 July 1940 General der Luftwaffe meeting, it was noted DB 601N engine are installed in frontline Bf 110s. So far 1 Gruppe of Bf 109E was fitted with the new engine. The Bf 109F entering production is also using the 601N engine.

On the 26 July 1940 General der Luftwaffe meeting, the General Staff requesting more Bf 110 to be fitted with DB 601N. Decision would be made in the end of August 1940.

On the 9 August 1940 General der Luftwaffe meeting, it was noted that 3 Gruppen of Bf 110 and one Gruppe of Bf 109 was fitted with DB 601N. Increased installations require increasing the reserve of DB 601N motors.

On the 30 August 1940 General der Luftwaffe meeting, it was noted that for 280 'active' DB 601N motors, the no. engines in reserve is to reach 180.

On the 27 September 1940 General der Luftwaffe meeting, it was noted that the Chief of Staff decided that 4 Gruppen of Bf 110 is to be fitted with 601N and the number to be maintained. 1/3 of the remaining DB 601N engines is to be reserved as replacement engines for frontline units, and the remaining 2/3s are to be released to be installed in Bf 109 aircraft.

On the 18 October 1940 General der Luftwaffe meeting, it was noted that apart from the already present 1 Bf 109 Gruppe with DB 601N, no more is possible to be equipped. Existing DB 601N are required by: 1, New production Bf 109F 2, New production Bf 110 delivered by Mtt AG as replacement to the existing 4 Bf 110 Gruppen with 601N 3, 40 replacement Bf 109E (conversions) to maintain the strenght of the 1 Bf 109 Gruppe with 601N. 5, Replacement/reserve engines for 1, 2, and 3.

On the 26 October 1940 General der Luftwaffe meeting, it was noted that by the end of October, 1100-1200 DB 601N engines were delivered, and were used for the 4 Gruppen of Bf 110 and one Gruppe of Bf 109 equipped with DB 601N, and to maintain these units with replacements, and furthermore to recon units under Luftwaffe High Command. The remaining engines are used for Bf 109F-1, F-2 production. 130 engines were reserved for circulation (replacement). All Bf 110s produced, apart from the DB 601N equipped ones by Mtt AG are to be directed to maintain the strenght of 120 of night fighter units.

On the 6 November 1940 General der Luftwaffe meeting, it was noted that General Staff requested all DB 601N engines to be installed in Bf 109E. In order to free up engines, 2 months worth of production (November, December) of Bf 110s produced by Mtt is to engined with DB 601A instead of 601N. 601N engines are to be distributed: 1) Final production series of Bf 109E 2) Replacement engines for III/ZG 26, Erpobunggruppe 210. If 601N engines are not available in sufficient quantities, the following Gruppen can be given 601A as replacement engines: II/ZG 26, II/ZG 76. As the production of 601N in January 1941 will be considerably greater, Bf 110 production shall switch completely to 601N.

On the 22 January 1941 General der Luftwaffe meeting, it was reported that on 1 January 1941, the following number of DB 601N engines were installed in frontline aircraft.

in Bf 109s
Bf 109E-1 : 16 pcs, Bf 109E-3 : 1 pc, Bf 109E-4 : 54 pcs, Bf 109E-6 : 1 pc, Bf 109E-7 : 34 pcs, Bf 109E-8 : 2pcs. Bf 109F-1 : 5 pcs.
Total 112 Bf 109E with DB 601N present in service, plus 5 Bf 109F.

in Bf 110s
Bf 110C-1 : 4 pcs, Bf 110C-4 : 40 pcs, Bf 110C-5 : 12, Bf 110C-7 : 14 pcs, Bf 110D-0 : 18 pcs, Bf 110D-2 : 20 pcs, Bf 110D-3 : 8 pcs, BF 110E-1 : 176 pcs, Bf 110E-2 : 14 pcs.

Total : 306 engines, ie. 153 Bf 110s with DB 601N present in service.

in Misc. types
He 111P : 8 pcs, Do 215 : 68 pcs.

By 1st April, the following conversion to DB 601N is planned: 6 Gruppen of Bf 110 = 480 engines, 5 Gruppen of Bf 109E-7/N = 200 engines, 12 Gruppen of Bf 109F = 480 engines, 'Rowehl' = 70 engines. This means by 1 April appx. 850 DB 601N engines will be in active operation.

etc.

Source: Pages 24-29 in Heinz Mankau/Peter Petrick : Messerschmidt Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410. Aviatic Verlag, 2001. ISBN: 392550562


But when the DB 605 was first built it was for B4 not the C3 fuel, different versions of the engine were built for the different fuel and for most of the war the 109 normally used B4.

Yes, more or less so. We have discussed that beforehand. The 601E in mid 1941 already reverted to 87 octane B4, but it developed a lot more power - ca. 1400 HP - than the 601N on 100 octane. Apparently, the 601E was a superior design.

The 605A series built on the 601E and continued with 87 octane. They were held back by technical difficulties with the oil system, but still, when these were fixed could produce 1475 HP at takeoff on 87 octane. A different 605, the 605D was tried for 100 octane but it was only good for a marginal improvement, 1550 HP, so I guess it was not worth it. At the same time the Germans decided that 100 octane is the way for the BMW 801D series, and all FW 190A run on 100 octane.

The Merlin was a different story, at 27 liters it could not hope to compete with the 35 liter DB / Jumo engines without high boost and high octane fuel, heavy supercharging and the resulting need for a bulky intercooler installation. An interesting comparioson is the late war DB 605DB, which even at low boost had the performance of the two stage Merlin 6x series, without 100 octane, without an intercooler and without water injection.

The Germans could produce any number of high grade fuel, it was a matter of pressing B4 stock through another chemical process as far as I understand. It wasnt needed. Why use a more expensive fuel for the same results?

In short, high octane fuel was critical in development of the small displacement Merlin and not critical at all for the DB or Jumo engines. Despite that, the sources I have point that 100 octane fuel was used by the Luftwaffe in 109G, He 111H even when this was unnecessary - a sort of luxury in war, but it probably eased logistics.

There is a difference and its a large one. All my statements are supported by documents which are posted. However you failed and you did admit to me that you hadn't tried the Australian Archive the one place that was supposed to have it.

We do seem to disagree in the analysis of those documents. I believe the documents you have posted clearly point to a limited issue of 100 octane to select fighter units, which was eased in August but did not materialize until the end of September 1940. Which means plenty of FC Sqns were still flying on 87 octane and corresponding limitations.

FYI I did ask Pips years ago but since he didn't have the reference handy, and the paper is not digitalized yet, so unavailable for online search (which I did), so I see no point. Its impossible to find a paper without a proper reference, simple as that.

You have his details, send him an e'mail, then you will know, thats what researchers do isn't it, check facts?

I have all the facts I need. Whoever he is, he has discredited himself in my eyes. He is incapable of academic discussion, unable to support his claims, and making up bogus claims. he makes up for that with evasion and petty arrogance. In short, a waste of my time.

I should add that he also appears where I appear. He hasn't misrepresented any facts and you don't have the paper you claimed to have, i.e. the one up to October 1940 which he was quoting from. In other words the misrepresentation, is yours, not his.

Unfortunately its not true. He claimed the only high octane fuel used and found by the British was of British origin. As the papers I have shown, this was not the case. The Germans used plenty of 100 octane of their own making.

He was wrong, and his research was amateurish, or deliberately presented false information.

I have offered three times for you to tell me which paper you are talking about and if I don't have the entire paper, I will get it for you next week when I go to the NA, this offer is still open until Monday, call my bluff.

I am talking about AVIA 10/282 I believe, the one you have posted excerpts from, ie. the August 1940 decision to authorize 100 octane fuel for all operational aircraft, the note that the fuel was issued to the 'units concerned' in May etc. If you can post this paper in its entirety for the whole of community to decide its contents for themselves, I think it would be mighty helpful and please accept my gratitude in advance.

No I am not. I clearly said that I didn't know but it made sense to use the 100 Octane as well as German fuel. Nowhere did I deny the use of German use of 100 Octane. Please post where I said what you claim, if you cannot then at least read my posting before replying.

Well we are in agreement then - isn't that a wonderful thing? I am sure the LW used British 100 octane, courtesy of the RAF after Dunkerque, to its benefit. Its a bit ironic isn't it. Additionally, the LW captured large stocks of French avgas. And, of course, it had its own domestic supply of 100 octane as per German specs.

My point was to point out the unsustainabilty of any partisan thesis about that the sole use of captured British stocks.


I believe this to be the case but believe that my case is a strong but not perfect one. Again I repeat that I have never said that the Luftwaffe didn't use German 100 octane.

We have to agree to disagre here. For my point of view, there are too many flies - Pips papers, the note of Squadrons concerned and the lack of any paper saying universal use amongst others- in that ointment to make it believable. That being said, of course the RAF was using 100 octane for a fair number of fighter Squadrons, and for this reason a 100 oct / +12 boost variant is fully supportable for COD. Hence I supported Osprey's poll in the bug thread, despite his often petty and malicious contents. I just disagree that this should be the only variant modelled. I think a 87 octane version should be there as well, and mission builders / server hosts will decide what they would believe to be true.

His calculations have a far more logical set of assumptions than yours, but you are correct, I don't rely on calculations.

I don't consider simplistic and wishful calculations, that ignore the needs of bombers, non-operational flights, engine testing etc. completely. But we do agree that primary sources should be the basis of any conclusion.

[Kurfürst]

You make me laugh Crump. You are 'special' aren't you!

As far as I am concerned, Crumpp has technical and practical expertise, being involved in the restoration of a WW2 Fw 190, and practical piloting experience to boot.

On the other hand, you are kid with none of the above. If I just weight the two against each other, you don't came out very well.

[Crumpp]

Absolute rubbish. I posted these documents in response to the repeated claims made that there was a shortage of 100 octane fuel. There wasn't.


Winny,

A shortage can be the result of any number of things. Yes, there was a shortage because the Strategic reserve to production ratio is just not where it should be.

In fact, that shortage continued almost throughout the war and is the subject of several meetings in the United States about 100 Octane production. That does not necessarily mean aircraft were feeling a shortage. It does mean the strategic reserves are short. Remember, they originally wanted 800,000 tons in reserve before a single operational aircraft used the fuel. Of course there is a shortage!!

Great example of why looking at strategic logistics is a horrible method to predict operational conditions is the German late war fuel situation on the western front. Strategically, Germany had plenty of fuel in their reserves. The shortage was at the operational side due to main supply route bottlenecks caused by allied airplanes shooting up the stockyards, railheads, and trucks!

[41Sqn_Banks]

Here's the page from the "June, 1940" Pilot's Notes that specifies the fuel (which actually is from "May, 1940" as can be seen in the "List of Content" of Section 1).
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9210&d=1334948575

[Seadog]

I
As for outclass, I would disagree. Looking at the increase of output from the 601N, I would estimate that 110 could do about 550-560 kph at altitude, ie. as fast as Spitfires and much faster than Hurricanes, 109E with the 601N were likely to get about 590 kph - much faster than anything else out there at altitude.



So now the story changes to "our 100 octane gave better performance than your 100 octane" when Kurfurst knows full well that only a handful of 109Es used 100 octane, versus the entire RAF FC while the 110 got slaughtered no matter what fuel it used.

In Adolf Gallands own words while speaking to Goering:
Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.'

[Seadog]

We have to agree to disagre here. For my point of view, there are too many flies - Pips papers, the note of Squadrons concerned and the lack of any paper saying universal use amongst others- in that ointment to make it believable. That being said, of course the RAF was using 100 octane for a fair number of fighter Squadrons, and for this reason a 100 oct / +12 boost variant is fully supportable for COD. Hence I supported Osprey's poll in the bug thread, despite his often petty and malicious contents. I just disagree that this should be the only variant modelled. I think a 87 octane version should be there as well, and mission builders / server hosts will decide what they would believe to be true.


I have repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence of even a single Spitfire/Hurricane 87 octane operational squadron combat sortie during the BofB. This should be an easy task if, as you contend, the majority of RAF FC Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons were using 87 Octane fuel.

So I'll issue the challenge again and again, until you answer it or admit that your contention is unsupported by the historical record.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

[winny]

Ignoring the tit for tat for a moment.

Can anyone tell me if a Merlin that had been converted to 100 could run on 87?

I don't want guesses or in my experience answers.. Please.

The reason I ask is that it appears that in the German machines it was not possible to interchange the fuel. (87 oct B-4 & 100 oct C-3) (Fighter Arm pamphlet Nr.1410144)

Also I recall reading somewhere that a converted Merlin would not run on 87 because of the modifications. I cannot find where I read it though.. Maybe I dreamt it!

[robtek]

So now the story changes to "our 100 octane gave better performance than your 100 octane" when Kurfurst knows full well that only a handful of 109Es used 100 octane, versus the entire RAF FC while the 110 got slaughtered no matter what fuel it used.

In Adolf Gallands own words while speaking to Goering:

A typical biased reply!!!

The difference was in the engines, the 27l Merline needed the 100 octane to compete with the 35l DB601 with 87 octane.
The DB601 with 100 octane was playing in another ballpark and restored the engine superiority until better Merlins appeared.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Ignoring the tit for tat for a moment.

Can anyone tell me if a Merlin that had been converted to 100 could run on 87?

I don't want guesses or in my experience answers.. Please.

The reason I ask is that it appears that in the German machines it was not possible to interchange the fuel. (87 oct B-4 & 100 oct C-3) (Fighter Arm pamphlet Nr.1410144)

Also I recall reading somewhere that a converted Merlin would not run on 87 because of the modifications. I cannot find where I read it though.. Maybe I dreamt it!

Merlin II/III: Yes

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9210&d=1334948575

"100 octane may be used, if the engine has been suitable modified", if it wouldn't be possible it would state "must be used".

Merlin XII: Yes

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=8848&d=1332086871

It shows different engine limitations depending on used fuel.

For all British engines: Yes

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9180&d=1334727256
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9181&d=1334727263

Clearly states that it is possible, however the operational limits are lower.

[Glider]

Kurfurst
That file is many hundreds of pages long and you are not going to get it all, which meeting are you interested in or which paper of mine do you consider to be partial and I will post the rest.
I have looked up previous postings of yours and the one paper you have mentioned is the Oil Co ordination committee meeting after the May meeting when the roll out was confirmed as being complete. If you want something apart from that you need to be more precise

[Seadog]

Ignoring the tit for tat for a moment.

Can anyone tell me if a Merlin that had been converted to 100 could run on 87?

I don't want guesses or in my experience answers.. Please.

The reason I ask is that it appears that in the German machines it was not possible to interchange the fuel. (87 oct B-4 & 100 oct C-3) (Fighter Arm pamphlet Nr.1410144)

Also I recall reading somewhere that a converted Merlin would not run on 87 because of the modifications. I cannot find where I read it though.. Maybe I dreamt it!

The 100 octane mods specify different plugs. Typically you will not want to run 87 octane in an engine with 100 octane plugs.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

So now the story changes to "our 100 octane gave better performance than your 100 octane" when Kurfurst knows full well that only a handful of 109Es used 100 octane
That is Kurfurst's MO

He has allways played both sides of the argument, posting in bold the items that support his arguments, ignoring the items that weaken his arguments.

With that said

Let's play thier game for the moment..

Lets assume that all RAF planes were running 87 oct and all nazi planes were using 100 oct..

Thus they are asking us to belive that the Spitfires runnin 87 oct were able to clear the skys of 109 running 100 oct

Would be interesting to see how they try and spin that one ;)

[Crumpp]

Here's the page from the "June, 1940" Pilot's Notes that specifies the fuel (which actually is from "May, 1940" as can be seen in the "List of Content" of Section 1).


"100 octane may be used, if the engine has been suitable modified", if it wouldn't be possible it would state "must be used".



Of course and this is same note appears in the 1939 Operating Notes.

The fly in the ointment is the January 1942 Operating Notes clearly state, OPERATIONAL UNITS-100 OCTANE ONLY.

January 1942, Pilots Operating Notes, Spitfire Mk I:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3447/spitfireijanuary194202.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/spitfireijanuary194202.jpg/)

That is definative and it is a fact all operational units flying a Spitfire are using 100 Octane in January 1942.

Before the January notes, the only mention of 100 Octane is "100 octane may be used, if the engine has been suitable modified" That "may be used....IF" is definative as well. All operational units flying a Spitfire Mk I were not using 100 Octane in June of 1940...for a fact.

[Crumpp]

That is Kurfurst's MO

He has allways played both sides of the argument, posting in bold the items that support his arguments, ignoring the items that weaken his arguments.

With that said

Let's play thier game for the moment..

Lets assume that all RAF planes were running 87 oct and all nazi planes were using 100 oct..

Thus they are asking us to belive that the Spitfires runnin 87 oct were able to clear the skys of 109 running 100 oct

Would be interesting to see how they try and spin that one


Ace of Aces...ie Tagert, It was you who did not understand atmospheric conditions effect on aircraft performance and was crying about gameshapes being mismodeled.

When I pointed that out, you spent pages attacking me personally.

Then you proceed with "testing" showing the creation and destruction of energy. I tried to help you by explaining how a specific set of formulation, Total Energy Concepts for Aircraft Performance works and once again you spent your time flinging personal insults.

I would ask the mods to please remove those who contribute nothing but personal insults.

There is good information in this thread and I think we are getting closer to the answer.

[41Sqn_Banks]

The 100 octane mods specify different plugs. Typically you will not want to run 87 octane in an engine with 100 octane plugs.

According to AP1590B A.L. 4 (November 1940) the different sparking plugs are "very desirable" but not required. So using 100 octane with the regular sparking plugs seems to work, however it doesn't sound like a good idea. In addition it doesn't mean that the 100 octane plugs work satisfactory with 87 octane.

[Crumpp]

According to AP1590B A.L. 4 (November 1940) the different sparking plugs are "very desirable" but not required. So using 100 octane with the regular sparking plugs seems to work, however it doesn't sound like a good idea. In addition it doesn't mean that the 100 octane plugs work satisfactory with 87 octane.


The major change is the cylinder heads. Without those, you are going to have cracking.

In addition it doesn't mean that the 100 octane plugs work satisfactory with 87 octane.

Exactly. It specifies the four types of plugs which may be used for 100 Octane. You would have to look the spark plugs authorized for 87 Octane and see if any of them match the part numbers.

I actually have to put the certificate that comes with a set of plugs in the logbook of the aircraft we work on and sign it. It is a required entry and the certificate must state the plugs are authorized to use in the aircraft.

Aircraft maintenace is very tightly controlled by convention.

[41Sqn_Banks]

The major change is the cylinder heads. Without those, you are going to have cracking.



Exactly. It specifies the four types of plugs which may be used for 100 Octane. You would have to look the spark plugs authorized for 87 Octane and see if any of them match the part numbers.

I actually have to put the certificate that comes with a set of plugs in the logbook of the aircraft we work on and sign it. It is a required entry and the certificate must state the plugs are authorized to use in the aircraft.

Aircraft maintenace is very tightly controlled by convention.

Now wait ... did I understand that correct:

Didn't you just say some posts above that the use of 100 octane fuel on one day doesn't mean it was used on the next day?
So the RAF filled there aircraft on one day with 100 octane, changed the sparking plugs, did all the certificate stuff. On the next day the drained the tanks, filled in 87 octane, reverted to the old sparking plugs, again certificate stuff.

And if they were really fast they might find have one hour per day to fight the Luftwaffe.

Seriously?

[Crumpp]

Here's the page from the "June, 1940" Pilot's Notes that specifies the fuel (which actually is from "May, 1940" as can be seen in the "List of Content" of Section 1).


If nothing has changed in a chapter, it will be added "as is" to the new publication. That is one of the reasons all the convention signers went to a standard format for all POH's in the 1980's. The edition cover, changes, and new table of contents is generally republished. The British manuals publish a table with each manual listing the updates incorporated, it is at the front of the Operating Notes.


German Flugzueg Handbuchs can be a nightmare to put together by chapter because of this too. That is why we get paper originals and not electronic copies. I find the wartime German system, especially the parts manuals, a pain in the rear to look up information. Good detail, drawing, and information but tedious to work with.

[NZtyphoon]

Of course and this is same note appears in the 1939 Operating Notes.

The fly in the ointment is the January 1942 Operating Notes clearly state, OPERATIONAL UNITS-100 OCTANE ONLY.

January 1942, Pilots Operating Notes, Spitfire Mk I:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3447/spitfireijanuary194202.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/spitfireijanuary194202.jpg/)

That is definative and it is a fact all operational units flying a Spitfire are using 100 Octane in January 1942.

Before the January notes, the only mention of 100 Octane is "100 octane may be used, if the engine has been suitable modified" That "may be used....IF" is definative as well. All operational units flying a Spitfire Mk I were not using 100 Octane in June of 1940...for a fact.

Then back up your "facts" with something substantive:

Explain how 16 Squadrons consumed 52,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in just 3 months (Jul - October) with documentation.

Explain which squadrons were selected for your "intensive operational trials" and explain how the RAF ensured that only the selected units were supplied, with documentation.

You insist that the RAF needed to have 800,000 tons of 100 octane in reserve, based on pre-war papers, yet you have never explained why the RAF was using "Other Grades" when the reserves of those were falling below the reserves of 100 Octane as the battle progressed; if, as you state
Winny,
That does not necessarily mean aircraft were feeling a shortage. It does mean the strategic reserves are short. Remember, they originally wanted 800,000 tons in reserve before a single operational aircraft used the fuel.

Yes, there was a shortage because the Strategic reserve to production ratio is just not where it should be.

I repeat, the "reserves to production ratio" of "Other Grades" of fuel was falling below that of 100 Octane; taking that hypothesis to its logical conclusion the RAF would not have been using any fuel.

But, wait, there's more, "That does not necessarily mean aircraft were feeling a shortage"...really hedging your bets there Crumpp.

You then go on to state:


Great example of why looking at strategic logistics is a horrible method to predict operational conditions is the German late war fuel situation on the western front. Strategically, Germany had plenty of fuel in their reserves. The shortage was at the operational side due to main supply route bottlenecks caused by allied airplanes shooting up the stockyards, railheads, and trucks!

A poor comparison because the RAF's supply system was not put under the same strain and the RAF was able to supply its airfields throughout the battle.

All this means is that you want things both ways - first you insist the reserves were inadequate, and have spent ages pushing that position - now you insist weeell it doesn't matter anyway.

One or t'other - did the RAF have enough reserves of 100 Octane fuel to potentially supply all frontline fighter squadrons throughout the battle - yes or no?

[winny]

The major change is the cylinder heads. Without those, you are going to have cracking.



Exactly. It specifies the four types of plugs which may be used for 100 Octane. You would have to look the spark plugs authorized for 87 Octane and see if any of them match the part numbers.

I actually have to put the certificate that comes with a set of plugs in the logbook of the aircraft we work on and sign it. It is a required entry and the certificate must state the plugs are authorized to use in the aircraft.

Aircraft maintenace is very tightly controlled by convention.

Ok, so if you were running a spitfire with 100 oct would you have to change the plugs drain the tanks, clean out the fuel pipes etc before putting 87 in it?

What I'd like to know is, once the engine was converted was that it.. Did it stay as a 100 oct only engine? Earlier in the thread there were comments to the effect that they used both fuel types in the same machines. I find this hard to believe.

It's an important point because if it's a big job to change fuels then surely it makes no operational sense to switch, that also would mean that if a spit landed at an airfield other than it's own( a common occurrence during BoB) and they didn't have 100 octane then that's one machine out of action.

Logically this makes no sense. You'd only convert if you were confident that it wouldn't impact on operations. This is speculation on my part, just a thought bubble really.

[Crumpp]

Didn't you just say some posts above that the use of 100 octane fuel on one day doesn't mean it was used on the next day?

Sure I did and it is true.

I don't know the plugs authorized for 87 Octane fuel. Do you?

Since 87 Octane is more volatile than 100 Octane, the hotter plugs will work fine but that is a guess.

Most importantly, a set of plugs is much cheaper than Avgas especially in a WWII Fighter; they are even cheaper than a tank of oil. The RAF would save a considerable amount of money if they ran units on rest and refit status on 87 Octane as noted in the January 1942 Operating Notes.

That is exactly why they note other units not on operational status, 87 Octane!!


I know you’re trying to be sarcastic but maybe you can see things from a more grounded perspective.

[Glider]

This idea that a squadrons will run one fuel for a test flight in say the morning and then go through all the changes in the afternoon for an operational mission then reverse the whole thing for an engine test is simply not a goer. The effort and potential for a mistake and or conamination is just too great

When you look at the OOB some squadrons are down as operational and others as non operational. I am confident that operational squadrons would have used 100 octane and non operational squadrons 87 octane

When a squadron was rotated North they didn't become non operational, they could still be called on for missions but the chances of combat were much reduced. Some squadrons that had very heavy losses sometimes were deemed non operational but that wasn't the norm.

Bases normally held some 87 octane for aircraft passing through, station hacks, squadron communication aircraft and the like but the aircraft that could be used on ops would have been well looked after and besides at the height of the battle you couldn't take the chance of being caught on the ground changing fuel.

[Crumpp]

Ok, so if you were running a spitfire with 100 oct would you have to change the plugs drain the tanks, clean out the fuel pipes etc before putting 87 in it?


I don't know the plugs authorized for 87 Octane so I can't tell you. It is a possibility. I can tell you if you could do it, it would noted in the operating instructions or the maintenance manuals.

I can also say, you could not use +12lbs boost if you contaminated the system with significant amounts of 87 Octane.

I think you are beginning to see the maintenance nightmare airplanes can be even with something as simple as putting new gas into them!!

:grin:

If I wanted to convert and it was not possible to convert the entire force, the first thing I would do is get as much 100 Octane gas to the airfields as I could before anyone converted. Then my conversion pool has a supply of gas.

In theory, the operating limits of the engines were not raised no matter which avgas you put in it. As long as you did not use +12lbs with 87 octane gas, you sould be ok with an engine modified for 100 Octane.

There is a thing called a ferry certificate that covers things like this in aviation. Depending on the technical issue, it can be complicated or very simple to get one. I am sure in the RAF, something like this was a phone call to the Maintenance officer who did the paperwork and approved it in order to ferry a plane back under special conditions.

Typically you can always go higher in octane but never lower in piston engines but airplanes are not typical. In airplanes each installation even of the same engine type is different. You generally can't tell much about the Merlin in a Hurricane by looking at the Spitfire's instructions for example. That is why the Air Ministry tested both types.

Your 87 Octane engines in theory could run without incidence on 100 Octane. It would be specified in the Pilots Notes and the fuel tank placarded for all fuel types authorized for the aircraft.

[Osprey]

As far as I am concerned, Crumpp has technical and practical expertise, being involved in the restoration of a WW2 Fw 190, and practical piloting experience to boot.

On the other hand, you are kid with none of the above. If I just weight the two against each other, you don't came out very well.


As far as I'm concerned, Crumpp is American, which means his PPL was easy and cheap. He wouldn't be able to afford it or understand it in England. He can't even drive a car with a manual gearbox.

On the other hand, you are a snoodler with nothing above your cerebellum. If I were to weigh your head, it would be much lighter than average, you don't come out very well.

[NZtyphoon]

I don't know the plugs authorized for 87 Octane so I can't tell you. It is a possibility. I can tell you if you could do it, it would noted in the operating instructions or the maintenance manuals.

I can also say, you could not use +12lbs boost if you contaminated the system with significant amounts of 87 Octane.

I think you are beginning to see the maintenance nightmare airplanes can be even with something as simple as putting new gas into them!!

:grin:

If I wanted to convert and it was not possible to convert the entire force, the first thing I would do is get as much 100 Octane gas to the airfields as I could before anyone converted. Then my conversion pool has a supply of gas.

In theory, the operating limits of the engines were not raised no matter which avgas you put in it. As long as you did not use +12lbs with 87 octane gas, you sould be ok with an engine modified for 100 Octane.

There is a thing called a ferry certificate that covers things like this in aviation. Depending on the technical issue, it can be complicated or very simple to get one. I am sure in the RAF, something like this was a phone call to the Maintenance officer who did the paperwork and approved it in order to ferry a plane back under special conditions.

Typically you can always go higher in octane but never lower in piston engines but airplanes are not typical. In airplanes each installation even of the same engine type is different. You generally can't tell much about the Merlin in a Hurricane by looking at the Spitfire's instructions for example. That is why the Air Ministry tested both types.

Your 87 Octane engines in theory could run without incidence on 100 Octane. It would be specified in the Pilots Notes and the fuel tank placarded for all fuel types authorized for the aircraft.

All very well and good - how about finding some documentation confirming your speculation about the RAF using 100 Octane for nothing more than operational trials?

Was there enough 100 octane fuel available to allow all operational frontline units to fly all defensive sorties flown throughout the battle - yes or no? If no why not - with documentation.

[Crumpp]

This idea that a squadrons will run one fuel for a test flight in say the morning and then go through all the changes in the afternoon for an operational mission then reverse the whole thing for an engine test is simply not a goer.

Why would you do that Glider? I don't think anyone is saying that.

What would be worth it to do is change the fuel type when the units rotated out for rest and refit. They are not doing any operational flying under that status and unless they had an additional mission to gather data on the fuels use, there is no reason to continue to use 100 Octane. I am sure maintenance trend data over as many hours of flight time was required before the entire force converted but you don't need it from every squadron.

Crumpps steps to conversion.....

If I wanted to convert and it was not possible to convert the entire force, the first thing I would do is get as much 100 Octane gas to the airfields as I could before anyone converted. Then my conversion pool has a supply of gas.

The next thing I would do is convert as many squadrons as possible to be able to use 100 Octane. That timeline is going to be based on how fast the parts required can enter the system and reach the point of use. I would convert as many aircraft as possible without violating the required logistical ratio so my airplanes can continue to fly and I am not without airplanes due to maintenance awaiting parts. Now I have pool of capable aircraft.

As much as possible all of my operational squadrons using 100 Octane would be down in 11 Group in the thick of the action.

If logistics said I only had enough fuel for 16 squadrons by September then you can bet when a squadron rotated out for rest and refit, they would go back to 87 Octane and their replacement would come from that pool of converted units.

As logistics increased my usable fuel supply, I would add operational squadrons to other areas until the entire force was converted.

[NZtyphoon]

Why would you do that Glider? I don't think anyone is saying that.

What would be worth it to do is change the fuel type when the units rotated out for rest and refit. They are not doing any operational flying under that status and unless they had an additional mission to gather data on the fuels use, there is no reason to continue to use 100 Octane. I am sure maintenance trend data over as many hours of flight time was required before the entire force converted but you don't need it from every squadron.

Crumpps steps to conversion.....

If I wanted to convert and it was not possible to convert the entire force, the first thing I would do is get as much 100 Octane gas to the airfields as I could before anyone converted. Then my conversion pool has a supply of gas.

The next thing I would do is convert as many squadrons as possible to be able to use 100 Octane. That timeline is going to be based on how fast the parts required can enter the system and reach the point of use. I would convert as many aircraft as possible without violating the required logistical ratio so my airplanes can continue to fly and I am not without airplanes due to maintenance awaiting parts. Now I have pool of capable aircraft.

As much as possible all of my operational squadrons using 100 Octane would be down in 11 Group in the thick of the action.

If logistics said I only had enough fuel for 16 squadrons by September then you can bet when a squadron rotated out for rest and refit, they would go back to 87 Octane and their replacement would come from that pool of converted units.

As logistics increased my usable fuel supply, I would add operational squadrons to other areas until the entire force was converted.

How about some documentation supporting your claims?

[Crumpp]

All very well and good - how about finding some documentation confirming your speculation about the RAF using 100 Octane for nothing more than operational trials?


The fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1940 is evident in the Operating Notes.

The documentation is posted and been posted several times.

[Crumpp]

How about some documentation supporting your claims?


What I said is what I see in all the documentation posted in this thread.


It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1940. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

[NZtyphoon]

The fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1940 is evident in the Operating Notes.

The documentation is posted and been posted several times.

No it hasn't been posted:

Please show documentation that the RAF was only interested in operational trials

Can you not see a genuine problem in telling some of your frontline pilots it was okay to use 100 Octane plus 12 lbs boost in an emergency, while telling the majority "sorry chaps, can't use it, tough luck?"

Therefore, provide some documentation proving that pilots engaged in frontline operations were discouraged from using 100 Octane fuel.

Was there enough 100 octane fuel available to allow all operational frontline units to fly all defensive sorties flown throughout the battle - yes or no? If no why not - with documentation.

Provide some documentation showing that the reserves of 100 octane were considered far too low to be used.

Otherwise everything you say is pure, unsupported conjecture and speculation, based on your wishful thinking that RAF wartime operations can be analysed by comparing them with modern peacetime civilian operational standards.

[Osprey]

Yeah of course it is. It's like buying a DVD player isn't it. You get your instruction manual as part of the package and it does what it says in the instructions.

[NZtyphoon]

What I said is what I see in all the documentation posted in this thread.


It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1940. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

Meaning what you want to see in all the documentation posted;

but you have completely neglected answering some key questions such as how your "16 Squadrons" got through 52,000 tons of 100 Octane in just a few months of operational trials. Can you explain this at all, with supporting evidence?

The rest of your hypothesis is still just unsupported speculation.

[Crumpp]

Meaning what you want to see in all the documentation posted;

No, there is no hypothesis. Anyone who knows how aviation handbooks work by convention will say the same thing.

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1940. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

[Crumpp]

Can you not see a genuine problem in telling some of your frontline pilots it was okay to use 100 Octane plus 12 lbs boost in an emergency, while telling the majority "sorry chaps, can't use it, tough luck?"


Obviously, you have never been in the Military. It happens every time a new piece of equipment is introduced.

[winny]

Why would you do that Glider? I don't think anyone is saying that.

What would be worth it to do is change the fuel type when the units rotated out for rest and refit. They are not doing any operational flying under that status and unless they had an additional mission to gather data on the fuels use, there is no reason to continue to use 100 Octane. I am sure maintenance trend data over as many hours of flight time was required before the entire force converted but you don't need it from every squadron.

Crumpps steps to conversion.....

If I wanted to convert and it was not possible to convert the entire force, the first thing I would do is get as much 100 Octane gas to the airfields as I could before anyone converted. Then my conversion pool has a supply of gas.

The next thing I would do is convert as many squadrons as possible to be able to use 100 Octane. That timeline is going to be based on how fast the parts required can enter the system and reach the point of use. I would convert as many aircraft as possible without violating the required logistical ratio so my airplanes can continue to fly and I am not without airplanes due to maintenance awaiting parts. Now I have pool of capable aircraft.

As much as possible all of my operational squadrons using 100 Octane would be down in 11 Group in the thick of the action.

If logistics said I only had enough fuel for 16 squadrons by September then you can bet when a squadron rotated out for rest and refit, they would go back to 87 Octane and their replacement would come from that pool of converted units.

As logistics increased my usable fuel supply, I would add operational squadrons to other areas until the entire force was converted.

I don't know the exact figures.. It's late..But
If you were in a Squadron you were operational. End of. No matter which Group you were part of.

If you read Bungays Most Dangerous Enemy he gives figures for the number of reserve (or non-operational) Aircraft that the RAF had. It is quite a large number and it was kept at an almost constant level for the duration of the BoB.

There was no rest and refit. Except where a squadron had been decimated.

They were simply rotated to less busy groups. All of the RAF's fighter groups were "operational" they were all involved in combat throughout. There were raids on Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Southampton, Newcastle, Coventry, Wolverhampton ... I could go on.

Please don't try and tell me 9,10,11,12,13 or 14 Group were not operational. They were.

You're basically saying that seasoned fighter pilots were told that they no longer needed 100 octane because they were part of 14 group?
You expect me to believe that they sat on thier airfield and said "Jerry's not coming today boys.. better fill up with 87 octane"
No way. The most important factor for interception is how fast you can get some altitude (the only real advantage of 100 octane)

100 octanes importance has nothing to do with the unrealistic turning fights depicted in CloD and how it affected the chances against a 109. It was about getting up there where the bombers were. It is stupid to assume that because they were no longer in the south east that this factor changed.

It may well be that OTU's were running on 87, but...
I'd like someone to find me a fighter squadron that was non operational during the BoB.

[Crumpp]

But if you were in a Squadron you were operational.

NO, almost every military cycle their units especially during wartime. All units need time to rest, refit, and train as well as perform other administrative duties as required.

In the United State Army for example, you have green, amber, and red cycles. Red is downtime for rest, refit, and administrative duties like funeral details and post clean up. Amber is training time and preparation for becoming an operational unit. Green is operational.

Dowding definitely cycled Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain.

There was no rest and refit.

No, there was a rotation and squadrons were allowed to rest and refit.

[NZtyphoon]

No, there is no hypothesis. Anyone who knows how aviation handbooks work by convention will say the same thing.

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1940. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

Once again, please explain how 16 squadrons got through over 50,000 tons of aviation fuel in just a few months of "operational trials". documentation, not your speculation.

Please show us that the RAF was only interested in "Operational Trials" at a time when the country was facing full scale air assault - documentation, not your speculation.

[Crumpp]

It's like buying a DVD player isn't it. You get your instruction manual as part of the package and it does what it says in the instructions.


Not really other than both come with instructions. Nobody cares if you don't follow the instructions on your DvD player.

In Aviation, not following the publications carries the weight of law.

[winny]

NO, almost every military cycle their units especially during wartime. All units need time to rest, refit, and train as well as perform other administrative duties as required.



You are wrong.

Find me one example of an RAF fighter Squadron that was rested, pulled out of the front line for training, or for 'administration purposes' during the Battle of Britian. The only reason a squadron was 'rested' was because most of the pilots were dead.

They were not being rotated out for the reasons you state. They were moved to another active group. Almost without exception.

Just because you say it happened dosn't mean it did. Read Al Deers account of what hapened to his squadron, or Pete Brothers or Geoff Wellum or Baders, or Lane or Hillary or Viggors or Page or Malan or Townsend or Dundas. I've read them all and none of them were made non operational during the Battle of Britian.

They kept going till they died or broke down.

[Crumpp]

how 16 squadrons got through over 50,000 tons of aviation

It has all been explained to you before in this thread. You just did not bother to try and understand it. You would rather sling insults.

Go back and read it if you are interested. I would be glad to discuss it with you.

If you are not interested in going back and reading it, I am not interested in re-explaining it to you.

[winny]

Not really other than both come with instructions. Nobody cares if you don't follow the instructions on your DvD player.

In Aviation, not following the publications carries the weight of law.

This is also wrong. The publication is over-ridden by orders and by leaflets issued by the Air Ministry
If you bother to read the first page of your pilot's notes you'll notice that it states this very clearly.

Anything else you want to make up off the top of your head?

[fruitbat]

This is also wrong. The publication is over-ridden by orders and by leaflets issued by the Air Ministry
If you bother to read the first page of your pilot's notes you'll notice that it states this very clearly.



This.

[Crumpp]

Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding had been the driving force behind the development of Britain’s air defences in the immediate pre war period. He had organised and overseen the the integration of radar within the RAF command structure and had championed the development of both the Hurricane and the Spitfire. When war came he had warned Churchill not to lose valuable fighter resources in the defence of France. During the Battle of Britain itself he had carefully managed the fighter Squadrons available and had worked tirelessly to respond to the various changing threats from the Luftwaffe. He had the strategic oversight to see the need for always keeping a proportion of fighters in reserve and the necessity of rotating Squadrons so that some could be ‘rested’ and fresh pilots brought into the battle successively. It was his supreme organisational abilities that put the RAF in the best possible position to combat the Germans.



http://ww2today.com/24th-november-1940-hugh-dowding-is-retired-from-the-raf

It was part of Dowding's strategy to keep all his groups intact as far as possible, rarely committing more than a minority of his force, rotating squadrons regularly but never denuding any one group.

http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-21.html

Although squadrons were being rotated around the country, with battered units being withdrawn to the North to rest and the fresher squadrons moving from north to south, the pilots were becoming increasingly worn out.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/thebattleofbritain.cfm

Altogether 16 squadrons were withdrawn from 11 Group in the one month between August 8 and September 8, 1940.

http://helena-schrader.com/bob.html

[fruitbat]

Rested in a quieter sector ie not 11 group and withdrawn totally from ops are not the same thing.....

[winny]

Also seeing as this seems to now be a discussion that hinges on what an operational squadron is..

Operational squadrons by Group
14th July 1940
10 Group 2 Hurricane 2 Spitfire
11 Group 12 Hurricane 7 Spitfire
12 Group 6 Hurricane 5 Spitfire
13 Group 5 Hurricane 5 Spitfire
Total 25 Hurricane sqn. 19. Spitfire sqn.

1st September 1940
10 Gp Hu-4 Sp-4
11 Gp Hu-14 Sp-6
12 Gp Hu-6 Sp-6
13 Gp Hu-9 Sp-2
Total Hu-33 Sp 18

30th September
10 Gp Hu-6 Sp-3
11 Gp Hu-13 Sp-7
12 Gp Hu-6 Sp-6
13 Gp Hu-9* Sp-3
*includes 2 half strength squadrons (they were still operational)
Total Hu-34 Sp-19

28th October
10 Gp Hu-6 Sp-3
11 Gp Hu-13 Sp-8
12 Gp Hu-7 Sp-6
13 Gp Hu-7* Sp-3
*includes 1 part strength squadron
Total Hu-33 Sp-20

[winny]

http://ww2today.com/24th-november-1940-hugh-dowding-is-retired-from-the-raf



http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-21.html



http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/thebattleofbritain.cfm



http://helena-schrader.com/bob.html

They were moved to other operational Groups! All of them.

Find me a squadron that was moved to a non-operational Airfield.

From memory I think the only squadron that was actually withdrawn was 54 squadron - mainly because nearly everybody was dead! (this is probably why the number of Spitfire Squadrons in 11 group went down by 1 between July and September)

[Crumpp]

The publication is over-ridden by orders and by leaflets issued by the Air Ministry


That does not have anything to do with new editions of the Operating Notes being published.

You as the operator are always responsible for getting the latest information about your aircraft. It is telling the operator that new Air Ministry orders and leaflets are supplements too that edition of the Operating Notes. The Operator is responsible for keeping his information up to date.

New editions will incorporate all the Air Ministry Order and Leaflets enacted since the previous edition.

Once again...

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1940. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

[Crumpp]

They were moved to other operational Groups! All of them.



Winny,

It is a fact Dowding rotated and rested his squadrons. All Groups did not bear the same operational burden.

[fruitbat]

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1940. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

I presume you don't actually mean January 1940, and instead Jan 41?

[fruitbat]

Winny,

It is a fact Dowding rotated and rested his squadrons. All Groups did not bear the same operational burden.

But they were still on ops, hence why withdrawn and rotated are two different things. 12 and 13 groups still flew ops, no one is arguing that they weren't rotated in and out of 11 group.

[Crumpp]

Rested in a quieter sector ie not 11 group and withdrawn totally from ops are not the same thing.....


It does not matter.

All Groups did not bear the same burden and if only part of your force is using the fuel, I would give it to the guys with largest operational burden.

It is all speculation.

[winny]

Oh and you even missed this - you highlighted the wrong bit..

Although squadrons were being rotated around the country, with battered units being withdrawn to the North to rest and the fresher squadrons moving from north to south, the pilots were becoming increasingly worn out.

Not very well rested then were they?

[fruitbat]

It does not matter.

All Groups did not bear the same burden and if only part of your force is using the fuel, I would give it to the guys with largest operational burden.

I agree with you, and have been saying that from day one in this rather long thread, that it makes sense that 11 group had it over the other groups, as a priority.

But at the start of this thread even that notion was disputed, and clearly even you have to admit, 100 octane fuel was used, and the were spits running around with the potential to go to 12lbs boost, and they were almost certainly in 11 group during the BoB, yes/no?

[winny]

It does not matter.

All Groups did not bear the same burden and if only part of your force is using the fuel, I would give it to the guys with largest operational burden.

No, I thought you said before that it was All operational aircraft?

So now it's just the operational squadrons that have the 'largest burden' ?

really?

[Crumpp]

Winny,

The Operating Notes say that in the January 1941 edition. None of the earlier editions make any note of it at all under operating limitations. 100 Octane is a minor footnote of "may be used.....IF converted" in all previous editions of the Operating Notes.

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1941. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

[winny]

Winny,

It is a fact Dowding rotated and rested his squadrons. All Groups did not bear the same operational burden.

I am not disputing the fact that squadrons were rotated - I'm saying that only one squadron was withdrawn - ie. made non operational.

Where have I said that they were not rotated?
I'm saying that they were not withdrawn.

So again - find me all these withdrawn (non operational) fighter squadrons.. the ones that you say were using 87 octane

[Crumpp]

But at the start of this thread even that notion was disputed, and

Read my first post in this thread. Your perception is totally wrong if you include me, fruitbat.

I said I don't know and niether does anyone else. We still don't know an exact date.

It is a fact that conversion of all operational Spitfire Mk I's was important enough to warrent a warning in paragraph 1, operating limitations of the Pilots Operating Notes in January, 1941.

We can definately say that full conversion did not take place in June 1940 or earlier as no such warning exist's in the Operating Notes.

Based on the ever increase amount of 100 Octane at the airfields evidenced in Table II, it is highly unlikely it was the major fuel until around October, 1940.


were spits running around with the potential to go to 12lbs boost, and they were almost certainly in 11 group during the BoB, yes/no?

Yes but not all of them and certainly not the entire Fighter Command.

The frequency would depend on the timeframe and the dates one picks for the battle. It looks to me like the fuel came into use in July and gradually became more common until total conversion around January.

If you say the Battle of Britian lasted from July to 15 September, 100 Octane is pretty limited.

If you say the battle went from July to December then 100 Octane was probably the standard at the end of it.

[fruitbat]

I have no idea where your first post in this thread is, and i wasn't talking about you specifically.

Since there were some operational history reports posted here somewhere showing Hurricanes that had been adapted to 100 octane fuel running around in the Battle of France, which ended in may, i conclude quite confidently that 100 octane MUST of been introduce before July, when i don't know myself.

I am not disputing your pilots notes and total conversion of every spit no matter where it was stationed in jan'41 though.

From the ops records i've seen here and elsewhere, it is clear from the dates which are always on these documents that many frontline if not all 11 group squadrons were converted in the main before July, so i do disagree with your opinion

If you say the Battle of Britain lasted from July to 15 September, 100 Octane is pretty limited.

as far as 11 group is concerned.

[Crumpp]

Winny,

It is a fact Dowding rotated and rested his squadrons.

It is not speculation or assumption, the squadrons were rotated and rested. It was very contraversial and that argument is covered in some detail in the official RAF History. I personally believe it was an essential part of the RAF victory.

Keep in mind that tactically, the RAF SE fighters took a pasting from the Luftwaffe SE fighters with the exception of July 1940. Very good pre-war planning, good leadership, most significantly brave men and women all allowed the RAF to increase its strength during the battle to ultimately prevail.

For the Luftwaffe, it is an example of tactical success ending in a defeat in the campaign.


http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8383/singleseatoperationallo.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/94/singleseatoperationallo.jpg/)

[Crumpp]

I have no idea where your first post in this thread is, and i wasn't talking about you specifically.


Ok, we are good.

so i do disagree with you

No issue at all.

squadrons were converted in the main before July

Take the ones that specifically say "100 Octane fuel in use" like this one:

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7303/151orb16feb40.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/29/151orb16feb40.jpg/)

Just like this one, it will specifically state if they are using the fuel.

Throw out the ones that just note conversion like this one:

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/5323/no611100oct.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/268/no611100oct.jpg/)

And you will have a more accurate idea of the timeline and extent.

It won't be dead on but at least you won't have conversion mixed in with use.

There is some very good knowledge in your community. It is hampered by the "us vs them", win-lose mentality, emotional investment, and immaturity of some the members.

[NZtyphoon]

Take the ones that specifically say "100 Octane fuel in use" like this one:

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7303/151orb16feb40.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/29/151orb16feb40.jpg/)

Just like this one, it will specifically state if they are using the fuel.

Throw out the ones that just note conversion like this one:

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/5323/no611100oct.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/268/no611100oct.jpg/)

Note what the 611 Sqn ORB says:

21/3: Fuel: The new aircraft are one by one being converted...for the use of 100 Octane fuel, instead of D.T.D 230.

By arbitrarily "throwing" the 611 Sqn ORB out because it says "conversion" instead of "using the fuel" the fact that it notes that 100 octane fuel was being used instead of 87 octane is completely missed, plus it says 9 aircraft converted. So dump that "rule".

Here are two other ORBs from February 1940, from before before the issue of AP1590B/J.2-W, March 20 1940. That's four squadrons, plus four airbases North Weald, Digby, Hornchurch (11 Group) and Drem 13 Group confirmed to be converted or in the process of being converted to use the fuel in Feb-March 1940 alone. All indicate that 100 Octane fuel was the only type of fuel being used by converted aircraft.

Before you say "only four squadrons" these are ORBs of the time which have been found so far, that does not mean that these were the only squadrons in the RAF to convert.

Those from February also show that the conversion of Merlins was well underway before A.P1590B/J.2-W was issued, confirming what the document says.

[Glider]

Why would you do that Glider? I don't think anyone is saying that.
I think that some people have stated that non operational flights were done on 100 octane and non operational flights on 87 octane. Postings have been made saying that in one month a squadrons did X operational flights and Y non operational flights.

We agree that this wouldn't have happened which is good



What would be worth it to do is change the fuel type when the units rotated out for rest and refit. They are not doing any operational flying under that status and unless they had an additional mission to gather data on the fuels use, there is no reason to continue to use 100 Octane. I am sure maintenance trend data over as many hours of flight time was required before the entire force converted but you don't need it from every squadron.

The difference between us is that when they moved for rest normally to a Group in the North they normally remained as Operational squadrons. Look at the OOB and compare then number of Operational and Non operational squadrons. A handfull are non operational. As I said Operational used 100 octane and non operational 87 Octane.



Crumpps steps to conversion.....

If I wanted to convert and it was not possible to convert the entire force, the first thing I would do is get as much 100 Octane gas to the airfields as I could before anyone converted. Then my conversion pool has a supply of gas.

The next thing I would do is convert as many squadrons as possible to be able to use 100 Octane. That timeline is going to be based on how fast the parts required can enter the system and reach the point of use. I would convert as many aircraft as possible without violating the required logistical ratio so my airplanes can continue to fly and I am not without airplanes due to maintenance awaiting parts. Now I have pool of capable aircraft.

As much as possible all of my operational squadrons using 100 Octane would be down in 11 Group in the thick of the action.

If logistics said I only had enough fuel for 16 squadrons by September then you can bet when a squadron rotated out for rest and refit, they would go back to 87 Octane and their replacement would come from that pool of converted units.

As logistics increased my usable fuel supply, I would add operational squadrons to other areas until the entire force was converted.

Your steps are basically the same as the RAF, The fuel had been issued by May 1940, the changes to the aircraft were very small, took about a day and the task was completed in May. The March paper listing the changes showed that the major conversion task was already included in new engines or in normal routine maintanence, all that was left was drilling a couple of holes so that side of the Logistics was covered, all that was left was delivering the fuel of which there was no shortage.

Now you seem to have dropped the pretence that 1940 was about operational testing which is good, now can you supply the 16 squadrons evidence?

[NZtyphoon]

Now, to France 7 May 1940: the RAF stored 660,056 gallons, 2111 tons of 100 octane versus 561,076 gallons, 1,778 tons, of 87 Octane in France: this was before the balloon went up, 4 Hurricane squadrons listed plus 9 Blenheim, all operating with 100 Octane:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/AASF-fuel-stocks-7may40.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/AASF-fuel-stocks-pg1.jpg

and was requesting extra fuel for Blenheims, 188 gallons each for the outer tanks, plus 280 gallons of 87 Octane for the inner tanks.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/AASF-fuel-stocks-pg2.jpg

And here the projected requirement for 100 Octane was far greater than that for 87: 1,579,740 gallons, 5,007 tons V 950,000 gallons or 3,011 tons.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/Petrol-RAF-component-15may40.jpg

If the RAF was only interested in building up stocks of 100 octane fuel before releasing it for use why would 100 octane fuel be sent to France to support the squadrons of the BEF? I presume your assumption is that the 4 Hurricane squadrons and 9 Blenheim squadrons were to be used for "operational trials?"

On 7 May more 100 Octane was stocked in France than 87 Octane, and projected requirements for 100 Octane were also far greater - this for a fuel you say was only used in "operational trials".

The requirement to supply 9 Blenheim squadrons - note on the second to last page the stipulation "ALL reinforcing Blenheim units require aviation fuel, per aircraft as follows: (i) 100 octane. 188 gallons (ii) D.T.D 230. 280 gallons - with 100 octane contradicts the pre-war paper which stipulates that only 16 fighter squadrons and a couple of Blenheim squadrons were to use 100 octane fuel before September 1940.

[Osprey]

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1941. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

It is your opinion, not a fact, and you are in a minority of 1. Even Kurfurst doesn't support you.

Note that Kurfurst has made his counter move to powerful Spitfires by trying to get a late and rare 109 included into the BoB which pretty much demonstrates that his agenda is stat-padding all along. Good luck to him, I wouldn't deny anything to the Luftwaffe that was there all along, although as a mission maker for our server I wouldn't include it without regulation.....

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200

[41Sqn_Banks]

Winny,

The Operating Notes say that in the January 1941 edition. None of the earlier editions make any note of it at all under operating limitations. 100 Octane is a minor footnote of "may be used.....IF converted" in all previous editions of the Operating Notes.

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1941. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

Actually you mean January 1942, at a time where there was not a single operational squadron operating the Spitfire I.
The Pilot's Notes page from May 1940 simply doesn't specify which unit should use what fuel, so this doesn't tell us anything about how widespread the use was at that time.

[JtD]

Some people seem to enjoy going in circles, but from a logical point of view it is impossible to prove that "all operational units used 100 octane fuel during BoB".
An analogy - if someone claimed that there are orange ravens, it cannot be disproved by showing thousands of black ones. However, to support the claim, it would be necessary to show a couple of orange ones - that would close the case and therefore, it is the way an argumentation needs to follow here.
Back to the 100 octane fuel, this topic has provided plenty of information and documentation regarding the use in 1940. Papers, memos, storage lists, logbooks, manuals, pilot and ground crew instruction, pilot accounts - all there to prove beyond doubt that 100 octane fuel was used.
What I'm missing is prove of 87 octane fuel being used in operational units. So, can anyone come up with a definite proof that an operational squadron used 87 octane fuel lets say until the end of September 1940?
I think that that kind of info, for instance a squadron logbook dating the conversion to 100 octane fuel in October 1940, would be far more valuable than another 500 posts trying to convince each other of something people simply do not want to believe.

[Osprey]

If the RAF was only interested in building up stocks of 100 octane fuel before releasing it for use why would 100 octane fuel be sent to France to support the squadrons of the BEF? I presume your assumption is that the 4 Hurricane squadrons and 9 Blenheim squadrons were to be used for "operational trials?"


Don't be ridiculous NZ, obviously one of the safest places you could store and build up your stock of precious fuel is on the front line facing the enemy when you in full retreat. Don't use it mind, there are only lives at stake - it's more important to build it up first.

[Osprey]

Some people seem to enjoy going in circles, but from a logical point of view it is impossible to prove that "all operational units used 100 octane fuel during BoB".
An analogy - if someone claimed that there are orange ravens, it cannot be disproved by showing thousands of black ones. However, to support the claim, it would be necessary to show a couple of orange ones - that would close the case and therefore, it is the way an argumentation needs to follow here.
Back to the 100 octane fuel, this topic has provided plenty of information and documentation regarding the use in 1940. Papers, memos, storage lists, logbooks, manuals, pilot and ground crew instruction, pilot accounts - all there to prove beyond doubt that 100 octane fuel was used.
What I'm missing is prove of 87 octane fuel being used in operational units. So, can anyone come up with a definite proof that an operational squadron used 87 octane fuel lets say until the end of September 1940?
I think that that kind of info, for instance a squadron logbook dating the conversion to 100 octane fuel in October 1940, would be far more valuable than another 500 posts trying to convince each other of something people simply do not want to believe.

Couldn't agree more and a normal person would understand that, but we have a 'special' person arguing the case against here who is better than all of us. I know this because he flies an aeroplane himself and polishes a 190 for a rich man.

According to his logic there can't have been more than a few thousand dinosaurs inhabiting the earth in total during that great span of a few hundred million years between the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of our planet, on the basis that these are the only fossils that have been found. Furthermore, if you take into account modern livestock farming methods and regulations then their existence was even more implausible because every farmer knows that keeping a herd of Brontosauruses is not defined anywhere and they wouldn't fit in a modern cowshed for milking.

[winny]

Winny,

It is a fact Dowding rotated and rested his squadrons.

It is not speculation or assumption, the squadrons were rotated and rested. It was very contraversial and that argument is covered in some detail in the official RAF History. I personally believe it was an essential part of the RAF victory.

Keep in mind that tactically, the RAF SE fighters took a pasting from the Luftwaffe SE fighters with the exception of July 1940. Very good pre-war planning, good leadership, most significantly brave men and women all allowed the RAF to increase its strength during the battle to ultimately prevail.

For the Luftwaffe, it is an example of tactical success ending in a defeat in the campaign.


http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8383/singleseatoperationallo.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/94/singleseatoperationallo.jpg/)

I'm sorry but.. I said I know he rotated squadrons I have 42 books on the subject of the BoB. I know a lot about the subject.

It seems that you are failing to understand the difference between rotated and withdrawn.

The reason I brought it up was because..

You said "If logistics said I only had enough fuel for 16 squadrons by September then you can bet when a squadron rotated out for rest and refit, they would go back to 87 Octane and their replacement would come from that pool of converted units.
"

There was no pool of converted units - all of the RAF's FC squadrons were active.

I'm saying that to suggest that they forced pilots back onto 87 octane when they moved to a different group does not stack up.
100 octanes only real advantage was in rate of climb. All groups were operational and all groups were involved in combat.

The RAF at the beginning had around 2,200 aircraft IN TOTAL FC, BC ,CC and transport. FC had around 6-700 aircraft. This is where the focus for 100 octane was placed.


EDIT: And you also said "I highly doubt the Air Ministry had 100 Octane fuels in any substantial quantity in 1938"
So I post the original documents which show they did have large stocks and you come back that 'logistical has nothing to do with operational" or words to that effect.

[VO101_Tom]

It is your opinion, not a fact, and you are in a minority of 1. Even Kurfurst doesn't support you.

Yes, there are 100 oct. Spitfires, it's fact. Would be unfair if you can't fly with them. The debate is always with the numbers (iirc the wall of texts :) ) but I think this is irrelevant, when it should be decide to exist in the game or not.

Note that Kurfurst has made his counter move to powerful Spitfires by trying to get a late and rare 109 included into the BoB which pretty much demonstrates that his agenda is stat-padding all along.

Of course he did, and i support this. But I dont understand you. You was one of the loudest "we need historically accuracy" member here. So, this lasts untill the RAF get the upgades? These types are exist in BoB? Yes, the E-7 enters service in the same month (!) than Spit IIa (Aug '40). The 109's field modifications made impossible to know, how many upgraded aircraft fight in the BOB. Much old version upgraded to E-7 during the battle. I think the principle should the same as the 100 octane fuel.

Good luck to him, I wouldn't deny anything to the Luftwaffe that was there all along, although as a mission maker for our server I wouldn't include it without regulation...http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200

I assume you don't plan to limit the numbers of Spit I, Spit II, Hurricane (allowed twice the number of Hurri than Spit?) :rolleyes:

[Osprey]

I'm waiting for his smoke and mirrors after that one Winny.

I suspect he won't be on for a while though because the 190 owner is not happy with his waxing.

"Is that 3 coats of wax Biff?"
"Yes sir Mr McFly, 3 coats as you said"
"Now now Biff, are you sure? You're not lying to me are you?"
"Err....maybe it was 2, I'll just get started on the 3rd coat now Mr McFly"
"Ahh Biff, what a character!"

http://weeonion.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/biff.jpg

[Osprey]

Yes, there are 100 oct. Spitfires, it's fact. Would be unfair if you can't fly with them. The debate is always with the numbers (iirc the wall of texts :) ) but I think this is irrelevant, when it should be decide to exist in the game or not.



Of course he did, and i support this. But I dont understand you. You was one of the loudest "we need historically accuracy" member here. So, this lasts untill the RAF get the upgades? These types are exist in BoB? Yes, the E-7 enters service in the same month (!) than Spit IIa (Aug '40). The 109's field modifications made impossible to know, how many upgraded aircraft fight in the BOB. Much old version upgraded to E-7 during the battle. I think the principle should the same as the 100 octane fuel.



I assume you don't plan to limit the numbers of Spit I, Spit II, Hurricane (allowed twice the number of Hurri than Spit?) :rolleyes:


I've not opposed it at all Tom. This is a long story and my comment is more related to Kurfursts reaction, I have nothing against the LW.

We run the server ACG, Air Combat Group, and we have historical missions running. It is early but the more accuracy we can commit to our server the better, so yes, that includes a 2:1 Hurricane:Spitfire ratio by force when we are able to. Our RAF Wing operates 2 Hurricane squadrons and 1 Spitfire squadron so we already fit the ratio.
We also operate a Luftwaffe arm and are pushing to grow this group. It is not in our interests to have any type of bias.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=334267&postcount=5

[VO101_Tom]

I've not opposed it at all Tom.

Ok, I understand. I also hope the new missions will be more interesting because of the new performance (on all servers). And i hope, will be more BoF missions too, not only the boring channel fight :)

What annoys me a bit, the mood of the forum - if you ask something for RAF, you are a patriot, a Hero, who fight for the historically accuracy. If you ask something for LW, you are -at least- Luftwhiner, who just too stupid to fight well with his "superior" a/c. :/

It is not in our interests to have any type of bias.
So... where is your +1 vote then? :grin:

[Crumpp]

Actually you mean January 1942, at a time where there was not a single operational squadron operating the Spitfire I.


Yes it was January 1942. That does not change the fact the transition to 100 Octane is clearly documented in Operating Notes. The transition was not complete in July1940 and is not factual to claim "ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS" in fighter command were using the fuel.

The Operating Notes even transition to 100 Octane Only in later editions of the Hurricane Notes.

Why? Operating Notes are republished periodically and capture all major changes. FACT

It also does not change the fact you cannot look at logisitical documents to prove operational history. If you want to know how to operate the aircraft look at the Operating Notes and not Strategic Fuel Reserves!!!

The transition is clearly outlined in those notes. If the operating limitations (paragraph 1) do not specify "ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS-100 OCTANE" or "100 OCTANE ONLY" then 87 Octane was the predominate fuel on the airfields. It is that simple.

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1942. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

Osprey says?:
It is your opinion, not a fact

It is not my opinion. It is a fact. It is how aviation publications work by convention.

There was no pool of converted units - all of the RAF's FC squadrons were active.


Prove it. Look through the logs and those units using the fuel will specifically state they are using the fuel, not just converted.

So far you have two squadrons I have seen before July 1940.

So I post the original documents which show they did have large stocks

The documents do not show they have large stocks. Go back and read my post. They show the RAF does not have a substantial amount of 100 Octane in 1939.

They wanted 800,000 tons on hand at that time and they only have ~1/8th of that.

[Osprey]

So... where is your +1 vote then? :grin:

I generally will only vote for something I know to be absolutely true otherwise I will stay clear. It's not that I don't agree or believe but rather I do not know. I don't blindly vote for RAF items either.

If you are after historical mapping rather than mid-channel furballs then have a go in our server (Air Combat Group). It currently runs the events from August 12th (plus some small random patrols everywhere to keep interest and surprises up) with AI on both sides so you can escort in the 109.


What annoys me a bit, the mood of the forum - if you ask something for RAF, you are a patriot, a Hero, who fight for the historically accuracy. If you ask something for LW, you are -at least- Luftwhiner, who just too stupid to fight well with his "superior" a/c. :/

I think you can put this problem down to a small minority (ie Kurfurst) who set a bad example for you. But honestly, the likes of yourself are respected as knowing what you are talking about without bias so items you raise would not be disputed. The problem is that word you use, "superior". This minority seem to believe it and believe the propaganda of the time, they don't like losing to aircraft they think are inferior, so they argue to get what they need to help them. It's a distorted view.

[Kurfürst]

It is your opinion, not a fact, and you are in a minority of 1. Even Kurfurst doesn't support you.

Note that Kurfurst has made his counter move to powerful Spitfires by trying to get a late and rare 109 included into the BoB which pretty much demonstrates that his agenda is stat-padding all along. Good luck to him, I wouldn't deny anything to the Luftwaffe that was there all along, although as a mission maker for our server I wouldn't include it without regulation.....

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200

Yawn. I simply gathered the material I have posted here a year ago, the reason I put it up on bugtracker is because you have turned my attention to it. BTW, did you vote for 100 octane 109s and 110s yet? You know, for the sake of historical accuracy you say to be devoted to. I am sure if you want historical accuracy for the RAF, you would not danger your credibility by not supporting the same historical accuracy for the LW. ;)

Stat padding? Last I flew online was some six years ago... Besides the normal 109s are just as good as 100 octane Spits. Its mainly about the 110s as those were the main types running on 100 octane, about half of them were running on it. The 109s had only one Gruppe initially - though thats about the same number as the not-so-common Spit IIs, which already have modelled. The Moscow map will probably have the E-7/N modelled anyways.

ps. I would be more delighted to see a flyable Wellington, which was the main British bomber and a nice counterpart for the 111, or a Hampden modelled.

[Glider]

I know this is going to sound very obvious but I have always believed that pilots notes were there to help the pilot avoid crashing the aircraft, not an historical document showing the roll out of things like fuel.

Now I know why most of my flying experience was in Gliders, none of the smelly stuff that can catch fire.

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1942. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

This is total bull, I would love to see you prove it, why not March 1942, or even have a punt at 1943. Why not 1944 as I know there was a shortage of 100 Octane just before the Invasion, maybe they converted some squadrons back to 87 Octane, they didn't, but what the heck, there is more logic for such a move as there was a shortage then.

Its worth remembering that you still haven't shown us the pilots notes for the Spit I you were quoting as being June 1940. So why on earth should we believe that it was as late as 1942

[Glider]

ps. I would be more delighted to see a flyable Wellington, which was the main British bomber and a nice counterpart for the 111, or a Hampden modelled.

For once I agree with you 100%

[Robo.]

What annoys me a bit, the mood of the forum - if you ask something for RAF, you are a patriot, a Hero, who fight for the historically accuracy. If you ask something for LW, you are -at least- Luftwhiner, who just too stupid to fight well with his "superior" a/c. :/

I don't think that's the case really, you can see pretty much same amount of bias and agenda on both sides, unfortunately.

As for Battle of Britain - that's what we've got in the sim, summer 1940. I voted in favour of the newer 109E-7 imemdiately btw. But Osprey is right - this is a bit beyond what we see as actual Battle of Britain. Also, this thread is about the aircraft we've already got in the sim (and they do represent the typical liveries of BoB era) and their inaccurate performance - mainly due to 100 octane fuel used widely in the RAF in this era (summer '40) is nonexistent in the sim. If they ever model early post-BoB scenario with E-7s that would be awesome, Hurricanes Mk.IIs, E-7s, then Mk.Vb all the way to the Fw 190.

[Kurfürst]

E-7 entered service in the second half of August 1940. 186 were delivered by the end of October, 1940.

Basically the same case as the Spitfire II.

[Robo.]

E-7 entered service in the second half of August 1940. 186 were delivered by the end of October, 1940.

Basically the same case as the Spitfire II.

Oh yes I am aware of that. Spitfire Mk.II was actually ready a bit sooner (early June 1940) than E-7 or Hurricane Mk.II (late August / September and thereofre being quite rare). I guess that's why the Mk.II Spits are present in the game - rare but still quite typical in BoB skies. The other two were absolutely marginal for BoB but important at the later stage. I hope to see them all modelled one day.

[Seadog]

I have repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence of even a single Spitfire/Hurricane 87 octane operational squadron combat sortie during the BofB. This should be an easy task if, as you contend, the majority of RAF FC Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons were using 87 Octane fuel.

So I'll issue the challenge again and again, until you answer it or admit that your contention is unsupported by the historical record.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

Still waiting...

[VO101_Tom]

Oh yes I am aware of that. Spitfire Mk.II was actually ready a bit sooner (early June 1940) than E-7 or Hurricane Mk.II (late August / September and thereofre being quite rare). I guess that's why the Mk.II Spits are present in the game - rare but still quite typical in BoB skies. The other two were absolutely marginal for BoB but important at the later stage. I hope to see them all modelled one day.

I'm sure, much more E-7 fought in the BoB than G.50 :rolleyes: :grin:

[Osprey]

So what we've established is that the 2 100 octane whiners here who can't see what everybody else sees don't even fly IL2 COD. So why are you here? Bugger off and leave us alone, it's none of your business.

PS, Kurfurst, if you could read I explained why I didn't vote for it.

[Robo.]

I'm sure, much more E-7 fought in the BoB than G.50 :rolleyes: :grin:

Yes, of course. I was comparing the main forces in the Battle - Luftwaffe and RAF. Italian presence was marginal, but it's cool we've got them in the game. E-7s were as common as Mk.Ib Spitfires in the actual Battle. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see them all in the sim. I am sure the devis will have this version ready for BoM (both E-7 and F variants I would guess) and having them in Channel scenario is very likely imho... I don't really know what the numbers were and I don't care all that much + it would only lead to further arguements.

[NZtyphoon]

Yes, there are 100 oct. Spitfires, it's fact. Would be unfair if you can't fly with them. The debate is always with the numbers (iirc the wall of texts :) ) but I think this is irrelevant, when it should be decide to exist in the game or not.

The 109's field modifications made impossible to know, how many upgraded aircraft fight in the BOB. Much old version upgraded to E-7 during the battle. I think the principle should the same as the 100 octane fuel.


On a side note I have the book Luftwaffe Fighters and Fighter-Bombers Over Norway (http://www.ebook3000.com/Luftwaffe-Fighters-Fighter-Bombers-over-the-Far-North---Units---Camouflage---Markings-1940-1945_64068.html) which includes a section on a Bf 109E-7 W.Nr. 3523 "Red 6" of 5./JG5 (http://www.adlertag.de/heute/restoration.htm) which was rescued from a Russian lake in 2003. (pages 61-63)

This was manufactured as an E-1 by Arado and was taken into Luftwaffe service on 27 September 1939; in August 1940 it was converted into an E-7. In mid 1941 it was overhauled and became an E-7/Trop, complete with the RLM 78/79 paint scheme before being shipped to Norway in early 1942 and serving in JG5. On 4 April the cooling system was damaged in combat with a Russian Hurricane IIC from 2 GIAP and Red 6 force landed on a frozen lake - from which it was rescued and still exists, at Chino. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAgsZO8ifjU) (The commentary by Brett Green is misleading.)

[VO101_Tom]

On a side note I have the book Luftwaffe Fighters and Fighter-Bombers Over Norway (http://www.ebook3000.com/Luftwaffe-Fighters-Fighter-Bombers-over-the-Far-North---Units---Camouflage---Markings-1940-1945_64068.html) which includes a section on a Bf 109E-7 W.Nr. 3523 "Red 6" of 5./JG5 (http://www.adlertag.de/heute/restoration.htm) which was rescued from a Russian lake in 2003. ...

Interesting video. Was an adventurous journey :)
Thanks for sharing.

[NZtyphoon]

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.




Yes it was January 1942. That does not change the fact the transition to 100 Octane is clearly documented in Operating Notes. The transition was not complete in July1940 and is not factual to claim "ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS" in fighter command were using the fuel.

The Operating Notes even transition to 100 Octane Only in later editions of the Hurricane Notes.

Why? Operating Notes are republished periodically and capture all major changes. FACT

It also does not change the fact you cannot look at logisitical documents to prove operational history. If you want to know how to operate the aircraft look at the Operating Notes and not Strategic Fuel Reserves!!!

It is not my opinion. It is a fact. It is how aviation publications work by convention.

The documents do not show they have large stocks. Go back and read my post. They show the RAF does not have a substantial amount of 100 Octane in 1939.

They wanted 800,000 tons on hand at that time and they only have ~1/8th of that.
All this proves is that Crumpp has become increasingly closed minded and obsessed with his own interpretations of the very limited evidence he has presented:

Crumpp has completely ignored what the "Pilot's Notes General - 1st edition", which was also issued to all pilots, says about operating limits in the Pilot's Notes:*

And the explanation for this is given in Pilot's Notes General (1st Edition 1941, not the 2nd Edition).

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9180&d=1334727256
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9181&d=1334727263*

We know that the Merlin II and III was designed for 87 octane and therefore the operational limits are always given for 87 octane.

However, over 70 years later Crumpp knows better: because HIS pilot's notes don't mention 100 Octane, that makes them definitive proof that the RAF wasn't using much 100 octane at all. "Why? Operating Notes are republished periodically and capture all major changes. FACT"

But that wasn't standard Air Ministry practice during the 1940s: When the notes were printed they kept the standard rating the engine was designed for, as shown in "Pilot's Notes General' - when the Pilot's Notes were issued any amendments were included as gummed slips which were pasted in the relevant section or paragraph of the notes, and the additions noted by the pilot on the amendment list printed either on the inner front cover, or on the first two pages and, in some cases, on the inner back cover.

Any subsequent reprints sometimes kept the original publishing date, but the previously pasted in sections were incorporated into the Notes and the amendments were then described in a note on the left upper section of the relevant page eg:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9164&d=1334674718 "Revised May 1941: Amended by A.L.No.37"

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9175&d=1334723739 "January 1942 Issued with A.L.No.24/H"

Look at the front inner flyleaves in the Spitfire V notes and see the table of amendments (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4599427/Pilots-Notes-Spitfire-V-Seafire-IIIIII), then note that some amendments have been ticked. Scroll down to page 4 note top L/H corner "issued with A.L. No. 16/7", which is ticked in the amendments section.

The Spitfire I Pilots manual in its original state, without amendments, specified the original operating limits using 87 Octane fuel, for which the Merlin II and III series were designed - if it had been issued to an operational squadron amendment slips for the new operating limits would have been issued with the book, then pasted in and noted by the pilot - the January 1942 notes incorporate these amendments, but it still says 87 Octane for "Other units" such as OTUs; chances are Crumpp's notes were either issued to an OTU or were never issued to any unit and never amended.

I have in my hand an original set of Pilot's Notes for the Corsair I-IV A.P. 2351A, B, C & D which has the printing date of August 1944, yet amendments were added as supplementary slips in March 1945 and April 1946.

Now this was explained ages ago by 41Sqn_Banks but has since been completely ignored by Crumpp.

You misunderstand what I wrote. A.P. 1590B/J.2-W is incorporated into the June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes.



1) He still hasn't shown the relevant pages to the June 1940 Pilot's Notes, which according to Crumpp, incorporate the modifications shown in A.P. 1590B/J.2-W;

2) He has not shown us the front and inner covers of his "June 1940" Spitfire Pilot's Notes showing whether they incorporate the addendums which were issued modifying the notes to the latest standards - we don't even know if his notes are original or a photocopied facsimile (http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-25743750278216_2203_20886464) which came from here (http://www.flight-manuals.com/ap1565a-vol1.html).

On another note: On the one hand he says strategic reserves aren't important, then in his last sentence he says "They show the RAF does not have a substantial amount of 100 Octane in 1939."

Except that the RAF issued an inconvenient little document in November 1939 approving the conversion of and use of Merlins for 12 lbs boost and "There are adequate reserves for the purpose". Which, of course, is completely ignored.

*(Note: The Pilot's Notes General 2nd Edition, printed April 1943, no longer incorporates the proviso about fuel types because the matter was no longer relevant by 1943.)

[winny]

Oh yes I am aware of that. Spitfire Mk.II was actually ready a bit sooner (early June 1940) than E-7 or Hurricane Mk.II (late August / September and thereofre being quite rare). I guess that's why the Mk.II Spits are present in the game - rare but still quite typical in BoB skies. The other two were absolutely marginal for BoB but important at the later stage. I hope to see them all modelled one day.

It's actually a little later I think.. 1st SpitII was delivered to 601 Sqn. on 22nd August. There were 195 of them by the end of October. As there were 22 Spitfire squadrons by then, it's the majority of Spitfires in service at the end of the battle. (roughly 22 x 12 = Total operational Spitfires = 264-ish) FC total operational Fighters including Hurricanes peaked at 764.

I'd have to sit down and work out the deliveries for more accurate figures, this is ball park.

[VO101_Tom]

E-7s were as common as Mk.Ib Spitfires in the actual Battle.

No, it wasn't. "The first examples were delivered to No.19 Sqn at Duxford in June 1940, but when the unit went into action two months later its aircraft were plagued with chronic cannon jams, and the Spitfire Ibs were hastily replaced with all-machine gun Spitfire IIa within days". (Osprey Duel 05 - Spit vs 109 p.24)

It can't be called "just as rare" as the E-7. 186 were delivered by the end of October, 1940, and this aircrafts has not been withdrawn at all :rolleyes: As Winny mentioned, it is about the same as the IIa...

When the Hispano has been mentioned anyway, why not in the game, it was not for the reason that it would be rare:
"- Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?
- We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck." (BlackSix's Q&A 12-28-2011)

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see them all in the sim. I am sure the devis will have this version ready for BoM (both E-7 and F variants I would guess)

We dont know, what will be the planeset of BoM. I'm afraid that when we get it, I will be slightly obsolete...

[Robo.]

It's actually a little later I think.. 1st SpitII was delivered to 601 Sqn. on 22nd August. There were 195 of them by the end of October. As there were 22 Spitfire squadrons by then, it's the majority of Spitfires in service at the end of the battle. (roughly 22 x 12 = Total operational Spitfires = 264-ish) FC total operational Fighters including Hurricanes peaked at 764.

I'd have to sit down and work out the deliveries for more accurate figures, this is ball park.

Quite possible, as I say I don't even want to go down that path. Just for the record, my data was from 'The narrow margin' (Wood & Dempster) - ''Although the first Mk II Spitfires were delivered to the RAF on June 3rd 1940, there were still more Mk Is produced than the Mk IIs. In fact the comparison figure was 1,531 to 920.''. Fair enough.

[Robo.]

It can't be called "just as rare" as the E-7.

Ok, rare, but not quite like the Spit Mk.Ib, that was just a funny example (I agree on 1c's insight on Ibs btw). I am not sure about the numbers of the subypes in the second half of the Battle - I certainly didn't know that there were 186 E-7 in October over the Channel area. Fair enough. The numbers are very difficult to prove and often contradicting and complicated with subtypes and post-overhaul conversions. Same with propeller types on Spitfires and Hurricanes in the first half...

Anyone with some good data on the topic?

[NZtyphoon]

Ok, rare, but not quite like the Spit Mk.Ib, that was just a funny example (I agree on 1c's insight on Ibs btw). I am not sure about the numbers of the subypes in the second half of the Battle - I certainly didn't know that there were 186 E-7 in October over the Channel area. Fair enough. The numbers are very difficult to prove and often contradicting and complicated with subtypes and post-overhaul conversions. Same with propeller types on Spitfires and Hurricanes in the first half...

Anyone with some good data on the topic?

I agree about working out how many E-7s there were; for example W.Nr 3523 was rebuilt from an E-1 in August 1940, but it did not appear to have had an operational life with any Jagdstaffel until reaching JG5 in early 1942. Do you mean delivered or operational?

Just a quick look through The Battle of Britain Then and Now Vol 5: the first E-7 I can find is W.Nr 2029 of I/LG 2 which was shot down at 4:15 pm on September 11. From memory LG2 was one of the first units to use E-7s?

[whoarmongar]

With two fighters constantly being developed and in service throughout the entire war (the 109 and Spit) with various different models and many intrim variants it seems to me that the date of any scenario is of upmost importance. It appears some people like to "stretch" the date of the BoB so as to include the latest variant, more potent model of their favorite fighter.
Personally I dont see a place for the cannon Spit in the BoB. However if it were implemented into CoD I dont think the reliability of the cannon would be an issue as it was caused by icing at high altitude and CoD Spitfires never reach high altitude.

[winny]

With two fighters constantly being developed and in service throughout the entire war (the 109 and Spit) with various different models and many intrim variants it seems to me that the date of any scenario is of upmost importance. It appears some people like to "stretch" the date of the BoB so as to include the latest variant, more potent model of their favorite fighter.
Personally I dont see a place for the cannon Spit in the BoB. However if it were implemented into CoD I dont think the reliability of the cannon would be an issue as it was caused by icing at high altitude and CoD Spitfires never reach high altitude.

The cannon jammed because due to the thinness of the wing it was mounted on its side, not because of altitude. It was a problem with the ejection of spent cartridges, they simply wouldn't clear properly. They were withdrawn and didn't re- appear until November.

Edit: a little more info on mkIB. First one delivered to 19 squadron on 27 th June serial number R6761.
Armourer Fred Roberts explained " most of the trouble stemmed from the cannons being mounted on their sides, the empty shell cases therefore being ejected sideways from the breach and being deflected back into it. The nose of the shell dropping slightly and striking the breach end of the barrel, buckling the the shell case at the neck caused another kind of stoppage. We fitted various kinds of deflector plates. We altered the angle of the plates, fitted rubber pads to dampen the force of the shell case, but none of these experiments worked. We also had magazine feed troubles, caused by it lying on it's side. To counter this we tried varying the tension applied to the magazine spring but that was unsuccessful".

[Robo.]

It appears some people like to "stretch" the date of the BoB so as to include the latest variant, more potent model of their favorite fighter.

Yes, very much so. :D :D But if what they say is true and 186 E-7s with 601N engine were present in the Channel area in the last month of the BoB (October), then it should be in the game, too.

My comparsion to the Mk.Ib was only ironical as with 30 made examples, I believed this is pretty much comparable to couple of dozens of German E-7 that actually took part in the battle in September / October. If it was more, I take it back.

As for Ib - not important, but I remember reading about the unsuccesful trials and frustration of the pilots when the cannons malfunctioned. The Squad Leader demanded MG Spitfires back to much unliking of his 'boss' at MoD, and the Squadron got them back eventually - but they were not new Mk.IIs but beaten up Mk.Is with old de Havilland propellers (not sure about names and details I am afraid)

[whoarmongar]

Ah my altitude remark was a bit tongue in cheek. Sometimes I just cant help myself.

[winny]

Just another quick P.S about the first cannon armed Spitfires.

They didn't have machine guns. Just 2 hispanos.

The ones with the Mg's didn't appear till 11th August, the first one being S/No X4231

They changeover back to the 8 mg version was completed on 4th September by using "some clapped out old things from an OTU" according to Squadron Leader Pinkham, who had campaigned to get the Ib's replaced.

Ironically he was killed in one of these "clapped out" machines the very next day.

[Kurfürst]

But if what they say is true and 186 E-7s with 601N engine were present in the Channel area in the last month of the BoB (October), then it should be in the game, too.

I think this need to be clarified a bit - the 186 E-7 delivered means that this much was produced as 'new builds', or Neubau by factories (as opposed to conversion of existing airframes, so conversions are not included in this number). These aircraft went to storage at first, as normal, and a number - not all of them - was issued to the the frontline units as needed.

E-7 had two engines mounted: DB 601Aa (so performance was same as E-4 but more importantly, the E-7 could carry a droptank and boost its range to 1300 km) and 601N. In the latter case its designation is E-7/N. I think its evident that all the early E-7 had 601Aa (since 110s had priority first for this engine and 109s had received priority only in October 1940), the one in the late automn/winter/spring 1941 had the 601N, and a performance between the 109E and F, roughly 590-595 km/h top speed. A number were produced in 1941 as E-7/Z, meaning 601N engine plus GM-1 boost.

I think its interesting to see the production of 109 aircraft in the BoB period (July - October 1940, as the British define it):

New airframes were delivered in the following number (not including conversions). Previous production is thus not inlcuded, just the number produced in the above period.

E-1: 55
E-1/B: 110
Total E-1 variants: 165

E-3a: 75 (export version)

E-4: 47
E-4/N: 20
E-4/B: 211
E-4/BN: 15
Total E-4 variants: 293

E-7: 186

F-1: 9

Total Bf 109: 728

So as a matter of fact the E-7 is the 2nd most produced variant of the BoB period.

[Robo.]

Oh, good info. It would be helpful to have a list of aircraft types actually present during the months of the BoB. I am aware that the number is just Neubaus and that only part of the new machines were assigned to the units in the Channel area. Same with E-1s being more common at the early stage - I suppose your list does not include pre BoB production of this subtype.

I agree it's nearly impossible to get the precise data with the amount of conversions and engine variants.

[NZtyphoon]

I'm pretty sure that the E-7/N could be distinguished from the E-7 by a small reverse D-shaped air intake in front of the exhaust fairings. This photo is of an E-7/N flown by Oblt. Joachim Müncheberg of 7/JG26 based on Sicily in Feb - late March 1941; the air intake can be seen behind the spinner.

[Kurfürst]

Oh, good info. It would be helpful to have a list of aircraft types actually present during the months of the BoB. I am aware that the number is just Neubaus and that only part of the new machines were assigned to the units in the Channel area. Same with E-1s being more common at the early stage - I suppose your list does not include pre BoB production of this subtype.

I agree it's nearly impossible to get the precise data with the amount of conversions and engine variants.

I only have detailed subtype breakdown for 31 August.

On 31 August 1940, fighter units (excluding JG 77) reported 375 E-1s, 125 E-3s, 339 E-4s and 32 E-7s on strength, indicating that most of the E-3s had been already converted to E-4 standard. By July, one Gruppe (Wing) of JG 26 was equipped with the Bf 109 E-4/N model of improved performance, powered by the new DB 601N engine using 100 octane aviation fuel.

As of 1 January 1941, the following 109 / N (DB 601N) subtypes were in service:

Bf 109E-1 : 16 pcs,
Bf 109E-3 : 1 pc,
Bf 109E-4 : 54 pcs,
Bf 109E-6 : 1 pc,
Bf 109E-7 : 34 pcs,
Bf 109E-8 : 2pcs.
Bf 109F-1 : 5 pcs.

Total 112 Bf 109E with DB 601N present in service, plus 5 Bf 109F.

Hooton gives lost % for the subtypes, which confirms that most E-3s were converted into E-4s (a small change in the internal of the MG FF to fire Mineshells, nevertheless the German designation system for a subtype changes when a change was done to radios, guns or engine or similar important internal). By August E-3 loss % were single digit, new-born E-4 losses increased accordingly. E-1 accounted to about 35-40%, E-4 to about 60% and E-7 were the rest.

Indeed conversions can make it difficult, as most early /N conversions were in the field, and by November droptanks were retrofitted. See attached picture of a JG 53 E-1. Given the simplicity of the 109 droptank installation (essentially a rack and compressed air lines from the supercharger, and a fuel line feeding the droptank into the main tank, no fuel pumps etc. involved) I guess most of the latter was made in the field as well.

[NZtyphoon]

Personally I dont see a place for the cannon Spit in the BoB. However if it were implemented into CoD I dont think the reliability of the cannon would be an issue as it was caused by icing at high altitude and CoD Spitfires never reach high altitude.

Thats 'cos they were walloping the German fighters at lower altitudes ;) There were lots of reports late in the battle of 109 Jabos flying at impressive altitudes with RAF fighters struggling to get to them; Don Caldwell, for example, notes: "The raids were exceedingly difficult to intercept, coming over at such high speed and altitudes that only Spitfires had a chance to reach them. Park formed a special reconnaissance flight (this was 421 Flight which later became 91 Sqn (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/91squadron.cfm)) with new Spitfire IIs....The defense never solved the problem to its satisfaction, and German fighter losses were low; JG26 lost only seven pilots during October." (JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe, 1991 p. 63)

[Robo.]

So basically I was not too far from the truth saying that meeting a E-7 in the BoB was as likely as meeting a Spitfire Mk.Ib ;) 30 vs. 32 pieces and that information is for January.

E-4/Ns also listed in January at 54 pcs, one Gruppe of JG26 used them quite early, that might be cca 40 aircraft in the Summer already (makes sense). I guess Perez's aircraft was part of this Gruppe. It seems that 100 octane fuel and 601N engines were more relevant for Bf 110s Squadrons in the sim. In the actual Battle of Britain, these subtypes were present at rather marginal numbers - at 31.8.1940 we've got 871 Bf 109s in service, let's say some 1é or less % were fighters with DB 601N.

Same with droptanks coming in November - this is very important for next stage of the war (the Blitz as the British call it).

[Kurfürst]

So basically I was not too far from the truth saying that meeting a E-7 in the BoB was as likely as meeting a Spitfire Mk.Ib ;) 30 vs. 32 pieces and that information is for January.

Again, there's E-7 (601Aa) and E-7/N (601N).

Now there was 32 E-7 in the end of August, I agree not very significant, according to the paper they entered service and went on operation just a few days earlier. I think the Ib analogy doesn't stands, it was a single Squadron, and a completely unsuccessful one. Personally I wouldn't mind having it, I just consider it a compete waste of time of developer resources to model a completely useless plane (because of insta-jams). I think Galland's own Gruppe flew the E-4/N and I would bet a leg on it they ranked up quite score during BoB.

Probably because their production just started (none listed as produced as of end of June 1940 yet, so production just started in July or early August). Following that however a total of 186 were produced until the end of October (these would be certainly with 601Aa, again the priority of 601N distribution to 109s did not come into effect until November), so I would expect that in September-October there were fair numbers of them around. Say, 80-90 or more? Pretty much like Mk IIs (was it 5 or seven operational Sqns?).

In any case, I do not see why a Spitfire II, which saw service in similiar numbers and time (1-2 Sqns in August and best, and about half a dozen Sqns by the end of the Battle, is a more justified as an aircraft model than E-4/Ns or E-7s, which at the minimum equipped 2 Gruppen (Six Squadrons), by late August, and probably more in the automn.

The second strenght return list from January only list E-7/N, so its additional to 'normal' E-7.

The absolutely correct historical way would be to model separately an E-4/N (601N) and an E-7 (early 601Aa variant), both were there but in small numbers, say about a hundred or so combined by the late Battle.

What I think would actually make sense and fit into the sim nicely is to model an E-7/N straight away. This is sort of a hybrid but can represent the number of E-4/N and E-7 participating in the battle economically with modelling resources, moreover the E-7/N can be re-usable for 1941 scenarios (North Africa, Malta, Moscow, France 1941), since in 1941 it was the main type and the only 109E type remaning in production, with several hundred produced (ie. all late E-7 seems to have been E-7/N). Its probably being done for the Moscow sim anyway.. and would require little more than a minor change in the external model (pointed spinner, spark plug cooling holes on the cowl, drop tank rack) and FM of existing E-4.



E-4/Ns also listed in January at 54 pcs, one Gruppe of JG26 used them quite early, that might be cca 40 aircraft in the Summer already (makes sense). I guess Perez's aircraft was part of this Gruppe. It seems that 100 octane fuel and 601N engines were more relevant for Bf 110s Squadrons in the sim. In the actual Battle of Britain, these subtypes were present at rather marginal numbers - at 31.8.1940 we've got 871 Bf 109s in service, let's say some 1é or less % were fighters with DB 601N.

Same with droptanks coming in November - this is very important for next stage of the war (the Blitz as the British call it).

Absolutely agree. Its important for the 110s, since about half of them had the 601N, and its a real performance boost for them, being much faster. A BoB sim without 110/Ns is pretty much like a BoB sim without Hurricanes, given their historical force ratios... or +12 boosted variants for that matter.

[Crumpp]

I know this is going to sound very obvious but I have always believed that pilots notes were there to help the pilot avoid crashing the aircraft, not an historical document showing the roll out of things like fuel.

Now I know why most of my flying experience was in Gliders, none of the smelly stuff that can catch fire.

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1942. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

This is total bull, I would love to see you prove it, why not March 1942, or even have a punt at 1943. Why not 1944 as I know there was a shortage of 100 Octane just before the Invasion, maybe they converted some squadrons back to 87 Octane, they didn't, but what the heck, there is more logic for such a move as there was a shortage then.

Its worth remembering that you still haven't shown us the pilots notes for the Spit I you were quoting as being June 1940. So why on earth should we believe that it was as late as 1942

Glider,

Of course the Operating Notes provide a chronological order to technical changes. We know that technical updates are first published they become supplements to the Operating Notes. It is the operators responsibility to keep the Operating Notes up to date with the latest changes. However, the problem is in dissemination of technical updates. Somebody always does not get the word when updates are published. That is why for major changes like changing fuel a new edition with updates to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations would be published.

Look at all the issues with trying to find a replacement for 100LL in todays fleet!

Technically it was not a quick and easy change over to convert a Merlin from running 87 Octane only to having the ability to use 100 Octane fuel at +12lbs. It involved major modifications and was service level maintenance as noted in the technical order.

This is total bull, I would love to see you prove it, why not March 1942,

No it is true according the Operating Notes. It is a fact. The National Archives probably has multiple copies of the various editions of the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes.

You can check there to see if an early edition notes changes to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations. Otherwise, January 1942 is the first edition to note 100 Octane is in use for all operational units. If the Operating Notes only mention 100 Octane in Paragraph 7 without changes to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations, then you know the fuel is not being used for all operational aircraft! It is really that simple.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Crumpp your theory require that in January 1942 at least one operational squadron used at least one Spitfire I aircraft.
Otherwise the restriction for operational units to 100 octane noted in the Pilot's Notes would be obsolete and by your theory would have been instantly removed and changed to "all units 87 octane fuel".
Please name at least one operational Squadron that used at least a one Spitfire I aircraft at that time.

[pstyle]

Hi all, does anybody here have membership to oxford journals?

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/04/15/ehr.cen007.full.pdf
Might help....

[winny]

Hi all, does anybody here have membership to oxford journals?

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/04/15/ehr.cen007.full.pdf
Might help....

The guy who wrote that has already been on here..

[winny]

Glider,

Of course the Operating Notes provide a chronological order to technical changes. We know that technical updates are first published they become supplements to the Operating Notes. It is the operators responsibility to keep the Operating Notes up to date with the latest changes. However, the problem is in dissemination of technical updates. Somebody always does not get the word when updates are published. That is why for major changes like changing fuel a new edition with updates to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations would be published.

Look at all the issues with trying to find a replacement for 100LL in todays fleet!

Technically it was not a quick and easy change over to convert a Merlin from running 87 Octane only to having the ability to use 100 Octane fuel at +12lbs. It involved major modifications and was service level maintenance as noted in the technical order.



No it is true according the Operating Notes. It is a fact. The National Archives probably has multiple copies of the various editions of the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes.

You can check there to see if an early edition notes changes to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations. Otherwise, January 1942 is the first edition to note 100 Octane is in use for all operational units. If the Operating Notes only mention 100 Octane in Paragraph 7 without changes to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations, then you know the fuel is not being used for all operational aircraft! It is really that simple.

Unless you can provide a print run history for the manual it's all guess work.

What we really need is a list of all the vol.II leaflets issued as these over rode the manual it's self.

Anyone live near kew?

[fruitbat]

Well, i don't, but i am planning to go quite soon, because i want to get 92 squadrons operational reports for 1941 for a online il2 1946 campaign i'm going to do for my squad (can only find 1940 on the web).

Could have a look at this as well, won't be for a month or so though.

[pstyle]

For the purposes of CloD, does it matter if ALL operational RAF units were using 100?

Does it not only matter if units operating from the airfields in the south east, as mapped in game were using it?

[fruitbat]

For the purposes of CloD, does it matter if ALL operational RAF units were using 100?

No.

Does it not only matter if units operating from the airfields in the south east, as mapped in game were using it?

Yes. And you'd have to be mad to think they weren't, after reading this thread.

From the point of view of CloD.....

[pstyle]

Fruitbat, agreed on both accounts.

[Crumpp]

Unless you can provide a print run history for the manual it's all guess work.

Winny, it is not guesswork. It is what the Operating Notes say for every edition until we get to January 1942.

Could have a look at this as well, won't be for a month or so though.

That would be nice if you could do that and let us know what you find.

Crumpp your theory require that in January 1942 at least one operational squadron used at least one Spitfire I aircraft.
Otherwise the restriction for operational units to 100 octane noted in the Pilot's Notes would be obsolete and by your theory would have been instantly removed and changed to "all units 87 octane fuel".
Please name at least one operational Squadron that used at least a one Spitfire I aircraft at that time.

Why does that matter?

It is a fact the manual was reprinted in January 1942 and it is a fact the fuel changeover to "All Operational Units" is important enough to be added to Paragraph 1, Operating Limitations.

The 100 Octane fuel changeover is important enough to make it into every Operating Notes, Paragraph 1, Operating limitations when it occurred.

For example, the Hurricane II Operating Notes dated September 1943 clearly list 100 Octane as the ONLY fuel to be used:

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2949/hurr14fuel.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/201/hurr14fuel.jpg/)

It will note in paragraph 1 the fuel options when 100 Octane becomes common and it will note when all operational units will use the fuel, and when it is the only choice.

It is the operational documentation and not logistical!!

Now, it might not be the exact month because there is some lag time and technical orders will cover that short time period.

you will not see technical orders that are applicable to operational units that do not make it into the new edition.

It is really simple. We have a 1939 edition and we have a June 1940 edition with no changes to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations. That fact tells you 100 Octane was not in common use. It was in use but it was not the most common operational fuel in the RAF at that time.

In between that time we have a technical order to AP1590 which is the engine series and not the airframe series. It makes a difference in aviation and there are plenty of engines that modifications are not approved in specific airframes. There will be an order approving that engine modification for the specific airframe.

For example:

Why isn't the Mooney M-20-C (or Piper Comanche) approved?


A. The Mooney and Comanche both experienced vapor lock problems when they were tested. We solved the vapor lock problem, but could not overcome pneumatic lock. Pneumatic lock takes place when the fuel boils as it enters the carb. The engine then dies due to an overrich mixture. This is just the opposite of a vapor lock where the engine quits or runs poorly due to a lean mixture. The better an airplane performs, the more difficult it is to get it through the flight test program.




Q.If the Apache with 150 or 160 hp engines is approved, then why isn't the Apache with the 0-540 235 hp "B" model engines approved? These engines are listed as approved in your website.


A. The 235 Apache was flight tested and failed the flight test due to vapor lock. At that time if an airframe failed the flight test it was washed out and we went on to the next airplane. There are numerous examples of airframe/engine combinations which would appear to be approved since they have STC's individually, but may not be approved in conjunction with each other either because they failed the flight test or were not tested at all.




http://www.autofuelstc.com/autofuelstc/pa/Mogas_FAQ.html

I don't know the specific explaination in the case of 100 Octane as too why the large lag time between the engine approval and the airframe operating limitations but I do know that is a flag to anyone knowledgeable in airplane maintenance for claims of widespread general use.

I would get the editions to the Operating Notes and throw away any squadron logs that do not specifically state "100 Octane Fuel in use".

You will have good factual picture on the timeline for the fuels operational use if you do that.

[Crumpp]

For the purposes of CloD, does it matter if ALL operational RAF units were using 100?

No, It was claimed in this thread that all operational units were using the fuel by June 1940 and that is not correct.

[Osprey]

It is correct, only a total fool would argue against such a weight of evidence.

[pstyle]

No, It was claimed in this thread that all operational units were using the fuel by June 1940 and that is not correct.

Ok fine, that's certainly debatable, but not strictly relevant to the game.... Not unless they model the whole UK and every RAF unit.

[winny]

Winny, it is not guesswork. It is what the Operating Notes say for every edition until we get to January 1942.
.

How many editions are there and what dates were they printed?
And what about the vol.II's?

As I've mentioned unfortunately the notes are not 'gospel'

FC's total fighter strength during BoB (operational) peaked at around 750 aircraft, Spitfires, hurricanes and all other types. And was around 350 at the start.
We are talking less than a 3rd of the whole RAF. At around the same time they had 220,000 tons of 100 octane.
It makes no sense for them not to use it. Morgan and shacklady say the conversion started in march, there was a team of rolls-Royce engineers running around the airfields showing the mechanics how to do the conversion, in the field. Geoff Wellum says he was using 100 octane "just before" the battle of britain, tim viggors was putting it in his car in June 1940. All Deere says it was in use "just in time for the BoB". Peter brothers also says that they converted in the spring of 1940. All these pilot's, and more...


I contacted Dilip Sarkar, and asked the question. He said it was done in the spring of 1940. Bungay and Holland say the same thing. Then there's you...