Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data [Archive] - Page 6

NZtyphoon

04-23-2012, 09:00 PM

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:

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.

FACT: The RAF issued amendment slips with the Pilot's Notes before reprinting the notes with the amendments included - just because the June 1940 Pilot's Notes do not have the required amendments does not mean the RAF wasn't using 100 octane fuel - it simply means the Pilot's Notes continued with the convention of noting limitations for the fuel for which the Merlin II/III series was designed; to wit 87 Octane. Even in January 1942 Pilot's Notes stated 100 Octane for Operational Units 87 for "Other units".

you will not see technical orders that are applicable to operational units that do not make it into the new edition.

Wrong - as long as the engine was originally designed and rated for 87 Octane fuel the Pilot's Notes did not incorporate anything else until 1943. Any amendments to the engine's ratings continued to be issued as supplementary slips. The Hurricane notes of 1943 say 100 Octane because the Merlin XX was designed to use 100 octane.

The Pilot's Notes General 2nd ed printed in April 1943 dropped the convention because most engines which were originally designed to use 87 octane fuel were well out of frontline service.

Glider

04-23-2012, 09:05 PM

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.

We know the changes to the aircraft to enable it to be used with 100 octane and the changes are minimal. Please tell me what is so difficult in drilling two holes. The other changes were already incorporated in new engines or were being done as part of normal maintanence in March. By the time the BOB started in anger around June, you would be hard pushed to find any Spit or Hurricane that hadn't had maintanence in the previous three months.

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.

Unfortunately they don't hold any copies of Spit 1 prior to 1941 or any Hurricane I notes which are the ones we need. The only person I know who has a copy of these is you, and you have not been willing to share what you have.

I know that when I used pilots notes I didn't give a damn about when a change had been used, I just wanted to make sure that the notes and its updates matched the plane I was going to fly in.

Either way the date of the notes is clearly not a given as to accuracy of the implementation of the change. I am confident that your notes dated June 1940 are not for the varient of the Spitfire I with the updates CSP, Armour, Tank protection and so on, in service in June 1940. Your 1942 notes saying all operational units is another example, show me a Spitfire Unit operational in June 1942 flying the Spit I.

You have done nothng to prove your theory of 16 squadrons, or the bases that would have held the fuel. You have no evidence of any fighter combat using 87 octane apart from some I gave you iro OCU units who woldn't have had 100 octane. There is no evidence from any participant or historian to support your theory. You have no evidence to support your theory from the oil committee who would have been involved in the disribution of said 100 octane fuel, unless you believe that we fought the entire war with 16 squadrons on 100 octane in the UK. I say this as after May 1940 there is nothing more in the papers about increasing or extending the roll out of 100 octane at any time.

There is no suggestion from any report or status paper from any source, be it Cabinet Meetings, Oil Committee or Air Ministry to support the idea that there was a shortage of 100 Octane fuel, again apart from my finding that there was a shortage in May 1944.

Your faith that a pre war proposal was maintained despite war starting and despite everything else we have shown is almost desperate. I have asked before that you find any pre war plan, on any topic from any nation that remained unchanged when the firing started.

Crumpp

04-23-2012, 09:36 PM

We know the changes to the aircraft to enable it to be used with 100 octane and the changes are minimal.

NO, changing cylinder heads is major repair.

Crumpp

04-23-2012, 09:55 PM

Major repair means a repair:

(1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.1.1.0.1.1&idno=14

By Convention, improperly installing a cylinder head or misadjusted valves will effect powerplant operation and is a major repair by itself.

Glider,

I am not argue with you anymore. The facts are plain.

you will not see technical orders that are applicable to operational units that do not make it into the new edition.

NZtyphoon

04-23-2012, 10:16 PM

Crumppquote: you will not see technical orders that are applicable to operational units that do not make it into the new edition.

Wrong - as long as the engine was originally designed and rated for 87 Octane fuel the Pilot's Notes did not incorporate anything else until 1943. Any amendments to the engine's ratings continued to be issued as supplementary slips.

The Pilot's Notes General 2nd ed printed in April 1943 dropped the convention because most engines which were originally designed to use 87 octane fuel were well out of frontline service.

Glider

04-23-2012, 10:31 PM

NO, changing cylinder heads is major repair.

Rubbish The major work is already covered in the new production engines or in routine maintanence. What is left is minor and easily done. How many front line aircraft wouldn't have been maintained in the three months from March to June?

You say you have experience in this field but I must say I seriously doubt this. I strongly urge you to show some of the engineers you have worked with the paper outlinging the changes and ask them how long it would take to drill two holes and reassemble the piece as described.
.

Glider,

I am not argue with you anymore. The facts are plain.
.
On that I totally agree with you

i.e. I agree
You have done nothng to prove your theory of 16 squadrons, or the bases that would have held the fuel. You have no evidence of any fighter combat using 87 octane apart from some I gave you iro OCU units who woldn't have had 100 octane. There is no evidence from any participant or historian to support your theory. You have no evidence to support your theory from the oil committee who would have been involved in the disribution of said 100 octane fuel, unless you believe that we fought the entire war with 16 squadrons on 100 octane in the UK. I say this as after May 1940 there is nothing more in the papers about increasing or extending the roll out of 100 octane at any time.

There is no suggestion from any report or status paper from any source, be it Cabinet Meetings, Oil Committee or Air Ministry to support the idea that there was a shortage of 100 Octane fuel, again apart from my finding that there was a shortage in May 1944.

Skoshi Tiger

04-23-2012, 11:25 PM

NO, changing cylinder heads is major repair.

Changing the Cylnder head in this case is not classed as a 'repair'. It was completed as part of the Merlin engines service maintenance.

To me this implys that the cylnder head modification would have already been performed on aircaft scheduled for that service before the change over. This would have sped up the conversion process conciderably.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ap1590b.jpg

Luckly the RAF had very competent and well trained mechanics and maintenance personel to perform the task.
Cheers!

winny

04-24-2012, 12:36 AM

The notes are gospel Winny. For a short period of time a technical order will override them until the next edition of the Operating Notes is published.

Yes.....with a total of 16 squadrons converted to 100 Octane sometime in September.

That is exactly what I said I believed happenend. Both the Operating Notes and Table II showing fuel at the airfields point to that same conclusion.

For the last 20 pages I have been called every name in the book for stating that!!

Firstly the meeting was held before the war started at a point when nobody, not even Hitler thought the war would start until 41 at the earliest, the British were looking at '42 as the probable start. This meeting was followed by other meetings that are again documented here that superseded the original meeting due to the minor inconvienience of Hitler deciding to risk war and invade Poland.
There were meetings held in '39 that were specifically held to secure and produce 100 octane without having to rely on the USA. In 1939 the government spent the most amount of money on any single production facility for the entire war when they contracted TRIMPELL to build the Heysham iso-octane plant, who's specific purpose was to convert 87 into 100. Why would they do this if they were expecting the total consumption to be 10,000 tons per annum, as Morgan and shacklady say, when they already had 100,000 tons in stock.. 10 years supply according to that meeting. See next point.

Morgan and shacklady states that the same meeting decided that the change over would result in "consumption of 10,000 tons per annum" the reserve of 800,000 tons was, if you look at the relevant documents already posted in this thread, for the entire RAF as projected for 1943.

I noticed you gloss over the fact that Deere, Wellum, Brothers, Hillary, Lane, Viggors, Page, Malan and a few others mention in their memoirs that the changeover happened in the Spring of 1940.

At the end of the day I don't give a shit what you think. I value people who were there, and who were writing diaries at the time over your desperate clinging to a meeting that was held when Britain was in the process of re arming for a war they were expecting in 2 or 3 years. I mean.. Who exactly are you? Actually don't answer that, I don't care.

camber

04-24-2012, 01:19 AM

Dear Crumpp,

I just can't find these arguements compelling where you compare current peacetime FAA (US) procedures and definitions to the RAF in 1940, then state conclusions that are held and argued no-matter how they are contradicted by the rest of the evidence. I understand you have some background in (today's) civil aviation, it may be a good place to start but it is not producing very compelling arguments.

Plus there a lot of assumptions being put into your mix. Your current argument rests on implying new cylinder heads are needed (with consequent large requirements for time and materials), where AP1590/J.2-W (which you posted) refers to a rather more mundane "cylinder head spigot depth modification" (elsewhere referred to as a "top joint modification") which has aleady been done in routine maintainance or at the factory for new engines as Glider and others have said (document from March 40). It would be nice to see some more info on what exactly Merlin Mods 64,77 and 136 entailed (these are the cylinder head mods), but there are a lot of posted documents detailing that the airfield conversions were done very quickly.

The nature of the boost control modification itself rather argues against the relevance of comparing today's civil aviation standards with the 1940 RAF. Drilling extra air channels to convert an existing boost control cutout into a boost pressure setpoint control? Brilliant, ingenious, very seat of the pants. I have a little background in civil aviation too (Australia) and I can't see it happening today ;)

I am not saying the devil's advocate role is not useful. I loved it when you totally offended the Spitfire purists by saying that according to a college course you did, the Spitfire fails control stability design standards developed in the US at the end of the war. There was an interesting point there that the pre 1940s belief that instability was necessary for manouverability was wrong...US engineers figured out that you can have both. This (correct) technical detail about changes in standards does miss the point though that pilots of the time (and today) found the Spitfire a delightful aircraft to fly.

There was also the time when you offended an ex-RAAF fast jet pilot (who also flew Yak 50s) by contradicting him repeatedly on flying in the "buffet", when you stated (correctly) that flight in the buffet regime is wrong because it represents a loss of aerodynamic efficiency and hence turn efficiency. But this (correct) technical detail misses the point that military or aerobatic pilots have often used the first point they can detect the onset of buffet (i.e flying in the "buzz") to stay in proximity to their maximum AoA...any slight deterioration in performance is offset by the ability to detect the point of departure and stay near it.

Bolding text and making statements that "this is a FACT" and "anyone that knows about aeroplanes would know this" I (and I suspect others) find very unconvincing. Generally you have used them to make statements that are correct within a narrow technical context or definition but then become misleading in the historical application to which they have been put.

Cheers, camber

Crumpp

04-24-2012, 05:05 AM

I just can't find these arguements compelling where you compare current peacetime FAA (US) procedures and definitions to the RAF in 1940

Convention Relating to the Regulation of Aerial Navigation Signed at Paris, October 13, 1919
(Paris Convention)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, CHINA, CUBA, ECUADOR, FRANCE, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, THE HEDJAZ, HONDURAS, ITALY, JAPAN, LIBERIA, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROUMANIA, THE SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, SIAM, CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND URUGUAY,
Recognising the progress of aerial navigation, and that the establishment of regulations of universal application will be to the interest of all;

There have been other conventions since but 1919 was the first. Aviation is the same around the world for the most part.

Yes, the Air Ministry of the United Kingdom follows the same rules and concepts as the FAA. Those principles are exactly the same. Once more, the instructions found in every Air Ministry Operating Notes reflect this practice.

Crumpp says:

you will not see technical orders that are applicable to operational units that do not make it into the new edition.

"cylinder head spigot depth modification"

Do you know what a cylinder head spigot is on an engine?

routine maintainance

It is not routine maintenance; it is done at Service Inspection. Do you know the difference?

There was also the time when you offended an ex-RAAF fast jet pilot (who also flew Yak 50s) by contradicting him repeatedly on flying in the "buffet", when you stated (correctly) that flight in the buffet regime is wrong because it represents a loss of aerodynamic efficiency and hence turn efficiency.

You misrepresent this completely. The statement was not using the buffet to find maximum turn performance. He flat stated that maximum turn performance occurs in the buffet. That is not correct and once he clarified that we had no issue.

This (correct) technical detail about changes in standards does miss the point though that pilots of the time (and today) found the Spitfire a delightful aircraft to fly.

Up until the moment they died from it! ;) What the engineer likes and what the pilot likes are not always the same thing. Why let a pilot take a plane someplace it cannot fly?

Generally you have used them to make statements that are correct within a narrow technical context or definition but then become misleading in the historical application to which they have been put.

How can it be technically correct and then wrong in some imagined historical application? Sounds like horse-puckey to me. What I have passed on is true and how it works. There is no point in arguing the same information over and over. Problem is that most aviation historians have no practical aviation experience. In fact, the vast majority of books on aviation history are written by interested amatures who don't have a background in either history or aviation.

What I have said about the Operating Notes is technically, historically, and whatever else you want to attach to the word, "CORRECT". I don't care if you believe it, hate it, or love it.

Cheers,

Crumpp

JtD

04-24-2012, 05:34 AM

Is there any evidence of 87 octane fuel used by operational fighter units during BoB by now?

IvanK

04-24-2012, 06:16 AM

Quote:
There was also the time when you offended an ex-RAAF fast jet pilot (who also flew Yak 50s) by contradicting him repeatedly on flying in the "buffet", when you stated (correctly) that flight in the buffet regime is wrong because it represents a loss of aerodynamic efficiency and hence turn efficiency.

You misrepresent this completely. The statement was not using the buffet to find maximum turn performance. He flat stated that maximum turn performance occurs in the buffet. That is not correct and once he clarified that we had no issue.

-----------------------------

Just to keep the record straight (and not wanting to re enter the engagement or add to thread drift) on what I actually said. My very last post in that thread regarding Max performance turning and using the Buzz for AOA cueing was:

CRUMPP you said above:

"As for the original premise of this discussion, the effect of a hard buffet for stall warning on turn performance:"

The premise of the discussion was NOT flying in Hard Buffet at all ! but on the very first indication i.e. The "Buzz" or the "Nibble" or the "Burble" ... what ever you want to call it. In a previous post you erroneously said the Buzz and Buffet I described was in fact the stickshaker going off even though in these aeroplanes no stickshaker system was fitted, you also told me that it was only valid technique in FBW aircraft ... even though we were talking about coventional cable/pushrod flight control systems ! You fail to accept that flying on the Buzz was/is a technique practised by Fighter pilots the world over and examples provided in this thread from at my count by 4 independent people/references ... by those that have actually used the technique....including a Spitfire pilot from the Battle Of Britain. "

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=26956&highlight=Yak52&page=17

Talisman

04-24-2012, 08:56 AM

With regard to the pilot notes, RAF Air Publication (AP) amendments are well known for being behind the times as far as up-to-date common practise at the front line is concerned. It may be many months and over a year or so before an AP is fully updated to reflect what is actually taking place on the ground and in the air.

A fighting force does not wait for the AP to be updated before taking actions that are operationally required to provide an advantage in combat (AP amendments are not a priority when fighting a war). In the mean time, RAF personnel may be informed and corporate knowledge developed by other means of authorised advanced information contained in a variety of communication methods, such as signals, memos, letters, advanced information leaflets (destroyed once formal amendment leaflet is incorporated into the AP), briefings and local training.

The date an Amendment Leaflet is issued is not an indication of when the subject practise was first authorised or carried out. Moreover, the vast number of aircraft AP copies in existence would not have all been amended with updated changes on the same date; different copies of the same AP held across the RAF at squadron and flight level will have different dates recorded on the amendment leaflet record for the incorporation of the amendment. Also, it is not unusual for amendment leaflets to go missing in transit and for a unit to receive an amendment leaflet out of sequence, or for the AP to have a number of missing amendment leaflets; no system is perfect.

In short, I do not believe that it is logical or wise for us or the CloD dev team to treat a set of war time pilot notes as gospel for an exact time frame without taking account of the wider historical context and associated issues (reality check).

pstyle

04-24-2012, 09:15 AM

Is there any evidence of 87 octane fuel used by operational fighter units during BoB by now?

No.
Just a few suggestions that it was logically possible.

NZtyphoon

04-24-2012, 09:21 AM

Yes, the Air Ministry of the United Kingdom follows the same rules and concepts as the FAA. Those principles are exactly the same. Once more, the instructions found in every Air Ministry Operating Notes reflect this practice.

Problem is that most aviation historians have no practical aviation experience. In fact, the vast majority of books on aviation history are written by interested amatures who don't have a background in either history or aviation.

What I have said about the Operating Notes is technically, historically, and whatever else you want to attach to the word, "CORRECT". I don't care if you believe it, hate it, or love it.

Cheers,

Crumpp

In order: wrong, as I have explained to Crumpp - twice- but I'm probably on his "ignore" list (awww I'm devastated!) :grin:

Crumpp shows that "having practical aviation experience" doesn't make for a good historian - just someone who thinks he's right about everything, and Crumpp clearly has no idea of what good historical research entails because he doesn't know how to handle anything that goes against his own beliefs.

Wrong - again - in so many ways. Crumpp cannot be bothered with other people's opinions and cannot be bothered re-examining his own predetermined POV in spite of everything that has been presented in this exceedingly lengthy thread; there is no point trying to reason with this ahistorical chump because he just repeats the same arguments over and over, regardless of any inconvenient facts that happen to get in the way.

Gabelschwanz Teufel

04-24-2012, 09:54 AM

pstyle

04-24-2012, 10:18 AM

Perhaps instead of looking at the issue of pilot notes and revisions through the lens of a civilian "expert", maybe one should ask someone in the military how the "TO" (the US equivalent) system really works. Or better yet, someone with service time in the RAF.

Even then, we will be dealing with "modern" procedures.

Note especially that these are all post the 1974 Health and Safety Act. (and the 1987 repeal of sections 61 to 76), this does not necessarily make for good historical analysis.

The BoB period RAF cannot be analyised in the absence of reference to photos, pilot notes aand combat reports from the period, which indicate widespread use of 100, and at this stage there is no positive evidence of 11 group or even 12 group use of 87 in spits or hurricanes after may/june 1940.

camber

04-24-2012, 10:23 AM

Crumpp:

Do you know what a cylinder head spigot is on an engine?

Actually, no. One of the advantanges of such a long discussion is that a lot of great documents have been posted. However looking back I can't find any technical references to what precisely these Merlin head mods entailed. Anyone? Crumpp, you posted a while back that it was a modification to change vibration harmonics. Where did that information come from? Although I think the mods are interesting I doubt they would change the conversion story as already discussed.

IvanK:

Was a bit relieved re-reading that thread that my memory of it was correct (though I should have said "hard buffet" and not just "buffet"), I was a bit lazy to not check it and link to it. Assuming my assumption about your past activities is correct and considering tomorrow's date, thank you for your service to this country.

Cheers, camber

Osprey

04-24-2012, 10:29 AM

At the end of the day I don't give a shit what you think. I value people who were there, and who were writing diaries at the time over your desperate clinging to a meeting that was held when Britain was in the process of re arming for a war they were expecting in 2 or 3 years. I mean.. Who exactly are you? Actually don't answer that, I don't care.

He is Biff, and he hates manure.

http://popchassid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/biff_manure.jpg

Skoshi Tiger

04-24-2012, 11:05 AM

Do you know what a cylinder head spigot is on an engine?

Cheers,

Crumpp

In the Merlin engine, it is my understanding that, the spigots were on the cylinder liners. The Cylinder Head had recesses that accepted the spigots (presumable to ensure accurate alignment).

I don't think any other spigots (if any) on the cylinder head have anything to do with the modification.

Cheers!

Crumpp

04-24-2012, 01:02 PM

IvanK,

This was my reply to you on the buffet subject. I would encourage people to read that thread. Some good information and some good insight. Stability and control is just about my favorite subject when I was in school. It always amazed me how much of difference it makes in the outcome of an aircraft. you can have the best performance on paper that is unrealizable in the air, all due to stability and control issues. It was such a new thing during WWII, too.

Why do you think I disagree with you?

Yes the correct technique to achieve maximum rate of turn performance without FBW is to fly to the first indication of flow separation and back off to the point just before that flow detaches.

Tell me this, does CoD model the effects of the stick shaker zone or does maximum rate of turn performance occur at 2D CLmax?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=351705&postcount=174

I told you the truth. I was not disrespectful. I just backed up what I had to say and did not back down.

It was not "technically correct but historically inaccurate". It was just correct.

:(

Is that like a new classification of information? Ha ha ha!! While this is correct, it is not historically correct, historically, they were wrong but right as I see it because technically they were not correct.

:-P

All I said was this:

Ideally the very first hint of it...... No, Ideally you have none at all and are at the point just before any buffeting occurs. That is also what the Spitfire Mk I notes relate

From CAA Flight Instructors Guide:

Secondly, you should be aware that experiencing any buffet will reduce the rate of turn because of its effects on drag and L/D ratio. Therefore, if the stall warning is not operating, and the lightest of buffets is used to determine maximum CL, performance is degraded, and the aeroplane will not be turning at its maximum rate. 

http://www.caa.govt.nz/FIG/advanced-manoeuvres/maximum-rate-turns.html

Crumpp

04-24-2012, 02:03 PM

In the Merlin engine, it is my understanding that, the spigots were on the cylinder liners. The Cylinder Head had recesses that accepted the spigots (presumable to ensure accurate alignment).

I don't think any other spigots (if any) on the cylinder head have anything to do with the modification.

You are very close. There are lots of spigots on an engine. They can be plugs, cylinders, etc...

You are also right in the cylinder liners form the spigot on many engines.

NZtyphoon

04-24-2012, 10:14 PM

Problem is that most aviation historians have no practical aviation experience. In fact, the vast majority of books on aviation history are written by interested amatures who don't have a background in either history or aviation.

What I have said about the Operating Notes is technically, historically, and whatever else you want to attach to the word, "CORRECT". I don't care if you believe it, hate it, or love it.

Cheers,

Crumpp

Crumpp's conundrum

Everbody's Wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmj7wp_tZPI)

Seadog

04-24-2012, 10:30 PM

[QUOTE=NZtyphoon;414492]Crumpp's conundrum

Well put...

:grin:

Gabelschwanz Teufel

04-24-2012, 11:34 PM

Even then, we will be dealing with "modern" procedures.

Note especially that these are all post the 1974 Health and Safety Act. (and the 1987 repeal of sections 61 to 76), this does not necessarily make for good historical analysis.

The BoB period RAF cannot be analyised in the absence of reference to photos, pilot notes aand combat reports from the period, which indicate widespread use of 100, and at this stage there is no positive evidence of 11 group or even 12 group use of 87 in spits or hurricanes after may/june 1940.

Not the point. The point being that military regs are often supplemented. These supplements can take several forms in that entire pages can be replaced, paragraphs, lines down to individual words stricken or added. Depending on who was in charge of updating the pages could be removed, pen and ink changes made, etc. Or they could have been shoved in the back. The point being that new printed manuals including the latest revisions ARE NOT CONSTANTLY CHURNED OUT LIKE SAUSAGES just because something has changed. Maybe now. Maybe in the civilian world. Not in the military world. Not during wartime and certainly not now. Someone is hanging their hat on the utter dreck that is doesn't say in his particular version of the pilots notes that the operational changes for 100 octane use don't seem to be included. Nor would they if the changes were made after the printing of that series. That's what supplements are for. Spewing some arcane nonsense about some 1919 treaty or something is just more noise trying to justify an position based on what he knows in the civilian aviation world and not based on wartime exigencies or military operation.

camber

04-25-2012, 02:42 AM

Well I already contributed to re-derailing a many times derailed thread so I will persist :)

To me this seems an example of taking a correct technical fact and using it it go somewhere misleading. In a black and white world that would be impossible, but bear with me.

Crumpp:
All I said was this:

Quote:
Ideally the very first hint of it...... No, Ideally you have none at all and are at the point just before any buffeting occurs. That is also what the Spitfire Mk I notes relate
From CAA Flight Instructors Guide:

Quote:
Secondly, you should be aware that experiencing any buffet will reduce the rate of turn because of its effects on drag and L/D ratio. Therefore, if the stall warning is not operating, and the lightest of buffets is used to determine maximum CL, performance is degraded, and the aeroplane will not be turning at its maximum rate. 

Yes, any buffet, even the mildest "buzz" represents some flow separation and a degradation in turn performance. This is true even though it is referenced in a New Zealand CAA website and we are very suspicious of those in Australia :-P

So why do historical military pilots and aerobatic pilots (not talking FBW here) seem to think flying at the onset of just detectable buffet a good idea? Are they all misguided and should be told the truth?

Perhaps instead they know what they are doing and do it because it is a practical tool to stay as close as possible to the AoA for a maximum rate turn. In theory some turn performance is lost this way but there is no comparable signal to tell them how far they are under the optimum (so they can apply more pitch input). Of course the aircraft design plays a part in terms of buffet "depth"...if the aircraft departs very soon (with further pitch input) after the buffet onset is felt, or buffet was immediately "hard" it would not be a good idea to se this technique. Another technique would be to continuously detect flow separation, back off then redetect, but this doesn't seem very practical to me. But unfortunately I feel sick for hours after doing just an (approx) 2G turn for 360' so I don't know:(

Of course a plane design that will take a maximum pilot stick deflection and apply exactly the optimum elevator deflection to achieve optimum AoA without any flow separation is good, but we need the microprocessor in avionics to get there I think.

But to me that covers how context is important for technically correct "facts" to be useful in the discussion.

Cheers, camber

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 04:52 AM

So why do historical military pilots and aerobatic pilots (not talking FBW here) seem to think flying at the onset of just detectable buffet a good idea? Are they all misguided and should be told the truth?

Couple of reasons....

1. If you don't have a stall warning device or AoA indicator then flying to the nibble and backing off is the correct technique. Read my last post in that thread and you will see once IvanK clarified his statement, we agreed.

2. See point #1 for most aerobatic aircraft.

Another technique would be to continuously detect flow separation, back off then redetect, but this doesn't seem very practical to me. But unfortunately I feel sick for hours after doing just an (approx) 2G turn for 360' so I don't know

That is exactly what you do.

You can read the Spitfire Mk I notes and see that it is in fact....correct.
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/2048/spit26.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/513/spit26.jpg/)

Notice in paragraph 38 turning circle it instructs to not buffet the aircraft for a minimum radius turn and relax the stick pressure (move the stick forward)!!

The point being that new printed manuals including the latest revisions ARE NOT CONSTANTLY CHURNED OUT LIKE SAUSAGES just because something has changed.

The RAF republished sections as needed. That is a fact. The incorporated Amendment List was noted at the top of the reprinted section so that the operator could confirm he had the latest updates.

For example, the Hurricane II Volume I shown here incorporates Amendment List Number 42:

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4078/admendmentlist.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/198/admendmentlist.jpg/)

The amendment list's that are published but not incorporated are the responsibility of the operator to add to the Operating Notes.

Those amendments are to be logged in the space provided at the front of the Operating Notes:

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8300/hurr02.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/829/hurr02.jpg/)

To complete the update, the operator is instructed to paste in and replace the old text with the changes noted in the Amendment.

Here you can see that an amendment was properly added to the Operating Notes by the Operator:

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/2333/merlinnovember19402.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/687/merlinnovember19402.jpg/)

Crumpp says:

It is a fact that conversion of all operational Spitfire Mk I's was important enough to warrant a warning in paragraph 1, operating limitations of the Pilots Operating Notes in January, 1942.

We can definitely say that full conversion did not take place in June 1940 or earlier as no such warning exists in the Operating Notes.

The only operational evidence of full conversion to 100 Octane presented in the thread is the January, 1942 Operating Notes for the Spitfire Mk I.

That being said, I can also tell you for a fact ALL Spitfire Mk II's were using 100 Octane in June of 1940.

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 04:58 AM

BTW, the RAF does the same with their Operating Notes that the FAA requires of any certified General Aviation Aircraft in use today.

It is what was agreed upon by convention!!

:)

Flanker35M

04-25-2012, 05:20 AM

S!

Just to say about update intervals on technical literature. We do get some that are dated some time ago and have gone thru the whole process or whatever before being published. But also get urgent ones that are released very quickly and have to be done or added to the literature so safety is not compromised. So I would guess that especially during wartime if something critical came up then info would be passed to the troops fast in a way or another to prevent losses because of lack in information. I do not think RAF or any other air force waited a year before publishing stuff, even during war ;)

An example would be also the Curtiss representative that went to study the Helldiver planes having strange losses due control failures. Reason was a pulley/linkage in the wing and in the end he ended up machining these things of better materials on a CV! All this during war time and in the field. So info came out fairly fast don't you think. So would it feasible to think that the pilot/technical literature was updated fairly quickly and urgent information was passed to troops in form of a bulletin or other means before the amendment could be added to the official literature? Just a thought.

41Sqn_Banks

04-25-2012, 06:55 AM

Those amendments are to be logged in the space provided at the front of the Operating Notes:

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8300/hurr02.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/829/hurr02.jpg/)

To complete the update, the operator is instructed to paste in and replace the old text with the changes noted in the Amendment.

Here you can see that an amendment was properly added to the Operating Notes by the Operator:

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/2333/merlinnovember19402.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/687/merlinnovember19402.jpg/)

Actually it's good example. You describe how it should be in theory. And this is how it was in reality for this particular manual:

The incorporated amendments were not logged by the operator in the A.L. overview in the front of the manual.
Some amended paragraphs were cut out of the amendment list and placed (not always taped or pasted, some only slipped in) above or below the old paragraphs. Some amendments were written into old paragraphs by a pencil.
About 4-5 pages of the amendment list were slipped in the front of the book and the old paragraphs didn't even contain a note that there are amendments in the front for it.

Also you will find some instances where a subject was amended in one section of the manual but the same subject is not amended in another section.

You are simply putting to much weight into the single sentences of the manual, you must look at the context.
Do you think the ground crew always read a manual before the fueled up the aircraft? They simply painted a small "100" next to the fuel tank cap and everyone knew what to do.

41Sqn_Banks

04-25-2012, 07:01 AM

S!

Just to say about update intervals on technical literature. We do get some that are dated some time ago and have gone thru the whole process or whatever before being published. But also get urgent ones that are released very quickly and have to be done or added to the literature so safety is not compromised. So I would guess that especially during wartime if something critical came up then info would be passed to the troops fast in a way or another to prevent losses because of lack in information. I do not think RAF or any other air force waited a year before publishing stuff, even during war ;)

The clearance of 100 octane fuel for Spitfire I, which definitely is something urgent and important, was added by A.L. 2 to the May 1940 section of the manual.
The additional restriction of 100 octane fuel to operational units is definitely nothing urgent. And this restriction was simply ruled out by Pilot's Notes General that allowed the use of lower octane fuel if really necessary (of course lower operational limits applied in this case).

Osprey

04-25-2012, 07:20 AM

Biff just keeps on digging that hole for the stupid doesn't he? lol

Flanker35M

04-25-2012, 08:15 AM

S!

Banks, good points. I know from experience too that things are done outside books as they are a routine. But this can cause a danger too as you can miss things an addition or change can bring so I am sure ground crews were informed on important changes and schooled for a professional and safe working procedure.

I've done heaps of changes to literature when they come. It is realy interesting and rewarding to compare these changes to the older version and see the reasons behind it. At the same time you learn more from the plane you work on. I think this applies to every AF today, now and in the past. Thanks for great discussion :)

winny

04-25-2012, 09:38 AM

Tsk.. Those damn RAF pilot's, never filling in their bloody paperwork, dunno why. Maybe all that getting killed nonsense had something to do with it.
I dunno, any excuse.

From what I've read, the last thing they wanted to do having just seen their mates explode 20 feet off the port wing was effin paperwork.

To apply modern standards to a life or death situation in 1940 is ridiculous.

By modern standards none of them would be able to fly because most of them were still drunk from the night before. What's the FAA got to say about that? Or 4 hours sleep, clinically exhausted are you son.. Tough, get up there and fight for your life.

NZtyphoon

04-25-2012, 10:08 AM

An interesting doco here:
Oops - it says the RAF used 100 octane fuel - although the Fw 190 didn't appear during the battle.
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nMc_HJO0RU&feature=related

NZtyphoon

04-25-2012, 10:10 AM

And an interesting one here
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTeEXjjwLCQ&feature=related

About testing the Spitfire at Castle Bromwich

winny

04-25-2012, 10:11 AM

That being said, I can also tell you for a fact ALL Spitfire Mk II's were using 100 Octane in June of 1940.

Oh good, now we're getting somewhere.

So, if I sit down with my copy of Spitfire the history, I'll be able to work out where all the mkII's went from the factory, therefore I'll be able to tell which stations had 100 octane. Cool. I'll get back to you.

Flanker35M

04-25-2012, 10:13 AM

winny

04-25-2012, 12:10 PM

S!

Winny..war or not the technical staff did work by the a certain order and did use literature. Claiming these guys just did it without any supervision or literature is just thick. The base how an unit work is doing things, how professional it is performing it's tasks..all those are trained and done before the war. RAF or any other AF did not switch mode because of war..sure they had to improvise in the field but it was based on something. And belive me even in war superiors ask for paperwork because it is essential for the big picture if you get the drift.

Fair enuff, I was being sarcastic. And I'm not thick. But my point was kind of that it's hard to tell if a set of pilot's notes were maintained correctly without knowing their history.

Flanker35M

04-25-2012, 12:26 PM

S!

Point taken Winny ;) :D

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 12:46 PM

Banks, good points. I know from experience too that things are done outside books as they are a routine. But this can cause a danger too as you can miss things an addition or change can bring so I am sure ground crews were informed on important changes and schooled for a professional and safe working procedure.

Flanker,

Good points and your experience is obvious. The Curtiss Helldiver is a great example of the measures taken to keep aircraft from falling out of the sky and in safe operation.

It does not make any sense to rush an airplane to destruction and kill people.

winny

04-25-2012, 12:57 PM

Flanker,

Good points and your experience is obvious. The Curtiss Helldiver is a great example of the measures taken to keep aircraft from falling out of the sky and in safe operation.

It does not make any sense to rush an airplane to destruction and kill people.

According to Morgan and Shacklady ( the very next paragraph after the one you kept quoting) "first trials of the fuel in a Spitfire took place at Rolls-Royce Hucknall on 24th September 1939 when K9788, fitted with a Merlin RM3S made it's first flights"

They also carried out bench tests in April 1938 - the engine failed during it's 100 hour type test. It managed 94 hours including 4 hours of maximum take off power of 1250hp @ 3,000 rpm +12lb boost. I'll repeat that. April 1938

I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "rush" is...

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 01:28 PM

"first trials of the fuel in a Spitfire took place at Rolls-Royce Hucknall on 24th September 1939 when K9788, fitted with a Merlin RM3S made it's first flights"

They did rush it!!'

If we take January 1942 as the time the conversion for Spitfire Mk I's was complete that represents about two years and four months between initial flight test and 100% ground operational adoption.

Compare that to the RLM's testing of 1.58ata/1.65 ata as a straight manifold pressure increase in the BMW801D2. The motor was tested at that manifold pressure in May 1942. It was not until July 1944 that we see it in the Flugzueg Handbuch for the FW-190A8. That is a two years and two months lag time. Do you not think the RLM was rushing this improvement, too?

Glider

04-25-2012, 01:56 PM

Flanker35M

04-25-2012, 02:24 PM

S!

Thanks Crumpp, 16 years of active service in military behind with fighters and their systems/armament/maintenance :) I think it gives something to this flying hobby, but I think knowledge just increases the pain in both good and bad :)

41Sqn_Banks

04-25-2012, 02:44 PM

They did rush it!!'

If we take January 1942 as the time the conversion for Spitfire Mk I's was complete that represents about two years and four months between initial flight test and 100% ground operational adoption.

Well, if conversion was completed by January 1942 it wasn't done by converting engines but by phasing out the remaining aircraft (if there were any, what I seriously doubt) from operational service ...

The Merlin V was 100 octane only (according to AP1590B, A.L. 4 November 1940). Compare the differences between Merlin II, III and V here (http://www.jshawmsc.f2s.com/merlin.htm)), there is no essential difference. This is also confirmed by AP1590B, A.L.4 November 1940 and the fact that only amendments to AP1590B were required to cover the new engine by the same manual (AP1590B without amendments only covers II and III).

Merlin XII, XX and 45 were all 100 octane only. Compare the cylinder block of these engines, which show the largest differences between those marks:

Merlin II: D.8985 and D.8986. One-piece with narrow inlet ports. Ribbed liner with 0.15 in. spigot. Radiused top joint ring 0.08 in. thick. Unshrouded. May be modified to receive rectangular-sectioned top joint ring 0.100 in. thick. Partially shrouded.

Merlin III: Early type engine as Merlin II. Later type engine as Merlin X; still later type engines as Merlin XII.

Merlin X: Early type engines fitted with D.11521 and D.11522 blocks. One-piece, with wide inlet ports. Alternative types ribbed liner with 0.15 in. spigot. Rectangular section top joint ring 0.100 in. thick. Partially shrouded. Later type engines fitted with Merlin XII type block.

Merlin XII: D.13256-1 and D.13257-1. One-piece, with narrow inlet ports. Ribless liner with 0.20 in. spigot. Radiused top joint ring 0.080 in. thick. Fully shrouded.

Merlin XX: As Merlin XII.

Merlin 45: As Merlin XII, but later engines have front and intermediate camshaft bushes deleted.

It's obvious that the early engines matured into the XII and the later engines were based on the XII design and most parts were interchangeable.
All these engines were in service by January 1942 and all of them used 100 octane only.

According to Crumpp RAF hesitated to "rush" the introduction of 100 octane fuel for an engine that they started to replace in autumn 1940 with similar engines that were using 100 octane fuel.

Of course Crumpp will now claim that only late production Merlin III which were very similar to Merlin XII were cleared for 100 octane fuel and will take this as a proof for his January 1942 theory. However this will ignore the fact that the Merlin V used 100 octane only by November 1940 and that it was identical to late production Merlin II and early production Merlin III.

winny

04-25-2012, 02:54 PM

They did rush it!!'

If we take January 1942 as the time the conversion for Spitfire Mk I's was complete that represents about two years and four months between initial flight test and 100% ground operational adoption.

Compare that to the RLM's testing of 1.58ata/1.65 ata as a straight manifold pressure increase in the BMW801D2. The motor was tested at that manifold pressure in May 1942. It was not until July 1944 that we see it in the Flugzueg Handbuch for the FW-190A8. That is a two years and two months lag time. Do you not think the RLM was rushing this improvement, too?

That has more to do with the inadequacies of the German aircraft production system ( not my words, Gallands) than anything else.
Ok, what about the Mustang? From drawing board to flight test.. Or any of the German death traps of the late war period.. Again, applying modern standards to a very urgent war time situation is absolutely ridiculous. But I suppose you've made your stand and have to stick to it, no matter how dubious or without taking into account what the reality of war was.

This is another tangent really, when one avenue closes on you you just find another..
Yawn.

Osprey

04-25-2012, 03:27 PM

S!

Winny..war or not the technical staff did work by the a certain order and did use literature. Claiming these guys just did it without any supervision or literature is just thick. The base how an unit work is doing things, how professional it is performing it's tasks..all those are trained and done before the war. RAF or any other AF did not switch mode because of war..sure they had to improvise in the field but it was based on something. And belive me even in war superiors ask for paperwork because it is essential for the big picture if you get the drift.

You mean like when Don Blakeslee of the 335th in 1943 insisted on swapping his P47's for P51's, but none of the pilots had been converted, but he got them anyway on the agreement that they were in a combat operation within 24hours of receipt. Blakeslee told his men that their conversion would be the actual mission.

Sorry, but needs dictate what happens, do that or help yourselves lose the war.

Osprey

04-25-2012, 03:28 PM

They did rush it!!'

If we take January 1942 as the time the conversion for Spitfire Mk I's was complete that represents about two years and four months between initial flight test and 100% ground operational adoption.

Compare that to the RLM's testing of 1.58ata/1.65 ata as a straight manifold pressure increase in the BMW801D2. The motor was tested at that manifold pressure in May 1942. It was not until July 1944 that we see it in the Flugzueg Handbuch for the FW-190A8. That is a two years and two months lag time. Do you not think the RLM was rushing this improvement, too?

Now you are an expert on processes in engineering companies. Who'd have thunk it :rolleyes:

What is your training and background?

He's been an "Advisor to the Experts" for several years now.

Flanker35M

04-25-2012, 03:35 PM

S!

That conversion to new plane is nothing new. Same happened here to our pilots being transferred from older types like Brewster, Curtiss Hawk etc. to the Bf109G..most only got instructions on what whas what and what to check and note and off you go :)

winny

04-25-2012, 03:46 PM

They did rush it!!'

If we take January 1942 as the time the conversion for Spitfire Mk I's was complete that represents about two years and four months between initial flight test and 100% ground operational adoption.

We don't..

Just found this. From the list of mkI serial numbers in M&S...

All spitfires built after the 1/6/1939 were Merlin III. Only 74 were Merlin II

On the 22nd March 1940 a letter from MAC ordered the change of production and specified that all MKI's were to have the Merlin X installed, starting from Serial Number R7023. This was to bring them upto MkIII standard. events overtook this instruction and from R7258 Merlin 45's were fitted, thus bringing the Mk I upto MkV spec. Why would they do this in march

R7023 was built on 28/1/1941 R7258 was completed on 5/4/1941

Every single spitfire produced after that date was a Merlin 45.

Simple fact is there were no operational mkI's around in 1942. Any that had survived that long were in OTU's all the others were converted to MkV's or PR's or whatever..

lane

04-25-2012, 03:50 PM

Still trying to trying to work out how you can make such a massive interpretation based on a SPit 1 Manual for 1942, and ignore the official papers that cleared the Spit for use of 100 octane in 1939. Remembering that you agree that all Spit II units were using 100 Octane in mid 1940 and presumably agree that the Spit V would have used 100 Octane.

The first Spitfire into service was delivered to No. 19 Squadron at Duxford on 4 August 1938. The use of 100 octane fuel was approved for Spitfire Squadrons by 24 September 1938.32 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/24sept38-spitfire-100oct-approval.jpg") Fighter Command noted on 6 December 1938 that Duxford, Debden, Northholt and Digby had received 100 octane fuel.32b (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/6dec38-100octanefuel.jpg) As of December 1938 Nos. 19 and 66 were based at Duxford and were the only RAF units then equipped with Spitfires. The Air Ministry noted in a memo dated 12 December 1939 that "100 octane fuel is approved for use in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft, and state that issue will be made as soon as the fuel is available in bulk at the distribution depots serving the Fighter Stations concerned." 32c (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/12dec39-100octane-issue.pdf)

24 September 1938
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/24sept38-spitfire-100oct-approval.jpg

6 December 1938
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/6dec38-100octanefuel.jpg

14 November 1939
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg

12 December 1939
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/12dec39-100oct-issue-1.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/12dec39-100oct-issue-2.jpg

winny

04-25-2012, 04:03 PM

Osprey,

Extra-ordinary...

Spitfire prototype, first flight march 1936, first production Spit delivered to a Squadron, August 1938. They "rushed" that too.

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 04:14 PM

Now you are an expert on processes in engineering companies.

Typical Flight testing regiment:

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6814/flighttestingregiment.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/267/flighttestingregiment.jpg/)

One thing you will not see in this process is the what is termed the "phase III" testing. That is not done by the service and is the responsibility of the contractor, in this case, Rolls Royce.

Phase I is concept development and is also performed by the contractor.

In 1939 we see the Phase II testing which is a proof of concept type testing and is performed by the service. We don't see the Phase I or Phase III testing as they are not done by the RAF. Any documentation is the sole property of Rolls Royce.

After Phase III testing, the concept will then come back to the service for Phase IV testing.

consisted of a very thorough evaluation of all the aircraft's operating characteristics . The pilots handbook, or flight manual, was published as a result of the work in this phase. Completion of Phase IV led to introduction of the aircraft in to the using command inventory. However, additional testing to evaluate tactical application and operational utility was conducted by agencies such as the Air Proving Ground Command.

From:

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7130/flighttestingevolution.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/232/flighttestingevolution.jpg/)

Ok, what about the Mustang?

Extra-ordinary...

Outliers are not examples of a mean.

Osprey

04-25-2012, 04:49 PM

I work with Rolls-Royce and I'm pretty sure they don't use protocol from the 1981 flight testing conference in Las Vegas, let alone had the forsight to use it 42 years before the conference.

One of our lads operates CNC's for RR too, making compressor blades for jet engines. I'll ask him if your stuff has any relevance whatsoever, although I think I know the answer already......

winny

04-25-2012, 05:03 PM

Typical Flight testing regiment:

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6814/flighttestingregiment.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/267/flighttestingregiment.jpg/)

One thing you will not see in this process is the what is termed the "phase III" testing. That is not done by the service and is the responsibility of the contractor, in this case, Rolls Royce.

Phase I is concept development and is also performed by the contractor.

In 1939 we see the Phase II testing which is a proof of concept type testing and is performed by the service. We don't see the Phase I or Phase III testing as they are not done by the RAF. Any documentation is the sole property of Rolls Royce.

After Phase III testing, the concept will then come back to the service for Phase IV testing.

From:

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7130/flighttestingevolution.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/232/flighttestingevolution.jpg/)

Extra-ordinary...

Outliers are not examples of a mean.

Lovely but absolutely irrelevant, all I have to do is check the dates. What happened happened. I REPEAT, THERE WERE NO OPERATIONAL MKIs IN 1942. Why are they, according to you, still converting them? When by your own admission it was only operational a/c that were converted.

This is another example of you thinking that because you have expertise in engineering and warbirds restoration that whatever you say is right. Well, I'm an expert on the Battle of Britain. I simply wouldn't even entertain the idea of arguing with you about piloting, restoration or engineering because I don't doubt your credentials. Yet in the face of overwhelming evidence both hard and circumstantial you're still arguing. Why? Is it to save face.

Please sum up for me your argument in a concise way, as to why you say that fighter command hadn't completed the changeover in it's frontline Spitfires to 100 octane fuel by the beginning of summer 1940.

Because that's what this is about. You've tried all sorts of different arguments and seem to move stealthily around the subject, but come come, let's cut the crap and cut to the chase.

What have you got to lose?

Edit : changed frontline fighters to frontline spitfires.

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 06:08 PM

What is your training and background?

Ten years on the Board of Directors for a Warbird Restoration Company, MAS Embry Riddle, BSAS Embry Riddle, FAA Repairman certificate, COMM ASEL IR CFI/II/MEI/Taildragger.

Own and operate two of my own aircraft.

And what are your qualifications, Glider?

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 06:13 PM

Lovely but absolutely irrelevant, all I have to do is check the dates.

First the principles are all the same by convention just as how the Operating Notes are updated.

Second, the AIAA 81-2375 is the history of flight test development!!

If you could access the AIAA library, you could get your own copy.

Maybe on some standard day they might let you in!! Ha ha ha ;)

You have to graduate from an accredited Aeronautical Sciences curriculum for membership.

https://www.aiaa.org/

Osprey

04-25-2012, 06:28 PM

All those qualifications but no common sense.

JtD

04-25-2012, 06:41 PM

I simply wouldn't even entertain the idea of arguing with you about [..] engineering because I don't doubt your credentials.According to him, sin 45° = 0.85, and he'll defend that statement. No engineer would. You better doubt his credentials.

winny

04-25-2012, 07:06 PM

First the principles are all the same by convention just as how the Operating Notes are updated.

Second, the AIAA 81-2375 is the history of flight test development!!

If you could access the AIAA library, you could get your own copy.

Maybe on some standard day they might let you in!! Ha ha ha ;)

You have to graduate from an accredited Aeronautical Sciences curriculum for membership.

https://www.aiaa.org/

Oh... Zzzzzzz...

I don't care. It's irrelevant. You are sidestepping my question. What is your main argument regarding Fighter Commands use of 100 octane in spitfires during the battle of Britain. I've dealt with fuel reserves, I've dealt with operational numbers, I've dealt with the fact that there were no operational Spitfire Mk I s in 1942. I've dealt with the fact that they were bench testing a merlin with 100 octane in 1938, then We've had the pilot's notes discussion. Now you're posting some document I can't even be arsed to read from 1981.
I'm an expert on idiots. My professional opinion is that you are one.
Next...

arthursmedley

04-25-2012, 07:19 PM

Oh... Zzzzzzz...

I'm an expert on idiots. My professional opinion is that you are one.
Next...

Thus gentlemen; The Crumpp Effect.

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 07:23 PM

Typical Flight test regiment during World War II for "expediant" testing:

Phase I - Concept development - done by the contractors. Answers questions basic question of concept feasibililty. Rolls Royce/Supermarine/Hawker Sydney will conduct this testing

Phase II - Proof of concept by the accepting authority. The Air Ministry and the RAF will conduct this testing

Phase III - All issues uncovered during Phase II testing are addressed by contractors. In this case, Rolls Royce/Supermarine/Hawker Sydney will test and develop solutions to issues uncovered by the RAF during Phase II.

Phase IV -thorough evaluation of all the aircraft's operating characteristics. All publications are developed and operational testing commences.

Lets examine the documents Glider posted and put them in context of how testing development works to see if they fit.

Phase I testing results:

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/3397/24sept38spitfire100octa.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/845/24sept38spitfire100octa.jpg/)

Phase II testing request for fuel:

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5021/6dec38100octanefuel.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/209/6dec38100octanefuel.jpg/)

Phase II results:

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9409/spit112lbs.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/26/spit112lbs.jpg/)

Logistical constraints...Fuel must be at all the airfields before any engine is approved operationally. In otherwords, Phase IV testing cannot begin until there is fuel at the airfields:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8108/12dec39100octissue1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/12dec39100octissue1.jpg/)

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/9863/12dec39100octissue2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/12dec39100octissue2.jpg/)

While the Air Ministry gets the fuel supplies ready for Phase IV testing, Rolls Royce must complete Phase III testing and address all of the issues uncovered during the Air Ministry Phase II testing.

Here we see the Results of Rolls Royce/Supermarine/Hawker Sydney completion of Phase III:

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/2397/ap1590b.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/40/ap1590b.jpg/)

Logistical constraints restrict conversion to aircraft undergoing cyclic Service Inspection.

The picture becomes much clearer as to why in June of 1940, the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes, paragraph 1 were not updated to reflect the ability to use 100 Octane fuel operationally.

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 07:48 PM

Guys,

This is all pretty conventional stuff. You claimed that Operating Notes were not updated consistantly to reflect operational reality. That has claim is disproven and we see the Air Ministry followed convention.

The background story also fits perfectly into normal convention for adopting a new concept.

The Spitfire Mk II has already gone through this test convention and from the begining the power plant was designed for 100 Octane fuel.

When the December 1939 the logistical constraints were met in June of 1940 and we see fuel at the airfields (see Table II), the Spitfire Mk II comes into Operational service using 100 Octane fuel.

That has nothing to do with Spitfire Mk I's and Hurricanes operational conversion.

winny

04-25-2012, 07:51 PM

Lets examine the documents Glider posted and put them in context of how testing development works to see if they fit.

Nah, let's not.

I'd rather hear your argument on why FC were not using 100 octane in frontline spitfires during the battle of britain. You know, the argument that makes you so sure...
That one, that's what I'd like to examine. The one piece (or more) of evidence that makes an educated gentleman, like yourself so convinced. It must be pretty compelling.

In a nutshell.

Can't wait.

EDIT - when I mentioned logistics you came back with "you can't use logistics to work out operational" (I'm paraphrasing) or some other nonsense, now you're using logistics.
That makes you a hypocrite.

EDIT EDIT - While I'm waiting here's a picture of chuck norris - which is as relevant to this thread as a document printed in 1981
enjoy

http://www.adiumxtras.com/images/pictures/chuck_norris_random_fact_generator_6_3957_2224_ima ge_2578.jpg

41Sqn_Banks

04-25-2012, 07:54 PM

The picture becomes much clearer as to why in June of 1940, the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes, paragraph 1 were not updated to reflect the ability to use 100 Octane fuel operationally.

You are wrong in 2 ways.

1. There was no Section 2 Paragraph 1 "Operating Notes" in June 1940. This was changed later, probably in late 1941. Section 2 Paragraph 1 looked like this:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9290&stc=1&d=1335383627

2. 100 octane fuel was cleared for operational and non-operational flying by A.L.2 for Section 1 (which is dated May 1940 and way before June 1940):

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9289&stc=1&d=1335383627

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 08:31 PM

100 octane fuel was cleared for operational and non-operational flying by A.L.2 for Section 1 (which is dated May 1940 and way before June 1940):

It does not say that Banks.

It says if the aircraft is suitably modified, it may be used.

That is not the question. There is no doubt, the RAF began the process of operational conversion by June 1940 even in the Spitfire Mk I's.

The language is very specific when something is adopted.

If the Spitfire Mk I's were to use only 100 Octane fuel or all Operational Units, even in July 1940 it would state that under Notes Concerning the Merlin Engine:

Spitfire Mk II Notes, July 1940:

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/6320/spit29.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/259/spit29.jpg/)

Spitfire Mk I Notes June 1940:

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/3246/spitfiremkijune1940.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/spitfiremkijune1940.jpg/)

There is no evidence the conversion was complete until January 1942 when the Spitfire Mk I's Operating Notes are amended to reflect ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS:

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/3447/spitfireijanuary194202.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/spitfireijanuary194202.jpg/)

May 1940 and way before June 1940

That is the June 1940 Operating Notes. A.L No.2 was incorporated into Volume I Section 2 the June 1940 republication of the Operating Notes.

Volume I Section II is from May 1940 but as noted, incorporates all the updates available at the time of June 1940 republication.

There was no Section 2 Paragraph 1 "Operating Notes" in June 1940.

Looks like they did rearrange the format. That happens and finally by convention we all have the exact same format today. That does not change the fact the principles are all the same by convention.

You can see in the July 1940 Spitfire Mk II notes, the format is the same as the June 1940 Spitfire Mk I notes. If 100 Octane was the fuel for all operational Spitfire Mk I's, Notes Concerning the Merlin Engine would clearly state that fact.

It does not and you can conclude for a fact, 100 Octane was not being used by all operational Spitfire Mk I's at that time.

41Sqn_Stormcrow

04-25-2012, 08:38 PM

Don't you think it is a bit far-fetched to use this kind of manuals as a proof for the spread of use of 100 octane fuel? I am pretty sure that no manual was ever issued for all the different field modifications used by either side.

For practical reasons there will have been information notes been delivered to the stations and mechanics as the 100 octane capable spit 1s were phased in - instead of manuals.

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 08:39 PM

EDIT - when I mentioned logistics you came back with "you can't use logistics to work out operational" (I'm paraphrasing) or some other nonsense, now you're using logistics.

You should just read the post because this does not make you look very good to anyone who did read it.

The logistical documents are used to answer logistical questions, "When can will we have the fuel to convert the first operational aircraft?"

Answer - When we have the fuel distributed to all the airfields.

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 08:43 PM

Don't you think it is a bit far-fetched to use this kind of manuals as a proof for the spread of use of 100 octane fuel? I am pretty sure that no manual was ever issued for all the different field modifications used by either side.

It is not a field modification, it is operational adoption.

Those generally follow convention and the evidence presented aligns with that.

Seadog

04-25-2012, 08:56 PM

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 09:02 PM

Still waiting...

Stop waiting and read!! :grin:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=414970&postcount=1315

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=414601&postcount=1279

winny

04-25-2012, 09:06 PM

You should just read the post because this does not make you look very good to anyone who did read it.

The logistical documents are used to answer logistical questions, "When can will we have the fuel to convert the first operational aircraft?"

Answer - When we have the fuel distributed to all the airfields.

I don't care what anyone else on here thinks about me. I'm not here to look good.

Like I said earlier, I'm working out what stations had 100 based on deliveries of Mk II's, but it's a very time consuming process.

So in the meantime, why don't you answer the question I keep having to ask.

What is you argument regarding the non use of 100 octane fuel in frontline spitfires during the battle of Britain?

EDIT: and I was actually referring to this post, the one after I'd posted all of the Oil Production meeting docs..

Interesting but you cannot answer operational questions with logistical answers..

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

Who looks bad?
Like I said you're a hypocrite.

EDIT : Help required, I remember someone posted a chart showing the FC squadron movements from the period, I can't find it. It would speed things up a lot. Thanks.

41Sqn_Stormcrow

04-25-2012, 09:16 PM

It is not a field modification, it is operational adoption.

Those generally follow convention and the evidence presented aligns with that.

I know quite well. My point is that the manual that you presented was obviously! issued well after the moment when 100 octane became operational. It says nothing about when it became operational. It basically is just the proof that at the moment of its publication 100 octane was already in use.

Seadog

04-25-2012, 09:40 PM

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.

Stop waiting and read!! :grin:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=414970&postcount=1315

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=414601&postcount=1279

Neither of these posts demonstrates that RAF FC flew a even single Hurricane/Spitfire combat sortie using 87 octane fuel.

Where are the reports detailing fuelling difficulties because a 100/87 octane aircraft had to land at an 87/100 octane airfield? Where are the Airfield/Squadron commander/pilot reports complaining that their Airfield/squadron/aircraft was one of the unlucky ones not to be converted to 100 octane? Where are the pilot reports or memoirs noting 87 octane fuel use during the battle? Why do numerous sources state 100% conversion to 100 octane prior to the battle? Why did Moelders and Galland beg Goering for higher performing aircraft?

You still haven't shown that even a single Hurricane/Spitfire combat sortie was flown using 87 octane fuel during the battle, yet you contend that the majority of RAF FC was using 87 octane fuel!!! :confused:

NZtyphoon

04-25-2012, 09:49 PM

Crumpp's condition:

Everbody's Wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmj7wp_tZPI)

Crumpp is just arguing for the sake of argument because it makes him feel important. It has nothing to do with 100 Octane and a great deal more to do with ego.

Glider

04-25-2012, 09:58 PM

lane

04-25-2012, 10:03 PM

Like I said earlier, I'm working out what stations had 100 based on deliveries of Mk II's, but it's a very time consuming process.

EDIT : Help required, I remember someone posted a chart showing the FC squadron movements from the period, I can't find it. It would speed things up a lot. Thanks.

Hi Winny:
Fwiw, a quick review of Spitfire II squadrons from Rawlings for the period Sept. - Oct. 1940.:
611 Digby (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-orb.jpg)
266 Wittering
74 Cottishall & Biggin Hill
19 Fowlmere
66 Kenly, Gravesend, West Malling
41 Hornchurch
603 Hornchurch

From IWM (http://www.iwmprints.org.uk/image/742587/ground-staff-refuelling-a-supermarine-spitfire-mk-iia-of-no-19-squadron-raf-at-fowlmere-near-duxford-in-cambridgeshire-september-1940): 19 Squadron, Fowlmere, Sept. 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/CH_001357-1200.jpg

41Sqn_Banks

04-25-2012, 10:08 PM

It does not say that Banks.

You said:

in June of 1940, the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes, paragraph 1 were not updated to reflect the ability to use 100 Octane fuel operationally.

You claim that that the June 1940 manual does not reflect the ability to use 100 octane fuel operationally. Which is clearly wrong as the June 1940 manual clearly says "it may be used, if the engine has been suitable modified". It doesn't restrict the fuel for operational or non-operational use so it may be used for both.

bongodriver

04-25-2012, 10:13 PM

Is it possible that unders certain 'pressing' needs...like lets say for example 'a war'.....the use of 100 octane could have been pushed into service ahead of beaurocratic schedules?

Glider

04-25-2012, 10:17 PM

The first Spitfire into service was delivered to No. 19 Squadron at Duxford on 4 August 1938. The use of 100 octane fuel was approved for Spitfire Squadrons by 24 September 1938.32 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/24sept38-spitfire-100oct-approval.jpg") Fighter Command noted on 6 December 1938 that Duxford, Debden, Northholt and Digby had received 100 octane fuel.32b (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/6dec38-100octanefuel.jpg) As of December 1938 Nos. 19 and 66 were based at Duxford and were the only RAF units then equipped with Spitfires. The Air Ministry noted in a memo dated 12 December 1939 that "100 octane fuel is approved for use in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft, and state that issue will be made as soon as the fuel is available in bulk at the distribution depots serving the Fighter Stations concerned."

Thanks for this. What I note of course is the rider at the bottom of the last paper that said that the fuel stocks were probably sufficient. The papers also cover the way fuel is to be distributed i.e by using up what is already issued and replacing it with 100 octane

When you then add the papers in December we have idnetifying the first 23 stations to be issued with the fuel in the first instance. The first combat reports in Feb using 100 octane. This is then followed by:-

1) The note for the 5th meeting of the Oil Committee held in February in the Summary of Conclusions from the ACAS saying that fighter and Blenhiem units are to be equipped with 100 Octane.

2) The papers from the 6th Meeting actioning the request and speed up the process by actively restocking the fuel, not waiting for it to be used up

3) The papers from the 7th Meeting noting that thanks had been expresseed for the completion of the task

I would say its a pretty comprehensive set of papers that support each other.

I also note that none of those papers say testing, or trials as Crumpp would have us believe

Edit - I also forgot the 9th meeting of the Oil committee held on 7th August 1940 when they were told that all operational aircraft in all commands were to use 100 octane

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 10:27 PM

Thanks Crumpp, 16 years of active service in military behind with fighters and their systems/armament/maintenance I think it gives something to this flying hobby, but I think knowledge just increases the pain in both good and bad

Thanks for your service, Flanker.

I retired 20 years from active US Army and then entered aviation as a full time career.

Associate members don't need a degree only an interest in aerodynamics, and from what you have posted I suspect I am afraid that you are at best an associate member.

I don't think associates get library access, not sure though. I have only had student membership and then full after graduation.

Glider

04-25-2012, 10:38 PM

Thanks for your service, Flanker.

I retired 20 years from active US Army and then entered aviation as a full time career.

I don't think associates get library access, not sure though. I have only had student membership and then full after graduation.

Then I withdraw my previous comment.

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 11:01 PM

beaurocratic schedules

It is not a bureaucratic schedule.

I know it seems like a bunch of overkill. The convention is really all based on lots of experience, most of it very bad experiences.

Airplanes are not like cars, the engineering safety margins are so much lower just to achieve flight.

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 11:03 PM

You claim that that the June 1940 manual does not reflect the ability to use 100 octane fuel operationally.

NO, I said if it was in use in all operational units, Notes on the Merlin Engine would reflect that.

It does not in June 1940.

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 11:21 PM

I found this page from the Spitfire Mk II Operating Notes.

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/9863/spit2pnfs3.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/560/spit2pnfs3.jpg/)

mmmmmm

bongodriver

04-25-2012, 11:22 PM

It is not a bureaucratic schedule.

I know it seems like a bunch of overkill. The convention is really all based on lots of experience, most of it very bad experiences.

Airplanes are not like cars, the engineering safety margins are so much lower just to achieve flight.

They just about managed to get that through to me at flight school and the 17 years spent as a commercial pilot and flight instructor, but I maintain it is a beaurocratic schedule and most probably the inconvenience of war forced some corners to be cut, one can assume they already knew the aircraft could fly, we're only talking about implementation of simple modifications in order to use a fuel that increases performance, my guess is at least one genius manged to figure out it might be quite handy in a fight.

fruitbat

04-25-2012, 11:31 PM

To add to that, i believe it has been known to take risks in war, like every time you took off in the case of BoB.

People also apparently die.

People also try to do everything they possibly can to help stop that happening to them.

but i digress......

ramstein

04-25-2012, 11:31 PM

In the spitfire my squad serviced at an airshow , we put 110 octane in the Spitfire (that was the highest grade we could find in 1980 for the airshow),, but I can't tell you how original the engine parts are or how it was tuned.. I can tell you it was fun to be very close to it, push it around the parking spot, and be inches from it as it taxied out and taxied back in after the flying...

It was a very smooth engine,,, no spitting, popping, or no cutting out in rolls...
It wasn't terribly bad on the ears,,, the only time I saw fire out the exhaust was when it first started... I can't say how the exhaust looks in flight because I never flew one..

winny

04-25-2012, 11:40 PM

I found this page from the Spitfire Mk II Operating Notes.

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/9863/spit2pnfs3.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/560/spit2pnfs3.jpg/)

mmmmmm

Ok here's my MkII from June 1940

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/fc27877a.jpg

And I'm still waiting for your answer, and an apology would be nice for the operational/logistical thing that you said made me look bad.

Crumpp

04-25-2012, 11:47 PM

we're only talking about implementation of simple modifications in order to use a fuel that increases performance,

It is not a simple modification though.

winny

04-25-2012, 11:51 PM

Your ignorance speaks volumes.

bongodriver

04-26-2012, 12:19 AM

It is not a simple modification though.

Simple enough.......it wasn't exactly rocket science.

NZtyphoon

04-26-2012, 01:47 AM

It is not a simple modification though.
The Merlin II III and IV were already being tested on 100 Octane in 1938:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938%20-%203453.html

Rolls-Royce were able to get Merlin IIs and IIIs running on 100 Octane and 12 lbs boost by November 1939 - for the latter what was needed were the modifications to the boost control capsule; the modifications to the head needed for 100 octane would have been underway well before this.

100 octane "now in use" in April 1940
http://http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940 - 1142.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940 - 1142.html)

To pretend that it took until 1942 to perfect the use of 100 octane is, as per usual from Crumpp, completely wrong, because Rolls-Royce was already testing engines using 100 octane fuel in 1938.

Timeline:
Merlin 45 (100 Octane Fuel): decision to use it in Spitfire; December 1940; Spitfire V operational February 1941 92 Sqn.

Merlin RM6SM Became Merlin 61: First tested Spitfire III; September 1941; Operational Service Spitfire IX June 1942 611 Sqn.

Crumpp's idea that 2 1/2 years was needed for testing is completely wrong - as per usual. New engines in a standard or modified airframe took less than a year. To declare that it took 2 1/2 years to test and approve 100 Octane in wartime is absolutely idiotic. Again, Crumpp is arguing for the sake of his ego, meaning this will continue forever because Crumpp's Never Wrong.

Glider

04-26-2012, 03:59 AM

Ok here's my MkII from June 1940

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/fc27877a.jpg

And I'm still waiting for your answer, and an apology would be nice for the operational/logistical thing that you said made me look bad.

A couple of observations on both those pilots notes.

Crumpp
If you look at the pilots notes that you put forward you will see that they also include the instructions of how to fire 2 x 20mm cannon and 4 x 303 which I think we can agree isn't viable in June 1940.

The second set. Note that it doesn't allow 12 lb boost in the air it only says 9lb. However it doesn't say that you can or cannot use the boost overide, or have a combat rating. However, in the cockpit diagram the boost overide control is clearly present. An example I think of an early set of pilots notes which were clearly amended as shown by the ones that Crumpp mentioned.

Reason for both fuels being mentioned in the set Crumpp put forward is simple. Clearly these are not BOB notes as shown by the guns on board and these were printed later in the war wehn they were in use for training. Training units were not equipped with 100 Octane

Flanker35M

04-26-2012, 05:09 AM

Ernst

04-26-2012, 05:44 AM

This topic becomes endless. The posters are repeating the same things ad infinitum, name calling etc. No more info can be found here.

The moderatores should lock this topic. All the info is already here. Let the readers decide for themselves.

41Sqn_Banks

04-26-2012, 05:50 AM

Out of curiosity how different is the Merlin III used in Spitfire Mk.I being able to use+12lbs for 5min than Merlin XII on Spitfire Mk.II only cleared for take-off up to 1000ft / 3min? Devil is in the details it seems..

I thing this is a good start: http://www.jshawmsc.f2s.com/merlin.htm

Not much different from late production Merlin III.

Note that the Merlin XX, which is also very similar to the XII (except of course supercharger, which is single gear in XII and two gear in XX) was cleared for +12 emergency boost (5 min, not altitude restriction) was cleared in November 1940.

Robo.

04-26-2012, 05:56 AM

S!

Crumpp, still some 17 years left of service, going for the full service time ;) Anyways, when looking at that Spitfire Mk.II manual June 1940, paragraph 55 (stating it should be carefully noted) clearly says +12lbs up to 1000ft for take-off or maximum 3min. Rest seems to be +9lbs (all-out for 5min) with no alt restrictions. And continuous/max cruise is +7lbs. So that pretty much says it all IMHO.

Cleared for +12lbs but not for 5min or at any altitude. As that note says 5min is for +9lbs. Out of curiosity how different is the Merlin III used in Spitfire Mk.I being able to use+12lbs for 5min than Merlin XII on Spitfire Mk.II only cleared for take-off up to 1000ft / 3min? Devil is in the details it seems..

Flanker - as discussed previously in great detail - this does not account for BCC-O, feel free to read posts by Banks (and others) to see how it worked and how it has been used. This is in fact explained in the same manual you mention. It seems we're turning in circles for 135 pages :grin:

Good luck in your service, S!

41Sqn_Banks

04-26-2012, 06:06 AM

Flanker - as discussed previously in great detail - this does not account for BCC-O, feel free to read posts by Banks (and others) to see how it worked and how it has been used. This is in fact explained in the same manual you mention. It seems we're turning in circles for 135 pages :grin:

Good luck in your service, S!

However contrary to the Spitfire I manual the Spitfire II manual does not state that the boost control cut-out will provide +12 boost and that it is authorized for short time and emergency.

That the cut-out will provide +12 boost is obvious, it has the same boost control as the Merlin III and it is also proven by the later amendments.
The question that remains is when it was authorized.

Flanker35M

04-26-2012, 08:35 AM

S!

Will check the link, thanks Banks :) Been more into the DB6XX-series engines as they really were ahead of their time with fuel injection and many automated things. But never hurts to learn about RR engines either :)

winny

04-26-2012, 09:28 AM

Just found another contemporary source.
Flight Magazine - April 1940

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/flightmagazineApril1940.jpg

NZtyphoon

04-26-2012, 11:06 AM

An interesting clip on building the Merlin:
Building the Merlin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzYxBbitP_s&feature=fvwrel)

Wish the original soundtrack had been kept instead of adding the usual muzak

winny

04-26-2012, 12:08 PM

I'd just like to add a little example of how procedures differed during the war when compared to peacetime/modern times.

Spitfires suffered from a couple of problems that would today result in the grounding of the fleet. Namely the "Skew Gear problem" in Merlins where the skew gear would fail randomly and catastrophically, (this happened to Alex Henshaw a number of times) and the Piston seizures on Packard Merlins - caused by the fact that the piston heads were not machined, to save time, and were left to wear to shape, or in some cases seize as the push rods got bent. Neither of these problems would be acceptable today. They simply could not afford to halt production to find the source of the skew gear problem, so they continued making the engines as was, up until the point that they fixed it. This almost certainly cost lives and certainly cost aircraft.

bongodriver

04-26-2012, 12:46 PM

Yeah it seems pretty evident this Crumpp chap is not familiar with the concept of 'can do', its more like 'could do subject to subclause B paragraph 8 having gone through all the correct channels to get a facilitation to arrange several meetings, the minutes of which will be copied in triplicate and sent for further approval'.

NZtyphoon

04-26-2012, 12:59 PM

What Crumpp is conveniently ignoring is that Rolls-Royce were already
A) Testing a Merlin at 18 lbs boost and generating 1,536 hp on a special blend of gasoline, benzol, methanol tetraethyl lead in August 1937. (Price Spitfire Story 2010 p. 107) But then Price, like most aviation historians, is an ignorant -non engineering- dweeb who knows nothing about aircraft.

B) testing Merlins IIs on 100 Octane in 1938.

Whatever Crumpp might think Rolls-Royce had been working on modifying Merlins to run on 100 Octane and high boost well before 1940, and with their engineering capabilities would have known what sort of modifications would be needed to get the Merlin II & III series running reliably at higher ratings - the modified cylinder heads would have been developed and ready to use as soon as the go ahead was given in November 1939 to allow Merlins to run at +12 lbs.

If Crumpp had been in charge at R-R at the time nothing would have been done because Crumpp would want every single tiny detail thrashed out at length, and he would know better than everyone else that at least 30 months would be needed for intensive operational testing and development before production engines could be cleared to use 100 octane fuel.

ATAG_Snapper

04-26-2012, 01:27 PM

Osprey

04-26-2012, 06:05 PM

In short, we'd have lost the war if Crump had been in charge.

Imagine D-Day on Omaha beach, Crump leading the first wave in Dog Green sector with a clipboard in his hand pointing out all the hazards to the commanders before ordering a full retreat because of failures in Health and Safety policy.

Seadog

04-26-2012, 06:59 PM

In short, we'd have lost the war if Crump had been in charge.

.

Yes, I suspect that's his agenda...

winny

04-26-2012, 07:03 PM

winny

04-26-2012, 07:08 PM

Which inevitably leads to..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5gqILMUfaU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Crumpp

04-27-2012, 01:06 PM

Unlike your car, dvd player, or your standard military manual.....

Pilot Operating Notes are part of the airworthiness of the aircraft and a legal document. They carry the weight of law by convention.

The is the master document for all flight information, and pilot's may not deviate from the POH unless specific approval has been granted by the relevant aviation authority for such deviation.

Don't confuse the articles discussion of the GAMA changes in 1975 that put all convention signers on the same format. Manufacturers of light civil aircraft tried to save a few dollars during one of the darkest periods in General Aviation by cutting corners on the POH's. The result was the GAMA changes which standardized POH for all convention signers and everyone adopted the same format.

The POH is approved by the aviation authority during type certification, and issued to an aircraft when it is manufactured as part of the initial airworthiness certificate.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Pilots-Operating-Handbooks-101&id=6521261

It has been that way since 1919!!

As for for the "engine parts" conforming during operation, that is normal for all engines. In fact it is called the "break in"!! :grin:

No engineer looked at a part on the assembly line that would destroy the engine and said "keep churning em out boys!! We can win the war with our airplanes that won't fly".

That is really stupid. He looked at it and said, "Yes it is bent but it is still within tolerenances and won't effect anything, keep working"

Happens all the time in aviation and does not violate any convention.

Crumpp

04-27-2012, 05:32 PM

Crumpp, still some 17 years left of service, going for the full service time Anyways, when looking at that Spitfire Mk.II manual June 1940, paragraph 55 (stating it should be carefully noted) clearly says +12lbs up to 1000ft for take-off or maximum 3min. Rest seems to be +9lbs (all-out for 5min) with no alt restrictions. And continuous/max cruise is +7lbs. So that pretty much says it all IMHO.

The Military is a good career. I did all of my time in Special Operations. Started out in Rangers and then went to Special Forces.

I agree with your interpretation on the Spitfire Mk II Notes.

It is a fact the Spitfire Mk II was using 100 Octane in June 1940 because the Notes On the Merlin engine specify that as the only option. The emotional investment in this issue so high that many participants confuse In use with all operational units.

The Operating Notes are a followed and the proceduresYou cannot say "all operational" Spitfire Mk I's or Hurricanes were using 100 Octane in June of 1940.

The USAAF did the same thing when they converted to 100 Octane (100/130 grade). They published instructions to use 91 Octane for training and OCONUS and 100 Octane for operations. The Pilots Operating Handbooks reflect the fuel changeover after that Technical Order was published.

You don't see the Notes on the Merlin Engine being updated until January 1942.

Seadog

04-27-2012, 06:25 PM

T

The Operating Notes are a followed and the proceduresYou cannot say "all operational" Spitfire Mk I's or Hurricanes were using 100 Octane in June of 1940.

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.

Again, where's the evidence for combat sorties flown with 87 octane fuel? We have numerous sources that state full conversion to 100 octane and a complete lack of documentary evidence of 87 octane fuel use by Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons during the BofB.

Glider

04-27-2012, 06:31 PM

Crumpp
This is all very interesting but everyone I am sure is still waiting for you to try to support your belief about 16 squadrons.

All I have seen is a pre war statement of intent to have 16 squadrons of fighters and two of bombers.

Or am I right in thinking that this is now something in the past, like your belief that 1940 was about operational testing and you now simply believe it was less than 100% of fighter command.

JtD

04-27-2012, 07:02 PM

I've checked a few manuals and some lag behind in terms of amendments by up to half a year.

winny

04-27-2012, 07:43 PM

No engineer looked at a part on the assembly line that would destroy the engine and said "keep churning em out boys!! We can win the war with our airplanes that won't fly".

What they actually said was "we don't know what is causing the engines to break appart mid air, until we find the problem you're just going to have to deal with it.. Test pilots lost thier lives because of this, testing factory fresh Spitfires.

Alex Henshaw said about the "Skew Gear problem" that you strangley ignored
"In any other situation this problem would have grounded the fleet, but because of the circumstances they couldn't. It was war and we just got on with it" He knew that at any moment he was testing Spitfires there was a chance it would happen to him. It did on 11 occasions. What happened happened.

Now you're telling me you know more about it than he does.

That sums you up.

Anyway it's irrelevant, the 87 octane reference is there because they used it for OTU's, so they had to put it in the notes, apparently it's the law.

So what's your main argument about the non use of 100 oct in frontline squadrons during the BoB?

EDIT: Sorry to those who thought this thread had died... I'm not going away. Go and read one of raaaids threads instead :)

winny

04-27-2012, 08:07 PM

As for for the "engine parts" conforming during operation, that is normal for all engines. In fact it is called the "break in"!! :grin:

No engineer looked at a part on the assembly line that would destroy the engine and said "keep churning em out boys!! We can win the war with our airplanes that won't fly".

This just proves your ignorance. Please go and google the Packard-Merlin seizure problem on Spitfires. You'll find out that what you said didn't happen, did, exactly, they kept churning them out. Or google the sudden loss of Magnetos problem, same thing, kept building them with the fault until they located the fault, seems like it was almost Standard Operating Procedure..

The piston problem resulted in a full engine failiure, not some 'bent within acceptable amounts" push rods.

Jeez there's even a painting of it happening showing Henshaw bailing out of a Spitfire... A painting..

You apply modern standards to WW2 situations, without even bothering to look to see what actually happened.

JtD

04-27-2012, 08:10 PM

I'm still very interested in seeing proof for use of 87 octane fuel in operational units. I'll keep checking the topic as long as it is alive.

fruitbat

04-27-2012, 09:14 PM

I'm still very interested in seeing proof for use of 87 octane fuel in operational units.

may take some time...........;)

NZtyphoon

04-27-2012, 09:17 PM

I agree with your interpretation on the Spitfire Mk II Notes.

It is a fact the Spitfire Mk II was using 100 Octane in June 1940 because the Notes On the Merlin engine specify that as the only option. The emotional investment in this issue so high that many participants confuse In use with all operational units.

The Operating Notes are a followed and the proceduresYou cannot say "all operational" Spitfire Mk I's or Hurricanes were using 100 Octane in June of 1940.

The USAAF did the same thing when they converted to 100 Octane (100/130 grade). They published instructions to use 91 Octane for training and OCONUS and 100 Octane for operations. The Pilots Operating Handbooks reflect the fuel changeover after that Technical Order was published.

You don't see the Notes on the Merlin Engine being updated until January 1942.

The only one who has the "emotional investment" on being right in this thread is Crumpp, who has been ignoring anything which is inconvenient to his case, including placing me on his ignore list. Look at how much his arguments have changed and look at how inconsistent everything he says has become.

The timeline of the Merlin's adaptation for using 100 Octane fuel:

1937 Merlin II developed 1,536 hp at +18 lbs on special blend of fuel;

1938 Figures for Merlin II and III using 100 Octane fuel presented at Paris airshow, albeit no mention of +12 lbs boost; clearly whatever redesign of the cylinder heads was needed Rolls-Royce would have had the job well in hand.

1939 Merlin II & III tested and approved for +12 Lbs boost; September 1940; Blenheim IVs of BC cleared to use 100 Octane fuel in outer wing tanks. November decision that reserves of 100 octane fuel adequate to allow all Merlins to be modified to use the fuel.

1940 February - first squadrons converted to use 100 octane; March A.P1590B/J.2-W specifically states conversions well underway; May - 100 Octane used by Hurricanes and Blenheims based in France during combat ops....etc etc etc.

Again, Crumpp is arguing for the sake of argument because he's always right, no matter what.

I came in here for an argument (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y)

Glider

04-27-2012, 10:22 PM

Crumpp
You might be interested to know that in December 1938 the Air Ministry were planning to ensure that there were adaquate supplies of 100 Octane should war break out. There were two main factors, The Hartley Committee which recommended the size of the RAF in war and once you know the proposed size of the RAF, you can start estmating the demand for fuel.

The PLans were put forward

Plan F 124 squadrons with 1,736 front Line Aircraft
Plan L (intermediate) 161 squadrons with 2,541 front line aircraft
Plan L (Unltimate) 163 squadrons with 2,549 front line aircraft

It was estimated that it would take two years to get to Plan L which was the reccomendation put forward. so you are talking about the end of 1940.

It was estimated that this would need between 670,000 - 735,000 tons of 100 Octane a year and plans were put in place to deliver this capacity by the end of 1940.

What is interesting is that in Dec 1938 plans were in place for the support of 2,500 front line aircraft with 100 octane by the end of 1940. When you remember that in Aug 1940 all RAF front line commands were authorised to use 100 Octane, you can see that these plans although modified as circumstances unfolded, were basically kept to. The modification was of course, mainly that the war started before anyone expected it to

Its also worth remembering that we have a summary paper from Nov 1940 saying that the UK were well ahead of their plans iro fuel stocks

I should acknowledge that I believe Kurfurst was the first person to post the paper outlining the RAF 1938 plans on a different forum.

Crumpp

04-27-2012, 11:12 PM

Glider,

Operating Note instructions are pretty definative. If it does not appear in the Notes on Operating the Merlin Engine, it was not common at the time of Note Publication.

lane

04-27-2012, 11:26 PM

I'm still very interested in seeing proof for use of 87 octane fuel in operational units. I'll keep checking the topic as long as it is alive.

Hi JtD.

Sorry, I've not found any operational use of 87 octane in Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiants beyond spring 1940. There is quite a lot of documentation available on 100 octane use for Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiants during the Battle of France, the Dunkirk evacuation and the Battle of Britain, however, to be found throughout this thread. The best I can offer is operational Lysanders and Battles using 87 octane during May 1940 - see links below. Sorry, but the Hurricanes were using 100 octane by then - also see links.

H.Q. A.A.S.F. 7 May 1940. Reserve Stocks of Aviation Fuel, Bombs and S.A.A. - Policy (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/AASF-Fuel.pdf)

H.Q. R.A.F. Component, 10 May 1940. Petrol and Oil requirements for R.A.F. Component on 15th May 1940. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/RAF-Component-15may40.pdf)

Glider

04-27-2012, 11:45 PM

Glider,

Operating Note instructions are pretty definative. If it does not appear in the Notes on Operating the Merlin Engine, it was not common at the time of Note Publication.

An obvious question I admit, but if these Instructions were so limiting, how do you explain the combat reports and other documentation confirming the use of the fuel in these engines? You have a theory that the engines couldn't be used with the fuel, but we have firm evidence that it was, not a thoretical point which is all you have. There is a clear difference.

I take this chance to remind you of a simple clarification that I am unsure of Crumpp. We are still waiting for you to try to support your belief about 16 squadrons.

All I have seen is a pre war statement of intent to have 16 squadrons of fighters and two of bombers.

Or am I right in thinking that this is now something in the past, like your belief that 1940 was about operational testing and you now simply believe it was less than 100% of fighter command.

I only ask this of you as I do not know what your current view is.

Crumpp

04-28-2012, 03:36 AM

An obvious question I admit, but if these Instructions were so limiting, how do you explain the combat reports and other documentation confirming the use of the fuel in these engines?

Glider,

Documentation like that is useful but one can hardly make the conclusion all operational units were using the fuel. You are making a leap of logic that just is not there. If someone presented Combat reports from November 1945, would you make the conclusion the entire Luftwaffe was using the FW-190D9? Of course not, the report would have to be placed in context in order to be understood.

All the combat report tells you is that on that day and time, that single airplane was using the fuel.

The combat reports must be put in a timeline and in context just like the squadron log books.

Once more, period magazine articles the fuel was "in use" is not all operational units and niether is logistical documentation.

For example:

Sorry, but the Hurricanes were using 100 octane by then

Making the conclusion Hurricanes were using 100 Octane in the Battle of France based off some logistical projections for future war is amatuerish and clumsey. It is a paper tiger. That document is a calculation of projected needs written on 7 May 1940. The British Expeditionary Force was on the Beaches of Dunkirk 18 days later.

How much of those calculation and projections for future war do you really think became ground reality in 18 days?

NZtyphoon

04-28-2012, 04:11 AM

Glider,

Documentation like that is useful but one can hardly make the conclusion all operational units were using the fuel. You are making a leap of logic that just is not there. If someone presented Combat reports from November 1945, would you make the conclusion the entire Luftwaffe was using the FW-190D9? Of course not, the report would have to be placed in context in order to be understood.

All the combat report tells you is that on that day and time, that single airplane was using the fuel.

The combat reports must be put in a timeline and in context just like the squadron log books.

Once more, period magazine articles the fuel was "in use" is not all operational units and niether is logistical documentation.

For example:

Making the conclusion Hurricanes were using 100 Octane in the Battle of France based off some logistical projections for future war is amatuerish and clumsey. It is a paper tiger. That document is a calculation of projected needs written on 7 May 1940. The British Expeditionary Force was on the Beaches of Dunkirk 18 days later.

How much of those calculation and projections for future war do you really think became ground reality in 18 days?

*Naturally Crumpp cannot or will not explain in straight terms exactly what did happen to over 60,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel consumed between February 1940 and the end of October 1940, except to spout some totally nonsensical rubbish about it not actually being consumed, but disappearing into some administrative oblivion based on his huge experience as a modern civilian pilot in the US of A.

*"That document is a calculation of projected needs written on 7 May 1940" Utter Rubbish Crumpp - READ IT PROPERLY; Paragraph 3 "Present Establishment of Aviation Fuels are..."

It states how much 100 Octane fuel was actually in various locations in France on that date!

*Naturally Crumpp cannot, or will not explain why it is those pesky pilots like Paul Richey, Edgar Kain, John Gleed, Roland Beamont, John Bushell and lots of other noted using +12lbs boost in combat while flying in France in early May 1940. Tsssk tsssk it's jolly inconvenient and they obviously didn't know that an expert like Crumpp would one day be micro-analysing the issue and proving they were all wrong. Time: Early May 1940 context: Several squadrons in Combat in France. :roll:

*Naturally Crumpp seems to think that because one aircraft just happened to be using the fuel on that day it doesn't mean the entire squadron was using it. Crumpp has not provided one single solitary piece of documented evidence to explain how the RAF did this.

So tell us Crumpp, how did the RAF ensure that individual or just a few aircraft per squadron used 100 Octane, while the rest went without? How was this allocated? How were the pilots briefed "Sorry chaps X Y and Z get the 100 Octane today, the rest of you stick with 87"? Have you ever heard of "scrambles" Crumpp, where the entire squadron takes off? Happened a lot during the battle, for some reason. How about you provide some documentary evidence Crumpp, showing that frontline fighter squadrons were using 87 octane fuel on a consistent basis throughout the battle - you are such an expert it should be easy.

Crumpp assumes that everyone, apart from his good self, and maybe a couple of others who agree with his POV, are idiots because only Crumpp has the knowledge and technical training to explain how things worked in the RAF in 1940. All of those aviation historians who have written about 100 Octane are amateurs who have no idea of how to research such deep topics properly, and ALL need Crumpp's guidance and enlightenment to show the true way to aviation history.

Using Crumpp logic the ancient Romans didn't exist, the Battle of Waterloo didn't happen and American soldiers of the South didn't actually win Bull Run because Jackson was a figment of someone's imagination. Honestly, why bother arguing with Mr Right? He should be busy rewriting history instead of arguing with us ignorant dweebs.

Crumpp

04-28-2012, 05:59 AM

Hi JtD.

Sorry, I've not found any operational use of 87 octane in Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiants beyond spring 1940. There is quite a lot of documentation available on 100 octane use for Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiants during the Battle of France, the Dunkirk evacuation and the Battle of Britain, however, to be found throughout this thread. The best I can offer is operational Lysanders and Battles using 87 octane during May 1940 - see links below. Sorry, but the Hurricanes were using 100 octane by then - also see links.

H.Q. A.A.S.F. 7 May 1940. Reserve Stocks of Aviation Fuel, Bombs and S.A.A. - Policy (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/AASF-Fuel.pdf)

H.Q. R.A.F. Component, 10 May 1940. Petrol and Oil requirements for R.A.F. Component on 15th May 1940. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/RAF-Component-15may40.pdf)

*"That document is a calculation of projected needs written on 7 May 1940" Utter Rubbish Crumpp - READ IT PROPERLY; Paragraph 3 "Present Establishment of Aviation Fuels are..."

Estabilishment is not strength, it is only what is presently authorized or projected.

You are confusing a projection with what is one hand.

winny

04-28-2012, 08:29 AM

Crumpp, why not present your full argument instead of the ridiculous nit picking of every minor detail, including just making stuff up without checking?

Go on, do it. Next post.

You're now clinging on to the pilot's notes.. is that it?

So hit me with the one bit of evidence thats so compelling that you still think FC were not using 100 oct during BoB

Or are we still doing this because you think that because your're an expert in flying/engineering, that just makes whatever you say right...?

I can go back through this thread and prove that there are lots of things that you've said that are simply wrong.

You show me your argument and then I (or one of the others) will show you ours.

I get the feeling you long since stopped arguing the point and are just arguing the man.. Why? What's your motivation?

NZtyphoon

04-28-2012, 10:27 AM

Estabilishment is not strength, it is only what is presently authorized or projected.

You are confusing a projection with what is one hand.

Prove it with documentary evidence; show us ignoramus' that this meant that there was no 100 octane fuel in France in May 1940.

- in fact provide documentation that proves anything you say:

Provide documentation that the RAF used hardly any 100 Octane fuel throughout 1940.

Provide documentation proving that 56,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel consumed between July and October 1940 was not "consumed" but was in fact put back into reserves without being consumed.

Provide documentation that the RAF authorised 16 squadrons only to use 100 octane fuel and provide documentation to prove when this happened, apart from using a pre-war planning paper as a crutch for your lame theories.

Provide documentation showing how the RAF ensured that only individual aircraft within squadrons were allowed to use 100 Octane fuel, and provide documentation showing how this was done.

Provide documentation showing that the RAF did not use 100 Octane fuel during the Battle of France.

Provide documentation showing that the RAF used 87 Octane fuel for its frontline Merlin engined fighters during the Battle of Britain.

Provide documentation that the RAF stuck to its pre-war target of reserves of 800,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel no matter what.

Provide documentation proving that it took 2 1/2 years from the start of WW2 for the Rolls-Royce Merlin II & III series to be approved and modified for 100 Octane and +12 lbs boost.

Provide documentation proving that Rolls-Royce had not already modified and tested Merlin engines to use 100 Octane fuel between 1938 and 1939.

Provide documentation that historians such as A A Rubbra, (http://www.rolls-royce.com/about/heritage/publications/historical-series/piston_designer_remembers.jsp) who helped design the Merlin and Alec Harvey-Bailey (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Merlin-Perspective-Combat-Years-Historical/dp/1872922066) who had access to Rolls-Royce records were wrong when they wrote that the Merlin II and III were using 100 octane fuel in early 1940. I presume you categorise them as enthusiastic amateurs?

Because you know that you're right and everybody else is wrong you should have all of the evidence you need at hand and ready to post asap.

lane

04-28-2012, 10:28 AM

Context, timeline...lol, sure no problem, we'll start with these:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/12dec39-100oct-issue-1.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/12dec39-100oct-issue-2.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/151-orb-16feb40.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/111-15feb40-100-octane.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/1940-0897.jpg

Emergency +12 lbs./sq. in. Boost Operation: Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/pilots-notes-merlin3-pg6.jpg

These documents relating to fuel requirments of the the Advanced Air Stiking Force and the Air Component, both in France during May 1940, give some idea of consumption, stocks, and how fuel requirements were calculated. As can be seen the Hurricanes used 100 octane, the Blenheim used a mix, while the Battle and Lysander used 87 octane, as did any transport, liason, visiting types etc.

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

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

To underscore the above documentation of Hurricanes using 100 octane fuel in France please note the following:

S/L J. O. W. Oliver, 85 Squadron, 10 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/85-oliver-10may40.jpg

P/O John Bushell, 151 Squadron, 18 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/bushell-151sqdn-18may40.jpg

S/L E. M. Donaldon, 151 Sqdn., 18 May 1940 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/donaldson-151sqdn-18may40.pdf)

F/O Paul Richey, 1 Squadron, 11 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/richey-pg76.jpg

F/O E. J. Kain, 73 Squadron, 14 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/monks-pg98.jpg

P/O D. W. A. Stones, 79 Squadron, 14 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/stones-pg32.jpg

Sgt. R. C. Wilkinson, 3 Squadron, 14 may 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/rcw-pg6.jpg

P/O R. P. Beamont, 87 Squadron, 15 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-beamont-15may40.jpg

P/O F. B. Sutton, 56 Squadron, 18 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/sutton-pg80.jpg

F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 18 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-gleed-18may40.jpg

F/O C. F. G. Adye, 17 Squadron, 18 May 1940 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/17-adye-18may40.pdf)

F/O C. F. G. Adye, 17 Squadron, 19 May 1940 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/17-adye-19may40.pdf)

F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 19 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-gleed-19may40.jpg

Sgt. L. H. B. Pearce, 79 Squadron, 20 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/79-pearce-20may40.jpg

Sgt. J. C. Harrison, 229 Squadron, 28 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/229-harrison-28may40.jpg

P/O C. M. Simpson, 229 Squadron, 29 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/229-simpson-29may40.jpg

P/O K. B. McGlashan, 245 Squadron, 28 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/245-mcglashan-28may40.jpg

fruitbat

04-28-2012, 12:12 PM

Great post lane:cool:

bongodriver

04-28-2012, 12:13 PM

Yeah, section 3 subparagraph B that in your pipe and smoke it....:grin:

RCAF_FB_Orville

04-28-2012, 01:01 PM

Yeah, section 3 subparagraph B that in your pipe and smoke it....:grin:

I did all of my time in Special Operations. Started out in Rangers and then went to Special Forces.

"Special *bleepin* Needs" more like, on the evidence of this thread. *falls off chair laughing* :grin:

You'll find out in time that there is scarcely a subject matter on earth that Crumpp is not a World Authority upon (in his head). One would have thought that a Special Forces Soldier of the caliber of Crumpp would be cognizant of the fact that no plan survives contact (especially 18 month old provisional ones) and its well known that a modicum of common sense and ability to improvise and adapt to rapidly changing circumstances (IE BoB) are usually prerequisites for selection. Crumpp does not understand that red tape and SOP's are often overlooked or neglected in times where it is efficacious, necessary, and prudent to do so.

Crumpp is also a renowned expert on explosives, Air Combat Manoeuvres, Modern history, Physics, Engineering, Aerodynamics and Mathematics. Wunderkind. Nietzsches 'Overman'. He even finds the time in his hectic schedule to obsessively stalk computer game forums of games he apparently doesn't even play, to put all of us simpletons to rights with the irrepressible power of his ferocious intellect. Fear him! :grin:

Great post Lane. I think that's what we in the trade call a "definitive, catastrophic smackdown". :grin: Not that this thread has not been full of them. Not that this will stop Crumpp. Think "T-1000". He cannot be stopped! :grin:

Still waiting for all the reams of 87 octane combat reports circa the battle of Britain, a list of the 16 squadrons, and details of their supply. Still waiting for a certain party to understand the basic requirement of qualifying a statement with actual evidence. Should be an absolute cinch, given the alleged predominance of 87 octane! Where are they? Why can't they be found? Hmmmm, its a tough one.:grin:

Carry on, out. :)

NZtyphoon

04-28-2012, 01:28 PM

I did all of my time in Special Operations. Started out in Rangers and then went to Special Forces.

"Special *bleepin* Needs" more like, on the evidence of this thread. *falls of chair laughing* :grin:

You'll find out in time that there is scarcely a subject matter on earth that Crumpp is not a World Authority upon (in his head). One would have thought that a Special Forces Soldier of the caliber of Crumpp would be cognizant of the fact that no plan survives contact (especially 18 month old provisional ones) and its well known that a modicum of common sense and ability to improvise and adapt to rapidly changing circumstances (IE BoB) are usually prerequisites for selection. Crumpp does not understand that red tape and SOP's are often overlooked or neglected in times where it is efficacious, necessary, and prudent to do so.

Crumpp is also a renowned expert on explosives, Air Combat Maneouvres, Modern history, Physics, Engineering, Aerodynamics and Mathematics. Wunderkind. Nietzsches 'Overman'. He even finds the time in his hectic schedule to obsessively stalk computer game forums of games he apparently doesn't even play, to put all of us simpletons to rights with the irrepressible power of his ferocious intellect. Fear him! :grin:

Great post Lane. I think that's what we in the trade call a "definitive, catastrophic smackdown". :grin: Not that this thread has not been full of them. Not that this will stop Crumpp. Think "T-1000". He cannot be stopped! :grin:

Still waiting for all the reams of 87 octane combat reports circa the battle of Britain, a list of the 16 squadrons, and details of their supply. Still waiting for a certain party to understand the basic requirement of qualifying a statement with actual evidence. Should be an absolute cinch, given the alleged predominance of 87 octane! Where are they? Why can't they be found? Hmmmm, its a tough one.:grin:

Carry on, out. :)

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdCWgWlbyLU&feature=related

Glider

04-28-2012, 05:36 PM

Glider

04-28-2012, 06:04 PM

Estabilishment is not strength, it is only what is presently authorized or projected.

You are confusing a projection with what is one hand.

Wrong
A present establishment of X is what you currently have.
An Authorised establishment of X, is what you theoretically should have or are authorised to have.

Al Schlageter

04-28-2012, 06:30 PM

Well I am glad to see you guys are finally coming around to seeing Eugene's 'song and dance' routine (get 'busted' on a subject and change the subject).

He will NEVER admit he is wrong.

As for him being a Green Beret (ie SF), they need pencil pushers as well.

CWMV

04-28-2012, 07:21 PM

Well lane, you win.
I didn't think much of it, considering the partisan nature of the debate.
Your post though seems definitive.
Good job. Heres hoping its implemented.

NZtyphoon

04-28-2012, 11:56 PM

Well lane, you win.
I didn't think much of it, considering the partisan nature of the debate.
Your post though seems definitive.
Good job. Heres hoping its implemented.

The "partisan nature of the debate" comes entirely from the fact that people such as lane and Glider have gone to considerable time, effort and expense to provide evidence that the RAF used 100 octane fuel for its frontline fighters throughout the Battle of Britain, while the naysayers, chiefly Kurfurst and Crumpp, have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever for their argument that the RAF used the fuel for a small, select portion.

In the meantime Crumpp in particular has driven the thread with lots of bluster and smokescreens while evading evidence and awkward direct questions asking him to provide documentation to prove his "case" - whatever the hell it is, because his story keeps changing - or disprove the case for 100 octane.

Crumpp

04-29-2012, 01:14 AM

Crumpp

04-29-2012, 01:29 AM

Emergency +12 lbs./sq. in. Boost Operation: Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.

Which pilot notes?

FYI, The engine manual is not the aircraft installation. Just because an engine is approved does not mean an aircraft is approved. Each installation is unique.

That is why the RAF throughly tested all of the airframes using the Merlin engine when they made the conversion.

The instructions for boost cut out would have been published as part of Phase IV testing. In fact, that is one of the main purposes of Phase IV testing to publish instructions, manuals, and conduct operations.

A good example of that is auto fuel STC's. Just because the engine can run autofuel does not mean an airframe that mounts that engine can use autofuel.

Crumpp

04-29-2012, 01:41 AM

Operating Notes are definative. They carry the weight of law.

This pilot might face criminal charges. Why? In the Operating Handbook for the AH-64 Apache, it notes all the precautions for high altitude operation. He violated those precautions. If they do get charged after the investigation, that will be the legal basis used to bring UCMJ.

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

CWMV

04-29-2012, 01:49 AM

But really, where are your facts?

I have to say they have done a great job of presenting a lot of evidence, circumstantial though much of it may be, in support of their case.

For me the final straw was the pilots themselves writing about using 12lbs and "pulling the tit."
I highly doubt that these men are liars, though most of veterans are prone to exaggeration.

With the lack of definitive evidence, such as a list of which units used how much of what type of fuel each week in the BoB, I think it is fair to say that these aircraft should be modeled for 12lbs given the circumstantial evidence here and the pilots accounts.
Hell we even had one in IL2 for Pete's sake!

EDIT: Come on! Your really reaching with that last post! Lol!
Ive seen people court marshaled/UCMJ'd, and violation of a tech manual was never one of the serious charges. Ancillary at best.

Crumpp

04-29-2012, 02:07 AM

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8084/flightmanual.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/213/flightmanual.png/)

By international convention estabilished in 1919 of which the United Kingdom's Air Ministry is a signatory the Operating Limitations are definitive and Notes on the Merlin Engine will state exactly what is authorized, including the fuel.

If it does not, then the aircraft is operating under a special issuance condition.

Crumpp

04-29-2012, 02:19 AM

But really, where are your facts?

See above post....

It is a fact that 100 Octane will be included in the Notes on the Merlin Engine section of the Operating Notes when it becomes the standard. Until then, any aircraft using the fuel will be operating under a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine for that specific aircraft.

That is how it worked then and how it works today.

By convention, all flight manuals include a single page reference to the engine operating limits.

Keep in mind, we are looking at what is called an Information Manual on these aircraft. Every aircraft has a set of Operating Notes issued with it by serial number that covers that specific aircraft. They stay with that aircraft throughout its lifespan. It is the pilots and maintenance personnel's job to keep that serial numbered Operating Notes updated for that specific airframe.

The information manual is republished periodically to incorporate all updates for the type but is not specific to an airframe.

When the information manual reflects 100 Octane, then all operational aircraft of the type can use it.

CWMV

04-29-2012, 02:32 AM

Yes, it sounds like its basically the -10 for the aircraft, correct?
Pilots must abide by the placards/warnings in the cockpit.
Ok, sounds like all the warnings inside Army vehicles with the "Crew required to wear double hearing protection during operation" Ill give you three guesses as to how often that happens.
Fact is that many times the manuals are rewritten based on what the troops in the field have invented in order to accomplish the mission at hand, and that many times the official manuals and their additions simply cant keep up with the operational realities of the equipment.

Now what we have here is a "They are supposed to operate this way".
That's all well and good, but anyone who has had their ass in the grass knows that isn't the way things happen much of the time. Mission needs trump the manuals objections.

If they had it available, at all, they would have used it. If it needed to be refit for use then crews would have been dispatched to make it happen in the field.
That's how it is now, and I have to assume that the realities of combat haven't changed.
What you have there in bold print has absolutely nothing to do with how those aircraft operated in combat. It was written 20 years before the aircraft in question even flew.

So can you post anything substantive, relating to the aircraft/time in question?
I understand that you are away from home?

NZtyphoon

04-29-2012, 04:04 AM

See above post....

It is a fact that 100 Octane will be included in the Notes on the Merlin Engine section of the Operating Notes when it becomes the standard. Until then, any aircraft using the fuel will be operating under a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine for that specific aircraft.

That is how it worked then and how it works today.

By convention, all flight manuals include a single page reference to the engine operating limits.

Keep in mind, we are looking at what is called an Information Manual on these aircraft. Every aircraft has a set of Operating Notes issued with it by serial number that covers that specific aircraft. They stay with that aircraft throughout its lifespan. It is the pilots and maintenance personnel's job to keep that serial numbered Operating Notes updated for that specific airframe.

The information manual is republished periodically to incorporate all updates for the type but is not specific to an airframe.

When the information manual reflects 100 Octane, then all operational aircraft of the type can use it.

Once again Crumpp is talking absolute nonsense - It has been very carefully explained and finally acknowledged by Crumpp, that the Pilot's Notes were issued with supplementary slips which the pilot's then pasted into the relevant sections of the Notes.

The PILOT'S NOTES GENERAL first edition (issued to each pilot along with the Pilot's Notes for each aircraft type) is very specific - Section 8 says that the operating limits for engines relate to the fuel type that engine was designed for ie; for Merlin II and III series, because they were designed to use 87 Octane fuel those were the operating limits printed in the Pilot's Notes. This complies with Crumpp's "Section II" - any changes made to the operating limits were made by the supplementary slips issued to the pilot with the Pilot's Notes. If the Pilot's Notes do not have the new operating limits pasted into them it is because;

A: The Pilot's Notes were never issued and were left in storage - or

B: The Pilot's Notes were not issued to an operational frontline unit - this is acknowledged by the Spitfire I Pilot's Notes from January 1942 which state that aircraft of "other units" used 87 octane fuel. (The Pilot's Notes General second ed was printed in 1943 and dropped this provision because no frontline aircraft were using 87 octane fuel.)

Do we believe Crumpp or the Pilot's Notes General? Your choice...

Crumpp knows this is true: it has been explained to him several times but still he persists with this crap. Crumpp also knows that Rolls-Royce had already tested Merlin IIs on 100 Octane fuel in 1938 (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938 - 3453.html), and had at least 18 months to redesign and tool-up for the increased power rating needed.

The timeline of the Merlin's adaptation for using 100 Octane fuel:

1937 Merlin II developed 1,536 hp at +18 lbs on special blend of fuel;

1938 Figures for Merlin II and III using 100 Octane fuel presented at Paris airshow, albeit no mention of +12 lbs boost; clearly whatever redesign of the cylinder heads was needed Rolls-Royce would have had the job well in hand.

1939 Merlin II & III tested and approved for +12 Lbs boost; September 1939; Blenheim IVs of BC cleared to use 100 Octane fuel in outer wing tanks. November decision that reserves of 100 octane fuel adequate to allow all Merlins to be modified to use the fuel.

1940 February - first squadrons converted to use 100 octane; March A.P1590B/J.2-W specifically states conversions well underway; May - 100 Octane used by Hurricanes and Blenheims based in France during combat ops....etc etc etc.

So who do we believe? Someone who claims to be all sorts of things, but has provided no documentary evidence to back up any of his statements about 100 octane fuel, or someone who has recorded the history of one of the oil refineries which produced 100 Octane fuel, having examined the records? (Attach 3)

Do we believe an historian who has studied Squadron records and interviewed pilots, or do we believe someone who has provided no evidence to support his case? Your choice...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/603-ross-pg125.jpg

Do we believe someone who says that there is no evidence that 100 octane fuel was used because a set of Pilot's Notes don't show the relevant operating limits, or do we believe the pilots who used 100 Octane in combat. Your choice...

BTW: The forms issued for each aircraft were form 700s which were used by the ground crews during the daily maintenance checks conducted on each aircraft by the ground crews - these forms were signed by the various ground crew specialists, then countersigned by whatever pilot next flew the aircraft. Form 700 (http://www.rafjever.org/glossary.htm)

Crumpp

04-29-2012, 04:37 AM

Ok, sounds like all the warnings inside Army vehicles with the "Crew required to wear double hearing protection during operation" Ill give you three guesses as to how often that happens.

It is not even close to being the same.

Think about it. Two countries build airplanes but each has no idea if the other countries airplanes are safe to have over the heads of their citizens.

So how do they visit each other?

In 1919, many countries sat down and answered that question. They decided that the only way to ensure everybody else's aircraft were safe to fly over the heads of their citizens, was to agree to meet the same standards and principles.

They agreed on navigation, charts, landing procedures, and other things about how airplanes are built and operated.

One of the major things was the standards of airworthiness. Why are the operating limitations part of the airworthiness? That is what the manufacturer has certified the airplane will fly at within the very narrow engineering safety margins that are required to achieve flight. The airplane is only reasonably guarentee'd to work when operated within those published limits. It is airworthy airplane only within those operating limits.

Once again, the engineering safety margins are just too small. What does that mean? It means an airplane is not overbuilt. It is built to exactly what it needs and nothing more. When it says in an operating manual something is a limit, it is real honest to god limit. Push an airplane past what is written in the Operating Limitations is a great way to die in reality. A fighter, like any airplane by design operating limits is already operating on the ragged edge of disaster. There just isn't any wiggle room. Sure you might hear a few cool stories about guys how did it and got lucky. You won't hear the stories of the guys who did it and were not so lucky. Not adhereing to the published operating limits in an airplane is a really, really, stupid thing to do. It is playing Russian roulette and hoping the outcome is good.

In fact, the FAA determined that deviating from operating instructions is a factor in 85% of the accidents in aviation. What does that mean? It means if you disregard the operating limitations in an aircraft, the chances are extremely high it will come back to haunt you.

That leaves us with a total of two situations where the power plant itself failed - in 4.5 million flight hours. Both situations are suspected to have been the result of the aircraft being operated outside of the engine limitations

http://www.sefofane.com/faq_engine.html

Now, how does a country ensure that the people that make and fly airplanes are abiding by this agreement among nations and at the same time ensure their own nations aircraft are airworthy? They make adhereing to the documentation governing aircraft airworthiness have the weight of law and they enforce it. It is common sense too. You just are going to win a war if your airplanes don't fly.

CWMV

04-29-2012, 05:06 AM

But again, what does this have to do directly with the Spits and Hurris in BoB?
Not round about, but a direct correlation.

Crumpp

04-29-2012, 05:31 AM

a direct correlation.

Crumpp says:
When the information manual reflects 100 Octane, then all operational aircraft of the type can use it.

The January 1942 Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes clearly states in Notes on the Merlin engine that 100 Octane is for all operational units and all others will use 87 Octane.

The July 1940 Notes on the Merlin Engine only list 87 Octane operating limits and make no mention at all of 100 Octane. That is not to say 100 Octane was not in use. It was and the manual itself but not under the Notes on the Merlin engine references it "IF" the plane is equipped for it and "IF" the fuel is available.

"IF" would not even be in the manual "IF" all operational units were using the fuel in July 1940.

Any airframe using the fuel was doing so on a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine. The airframe serial number Operating Notes issued would reflect 100 Octane's use in that specific aircraft and once it becomes the standard fuel for the type, the General Information on the type Operating Notes will reflect that change.

CWMV

04-29-2012, 06:07 AM

Ok, but your working off of an assumption here. Its not direct evidence.
Pilot's from the BoF saying that they used 12lbs is direct.

Now for the aircraft in game to be modeled for 12 lbs we don't need to determine that every single plane in fighter command was using 100 octane, only that it was in widespread use.
And that is what we apparently have here.
Your using the lack of documentation here as evidence that the planes didn't use this fuel. That's not the case, it just means you don't have the doc's.
Do you have anything that says they were still using 87 for the majority of aircraft?

bongodriver

04-29-2012, 08:04 AM

Crumpp....are you serious? you tried to explain this using an analogy of 2 different nations needing reassurance that aircraft were 'safe' to fly over each others countries, bearing in mind said aircraft are loaded with guns and ammo and bombs to drop/fire on said counrties, military aircraft are practically exempt from civillian regulations....if they weren't we'd all be going to war in cessnas and airbuses.

NZtyphoon

04-29-2012, 08:27 AM

The January 1942 Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes clearly states in Notes on the Merlin engine that 100 Octane is for all operational units and all others will use 87 Octane.

The July 1940 Notes on the Merlin Engine only list 87 Octane operating limits and make no mention at all of 100 Octane. That is not to say 100 Octane was not in use. It was and the manual itself but not under the Notes on the Merlin engine references it "IF" the plane is equipped for it and "IF" the fuel is available.

"IF" would not even be in the manual "IF" all operational units were using the fuel in July 1940.

Any airframe using the fuel was doing so on a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine. The airframe serial number Operating Notes issued would reflect 100 Octane's use in that specific aircraft and once it becomes the standard fuel for the type, the General Information on the type Operating Notes will reflect that change.

Once again Crumpp is blowing smoke:

The reason why the Pilot's Notes used the operating limits for 87 Octane has already been explained three times, but completely ignored by Crumpp. Pilot's Notes were modified using supplementary slips issued with the Pilot's Notes issued to the pilot by the unit to which he was sent.

This statement "Any airframe using the fuel was doing so on a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine." is pure speculation on Crumpps part with no evidence whatsoever.

Provide documentary evidence that RAF pilots in frontline fighter squadrons were not allowed to use 100 Octane during the Battle of Britain.

Provide documentary evidence stating that RAF frontline fighter pilots were told not to use +12 lbs boost during the Battle of Britain.

Provide documentary evidence that RAF frontline fighter aircraft went into action using 87 Octane fuel.

Provide documentary evidence that the RAF restricted the issue and consumption of 100 octane fuel to selected squadrons.

All Crumpp has wasted the last 40 something pages on is speculation, and nothing else. He has not provided a single solitary piece of evidence bearing out any of his beliefs.

bongodriver

04-29-2012, 08:29 AM

I thought he showed a scan of a generic extract from a modern light single aircraf POH.

robtek

04-29-2012, 09:07 AM

After following this thread with growing disinterest i believe the conclusion, without any personal opinions, should be:

As there is lots of evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel by operational fighter units before and during the BoB this can be taken as a fact.

However that isn't the proof that all operational units did actually use 100 octane fuel only.

The use of 87 octane fuel wasn't documented, as it wasn't special, only diversions from the norm are remarkable.

That means that the use of 87 octane fuel by operational fighter units can't be generally ruled out for lack of proof, even if the evidences indicate otherwise.

Imo, of course.

bongodriver

04-29-2012, 09:11 AM

Kurfürst

04-29-2012, 09:18 AM

bongodriver

04-29-2012, 09:27 AM

can't be generally ruled out for lack of proof, even if the evidences indicate otherwise.

So what are we looking at here? a lack of proof that 87 octane was/wasn't used, and evidence showing 100 octane was.

Hmmm....so 87 octane use is dubious at best, 100 octane is clearly in evidence.......I know lets instate the use of 87 octane as fact.

robtek

04-29-2012, 09:35 AM

What use is your last post, bongodriver?

Clearly only a CoD-developer can answer your question, and i'd be really surprised to find one wandering in this part of the forum. :D :D :D

bongodriver

04-29-2012, 09:44 AM

What use is your last post, bongodriver?

Clearly only a CoD-developer can answer your question, and i'd be really surprised to find one wandering in this part of the forum. :D :D :D

What use?....pretty much the same as yours, an oppinion based on the evidence provided, hopefully this issue will become compelling enough as proof to the majority of users that there has been a serious omission and would bring their support to it.

Kurfürst

04-29-2012, 09:51 AM

So what are we looking at here? a lack of proof that 87 octane was/wasn't used, and evidence showing 100 octane was.

Hmmm....so 87 octane use is dubious at best, 100 octane is clearly in evidence.......I know lets instate the use of 87 octane as fact.

The problem is that before early 1940 every and all Fighter units were using 87 octane as standard. Now we know a fair number of units has switched over to 100 octane by the automn, but we do not have any shred of evidence that all have changed over.

I wonder why a unit, that operated on 87 octane in 1939 and kept operating at 87 octane through most of 1940 would mention anywhere that yes, the standard 87 octane fuel is still in use, just like yesterday.

The whole 'no proof that the standard fuel was kept being used' is a red herring by those who cannot provide evidence that every unit has changed over to 100 octane, simple as that. They can't prove their thesis, so they want others to disprove it. It's a weird, reversed logic.

Suppose I come up with an idea that there is a second, smaller sun in the Sol system, hiding behind the Sun all the time so we cannot see it. I can't prove it of course, but unless you prove its not there, I declare its very existence cannot be denied, due to the 'overwhelming' amount of evidence.

Anyway, the whole 100 octane stuff is going on for years and not a single shread of clear evidence has been found for its exclusive use by fighter squadrons. Of course it may exist still, but given such has been found for so many years, I seriously doubt the case. And the whole debate reminds me of this:

http://youtu.be/_w5JqQLqqTc

bongodriver

04-29-2012, 10:01 AM

Wow.....may I ask....are you a lawyer?

because only a lawyer could possibly get away with convincingly theorising a second sun using that logic.

like OJ Simpson, he knows he did it, everybody knows he did it....but a Lawyer made sure he got away with it.

winny

04-29-2012, 10:08 AM

The whole 'no proof that the standard fuel was kept being used' is a red herring by those who cannot provide evidence that every unit has changed over to 100 octane, simple as that. They can't prove their thesis, so they want others to disprove it. It's a weird, reversed logic.

Suppose I come up with an idea that there is a second, smaller sun in the Sol system, hiding behind the Sun all the time so we cannot see it. I can't prove it of course, but unless you prove its not there, I declare its very existence cannot be denied, due to the 'overwhelming' amount of evidence.

That is one of the most pathetic attempts at an argument I think I've ever seen.

There is PROOF of use of 100 octane in this very thread. It's now up to you to prove that 87 was also in use, not just because you say it is, but because, like us you present some proof.

You're basically doing the internet equivelent of sticking your fingers in your ears an 'la la la-ing'

How can the burden lie soley with one side of the discussion and not the other.

So, like I keep saying to Crumpp, present your case and stop trying to wriggle out of it with meaningless words.

Show me what makes an educated person like you think that 87 octane was in widespread use by FC during the BoB. Next post.

JtD

04-29-2012, 11:07 AM

If 87 octane was still in use, proof should be easy to find. Can you find a dated picture of a Hurricane being refuelled with 87 octane fuel? I've seen such a picture for 100 octane fuel. Can you find a squadron record that documents changeover to 100 octane fuel in October 1940? I've seen such a document for April 1940.

Can you find a statement "not all operational fighter squadrons are using 100 octane fuel" in any document of that time?

I've been looking for exactly that, for some time now, and the more I look, the more I agree with Mr. Williams that all operational squadrons did indeed use 100 octane fuel. There simply is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL against that claim. This has also been confirmed in this topic by several people who appear to know more about the period than I do, while no-one objecting this conclusion as presented actual, factual evidence.

I'll keep on checking this topic for as long as it is going on, eventually, proof for 87 octane usage might pop up and I'll have learned something.

robtek

04-29-2012, 11:34 AM

Absence of evidence is no proof.

I am really worried about people with black and white thinking, they are really prone to err.

bongodriver

04-29-2012, 11:37 AM

So what you are saying is that all the evidence pointing to the use of 100 octane is actually damaging to the case? in fact it would have been better to not have any and claim it's absence as a lack of proof to it's contrary?

Al Schlageter

04-29-2012, 11:58 AM

The problem is that before early 1940 every and all Fighter units were using 87 octane as standard. Now we know a fair number of units has switched over to 100 octane by the automn, but we do not have any shred of evidence that all have changed over.

I wonder why a unit, that operated on 87 octane in 1939 and kept operating at 87 octane through most of 1940 would mention anywhere that yes, the standard 87 octane fuel is still in use, just like yesterday.

The whole 'no proof that the standard fuel was kept being used' is a red herring by those who cannot provide evidence that every unit has changed over to 100 octane, simple as that. They can't prove their thesis, so they want others to disprove it. It's a weird, reversed logic.

Anyway, the whole 100 octane stuff is going on for years and not a single shread of clear evidence has been found for its exclusive use by fighter squadrons. Of course it may exist still, but given such has been found for so many years, I seriously doubt the case.

So when Madox Games gets around to modeling the late war Bf109K-4s, the 1.98ata boost model will not be done as there is no shred of evidence that is was used by any operational units when cleared for use.

JtD

04-29-2012, 12:19 PM

Absence of evidence is no proof. Au contraire! Half the truths we know are based on absence of evidence for the contrary. If you can't provide a single bit of evidence for a theory, it is considered wrong. Doesn't matter if it concerns orange ravens, a second sun or 87 octane fuel.

Kurfürst

04-29-2012, 12:20 PM

Kurfürst

04-29-2012, 12:22 PM

Au contraire! Half the truths we know are based on absence of evidence for the contrary. If you can't provide a single bit of evidence for a theory, it is considered wrong. Doesn't matter if it concerns orange ravens, a second sun or 87 octane fuel.

Well, we do know 87 octane was standard for Fighter Command at the start of the war and we know that by May 1940 only select Units of fighter command converted to 100 octane.

I'll let you guess what the rest of the Units kept operating on.

JtD

04-29-2012, 12:28 PM

I'll leave the guessing to you, I'm interested in knowing.

winny

04-29-2012, 12:34 PM

Well, we do know 87 octane was standard for Fighter Command at the start of the war and we know that by May 1940 only select Units of fighter command converted to 100 octane.

I'll let you guess what the rest of the Units kept operating on.

We're not talking about May 1940. We're talking about the Battle of Britain.
So July, August, September. And we're not guessing.

So once again. Present you own argument and stop nit picking our's.

With some documents, circumstantial evidence, whatever it is that you've got that makes you so convinced that 87 octane was in widespread use by fighter command during the battle of Britain. Just saying that it was is a pathetic way to try and prove that what you say is correct. It's not like we're alone in our opinion. There are plenty of authors on the subject who agree with the argument that the conversion happened in the spring of 1940. If you want to change the general consensus then I'm afraid that "because kurfurst says so" isn't going to do it. It does however highlight what a closed mind you have.

Kurfürst

04-29-2012, 12:40 PM

We're not talking about May 1940. We're talking about the Battle of Britain.
So July, August, September. And we're not guessing.

So once again. Present you own argument and stop nit picking our's.

With some documents, circumstantial evidence, whatever it is that you've got that makes you so convinced that 87 octane was in widespread use by fighter command during the battle of Britain.

Well here it is. It clearly says that 100 octane is only issued to select fighter stations, and this is how it stayed, given the lack of evidence to the contrary.

JtD

04-29-2012, 12:42 PM

Disappointing.

Kurfürst

04-29-2012, 12:44 PM

Disappointing.

Empty blabber...

bongodriver

04-29-2012, 12:46 PM

Well here it is. It clearly says that 100 octane is only issued to select fighter stations, and this is how it stayed, given the lack of evidence to the contrary.

So a very contemporary graphic (I'm sure this technology is post 1940's)....in low resolution is all you need for evidence?

what is the source of that graphic? what is the source of info used to produce that graphic? does that information have a date to refference?

Al Schlageter

04-29-2012, 12:49 PM

Well there's sufficient evidence and Oleg chose to model the variant based on that evidence for Il-2:Sturmovik.

And you were permabanned when you called Oleg mental afterwards as I recall. I guess history will just have to repeat itself. :D

Sufficient evidence? Not even an original document was ever presented. Only supposition and wishfulness on your part Barbi.

Another one of your lies Barbi.
Nope, I can register anytime I want to, but as the place is like a morgue, why bother.

winny

04-29-2012, 12:53 PM

Well here it is. It clearly says that 100 octane is only issued to select fighter stations, and this is how it stayed, given the lack of evidence to the contrary.

And that's it? You're diregarding all the other meetings that took place after this one, including ones that have been posted in this thread that superceeded it.

What you're doing is desperatley clinging on to an outdated document.

By your example the earth is at the centre of the solar system, because I can find you a document that was written that says it is.

Pathetic. Desperate and laughable. Do me a favour and go away.

Kurfürst

04-29-2012, 12:54 PM

Well, the main thing is that the 2000 PS 109K was added and you were banned after one of your typical brainf*rts and insulting of Oleg. I guess you can squibble over the details. :D

Kurfürst

04-29-2012, 12:57 PM

And that's it? You're diregarding all the other meetings that took place after this one, including ones that have been posted in this thread that superceeded it.

Can I see them? Pleeeease? Pretty please with sugar on top?

You see, I am waiting for these to be shown for 1400+ posts, and despite all the verbal diarrhea on this thread, NONE of the pumpkins arguing in favour could post any of these supposedly existing 'superceding' documents!

So I, just like the others lost interest in their BS. ;)

Al Schlageter

04-29-2012, 01:12 PM

Another garbage graph by Barbi.

As RAF FC was the major user of 100 octane fuel, the graph should show the 87 octane fuel issued to RAF FC NOT the 87 octane fuel issued to the whole of the RAF.

The only one having brainfarts is you Barbi, hence your faulty memory.

Glider

04-29-2012, 01:15 PM

Well, we do know 87 octane was standard for Fighter Command at the start of the war and we know that by May 1940 only select Units of fighter command converted to 100 octane.

I'll let you guess what the rest of the Units kept operating on.

I am still wondering how many squadrons is the number you consider to be selected. Is it the 16 squadrons as per Crumpp or is it the 145 aircraft as per pips.

Kurfürst

04-29-2012, 01:17 PM

Hi David,

Can we see the full contents of AVIA 10/282 between November 1939 and November 1940?

winny

04-29-2012, 01:23 PM

Without a definition of selected squadrons your document is worthless.

End of.

winny

04-29-2012, 01:24 PM

Hi David,

Can we see the full contents of AVIA 10/282 between November 1939 and November 1940?

Can I see a full list of the selected squadrons, pretty please.. Etc etc etc

winny

04-29-2012, 01:27 PM

Hi David,

Can we see the full contents of AVIA 10/282 between November 1939 and November 1940?

You'll be pleased to know that I've requested this from the national archive. I'm waiting to hear back how much it's going to cost me. Whatever it costs it will be worth it.

Al Schlageter

04-29-2012, 01:54 PM

To help the Dynamic Duo select the squadrons, here is a list of the squadrons:

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 3 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 17 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 19 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 23 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 25 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 29 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 32 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 41 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 43 (China-British) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 46 (Uganda) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 54 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 64 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 65 (East India) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 66 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 72 (Basutoland) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 73 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 74 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 85 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 92 (East India) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 111 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 141 Squadron - Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 145 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 151 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane and Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 213 (Ceylon) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 219 (Mysore) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 222 (Natal) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 229 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 232 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 234 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 235 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 236 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 238 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 242 (Canadian) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 245 (Northern Rhodesia) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 247 (China - British) Squadron - Gloster Gladiator
No. 248 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 253 (Hyderabad) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 257 (Burma) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 263 (Fellowship of the Bellows) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 264 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 266 (Rhodesia) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 302 Polish Fighter Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 310 Czechoslovak Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 312 Czechoslovak Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 401 Canadian Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 501 (County of Gloucester) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 504 (City of Nottingham) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 600 (City of London) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 601 (County of London) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 604 (County of Middlesex) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 605 (County of Warwick) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 607 (County of Durham) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 615 (County of Surrey) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 804 Naval Air Squadron - Fairey Fulmar
No. 808 Naval Air Squadron - Fairey Fulmar

lane

04-29-2012, 02:18 PM

However contrary to the Spitfire I manual the Spitfire II manual does not state that the boost control cut-out will provide +12 boost and that it is authorized for short time and emergency.

That the cut-out will provide +12 boost is obvious, it has the same boost control as the Merlin III and it is also proven by the later amendments.
The question that remains is when it was authorized.

Now that's a interesting find. The page without amendments only give +12 boost for take-off, but the 1939 documents states +12.5 boost for take-off.

However it's still clear from the June 1940 "List of content" that the page that contains the +12 emergency boost was not contained at that date and was added later and at that date only the page without +12 emergency boost was contained.

IMHO the easiest would be to get the combat reports of the "units concerned" (pun intended ;) ) to find one that proofs the use of +12 in a Spitfire II or search in the National Archives for a similar doc like the one that clears the use of +12 emergency boost for Merlin XX.

Hi 41Sqn_Banks,

Please examine the following documentation showing Spitfire IIs of 611 Squadron using emergency boost in combat on 21 August 1940. This was very shortly after the Sptifire II first went operational in the RAF.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-13aug40-orb.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-21aug40-orb.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-21aug40-orb541.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-watkins-21aug40-1.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-watkins-21aug40-2.jpg

Glider

04-29-2012, 02:37 PM

Hi David,

Can we see the full contents of AVIA 10/282 between November 1939 and November 1940?

As I have said before that is a file of many documents. If you want it that bad you can always ask for it.

However all I want to know if you still believe that the RAF only had approx 145 fighters with 100 octrane, that was the last time you gave me a figure.

41Sqn_Banks

04-29-2012, 02:42 PM

Hi 41Sqn_Banks,

Please examine the following documentation showing Spitfire IIs of 611 Squadron using emergency boost in combat on 21 August 1940. This was very shortly after the Sptifire II first went operational in the RAF.

Thank you. That's a remarkable find and the proof I was looking for.

fruitbat

04-29-2012, 03:30 PM

Another great find Lane, much thanks:)

NZtyphoon

04-30-2012, 04:39 AM

Another great find Lane, much thanks:)
+1
It's interesting to note that there are nine Spitfire Is from the first 'K' and second 'N' production series; those delivered to 611 Sqn were:
N3050 Ia 338 EA MIII FF 28-9-39 8MU 30-9-39 611S 1-3-40
N3051 Ia 340 EA MIII FF 29-9-39 8MU 2-10-39 611S 1-3-40
N3052 Ia 341 EA MIII FF 30-9-39 8MU 2-10-39 611S 1-3-40
N3053 Ia 342 EA MIII FF 1-10-39 24MU 5-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3054 Ia 343 EA MIII FF 2-10-39 24MU 5-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3055 Ia 344 EA MIII FF 3-10-39 fitt TR1133 24MU 5-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3056 Ia 345 EA MIII FF 2-10-39 24MU 5-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3057 Ia 346 EA MIII FF 3-10-39 24MU 4-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3058 Ia 347 EA MIII FF 4-10-39 24MU 7-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3059 Ia 348 EA MIII FF 5-10-39 27MU 7-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3060 Ia 349 EA MIII FF 4-10-39 27MU 7-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3061 Ia 350 EA MIII FF 6-10-39 27MU 10-10-39 611S 15-2-40
N3062 Ia 351 EA MIII FF 6-10-39 27MU 10-10-39 611S 15-2-40
N3063 Ia 353 EA MIII FF 7-10-39 27MU 10-10-39 611S 15-2-40
N3064 Ia 352 EA MIII FF 6-10-39 27MU 10-10-39 611S 15-2-40
N3065 Ia 354 EA MIII FF 8-10-39 611S 16-3-40
N3066 Ia 355 EA MIII FF 9-10-39 9MU 11-10-39 611S 16-3-40
N3070 Ia 359 EA MIII FF 11-10-39 6MU 16-10-39 54S 18-11-39 611S 16-12-39
N3072 Ia 361 EA MIII FF 12-10-39 6MU 12-10-39 54S 18-11-39 611S 18-12-39
N3099 Ia 370 EA MIII FF 17-10-39 8MU 19-10-39 611S 21-1-40

From http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/p002.htm

When was 611 Sqn converted to 100 Octane fuel? Nine of them by 21/3/40...

K9963 Ia 176 EA MII FF 4-5-39 602S 8-5-39 AST 27-11-39 611S 4-6-40

All of these Spitfires had engines built well before AP1590/J.2-W was issued, showing that the required modifications on early Merlin IIIs were well in hand on 611 Sqn.

Seadog

04-30-2012, 04:17 PM

Osprey

04-30-2012, 04:34 PM

Thank you. That's a remarkable find and the proof I was looking for.

Yes and thanks for the update in bug 174 Banks. I'll be updating it for Artist to edit later.

Al Schlageter

04-30-2012, 04:41 PM

Just one 87 octane sortie...and you can't provide evidence for even that. How pathetic..

Since it has been stated that there was a shortage of 100 fuel, I would like to see some references to a/c staying on the ground due to this shortage, like what happened in Germany late war.

Glider

04-30-2012, 05:53 PM

Since it has been stated that there was a shortage of 100 fuel, I would like to see some references to a/c staying on the ground due to this shortage, like what happened in Germany late war.

Personally I would like to see any evidence of :-
a) a shortage of fuel
b) of 16 squadrons
c) of which squadrons or bases
d) why this isn't mentioned in any official document, book, history
e) of the process in delivering the fuel
f) when the rest of FC were transfered to 100 octane

in fact anything Crumpp and Kururst claim

Crumpp

04-30-2012, 09:05 PM

Al Schlageter

04-30-2012, 09:10 PM

NZtyphoon

04-30-2012, 10:08 PM

Glider,

Why don't you state exactly what it is in your mind that you think I am claiming, first?

This is what I have said and is backed up by the facts:

In July of 1940, 100 Octane fuel was not the standard fuel of Fighter Command.

Do you really need someone to explain to you what you have been claiming for several pages? Your story keeps changing so much that not even you can keep track of what you have been claiming...

Crumpp

05-01-2012, 01:21 PM

You should go back and re-read the thread without your emotional involvement.

It is a fact that in July of 1940, 87 Octane fuel was Fighter Commands standard fuel. They were definitely in the process of adopting 100 Octane and had begun operating aircraft that could only use 100 Octane like the Spitfire Mk II.

The Operating Notes are the primary source for flying the aircraft.

Notes on the Merlin Engine are by the Air Ministry, RAF, and convention a legal document that defines the airworthy limitations of the aircraft.

The Operating Notes are equivalent to a Flight Information Manual and will reflect the airworthy limitations of the type certificate.

That is how it works. It is that simple and elegant. The hatred of me for pointing that out is irrational and immature. Maybe some of you should consider getting out and socializing more?

Bottom line, there is no need to construct great leaps of logic built around circumstantial evidence. Especially when that evidence is misinterpreted such as using Estabilishments as proof of quantity on hand.

JtD

05-01-2012, 01:28 PM

It is a fact that in July of 1940, 87 Octane fuel was Fighter Commands standard fuel.
That's a claim, not a fact. For dozens of pages now several posters have been asking for proof, which you so far have not provided.

Crumpp

05-01-2012, 01:44 PM

That's a claim, not a fact.

It is a fact, JtD. 100 Octane does not have a specification yet on the logistical documents posted but 87 Octane is a specified fuel.

JtD

05-01-2012, 01:48 PM

100 Octane does not have a specification yet on the logistical documents posted but 87 Octane is a specified fuel.Doesn't matter for practical purposes, and red herrings are of no interest to me.

Seadog

05-01-2012, 02:59 PM

41Sqn_Banks

05-01-2012, 03:01 PM

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9358&stc=1&d=1335884379
AP 1590B Vol. I, A.L. 4

This is the specification of 100 octane fuel in November 1940. I've never seen this anywhere else, everywhere else (even in the same manual) it's simply called 100 octane fuel.

Al Schlageter

05-01-2012, 03:23 PM

It is a fact, JtD. 100 Octane does not have a specification yet on the logistical documents posted but 87 Octane is a specified fuel.

A fact would be RAF FC used 'X' ton of 100 fuel and 'Y' ton of 87 fuel with 'Y' being much much greater than 'X'.

Which documents would these be?

Crumpp

05-01-2012, 08:12 PM

This is the specification of 100 octane fuel in November 1940.

Provisional specification.....

And in May of 1940, it still had no specification and the estabilishment was still being discussed.

The case is not very strong for it being the main fuel of Fighter Command for much of the Battle of Britain.

bongodriver

05-01-2012, 08:15 PM

The case is not very strong for it being the main fuel of Fighter Command for much of the Battle of Britain.

Other than the many provided combat reports showing it's use and complete absense of any showing the use of 87 octane....no I guess there isn't the elusive document that says it verbatim.

pstyle

05-01-2012, 08:41 PM

Provisional specification.....

And in May of 1940, it still had no specification and the estabilishment was still being discussed.

I would suggest that this is a strong indication that "specifications" followed singnificantly behind widespread adoption in combat during this period.

Crumpp

05-01-2012, 09:00 PM

I would suggest that this is a strong indication that "specifications" followed singnificantly behind widespread adoption in combat during this period.

It does not work that way.

bongodriver

05-01-2012, 09:07 PM

It does not work that way.

So is it illegal to specify an unspecified element in a combat report?

winny

05-01-2012, 09:16 PM

Provisional specification.....

And in May of 1940, it still had no specification and the estabilishment was still being discussed.

The case is not very strong for it being the main fuel of Fighter Command for much of the Battle of Britain.

Except for the stocks, combat reports, Oil Position meeting notes, various pilot's memoirs, squadron log books etc etc.

The case is stronger than the one you're putting which seems to be "because I say so". Time and time again you've made some statement which has turned out to be completely wrong, completely.

Then you come go quiet for a day and re-appear with a slightly differentley worded version of the same thing.

There were literally 100's of modifications applied to Mk1 Spitfires during the production run yet there aren't 100's of versions of pilot's notes.

Crumpp

05-01-2012, 09:17 PM

Other than the many provided combat reports showing it's use and complete absense of any showing the use of 87 octane....no I guess there isn't the elusive document that says it verbatim.

There is only a small pool of squadrons on the combat reports. Only a fraction list +12lbs and instead use the phrase "pulling the plug" as proof of 100 Octane use.

While "pulling the plug" was used to express 100 Octane, it really just means they gave it all the engine has got.

fruitbat

05-01-2012, 09:22 PM

Only a fraction list +12lbs and instead use the phrase "pulling the plug" as proof of 100 Octane use.

While "pulling the plug" was used to express 100 Octane, it really just means they gave it all the engine has got.

Got proof?

Robo.

05-01-2012, 09:28 PM

While "pulling the plug" was used to express 100 Octane, it really just means they gave it all the engine has got.

I am speechles. :eek:

arthursmedley

05-01-2012, 09:32 PM

While "pulling the plug" was used to express 100 Octane, it really just means they gave it all the engine has got.

Good heavens! You're a cultural guru too Crump.:-)

pstyle

05-01-2012, 10:13 PM

It does not work that way.

Unfortunately the study of history works that way.
If you have positive evidence for the use of X, then official documentation which endorses X need not over ride the positive evidence, if found to be from a later date.

Below is what I would refer to as "positive evidence" of the use of 100 Octane prior to the "specification date". In fact the below gives us a strong indication, (and I would say proof in the case of the combat reports and photos referencing +12 and/or 100 octane directly) that, in fact 100 was being used prior to the specification. Not only that, but that 100 octane was used on a wide-scale, at least as far as the spitfire was concerned.

I have made a list, of all the references I can find to the use of 100 in COMBAT from freburary 1940 to September 1940, by squadron.

The list is not exhasutive and simply indicates the first date at which I can find various references. I have grouped these by the type of reference, from explicit mentions of particular boost or octanes (in photos or reports), down to mentions of "gate" or "emergency power/ boost cut out" which are almost as persuasive as direct references to the use of the 100 fuels. I am going to continue researching this to see if I can find further evidence/ data that indicates at a minimum the "in-use-by" date for the various squadrons.

Here is the results:

referecnes to +12 Lb and/or 100 octance
602 squadron: February 1940 - photo of squadron aircraft in in pre-BoB paint with 100 written on the fuseage + squad operations book entry on 16/2
54 Squadron: May 1940 - combat report from colin gray on 24/5 & AL Deere Combat report 26/5
19 Squadron: May 1950 - combat report from flt Lt Lane 26/5
610 Squadron: July 1940 - photo of 100 fuel bowser refuelling A/C
41 Squadron: June 1940 - combat report Flt Lt Webster 19/6
64 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from P/O Donahue
72 Squadron: September 1940 - Combat report from P/O Elliot 9/9

References to Boost Cut out/ emergency boost/ "gate"
74 Squadron: May 1940 - combat report from P/O Freeborn 24/5
611 squadron: June 1940 - combat report from P/O Brown 2/6
610 Squadron: June 1940 - combat report order to "gate" 12/6
616 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from F/O Dundas 15/8
603 SQuadron: August 1940 - combat report from P/O Morton 28/6
152 Squadron: September 1940 - combat report from P/O Hall on 4/9
66 Squadron: September 1940 - combat report from F/O Oxsrping 6/9
234 Squadron: August OR September 1940 - recollections from P/O Doe
92 Squadron: September 1940 - recollections from Goeffrey Wellum

reference to high boost (+10 LB)
602 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from Flt Lt Boyd 18/6

I am not sure how many of the above are spitfire squadrons, but there are 16 Squadrons listed there (610 is listed twice, as I located references in two categories). I understand there are only 19 Spitfire squadrons which have battle honours for the BoB.

Now, to wider matters, it seems to me that there are two separate assumptions being made in this discussion, these boil down to:
1. That twe must assume the use of 87 octane UNTIL we have positive evidence of the use of 100
2. That we must assume the use of 100 UNLESS we have evidence of 87.

I would say that Crumpp, falls into category 1. I agree with him/her on this account. However, I think we have ample evidence to suggest that many units were in fact using 100 on a staggered basis from February 1940.

winny

05-01-2012, 10:20 PM

While "pulling the plug" was used to express 100 Octane, it really just means they gave it all the engine has got.

So now it's about the definition of pulling the plug?

Really?

Al Schlageter

05-01-2012, 10:30 PM

So now it's about the definition of pulling the plug?

Really?

LOL, the 'song and dance routine' is changed, again. Anything to not admit being wrong.

pstyle

05-01-2012, 10:31 PM

So now it's about the definition of pulling the plug?
Really?

None of the combat reports I can find use this term.The term is only used by the author of the spitfireperformace.com page.

ACE-OF-ACES

05-01-2012, 10:37 PM

LOL, the 'song and dance routine' is changed, again. Anything to not admit being wrong.
Crump doing what Crump does best..

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpz8tdUNiX1qg5yji.gif

robtek

05-01-2012, 11:43 PM

People trying to disparage someone, are doing it to themself in reality!

Crumpp

05-02-2012, 12:52 AM

Here is the results:

referecnes to +12 Lb and/or 100 octance
602 squadron: February 1940 - photo of squadron aircraft in in pre-BoB paint with 100 written on the fuseage + squad operations book entry on 16/2
54 Squadron: May 1940 - combat report from colin gray on 24/5 & AL Deere Combat report 26/5
19 Squadron: May 1950 - combat report from flt Lt Lane 26/5
610 Squadron: July 1940 - photo of 100 fuel bowser refuelling A/C
41 Squadron: June 1940 - combat report Flt Lt Webster 19/6
64 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from P/O Donahue
72 Squadron: September 1940 - Combat report from P/O Elliot 9/9

References to Boost Cut out/ emergency boost/ "gate"
74 Squadron: May 1940 - combat report from P/O Freeborn 24/5
611 squadron: June 1940 - combat report from P/O Brown 2/6
610 Squadron: June 1940 - combat report order to "gate" 12/6
616 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from F/O Dundas 15/8
603 SQuadron: August 1940 - combat report from P/O Morton 28/6
152 Squadron: September 1940 - combat report from P/O Hall on 4/9
66 Squadron: September 1940 - combat report from F/O Oxsrping 6/9
234 Squadron: August OR September 1940 - recollections from P/O Doe
92 Squadron: September 1940 - recollections from Goeffrey Wellum

reference to high boost (+10 LB)
602 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from Flt Lt Boyd 18/6

Good Stuff....

By July it shows ~8 Squadrons and I imagine some of those squadrons are operating Spitfire Mk II's.

August adds another 5 Squadrons and by sometime in September, a full 16 squadrons online as researched by Morgan and Shacklady.

According to the RAF estabilishment by September there were 33 squadrons of Hurricanes and 19 Squadrons of Spitfires.

NZtyphoon

05-02-2012, 12:59 AM

None of the combat reports I can find use this term.The term is only used by the author of the spitfireperformace.com page.

Not quite, here are some reports you've missed: Donaldson 151Sqdn-18May40.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/donaldson-151sqdn-18may40.pdf)

Dutton 145 Sqn 1July40.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/145-dutton-1july40.pdf)

There were several other colloquial expressions used to describe using +12 lbs boost, all with the same meaning, regardless of what Crumpp might think. And wouldn't ya know it, these squadrons are not on pstyle's list...

NZtyphoon

05-02-2012, 01:06 AM

.

The list is not exhasutive and simply indicates the first date at which I can find various references. I have grouped these by the type of reference, from explicit mentions of particular boost or octanes (in photos or reports), down to mentions of "gate" or "emergency power/ boost cut out" which are almost as persuasive as direct references to the use of the 100 fuels. I am going to continue researching this to see if I can find further evidence/ data that indicates at a minimum the "in-use-by" date for the various squadrons.

Here is the results:

referecnes to +12 Lb and/or 100 octance
602 squadron: February 1940 - photo of squadron aircraft in in pre-BoB paint with 100 written on the fuseage + squad operations book entry on 16/2
54 Squadron: May 1940 - combat report from colin gray on 24/5 & AL Deere Combat report 26/5
19 Squadron: May 1950 - combat report from flt Lt Lane 26/5
610 Squadron: July 1940 - photo of 100 fuel bowser refuelling A/C
41 Squadron: June 1940 - combat report Flt Lt Webster 19/6
64 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from P/O Donahue
72 Squadron: September 1940 - Combat report from P/O Elliot 9/9

References to Boost Cut out/ emergency boost/ "gate"
74 Squadron: May 1940 - combat report from P/O Freeborn 24/5
611 squadron: June 1940 - combat report from P/O Brown 2/6
610 Squadron: June 1940 - combat report order to "gate" 12/6
616 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from F/O Dundas 15/8
603 SQuadron: August 1940 - combat report from P/O Morton 28/6
152 Squadron: September 1940 - combat report from P/O Hall on 4/9
66 Squadron: September 1940 - combat report from F/O Oxsrping 6/9
234 Squadron: August OR September 1940 - recollections from P/O Doe
92 Squadron: September 1940 - recollections from Goeffrey Wellum

reference to high boost (+10 LB)
602 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from Flt Lt Boyd 18/6

I am not sure how many of the above are spitfire squadrons, but there are 16 Squadrons listed there (610 is listed twice, as I located references in two categories). I understand there are only 19 Spitfire squadrons which have battle honours for the BoB.

Good Stuff....

By July it shows ~8 Squadrons and I imagine some of those squadrons are operating Spitfire Mk II's.

August adds another 5 Squadrons and by sometime in September, a full 16 squadrons online as researched by Morgan and Shacklady.

According to the RAF estabilishment by September there were 33 squadrons of Hurricanes and 19 Squadrons of Spitfires.

The first unit to use Spitfire IIs was 611 Sqn starting in August, as was established back here (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110&page=145)

There are also records for useage of boost cut out or 12 lbs for the following squadrons, as can be found here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html):

111, 151 - Feb 1940
1, 3, 17, 56, 73, 79, 85, 87, 229, 245 - May 1940
43 - June 1940
145 - July 1940
249, 303 - September 1940

plus add 11 Hurricane squadrons
17, 56, 73, 79, 87, 85, 151, 229, 245 Sqns May,

145 Sqn, July,

1 Sqn. August,

43 Sqn June

That makes 18 squadrons Feb-July another 6 in August...oops! that equals 24 in August plus another eight September = 32 squadrons. Why that's exactly twice as many squadrons than Morgan and Shacklady tssk tssk tssk. :shock:
Breakdown = 15 Spitfire, 17 Hurricane

JtD

05-02-2012, 01:11 AM

There are also records for useage of boost cut out or 12 lbs for the following squadrons, as can be found here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html):

111, 151 - Feb 1940
1, 3, 17, 56, 73, 79, 85, 87, 229, 245 - May 1940
43 - June 1940
145 - July 1940
249, 303 - September 1940

Ernst

05-02-2012, 02:30 AM

Even if Crump is wrong at all some here is has no more than "ad hominem" behaviour. Some of them act in similar ways in another threads, trying to negate the fact presented, creating arguments, digging others, misleading some and given their own deturpated interpretation even when the data were against their favourite a/c.

All this turned on a childish fight where wins who gives the last word even if wrong word in an vicious looping.

All us have some bias however we have to try clear our minds. My suggestion is that you put your arguments and give a time. Everyone put the arguments over the table and let the readers decide. Stop trying to counter any time. Please, this is for all.

You claim being scientific and rational, but nothing here is in this way at all.

Al Schlageter

05-02-2012, 02:36 AM

Good Stuff....

By July it shows ~8 Squadrons and I imagine some of those squadrons are operating Spitfire Mk II's.

August adds another 5 Squadrons and by sometime in September, a full 16 squadrons online as researched by Morgan and Shacklady.

According to the RAF estabilishment by September there were 33 squadrons of Hurricanes and 19 Squadrons of Spitfires.

I posted this list before:

By Month

No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 92 (East India) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940 H
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron pre BoB S

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

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

No. 145 Squadron July 1940 H

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

No. 66 Squadron 6 Sept 1940 S
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron 4 Sept 1940 S
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron 6 Sept 1940 H
No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron 9 Sept 1940 H

It is not complete, so if any one wants to add, please do. It was compiled using pilot reports and squadron logs easily found on the internet.

It is only for Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons. Not listed is other squadrons with Merlin powered a/c.

Here is a list of the squadrons for the BoB:

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 3 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 17 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 19 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 23 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 25 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 29 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 32 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 41 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 43 (China-British) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 46 (Uganda) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 54 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 64 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 65 (East India) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 66 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 72 (Basutoland) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 73 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 74 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 85 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 92 (East India) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 111 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 141 Squadron - Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 145 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 151 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane and Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 213 (Ceylon) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 219 (Mysore) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 222 (Natal) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 229 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 232 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 234 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 235 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 236 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 238 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 242 (Canadian) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 245 (Northern Rhodesia) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 247 (China - British) Squadron - Gloster Gladiator
No. 248 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 253 (Hyderabad) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 257 (Burma) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 263 (Fellowship of the Bellows) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 264 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 266 (Rhodesia) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 302 Polish Fighter Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 310 Czechoslovak Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 312 Czechoslovak Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 401 Canadian Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 501 (County of Gloucester) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 504 (City of Nottingham) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 600 (City of London) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 601 (County of London) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 604 (County of Middlesex) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 605 (County of Warwick) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 607 (County of Durham) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 615 (County of Surrey) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 804 Naval Air Squadron - Fairey Fulmar
No. 808 Naval Air Squadron - Fairey Fulmar

NZtyphoon

05-02-2012, 03:28 AM

I posted this list before:

By Month

No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 92 (East India) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940 H
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron pre BoB S

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

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

No. 145 Squadron July 1940 H

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

No. 66 Squadron 6 Sept 1940 S
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron 4 Sept 1940 S
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron 6 Sept 1940 H
No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron 9 Sept 1940 H

It is not complete, so if any one wants to add, please do. It was compiled using pilot reports and squadron logs easily found on the internet.

It is only for Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons. Not listed is other squadrons with Merlin powered a/c.

That makes 18 squadrons Feb-July another 6 in August...oops! that equals 24 in August plus another eight September = 32 squadrons. Why that's exactly twice as many squadrons than Morgan and Shacklady tssk tssk tssk. :shock:
Breakdown = 15 Spitfire, 17 Hurricane

Ah ha! + 1 Defiant Squadron:
264 Sqn Welsh 29May40.pdf (http://http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane 264-welsh-29may40.pdf)

so-er-19 Squadrons Feb-July + 6 August + 8 September = 33 squadrons - 17 more than specified by the May '39 paper and repeated by Morgan and Shacklady and Crumpp.

Al Schlageter

05-02-2012, 04:01 AM

Using the above list, these are the bases that required 100 octane fuel:

10 Group

Filton No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940
St Athan - training base

11 Group

Biggin Hill
No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H,
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940

Manston

Marlesham Heath
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H

Hornchurch
No. 41 Squadron June 1940,
No. 65 (East India) Squadron 12 Aug 1940
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S

Northholt
No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940

Croydon
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB

Tangmere
No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H

Debden
No. 17 Squadron May 1940

North Weald
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940,
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940

No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H

12 Group

Duxford
No. 19 Squadron May 1940

Digby
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron June 1940

Leconfield
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron 15 Aug 1940,
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron 6 Sept 1940

Church Fenton
No. 73 Squadron May 1940,
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H,
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron 15 Aug 1940

Wittering
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

13 Group

Drem
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB

Turnhouse
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron 31 Aug 1940

Grangemounth

Acklington
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron 4 Sept 1940,

Catterick
No. 41 Squadron June 1940

The above is not complete so if any feel inclined to do so, update and repost.

Glider

05-02-2012, 05:16 AM

Glider,

Why don't you state exactly what it is in your mind that you think I am claiming, first?

This is what I have said and is backed up by the facts:

In July of 1940, 100 Octane fuel was not the standard fuel of Fighter Command.

To support that you need to give some awnsers to the questions you have avoided for the following reasons

Personally I would like to see any evidence of :-
a) a shortage of fuel
If there was no shortage then there would be no need to reduce the roll out

b) of 16 squadrons
Which squadrons or if you go down the it was 16 squadrons at any one time

c) of which squadrons or bases
This brings the difficult questions
i) If 100 octane was in short supply when did Drew a small satellite station in Scotland have 100 octane when the priority stations in the South East didn't
ii) At one point in the BOB Duxford had the big wing of five squadrons. Are you really saying that almost a fifth of the RAF supply was in one 12 group station?.

d) why this isn't mentioned in any official document, book, history
Simple request, why in the most documented air battle in history has no one picked this important factor up. Support your theory with some supporting documentation, not an off the wall conspiracy theory

e) of the process in delivering the fuel
As there is no mention of a any limitation in the distribution of 100 octane fuel in the Oil Committee papers who distributed it

f) when the rest of FC were transfered to 100 octane
As (e) there is no mention of any further roll out of 100 Octane in the Oil Committee papers so when was it done?

JtD

05-02-2012, 06:03 AM

Glider

05-02-2012, 07:43 AM

I've been looking at a few individual Hurricane plane histories. It is interesting to see that there are planes that came from a unit which has been documented to use 100 octane fuel, and went to a unit where there's no dedicated record, on occasion after having been to a maintenance unit. Imho, there's no reason to assume that the new squadrons weren't using 100 octane fuel as well, unless RAF logistics were run by brain dead people. If some folks around here have detailed resources, it might be worth a little more digging.

I did look at a number but not all of the squadron records of squadrons that formed after May 1940. I checked these records from formation until March (ish) 1941 and none of those records mention 100 octane, 87 octane or any issues. The assumption I was working on was that by March 1941 they would be using 100 octane in view of the instruction we have for all commands to use 100 Octane given in August 1940.
Given that, my view is that 100 Octane wasn't mentioned after May 1940 because it was standard issue.

robtek

05-02-2012, 08:07 AM

Do you really believe that? Even after that a few post before it was posted that not all squadrons used 100 oct.???

Seadog

05-02-2012, 09:00 AM

Do you really believe that? Even after that a few post before it was posted that not all squadrons used 100 oct.???

Who posted that not all squadrons used 100 octane?

NZtyphoon

05-02-2012, 09:18 AM

Do you really believe that? Even after that a few post before it was posted that not all squadrons used 100 oct.???

And you really believe a statement made without any evidence whatsoever? ah yes "absence of evidence" etc etc - which can mean anything you want it to mean, including no evidence means that (supply event that can be proven because there is no evidence) must have happened because there is no evidence that it didn't happen. Conspiracy theorists discussing the assassination of JFK have long relied on a lack of evidence to prove that there is a conspiracy.

Taking that further I can claim that the Apollo astronauts found that the moon is made of cheese but on the way home the astronauts got hungry and made toasted mooncheese sandwiches out of the samples they were bringing back - the report was quietly dumped in a file, and the samples replaced by rocks, which is why there is no evidence that the moon is made out of cheese.

So far no-one has explained what happened to 52,000 tons of 100 Octane avgas consumed between July - end October 1940. Crumpp had a stab at it by saying it wasn't really consumed, just mixed, then it disappeared into an unexplained administrative hole. Really?

winny

05-02-2012, 09:37 AM

Crumpp

05-02-2012, 11:18 AM

Unfortunately the study of history works that way.

Pstyle,

I was refering to fact a military fuel must carry a specification approved by that organization.

It will not become the standard fuel without a full specification. The completion of the specification IS the process of adoption. A provisional specification gets it into the system so it can be tested.

Understand?

NZtyphoon

05-02-2012, 01:06 PM

Pstyle,

I was refering to fact a military fuel must carry a specification approved by that organization.

It will not become the standard fuel without a full specification. The completion of the specification IS the process of adoption. A provisional specification gets it into the system so it can be tested.

Understand?

This is yet more meaningless technobabble, and yet another red herring: fact is 100 Octane was always called 100 Octane in RAF service, right throughout the war; the relevant designation was B.A.M (British Air Ministry) 100, (http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.military/2006-06/msg01078.html) but it was seldom referred to as such.

D.T.D = Directorate of Technical Development (http://www.associations.rafinfo.org.uk/acronyms.htm), which dealt with developing equipment, aircraft and stores for the RAF. Because 100 Octane fuel was developed outside of the RAF and Air Ministry's direct control as a private venture by oil companies it was never allocated a DTD number.

Crumpp

05-02-2012, 01:29 PM

To support that you need to give some awnsers to the questions you have avoided for the following reasons

Personally I would like to see any evidence of :-
a) a shortage of fuel
If there was no shortage then there would be no need to reduce the roll out

The first plant to be able to produce 100 Octane fuel cheaply and quantity did not come into operation until right before the war started. There was a shortage of 100/130 grade through most of the war that is discussed in Allied Oil Committee meetings. Specifically it is mentioned in a 1944 meeting on adopting a higher octane grade as a limitation to the production of the more powerful fuel. The refineries cannot meet the current requirements and have never been able to meet them with the exception of a few short months in 1943. Therefore they do not want to devote any refinery capability to production other than the amount required for testing purposes.

That shortage of 100 Octane is why domestically, the United States used 91 Grade CONUS and the RAF used 87 grade for non-operational purposes for most of the war. 100 grade was in short supply and reserved for operations.

b) of 16 squadrons
Which squadrons or if you go down the it was 16 squadrons at any one time

c) of which squadrons or bases
This brings the difficult questions
i) If 100 octane was in short supply when did Drew a small satellite station in Scotland have 100 octane when the priority stations in the South East didn't
ii) At one point in the BOB Duxford had the big wing of five squadrons. Are you really saying that almost a fifth of the RAF supply was in one 12 group station?.

Glider, the document you post from December 1938 very clearly states that all stations will recieve an adequet supply of 100 Octane before the first aircraft is converted. If stations were not getting fuel then that is proof the operational adoption did not occur until all stations had it. Think about it, it just makes sense. You cannot easily switch fuels back and forth. If you add a lower knock limited performance fuel to the tanks, you must use lower operating limits or you will experience detonation which can end a flight very quickly.

This is the kind of thing that undermines the credibility of the posters in this thread.

All one needs to do is look the immaturity exhibited in this thread. Do you really think the evidence has been sifted through with a mature outlook and placed in context? I certainly don't think so at all. More effort has been devoted to finding cartoons and taking opinion polls than looking objectively at the evidence.

If you are going to use logistical documents, then you better have a good understanding of the logistical system and how the accounting process works. One should understand things like "Estabilishment vs Strength", how a fuel becomes specified, how does the testing process work, and what are the constraints.

All one has to do is look at the projections for fuel requirements for a week of operations in the 18 May 1940 document in order to support just four squadrons. You need almost 3000 tons of fuel in the tanks forward of the logistical node to support a week of operations!! That is to burn ~230 tons a week in their fuel tanks.

Compare that with Table II fuel at the airbases for June thru August of 10,000 tons.

d) why this isn't mentioned in any official document, book, history
Simple request, why in the most documented air battle in history has no one picked this important factor up. Support your theory with some supporting documentation, not an off the wall conspiracy theory

What are you talking about? Glider, I use the documents provided in this thread. I just don't read into them and fit them in the context of how things work.

I just read what the document says.......Establishment vs. Strength.....All stations have to receive an adequate supply of 100 Octane before the first unit is converted....

Now, I believe that constraint of all stations receiving 100 Octane as applying to operational adoption and not Phase IV testing. Phase IV testing would continue using the provisional specified fuel. It is impossible to move forward with operational adoption if Phase IV testing is not complete. In Phase IV testing, you would see handfuls of squadrons using the fuel in order to fulfill the requirements of that test phase. You do realize that the fact we only see a few squadrons using the fuel before September very much supports that notion. Occam’s razor, Glider....

e) of the process in delivering the fuel
As there is no mention of a any limitation in the distribution of 100 octane fuel in the Oil Committee papers who distributed it

Sure there is and the language is "units concerned". That tells us there is a limitation. We don't know if it is self-imposed as part of Phase IV testing or a supply issue. It really is irrelevant though in determining if all operational units were using the fuel in July 1940 as the fact remains there was a limitation in place. The Oil Committee was aware of it.

f) when the rest of FC were transfered to 100 octane
As (e) there is no mention of any further roll out of 100 Octane in the Oil Committee papers so when was it done?

When did FC fully convert? That is question we are trying to answer. The evidence seems to suggest sometime after October 1940. I think it is very likely there is another edition of the Operating Notes for the Spitfire Mk I and Hurricane series we don't have at the moment.

It is a fact that in July 1940, all of FC was not using 100 Octane.
The rotation of squadrons does put a restraint on the ability to determine just how many squadrons were using it at one time without a timeline and further research.

bongodriver

05-02-2012, 01:41 PM

It is a fact that in July 1940, all of FC was not using 100 Octane.

non-operational and training units prob used 87 octane while the 100 was diverted to the operational units, simple solution and nobody is wrong.

Crumpp

05-02-2012, 01:41 PM

100LL for example has a specification by convention. It also has a defence specification for NATO as it is in the supply inventory.

•ASTM D910 in the US
•DEFENCE STANDARD 91/90 in the rest of the world.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=4503701&contentId=57723

All approved aviation fuels must recieve a full specification from the aviation authority in place by convention. 100 Octane is no different and the provisional specification has already been posted in this thread.

That being said.......

This is yet more meaningless technobabble

If you have not picked up on it, I pretty much ignore you NzTyphoon.

If you learn how things work in aviaton, you will be far more successful in interpreting original documentation.

Robo.

05-02-2012, 01:50 PM

If you have not picked up on it, I pretty much ignore you NzTyphoon.

That's ok, but you're still wrong :grin:

JtD

05-02-2012, 01:57 PM

Given that, my view is that 100 Octane wasn't mentioned after May 1940 because it was standard issue.
I agree at least as far as Hurricanes are concerned, as the policy was to convert Hurricanes first, Spitfires later. In May, Spitfires had at least been partially converted, meaning Hurricanes had to be complete. Necessary modifications were started in late 1939, so it adds up.

Al Schlageter

05-02-2012, 02:25 PM

From POWE 33/1363, Report of actual production 100/130 and 100/150 gasolines and components. 1 bbl (barrel) = 35 imp gallons, 1 ton = 2240lbs

1944 150 grade 150 grade as a % 130 grade
February 24908 tons 221400 bbls 61.5% 15570 tons 138400 bbls
March 35483 tons 315400 bbls 69.6% 15491 tons 137700 bbls
April 4928 tons 43800 bbls 7.4% 52988 tons 471000 bbls
May 8033 tons 71400 bbls 17.3% 38329 tons 34700 bbls
June 24446 tons 217300 bbls 64.8% 13286 tons 118100 bbls
July 38790 tons 344800 bbls 71.7% 15300 tons 136000 bbls
August 31376 tons 278900 bbls 66.1% 16110 tons 143200 bbls
September 35640 tons 316800 bbls 66.6% 17910 tons 159200 bbls
October 24154 tons 214700 bbls 50.4% 23749 tons 211100 bbls
November 19384 tons 172300 bbls 54.8% 15964 tons 141900 bbls
December 33165 tons 294800 bbls 61.5% 20801 tons 184900 bbls

1945
January 31984 tons 284300 bbls 77.1% 9484 tons 84300 bbls
February 33525 tons 298000 bbls 70.1% 14310 tons 127200 bbls
March 23569 tons 209500 bbls 48.9% 24671 tons 219300 bbls
April 50141 tons 445700 bbls
May 56914 tons 505900 bbls

Total 150 production, February 44 to March 45:- 369,385 tons, 3,283,400 bbls, 114,919,000 gallons.

Total 130 production, February 44 to March 45:- 293,963 tons

Total aero fuel production:- 663,348 tons of which 55.7% was 150 grade.

The first plant to be able to produce 100 Octane fuel cheaply and quantity did not come into operation until right before the war started. There was a shortage of 100/130 grade through most of the war that is discussed in Allied Oil Committee meetings. Specifically it is mentioned in a 1944 meeting on adopting a higher octane grade as a limitation to the production of the more powerful fuel. The refineries cannot meet the current requirements and have never been able to meet them with the exception of a few short months in 1943. Therefore they do not want to devote any refinery capability to production other than the amount required for testing purposes.

You were saying Eugene.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150production.html

We are all still waiting for you to ID the 16 squadrons that were the only squadrons that used 12lb boost/100 octane fuel in Sept 1940.

fruitbat

05-02-2012, 02:41 PM

100LL for example has a specification by convention. It also has a defence specification for NATO as it is in the supply inventory.

What the hell has NATO got to do with world war 2 and the Battle of Britain, what history books have you got?

Glider

05-02-2012, 02:50 PM

The first plant to be able to produce 100 Octane fuel cheaply and quantity did not come into operation until right before the war started. There was a shortage of 100/130 grade through most of the war that is discussed in Allied Oil Committee meetings. Specifically it is mentioned in a 1944 meeting on adopting a higher octane grade as a limitation to the production of the more powerful fuel. The refineries cannot meet the current requirements and have never been able to meet them with the exception of a few short months in 1943. Therefore they do not want to devote any refinery capability to production other than the amount required for testing purposes.
There was no shortage of 100 Octane in the UK until May 1944. Find any quote to support your theory that there was a shortage of 100 Octane in the UK during the BOB.

That shortage of 100 Octane is why domestically, the United States used 91 Grade CONUS and the RAF used 87 grade for non-operational purposes for most of the war. 100 grade was in short supply and reserved for operations.
US engines were not designed for 100 octane in 1940 also the main reason for the RAF using 87 octane for non operational purposes was cost. That is a recurrent theme in a number of the papers. Bomber Command wanted all thier stations to have 100 octane 100% but they were turned down on cost. You did reead the papers didn't you?

Glider, the document you post from December 1938 very clearly states that all stations will recieve an adequet supply of 100 Octane before the first aircraft is converted. If stations were not getting fuel then that is proof the operational adoption did not occur until all stations had it. Think about it, it just makes sense. You cannot easily switch fuels back and forth. If you add a lower knock limited performance fuel to the tanks, you must use lower operating limits or you will experience detonation which can end a flight very quickly.

This is the kind of thing that undermines the credibility of the posters in this thread.

All one needs to do is look the immaturity exhibited in this thread. Do you really think the evidence has been sifted through with a mature outlook and placed in context? I certainly don't think so at all. More effort has been devoted to finding cartoons and taking opinion polls than looking objectively at the evidence.
Actually on the whole I do think the case for the use has been presented well, with a wealth of original documentation. Just look at what you have just posted. No evidence just a lot of assumptions. Everything I have posted is supported by documents, if you belive that certain = 16 squadrons then support it, its as simple as that.
I agree with that 1938 paper but why do you ignore the dec 1939 paper that said that fuel reserves were sufficient and that the roll out could commence? I believe that its this blatent dismissal of original documents that undermines any debate.

If you are going to use logistical documents, then you better have a good understanding of the logistical system and how the accounting process works. One should understand things like "Estabilishment vs Strength", how a fuel becomes specified, how does the testing process work, and what are the constraints.
I have a very good understanding as to logistics, I also know the meaning of current or actual establishment and authorised establishment they differ.

Show me any document that says 1940 is for testing, another example of a theory and nothing to support it.