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

[Osprey]

It's Wrong-O-Clock for Crumpp today

http://photos.igougo.com/images/p608616-London-Big_Ben_strikes_midday.jpg

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....

[pstyle]

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?
I don't care if its "standard", I only care how widely it was used.
My point is that "standard" or "specification" are not perfect measures of use.

Understand?

[winny]

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?

And where is your evidience that this was policy? Or the paperwork saying that it had happened, that makes you so sure?

And what is 100 octane doing in the pilot's notes if it wasn't 'specified'?

[bongodriver]

I think Crumpp is just finding it difficult to believe the world used to run without extreme beaurocracy.

[NZtyphoon]

100LL for example has a specification by convention. It also has a defence specification for NATO as it is in the supply inventory.



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.......



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.

100 Octane fuel continued to be called 100 octane fuel right throughout the war and never had a D.T.D (Department of Technical Development) number such as D.T.D 230 for 87 octane.

Pilot's Notes Spitfire V Seafire III page 18 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4599427/Pilots-Notes-Spitfire-V-Seafire-IIIIII) 100 Octane fuel only

Spitfire Pilot's Notes 1946 3rd ed (supercedes all others) September 1946 page 30-31 (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/SPIT9MANUAL.pdf) 100 Octane fuel only - no D.T.D number.

The official designation for 100 Octane fuel was BAM100 (British Air Ministry) because it was developed outside of the Air Ministry's purview, by the private petroleum countries.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.military/2006-06/msg01078.html

Crumpp you are the one who has consistently ignored information you don't like, so how about you show a little maturity and stop the "I'm superior to you ignoramus because I work in aviation" BS. You clearly have no understanding of how the British did things during the 1930s and 40s, you certainly don't know how things worked during WW 2.

[Seadog]

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.

Ok, so you're saying that for even one aircraft to have 100 octane, then all airfields must have 100 octane...

YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN OUR CASE!!!

WE KNOW THAT RAF FC HAD FAR MORE THAN ONE HURRICANE/SPITFIRE USING 100 OCTANE AT THE START OF THE BoFB.

THEREFORE ALL AIRCRAFT MUST HAVE BEEN CONVERTED!

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

*yawn* you are still debating the 100 octane issue? Wow!

Or is it like in the movie "Groundhog Day" where I have to re-read the whole debate over and over again until I do something special like to propose to implement 94.5 octaine as a compromise to get out of this iternal loop?

I guess the devs either have already made up their mind about the implementation or non implementation of the 100 octane fuel or just want to leave it as it is.

[Al Schlageter]

*yawn* you are still debating the 100 octane issue? Wow!

Or is it like in the movie "Groundhog Day" where I have to re-read the whole debate over and over again until I do something special like to propose to implement 94.5 octaine as a compromise to get out of this iternal loop?

I guess the devs either have already made up their mind about the implementation or non implementation of the 100 octane fuel or just want to leave it as it is.

Do try to clue in. The discussion has nothing to do with the game.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Well then I'd say: wrong thread! This is about comparing ingame plane data to RL data. :)

[NZtyphoon]

Well then I'd say: wrong thread! This is about comparing ingame plane data to RL data. :)

Not quite, this has a great deal to do with the game because +12lbs boost has not been modelled for Spitfire Is and IIs of the B of B.

Why Crumpp has such a beef about this subject is anyone's guess because he doesn't play. Basically he has a bee in his bonnet that he, with his VAST experience in American modern civil aviation, knows far more about "how things are done in aviation" than all those amateurish, but enthusiastic, non-aviator aviation historians (such as Dr Alfred Price) who have, inconveniently, found so much evidence that 100 Octane fuel was in use in all frontline fighter squadrons during the battle.

He has plagued this thread with unproven theories as to why the RAF only allowed 16 squadrons to play with the fuel in "intensive operational trials", there was also his idea that somehow 52,000 tons of 100 octane fuel wasn't actually consumed July-October it just disappeared back into reserves as some type of administrative glitch that only he could understand, then there was a huge amount of quibbling over Pilot's Notes and what he thought they meant etc etc...ultimately wasting everybody's time, but especially his own.

[JtD]

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.
I've also seen this in later manuals, just found it again in a late 1942 Pegasus engine manual. It still carries the same provisional specification, which illustrates how meaningless this is.

I've also attached two examples of how pilot notes were kept up to date in practice. Hand written, if necessary.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Not quite, this has a great deal to do with the game because +12lbs boost has not been modelled for Spitfire Is and IIs of the B of B.



I replied to schlageter who said that the 100 octane discussion had nothing to do with the game :)

[Seadog]

Crumpp/Kurfurst:

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Yes, it's my time and I decide how I use it.

I just wished this 100 octane thing would have been discussed in a separate thread because all the other data is now drowned in this discussion turning in circles like if the 100 octane issue was the only issue on plane performance in CloD. This thread is about BoB fighters and not only RAF fighters. Perhaps a mod can rename this thread so that it allows other readers to avoid to open this thread about BoB figher performance in the hope to see some new stuff instead of the x-th round in the 100 octane discussion.

[NZtyphoon]

Understood; this thread should have ended long ago, but there are some who are so obsessed with disregarding all of the evidence presented by people like Glider and lane who at the very lest have gone to the time, trouble and considerable expense of trawling through the NA and finding and using genuine late '30s early '40s documentation to back up their statements.

Kurfurst (who says he has very little interest in the RAF)'s "evidence" that the RAF used 100 octane fuel in a small minority of its frontline fighters is based on:

* a set of papers that he has not seen or read for himself; these were "summarised" in a posting in a discussion on another forum several years ago, during which the person ("Pips" who is a sometime member of this forum) who introduced these papers admitted that they were probably deceptive.

* an extremely legalistic interpretation of a single, pre-war RAF planning paper, which was transcribed from a meeting held in May 1939, and repeated by Morgan and Shacklady.

Otherwise noting, nada - zip - Kurfurst also repeatedly claims that he does not have to present any evidence to support his claims - yeah right.

Meantime Crumpp has been very busy brewing up their his cockeyed theories and a whole lot of speculative nonsense based on modern FAA regulations or whatever else he can think up.

Too right it's about time this thread come to a natural end.

[Al Schlageter]

Yes, it's my time and I decide how I use it.

I just wished this 100 octane thing would have been discussed in a separate thread because all the other data is now drowned in this discussion turning in circles like if the 100 octane issue was the only issue on plane performance in CloD. This thread is about BoB fighters and not only RAF fighters. Perhaps a mod can rename this thread so that it allows other readers to avoid to open this thread about BoB figher performance in the hope to see some new stuff instead of the x-th round in the 100 octane discussion.

All the other data was posted in the first few posts. With Barbi's Post #24, the thread became a 100 octane discussion thread.

[Crumpp]

The Operating Notes are definative and Notes on the Merlin Engine will reflect the changes in the Flight Information Manual version.

If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine do not specify 100 Octane for all operational units then the transition in Fighter Command was not complete. If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine does not mention 100 Octane fuel then it was not the most common fuel.

What do you think all those pilots transitioning from Bomber and Coastal Command would be studying?

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.

[Crumpp]

Meantime Crumpp has been very busy brewing up their his cockeyed theories and a whole lot of speculative nonsense based on modern FAA regulations or whatever else he can think up.


The convention is not modern. It has been in place and relatively unchanged since airplanes first started crossing international borders.

Perhaps some research on Aviation Legislation and Aviation Law would help you to gain a more factual outlook.

[Crumpp]

The Paris Convention and most aviaiton law is based upon the British example. The United Kingdom was the first country to enact these regulations and in 1919, the convention adopted them internationally.

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 the Aeronautical Commission (a legal subcommittee) drafted the first set of international aviation laws, The International Air Navigation Convention. The laws were patterned after British aviation laws and dealt with both concrete and abstract principles.

Great Britain, in 1909, was the first nation to address the possibility of government control of aviation manufacturing and aviation transportation. British laws became a reality when the first successful cross-channel flight in 1909 jeopardized Britain’s national security. That year, under British encouragement, the first International Conference in Paris was held. During the conference a host of aviation problems, from the sovereignty of airspace to the spread of contagious diseases, were debated. While no laws were enacted, it was apparent that aviation law was soon to become a reality.


Then in 1917 Great Britain formed the Civil Aerial Transportation Committee to organize growing civil and commercial air traffic trade. The Committee suggested that the government regulate all forms of British aviation, both nationally and internationally. The creation of the committee was an important gesture; it signaled Britain’s intent to transform its military strength from naval to air power, and instigate European aviation reform. The European community of nations was not far behind the British, for it was realized that aviation had become a force to be reckoned with in the final phase of World War I.


Even though the United States was a world power, its government had no impact on the code drafted by Aviation Mission; apparently the United States did not desire to be involved in any law-making other than its own.

http://specialcollections.wichita.edu/collections/ms/92-18/92-18-A.HTML

[Seadog]

The Operating Notes are definative and Notes on the Merlin Engine will reflect the changes in the Flight Information Manual version.

If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine do not specify 100 Octane for all operational units then the transition in Fighter Command was not complete. If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine does not mention 100 Octane fuel then it was not the most common fuel.

What do you think all those pilots transitioning from Bomber and Coastal Command would be studying?

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

[DC338]

Crumpp if the British government did break the "law" by not following some peacetime convention. Who would prosecute them? Themselves, ridiculous.

Funny I can't find anything in the Mustang notes about 25lbs of boost either. It did happen however.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp if the British government did break the "law" by not following some peacetime convention.

This is where you need the guy with the party hat icon.

Funny I can't find anything in the Mustang notes about 25lbs of boost either. It did happen however.

Yes it did and it was not the standard for the Mustang either. It was an special condition so it is not found in the Flight Information Manual.

In this case, the claim is 100 Octane fuel was the standard fuel of the RAF in July 1940 and throughout the Battle of Britain.

That is just not true. DtD 230, otherwise known as 87 Octane was the standard fuel of Fighter Command in July 1940 and 100 Octane was in the process of introduction on a limited basis.

[Al Schlageter]

That is just not true. DtD 230, otherwise known as 87 Octane was the standard fuel of Fighter Command in July 1940 and 100 Octane was in the process of introduction on a limited basis.

You have the fuel consumption numbers for 87 fuel and 100 fuel for FC to back up your statement?

What is limited basis? I wouldn't say 20+ squadrons out of 55 squadrons is limited basis.

Yes it did and it was not the standard for the Mustang either. It was an special condition so it is not found in the Flight Information Manual.

So this could apply to 100 fuel use then?

[Glider]

Personally I am still waiting for a common sense reply to my previous quite simple and obvious questions. Crumpp responce (as they were not replies) can be summed up as follows :-

a) a shortage of fuel
If there was no shortage then there would be no need to reduce the roll out
There was apparantly a shortage in 1944 and was mentioned by the Allied Oil Committee meetigs Unfortunately we are talking about 1940 not 1944 and the Allied Oil Committee had nothing to do with the BOB. So I am still waiting for any sign of a shortage in the BOB

b) of 16 squadrons
Which squadrons or if you go down the it was 16 squadrons at any one time
All I got was a ticking off for lowering the credibility of the thread and a comment about a pre war paper. Crumpp puts himself forward as an expert on Logistics and would presumably agree that if you have a target to supply 16 FC squadrons, you need to decide where to send the fuel. All I and others have asked him is, Which 16 squadrons

c) of which squadrons or bases
This brings the difficult questions
i) If 100 octane was in short supply when did Drem 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?.
These are I think logical questions. If there was a shortage then did these decisions make sense?. Putting his Logistical hat on again if the theory is that only 16 squadrons used 100 octane at any one time then someone had to decide which stations had the fuel, all I am asking is which stations? also who made the decision?

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
Again no attempt to adress the question which was quite clear. The best he came up with was establishment vs strength where his definiton is wrong, and a lecture that adaquate supplies had to be at a station before they can use it, something I agree with. The problem is that he ignores later papers saying supplies are adaquate and the roll out can commence.

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

Again a complete failure to reply to the question. As a logistic expert I am sure Crumpp will agree that having decided to issue the fuel you need to agree how to deploy it.The Oil COpmmittee were responsible for the purchase, storage and distribution of fuel. There is no mention of any distribution to FC after May 1940, anywhere. As they didn't do any further distirbution of fuel after May 1940, then as a Logistic expert he must be interested in who did?
I did get a lecture about Units concerned. Its my belief that units concerned means the units that hadn't already been converted. I admit the evidence isn't 100% airtight but
We have the authority to proceed in Dec 1939,
We have papers from Dec 1939 saying which stations should be issued with the fuel In the First Instance,
We know that at the time (Dec 1939) this was for all stations equipped and going to be equipped with Hurricanes and Spitfires.
We know that delivery is prioritised as being operational units and that training units will not get 100 Octane
We know how the fuel was to be distributed, ie as 87 Octane was used up it would be replaced by 100 octane.
We know that in addition to those stations identified in December as being first instance it was used in France and Norway.
We know it started to be used in combat in February.
We know that there was a request in March for Blenhiems and fighters to use 100 Octane.
We know that All No 2 Group were issued with 100 Octane and we know that the process for delivery to FC changed to actively removing it from FC stations speeding up the roll out for those stations.
We know that in May 1940 the Oil Committee considered that change of FC to 100 octane to be complete.


Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

For the 16 FC squadrons + 2 Bomber squadrons
a) We don't know who made the decision to continue with this program once war started
b) We don't know that phase IV testing was on going in 1940
c) We don't know which squadrons or which stations were supposed to have the 100 Octane
d) We don't know how it was to be rolled out
e) If this theory is correct, We don't know when the rest of FC had 100 Octane issued
f) We do know that the limit of 2 squadrons of Bombers mentioned in this paper was disregarded, which must question why the fighter limit is supposed to be maintained
None of these is supported by original papers. The best that can be said is that they depend on wild interpretations of some documents while ignoring others

As I said at the start the case for 100% roll out isn't perfect, but its a lot stronger than the case for 16 Fighter squadrons and 2 bomber squadrons

[Glider]

In this case, the claim is 100 Octane fuel was the standard fuel of the RAF in July 1940 and throughout the Battle of Britain.
.
The claim is that 100 octane was the standard fuel for FC in July 1940, not the RAF. The rest of the RAF were using 87 octane hence the consumption figures

[Crumpp]

The claim is that 100 octane was the standard fuel for FC in July 1940, not the RAF.

You are right, I meant FC.

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.

It is that simple and elegant, guys. No need to construct elaborate arguments based on circumstance and assumption.

[Glider]

You are right, I meant FC.

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.

It is that simple and elegant, guys. No need to construct elaborate arguments based on circumstance and assumption.

No you cannot. You calculate the dates from when the fuel was delivered and used using official documents. That isn't an assumption, its a fact, its simple and foolproof.

Trying to calculate when it was used based on a 1942 copy of a pilots notes for a plane that isn't in use in operational squadrons, isn't just an assumption, its a pipedream.

PS using your Logistic hat you might want to comment on :-

Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

For the 16 FC squadrons + 2 Bomber squadrons
a) We don't know who made the decision to continue with this program once war started
b) We don't know that phase IV testing was on going in 1940
c) We don't know which squadrons or which stations were supposed to have the 100 Octane
d) We don't know how it was to be rolled out
e) If this theory is correct, We don't know when the rest of FC had 100 Octane issued
f) We do know that the limit of 2 squadrons of Bombers mentioned in this paper was disregarded, which must question why the fighter limit is supposed to be maintained

[Kurfürst]

Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

Almost got it correct, but just like Mike, you seem to have missed a small detail mentioned in those "official records in the NA".

And that is all the papers talk of select fighter and bomber stations. I am sorry, I know you would like to forget that part, but that seems to be a major fly in the ointment of your whole thesis. ;)

[Crumpp]

No you cannot.

Sure you can...

based on a 1942 copy of a pilots notes

I am sure there are other editions out there besides the January 1942 Operating Notes.

Remember, FC was accepting pilots from any branch of service to fill its shortages. Transitioning pilots would have started their journey studying the Flight Information Manual version of the Operating Notes.

You calculate the dates from when the fuel was delivered

No you can't....

You can only answer the question, "When did the RAF get fuel to all of its stations?"

The aircraft have to be modified. That modification is a major alteration that was scheduled to be done at Service Inspection. It is not something performed by the squadron maintenance personnel.

The parts have to be made to do the modification and parts have to be made to support current production as well as sustainment spares.

The only way to answer an operational question is with operational documentation. In this case, the document which details the operation of the aircraft is the Operating Notes. The portion that is a legal document connected to the airworthiness of the aircraft will reflect the latest authorization for the type.

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

It is clear that Fighter Command was in process of adopting the fuel but it is equally clear that process was not complete in July 1940. There is no agreement on the end dates for the Battle of Britain. So, depending on the dates one chooses for the battle to end, the process was or was not completed during the battle itself.

[Glider]

Almost got it correct, but just like Mike, you seem to have missed a small detail mentioned in those "official records in the NA".

And that is all the papers talk of select fighter and bomber stations. I am sorry, I know you would like to forget that part, but that seems to be a major fly in the ointment of your whole thesis. ;)
Nope, you know my understanding of the select fighter units. Its those that hadn't yet converted, you disagree but its nticable that you don't have a position yourself. Neither do you put anything else up to counter my view just mention the one word, on the one paper.

So to help us understand your position, How many squadrons do you believe used 100 octane in the BOB, and how do you support it?

[Kurfürst]

I have made my position perfectly clear several times. Read back in the thread. Just because you pretend I did not and keep asking the same, already answered question does not get you anywhere.

And its not one paper, its the same note of select fighter and bomber stations in each and every paper. If you choose to ignore it like my previous answers, it is not my problem I am afraid.

[Glider]

Sure you can...



I am sure there are other editions out there besides the January 1942 Operating Notes.
So am I but we don't know what they say. Besides what is wrong with going by when the fuel was issued and used? That at least we do know


Remember, FC was accepting pilots from any branch of service to fill its shortages. Transitioning pilots would have started their journey studying the Flight Information Manual version of the Operating Notes.
And they went through convsersion training




No you can't....

You can only answer the question, "When did the RAF get fuel to all of its stations?"

The aircraft have to be modified. That modification is a major alteration that was scheduled to be done at Service Inspection. It is not something performed by the squadron maintenance personnel.

The parts have to be made to do the modification and parts have to be made to support current production as well as sustainment spares.
We have been through this a number of times. The majority of the work was already being incorporeated in new engines and in regular maintanence. What was left wasn't a major job and only involved drilling two holes.

With your degree in aviation and experience why do you find this so hard to understand?


The only way to answer an operational question is with operational documentation. In this case, the document which details the operation of the aircraft is the Operating Notes. The portion that is a legal document connected to the airworthiness of the aircraft will reflect the latest authorization for the type.

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.
I have posted my position and the documents to support it, post yours.


It is clear that Fighter Command was in process of adopting the fuel but it is equally clear that process was not complete in July 1940. There is no agreement on the end dates for the Battle of Britain. So, depending on the dates one chooses for the battle to end, the process was or was not completed during the battle itself.

Show me any evidence any at all that says the RAF didn't have the roll out complete by July 1940. I remind you that there is nothing in the Oil Committee after May so the question again, is if they didn't distribute it, then who did?

I notice that you have avoided (again) the logistic questions that I put to you. Can we take it that you have dropped the 16 squadron theory, a yes or no would suffice.

However if No, then I expect you to give some evidence to those questions, if Yes than can I ask you like Hurfurst, how many stations do you believe had 100 octane and how do you support that position

[Glider]

I have made my position perfectly clear several times. Read back in the thread. Just because you pretend I did not and keep asking the same, already answered question does not get you anywhere.

And its not one paper, its the same note of select fighter and bomber stations in each and every paper. If you choose to ignore it like my previous answers, it is not my problem I am afraid.

You and I both know that this is the question you have not given a reply too, since you said 145 aircraft in May as per Pips. Someone you haven't mentioned for a while now

[Crumpp]

How many squadrons do you believe used 100 octane in the BOB, and how do you support it?


Kurfurst would be smart to stay the hell away from that question. It is an opinion at this point and not fact. I was asked the same thing by you and offered my opinion. Go back and read the immature garbage the spouts from certain participants in this thread.

Thing about opinion is everyone has one and in the western world the idea of free speech says we all can have one too.

However when presents an opinion on such a subject as the exact number of squadrons at a specified point in time and backs up with the relevant facts, the personal assaults begin. Why? That is good tactic when your argument is based on emotion, circumstance, and assumption.

Thing about the facts on this point is we don't have all of them to make a pinpoint determination. We can only make general statements.

Crumpp says:

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

It is clear that Fighter Command was in process of adopting the fuel but it is equally clear that process was not complete in July 1940. There is no agreement on the end dates for the Battle of Britain. So, depending on the dates one chooses for the battle to end, the process was or was not completed during the battle itself.

The only document that will give us an approximate time for the completion of the transition is the operating notes. If you find an earlier edition that lists 100 Octane in Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine then you will know within a few weeks when the transition was completed.

[Crumpp]

So am I but we don't know what they say. Besides what is wrong with going by when the fuel was issued and used? That at least we do know


Why are you trying to force an answer on this issue without all the facts?

Why do you insist that you know all the facts and the only operational document that definately tells us is wrong while you are right?

We happen to be lucky enough that the Operating Notes is a legal document published by the Air Ministry and will reflect how the type was operated.

The majority of the work was already being incorporeated in new engines and in regular maintanence

The regular squadron maintenance personnel did not handle this and that is why the order specifies Service Inspection. RAF squadron did not perform that inspection. RAF squadron personnel performed daily and routine maintenance. The CRO performed major alterations.

In NEW engines but the RAF already had ~700 Hurricanes and Spitfires in the inventory during the time the instructions came out. Consider that meant some ~1400 to 2100 engines in maintenance stocks that also had to be modified.

The new production also has to cover maintenance stocks, too.

[Glider]

Kurfurst would be smart to stay the hell away from that question. It is an opinion at this point and not fact. I was asked the same thing by you and offered my opinion. Go back and read the immature garbage the spouts from certain participants in this thread.

Thing about opinion is everyone has one and in the western world the idea of free speech says we all can have one too.

However when presents an opinion on such a subject as the exact number of squadrons at a specified point in time and backs up with the relevant facts, the personal assaults begin. Why? That is good tactic when your argument is based on emotion, circumstance, and assumption.

Thing about the facts on this point is we don't have all of them to make a pinpoint determination. We can only make general statements.



The only document that will give us an approximate time for the completion of the transition is the operating notes. If you find an earlier edition that lists 100 Octane in Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine then you will know within a few weeks when the transition was completed.

You would be hard pressed to find an insult from me on this thread despite being on the receiving end of a number of barbs from others including you.

The operating notes are useless for what you intend, what counts is when it was issued and used.

Can I take it that you have dropped the 16 squadron theory?

Personally I am happy to leave the situation as being that FC was effectively equipped with 100 Octane during the BOB. I cannot prove that every station was equipped, I do believe it but know that I cannot prove it without a huge amount of time.

[Kurfürst]

You and I both know that this is the question you have not given a reply too, since you said 145 aircraft in May as per Pips. Someone you haven't mentioned for a while now

Speak in you own name only and do put words into my mouth. It has proven pointless to answer you 'questions', to which you do not know the answer yourself. You have shown that you ignore the answer, ask the same question a few days, month, years later, and pretend you have not seen the answer earlier. As said, I have already answer that at the beginning of the thread.

I am tired of your pointless mind games.

[Glider]

Why are you trying to force an answer on this issue without all the facts?

Why do you insist that you know all the facts and the only operational document that definately tells us is wrong while you are right?

We happen to be lucky enough that the Operating Notes is a legal document published by the Air Ministry and will reflect how the type was operated.



The regular squadron maintenance personnel did not handle this and that is why the order specifies Service Inspection. RAF squadron did not perform that inspection. RAF squadron personnel performed daily and routine maintenance. The CRO performed major alterations.

In NEW engines but the RAF already had ~700 Hurricanes and Spitfires in the inventory during the time the instructions came out. Consider that meant some ~1400 to 2100 engines in maintenance stocks that also had to be modified.

The new production also has to cover maintenance stocks, too.

We don't know when the changes were first installed on new engines, we do know that the changes were already in place so a number of the 700 would already have them. We also know that the engines in service would have already gone through service inspection, so that would account for a number more.
In the three months following the issue of the paper a high proportion of the engines would be serviced or in the case of Hurricanes, newer arcraft would have replaced the ones in the squadrons in March.

I personally consider combat reports and station/squadron records as official documents, you may not but I do on that we will have to differ

[Glider]

Speak in you own name only and do put words into my mouth. It has proven pointless to answer you 'questions', to which you do not know the answer yourself. You have shown that you ignore the answer, ask the same question a few days, month, years later, and pretend you have not seen the answer earlier. As said, I have already answer that at the beginning of the thread.

I am tired of your pointless mind games.

Priceless

[Seadog]

Crumpp/Kurfurst:

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

I'm still waiting for proof.

[Crumpp]

we do know that the changes were already in place so a number of the 700 would already have them.

Glider, the document does not say the Merlin engine has been produced with the changes in place, it says the NEWER ENGINES will already have the modifications.

That sentence could mean:

1. That could mean all existing merlin engines from ~mid april 1940 or so would have the changes incorporated in production. Along with those production engines a maintenance stock of the new parts would have to be produced. That is a massive production undertaking and would take some time to implement.

2. It could also mean the NEWER production engines, ie the Merlin IIX would incorporate the changes in their design. That makes the most sense and is exactly what we see in the Operating Notes!!!

Production priority would go to the newer designs and older ones would be upgraded over time on a schedule that the manufacturer could meet. We do see that schedule listed as older models will be upgraded during their service maintenance.

Production resources are not infinite. The Spitfire Mk II was coming online and expected to replace the Spitfire Mk I. The Operating Notes are very clear in the fact 100 Octane was the only fuel approved for the Mk II.

[Glider]

Glider, the document does not say the Merlin engine has been produced with the changes in place, it says the NEWER ENGINES will already have the modifications.

That sentence could mean:

1. That could mean all existing merlin engines from ~mid april 1940 or so would have the changes incorporated in production. Along with those production engines a maintenance stock of the new parts would have to be produced. That is a massive production undertaking and would take some time to implement.

2. It could also mean the NEWER production engines, ie the Merlin IIX would incorporate the changes in their design. That makes the most sense and is exactly what we see in the Operating Notes!!!

Production priority would go to the newer designs and older ones would be upgraded over time on a schedule that the manufacturer could meet. We do see that schedule listed as older models will be upgraded during their service maintenance.

Production resources are not infinite. The Spitfire Mk II was coming online and expected to replace the Spitfire Mk I. The Operating Notes are very clear in the fact 100 Octane was the only fuel approved for the Mk II.

There goes your word again could. It could mean this and it could mean that.
We know from station, squadron and combat reports, backed up by a number of documents, histories, personal stories, that SPit 1 did use 100 Octane in the BOB. . How can you ignore this!!
Lets not forget the Hurricane and Defiant which had the same engine or are you saying that they didn't use 100 octane either!!!
So I believe it means what it says, that the newer production engines have the changes built into them.

Edit I also note that the paper outlining the changes says that the changes are already incorporated into the servicing. As we can safely assume that Spit II's are not in service in March 1940, if it isn't SPitfire I and Hurricane's which according to your theory didn't use 100 Octane, what do you think they are making the changes too?

[Crumpp]

SPitfire I and Hurricane's which according to your theory didn't use 100 Octane

Glider,

Where in the world do you think I am claiming that Spitfire Mk I and eventually Hurricanes not use 100 Octane? They did not have 16 squadrons worth of Spitfire Mk II's by September.

It is in the Operating Notes that they were capable if equipped.

Crumpp says:
The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

It is clear that Fighter Command was in process of adopting the fuel but it is equally clear that process was not complete in July 1940. There is no agreement on the end dates for the Battle of Britain. So, depending on the dates one chooses for the battle to end, the process was or was not completed during the battle itself.

Crumpp says:
Production priority would go to the newer designs and older ones would be upgraded over time on a schedule that the manufacturer could meet. We do see that schedule listed as older models will be upgraded during their service maintenance.

Production resources are not infinite.

The above explains the process, it does not eliminate the Spitfire Mk I from using 100 Octane.

Edit I also note that the paper outlining the changes says that the changes are already incorporated into the servicing.

It says they are being done AS service maintenance. It is not a modification that is done by the squadron maintenance personnel. That is telling you the modification will happen the next time the aircraft goes for Service Inspection.

There are three modifications that add .020 inches to the spigot depth of the cylinder head top joint. The Service level maintenance personnel can choose which method of compliance meets their needs based on the parts on hand.

1. Modification Number Merlin/64 (requires no new piston rings)

2. Modification Number Merlin/77 (requires NEWLY designed piston rings to be installed)

3. Modification Number Merlin/138 - This is the one being done by the factory on NEWER engines.

Crumpp says:
It could also mean the NEWER production engines, ie the Merlin IIX would incorporate the changes in their design.

Refers to Modification Number Merlin/138. The other two modifications ARE NOT being done by Rolls Royce production. They or their subcontractors are only producing the parts to accomplish the modification No. Merlin/64 and Merlin/77 to the aircraft in service as well as the maintence stock required. The work is being done as service level maintenance.

[Al Schlageter]

Glider,

Where in the world do you think I am claiming that Spitfire Mk I and eventually Hurricanes not use 100 Octane? They did not have 16 squadrons worth of Spitfire Mk II's by September.


Now it is Spitfire IIs. :rolleyes:

Spitfire IIs did not appear til around July, so it had to be Spitfire Is and Hurricanes. You spent pages and pages worth of posts deniging the use of 12lb boost and 100 fuel. Is this your way of admitting you were wrong?

[NZtyphoon]

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





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 as the 16 stated by Morgan and Shacklady tssk tssk tssk. :shock:
Breakdown = 15 Spitfire, 17 Hurricane.

Which ever way Crumpp tries to argue, fact is there are twice as many squadrons known to be using 100 Octane fuel by September 1940 than both he and Morgan and Shacklady say...

[NZtyphoon]

Almost got it correct, but just like Mike, you seem to have missed a small detail mentioned in those "official records in the NA".

And that is all the papers talk of select fighter and bomber stations. I am sorry, I know you would like to forget that part, but that seems to be a major fly in the ointment of your whole thesis. ;)

What Kurfurst and Crumpp have both conveniently missed is that the March 1939 plan for 16 Fighter Squadrons and 2 bomber was provisional: right down the page para 8 says:

"A.M.D.P asked that D.D.C(3) should keep him informed of the rate of output of 100 octane fuel in order that the rate of change-over of squadrons to this fuel could be kept under review in the light of any diminution or acceleration in supplies.[/U]" (attachment 1) Should the rate of fuel supply increase, the rate and numbers of squadrons changing over to its use could increase as well.

Supplies of 100 octane fuel continued to increase from 202,000 tons in December 1939, which was the time specified for the change over.

By November 1939 it was considered that there were "adequate reserves" of 100 octane fuel to go ahead with the modification of all Hurricane and Spitfire Merlin engines to use 12 lb boost.

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

[I]Squadrons did not, and could not hold their own fuel supplies, to require them to do so would be an operational and logistical nightmare: it was airbases that were supplied with fuel, not individual squadrons. In the 6 May 1940 paper (Item 9 7th Meeting Summary...) "Units concerned" cannot be talking about individual squadrons, it is referring to bases which, depending on their importance, (eg; Sector Station) hosted up to three squadrons. 18 squadrons = 8-10 airbases.

The December 7 1939 letter, which sets out a process for supplying 100 Octane fuel starts:

"I have the honour to refer to my letter...dated 27 October 1939, regarding the issue of 100 Octane Fuel for use in Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft in this Command." (attachment 2)

25 Fighter Stations were listed as requiring 100 octane fuel "in the first instance", including non-operational Kenley, Usworth and Hendon, with a further 17 non-operational bases which required supplies for visiting aircraft, but "which have no Hurricane or Spitfire aircraft at the moment."

Squadrons that were to use 100 octane fuel were not selected by Squadron number but by the type of aircraft used. Bases that hosted these aircraft types were accordingly supplied with 100 octane fuel. Same for the Bomber squadrons, namely Blenheims. The only Blenheim capable of using 100 octane fuel was the Mk IV the first of which emerged in March 1939. The Defiant was not listed in December because it was not yet operational.

All of the 11 Group Sector stations were listed, plus Filton which, in June 1940, became part of the new 10 Group; 4 out of 5 12 Group sector stations, 2 out of 5 13 Group sector stations, and 11 other airfields, including 6 of 11 Group were listed.

The May 18 1940 memo expresses satisfaction that the units concerned - viz Hurricane and Spitfire Squadrons - had "NOW been stocked with the neccesary 100 octane fuel."

In May 1940 stocks of 100 Octane fuel were 294,000 tons, while stocks of "other grades" were 298,000 tons (attachment 3). Far from there being a crisis in the supply, of 100 Octane preventing a continued change over of units (according to the famous Pips document) for the next two months, 100 Octane fuel was becoming the dominant fuel type being stocked; by August 404,000 tons was being held, cf 230,000 tons of "other grades". Between December 1939 and December 1940 the overall increase in 100 Octane stocks was 297,000 tons, in spite of the fact that some 93,000 tons had been consumed between June and December 1940.

Fact is Luftwaffe fuel stocks were lower (http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=rAlNsmScl3AC&pg=PA474&lpg=PA474&dq=luftwaffe+fuel+stocks+1940&source=bl&ots=tNSs4AIlfh&sig=XCabOkoi8JeLXWRRV0TokY5Pk_s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-lWnT_6LLc6ViAedzpW1Aw&ved=0CHoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=luftwaffe%20fuel%20stocks%201940&f=false) or almost the same in 1940 as those of the RAF (http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=XrFmy7U6xngC&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=luftwaffe+fuel+stocks+1940&source=bl&ots=Rm3CA5c7Qk&sig=yGKvTTn5QzDyypvQqUzMAOpgoqI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-lWnT_6LLc6ViAedzpW1Aw&ved=0CIQBEOgBMAY#v=onepage&q=luftwaffe%20fuel%20stocks%201940&f=false)

It would also seem that the Luftwaffe had provisional pre-war plans for fuel stocks which changed once war had been declared: (http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/ussbsoil.html) Even as late as October, 1938, the Germans apparently had not expected to need reserves of oil until much later. A captured plan dated 30 January 1939 shows that the Luftwaffe then foresaw a relatively small increase (between 270,000 and 420,000 tons per year) in its consumption of aviation gasoline in the autumn, presumably to cover the Polish campaign. A tremendous increase, to 2,600,000 or even 5,200,000 tons per year, was not scheduled to occur until 1 October 1940, when the real war presumably was to have begun.

Kurfurst can stick to the phrase "selected" as much as he likes - it is a purely provisional phrase in a pre-war plan, and the 16 + 2 squadrons was conditional based on fuel supply. This was all explained long ago but completely ignored by Kurfurst and Crumpp.

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst can stick to the phrase "selected" as much as he likes - it is a purely provisional phrase in a pre-war plan, and the 16 + 2 squadrons was conditional based on fuel supply. This was all explained long ago but completely ignored by Kurfurst and Crumpp.

Nice lie. The very document you have just posted mentions select Spitfire and Hurricane units having been stocked with 100 octane. This document is from May 1940, it is not a pre-war plan, and there is no word of 16+2 Squadrons noted in March 1939, though it's quite clear that the same was carried through, as only a 2 or 3 Blenheim units were 'concerned', in the May 1940 document, same as the March 1939 document.

I guess that puts back your 'credibility' to the shelf it belongs. You were known for manipulating sources long ago on Wikipedia (if anyone doubts it see Minor's latest falsifying attempts on 109 related articles on Wiki), and you have carried this over to this board.

You have also lied when you have stated that the LW fuel reserves were lower than those of the RAF; again, according to the very sources you have posted, the LW aviation fuel reserves stood at around 680,000 tons, compared to about the 600,000 tons contained in Britain. The interesting part is how much more aviation fuel the Germans consumed compared to the British in the period - 80 to 100 000 tons per month.

http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/images/ussbs/fig22.gif

BTW, you were claiming before and swore to the heavens that you will ignore me. Not a man of your word, are you? :D

[Glider]

If this is true then someone needs to explain how 2 squadrons of Blenhiems were split between 4 stations of No 2 Group that were 100% stocked with 100 octane.
That same person needs to explain why if the basic premise was that 5/6ths of the fuel at the other No 2 Group bases was 100 Octane, why should they only use the 1/6th that was 87 octane for operations.
Finally that same person may want to explain to everyone why when he knows about these documents doesn't he ever, ever mention them.

And as an aside, that same person might want to let us know what his version of Select is and how he supports it?

[NZtyphoon]

Nice lie. The very document you have just posted mentions select Spitfire and Hurricane units having been stocked with 100 octane. This document is from May 1940, it is not a pre-war plan


Read the 18 May paper again Barbi; not a mention of "select" units it says the "...fact that Units concerned -ie; Hurricane & Spitfire units - had been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel".

Paragraph 8 on the March 1939 paper (your favourite) makes the 16 + 2 squadrons by September 1940 conditional, based on supply. You can call people "liar" all you like - the only one lying is your good self. :grin:

[Osprey]

Not withstanding that the Blenheim squadrons shared bases with fighter squadrons. Brian Kingcombe talks of his friendship and rapport 92 had with the Blenheim crews (610?) they shared with, how they helped turn the fighters around between sorties etc.

[Crumpp]

Units concerned -

Means someone is not concerned, in otherwords it refers to a select group.

concerned - involved in or affected by or having a claim to or share in; "a memorandum to those concerned"; "an enterprise in which three men are concerned"; "factors concerned in the rise and fall of epidemics"; "the interested parties met to discuss the business"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/concerned

Paragraph 8 on the March 1939 paper (your favourite) makes the 16 + 2 squadrons by September 1940 conditional, based on supply.

And here we have the units concerned......

[winny]

@ Kurfurst, here we go again with the "lie" thing. It's such a give away as to your mindset.

Oh, and on the subject of credibility.. You have to be joking, right?

Wikipedia... You've got the cheek to accuse someone else of doing exactly what you've been banned from wiki for doing? Hypocrite.

Stick to facts.

[Skoshi Tiger]

So I guess the only real question is, since the patch has come out is the Spitfire and Hurricane performance in the sim closer to their real life non-virtual selves?

I'ld like to do some tests, but since the patch has been released I'm getting launcher errors! :()

Just reinstalling the sim to se if it makes any difference.

Cheers!

[Glider]

Paragraph 8 on the March 1939 paper (your favourite) makes the 16 + 2 squadrons by September 1940 conditional, based on supply.
And here we have the units concerned......

Once again ignoring the later documents that contradict your theory


Which leaves us with the logistical questions which you have so far avoided. You have requently said that logistics are critical, something I agree, so I would expect you to have put some effort into looking at the logistical questions your theory raises. To do otherwise as you have said, is to be amaturish and lower the tone of the thread.

Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

For the 16 FC squadrons + 2 Bomber squadrons
a) We don't know who made the decision to continue with this program once war started
b) We don't know that phase IV testing was on going in 1940
c) We don't know which squadrons or which stations were supposed to have the 100 Octane
d) We don't know how it was to be rolled out
e) If this theory is correct, We don't know when the rest of FC had 100 Octane issued
f) We do know that the limit of 2 squadrons of Bombers mentioned in this paper was disregarded, which must question why the fighter limit is supposed to be maintained
None of these is supported by original papers. The best that can be said is that they depend on wild interpretations of some documents while ignoring others

As I said at the start the case for 100% roll out isn't perfect, but its a lot stronger than the case for 16 Fighter squadrons and 2 bomber squadrons


PS I don't expect a reply to these questions but it highlights that you cannot support your theory and whilst you may disagree with what I put forward, I do at least try to support my belief with documents not theories.
-----------------------------------------------------

[bongodriver]

So I guess the only real question is, since the patch has come out is the Spitfire and Hurricane performance in the sim closer to their real life non-virtual selves?

I'ld like to do some tests, but since the patch has been released I'm getting launcher errors! :()

Just reinstalling the sim to se if it makes any difference.

Cheers!


Sadly no, even on 87 octane figures the Spits are 50 MPH too slow at sea level and no better at altitude, haven't really tested the hurri.

[41Sqn_Banks]

I just came across the Blenheim IV Pilot's Notes from September 1939 and according to this the outer fuel tanks are restricted to 100 octane fuel and inner fuel tanks to 87 octane fuel.

[lane]

I just came across the Blenheim IV Pilot's Notes from September 1939 and according to this the outer fuel tanks are restricted to 100 octane fuel and inner fuel tanks to 87 octane fuel.

Hi 41Sqn_Banks,

That's interesting. Can you please share a scan if possible and convenient? Thanks. The following document from April 1940 would seem then to be in agreement with the September 1939 Blenheim IV Pilot's Notes:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/Blenheim-100-octane-14april40.jpg

[Glider]

Interesting that it says ALL

[Crumpp]

Which leaves us with the logistical questions which you have so far avoided.

Logistics are critical but they do not answer operational questions.

The only way to answer an operational question is with operational documentation. In this case, the document which details the operation of the aircraft is the Operating Notes. The portion that is a legal document connected to the airworthiness of the aircraft will reflect the latest authorization for the type.

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

Nothing more needs to be said until you find an earlier dated version of the Operating Notes that specify all operational units.

[41Sqn_Banks]

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

Agreed. The Pilot's Notes don't support it, however they also doesn't speak against it. They simply don't tell anything about how widespread the use was.

[Al Schlageter]

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

It was certainly well over the 16 squadron you claim.

[CaptainDoggles]

I have a question to all major participants of this thread. When I ask it, I want you to please bear in mind that I am not trolling and do not have an agenda against anyone (except perhaps Osprey... that selective quoting a few pages back really destroyed any credibility you might have had).

Why is it important?

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

[bongodriver]

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

octane rating choice should be available yes, particularily for mission builders, regarding online it is unlikely anyone would choose anything other than 100 octane.

Why is it important?.....mainly because this is meant to be a BOB simulator and therefore it should accurately represent the state of affairs at the time and not a game for some people to act out an 'alternate version of history' fantasy.

Osprey makes one selective quote and his credibility is destroyed, Kurfurst can dedicate his entire online existense to selective quoting and bias and people take him seriously?

[JtD]

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?
Hard to say for me if the Hurricanes had their props replaced with CSP's before the changeover to 100 octane fuel was done. Imho, a CSP Hurricane with 87 octane fuel would be unhistorical and doesn't need to be modelled. Effort would better go elsewhere.

[fruitbat]

I have a question to all major participants of this thread. When I ask it, I want you to please bear in mind that I am not trolling and do not have an agenda against anyone (except perhaps Osprey... that selective quoting a few pages back really destroyed any credibility you might have had).

Why is it important?

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

Well, there should definatly be 100 octane, as all the evidence from pilots etc shows in this thread. As to 87 octane, no actual evidence has shown one operational flight using that fuel during bob, despite the endless arguments

I guess they would be nice to simulate 1939 though.

Still i think most people would settle for both, not holding my breath that we will see 100 octane spit1's and hurris though.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Hard to say for me if the Hurricanes had their props replaced with CSP's before the changeover to 100 octane fuel was done. Imho, a CSP Hurricane with 87 octane fuel would be unhistorical and doesn't need to be modelled. Effort would better go elsewhere.

Don't forget that there were some Spitfire and Hurricane (?) that were equipped with Rotol propellers well before the DH props were modified to CSP.

[41Sqn_Banks]

That's interesting. Can you please share a scan if possible and convenient? Thanks.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9475&stc=1&d=1336410629

[CaptainDoggles]

octane rating choice should be available yes, particularily for mission builders, regarding online it is unlikely anyone would choose anything other than 100 octane.Assuming they're available. What if someone wants to do a Battle of France scenario?

Why is it important?.....mainly because this is meant to be a BOB simulator and therefore it should accurately represent the state of affairs at the time and not a game for some people to act out an 'alternate version of history' fantasy.An accurate BOB sim would have 87 and 100 octane variants available. Your beef ought to be with mission designers, it seems.

Osprey makes one selective quote and his credibility is destroyed, Kurfurst can dedicate his entire online existense to selective quoting and bias and people take him seriously?I haven't said a single thing about Kurfurst in my previous post. The fact that Kurfurst edits wikipedia etc etc doesn't magically mean Osprey is exempt from criticism. That was a pretty blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts.

[CaptainDoggles]

Hard to say for me if the Hurricanes had their props replaced with CSP's before the changeover to 100 octane fuel was done. Imho, a CSP Hurricane with 87 octane fuel would be unhistorical and doesn't need to be modelled. Effort would better go elsewhere.

Well I'd agree there, but what about a Hurricane with the 2-stage De Havilland prop for Battle of France scenarios?

[bongodriver]

Assuming they're available. What if someone wants to do a Battle of France scenario?


I don't see where my post argues aginst that issue, my point is we just don't have accurate choice right now.


An accurate BOB sim would have 87 and 100 octane variants available. Your beef ought to be with mission designers, it seems.



I made no suggestion that it should be only 100 octane, it's just the way things are going we don't have even sifficiently accurate performance for 87 octane, my beef is with whoever is convincing 1C to give us the innacuracy.

[CaptainDoggles]

I don't see where my post argues aginst that issue, my point is we just don't have accurate choice right now.



I made no suggestion that it should be only 100 octane, it's just the way things are going we don't have even sifficiently accurate performance for 87 octane, my beef is with whoever is convincing 1C to give us the innacuracy.

Here's my thing: It just seems like an incredible waste of time and energy to argue about whether ALL or MOST or SOME of Fighter Command was on 100 Octane. I mean.... why is that figure important? Why is it important to know if all or some of fighter command was on 100 octane?

The sim should have both aircraft available IMO. Shouldn't we all be arguing for that?

[Al Schlageter]

If the CloD map included the whole of the British Isles then 87 and 100 fuel should be available. Since the CloD map is basically 11 Group only 100 fuel should be available.

There was quite a few Hurricane squadrons in France using 100 fuel. (posted in this thread)

[Seadog]

Agreed. The Pilot's Notes don't support it, however they also doesn't speak against it. They simply don't tell anything about how widespread the use was.

There have been hundreds of magazine articles, books, memoirs, journal articles, pilot reports, combat reports...etc, etc. I've read dozens and not one has mentioned the use of 87 octane during combat sorties. 87 octane is a big lie, it is THE BIG LIE perpetrated by people who have an agenda to promote Luftwaffe superiority.

Kurfurst/Crump can't stand the fact that the RAF had massive stocks of 100 octane fuel and converted all their front line fighters to it prior to the battle, while the Luftwaffe didn't. It's that simple.

[Glider]

Logistics are critical but they do not answer operational questions.

The only way to answer an operational question is with operational documentation. In this case, the document which details the operation of the aircraft is the Operating Notes. The portion that is a legal document connected to the airworthiness of the aircraft will reflect the latest authorization for the type.

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

Nothing more needs to be said until you find an earlier dated version of the Operating Notes that specify all operational units.

In this case, the document which details the operation of the aircraft is the Operating Notes. The portion that is a legal document connected to the airworthiness of the aircraft will reflect the latest authorization for the type

This is where we differ. It my belief that if I have an official document that says that 100 octane was intalled at a station or that it was in use in a combat report then it was by definition, in use, at that station or in that squadron.
If your manual is dated later, then all that proves is that your manual is later. It doesn't mean that the fuel wasn't used until the date of the manual

[bongodriver]

Here's my thing: It just seems like an incredible waste of time and energy to argue about whether ALL or MOST or SOME of Fighter Command was on 100 Octane. I mean.... why is that figure important? Why is it important to know if all or some of fighter command was on 100 octane?

The sim should have both aircraft available IMO. Shouldn't we all be arguing for that?

The real waste of time and energy is from those arguing that 100 octane should not be availabe, of course I would settle for seeing both fuels.
can't you see the reason for this debate is to get 100 octane included?

[winny]

I have a question to all major participants of this thread. When I ask it, I want you to please bear in mind that I am not trolling and do not have an agenda against anyone (except perhaps Osprey... that selective quoting a few pages back really destroyed any credibility you might have had).

Why is it important?

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

I feel it's important for me personally to make a stand, purley from a historical point of view. As far as Cliffs goes, you're right, have both variants. Problem solved.

This is more about 1 mans personal crusade to change history, it just happens to have moved to here. Maybe it's not the 'right' place to do it.

All you need to do is Google "100 octane fighter command" and the same person shows up, name calling, character assasinating, arguing, cherry picking and obviously has an agenda that has nothing to do with history.

My problem with this is the motivation. If it's historic then it's opposite to his obvious bias. Kufurst is basically saying that the RAF performed better during the BoB, as they managed to repel the LW using mainly 87 octane. If I was just some RAF fanboy then surley I'd quite happily accept that.

My problem lies in the fact that his motivation must be related to Simulations. It's the only reason I can think of for repeatedly arguing that 87 was the main fuel (remember that he's invested a lot of his time into a 109 site).

It's the manipulation of history to achieve this that I personally am standing up against.

The accepted view is that fighter command converted in the Spring of 1940.
I challange anyone to find me a book on the subject of the BoB that states otherwise. Yet K keeps on with his repeated attempts to challange this. I have yet to see one really convincing piece of contemporary evidence.

This isn't about Cliffs for me, at the end of the day it's just a game. (I own a copy but am unable to play it on my current set up)

Nobody has to read this thread, there's always the circular argument about fanboy/whiners going on in the main forum to keep you entertained :)

I'm actually quite proud that a few individuals of this much crticised 'community' feel the same way I do.

[Al Schlageter]

Kurfurst/Crump can't stand the fact that the RAF had massive stocks of 100 octane fuel and converted all their front line fighters to it prior to the battle,

I whole heartily agree with the first part, but disagree with the second part.

[JtD]

Well I'd agree there, but what about a Hurricane with the 2-stage De Havilland prop for Battle of France scenarios?That's exactly where the effort could go.

[CaptainDoggles]

can't you see the reason for this debate is to get 100 octane included? Honestly and truly I really can't. The reason for this 160-page thread appears to be proving each other wrong.

[bongodriver]

Honestly and truly I really can't. The reason for this 160-page thread appears to be proving each other wrong.

yeah...that too :).....I mean no it's not, youre wrong.

[Kurfürst]

Honestly and truly I really can't. The reason for this 160-page thread appears to be proving each other wrong.

Shhhhh!!!

http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

[MB_Avro_UK]

Shhhhh!!!

http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y


Or proving each other right ??

I blame Willy and Reginald. Why couldn't they have forseen the internet chaos that their designs have caused?


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[lane]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9475&stc=1&d=1336410629

Thanks 41Sqn_Banks!

[NZtyphoon]

24 September 1938:

Sir, I am directed to inform you that in order to improve the take off performance of Spitfire aircraft, the use of 100 octane fuel by squadrons equipped with this type has been approved.

2. Improvement in the take off performance of Hurricanes will be obtained by the use of C.P airscrews but there will be a period of some months before this modification will be introduced...

The report goes on to explain that 100 octane was useful as a means of improving take off power, particularly with the Hurricane on some airfields, and the operational limits in Merlin engines would have to be strictly observed. This is evidence that the adoption of 100 octane was well underway nearly a year before the war started albeit its use was temporarily restricted as a measure to improve take off performance; this was also before increased boost pressures were adopted.

[41Sqn_Banks]

The Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III from January 1939 fit that time frame and are an good indicator for the restrictions at that time.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9170&d=1334682385

[tools4fools]

This plane is 10 miles slower than in real, baahhh, the developers are biased.
That plane had super 007 fuel and performed better than in game, bahhh, the developers are biased.
This planes gun doesn't make big enough holes, bahhh, the developers are biased.
That planes DM is wrong, I looked at it twice and it did not fell apart, baaahhh, the developers are sooo biased.
And so on...

As the Captain says, both planes should be in the game.
However they aren't.
Developers are sure aware of it by now. They might include it at one point - or they might not.
In the meantime get over it and take what is given to you. Like those fighter jocks did back in the days. And they had to survive.
You are having fun.
+++++

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

This plane is 10 miles slower than in real, baahhh, the developers are biased.
That plane had super 007 fuel and performed better than in game, bahhh, the developers are biased.
This planes gun doesn't make big enough holes, bahhh, the developers are biased.
That planes DM is wrong, I looked at it twice and it did not fell apart, baaahhh, the developers are sooo biased.
And so on...

As the Captain says, both planes should be in the game.
However they aren't.
Developers are sure aware of it by now. They might include it at one point - or they might not.
In the meantime get over it and take what is given to you. Like those fighter jocks did back in the days. And they had to survive.
You are having fun.
+++++

thank you!

[NZtyphoon]

Or proving each other right ??

I blame Willy and Reginald. Why couldn't they have forseen the internet chaos that their designs have caused?


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Didn't you know that Willy and Reginald met in secret and planned the whole thing? It's a plot I tell you...

The Plot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO-qS0DvBgE)

[tools4fools]

thank you!

Hey, as a developer I would even go so far to put in the most optimisitc modeled top plane for both sides, making sure that both are slightly better than I real life.
Sort of a test-plane under optimum conditions.
That way the fanboys have their Ueberplanes to play with.

For everybody else there would be a realism option called 'variable preformance' where all planes of same type vary in terms of performance by a certain degree, the worse the condition (plane age, maintenance quality) the worse the performance.
Now I would LOVE that option - and it would be way more realistic than all those people who scream foul play because the in-game performance curve does not match exactly the (various) real life performance curves.

If one looks for realism variable performance would be what you want.
Not perfectly matching performance curves.
+++++

[lane]

The Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III from January 1939 fit that time frame and are an good indicator for the restrictions at that time.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9170&d=1334682385

Good one 41Sqn_Banks, thanks again!

[lane]

Reality check...

100 Octane Fuel - Issue of., 12th December, 1939 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/12dec39-100octane-issue.pdf)
A.P.1590B/J.2-W, Merlin II and III--Use of +12 lb./sq.in. Boost Pressure--Alterations, 20 March 1940 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ap1590b.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)
Air Chief Marshal H.C.T. Dowding, Handling of Merlin in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant Aircraft, 1st August, 1940 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf)

56 Squadron Combat Report, 9 May 1940: twelve boost (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/56sqdn-9may40.jpg)
S/L J. O. W. Oliver, 85 Squadron, 10 May 1940: pulled the plug (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/85-oliver-10may40.jpg)
F/O Paul Richey, 1 Squadron, 11 May 1940: boost-override pulled (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/richey-pg76.jpg)
F/O E. J. Kain, 73 Squadron, 14 May 1940: pulling his boost cut out (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/monks-pg98.jpg)
P/O D. W. A. Stones, 79 Squadron, 14 May 1940: pulled out the emergency boost-plug (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/stones-pg32.jpg)
Sgt. R. C. Wilkinson, 3 Squadron, 14 May 1940: 12 P.S.I. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/rcw-pg6.jpg)
P/O R. P. Beamont, 87 Squadron, 15 May 1940: I pulled the tit'* for over-boost... *Emergency boost over-ride on the Merlin engine (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-beamont-15may40.jpg)
P/O F. B. Sutton, 56 Squadron, 18 May 1940: I had to pull the tit... Emergency boost control giving extra power (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/sutton-pg80.jpg)
F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 18 May 1940: pull the tit *; a jerk as my supercharger goes up to twelve boosts (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-gleed-18may40.jpg)
P/O John Bushell, 151 Squadron, 18 May 1940: I used full 12 lb boost (pulled the plug) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/bushell-151sqdn-18may40.jpg)
S/L E. M. Donaldon, 151 Sqdn., 18 May 1940: I pulled the plug and climbed at 10 lbs boost (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/donaldson-151sqdn-18may40.pdf)
F/O C. F. G. Adye, 17 Squadron, 18 May 1940: pulled emergency boost control (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/17-adye-18may40.pdf)
F/O C. F. G. Adye, 17 Squadron, 19 May 1940: pulled emergency boost (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/17-adye-19may40.pdf)
F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 19 May 1940: Here goes with the tit. A jerk - the boost's shot up to twelve pounds (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-gleed-19may40.jpg)
Sgt. L. H. B. Pearce, 79 Squadron, 20 May 1940: Pulled tit (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/79-pearce-20may40.jpg)
P/O John Freeborn, 74 Squadron, 24 May 1940: boost cut-out (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/freeborn-24-5-40.jpg)
P/O Colin Gray (NZ), No. 54 Squadron, 25 May 1940: I pressed the emergency boost tit (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-gray-25may40-2.jpg)
P/O Colin Gray (NZ), No. 54 Squadron, 25 May 1940: +12 lbs. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-gray-25may40.jpg)
P/O Al Deere, No. 54 Squadron, 26 May 1940: 12 boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/deere-26-5-40.jpg)
F/LT Brian Lane, 19 Squadron, 26 May 1940: automatic boost cut-out (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/19-lane-26may40-2.jpg)
F/LT Brian Lane, 19 Squadron, 26 May 1940: 12 lb. boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lane-26-5-40.jpg)
Sgt. J. C. Harrison, 229 Squadron, 28 May 1940: I pulled the emergency boost (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/229-harrison-28may40.jpg)
P/O K. B. McGlashan, 245 Squadron, 28 May 1940: We’d boost an extra four pounds, from eight to twelve (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/245-mcglashan-28may40.jpg)
P/O C. M. Simpson, 229 Squadron, 29 May 1940: with boost out and pulled (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/229-simpson-29may40.jpg)
P/O T. D. Welsh, 264 Squadron, 29 May 1940: pulled boost cut-out (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/264-welsh-29may40.pdf)
F/Sgt. G. C. Unwin, 19 Squadron, 1 June 1940: 12 Boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/19-unwin-1june40.pdf)
Sgt. P. Ottewill, 43 Squadron, 1 June 1940: automatic boost cut-out pulled (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/43-ottewill-1june40.pdf)
P/O M. P. Brown, 611 Squadron, 2 June 1940: opened the boost cut-out (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/611-brown-2june40.jpg)
F/O D. H. Watkins, 611 Squadron, 2 June 1940: emergency boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/611-watkins-2june40.jpg)
F/Lt. John Webster, No. 41 Squadron, 19 June 1940: 12 lbs boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/41-webster-19june40.pdf)
F/Lt. R. G. Dutton, 145 Squadron, 1 July 1940: pulled the plug (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/145-dutton-1july40.pdf)
P/O G. Page, 56 Squadron, July 1940 "Pulling the "Tit"*... *An emergency knob for supplying additional power to the engine. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/56-page-july40.jpg)
F/Lt D. P. Kelly, 74 Squadron, 28 July 1940: boost cutout (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/kelly-28july40.jpg)
F/Lt. John Webster, No. 41 Squadron, 28 July 1940: 12 boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/webster-28-7-40.jpg)
F/Lt. John Webster, No. 41 Squadron, 28 July 1940: twelve boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Webster-29july40.jpg)
P/O George Bennions, 41 Squadron, 28 July 1940: emergency boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bennions-28-7-40.jpg)
P/O Art Donahue, 64 Squadron, 5 August 1940: emergency throttle (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/64-donahue-5aug40.jpg)
F/Lt. John Webster, 41 Squadron, 8 August 1940: 12 boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/41-webster-8aug40.jpg)
F/O R.W. Wallens, 41 Squadron, 11 August 1940: 12 lbs boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/41-green-section-11aug40.jpg)
Composite Combat Report, 41 Squadron, 15 August 1940: 12 lbs boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/41-15aug40.pdf)
P/O Jeffrey Quill, 65 Squadron, 12 August 1940: boost control cut-out (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/65-quill-12aug40.jpg)
F/Lt A. C. Deere, 54 Squadron, 12 August 1940: 12 Boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-deere-12aug40.jpg)
F/Lt George Gribble, 54 Squadron, 15 August 1940: 12 boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/gribble-12lbs.jpg)
F/Lt Robert F. Boyd, 602 Squadron, 18 August 1940: My Spitfire easily outdistanced Me 109's at 10 lbs boost 2800 r.p.m. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/boyd-18-8-40.jpg)
P/O G. E. Goodman, 1 Squadron, 18 August 1940: pulled the plug (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/1-goodman-18aug40.jpg)
F/O D. H. Watkins, 611 Squadron, 21 August 1940: emergency boost (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-watkins-21aug40-1.jpg)
P/O James Morton, 603 Squadron, 28 August 1940: pressed the tit (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/603-morton-28aug40.jpg)
P/O Wicks, 56 Squadron, 30 August 1940: emergency boost (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/56-wick-30aug40.pdf)
P/O Ronald Berry, 603 Squadron, 31 August 1940: press the emergency boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/berry-31-8-40.jpg)
P/O Colin Gray (NZ), No. 54 Squadron, 31 August 1940: emergency boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-gray-31aug40.jpg)
Sgt Jack Stokoe, 603 Squadron, September 1940: pushed in boost override (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/stokoe-1-9-40.jpg)
P/O Roger Hall, 152 Squadron, 4 September 1940: pushed the red half-lever forward (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/152-hall-pg86.jpg)
F/O Robert Oxspring, 66 Squadron, 6 September 1940: emergency power (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/92-oxspring-p59.jpg)
P/O J. R. B. Meaker, 249 Squadron, 6 September 1940: pull the plug (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/249-meaker-6sept40.jpg)
P/O R. D. Elliott, 72 Squadron, 9 September 1940: MAX Boost (12 lbs) (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/elliott-9-9-40.jpg)
F/Lt J. A. Kent, 303 Squadron, 9 September 1940: I pulled the boost override plug (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/303-kent-9sept40.jpg)
P/O T. F. Neil, 249 Squadron, 18 September 1940: Plug pulled (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/249-neil-18sept40.jpg)
F/O Brian Macnamara, 603 Squadron, 27 September 1940: In fine pitch, with full throttle and the red lever pressed (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Macnamara-27sept40.jpg)
P/O R. G. A. Barclay, 249 Squadron, 27 September 1940: automatic boost cutout (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/249-barclay-27sept40.jpg)
P/O Bob Doe, 234 Squadron: I would 'pull the plug', which was the release so that we could get extra boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/234-doe.jpg)
Geoffrey Wellum, 92 Squadron: Press the emergency boost override. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/92-wellum-pg147.jpg)
P/O David Crook, 609 Squadron, 30 September 1940: 'pulled the plug', i.e. pushed the small handle on the throttle quadrant that cuts out the automatic boost control thus allowing one to use emergency power (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/609-crook-p80.jpg)
P/O K. W. MacKenzie, 501 Squadron, 5 October 1940: tit pulled for absolute full power (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/501-mckenzie-pg50.jpg)
S/L A. A. McKellar, 605 Squadron, 7 October 1940: pulled my boost control (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/605-mckeller-7oct40.pdf)
F/O D. McMullen, 222 Squadron, 15 October 1940: 12 boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/McMullen-15oct40.jpg)

[lane]

56 Squadron Combat Report, 9 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/56sqdn-9may40.jpg


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

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

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 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

P/O John Freeborn, 74 Squadron, 24 May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/freeborn-24-5-40.jpg

P/O Colin Gray (NZ), No. 54 Squadron, 25 May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-gray-25may40-2.jpg

P/O Colin Gray (NZ), No. 54 Squadron, 25 May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-gray-25may40.jpg

P/O Al Deere, No. 54 Squadron, 26 May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/deere-26-5-40.jpg

F/LT Brian Lane, 19 Squadron, 26 May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/19-lane-26may40-2.jpg

F/LT Brian Lane, 19 Squadron, 26 May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lane-26-5-40.jpg

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

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

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

F/Sgt. G. C. Unwin, 19 Squadron, 1 June 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/19-unwin-1june40-2.jpg

Sgt. P. Ottewill, 43 Squadron, 1 June 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/43-ottewill-1june40.pdf

P/O M. P. Brown, 611 Squadron, 2 June 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/611-brown-2june40.jpg

F/O D. H. Watkins, 611 Squadron, 2 June 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/611-watkins-2june40.jpg

F/Lt. John Webster, No. 41 Squadron, 19 June 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/41-webster-19june40-1.jpg

[lane]

F/Lt. R. G. Dutton, 145 Squadron, 1 July 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/145-dutton-1july40.pdf

P/O G. Page, 56 Squadron, July 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/56-page-july40.jpg

F/Lt D. P. Kelly, 74 Squadron, 28 July 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/kelly-28july40.jpg

F/Lt. John Webster, No. 41 Squadron, 28 July 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/webster-28-7-40.jpg

F/Lt. John Webster, No. 41 Squadron, 28 July 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Webster-29july40.jpg

P/O George Bennions, 41 Squadron, 28 July 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bennions-28-7-40.jpg

P/O Art Donahue, 64 Squadron, 5 August 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/64-donahue-5aug40.jpg

F/Lt. John Webster, 41 Squadron, 8 August 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/41-webster-8aug40.jpg

F/O R.W. Wallens, 41 Squadron, 11 August 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/41-green-section-11aug40.jpg

Composite Combat Report, 41 Squadron, 15 August 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/41-15aug40-2.jpg

P/O Jeffrey Quill, 65 Squadron, 12 August 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/65-quill-12aug40.jpg

F/Lt A. C. Deere, 54 Squadron, 12 August 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-deere-12aug40.jpg

F/Lt George Gribble, 54 Squadron, 15 August 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/gribble-12lbs.jpg

F/Lt Robert F. Boyd, 602 Squadron, 18 August 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/boyd-18-8-40.jpg

P/O G. E. Goodman, 1 Squadron, 18 August 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/1-goodman-18aug40.jpg

F/O D. H. Watkins, 611 Squadron, 21 August 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-watkins-21aug40-1.jpg

P/O James Morton, 603 Squadron, 28 August 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/603-morton-28aug40.jpg

P/O Wicks, 56 Squadron, 30 August 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/56-wick-30aug40.pdf

P/O Ronald Berry, 603 Squadron, 31 August 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/berry-31-8-40.jpg

P/O Colin Gray (NZ), No. 54 Squadron, 31 August 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-gray-31aug40.jpg

Sgt Jack Stokoe, 603 Squadron, September 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/stokoe-1-9-40.jpg

P/O Roger Hall, 152 Squadron, 4 September 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/152-hall-pg86.jpg

F/O Robert Oxspring, 66 Squadron, 6 September 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/92-oxspring-p59.jpg

P/O J. R. B. Meaker, 249 Squadron, 6 September 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/249-meaker-6sept40.jpg

P/O R. D. Elliott, 72 Squadron, 9 September 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/elliott-9-9-40.jpg

F/Lt J. A. Kent, 303 Squadron, 9 September 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/303-kent-9sept40.jpg

P/O T. F. Neil, 249 Squadron, 18 September 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/249-neil-18sept40.jpg

F/O Brian Macnamara, 603 Squadron, 27 September 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Macnamara-27sept40.jpg

P/O R. G. A. Barclay, 249 Squadron, 27 September 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/249-barclay-27sept40.jpg

P/O Bob Doe, 234 Squadron
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/234-doe.jpg

Geoffrey Wellum, 92 Squadron
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/92-wellum-pg147.jpg

P/O David Crook, 609 Squadron, 30 September 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/609-crook-p80.jpg

[lane]

P/O K. W. MacKenzie, 501 Squadron, 5 October 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/501-mckenzie-pg50.jpg

S/L A. A. McKellar, 605 Squadron, 7 October 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/605-mckeller-7oct40.pdf

F/O D. McMullen, 222 Squadron, 15 October 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/McMullen-15oct40.jpg

[robtek]

Did this huge post actually add any information to this thread??
Everything there was already posted at least once!
Waste of space ant bits'n'bytes, imo.

[NZtyphoon]

Did this huge post actually add any information to this thread??
Everything there was already posted at least once!
Waste of space ant bits'n'bytes, imo.

People trying to disparage someone, are doing it to themself in reality!

Reality check.

[fruitbat]

And because lanes excellent posts can't go unanswered, and balance is needed, here's all the evidence that's been shown so far in this thread, that a single fighter in 11 group flew ops with 87 octane fuel during the BoB.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/thefruitbat1/87evidence.jpg

Feel free to add to this, although as you can see the case is overwhelming....:rolleyes:

[winny]

Did this huge post actually add any information to this thread??
Everything there was already posted at least once!
Waste of space ant bits'n'bytes, imo.

Did this tiny post actually add any information to this thread?
Waste of space and bits'n'bytes.

[Kurfürst]

Did this huge post actually add any information to this thread??
Everything there was already posted at least once!
Waste of space ant bits'n'bytes, imo.

It is supposed to make up for the fact that none could produce a single document showing. So the same papers are posted over and over again, preferably in extreme size so that they would create an overwhelming impression. Clear cut facts do not need such machinations, a single paper can be usually produced which would report the facts, without any 'explanation' and 'interpretation' needed.

Its a sign of desperation, since it is impossible to produce something that doesn't exist.. hence the desperation, since despite the efforts to convince them otherwise, the developers of the sim and most of the readers took disinterest and disbelief in his thesis. It would appear that not even Glider or Al believes it any more that it must have been every and all Squadrons, so I guess for the most of us the positions are getting closer, we all seem to believe this boost was used by many Squadrons, personally I believe in progressively increasing numbers after August 1940 (it is clearly noticable that most Squadrons begin to report it in the late summer first). Thus lane's thesis remained an in-bred insanity for a few to share and believe.

BTW a reality check from lane is kind of a self-contradiction. He should check his site first for such, see silly claims about the 1-minute rating of the DB 601A not having been introduced until 1942, that 601N variants have only appeared towards the end of the battle of britain and so on. A 'reality check' from a guy who has become famous for such manipulations sounds a bit incredible to me.

[MBF]

And because lanes excellent posts can't go unanswered, and balance is needed, here's all the evidence that's been shown so far in this thread, that a single fighter in 11 group flew ops with 87 octane fuel during the BoB.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/thefruitbat1/87evidence.jpg

Feel free to add to this, although as you can see the case is overwhelming....:rolleyes:

Overwhelming indeed!

[Al Schlageter]

It is nice to see that Kurfy does not believe that it was only 16 squadrons in Sept anymore.:)

[fruitbat]

It is nice to see that Kurfy does not believe that it was only 16 squadrons in Sept anymore.:)

its progress of sorts;)

[NZtyphoon]

BTW a reality check from lane is kind of a self-contradiction. He should check his site first for such, see silly claims about the 1-minute rating of the DB 601A not having been introduced until 1942, that 601N variants have only appeared towards the end of the battle of britain and so on. A 'reality check' from a guy who has become famous for such manipulations sounds a bit incredible to me.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

The DB 601A data charted above comes from the DB 601 A u. B Moteren-Handbuch of May 1942, which includes a 1 minute take-off rating. The Betriebs und Wartungsvorschrift zum Mercedes Benz Flugmotor, DB 601 A u. B., Ausgabe C, October 1940 also notes a 1 minute take-off rating. 23c The highest permissible values in climb and level flight were 1.3 ata and 2400 RPM. 23d A clockwork mechanisim limited take off boost to 1 minute only.23e The take-off rating was not mentioned in the Me 109 E Flugzeughandbuch; the maximum engine limits are stated as 1.3 ata, 2400 rpm.

Just for fun let's just see what passes for "opinion" on the Kurfurst 109 Forum
http://kurfurst.freeforums.org/a-possible-argument-towards-109-haters-t302.html

And there's nooo problem quoting from lane's websites when it apparently puts the Spitfire in a bad light http://kurfurst.freeforums.org/mk-xiv-spitfire-7-weak-points-t114.html In general Good for laughs but go elsewhere for objectivity.

[JtD]

And because lanes excellent posts can't go unanswered, and balance is needed, here's all the evidence that's been shown so far in this thread, that a single fighter in 11 group flew ops with 87 octane fuel during the BoB...:lol:
Great summary, thanks!

[Al Schlageter]

its progress of sorts;)

We will see if Kurfy can come up with such proofs when it comes time to model the 1.98ata Bf109K-4.

Not very likely.;)

[Kurfürst]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

[QUOTE]The DB 601A data charted above comes from the DB 601 A u. B Moteren-Handbuch of May 1942, which includes a 1 minute take-off rating. The Betriebs und Wartungsvorschrift zum Mercedes Benz Flugmotor, DB 601 A u. B., Ausgabe C, October 1940 also notes a 1 minute take-off rating. 23c The highest permissible values in climb and level flight were 1.3 ata and 2400 RPM. 23d A clockwork mechanisim limited take off boost to 1 minute only.23e The take-off rating was not mentioned in the Me 109 E Flugzeughandbuch; the maximum engine limits are stated as 1.3 ata, 2400 rpm.

Oh, its refreshing that 'lane' has revoked his earlier err, 'opinion'. At least he is no longer in denial of the 1-minute rating like he was propagating for years.

More interesting things in the article, since it has sparkled such interest, and to establish the 'credibility' of that site's articles and lane's opinion expressed them:

1, In his comparisons of engine outputs, he displays one the 1100 PS DB 601A-1 with the old type supercharger, even though the power ratings for the ones with the new supercharger are present in the very October 1940 DB 601 manual he lists as a source.

2,Similarly, he completely ignores the E-x/N models in all his comparisons, which he claims appeared 'towards' the end of the Battle, and in penny pocket numbers', when in fact they were present in July 1940 already. In contrast the Spitfire II which appeared a good month later than these and equipped only a handful Squadrons by the time the great daylight fighter engagements all but ended, received a large amount of his attention, insisted as an improved type, when in fact his own site's flight trials leave no doubt about it's indifferent performance in comparison of the badly mauled Spitfire I. Both were were inferior to the 109E with 601N engines, which is likely the cause about the silence and lies about the latter type's absence from the engine and flight performance comparisons. They would make Spitfires look bad I guess.

3, In connection, he 'forgot' to mention and list the outputs of the 1175 PS DB 601Aa, which he claims to have been never been used on any but export Emils. He even 'quotes' Olivier Lefebvre, who has clearly stated that about 1/3 of the DB 601 production was the Aa model, and that all E-7 and E-x/B models were found with the Aa. So, in short ignores one of main engine types and simply selects the lowest performance Emil in his comparisons, misquotes Olivier Lefebvre and just plain dishonest.

4, Again in connection, he 'forgot' to mention the fact that the DB 601 had an option to overrev the engine above FTH and increase engine power, a practice used and described by Steinhilper in his book, who he as usual selectively qoutes enthusiastically to prove that the Emils propeller was 'troublesome'.

5, He misquotes the WNr. 1774 trials, describing them as running over the official boost limits. In fact the said trials note the engine was measured in bench test and was found to develop about 50 HP less than the nominal figures, and the test results were corrected for the nominal powers. Needless to say, 'lane' only shows the figures which depict the WNr. 1774 down on power.

6, He 'forgot' to mention the automatic propeller system on the Bf 109 having been introduced in late 1939 (listed in the December 1939 109E short manual he used to 'prove' the 1-min rating was not cleared yet...) and tries to create the impression it was an automn 1940 thing just introduced.

7, He 'quotes' the following meeting for the 100 octane issue - at this stage of uniform disbelief, surely to be called partisan attitude:

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". 35

As can be seen the actual document speaks of no 'Spitfire and Hurricane' Squadrons' (lane's brainchild) but the 'units concerned'. Obviously the actual text got in the way of the agenda.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/18may40-100octane.jpg

8, Another curious way of 'quoting' (cropped) documents is this.

This is how Spitfire I limits appear in his article:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1pn-12lbs.jpg

... and this is the full version:

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


As you can see the the normal limitations of the Merlin III in the Spitfire I got strangely 'absent' for the article's purposes.

Its no wonder that most of us who have been aware of this site's and it's owners manipulations give very little credit to his articles. We all understand how documents are being manipulated, selectively quoted and falsified on that site.


Just for fun let's just see what passes for "opinion" on the Kurfurst 109 Forum
http://kurfurst.freeforums.org/a-possible-argument-towards-109-haters-t302.html

And there's nooo problem quoting from lane's websites when it apparently puts the Spitfire in a bad light http://kurfurst.freeforums.org/mk-xiv-spitfire-7-weak-points-t114.html In general Good for laughs but go elsewhere for objectivity.

Members on my site are free to express whatever opinion. Moderation is very very conservative, and we only dump mindless troublemakers - actually only one was flushed down in the toilet in the years, who's participating in this thread and who was permbanned from ubi about seven times and from ww2aircraft.net three times :D . I personally believe that Purple Fang is a bit overzelous in that, but probably he just have enough of the lies spread intentionally my some who I will not mention here (we all know who he is and his history). He is free to express his opinion as long as he respects other members.

And as for finding it 'good laughs', personally I have learned a thing or two from members who have been involved in 109 restoration a good deal. Maybe our estimeed but failed NZ student who fancies himself as a 'historian' :D :D :D with a lots of spare time find it good laughs, but they apparently do not share your judgement, for all what its 'worth'. In that case I'd suggest not to visit and quote my forums, as it makes you look funny that at the same time you are so aware of its postings, and people may misjudge you as someone not to be taken too seriously, quoting from forums you claim to a good laugh, and responding to people you claimed to have put on ignore. :D

[Kurfürst]

We will see if Kurfy can come up with such proofs when it comes time to model the 1.98ata Bf109K-4.

Not very likely.;)

Just don't get banned again when it happens again, Milo Morai, luftluuver, billythekid,, KrazyKanuk, Al Schlageter or whatever else name you were using until you were permabanned for calling Oleg Maddox an imbecile when he choose to model it. ;)

Until that, you can still read of 1.98ata 109Ks here: http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html

[Seadog]

Crumpp/Kurfurst:

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

I'm still waiting for your proof.

[Al Schlageter]

Ah poor Barbi, telling lies again. Got proof?

Glad you posted that link Barbi. Here is an excerpt:

This notes in relation of I./JG 27, III./JG 27, III./JG 53, IV./JG 53 to increase the maximum boost pressures to 1,98 ata manifold pressure.

It is not known if and how many units had converted to 1,98 ata manifold before that order came, but it should be noted these units, in particular III./JG 27, III./JG 53 and IV./JG 53 were the major users of the Bf 109 K-4 in the Lufwaffe. The other units effected are not known at present, but given the abundance of photograph depicting G-10 and K-4 fighters belonging to other units, marked for C-3 fuel use - a likely sign of the DC engine at 1,98 ata - the boost increase was likely not limited to JG 27 and JG 53 alone.

All will notice that there is no official documentation, just someones text. This in contrast to the reams of documentation you want provided on 100 octane fuel during the BoB.

Also notice that it is for an boost increase, not that it was done. Yet, how many reams of documentation have to be provided for 12lb boost.

Next, you do PURE SPECULATION on the numbers so modified as C3 fuel was also used in other DB605 engines besides the DB605D.

Then there is the question when the time comes if Crumpp will back up your PURE SPECULATION.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Can someone please post No. 2 or Summary of Conclusions of SIXTH Meeting?

Edit: Found them ...

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=6341&d=1308308865
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=6342&d=1308308889

[NZtyphoon]

Just don't get banned again when it happens again, Milo Morai, luftluuver, billythekid,, KrazyKanuk, Al Schlageter or whatever else name you were using until you were permabanned for calling Oleg Maddox an imbecile when he choose to model it. ;)

Until that, you can still read of 1.98ata 109Ks here: http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html

Says the professional Kurfurst Or Barbi or Adam whatever who knows all about being banned (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-7.html); (for some reason someone who claims to have very little interest in the RAF is still obsessed with 100 Octane fuel and presents the same "evidence" to "prove" his "case"...)
or blocked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kurf%C3%BCrst/Archive_1) 10 times from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AKurf%C3%BCrst&type=block) and whining about it, because its all a plot to discredit poor Kurfurst before, finally, being blocked indefinitely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kurf%C3%BCrst) but its all a plot and whining about it; and as a sockpuppet blocked (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:86.101.5.223&action=edit&redlink=1) (this is the same Kurfurst who falsely accused another editor of being a sockpuppet)

[Al Schlageter]

NZt, I don't think Barbi would want it known why he got banned from Aces High.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Do we have an entertainment subforum here somewhere where this thread could go to?

:-P

[Kurfürst]

Says the professional Kurfurst Or Barbi or Adam whatever who knows all about being banned (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-7.html); (for some reason someone who claims to have very little interest in the RAF is still obsessed with 100 Octane fuel and presents the same "evidence" to "prove" his "case"...)
or blocked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kurf%C3%BCrst/Archive_1) 10 times from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AKurf%C3%BCrst&type=block) and whining about it, because its all a plot to discredit poor Kurfurst before, finally, being blocked indefinitely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kurf%C3%BCrst) but its all a plot and whining about it; and as a sockpuppet blocked (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:86.101.5.223&action=edit&redlink=1) (this is the same Kurfurst who falsely accused another editor of being a sockpuppet)

Oh, Minortroll goes on to his daily routine, the petty waste of his days. 'twas, for some time, of some entertainment value, but as with most shows and people with little substance in them, the novelty wore off pretty quickly and it's now just the boring routine - another nolifer kid who has got his buttocks handed to him a few times, and having no purpose for himself, now found that in a lifetime revenge campaign. On the internet. :D

I wondering though, how uneventful your life may possibly be, spending it like this. I guess you should marry luftie, he spent the last ten or twelfe year of life doing the same until nobody really gave a flying ack-ack about him. I sense you are just from the same material. Well, I guess it's time to wish you a lot of good fun. ;)

[Kurfürst]

Do we have an entertainment subforum here somewhere where this thread could go to?

:-P

I guess its born out of nostalgic feelings for Ubizoo. I miss Ivan though. :D

[Al Schlageter]

I guess its born out of nostalgic feelings for Ubizoo. I miss Ivan though. :D

Ivan doesn't miss you though ;) as do the Mods on all the boards you post on.

[NZtyphoon]

Oh, Minortroll goes on to his daily routine, the petty waste of his days. 'twas, for some time, of some entertainment value, but as with most shows and people with little substance in them, the novelty wore off pretty quickly and it's now just the boring routine - another nolifer kid who has got his buttocks handed to him a few times, and having no purpose for himself, now found that in a lifetime revenge campaign. On the internet. :D

I wondering though, how uneventful your life may possibly be, spending it like this. I guess you should marry luftie, he spent the last ten or twelfe year of life doing the same until nobody really gave a flying ack-ack about him. I sense you are just from the same material. Well, I guess it's time to wish you a lot of good fun. ;)

:grin::grin::grin::grin: Talking about yourself again; sad, sad, sad vindictive Barbi. :cry::cry:

[41Sqn_Banks]

Is it possible that someone can post the available papers from the Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee meetings?

[Kurfürst]

Is it possible that someone can post the available papers from the Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee meetings?

I have asked David (Glider) a couple of times to post the papers, but he is appearantly not so willing to publicly anything else than the crops he has posted so far.

I can post you those if you want.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Would indeed be nice to have all papers collected in one post.

I've only seen parts of 5th and 6th meeting, but it's not clear what "units concerned" means in the context. Does it mean the stations that should store only 100 octane (i.e. the Blenheim squadrons), or does it mean the stations that should receive 100 octane and keep one tank 87 octane? Are these all fighter stations with Hurricane and Spitfire or only some selected stations? The 5th meeting only specifies those stations with 100 octane only, but doesn't contain a list of the others. Maybe this list is in one of the earlier meetings.

Also we always see only the "summary" and I would expect that other pages describe the situation in more detail.

I have the feeling that the answer is within this papers.

[Kurfürst]

Here's what I have, from Glider.

[Kurfürst]

Part II.

[Talisman]

Would indeed be nice to have all papers collected in one post.

I've only seen parts of 5th and 6th meeting, but it's not clear what "units concerned" means in the context. Does it mean the stations that should store only 100 octane (i.e. the Blenheim squadrons), or does it mean the stations that should receive 100 octane and keep one tank 87 octane? Are these all fighter stations with Hurricane and Spitfire or only some selected stations? The 5th meeting only specifies those stations with 100 octane only, but doesn't contain a list of the others. Maybe this list is in one of the earlier meetings.

Also we always see only the "summary" and I would expect that other pages describe the situation in more detail.

I have the feeling that the answer is within this papers.

With regard to "units concerned" as per above. Having looked at the WWII classified secret file with the title "AVIATION FUEL (100 OCTANE) SUPPLIES", it can be seen that when read in context, the file is refering to the enclosure containing a letter dated 7th December 1939, ref: FC/S.15447/76/EQ.2, under cover of Air Vice-Marshal, Air Officer i/c Administration, Fighter Command, Royal Air Force.

This letter details the operational stations at which the 100 Octane fuel will be required "in the first instance". The letter also states that "all non-operational stations in the Fighter Command will also have to hold certain quantities of this fuel for visiting aircraft". The letter goes on to list the non-operational stations and stations which do not have Hurricane or Spitfire aircraft at the moment, that will need the fuel. The letter also mentions the need for "disposal instructions for varying quantities of D.T.D224 and other grades of petrol that will not be required in such large quantities on the introduction of 100 Octane fuel".

A letter later on in the file, dated 12th December 1939, can be seen to be responding to the AVM's letter, ref: F.C. 15447/76/E.Q.2, on behalf of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, HQ Fighter Command. This letter says "I am directed to confirm 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 Satations concerned" (the ones listed in the AVM's letter dated 7th December 1939). This letter also says that "from an operational point of view it is essential that supplies in bulk at the distribution depots should be available before general use commences and that it is not possible to state a day on which 100 Octane fuel will come into use on all the approved stations" (the ones listed in the AVM's letter dated 7th December 1939). The letter goes on to say "the date on which the fuel may be brought into use depends upon the rapidity with which (a) supplies in bulk can be put down at distribution points, and (b) bulk storage could be made available at the relevant stations". The letter also says that "the Petroleum Board have been instructed that storage in bulk at certain distribution points is to be arranged with the least possible delay and tanks at these ponts are being "run down" to provide the necessary accomodatoin".

I think it is reasonable to consider that the term "with the least possible delay" means that 100 Octane fuel was was used in all Fighter Command approved aircraft, which has been given as Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant, very soon after the letter dated 12 December 1939 from the office of Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, HQ Fighter Command, RAF.

Talisman

[Glider]

I have asked David (Glider) a couple of times to post the papers, but he is appearantly not so willing to publicly anything else than the crops he has posted so far.

I can post you those if you want.

For the record 'those crops' as Kurfurst so describes the paper are the only part of those meetings that dealt with the purchase, storage and distribution of 100 Octane fuel and Kurfurst is aware of this. It isn't a case of being unwilling, its a case of there is nothing more of relavence.

He expesses doubt but has had ample time to obtain copies himself to prove it one way or the other.

I am pleased that he has finally posted the papers available which show the trail in context rather that emphasising one paper.

[Kurfürst]

Like I said, he is not very willing to show anything but crops.

He DOES insist every time to see the full papers I use to post though, and as I recall he seen them in full every time.

I am pleased that he has finally posted the papers available which show the trail in context rather that emphasising one paper.

Indeed.

"At the last meeting A.M.S.O. referred to a proposal that certain Fighter and Blenheim Squadrons should begin the use of 100 octane fuel.."

Quite clear-cut isn't it.

[pstyle]

"At the last meeting A.M.S.O. referred to a proposal that certain Fighter and Blenheim Squadrons should begin the use of 100 octane fuel.."
Quite clear-cut isn't it.

Here's my take on this "units concerned" business, working from most recent to oldest:

By May 18th, these "units concerned" has been stocked with the necessary 100 octane

Prior to May 18th. There are two separate lines of discussion.
One relates to Bomber command and the stocking/ holding of two fuel types a Blenheim statinos, mainly stations Wyton, Watton, Waattsiham and West Raynham.

Fighter command, on the other hand was also subject to the same "proposal" that "certain units" should "begin to use 100 octane". There was some discussion about whether or not the existing spitfires and hurricanes could actually convert to the 100 fuel without substantial modifications. However, this concern was proved unfounded. They could use the 100 fuel.

So who are these "certain units"?
Well, as Talisman identifies in his post above, these "certain units" are the "squadrons armed with fighters and Blenheims" as specified by Assistant Chief of the Air Staff - who sits ABOVE both fighter and bomber command, which is why, form the overall RAF perspective this refers to "certain units", and not ALL units.

I think it's entirely fair to suggest, that from the perspective of fighter command, this referred to ALL fighter units.

I am in agreement with Talisman that by May 18th, all of these "units concerned" were using 100 Octane. And that their Spitfires and Hurricanes could use the fuel WITHOUT considerable modification, as per the statement of Mr Tweedie, at the May 1940 meeting.

There is a sting in the tail though, while the Spits/Hurris could use the 100, they would not get the performance benefit until the modifications had occurred to each individual aircraft.

[Crumpp]

these "certain units"

And why do you think it does not refer to the original 16 squadrons?

[Al Schlageter]

And why do you think it does not refer to the original 16 squadrons?

Name these 16 original squadrons.

[pstyle]

And why do you think it does not refer to the original 16 squadrons?

Which "original 16"?
Who identifies these "original 16". I've not seen this bit yet (it might be too far back in the thread).. I'd happily accept a fresh link, if you'd oblige.

Assuming it were only these 16 (none of which I can find), if say, one of these 16 (as yet unidentified) squadrons was based at at a station with other units not in the 16, would that station have had both fuels?

[pstyle]

And why do you think it does not refer to the original 16 squadrons?

Do you agree that the "certain squadrons" are those squadrons which are referred to in the request by the ACAS?

Lets' start with establishments common ground, and work from there.

[lane]

Here's my take on this "units concerned" business, working from most recent to oldest:

By May 18th, these "units concerned" has been stocked with the necessary 100 octane

Prior to May 18th. There are two separate lines of discussion.
One relates to Bomber command and the stocking/ holding of two fuel types a Blenheim statinos, mainly stations Wyton, Watton, Waattsiham and West Raynham.

Fighter command, on the other hand was also subject to the same "proposal" that "certain units" should "begin to use 100 octane". There was some discussion about whether or not the existing spitfires and hurricanes could actually convert to the 100 fuel without substantial modifications. However, this concern was proved unfounded. They could use the 100 fuel.

So who are these "certain units"?
Well, as Talisman identifies in his post above, these "certain units" are the "squadrons armed with fighters and Blenheims" as specified by Assistant Chief of the Air Staff - who sits ABOVE both fighter and bomber command, which is why, form the overall RAF perspective this refers to "certain units", and not ALL units.

I think it's entirely fair to suggest, that from the perspective of fighter command, this referred to ALL fighter units.

I am in agreement with Talisman that by May 18th, all of these "units concerned" were using 100 Octane. And that their Spitfires and Hurricanes could use the fuel WITHOUT considerable modification, as per the statement of Mr Tweedie, at the May 1940 meeting.

There is a sting in the tail though, while the Spits/Hurris could use the 100, they would not get the performance benefit until the modifications had occurred to each individual aircraft.

Good post pstyle. Just a thought...I'm not sure about your last statement regarding not getting the performance benefit until the modifications had occurred to each individual aircraft whilst using 100 octane. It may in fact be the case that using 100 octane without the modifications may actually have allowed for greater power than the 1310 hp provided by +12 lbs., though likely resulting in increased strain on the engine.

R.D.E.6 memo dated 14/11/39 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg) states "The modifications to the boost control cut out to limit the maximum boost to 12 lbs. sq.in. are simple and in hand (otherwise full throttle would give about 17 lbs. sq.in.)"

See also comments of Sgt. R. C. Wilkinson, 3 Squadron, 14 May 1940 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/rcw-pg6.jpg)

[lane]

Which "original 16"?
Who identifies these "original 16". I've not seen this bit yet (it might be too far back in the thread).. I'd happily accept a fresh link, if you'd oblige.

Assuming it were only these 16 (none of which I can find), if say, one of these 16 (as yet unidentified) squadrons was based at at a station with other units not in the 16, would that station have had both fuels?

One possibility as to which squadrons comprised the 16; at the time of the March 1939 planning memo calling for 100 octane to be brought into use by 16 squadrons, 15 squadrons were operational with Spitfires or Hurricanes, with 3 others in the process of forming or converting. The units are as follows:

Mar-39
Sqdn Base Aircraft
1 Tangmere Hurricane
19 Duxford Spitfire
32 Biggin Hill Hurricane
41 Catterick Spitfire
43 Tangmere Hurricane
46 Digby Hurricane Converting from Gauntlets March 39
54 Hornchurch Spitfire Converting from Gladiator March 39
56 North Weald Hurricane
66 Duxford Spitfire
73 Digby Hurricane
74 Hornchurch Spitfire
79 Biggin Hill Hurricane
85 Debden Hurricane
87 Debden Hurricane
111 Northolt Hurricane
151 North Weald Hurricane
213 Wittering Hurricane
501 Filton Hurricane Forming with Hurricanes in March 39

One can see from the following listing that many units had converted prior to the Battle of Britain

111 Squadron ORB 15 February 1940 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/111-15feb40-100-octane.jpg)
151 Squadron ORB, 16 February 1940 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/151-orb-16feb40.jpg)
602 Squadron ORB, 16 February 1940 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/602-16feb40-100octane.jpg)
611 Squadron ORB, March 1940 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-100oct.jpg)
74 Squadron, March 1940 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no74-100oct.jpg)
100 Octane Fuel - Issue of., 12th December, 1939 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/12dec39-100octane-issue.pdf)
A.P.1590B/J.2-W, Merlin II and III--Use of +12 lb./sq.in. Boost Pressure--Alterations, 20 March 1940 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ap1590b.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)
Air Chief Marshal H.C.T. Dowding, Handling of Merlin in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant Aircraft, 1st August, 1940 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf)

56 Squadron Combat Report, 9 May 1940: twelve boost (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/56sqdn-9may40.jpg)
S/L J. O. W. Oliver, 85 Squadron, 10 May 1940: pulled the plug (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/85-oliver-10may40.jpg)
F/O Paul Richey, 1 Squadron, 11 May 1940: boost-override pulled (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/richey-pg76.jpg)
F/O E. J. Kain, 73 Squadron, 14 May 1940: pulling his boost cut out (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/monks-pg98.jpg)
P/O D. W. A. Stones, 79 Squadron, 14 May 1940: pulled out the emergency boost-plug (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/stones-pg32.jpg)
Sgt. R. C. Wilkinson, 3 Squadron, 14 May 1940: 12 P.S.I. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/rcw-pg6.jpg)
P/O R. P. Beamont, 87 Squadron, 15 May 1940: I pulled the tit'* for over-boost... *Emergency boost over-ride on the Merlin engine (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-beamont-15may40.jpg)
P/O F. B. Sutton, 56 Squadron, 18 May 1940: I had to pull the tit... Emergency boost control giving extra power (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/sutton-pg80.jpg)
F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 18 May 1940: pull the tit *; a jerk as my supercharger goes up to twelve boosts (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-gleed-18may40.jpg)
P/O John Bushell, 151 Squadron, 18 May 1940: I used full 12 lb boost (pulled the plug) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/bushell-151sqdn-18may40.jpg)
S/L E. M. Donaldon, 151 Sqdn., 18 May 1940: I pulled the plug and climbed at 10 lbs boost (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/donaldson-151sqdn-18may40.pdf)
F/O C. F. G. Adye, 17 Squadron, 18 May 1940: pulled emergency boost control (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/17-adye-18may40.pdf)
F/O C. F. G. Adye, 17 Squadron, 19 May 1940: pulled emergency boost (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/17-adye-19may40.pdf)
F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 19 May 1940: Here goes with the tit. A jerk - the boost's shot up to twelve pounds (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-gleed-19may40.jpg)
Sgt. L. H. B. Pearce, 79 Squadron, 20 May 1940: Pulled tit (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/79-pearce-20may40.jpg)
P/O John Freeborn, 74 Squadron, 24 May 1940: boost cut-out (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/freeborn-24-5-40.jpg)
P/O Colin Gray (NZ), No. 54 Squadron, 25 May 1940: I pressed the emergency boost tit (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-gray-25may40-2.jpg)
P/O Colin Gray (NZ), No. 54 Squadron, 25 May 1940: +12 lbs. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-gray-25may40.jpg)
P/O Al Deere, No. 54 Squadron, 26 May 1940: 12 boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/deere-26-5-40.jpg)
F/LT Brian Lane, 19 Squadron, 26 May 1940: automatic boost cut-out (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/19-lane-26may40-2.jpg)
F/LT Brian Lane, 19 Squadron, 26 May 1940: 12 lb. boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lane-26-5-40.jpg)
Sgt. J. C. Harrison, 229 Squadron, 28 May 1940: I pulled the emergency boost (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/229-harrison-28may40.jpg)
P/O K. B. McGlashan, 245 Squadron, 28 May 1940: We’d boost an extra four pounds, from eight to twelve (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/245-mcglashan-28may40.jpg)
P/O C. M. Simpson, 229 Squadron, 29 May 1940: with boost out and pulled (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/229-simpson-29may40.jpg)
P/O T. D. Welsh, 264 Squadron, 29 May 1940: pulled boost cut-out (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/264-welsh-29may40.pdf)
F/Sgt. G. C. Unwin, 19 Squadron, 1 June 1940: 12 Boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/19-unwin-1june40.pdf)
Sgt. P. Ottewill, 43 Squadron, 1 June 1940: automatic boost cut-out pulled (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/43-ottewill-1june40.pdf)
P/O M. P. Brown, 611 Squadron, 2 June 1940: opened the boost cut-out (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/611-brown-2june40.jpg)
F/O D. H. Watkins, 611 Squadron, 2 June 1940: emergency boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/611-watkins-2june40.jpg)
F/Lt. John Webster, No. 41 Squadron, 19 June 1940: 12 lbs boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/41-webster-19june40.pdf)
F/Lt. R. G. Dutton, 145 Squadron, 1 July 1940: pulled the plug (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/145-dutton-1july40.pdf)
609 Squadron (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/609-spitfire-I-100oct.jpg)

[Al Schlageter]

It should noted lane that the squadrons you list are doing so well before the Sept date so often stated by some.

[lane]

It should noted lane that the squadrons you list are doing so well before the Sept date so often stated by some.

Yes, the historical record shows that in March 1939 when the planners were looking at converting 16 fighter squadrons to 100 octane, there were in fact only 16 operational squadrons (+/- 1) equipped with Hurricanes or Spitfires. Clearly more than 16 squadrons had converted to 100 octane before the Battle of Britain.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Yes, the historical record shows that in March 1939 when the planners were looking at converting 16 fighter squadrons to 100 octane, there were in fact only 16 operational squadrons (+/- 1) equipped with Hurricanes or Spitfires.

Mystery of the 16 squadrons solved. :grin:

Now the 1C devs can feel free to give our Spits and Hurries their badly-needed and much-deserved +12 lbs of overboost and resulting emergency 5 minutes or so 30 mph increase in top speed. The sooner the better - a "hotfix #2" would be just the ticket!!!!

[robtek]

I am all for it, but only if there are felt penalties for abusing/overboosting the engines of all sides longer as rated!!!

Like loosing power slowly or better a increased chance of throwing a rod or something like that, this combined with corrected oil and water temperature changes.

[fruitbat]

I am all for it, but only if there are felt penalties for abusing/overboosting the engines of all sides longer as rated!!!

Like loosing power slowly or better a increased chance of throwing a rod or something like that, this combined with corrected oil and water temperature changes.

agreed.

[TomcatViP]

30MPH extra speed only ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why not 300mph ?:mad:

[ATAG_Snapper]

I am all for it, but only if there are felt penalties for abusing/overboosting the engines of all sides longer as rated!!!

Like loosing power slowly or better a increased chance of throwing a rod or something like that, this combined with corrected oil and water temperature changes.

+1

[ATAG_Snapper]

30MPH extra speed only ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why not 300mph ?:mad:

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

Where have YOU been? :rolleyes:

[335th_GRAthos]

.........................................



Thanks Lane for the great job of putting things together in one post! :)


I am impressed by that battle report:
F/Lt. R. G. Dutton, 145 Squadron, 1 July 1940: pulled the plug (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/145-dutton-1july40.pdf)
The leader went max out and it took him 5min to reach gun range (400yrds) and even then he had to stay in line behind the DO17 because even his (maxed out) speed was hardly sufficient to keep chase!
The DO-17 was reknowned to be fast but, that fast!

And then, he used up all his ammo to "slow down" the DO17 and then his No.2 made a pass and finaly his No.3 shot the DO17 down!

Interesting reading.

~S~

[Crumpp]

I am not so sure "pulling the plug" has anything to do with 100 Octane use at all.

The 1937 RAF Training Manual has instructions for boost cut out independant of 100 Octane fuel.

Additionally this certificate list the boost pressure well above the rated 6 1/2 lbs without boost cut out. The only approved fuel for this aircraft is 87 Octane.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2558/n3171testcertificate.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/19/n3171testcertificate.jpg/)

[Glider]

Hardly unexpected that the 1937 manual didn't have 100 fuel

[Crumpp]

Hardly unexpected that the 1937 manual didn't have 100 fuel


Right, so it appears you can throw out all those combat reports that do not specify +12lbs or 100 Octane.

Like this one:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/145-dutton-1july40.pdf

[41Sqn_Banks]

The 1937 RAF Training Manual has instructions for boost cut out independant of 100 Octane fuel.


Can you post the instructions please?

[NZtyphoon]

And why do you think it does not refer to the original 16 squadrons?

1.) In the May 1939 paper that "16 Squadrons" was provisional, based on whether or not 100 Octane fuel supplies would decrease or increase. Paragraph 8 clearly states that.

2.) Individual squadrons were not allocated fuel, the fuel was clearly allocated to the RAF stations.

Explain to everyone Crumpp how the RAF allocated the fuel to 16 frontline fighter squadrons while denying the rest the use of the fuel. How was it done, what were the logistical arrangements and provide some documentary evidence for your speculation..


I am not so sure "pulling the plug" has anything to do with 100 Octane use at all.

The 1937 RAF Training Manual has instructions for boost cut out independant of 100 Octane fuel.

Additionally this certificate list the boost pressure well above the rated 6 1/2 lbs without boost cut out. The only approved fuel for this aircraft is 87 Octane.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2558/n3171testcertificate.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/19/n3171testcertificate.jpg/)

Do you know what Boost Cut Out means Crumpp? It means the pilot used the boost cut out control to reduce power once he had "pulled the plug" to go to +12 lbs boost, so you have it all backwards for a start. It doesn't matter what type of fuel the engine used, if there was provision for extra boost there was a boost cut out to allow the pilot to reduce power.

What this certificate does show is the maximum performance the Merlin III was capable of with 87 Octane fuel +10.55 lbs boost, 1,212 hp. The certificate also clearly says emergency 5 minutes maximum meaning that the engine had to have boost cut out.

[Al Schlageter]

What is interesting in that document is the HP at 4.2lb > 822. Hardly the 1/3 that was mentioned sometime before.

[Crumpp]

Do you know what Boost Cut Out means Crumpp?

Really guy?

The certificate also clearly says emergency 5 minutes maximum meaning that the engine had to have boost cut out.

The aircraft is only approved for 87 Octane fuel.

[NZtyphoon]

Really guy?

You clearly had no idea of what the boost cut out is for so I explained...

The aircraft is only approved for 87 Octane fuel.

So? For ages you have been swearing black and blue that because the Pilot's Notes stipulated certain engine limitations and certain types of fuels those were the limits observed no matter what, in spite of it being explained to you several times, very carefully, that supplementary slips were issued to the pilots with the Pilot's Notes revising such information when it was relevant.

Now, on the basis of this one test certificate you are saying what? That the engine limitations were not observed? I haven't noticed any pilot's notes stipulating 10.55 lbs boost maximum using 87 octane fuel, so I guess you want to withdraw all of your previous comments regarding the legal limits etc set by the pilot's notes?

You now want to claim that when pilots refer to pulling the plug it meant they went to 10.55 lbs boost on 87 octane fuel, right? Then present some documentary evidence showing that pilots were authorised to use 10.55 lbs boost on 87 Octane.

Then explain why Dowding found it necessary on 1 August 1940 to send a memo to All Groups, ALL Fighter Stations and ALL fighter squadrons stating that +12 lbs boost was only to be used in emergencies? Why not state +10.55 lbs boost, and send a separate memo to the supposedly small number of squadrons authorised to use 100 octane fuel?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

Note he also uses the expression "Pulling the Plug" referring specifically to +12 lbs boost.

[Crumpp]

Now, on the basis of this one test certificate you are saying what?

I will explain this ONE time and then I will probably ignore you as I don't think you have much to add. It is according to the training manual and fits with everything I have already told you about Operating Notes.

The 1937 RAF Training Manual explains the use of boost cut out. In 1937, 100 Octane was not an issue.

The certificate limitations appear to back up the use of the system.

That is completely independent of 100 Octane.

It means most of the reports you claim prove the use of 100 Octane fuel really have nothing to do with it at all.

[Skoshi Tiger]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

Note he also uses the expression "Pulling the Plug" referring specifically to +12 lbs boost.

Very interesting read, NZ.

I also like point 5 which states "The consequences of exceeding the engine limitations are liable to manifest themselves on some subsequent occasion, perhaps during night flying or over the sea ......"

Regardless of the type of fuel being used (the limits being different in each case) the damage being done is generally not instantainous and will not result in immediate loss of the engine (as I have heard it being argued in some threads), but will be dependant on how far over the limitations and for how long they're exceeded for.

To fully realise the damage being caused to the engines we would need to have resource management implemented in the game where this type of damage is accumilated and passed on to subsequent mission. (with maintenance being able to repair the damage ideally!)

It'd also make for interesting senarios where all the good planes are used up and we are only left with the bunkies! (Janes USNF had a good system like this for campains!)

Cheers!

[Crumpp]

Then explain why Dowding found it necessary on 1 August 1940 to send a memo to All Groups, ALL Fighter Stations and ALL fighter squadrons stating that +12 lbs boost

Well one day, all those units will be equipped with 100 Octane. It is not proof that all of the operational units were using it. Why put the word out on something like the information in that memo piecemeal?

What is proof that that 100% of the operational units were NOT using is the Notes on a Merlin Engine found in the Operating Notes.

That is a fact.

[Crumpp]

the damage being done is generally not instantainous and will not result in immediate loss of the engin

Sometimes it will and sometimes it will not.....

It all depends and it is just as likely to end your trip that flight as the next if the motor is damaged.

[Crumpp]

You now want to claim that when pilots refer to pulling the plug it meant they went to 10.55 lbs boost on 87 octane fuel, right?

I am not claiming anything outside of known facts, NzTyphoon. I will leave the speculation to you.

The known facts are that system was in place before 100 Octane fuel was around as evidenced in the 1937 RAF training manual.

The Operating Notes will specify the authorized fuel for the aircraft. The type Operating Notes clearly state that "ALL Operational Units - 100 Octane" after the fuel is adopted for all operational units.

We don't see that in any of the Operating Notes during the BoB. Only the Spitfire Mk II carried the 100 Octane specification. The rest require replacing the heads and in some cases, rings as well as the required modifications to the fuel metering system. This work was performed at Service Inspection intervals. Do you know what that means?

[NZtyphoon]

Well one day, all those units will be equipped with 100 Octane. It is not proof that all of the operational units were using it. Why put the word out on something like the information in that memo piecemeal?

That is a fact.

Absolute nonsense! The memo says nothing about "In Future, once 100 Octane fuel becomes available..." it was written in the present tense stating unambiguously that too many pilots were using +12 lbs boost for situations other than emergency.

Why put the word out on something like the information in that memo piecemeal?

Pure speculation on your part.

[NZtyphoon]

I will explain this ONE time and then I will probably ignore you as I don't think you have much to add. It is according to the training manual and fits with everything I have already told you about Operating Notes.



Nonsense - it has been explained to you several times that the operating limits posted in the Pilot's Notes were relevant to the fuel the engines were designed for, as explained long ago to you in the Pilot's Notes General 1st ed. Any alterations to those operating limits were issued to the pilots as supplementary slips which were then pasted into the Pilot's Notes. You continue to ignore this because it does not suit your "argument".

[Crumpp]

were relevant to the fuel the engines were designed

Not how it works by convention and Air Ministry law. The operating notes define the current airworthiness limits.

[NZtyphoon]

Not how it works by convention and Air Ministry law. The operating notes define the current airworthiness limits.

Wrong again: read the Pilot's Notes General (attached)

[Seadog]

The rest require replacing the heads and in some cases, rings as well as the required modifications to the fuel metering system. This work was performed at Service Inspection intervals. Do you know what that means?

The March 20 1940 memo clearly states that new built aircraft already had the internal engine mods:

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

Given the production numbers for Hurricanes/Spitfires and RAF operational and combat losses prior to the start of the BofB, it is extremely doubtful that any unmodded aircraft were still in front line service. Production during March, April, May and June, and July, of 1940 would have amounted to approximately 1500 Hurricane/Spitfire aircraft, or greater then RAF FC's front line strength at the start of the BofB.

The memo clearly establishes that all RAF FC Hurricanes/Spitfires were modded for Hundred octane fuel and 12lb boost prior to the start of the BofB.

[41Sqn_Banks]

I am not so sure "pulling the plug" has anything to do with 100 Octane use at all.

The 1937 RAF Training Manual has instructions for boost cut out independant of 100 Octane fuel.

Additionally this certificate list the boost pressure well above the rated 6 1/2 lbs without boost cut out. The only approved fuel for this aircraft is 87 Octane.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2558/n3171testcertificate.jpg

I hope you guys are aware that the line "Emergency 5 mins.max." is related to "95°C" oil inlet temperature?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9589&stc=1&d=1337142966

This test certificate has a better layout: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787_test_certificate.jpg

The power curve is a simplified form of this graph: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9590&stc=1&d=1337143252
and most certainly only contains calculated values which were derived from certain reference values or were applied shorty under controlled conditions to determine the engine power.

[41Sqn_Banks]

The known facts are that system was in place before 100 Octane fuel was around as evidenced in the 1937 RAF training manual.


So please tell us what there is written ... or at least tell us which chapter and paragraph.

This is from the Air Publication 129 Royal Air Force Flying Training Manual Part I - Landplanes; Revised June, 1940 (Reprint April 1941 incorporating A.L. No. 1), A.L. No. 2 from May 1941 is slipped in.

Chap. VII
Boost control

53. ... Some boost controls are provided with an emergency cut-out, which over-rides the automatic boost control. This must only be used in emergency and not, in any circumstances, for ordinary flying, because, even if the correct boost is not exceeded, the mixture enrichment is also put out of action and, as has been previously explained, high boost is only allowed with rich mixture, and without it may cause serious damage.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Sometimes it will and sometimes it will not.....

It all depends and it is just as likely to end your trip that flight as the next if the motor is damaged.


I doubt it would be just as likely. If you read the memorandum point one and two,

"A recent increase in the number of engine failures, due to the failure of bearings, is an inication that some pilots are over-stepping the engine limitations laid down in the Pilot's handbook.

2. The use of the automatic boot cut out control enables the pilot to get an emergency boost of +12lbs per sq in. from the engine for 5 minutes when circumstances demand it. Some Pilots "pull the plug" with little excuse on every occasion."

The wording of this memo suggest that the practice of exceeding the limits was quite widespread. Now if it was as you suggest a 50-50 chance of engine failure when the limits were exceeded then the culprits responsible for abusing their engines would be quickly identified and I expect grounded. The practice of exceeding the limits would only become common place if the pilots thought they could get away with it. Maybe thats why they put the wire seal on the boost control to make it obvious to the maintenance staff that it had been used. Then the pilot would have had to justify their use of boost after the mission.

As long as they didn't overheat their engines and the correct fuel was used the boost control still limits the boost available to stop destructive pre-ignition and detonation as a cause of engine damage. (ie if you run the 12lb boost on 87 octane fuel you could get servere and possibly imediate damage from detonation, but not with 100 octane fuel.) So what was left was damage caused by accellerated wear on the engine that was "liable to manifest themselves on some subsequent occasion"


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

[Glider]

Right, so it appears you can throw out all those combat reports that do not specify +12lbs or 100 Octane.

Like this one:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/145-dutton-1july40.pdf

For all you know 145 sqd is one of your 16 squadrons you claim were using the 100 octane. After all, action in that area is right in the front line and by your standards most likely to have the fuel.

Unles of course you can prove that they were not using the fuel which reminds me, to do that you need to prove which 16 squadrons or stations were using the fuel.

Any update?

I admit to not holding my breath

[NZtyphoon]

I doubt it would be just as likely. If you read the memorandum point one and two,

"A recent increase in the number of engine failures, due to the failure of bearings, is an inication that some pilots are over-stepping the engine limitations laid down in the Pilot's handbook.

2. The use of the automatic boot cut out control enables the pilot to get an emergency boost of +12lbs per sq in. from the engine for 5 minutes when circumstances demand it. Some Pilots "pull the plug" with little excuse on every occasion."

The wording of this memo suggest that the practice of exceeding the limits was quite widespread. Now if it was as you suggest a 50-50 chance of engine failure when the limits were exceeded then the culprits responsible for abusing their engines would be quickly identified and I expect grounded. The practice of exceeding the limits would only become common place if the pilots thought they could get away with it. Maybe thats why they put the wire seal on the boost control to make it obvious to the maintenance staff that it had been used. Then the pilot would have had to justify their use of boost after the mission.

As long as they didn't overheat their engines and the correct fuel was used the boost control still limits the boost available to stop destructive pre-ignition and detonation as a cause of engine damage. (ie if you run the 12lb boost on 87 octane fuel you could get servere and possibly imediate damage from detonation, but not with 100 octane fuel.) So what was left was damage caused by accellerated wear on the engine that was "liable to manifest themselves on some subsequent occasion"


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

Also note section 6 It is in the best interest of pilots...to acquaint the maintenance personnel with the facts so that oil filters may be inspected at the first convenient opportunity to investigate whether damage to the bearings has resulted.

So using +12 lbs boost did not inevitably damage the engine, but it was better for all concerned that the pilot let the ground crew know that he had gone through the gate - should the pilot neglect to mention that +12 lbs boost was used as Skoshi has mentioned, they could check to see if the throttle wire had been broken.

All frontline RAF aircraft were given a daily inspection whenever possible and this would be when any such issues were found and, if need be, notified in the aircraft's engine log.

BTW Some might remember this thread? http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20117 £74.50 for a copy of the Mk I Pilot's Notes from Kew? v $15.9 from http://www.flight-manuals.com/ap1565a-vol1.html Apart from these there don't seem to be many original Spitfire I Pilot's Notes available.

Also note the Defiant used 100 octane and +12 lbs boost - the attachment is dated 24 5 (or 6?) 40 lower LH side

[NZtyphoon]

Right, so it appears you can throw out all those combat reports that do not specify +12lbs or 100 Octane.

Like this one:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/145-dutton-1july40.pdf

Wrong: this is simply your arbitrary "ruling" made on the basis of one document. Fact is Dowding used the phrase "pull the plug" in his 1 August memo, recognising that this phrase (and others such as "squeezed the tit") was pilot jargon for "used emergency boost" or +12 lbs boost - you have already tried to rule out all such pilot's reports based on some other such arbitrary concept, so if you don't like them being used, too bad.

Unless, that is, you can find a memo or other such document stating, for example, that, until further notice, 87 Octane fuel will be used by the majority of the RAF's frontline fighters.

Either that or find a list of units authorised to use 100 octane fuel, and/or an explanation of the logistical processes used by the RAF to ensure a limited supply of 100 octane directed at selected units or stations.

[Al Schlageter]

For all you know 145 sqd is one of your 16 squadrons you claim were using the 100 octane. After all, action in that area is right in the front line and by your standards most likely to have the fuel.

Unles of course you can prove that they were not using the fuel which reminds me, to do that you need to prove which 16 squadrons or stations were using the fuel.

Any update?

I admit to not holding my breath

At the time 145 was based at Tangmere. Also based there were 43, 601 and the FIU. The FIU flew Blenheims so 100 fuel must have been available. It should also be noted that Tangmere was one of those stations listed in the Dec 7 1939 document http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/7dec39-100oct-issue.jpg

It shouldn't be that hard to identify those 16 squadrons should it Glider?;) So why the evasiveness in identifying these 16 squadrons by a certain party?

[lane]

I hope you guys are aware that the line "Emergency 5 mins.max." is related to "95°C" oil inlet temperature?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9589&stc=1&d=1337142966

This test certificate has a better layout: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787_test_certificate.jpg

The power curve is a simplified form of this graph: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9590&stc=1&d=1337143252
and most certainly only contains calculated values which were derived from certain reference values or were applied shorty under controlled conditions to determine the engine power.

Good post 41Sqn_Banks,

I concur that "Emergency 5 mins.max." on the Inspection and Test Certificates is related to "95°C" oil inlet temperature.

Unfortunately I haven't seen a power curve for the Merlin III similar to the one you posted for another type. My understanding is that the power curve figures shown on the Inspection and Test Certificates were obtained through bench testing. In the case of N.3171 the engine Inspection and Test Certificate is dated 9-6-39 whilst N.3171's first flight occured on 10-11-39. The A.&.A.E.E. report on N.3171 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html) notes:
"The engine installed in the aeroplane develops slightly less power under test bed conditions than that in K.9793, the aeroplane fitted with the 2-pitch airscrew. This could have the effect of reducing the top level speed by about 2 m.p.h. "
One can see that the power figures were not pulled from a chart given the differing powers obtained:

K.9703 Inspection and Test Certificate (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9793_Inspection_and_Test_Certificate.jpg)
N.3171 Inspection and Test Certificate (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171-test-certificate.jpg)

[Crumpp]

I doubt it would be just as likely.

Ok, your opinion is noted. What do you want me to do? Agree with you when I know it is not the case?

Overstress an engine and it might fail then and might fail later. The point being, it will fail and its life is significantly shortenend.

That memo is telling the pilots of the RAF that reality. Overstress the motor and it will fail. There is a good reason why it was a requirement to log the use and have the motor inspected to ensure some reasonable life was left in it.

[Crumpp]

I hope you guys are aware that the line "Emergency 5 mins.max." is related to "95°C" oil inlet temperature?


I know that banks.

The 1937 RAF training manual amends the RAF old definitions for engine ratings.

The only difference is the 1937 RAF Training Manual list's the system for take off purposes.

Chap II
75. Supercharged engines fitted with automatic boost control embodying an override for the take-off at maximum permissible boost, may have a separate control for for the override, or use the mixture control with a gate, or have a gate on the throttle for the same purpose. This override is invariably inter-connected with a mixture enrichening device on the carburetor, to suppress detonation.

[Crumpp]

One can see that the power figures were not pulled from a chart given the differing powers obtained:



There you go, they are testing the engines on a bench at boost over-ride on 87 Octane.

Everything in aviation related to the airworthiness is tightly controlled and must be specified. The Air Ministry documents the standards and conditions they expect their pilots to use down to the point of defining the standards they expect if a pilot violates the airworthiness standards in an life threatening emergency.

The RAF instructs its pilots to balance and evaluate risk before taking the risk of moving outside of the airworthiness instructions. From 1937 on, they are able to use boost override.

Without the specific mention of using +12, an anecdote that makes any reference to boost override, pulling the tit, boost cut out, or anything other term related to the system is irrelevant to the use of 100 Octane.

[lane]

This is what Dowding said about pulling the plug, boost cut out and +12 lb boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/dowding-1aug40-pg1.jpg

This is what the pilots were doing when Dowding wrote the memo.

P/O Bob Doe, 234 Squadron
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/234-doe.jpg

Geoffrey Wellum, 92 Squadron
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/92-wellum-pg147.jpg

P/O David Crook, 609 Squadron, 30 September 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/609-crook-p80.jpg

P/O K. W. MacKenzie, 501 Squadron, 5 October 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/501-mckenzie-pg50.jpg


In many cases pilots would note use of 12 lbs boost or emergency power in conjuction with pulling the plug/tit, thereby establishing a direct connection between the various expressions related to emergency power.

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

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

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

P/O Roger Hall, 152 Squadron, 4 September 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/152-hall-pg86.jpg

P/O G. Page, 56 Squadron, July 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/56-page-july40.jpg

In some cases, in different recounting of the same event, the pilots mentioned +12 lb. boost and boost cut-out/emergency interchangeably:

P/O Colin Gray (NZ), No. 54 Squadron, 25 May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-gray-25may40-2.jpg

P/O Colin Gray (NZ), No. 54 Squadron, 25 May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/54-gray-25may40.jpg


F/LT Brian Lane, 19 Squadron, 26 May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/19-lane-26may40-2.jpg

F/LT Brian Lane, 19 Squadron, 26 May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lane-26-5-40.jpg

[Glider]

Without the specific mention of using +12, an anecdote that makes any reference to boost override, pulling the tit, boost cut out, or anything other term related to the system is irrelevant to the use of 100 Octane.

Unless they are one of your 16 squadrons, after all, how can you prove they weren't. As I mentioned before following your logic they probably were.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Without the specific mention of using +12, an anecdote that makes any reference to boost override, pulling the tit, boost cut out, or anything other term related to the system is irrelevant to the use of 100 Octane.

The RAF training manual quote only mentions the use of boost control cut-out to obtain maximum permissible take-off boost. In case of the Merlin II/III this boost is +6.25 which is obtainable without cut-out.
The maximum permissible boost with 87 octane is documented since 1938 to be +6.25 and since January 1939 it is documented that in excess of this boost 100 octane must be used. The later documents are perfectly in line with the regulations.

This leaves the following explanations for the mentioning of use of boost control cut-out:
a) there was a failure in boost control and the cut-out is used to maintain a boost below +6.25, this doesn't provide any information about the fuel used as it could happen with 87 octane or 100 octane.
b) a boost in excess of +6.25 was used, either for take-off or combat/emergency, this is a proof for the use of 100 octane fuel or the proof for violating the maximum permissible boost.
c) a boost below +6.25 was used and the boost control was disabled without any logical reason and this boost was kept manually by the pilot below +6.25. Again no indicator for the fuel used.

Reason c) is highly unlikely as this would be a violation of the handling guidelines outlined in RAF Flying Training Manual ("This must only be used in emergency and not, in any circumstances, for ordinary flying, ... even if the correct boost is not exceeded") without any benefit.
In most cases reason a) can be ruled out by the context, in case of engine control failure the pilot would try to return to the airfield and avoid any combat and most certainly mention the engine troubles in the report.

So in the remaining cases the reported use of the cut-out is:
- proof for use of 100 octane fuel
- in the other case where 87 octane fuel was used the proof for overstepping of the regular maximum permissible boost. It shows that this was physically possible (or a breakdown of the engine or evidences for detonation would be reported in context) and in addition it was either permitted or tolerated by authority (or it would be reported as a violation in the context, e.g. I'd expect this to be mentioned as one possible reason here http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf).

In both cases it is a proof that the performance of the engine was increase. If this is true, this renders the whole 100 octane debate obsolete as pilots would simply use the increased power if necessary independent of the used fuel.

My understanding is that this is not true.

[pstyle]

Without the specific mention of using +12, an anecdote that makes any reference to boost override, pulling the tit, boost cut out, or anything other term related to the system is irrelevant to the use of 100 Octane.


wrong
It's not irrelevant. What you're claiming here is that every reference to those things, where there is no explicit mention of 12lb, means that we can be 100% certain that they were not referring to 12lb. This is illogical.

It's not proof of 12lb boost, but it is entirely relevant and should be investigated to determine if it is, or is not, a reference to 12lb boost, in each case.

[lane]

When using emergency boost pressures in excess of 6.25 lbs/sq.in. 100 octane was required, therefore if a pilot recorded use of emergency power it necessarily follows that the aircraft was fueled with 100 octane fuel.

Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III, January 1939 (thanks 41Sqn_Banks)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/Operational_Notes_for_Pilots_on_Merlin_II_and_III_ 2-January-1939.jpg

Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/pilots-notes-merlin3-pg6.jpg

Spitfires were cleared for use of 100 octane fuel for improved take-off in September 1938 just a month after the introduction of the type into service.

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

By 12 December 1939 100 octane fuel was approved for Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiants.
100 Octane Fuel - Issue of. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/12dec39-100octane-issue.pdf)

[pstyle]

seems like all you needed was a new set of plugs and a ground test to check smooth running when using the 100 too...

Sounds contradictory to the more doom-and-gloom scenarios presented by some thread participants...

[Crumpp]

The RAF training manual quote only mentions the use of boost control cut-out to obtain maximum permissible take-off boost.

That is true.

What does it have to do with the fact the system was used before 100 Octane was an issue?

If this is true, this renders the whole 100 octane debate obsolete as pilots would simply use the increased power if necessary independent of the used fuel.


Right. From the certificate we see that a higher boost above +6 1/2lbs was available using the system on 87 Octane.

We also have Operating Note instructions in the General Operating Notes that allow for its use.

I bet Dowding did see a large increase in motor failures.

[Crumpp]

seems like all you needed was a new set of plugs and a ground test to check smooth running when using the 100 too...


You really don't need to do anything to the engine to run 100 Octane fuel. The engine was made for 87 Octane and can run a higher knock limited performance fuel without penalty.

100 Octane has a higher lead content so changing plugs to one that are more resistant to fouling is not a bad idea.

The engine will not see any performance gains of the additional knock limited performance without modification as instructed by RAF. Those instructions to gain that performance benefit represent major modifications and inform when those major modifications where done. Those instructions have been posted ad-nauseum in this thread.

[bongodriver]

Just out of interest...did anyone realise the use of 'boost cut out' is only authorised for use in combat 'if' 100 octane fuel is used?, this shows that 'any' combat report showing the use of boost in combat confirms the use of 100 octane.

[JtD]

The automatic boost control cut out was intended as a emergency measure in case of automatic boost control failure, as 41Sqn_Banks post already indicated. This would be valid independent of fuel used. The procedure would be to cut the throttle, activate the cut out, and reopen throttle until the desired boost is reached. From then on, changes in speed and altitude would cause a change in boost, which could be controlled by change of throttle or engine rpm (supercharger rpm).

The use of as an emergency boost increase was a later practice. However, unless a report makes specific mention of abc failure, there's absolutely no reason to believe it was activated for anything but a 12lbs emergency boost any time 1940 or later.

[bongodriver]

The automatic boost control cut out was intended as a emergency measure in case of automatic boost control failure, as 41Sqn_Banks post already indicated. This would be valid independent of fuel used. The procedure would be to cut the throttle, activate the cut out, and reopen throttle until the desired boost is reached. From then on, changes in speed and altitude would cause a change in boost, which could be controlled by change of throttle or engine rpm (supercharger rpm).

The use of as an emergency boost increase was a later practice. However, unless a report makes specific mention of abc failure, there's absolutely no reason to believe it was activated for anything but a 12lbs emergency boost any time 1940 or later.

This exctract of pilots notes from NZTyphoons post seems explicit on fuel type.

[Crumpp]

The automatic boost control cut out was intended as a emergency measure in case of automatic boost control failure, as 41Sqn_Banks post already indicated. This would be valid independent of fuel used.

The can of worms was openend by the RAF General Pilot's notes authorizing the pilot to have the option to balance his risk.

It's use would also have to be recorded as it would be obvious to anyone who examined the aircraft controls.

There is no way to tell if a pilot using it was linked to fuel.

[JtD]

This exctract of pilots notes from NZTyphoons post seems explicit on fuel type.

I think this is purpose related - boost control cut out in order to increase performance. The boost control cut out as an emergency item has always been available, at least I haven't seen anything indicating Hurricanes did not have the cut out even when 100 octane fuel wasn't around. The March 39 pilot notes say that "it is intended for use should the automatic boost control fail in flight or should it be necessary in an emergency to override the automatic control for an increase of boost". First purpose would be there even if 87 octane fuel was used. I haven't seen earlier pilot notes.

[bongodriver]

So how exactly does it function? if it's a boost cut out control override how does it help if the boost cut out control has failed, surely a failed ABC is kinda overriden anyway?

[JtD]

I think there's this topic explaining how it works, at least it starts like that. (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29031&highlight=automatic+boost+control)

[41Sqn_Banks]

So how exactly does it function? if it's a boost cut out control override how does it help if the boost cut out control has failed, surely a failed ABC is kinda overriden anyway?

A failure of the the boost control influences the opening of the throttle valve. Thus the boost can get dangerously low or way to high. The boost control cut-out gives the pilot direct control over the throttle valve.

[NZtyphoon]

The can of worms was openend by the RAF General Pilot's notes authorizing the pilot to have the option to balance his risk.

It's use would also have to be recorded as it would be obvious to anyone who examined the aircraft controls.

There is no way to tell if a pilot using it was linked to fuel.

So tell us all Crumpp, how did the RAF manage to consume 52,000 gallons of 100 Octane fuel if only a select few frontline fighter units were supposed to use it? Are you going to tell us it wasn't actually consumed but went into and administrative black hole because it wasn't actually 100 octane fuel (recognised because it was green and smelled funny) but converted back to something else and poured back into reserves was it?

What exactly was your explanation and please don't tell me to go back in the thread and look because I know you have never explained this properly.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Considering those test certificate shown earlier (one issues back in '37) clearly stating that the test engines, even using 87 octane fuel was capable of over 10 1/2 lbs boost at 3000rpm and would give about 200 extra horsepower (at the expence of engine wear and possible failure at some point) at those settings, is there any wonder that in combat situations some of the pilots would try to use it?

Even going so far (before the official modification and the introduction of 100 octane fuel) as modifying their boost cutout controls with match sticks to obtain that extra performance.

I'm sure it was the same for pilots on both sides of the Channel.

[Seadog]

Considering those test certificate shown earlier (one issues back in '37) clearly stating that the test engines, even using 87 octane fuel was capable of over 10 1/2 lbs boost at 3000rpm and would give about 200 extra horsepower (at the expence of engine wear and possible failure at some point) at those settings, is there any wonder that in combat situations some of the pilots would try to use it?

Even going so far (before the official modification and the introduction of 100 octane fuel) as modifying their boost cutout controls with match sticks to obtain that extra performance.

I'm sure it was the same for pilots on both sides of the Channel.

No, the engine couldn't run at 10.5lb boost with 87 octane fuel. The story about the pilot modding his engine with a match stick pertained to a Merlin III using 100 octane fuel and an unauthorised mod to obtain 16lb boost at low altitude Here's the some info on the use of 100 octane for development at RR:

RR was using 100 octane fuel for testing and development from 1937 onward:

Appendix IV

The Merlin and 100 Octane Fuel

Questions have been asked on the early use of 100 octane fuel and in particular on its influence during the Battle of Britain. Until 1937 the Merlin had been confined to 87 octane fuel to DTD230, because it was felt that in the event of war 100 octane. which was being developed by the Americans, might not be available to the British. This anxiety arose from the American Neutrality Act. which could prevent supplies being shipped to this country. Probably as the result of a paper by Rod Banks in January 1937, the Air Ministry agreed to proceed with engine development to take advantage of high octane fuel.

At that time the American 100 octane did not suit the Merlin because it lacked a good rich mixture response. Esso undertook the development of a suitable fuel, using 10% aromatics, and the driving force behind this was Dr Bill Sweeney whose fuel mix became known as Sweeney's Blend. Three months before the start of the war an Esso tanker Beaconhill delivered a full cargo of the special 100 octane fuel to Britain and by March 1940 the decision had been taken to switch Fighter Command to this type. Bomber Command changed over early in 1941.

The effect of 100 octane was to allow the Merlin to run at 12lb boost putting up the power of the Merlin III from just over 1000 hp to 1300 hp. However, this high power was obtained at between 8 000 and 9 000 ft and above this altitude, at a max combat power rpm of 3000, the boost and, therefore. power advantage was progressively declining. On 87 octane fuel and 6lb boost, using 3 000 rpm, the maximum power was 1030 hp at 16 000 ft. At this point on either fuel the engine was giving the same power, so above this height 100 octane fuel offered no advantage. The majority of the air fighting in the Battle of Britain was at 18 000 ft and above and the engine in most common use was the Merlin III. The gain in performance from 100 octane was entirely at lower altitudes. Before the end of the Battle Spitfire IIs with Merlin XIIs were in service, with the supercharger gear ratio increased from 8.58 to 9.09:1 giving a better full throttle height at 12lb boost and a small number of Hurricane IIs fitted with two-speed Merlin XXs. with ratios of 8.15 and 9.49:1 for MS and FS gear, these engines could take much greater advantage of 100 octane fuel and in the case of the Merlin XX were capable of maintaining 12lb boost to over 20 000 ft at 3 000 rpm, thanks to the new central entry supercharger.

This set the pattern and without 100 octane fuel the further power development of the Merlin would not have been possible. As an example the two stage blown Merlin 66 was capable of over 1600 hp at 16000 ft using 3000 rpm and 181b boost. The pioneering work of Esso to produce a suitable 100 octane fuel was the key to the high power Merlins in all spheres of operation and it was not until 1944 when 150 grade fuel became available that further advances in boost pressure to 25lb were made, allowing over 2 000 hp to be used in squadron service.

The opening paragraphs of this appendix are the result of information supplied to Michael Evans, Chairman of the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust by Alexander Ogston, Historian of the Wings Club in New York, who has had a lifetime in fuel technology and a conversation which I had with Rod Banks shortly before his death.

The Merlin in Perspective, p87.

as has been pointed out the boost over-ride needed to be modded to allow for greater than 6.25lb boost, and this was only done when 100 octane fuel was used.

[41Sqn_Banks]

as has been pointed out the boost over-ride needed to be modded to allow for greater than 6.25lb boost, and this was only done when 100 octane fuel was used.

This is not correct. In the unmodified condition there was no restriction of the maximum boost when the boost control cut-out was used, thus the boost could be increased to about +17 lbs at full throttle at sea level.

See:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9617&stc=1&d=1337242614
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg

[NZtyphoon]

Having found a 1942 (?) copy of R A Beaumont Aeronautical Engineering: A Practical Guide for Everyone Connected with the Aero Industry (modern reprint http://www.pitstop.net.au/view/aviation-general/page/query/plu/23199) it's interesting to read what he says about the "four degrees (types) of boost" used by British aero engines:

(1) Take-off Boost - ...an additional amount of induction-pipe pressure....accompanied by an extra richening of the mixture which prevents an unstable combustion termed detonation...(p. 105)

(2) The Rated Boost - often known as maximum climbing boost....boost pressure is reduced to a value which permits the engine to run continuously at that particular power output...(p. 105-106)

(3)Override Boost - For the greatest possible power output for take-off or emergency, an increase in pressure above the normal take-off boost is permitted on some engines. This condition is used in conjunction with a special fuel. (p. 106)

(4) Maximum Cruising Boost....

Thus it is specifically stated that override or emergency boost was used only in conjunction with a fuel that permitted the higher boost rating.

[Ernst]

Acctualy the SIM should be: SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE: CLIFFS OF DOVER. :o I almost sure the right the devs must go to BoM. At least no spitfires there. Most of data here come only from two sources: spitfireperformance.com or from Kurfurst site. I am almost sure that the DEVS had other data, maybe from URSS evaluations of the SPITS and 109s that not exactly match the data presented here.

[Crumpp]

No, the engine couldn't run at 10.5lb boost with 87 octane fuel. The story about the pilot modding his engine with a match stick pertained to a Merlin III using 100 octane fuel and an unauthorised mod to obtain 16lb boost at low altitude Here's the some info on the use of 100 octane for development at RR:


No Seadog, it was possible as we can see from the Operating Notes. I am sure that engine was trashed after overboosting to +16lbs but it was definately possible on 87 Octane fuel.

It definately was not good but it was possible. Pulling the tit and overboosting the engine is not proof of the use of 100 Octane fuel.

[Seadog]

This is not correct. In the unmodified condition there was no restriction of the maximum boost when the boost control cut-out was used, thus the boost could be increased to about +17 lbs at full throttle at sea level.

See:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9617&stc=1&d=1337242614
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg

Thus the boost override could not be used in the unmodded condition since it would cause almost instant engine destruction, which is a very bad thing for pilots to do during combat...It was only after 100 octane was used that the boost override became a useful adjunct to increase low altitude performance.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Thus the boost override could not be used in the unmodded condition since it would cause almost instant engine destruction, which is a very bad thing for pilots to do during combat...It was only after 100 octane was used that the boost override became a useful adjunct to increase low altitude performance.

Indeed. Though it was possible to use the cut-out without modification and without 100 octane, this was only allowed in case of failure of the boost control. It is clearly not allowed during combat situations. The Merlin engine manual is pretty clear about this and even put an emphasize on this restriction, as posted already:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9605&stc=1&d=1337196053

[Seadog]

No Seadog, it was possible as we can see from the Operating Notes. I am sure that engine was trashed after overboosting to +16lbs but it was definately possible on 87 Octane fuel.

It definately was not good but it was possible. Pulling the tit and overboosting the engine is not proof of the use of 100 Octane fuel.

read:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/rcw-pg6.jpg

The above story clearly pertains to an engine that was already modded for 12lb boost (and thus using 100 octane) and the match stick mod permit boost up to 18lb, and it has already been established that Hurricanes in France were using 100 octane fuel by May 1940.

Maximum boost with 87 octane was 7lb:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit2pnfs3.jpg

[klem]

Acctualy the SIM should be: SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE: CLIFFS OF DOVER. :o I almost sure the right the devs must go to BoM. At least no spitfires there. Most of data here come only from two sources: spitfireperformance.com or from Kurfurst site. I am almost sure that the DEVS had other data, maybe from URSS evaluations of the SPITS and 109s that not exactly match the data presented here.

Well a key point about the spitfireperformance website is it gives us data collected at the time in reports written at the time. It is unlikely that Russian test organisations would have got any nearer to the true performance figures than the companies building the aircraft and engines and their prime user the RAF and its test organisations.

[Al Schlageter]

Did the Russians ever get any Spitfire Mk1s and/or MkIIs? They did get Mk Vs and MkIXs.

IvanK supplied most, if not all, of the data for the DEVS.

Great posts Seadog.

[NZtyphoon]

Pulling the tit and overboosting the engine is not proof of the use of 100 Octane fuel.

Wrong - there are two engine tests, one on 87 Octane and one on 100 which both ran up to 10.5 lbs boost - there was no boost override used which, as Beaumont observed, required special fuel - ie: 100 Octane - to achieve. Later Merlin engines, such as the 45 series, were capable of boost override of +18 lbs but needed, and were designed to use, 100 Octane to do so. Later still +25 lbs boost could only be achieved using 150 Octane.

[Crumpp]

It is clearly not allowed during combat situations.

Where does it clearly say that?

It does not, the General Operating Notes clearly say he can use it.

[bongodriver]

Where does it clearly say that?

It does not, the General Operating Notes clearly say he can use it.

Yes but only with 100 octane.

p.s. who did you quote?

[NZtyphoon]

Where does it clearly say that?

It does not, the General Operating Notes clearly say he can use it.

Read the Merlin Operating notes again; "It is emphasised that high boost for emergency may only be employed with 100 Octane fuel..."

The Pilot's Notes General were to be be used in conjunction with the aircraft's Pilot's Notes, and with any limitations pasted into those notes using supplementary slips, and with the Merlin Engine operating notes: the Pilot's Notes General were never specific to any particular aircraft type.

[Seadog]

No Seadog, it was possible as we can see from the Operating Notes. I am sure that engine was trashed after overboosting to +16lbs but it was definately possible on 87 Octane fuel.

It definately was not good but it was possible. Pulling the tit and overboosting the engine is not proof of the use of 100 Octane fuel.

Pulling the boost override with 87 octane would be equivalent to committing suicide; even if the engine didn't fail immediately, it would lose power due to premature detonation. Why in God's name would any sane pilot "pull the plug" if it resulted in loss of performance?

Yet, in all the combat reports of the pilots pulling the plug, the aircraft responded with increased performance; there are no reports where the engine began to suffer detonation and/or failed...:rolleyes:

[Kurfürst]

... will it make 2000? :D

http://i.imgur.com/ff3lu.gif

[Ernst]

Well a key point about the spitfireperformance website is it gives us data collected at the time in reports written at the time. It is unlikely that Russian test organisations would have got any nearer to the true performance figures than the companies building the aircraft and engines and their prime user the RAF and its test organisations.

Yes, but the companies wants to sell the aircrafts. That tests were made with unique prepared aircrafts for sure. A front line fighter would perform different. Some aircraft were easier to maintain and repair and were most of time more "combat ready" and "trimmed" than others, or even the perfomance downgrade by wearing should be much less. Even the way the aircraft is painted or waxed made a big difference in performance. Do you think 30km/h or 60 km/h should be a great difference? An 110 nightfighter with 52 victories, named Martin Drewes, stated that it was possible to fly 30km/h faster if they do not wax their aircraft or even removing the camouflage. He says: Better to fly faster than have a better looking aircraft.

Conclusion: There are many variables in the performance showed in this tests. For sure that aircraft were prepared or used advantageous methods of analysis to match the performance requiriments in the contracts. Problaby if an aircraft had more difficult mainentance in front line it ll be most of time deviated from that "original" performance.

[klem]

Yes, but the companies wants to sell the aircrafts. That tests were made with unique prepared aircrafts for sure. A front line fighter would perform different. Some aircraft were easier to maintain and repair and were most of time more "combat ready" and "trimmed" than others, or even the perfomance downgrade by wearing should be much less. Even the way the aircraft is painted or waxed made a big difference in performance. Do you think 30km/h or 60 km/h should be a great difference? An 110 nightfighter with 52 victories, named Martin Drewes, stated that it was possible to fly 30km/h faster if they do not wax their aircraft or even removing the camouflage. He says: Better to fly faster than have a better looking aircraft.

Conclusion: There are many variables in the performance showed in this tests. For sure that aircraft were prepared or used advantageous methods of analysis to match the performance requiriments in the contracts. Problaby if an aircraft had more difficult mainentance in front line it ll be most of time deviated from that "original" performance.

Most of the tests were undertaken by the RAE, the bona fide testing organisation for the British Airforce testing on behalf of the government, these were not "manufacturer's tests". Manufacturer's test results were not the way aircraft gained approval. The RAF would not have accepted aircraft designs without the RAE's input and it was not in the RAF/Air Ministry's interest to generate false results when they were trying to determine the capabilities of their fighters to defend the country. These were production standard aircraft. Yes they may have been fairly new but where would you like them to have started? With clapped out front line aircraft?

As for wax/no wax/wear/trimmed etc., how would you like 1C to set up the Spitfires and Hurricanes, oh, and of course, the 109s? Worn/degraded to 90% performance? Or do you want 100% condition 109s and 85% condition RAF aircraft?

1C can only begin by assuming production standard aircraft, take data from genuine contemporary tests and use that. If they want to model in wear thats fine. For Axis aircraft too of course.

Some of these arguments are becoming ridiculous.

[KG26_Alpha]

Pulling the boost override with 87 octane would be equivalent to committing suicide; even if the engine didn't fail immediately, it would lose power due to premature detonation. Why in God's name would any sane pilot "pull the plug" if it resulted in loss of performance?

Yet, in all the combat reports of the pilots pulling the plug, the aircraft responded with increased performance; there are no reports where the engine began to suffer detonation and/or failed...:rolleyes:

Probably because they never had the good fortune to make a combat report.

:rolleyes:

The ridiculous arguments are valid of course, as everyone has thier opinion of how it should be in CoD.

None of it matters because as soon as the RAF get 100 octane there will be a new axe to grind here.

Most likely ammunition effectiveness with a forum full of graphs and charts showing pretty much what we have now,
peoples opinions on how CoD should be.


Carry On



:)



.

[Skoshi Tiger]

No, the engine couldn't run at 10.5lb boost with 87 octane fuel.


I was just going by those test certificate posted previously. Noting in the documents stated that their power curve had been extrapolated, So I can only assume that the figures were obtained by testing.



The story about the pilot modding his engine with a match stick pertained to a Merlin III using 100 octane fuel and an unauthorised mod to obtain 16lb boost at low altitude


I stand corrected.

Cheers!

[Skoshi Tiger]

Yet, in all the combat reports of the pilots pulling the plug, the aircraft responded with increased performance; there are no reports where the engine began to suffer detonation and/or failed...:rolleyes:

Could that be that when the pilots 'pulled the plug' the boost was still at a level before detonation occurs.

One of the pilot stories (show in this thread) before did mention black smoke comming from the exhaust and the plane vibrating a lot. Sound like he was pushing it a bit too far. But none of the others mentioned it.

[TomcatViP]

Well, I can found dozens of 70+ smokers that did not get any Cancers and makes them testify about how safe was the cigarettes for them.

Would you then believe that Smoking is good for your health ?

[NZtyphoon]

Probably because they never had the good fortune to make a combat report.

The ridiculous arguments are valid of course, as everyone has thier opinion of how it should be in CoD.


Actually not a "ridiculous argument" because detonation would have been a serious possibility had pilots tried to use +12 lbs override boost with 87 Octane, which did not have the anti-knock properties of 100 Octane. The engine might not have failed right away but it would certainly have been damaged and the pilot given a boot up the backside by the mechanics.

This is one of the absurdities of Crumpp's argument that somehow most of the Merlins used in frontline fighters during the Battle of Britain were restricted to using 87 Octane fuel - Hugh Dowding would not have been complaining to all Groups, Stations and Squadrons about pilots overusing +12 lbs boost, he would have been reminding pilots to never use +12 lbs boost under any circumstances, unless they belonged to the select few units permitted to use 100 Octane and +12 lbs boost.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWKRw0HmBLE

[Seadog]

Could that be that when the pilots 'pulled the plug' the boost was still at a level before detonation occurs.

One of the pilot stories (show in this thread) before did mention black smoke comming from the exhaust and the plane vibrating a lot. Sound like he was pushing it a bit too far. But none of the others mentioned it.


Prior to the 12lb mod/100 octane, if you pulled the boost override you would get 18lb boost up to about 5000ft, 16 lb boost to about 7500ft, 12 lb boost to about 11000ft and 7lb boost at ~17500ft. 7lb was the maximum permissible with 87 octane so the altitude range that it would be beneficial is very restricted; below that altitude power would be reduced because detonation would occur, engine would no longer run smoothly and the engine would quickly fail altogther. The only way that the boost override would be beneficial would be if it had a mod to restrict the additional boost to ~7lb, but of course this would only result in a very modest power increase, and this mod was never done.

AFAIK, the 109E was limited to 7lb boost as well (1.4 ATA) when using 87 octane.

[TomcatViP]

That's a poor argument.

The DB of the 109 had far more cylinder volume than the Merlin.

RR did ran the Boost horse simply because that was the way they had to go against the DB. Latter in the war they might also hve understood the huge advantage they had in therm materials of quality.

My old 2L Swedish SAAB engine had as much power than an average 5+L US V8 without supercharger .... But a 2+bar boost level.

I hope you will understand that way

The boost level in German plane is more linked to the lack of Nickel in their engine material. They had to build thicker internal surface and build bigger eng in order to run their eng at a lower temperature.

This has nothing to do with a comparison with the Merlin.

Interestingly, if we do compare the application of aviation engine in tanks, we might show that reciprocally, the bigger German eng where more reliable in that application. But honestly this is pure speculation.

[KG26_Alpha]

Actually not a "ridiculous argument"

It was with reference to Klems post

I said they were valid.

[camber]

Prior to the 12lb mod/100 octane, if you pulled the boost override you would get 18lb boost up to about 5000ft, 16 lb boost to about 7500ft, 12 lb boost to about 11000ft and 7lb boost at ~17500ft. 7lb was the maximum permissible with 87 octane so the altitude range that it would be beneficial is very restricted; below that altitude power would be reduced because detonation would occur, engine would no longer run smoothly and the engine would quickly fail altogther. The only way that the boost override would be beneficial would be if it had a mod to restrict the additional boost to ~7lb, but of course this would only result in a very modest power increase, and this mod was never done.

AFAIK, the 109E was limited to 7lb boost as well (1.4 ATA) when using 87 octane.

Exactly right as I understand it Seadog. Although I would add one proviso...the boosts you mention are at maximum throttle. There would be nothing to stop a pilot pulling the boost override and adjusting his throttle handle (which is now directly linked to the actual throttle valve) to get a desired boost. So the pilot could possibly get some more performance, say by adjusting to +7psi where before he was stuck on +61/4 psi. Boost is no longer controlled, so if he dived to a lower altitude the boost will rise on it's own and possibly damage the engine. No wonder it was not an approved way of getting combat power on 87 octane...the gain was probably modest, the risk of misuse large. Whether or not it was used unofficially is open to conjecture.

Good point about the 109E, 1.45 ata is about +6.6psi boost. So I disagree Tomcat, it appears on 87 octane both the DB601 and Merlin were restricted by the maximum usable boost avoiding fuel predetonation..not by engine design paramaters or materials.

I am still intrigued by the engine test bed report apparently stating figures of 12500 feet, ~10.5psi boost and 1300bhp. But whether these are calculated figures, an engine tested with 100 octane, whether intake pressure was actually set to 12500 ft equivalent etc. does not appear to be available. Interesting to know what would happen if in a 87 octane Spit pre BCCO mod if you pulled the cutout and progressively raised boost above 6 1/4 psi. At what boost points would:
1) predetonation be detected
2) bhp start to decrease with increased boost (due to predetonation)
3) Significant loss of engine life occur
4) High risk of rapid engine failure.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Where does it clearly say that?

"it is emphasized that the high boost for emergency may only be employed with 100 octane fuel"


It does not, the General Operating Notes clearly say he can use it.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9608&d=1337207418

"Clearly say ..." we obviously have a different understanding what clearly means.

That's what I call clearly:
January 1939: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9170&d=1334682385
"100 octane must be used"

March 1940: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg
"100 octane must be used"

April 1940: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/pilots-notes-merlin3-pg6.jpg
"100 octane ... must be used"

November 1940: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9605&d=1337196053
"only be employed with 100 octane fuel"

June 1941: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9180&d=1334727256
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9181&d=1334727263
"only of 100 octane fuel is in the tanks"

[NZtyphoon]

Well let's see now the reality.

Tanker losses to all causes, I have gathered a total of 78(!!) tankers were sunk by mine, U-boot (typically), aircraft and raiders, between September 1939 and November 1940. About 90% of them were British, though there are a couple of Swedish, Dutch, French etc. tankers

I have them by name, date, cause of loss, route, cargo, tonnage and so on. For example indeed one tanker that went through Halifax, Inverdagle (9456 tons) was sunk by mines laid by the submarine U 34, with 12 500 tons of avgas - about a month worth consumption of 100 octane, though I am not sure what grade it actually carried - on the 16 January 1940....

Alltogether 558,260 GRT of tankers went to Davy Jones locker, by the end of November 1940, along with 385,957 tons of oil product. Half of that, ca. 243 000 GRT worth of tankers were sunk by the end May 1940.

Fuel oil was the greatest loss, 116 000 tons of it went down with tankers (luckily, no green peace back then). Avgas seems quite untypical as a load, but in the end it didn't really matter, because if a tanker sunk with diesel oil, or even empty, the next one had to haul about its cargo again.

Tanker losses were serious, unfortunately.

33rd Weekly Report Oil Position 23 April 1940 showing out of 242 Norwegian tankers 119 had been bought under Allied control, with 18 heading to Allied ports and the other 93 in neutral ports, or heading into neutral ports, the 119 brought under Allied control more than making up for the total tanker loss for the entire war period September 1939 to November 1940:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/OilPosition33rdweekly23April1940-page-004.jpg



So disprove the statement of Pips. Since you misrepresent his position, I put it forward to you in its originality:

This is from a researcher, researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives, from a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance. It was a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report titled Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War.

The reason why it is included amongst AWM papers is because the Australian Government at that time was protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

The first bulk shipment of 100 octane fuel had arrived in Britain in June 1939 from the Esso refinery in Aruba. This and subsequent tanker shipments from Aruba, Curacao and the USA were stockpiled while the RAF continued to operate on 87 octane petrol. Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.

Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.

The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940.


"The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel"

1st Monthly Oil Position Report July 1940 ( Dated 6 August 1940)

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/FirstMonthlyOilReportJuly1940-page-002.jpg

Table from 1st Monthly Oil Report July 1940: Consumption: Read in conjunction with attachment 1:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/FirstMonthlyOilReportJuly1940-page-005.jpg

Table from 1st Monthly Report July 1940; Stocks dropped by 15,000 tons April-May then increased by 12,000 tons to June:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/FirstMonthlyOilReportJuly1940-page-006.jpg

Table from 33rd Weekly Oil Position Report 23 April 1940 showing 100 Octane fuel being stockpiled in the UK and overseas; "West of Suez" - France springs to mind.
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/OilPosition33rdweekly23April1940-page-006.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/shacklady100octane_2revised.jpg

Oil Position 5th Monthly Report November 1940:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/OilPosition5thmonthlyNovember1940-page-004-1.jpg

[Crumpp]

Could that be that when the pilots 'pulled the plug' the boost was still at a level before detonation occurs.



Absolutely. They could have easily "pulled the plug" to achieve any boost they desired once the override was on.

"The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel"


Why don't they just say "all aircraft" instead of specifying just modified ones? All aircraft should be modified, right??

Table from 33rd Weekly Oil Position Report 23 April 1940 showing 100 Octane fuel being stockpiled overseas "West of Suez" - France springs to mind.


What is the asterisk note and the bottom about? Can you show the whole document?

The last time you started talking about stockpiles in France, it was in reference to a report projecting fuel stocks for future war.

Now your saying West of the Suez means France? Heck, it could mean Cleveland Ohio or maybe Hornchurch, too?

Considering that they were shipping troops to begin the Desert War I would imagine that is a future projection of their needs for aviation fuel. The first British troops went on the offensive on 11 June 1940 in North Africa.

[Crumpp]

"Clearly say ..." we obviously have a different understanding what clearly means.


It is right there, you highlighted it. The RAE opened the can of worms and gave their pilots license to violate the airworthiness of the aircraft:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4287/ap20952nd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/220/ap20952nd0.jpg/)


Camber says:
There would be nothing to stop a pilot pulling the boost override and adjusting his throttle handle

Exactly. We also see two things the give insight into the state of mind of Fighter Command.

1. First from the fuel committee meetings the confusion on exactly what must be done to modify the engine. I don't know if you have taken Organizational Behavior in college but if there is confusion at the top of any organization, there is even more confusion at the bottom of it. Even with a clear vision at the top, it is a process to get that vision communicated and enacted at the bottom. The larger the organization, the longer the lag time and more difficult the process.

Secondly, we see Dowding's memo warning the pilots about the dangers of overboosting. You can bet Dowding did not sit around wondering what to do that day and just decided to fill his time writing a memo about overboosting destroying engines. "Squeaky wheel gets the grease", that memo came about because his maintenance and logistics people complained if it does not change there could be consequences that effect their ability to keep his planes flying.

That memo was printed because they felt was a problem with pilots "pulling the plug" before they properly balanced the risk.

[NZtyphoon]

Why don't they just say "all aircraft" instead of specifying just modified ones? All aircraft should be modified, right??

This is one of the amazing inconsistencies about the Pips memo - according to this By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. a mere 25% of the fighter force - supposedly 125 fighters - caused such a high strain on 100 octane fuel supplies that all further conversions were stopped and the RAF ordered that 87 Octane fuel be the primary fuel.

Question is if 125 fighters can put a huge strain on reserves of 263,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel (as of 18 April - see Table 33rd Weekly Oil Report) , what kind of a strain are the other 475 fighters, plus all the other aircraft using 87 Octane going to put on the reserves of 327,000 tons of "Other grades" of fuel? This hasn't to my knowledge been commented on before, but it is patently ridiculous to state that 125 fighters put any kind of a strain on 263,000 tons of 100 Octane: then, on top of that, to insist the RAF decided to put even greater strain on the "Other Grades" stockpile beggers belief.


What is the asterisk note and the bottom about? Can you show the whole document? Take a look at the extreme RH side of table i (b) Weeks' supplys showing how long it was estimated the current stocks would last based on average consumption, and assuming no more supplies were shipped in.

This is the rest of the document:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/OilPosition33rdweekly23April1940-page-002.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/OilPosition33rdweekly23April1940-page-004.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/OilPosition33rdweekly23April1940-page-010.jpg


The last time you started talking about stockpiles in France, it was in reference to a report projecting fuel stocks for future war.

Nonsense, the documents showed quite clearly how much fuel was already in France (attached) and other papers in the series showed the projected requirements.


Now your saying West of the Suez means France? Heck, it could mean Cleveland Ohio or maybe Hornchurch, too?
Yeah right, use a bit of common sense because in April 1940 the Italians had yet to declare war, so the Mediterranean and Africa were not war theatres, nor were there any aircraft using 100 octane fuel based in those areas and, contrary to your unproven speculation, fighters based in France were using 100 octane fuel, while some Hurricanes had been active in Norway. Not forgetting the Blenheim IVs of 2 Group and the BEF.


Considering that they were shipping troops to begin the Desert War I would imagine that is a future projection of their needs for aviation fuel. The first British troops went on the offensive on 11 June 1940 in North Africa.

This is just pure speculation on your part - there is absolutely nothing in the paper talking about "future needs, projections" or any other such language.

[Seadog]

Note: these examples are all from May 1940.

Here's an example of 12lb boost at low altitude:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lane-26-5-40.jpg

here's another:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/bushell.html

note here that the pilot is using "full" 12lb boost and he has noted that he was at 5000-6000ft.

and another:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/bushell.html

again at 5 -6000ft and again with 'full' 12lb boost

The idea that that they were using 12lb boost with 87 octane fuel could only be conceived by someone who desperately wants to avoid the truth.

[Kurfürst]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/OilPosition33rdweekly23April1940-page-004.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/FirstMonthlyOilReportJuly1940-page-002.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/FirstMonthlyOilReportJuly1940-page-005.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/FirstMonthlyOilReportJuly1940-page-006.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/OilPosition33rdweekly23April1940-page-006.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/shacklady100octane_2.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/OilPosition5thmonthlyNovember1940-page-004.jpg

[Seadog]

[QUOTE=Kurfürst;427304]

and your point is?

[Crumpp]

Nonsense, the documents showed quite clearly how much fuel was already in France (attached) and other papers in the series showed the projected requirements.


Your document says absolutely nothing about fuel "in" France. It talks about requirements and estabilishments.

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3884/aasffuelstocks7may40.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/aasffuelstocks7may40.jpg/)

[Glider]

Present Establishment is what they currently are authorised to have plus they need an additional 200,000 gallons. In the same way the additional guards are an extra establishment. The current guards would be described as the present establishment

If we follow your logic then the RAF in France had no fuel of any description because you are turning all the current fuel (present establishment) into future requirements.

[Kurfürst]

[QUOTE=Kurfürst;427304]

and your point is?

Cynicism.

[Seadog]

[QUOTE=Crumpp;427314]Your document says absolutely nothing about fuel "in" France. It talks about requirements and estabilishments.

Why would they require a fuel that they aren't using?

Are you now claiming that UK technology was so far in advance of the Germans that RAF fighters could use 12lb boost with 87 octane fuel? We have clear and unequivocal use of 12lb boost over France in May 1940...

According to your line of reasoning It's no wonder that Galland begged for a squadron of Spitfires...

[Al Schlageter]

We are still waiting for the list of the 16 squadrons that were the only squadrons using 100 octane fuel and 12lb boost in Sept 1940.

We are still waiting for an explanation on how the RAF consumed ~50,000 ton of 100 octane fuel during the BoB, despite the claimed shortage of said fuel.

[CWMV]

[QUOTE=Crumpp;427314]

According to your line of reasoning It's no wonder that Galland begged for a squadron of Spitfires...

You do know he was being sarcastic just to get at goering right?
I see some people who actually believe galland wanted spits which is just not the case.

[bongodriver]

No he wasn't, he was sick of those little girlie 109's and wanted a mans aeroplane :)

[Seadog]

[QUOTE=Seadog;427330]

You do know he was being sarcastic just to get at goering right?
I see some people who actually believe galland wanted spits which is just not the case.

Crump/Kurfurst believe that the Merlin could run at 12lb boost on 87 octane fuel with greatly improved performance. If their thesis is correct, and Galland also knew this, then, of course, he would have tried to light a fire under Goering's butt.

[Kurfürst]

Son, you have had some issues expressing a coherent thought of your own, so I guess you should fix that before lending a hand and tell what others believe.. ;)

[Seadog]

Just what do you believe?

It's hard to keep track.

We know that Hurricane/Spitfire pilots were pulling 12lb boost over France in May 1940, and we also know that you are "cynical" about the RAF using 100 octane fuel in that time frame...so it seems that you must believe that the Merlin could run at 12lb boost on 87 octane fuel.

[Glider]

Kurfurst
Just so there isn't any confusion what is your belief re 100 Octane in France?

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst
Just so there isn't any confusion what is your belief re 100 Octane in France?

AFAIK Hurricane Squadrons used it, not that it helped them that much, given the results of the campaign. I don't think it has any relevance for BoB, given that all the fuel in France was either destroyed by the British or captured by the Germans.

[bongodriver]

are you saying all available 100 octane was lost in France?

[Kurfürst]

Obviously no, it's what you are suggesting.

What I am suggesting is that the fact that some Squadrons were using it over France is irrelevant until we know how and if they were supplied with 100 octane fuel once their remnants returned to England.

[bongodriver]

it's what you are suggesting.



Where does that failed logic come from? I suggested nothing...merely asked a question.

until we know how and if they were supplied with 100 octane fuel once their remnants returned to England.

How and if are redundant questions, if it was available in France then it 'will' have been available on the homeland, if Hurricanes were already using it then they would have continued to do so, there is no evidence of any retrograde steps in that area.

[JtD]

If they were using 87 Octane in the BoB, a tiny bit of evidence should have turned up by now. Instead we have a lawyer doing the Chewbacca defence.

[fruitbat]

If they were using 87 Octane in the BoB, a tiny bit of evidence should have turned up by now. Instead we have a lawyer doing the Chewbacca defence.

:grin:

[TomcatViP]

I think your answer might rely in what kind of fuel was available in France and how they might hve used 100oct as a blend substitute.

Regarding the result of the Brit exp corp during the Fr campaign, a recent study has shown tht they did outperform the French's Armée de l'air. And even if the nbr of plane shot down is a close match, it tells a lot about how things went wrong on the Fr side.

[Blackdog_kt]

I still fail to be convinced by either side in this. There's just too much conflicting evidence, couple that with personal interpretations and, in some cases, a "multiplayer advantage" agenda and it's a royal mess to keep track of :-P

That's why i still think the best way is to have all possible variants in the sim, especially since they will be the same 3d models (the only thing that would change is the engine parameters).

So when we open up our aircraft selection screen, we would have:

Spit Mk.Ia 87 oct
Spit Mk.Ia 100 oct
etc etc

Me 110 low octane
Me 110 high octane (DB 601N)

and so on.

Then the player can choose what they want to fly in single player and the server admins can choose what their campaign will depict. Even more importantly having both variants allows for better dynamic campaigns, both offline and online: if your fuel supplies get bombed your side has to fly on 87 octane until new shipments come by ship convoy, which would then be targeted by the opposition and epic fights would ensue protecting that AI ship convoy.

Apart from debating for the sake of historical scrutiny which i can understand, in terms of gameplay this issue is blown up way too much in my humble opinion. Give me both high and low octane versions of the flyables, a script to track fuel supplies and a whole lot of tactical and strategic possibilities open up.

Having just one version of the flyables no matter what is just a sterile representation: it's like modeling an air show piece, not an aircraft during war that depends on a host of other factors to operate at its peak ability.

If i bomb the enemy's fuel dumps and their aircraft are slower as result, i have an incentive to try it and the other team has an incentive to stop me. If the aircraft fly the same no matter what i bomb (because the "slow" version is not modeled), i have no incentive at all and we can all just hug the white cliffs of Dover and keep flying furballs on the deck until battle of Moscow comes out :-P

Nothing wrong with flying for fun, but why limit the possibilities of better dynamic campaigns by giving the mission designers less to work with? I don't get it, after all for the majority of pilots who get bounced +12 boost will not make much of a difference anyway. It's not the instant win button many think it is. It's just something to use on the climb out to an interception, or on a long chase at lower altitudes.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

The pilot's after action reports is enough proof IMHO that 100 oct was used.. Thus the only argument left is how widely it was in use..

But the fact that it was used at all is enough reason to include a 100 oct version of the planes in the game and leave it to the mission builders to decide.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I think we can fairly assume that 100 octane was used by at least a couple of squadrons in BoB in sufficient numbers to justify the addition of a 100 octane spit as an additional plane.

So that's for the wishes.

What I understand though is that the devs clearly said there won't be new planes for Cliffs of Dover so I have doubts that we will see it. As implementing an additional 100 octane Spit is the same work as modifying the existing one it won't matter imho.

[fruitbat]

I think we can fairly assume that 100 octane was used by at least a couple of squadrons in BoB in sufficient numbers to justify the addition of a 100 octane spit as an additional plane.



lol.

[Kurfürst]

If they were using 87 Octane in the BoB, a tiny bit of evidence should have turned up by now. Instead we have a lawyer doing the Chewbacca defence.

Actually we only have a handful of raffanatics doing the good old character assassination campaign, because they can't come up with anything better, mental or material, as they lack in both. ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I think we can fairly assume that 100 octane was used by at least a couple of squadrons in BoB in sufficient numbers to justify the addition of a 100 octane spit as an additional plane.

So that's for the wishes.
Based on the information presented in this thread alone I think it is safe to say it was far more than a couple!

Unlike the K4 fletner tab issue that Kurfust team trys promote and say all K4s had based on one picture of an assembly line of G models and an drawing of a K4 scribbled on a napkin.. When there are more than a half dozens of pictures of actul K4s with no fletner tabs.

What I understand though is that the devs clearly said there won't be new planes for Cliffs of Dover so I have doubts that we will see it. As implementing an additional 100 octane Spit is the same work as modifying the existing one it won't matter imho.
True, but the next sequal is the russian front, and the ruskies bought alot of spits from the Uk, so the devs could add this plane at that time. Not that it would be used on the russian front, but the current UK map will be part of the sequal, thus giving the mission makers a chance to make BoB missions in the comming sequal with 100 oct spits and hurries

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Based on the information presented in this thread alone I think it is safe to say it was far more than a couple!


May be so - I just retained from the discussion that 100 octane was used - and I got bored of the discussion if it was all or some squadrons - which would not change a bit of what I think :)

If the 100 octane was used on a regular basis it should be present. I wish to retain the 87 octaine spit because we might want to create pre BoB scenarii in the future (Dunkirque for instance) and it would be a shame to eliminate the 87 octane spit from the game which would prevent any historical mission for pre BoB scenarii.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

May be so - I just retained from the discussion that 100 octane was used - and I got bored of the discussion if it was all or some squadrons - which would not change a bit of what I think :)
I like you feel there is enough proof that it was used.. As I noted I think the only argument left is how widly it was used.. Which is where I left it, but since you decided to add the qualifier of 'a couple' I felt the need to point out that based on all the info presented here in this thread 'I' think it is safe to say it is 'far' more than a couple.. How far? Who knows and who really cares wrt to CoD and the comming sequal! I think most of the adults here would agree that there is enough proof to justify the addition of a 100 oct variant at some point, be it the next sequal or later.. For me the sooner the better

[Al Schlageter]

Even worse than the flettner tab is the 1.98ata boost for the K-4. Next to nil, nada, zilch documentation compared to what has been put forward for 100 octane fuel. The fantasy speculation even carrying over to the G-10s :rolleyes: