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

Kwiatek

04-01-2011, 09:12 AM

I moved it from another topic about FM issues in COD:

"So yor saying that normal full throttle boost in the mkII should be +9lb and +12lb when opening the boost gate? As of rigt now its only +9lb AFTER opening the boost gate...."

Exactly, correct terminology is selecting Boost Cut out to allow +12Lbs.

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/9174/spitiialimits.jpg

I am not sure if the devs are aware of Rotol versus DH spinner and blade profiles from 3D graphics point of view with respect the Spitfire. I will have a look myself and see.

Im not sure if power settings for 100 Octan fuel Merlin III which was used in SPitfire Mark 1 was +6 1/2 lbs ( nominal power ) and +12 lbs ( emergency power). It is possible that Merlin III with 100 octan fuel had different power settings - similar to Merlin XII ( Spitfire Mark II) and Merlin 45 early ( Spitfire Mark V)

Look at these document for Merlin III engine from 1940:

http://i53.tinypic.com/r0p095.jpg

IT doesnt look similar to Merlin XII which used also 100 octan fuel?

Also developers really dont care too much RL performacne of BoB planes ( Spitfire, Hurricane and 109). It is another their fault in these game. I just check COD manual with peformacne data for Spitfire, Hurricane and 109 where is very wrong data for these planes ( climb rate, maximum speeds and turn rate).

Here are some RL data for these planes:

Spitfire Mark I from BOB period ( CS propeller, aditional armour and windshield)

Here is speed with old power settings - +6 1/2 lbs and with new emergency power - + 12 lbs.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg

Spitfire MK1 climb rate at 6 1/2 lbs:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171climb.jpg

Spitfire turn rate at 6 1/2 lbs CSP:

http://i51.tinypic.com/2gspoc9.jpg

Hurricane MK1 from BOB peroid ( CS propeller, aditional armour, 100 octan fuel)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-level.jpg

Climb rate for Hurricane MK1 but without aditional armour and armoured winshield

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Climb-HRuch.png

For comparison climb rate at 6 1/2 lbs Hurricane withou armour and with aditional armour

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-climb-6lb.jpg

And the same with speed - Hurrciane MK1 without aditional armour

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png

( Hurricane from BOB peroid with aditional armour/ armoured windshield would be slowier)

Bf 109 E-3 with DB 601 Aa engine - 1.45 Ata emergency power:

D a t e n b l a t t Me 109.

A b m e s s u n g e n:

Spannweite 9,90 m

Gesamtlänge 8,76 m

Grösste Höhe 2,45 m

Flügelfläche 16,40 m

G e w i c h t e:

Zelle 650 kg
Triebwerk 1075 "
Ständige Ausrüstung 85 "
Zusätliche Ausrüstung 200 "
Rüstgewicht 2010 kg
Zuladung 530 kg
Fluggewicht 2540 kg

M o t o r l e i s t u n g:

1) Nennleistung 1100 PS in 3700 m Höhe
bei 2400 U/Min.
(5 min. Kurzleistung in 3700 m Höhe)

Erhöhte Dauerleistung 1050 PS in 4100 m Höhe
bei 2400 U/min
(30 Min.)

Dauerleistung 1000 PS in 4500 m Höhe

Sparsame Dauerleistung 970 PS in 3700 m Höhe
Bei 2250 U/Min.

2) Startleistung 1175 PS in 0 m Höhe
(zulässige Dauer 1 Min.)
bei 2500 U/Min.

3) Bodenleistung 1015 PS in 0 m Höhe
Kurzleistung (5 Min. Dauer)
bei 2400 U/Min.

Erhöhte Dauerleistung 950 PS in 0 m Höhe
(zulässige Dauer 30 Min.)
bei 2300 U/Min.

Dauerleistung 860 PS in 0 m Höhe
bei 2200 U/Min.

Speed:

Höchtsgeschwindigeit in 0 m 500 km/h
in 1000 m 510 "
in 2000 m 530 "
in 3000 m 540 "
in 4000 m 555 "
in 5000 m 570 "
in 6000 m 565 km/h
in 7000 m 560 km/h

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E_Bau_speed.png

Climb rate:

S t e i g z e i t e n.

Steigzeit auf 1000 m 1,0 Minuten
auf 2000 m 1,9 "
auf 3000 m 3,0 "
auf 4000 m 3,8 "
auf 5000 m 4,9 "
auf 6000 m 6,3 "

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E_Bau_climb.png

Turn rate :

These are, at Sea Level and at 6000 m, with and without deploying flaps to aid turning :

Without use of flaps :
at 0 m altitude - 170 m (557 feet), at 6000 m (19 685 feet) altitude - 320 m (1050 feet).

With use of flaps :
at 0 m altitude - 125 m (410 feet), at 6000 m (19 685 feet) altitude - 230 m (754 feet).

Similiar figures are given by a calculation by Messerschmitt AG on Bf 109E turn times and radius in an internal Messerschmitt report.

The calculation was based on a similiar set of data, but assumes the slightlly lower power output of the DB 601A-1 at 990 PS. Conditions in the calculation were 2540 kg weight, 990 PS output, an altitude of 0 m and no height loss. Under these conditions, the turning characteristics of the Bf 109E were as follows :

Turn time for 360 degrees: 18,92 seconds.
Turn radius for above turn: 203 m

Take note that the smallest turning radius and the best turning time do not occur at the same airspeed, which would

Further calculations were made for a diving turn of a descent rate of -50 m/sec, which would be equivalent translate to an overall power output

Turn time for 360 degrees in a -50m/sec diving turn : 11,5 seconds.
Turn radius for the -50m/sec diving turn above : 190 m

For comparison turn rate for Spitfire MK1, Hurricane MK1, 109 E-4

SPITFIRE Mk.I

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.2s 13.5s 14.7s -
Two 360s - 24.9s 28.2s 30.3s -

250mph
One 360 - 10.8s 12.8s 13.4s 14.1s
Two 360s - 24.4s 28.2s 29.9s 33.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 14.8s 16.0s 17.8s 20.8s
Full Flaps - 15.1s 16.4s 18.1s 21.8s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 125mph 125mph 125mph 120mph

Hawker Hurricane Mk I

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.1s 12.4s 13.6s -
Two 360s - 24.2s 25.3s 30.0s -

250mph
One 360 - 10.2s 11.7s 12.9s 15.0s
Two 360s - 23.6s 26.2s 28.5s 33.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 14.8s 16.4s 18.5s 22.1s
Full Flaps - 14.8s 16.6s 18.4s 22.2s
Best Flap - full full full full
Speed/best 105mph 105mph 100mph 100mph

Bf-109E-4

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.9s 13.4s 15.4s -
Two 360s - 29.4s 31.2s 35.0s -

250mph
One 360 - 12.9s 13.7s 15.5s 16.7s
Two 360s - 31.0s 32.4s 36.5s 41.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 18.0s 19.3s 21.2s 24.1s
Full Flaps - 19.0s 19.8s 21.7s 24.8s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 120mph 120mph 120mph 115mph

RL Data Speed for comparsion between Sptfire MK1 +12 lbs ( red) - Hurricane MK1 +12 lbs ( green) - 109 E-3 1.45 Ata ( black)

http://i56.tinypic.com/9qcrvb.jpg

And now for comparson data from COD:

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee494/JZG_Thiem/speed.jpg

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee494/JZG_Thiem/climb.jpg

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee494/JZG_Thiem/turn.jpg

COD looks really off here. I think development team should really make better research in RL performacne of these birds and take care more about historical realism and accuracy like expect most IL2 fans.

scorpac

04-01-2011, 09:25 AM

looks like it will be the same like the old il2... they hate AXIS!

T}{OR

04-01-2011, 09:26 AM

I missed the thread where this was copied from.

So I have just one question: where is this data from? Sources and references?

engarde

04-01-2011, 09:31 AM

Here.

We.

Go.

again.

Matt255

04-01-2011, 09:44 AM

Did you actually check, if the ingame performance of those planes, matches the charts in the manual?

Or are you just assuming that this would be the case?

Rickusty

04-01-2011, 09:57 AM

Fiat G.50 HAS NOT the overboost function - WEP (it was called "+100" and added 100 mmHg for the engine)
Engine power could be increased, for a short period of time, to 960 HP at 3.000 m.
The engine should be then running at 890 mmHg pressure.
In the game, manifold pressure at max throttle is 710 mmHg... A lot less than what it could achieve.

As it is now, the plane feels so underpowered.
It certainly wasn't. Power to weight ratio was 0,35 HP-KG... way better than Hurricane I for example (0,24 HP-KG).
I certainly doesn't feel like that in the game.

Whenever you start to make a shallow climb with a G.50, it stalls.
It wasn't fast, but... it could outclimb an Hurricane 1 so...

And it can just reach 350 km/h at sea level. IRL it could master about 40 km/h more.

Kwiatek

04-01-2011, 10:02 AM

looks like it will be the same like the old il2... they hate AXIS!

It is not about Axis or Allied or any side. It is just about inaccuracy which is in both side data. Just all.

I missed the thread where this was copied from.

So I have just one question: where is this data from? Sources and references?

Data which i posted are mostly from these kown site about performacne WW2 planes where you can find scans of many RL documents and datas:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

and here about LW planes:

http://www.kurfurst.org/

Plus many data and scans, manuals, books etc. which i got from many years reaserching :)

Did you actually check, if the ingame performance of those planes, matches the charts in the manual?

Or are you just assuming that this would be the case?

I dont check it in game actually beacuse i dont have it yet. I just look at COD manual data for these planes and also read some topic where some other people write about FM issues in COD, like here in these topic:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19754

So i clearly see that there is a problem here and it would be good if developers would make it in right way in future patches. I see that they just have a problem with accurate data for these birds so i i think they need help here - if they want of course.

Kwiatek

04-01-2011, 10:41 AM

Power to weight ratio was 0,35 HP-KG... way better than Hurricane I for example (0,24 HP-KG).
I certainly doesn't feel like that in the game.

Whenever you start to make a shallow climb with a G.50, it stalls.
It wasn't fast, but... it could outclimb an Hurricane 1 so...

And it can just reach 350 km/h at sea level. IRL it could master about 40 km/h more.

Hurricane Mk1 with MErlin III, CSP and aditional armour ( pilot armoured seat, fuel tanks and armoured windshield) had take off weight 3061 kg. With 100 octan fuel - power at 6 1/2 lbs was 1030 HP and at +12 lbs was 1310 HP so power to weight ratio was - 0.33 HP/Kg ( +6 1/2lbs) and 0.42 HP/kg ( +12 lbs).

Im not wonder that G50 had also wrong power settings in COD. Such problems have near all COD planes.

You could post here reliable data for G-50 also. Maby developers will be interesting in these.

JG4_Helofly

04-01-2011, 10:52 AM

Well, if the numbers in the manual match the actual performance of the plane in game, then it's way off (according to the data shown here)...

I wonder what source they used for the FM.

SG1_Gunkan

04-01-2011, 11:02 AM

JG52Uther

04-01-2011, 11:08 AM

+1
I don't care if my plane is porked,as long it is historically porked to 1940's standards!

DC338

04-01-2011, 11:15 AM

Kwiatek maybe right ref performance. From the state of it the Alpha testers (they released the beta) probably never got round to FM testing due to all the other problems. Hard to trust charts (in the manual) that have combat flap turn times for a Spitfire FFS!:confused::mad:

SturmKreator

04-01-2011, 11:15 AM

Ala13_ManOWar

04-01-2011, 11:36 AM

This a very critical post for the sim. No matter the complexity of the engine model or physics, if the data is not reliable, people won't take the sim in consideration.

Thank you very much Kwiatek, this time let's make the data chars clear, public and historical.
Thats true, If we have the same stupid performances than Il2, I prefer fly the old il2, becouse at least we have a more finished job. I hate the Olegs team idea who thinks balance the game will be more fun, LOL, the people want realism, not a console game. Sorry, but if the game not changes at all in this way, I never bought him.+10

Every one of us is claiming for realism in the sim till first Il-2, and creators also sell the sim to us as "the most realistic", so any sense in using incorrect data. By the way accurate data for most of aircraft are available for every people who wants to find it, Kwiatek demonstrate it, so non sense also trying to fool us with nobodyknowsfromwhere data... And not the only thing, everyone of us knows actually how an Emil's DB601 sounds, not to mention a RR Merlin, there are at least two airworthy Emil examples nowadays and you can see in youtube... does really make sense trying to say us a Db601 sounds like ingame? :shock: details like this only tell us what's the real level of research and finishing of the product, so please don't fool us any more and do things like you said it'll be do from start.

S!

juamfra

04-01-2011, 12:00 PM

This a very critical post for the sim. No matter the complexity of the engine model or physics, if the data is not reliable, people won't take the sim in consideration.

Thank you very much Kwiatek, this time let's make the data chars clear, public and historical.

Thats true, If we have the same stupid performances than Il2, I prefer fly the old il2, becouse at least we have a more finished job. I hate the Olegs team idea who thinks balance the game will be more fun, LOL, the people want realism, not a console game. Sorry, but if the game not changes at all in this way, I never bought him.

+10

Every one of us is claiming for realism in the sim till first Il-2, and creators also sell the sim to us as "the most realistic", so any sense in using incorrect data. By the way accurate data for most of aircraft are available for every people who wants to find it, Kwiatek demonstrate it, so non sense also trying to fool us with nobodyknowsfromwhere data... And not the only thing, everyone of us knows actually how an Emil's DB601 sounds, not to mention a RR Merlin, there are at least two airworthy Emil examples nowadays and you can see in youtube... does really make sense trying to say us a Db601 sounds like ingame? :shock: details like this only tell us what's the real level of research and finishing of the product, so please don't fool us any more and do things like you said it'll be do from start.

S!

+100

Totally agree, nothing to add.

Biggs

04-01-2011, 12:09 PM

Killerwatt

04-01-2011, 12:12 PM

Have a look at his thread on the A2A forums before you jump on your bandwagons: http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=23585&start=30
Mod please delete if links arent allowed.

Biggs

04-01-2011, 12:48 PM

all my references are from the book Spitfire: The History by Eric Morgan and Edward Shacklady.

All figures are the actual recordings made during testing... most seem to be from either facilities, Martlesham Heath or Boscombe Down.

Blue Scorpion

04-01-2011, 05:30 PM

From my own testing of the Spitfires, my only issues are with the mkI variants in the game...

after repeated tries I was only able to reach the top speeds (@18500ft) of:
260 IAS with the mkI
220 IAS with the mkIa

they should both be at or around the 365 TAS mark (its a few MPH higher or lower depending on the plane, prop,engine II or II and fuel octane 87 or 100)

Also the mkIa (which should be using a DH 5/29 or 5/30 bracket CSP) should have a better rate of climb than the mkI which used the older 2-pitch De Havilland prop.

I was going to post my own conclusions, which are based on similar data from www.spitfireperformance.com that the spitfire as modelled in COD is considerably underpowered, and that turn rate for the Hurri appears off too.Sadly, an overzealous mod banned my account while I was in the process of typing a lengthy post on the subject and it disappeared into the ether when I hit submit.

Britain and the Commonwealth pilots at the Battle of Britain as seriously outnumbered as they were, 640 fighters facing 2600 Luftwaffe aircraft, where able to do what they did because of the relative performance of the machines involved, access to 100-octane fuel, combined with the advantage proffered by radar. Failure to portray the difference in performance is a huge disservice to everyone that was involved during that conflict regardless of the side they served.

As another poster pointed out, this has nothing to do with hating anyone; it is about accurate portrayal of the subject, THE single most important factor for any title that calls its self a simulation.

fireship4

04-01-2011, 11:38 PM

I don't like to respond to a post and contribute to overall bickering (when it is better to stay on subject), but:

If I were a game developer, I would never cater to this segment of the playerbase.

If you were a sim developer? Or if you were a developer in general? If you mean the former then it doesn't really make sense as that is what a simulator is about (normally), and the playerbase of a simulator often has a large proportion of people who want it to reflect reality.

I think people shouldn't be complaining when people dispute facts and figures here (especially when backed up), for a lot of people it is very important.

sod16

04-01-2011, 11:40 PM

This crap is so tiresome. If I were a game developer, I would never cater to this segment of the playerbase. My advice? If you can find a better WWII Combat Flight Sim, go play it; otherwise, shut up and be happy that you have anything to play at all.

You seem to misunderstand the gaming industry as a entity.
They work for US, not the other way round. We pay them to create a video game. If they do not put what WE want then they do not get PAID. These people are allowed to complain no matter how unneeded it is. They will eventually read it all.

If there was a better WW2 combat sim, then MADDOX games would lose money if they where not an*l about the realism.

When I become a game developer, I will listen to EVERY fan I have. Things only get better when you listen.

madrebel

04-02-2011, 01:24 AM

ive never seen anyone deffinitively prove when and how many spitfire quadrons were operational with 100 octane fuel. sure it was there and used but when was it first introduced and how many squadrons used it?

further, the brits weren't the only ones with better fuel. 109s and 110s both were using C3 about halfway through as well. anything with a /N suffix was using C3 and 2700RPMs for 5 minute WEP.

oh and the spitfires didnt have variable flaps.

IvanK

04-02-2011, 02:52 PM

Go and look in WWII aircraft performance.com and Spitfire Testing.com. There are heaps of documents on 100 Octane fuel and when it was in service etc. In short during BOB all operational fighters were running 100 octane fuel.

Seek and ye shall find.

Kurfürst

04-02-2011, 03:55 PM

In short during BOB all operational fighters were running 100 octane fuel.

Seek and ye shall find.

Frankly this was discussed a zillion times, but despite years of research, there's still no positive evidence that 'all operational fighters' were running on 100 octane. It simply appears to be wishful thinking from a few fanatic fans of the aircraft. WWII aircraft performance.com does list a large number of papers, unfortunately none of them state that all fighters are to or currently using 100 octane fuel. There's no doubt that a signficant number of Spitfires and Hurricanes were running on this fuel, this has been known since the 1960s, so nothing new here, but as to how many, or what percentage, nobody so far can tell for a fact.

The issue is further clouded by the fact that fighter stations (around 50 or so were used during the Battle), and not fighter units were supplied physically with fuel drums.. and the fighter units tended to change their bases every now and then, to be replaced by an another unit. If say, Squadron A, flying from Station X (which had 100 octane present), transferred to Station Z (which did not have 100 octane present but regular 87 octane) and its place was taken by Squadron B in mid-August which until then was flying from Station Z, then you would have Combat Reports from both Squadron A and B using 100 octane, but the reality was that one of them used it in the first half of the month, and the other during the second half of the month..

The closest evidence is a 18th May meeting record, which is still far off from that, as it states farily clearly that the changeover effected select units.

The paper - Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee, 7th meeting memo - says (direct quote):

"... satisfaction was expressed at the fact that the Units concerned had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel"

There's a reason why the articles you refer to tend to be dismissed - there seem to be always a case of subtle manipulation of the original papers. Take example the reference to this same meeting mentioned above at the wwiiaircraftperformance.org site, which interprets it as the following:

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".

Note how this reference to "the Units concerned" suddenly becomes "Spitfire and Hurricane units" in the text of the article; the original suggest that an unknown number (perhaps few, perhaps many), but definietely not all (otherwise why the distinction, if ALL units would be concerned?)

Unfortunately, the wwiiaircraftperformance.org article suddenly goes silent after what has happened after 18 May 1940. That's is unfortunate, because I saw the authors of said article discussing the same subject with an Australian researcher, who has informed them of the following at butch2k's board:

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.

Given that large quantities were not available until late August, the volume of usage/week of 87 Octane must be far higher than that quoted for 100 Octane. So to put things into perspective that why I asked for a comparison.

*Buzzsaw*

04-02-2011, 08:44 PM

Frankly this was discussed a zillion times, but despite years of research, there's still no positive evidence that 'all operational fighters' were running on 100 octane. It simply appears to be wishful thinking from a few fanatic fans of the aircraft. WWII aircraft performance.com does list a large number of papers, unfortunately none of them state that all fighters are to or currently using 100 octane fuel. There's no doubt that a signficant number of Spitfires and Hurricanes were running on this fuel, this has been known since the 1960s, so nothing new here, but as to how many, or what percentage, nobody so far can tell for a fact.

The issue is further clouded by the fact that fighter stations (around 50 or so were used during the Battle), and not fighter units were supplied physically with fuel drums.. and the fighter units tended to change their bases every now and then, to be replaced by an another unit. If say, Squadron A, flying from Station X (which had 100 octane present), transferred to Station Z (which did not have 100 octane present but regular 87 octane) and its place was taken by Squadron B in mid-August which until then was flying from Station Z, then you would have Combat Reports from both Squadron A and B using 100 octane, but the reality was that one of them used it in the first half of the month, and the other during the second half of the month..

The closest evidence is a 18th May meeting record, which is still far off from that, as it states farily clearly that the changeover effected select units.

The paper - Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee, 7th meeting memo - says (direct quote):

"... satisfaction was expressed at the fact that the Units concerned had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel"

There's a reason why the articles you refer to tend to be dismissed - there seem to be always a case of subtle manipulation of the original papers. Take example the reference to this same meeting mentioned above at the wwiiaircraftperformance.org site, which interprets it as the following:

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".

Note how this reference to "the Units concerned" suddenly becomes "Spitfire and Hurricane units" in the text of the article; the original suggest that an unknown number (perhaps few, perhaps many), but definietely not all (otherwise why the distinction, if ALL units would be concerned?)

Unfortunately, the wwiiaircraftperformance.org article suddenly goes silent after what has happened after 18 May 1940. That's is unfortunate, because I saw the authors of said article discussing the same subject with an Australian researcher, who has informed them of the following at butch2k's board:

This has all been dealt with on another board in great detail with published authors weighing in with their facts, and you Kurfurst were banned on those boards for putting forward false information and refusing to back up your claims with actual documents and data.

You have no credibility in any kind of educated community, your opinions on this issue have been discredited completely.

All the original documents and accounts clearly point to the fact the RAF Fighter force during the Battle of Britain were converted to use of 100 octane fuel in all Fighter Stations in Groups 10, 11 and 12.

Your attempts to claim 100 Octane was not available was competely proven false in the two threads on the WWII aircraft forums.

The main poster in the threads who deals with every point at the beginning of the two threads, 'Glider' is the nickname of Gavin Bailey, a published author, who has written in detail on the subject, an article of his was published in the THE ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW, a well respected journal which only accepts papers and articles from those with impeccable credentials. Article is here:

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/CXXIII/501/394.abstract

Mike Williams, who manages the WWII Aircraft site, was also a participant in the thread.

Here are the links to the two threads, if members of this board take the time to read through them the conclusion is obvious.

#1

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-during-bob-16305.html

#2

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108.html

Why you Kurfurst, continue to put forward your clearly false claims is a mystery to those who have studied this issue in depth.

Moggy

04-02-2011, 09:08 PM

I also know that there were at least 2 Hurricane squadrons based in France during the Battle of France which were using 100 octane fuel.
Taken from another post I made here;

"The 1st combat reports of a 12 lb boost being used in France are from 18th May 1940 with F/Lt I. R. Gleed of 87 Squadron (based in Lille) and S/L E. M. Donaldson and P/O John Bushell both of 151 Squadron (based in Vitry).
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-gleed-18may40.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/bushell.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/donaldson-151sqdn-18may40.pdf "

madrebel

04-02-2011, 09:30 PM

which again supports the theory that not all squadrons were operational with 100 octane until late or after the BoB.

TheGrunch

04-02-2011, 09:45 PM

which again supports the theory that not all squadrons were operational with 100 octane until late or after the BoB.
That doesn't really matter when we're considering a BoB sim, though, does it? Who cares what 13 group were doing when our map doesn't even cover the area anyway? The fuel was being used by someone, and if it wasn't 10, 11 and 12 group fighters out of these consumption figures for the whole RAF, who was it? Remember the fuel was doled out by station, not by squadron. July - August we see that 27% of ALL RAF fuel consumed is 100 octane, and I can't imagine that was going to Bomber Command or Coastal Command.

Consumption InformationThe following information are the consumption details of fuel during the BOB period. This information has come from the War Cabinet Oil Position Monthly report that is available from the National Archives.

Consumption of Aviation Spirit
The following figures are for the whole of the RAF and are the Average Monthly Consumption

September – November 1939 16,000 tons
Dec 1939 – February 1940 14,000 tons
March 1940 – May 1940 23,000 tons
June 1940 – August 1940 10,000 tons (100 Oct) 26,000 tons (87 Oct)
Sept 1940 – November 1940 15,000 tons (100 Oct) 18,000 tons (87 Oct)

madrebel

04-02-2011, 10:35 PM

July - August we see that 27% of ALL RAF fuel consumed is 100 octane, and I can't imagine that was going to Bomber Command or Coastal Command.
so you're suggesting we just blanket apply 9lbs boost to all spits and hurricanes because 1/4 of the fuel used by the entire RaF was 100 octane?

all i'm saying is if there is 100 octane gifted to the brits i want C3 fuel in my E3(4/7)/N as i can dig up as much evidence that it was in fact used by some JGs as anyone has shown me for the RaF.

TheGrunch

04-02-2011, 11:00 PM

A quarter of all RAF fuel consumption and the capability of every fighter to use this fuel adds up to a lot of fighter sorties. I'm not suggesting it be a blanket application, but it certainly ought to be an option.

By comparison the number of /N model 109s was positively measly. 20 E-4/Ns, am I right?

What's the comparison you are trying to make here? 10,000 tons of fuel is a lot however you look at it.

How many E-7/Ns saw service during the battle?

Anyway, go and make another thread if you feel C3 fuel should be modelled, this thread wasn't about Red vs. Blue. I do question why you consider 27% of all RAF fuel consumption to be insignificant, though. Perhaps you think that Bomber Command and Coastal Command used 100 octane? Or stopped operations entirely during the Battle (they didn't)? That's the only way that 27% of all RAF fuel consumption being 100 octane could not be interpreted as a significant proportion of Fighter Command using the fuel.

madrebel

04-03-2011, 12:17 AM

i'm saying 1/4 use doesn't justify making all spits and hurris run at 9lbs of boost especially with no specifics. how much of that high grade fuel was used by PR spitfires? how much if any was used by bomber command? how much was used in hurricanes? how much in spits?

i dont have a number for 601N equipped 109s. i know is they first started showing up in late september in Es iirc with a handful of F1s showing up in october/november. all the Fs had 601ns.

the argument is just as valid as the raf argument. the significant majority of raf flights used 87 octane same as the germans. if you're going to give a minority fit for the raf give it to the germans too.

IvanK

04-03-2011, 12:36 AM

"all i'm saying is if there is 100 octane gifted to the brits i want C3 fuel in my E3(4/7)/N as i can dig up as much evidence that it was in fact used by some JGs as anyone has shown me for the RaF. "

Ok start digging and put it up here so we can all learn and benefit.

winny

04-03-2011, 01:11 AM

It's my understanding that a conversion was needed to the engine to enable it to run on 100 octane. They even painted little '100' s on the engine cowling so that 87 wasn't put in by mistake. By May 1940 all Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant Sqaudrons had been converted.

Here's what Jeffrey Quill said about 100 octane.

"It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb."

Have no idea what this means for CoD though..

MACADEMIC

04-03-2011, 01:12 AM

Biggs

04-03-2011, 02:31 AM

At least the MKI seems to get pretty close. 260 mph IAS @18500 = 353 mph TAS. http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html

MAC

yeah well I went back and tried to recreate those results again at 18,400ft... could only get the mkI up to just a hair over 245 IAS and the mkIa only 240 IAS at 18,500ft.

all my tests Ive been running have been at full boost (gate pushed forward) and at full coarse pitch. The boost drops from +6.5lb to +4.5lbs at altitude. I fly with CEM on and the overheat option off.

it seems like the planes are a bit too slow.. but their boost levels are too low as well so that seems to have something to do with it.

they should all be around 270- 275 IAS at that alt.

Im gonna keep testing too see if its not "pilot error" ;)

JG14_Jagr

04-03-2011, 05:19 AM

Britain and the Commonwealth pilots at the Battle of Britain as seriously outnumbered as they were, 640 fighters facing 2600 Luftwaffe aircraft, where able to do what they did because of the relative performance of the machines involved, access to 100-octane fuel, combined with the advantage proffered by radar. Failure to portray the difference in performance is a huge disservice to everyone that was involved during that conflict regardless of the side they served.

Lets keep everything within the bounds of reality.. 2600 is the total LW airfleet deployed for the BoB. If you want to play with numbers, 600 Hurricanes and 357 Spitfires were lost... the Lw lost 533 109's.. so obviously the 109 is 2X as good right????

The relative performance of the Spitfire and 109E were more or less comparable. Neither had a decisive advantage that was enough to overcome engagement circumstances or pilot skill. Each had strong and weak points they would try to exploit.. Saying that because the RAF planes should be modelled to perform better because they won is ludicrous.

Model the planes as accurately as possible based on the data. Leave the anecdotal analysis out of the picture entirely. The circumstances of the combat had a FAR greater effect on the fighter on fighter combat than the relative performance.

JG14_Jagr

04-03-2011, 05:24 AM

A quarter of all RAF fuel consumption and the capability of every fighter to use this fuel adds up to a lot of fighter sorties. I'm not suggesting it be a blanket application, but it certainly ought to be an option.

For now, model the basics, the most common lunch pail aircraft that were the yeoman.. we can model the 15th variation that had 4 produced and saw service for 3 hours before the battle officially ended later.. :)

Everyone always starts screaming because they want the highest performing variant and every advantage.. The game is 72 hours old and there are many more issues to deal with before this becomes the priority.. at this point we don't even have accurate means to analyse the data and speeds.. going by Altimeters and Speedometers that are nothing more than a graphical portion of a GUI isn't wise..

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 08:24 AM

For now, model the basics, the most common lunch pail aircraft that were the yeoman.. we can model the 15th variation that had 4 produced and saw service for 3 hours before the battle officially ended later.. :)
Oh, I give up if that's the sense of proportion that people have. Apparently just over a quarter of all RAF fuel consumption being 100 octane from July-August (which means Fighter Command 10, 11, 12 and 13 Groups, all of Bomber Command and all of Coastal Command) no longer even leads to the conservative conclusion that the approximately 20 squadrons at a time stationed in 11 Group Fighter Command stations used it *at least*. Not like that's important since they're the stations that nearly all of the missions shipped with the game are concerned with of course.

Probably bombers and the handful of PRU Spitfires used it all. That would be totally logical during the defense against a large-scale bombing campaign. Oh, hell, in fact they probably filled up Sunderlands with it. Also, apparently widespread usage = the 15th variation that had 4 produced and saw service for 3 hours before the battle officially ended later. :confused:

I'm already confused enough about why we don't have a 109 E-1 and E-4, and why the 110C-4 doesn't use the FF/M, and why certain RAF aircraft that should don't appear to have CSUs, at the moment we basically have a Battle of France simulator without the fixed wooden props on some RAF aircraft, but now people are getting weird about something that should definitely be modelled in RAF aircraft in exactly the same way as any of the other features above.

Reaper leader

04-03-2011, 09:03 AM

Tuck claimed he used +12 LBS as early as in May over Dunkirk !

They are biasing out the game again, twisting history to make this a game and not a sim, sad !

Regards

DC338

04-03-2011, 09:27 AM

Moggy

04-03-2011, 09:36 AM

If you look at the stockpile amount of 100 octane fuel, it actually goes up between March 1940 and October 1940! That could only mean either Britain wasn't using the fuel and was saving it. Or there was plenty to go around.
Personally I believe there was more than enough to go round and let's face it Britain was fighting for her existence and wouldn't hold anything back.
Oh yes and not forgetting the order for squadrons to make the necessary alterations to their Merlins so their Hurricanes and Spitfires can run 100 octane fuel.

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

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 11:20 AM

Kurfürst

04-03-2011, 01:38 PM

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

RAF North Weald (11 Group) in February
RAF Drem (13 Group) in February
RAF Rochford (11 Group) in March
RAF Digby (12 Group) in March
RAF Hawkinge (11 Group) in May
RAF Hornchurch (11 Group) in May
RAF Tangmere (11 Group) in May
RAF Duxford (12 Group) in May
RAF Gravesend (11 Group) in June
RAF Catterick (12 Group) in June
RAF Biggin Hill (11 Group) in July
RAF Kenley (11 Group) in August
RAF Northolt (11 Group) in August
RAF Westhampnett (11 Group) in August
RAF Middle Wallop (10 Group) in August
RAF Leconfield (12 Group) in August
RAF Croydon (11 Group) in September
RAF Warmwell (10 Group) in September

Thanks for the above. This is exactly the kind of analytical approach that is useful for the community and mission builders. There's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that 100 octane was used on a significant scale by RAF fighters (and to some extent, BC's Blenheim Squadrons, two of them IIRC), however, lacking positive evidence we do not know the exact scale of this. IMHO its a waste of time to go back and forth into 'interpreting' the existing evidence, which is insufficent to make categoric statements. What we know is that it was used, and that +12 Spits/Hurris have a legit place in the sim of course. However I also wholeheartedly agree that given the numerous bugs that riddle the sim due to its too early release are absolute more important than FM issues or the addition of new types..

We need to know what Stations were supplied with 100 octane, and what Squadrons were based at them and when. Its a very large and certainly demanding work, but the results imho worth the effort.

Based on the current evidence (feel free to add new sources showing 100 octane at the said airfield during the Battle and I'll update the list) shows that 100 octane aviation spirit was supplied to

8 out of 19 Sector Airfields
9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields (however 7 of the 32 functioning as satellite airfield for rotation etc., with no Sqn permanently based there).

The below is a detailed list of Fighter Command Stations during the Battle of Britain.

I've marked the ones you listed above which show some kind of evidence of 100 octane fuel being supplied to them (usually Combat reports in the literature) with an underline. Coloring would be better but I am not sure how to this with this forum engine.

The following list of stations and associated Squadrons also give a fair idea about the extent of Squadron movements during the Battle, and how it complicates things..

The source is below.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/images/sectors.gif

via http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/stations.html

11 Group

Group Headquarters

11 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Uxbridge, the administratve centre. Also within the physical area of 11 Group and close to Uxbridge is RAF Bentley Priory, the Headquarters of Fighter Command during the Battle.

Sector Airfields

RAF Biggin Hill.

RAF Biggin Hill was home to the Biggin Hill Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 32 Squadron from 4 June 1940
No 79 Squadron from 5 June 1940
No 610 Squadron from 2 July 1940
No 79 Squadron from 27 August 1940
No 72 Squadron from 31 August 1940
No 92 Squadron from 8 September 1940
No 141 Squadron from 13 September to 18 September 1940
No 72 Squadron from 14 September 1940
No 74 Squadron from 15 October 1940

RAF Debden.

RAF Debden was home to the Debden Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 85 Squadron from 22 May 1940
No 17 Squadron from 19 June 1940
No 257 Squadron from 15 August 1940
No 601 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 111 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 17 Squadron from 2 September 1940
No 25 Squadron from 8 October 1940

RAF Hornchurch.

RAF Hornchurch was home to the Hornchurch Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 65 Squadron from 5 June 1940
No 74 Squadron from 25 June 1940
No 54 Squadron from 24 July 1940
No 41 Squadron from 26 July 1940
No 54 Squadron from 8 August 1940
No 266 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 600 Squadron from 22 August 1940
No 264 Squadron from 22 August 1940
No 603 Squadron from 27 August 1940
No 41 Squadron from 3 September 1940

RAF Kenley.

RAF Kenley was home to the Kenley Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 615 Squadron from 20 May 1940
No 616 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 253 Squadron from 29 August 1940
No 66 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 501 Squadron from 10 September 1940
No 253 Squadron from 16 September 1940

RAF Northolt.

RAF Northolt was home to the Northolt Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 609 Squadron from 19 May 1940
No 257 Squadron from 4 July 1940
No 303 Squadron from 22 July 1940
No 43 Squadron from 23 July 1940 to 1 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 1 August 1940
No 401 Squadron RCAF from Mid-August 1940
No 615 Squadron from 10 October 1940
No 302 Squadron from 11 October 1940

RAF North Weald.

RAF North Weald was home to the North Weald Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 151 Squadron from 20 May 1940
No 56 Squadron from 4 June 1940
No 25 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 249 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 257 Squadron from 8 October 1940

RAF Tangmere.

RAF Tangmere was home to the Tangmere Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 145 Squadron from 10 May 1940
No 43 Squadron from 31 May 1940
No 601 Squadron from 17 June 1940
No 1 Squadron from 23 June 1940
No 266 Squadron from 9 August 1940
No 17 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 607 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 601 Squadron from 2 September 1940
No 213 Squadron from 7 September 1940
No 145 Squadron from 9 October 1940

Fighter Airfields

RAF Croydon.

RAF Croydon was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 111 Squadron from 4 June 1940
No 501 Squadron from 21 June 1940
No 401 Squadron RCAF from July 1940
No 85 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 72 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 111 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 605 Squadron from 7 September 1940

RAF Detling.

Detling was one of the 11 Group satellite airfields used by units on a day-to-day basis as required, often flights or squadrons would detach to such an airfield in the morning and return to their main operating and maintenance base in the evening.

RAF Eastchurch.

RAF Eastchurch was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 266 Squadron from 12 August 1940

RAF Ford.

RAF Ford was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 23 Squadron from 12 September 1940

RAF Gosport.

Gosport was, along with Lee-on-Solent, one of the Royal Navy's airfields used in the defence of Southampton and Portsmouth. Royal Navy fighters were permanently based there, and occasionally RAF units were detached, using the airfield in the same way as a satellite or relief landing ground.

RAF Gravesend.

RAF Gravesend was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 610 Squadron from 26 May 1940
No 604 Squadron from 3 July 1940
No 501 Squadron from 25 July 1940
No 66 Squadron from 11 September 1940

RAF Hawkinge.

RAF Hawkinge was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 79 Squadron from 2 July 1940

RAF Hendon.

RAF Hendon was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 257 Squadron from 17 May 1940
No 504 Squadron from 5 September 1940

RAF Lee on Solent.

Lee on Solent was, along with Gosport, one of the Royal Navy's airfields used in the defence of Southampton and Portsmouth. Royal Navy fighters were permanently based there, and occasionally RAF units were detached, using the airfield in the same way as a satellite or relief landing ground.

RAF Lympne.

Lympne was one of the 11 Group satellite airfields used by units on a day-to-day basis as required, often flights or squadrons would detach to such an airfield in the morning and return to their main operating and maintenance base in the evening. Due to the extreme forward position of this site it was under constant threat of attack and was not permanently manned during the Battle by any one Squadron.

RAF Manston.

RAF Manston was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 604 Squadron from 15 May 1940
No 600 Squadron from 20 June 1940

RAF Martlesham.

RAF Martlesham was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 25 Squadron from 19 June 1940
No 257 Squadron from 5 September 1940
No 17 Squadron from 8 October 1940

RAF Rochford.

RAF Rochford was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 54 Squadron from 25 June 1940
No 264 Squadron from 27 August 1940
No 264 Squadron from 29 October 1940

RAF Stapleford.

RAF Stapleford was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 151 Squadron from 29 August 1940
No 46 Squadron from 1 September 1940

RAF Thorney Island.

RAF Thorney Island was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 236 Squadron from 4 July 1940

RAF Westhampnett.

RAF Westhampnett was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 145 Squadron from 31 July 1940
No 602 Squadron from 13 August 1940

RAF West Malling.

RAF West Malling was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 141 Squadron from 12 July 1940
No 66 Squadron from 30 October 1940

10 Group

Group Headquarters

10 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Box, the administratve centre.

Sector Airfields

RAF Filton.

RAF Filton was home to the Filton Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 504 Squadron from 26 September 1940

RAF Middle Wallop.

RAF Middle Wallop was home to the Middle Wallop Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 236 Squadron from 14 June 1940
No 238 Squadron from 20 June 1940
No 401 Squadron RCAF from 21 June 1940
No 501 Squadron from 4 July 1940
No 609 Squadron from 5 July 1940
No 604 Squadron from 26 July 1940
No 222 Squadron from 13 August 1940
No 238 Squadron from 10 September 1940
No 23 Squadron from 12 September to 25 September 1940

Fighter Airfields

RAF Boscombe Down.

RAF Boscombe Down was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 249 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 56 Squadron from 1 September 1940

RAF Colerne.

RAF Colerne was used as a satellite and relief airfield for Middle Wallop during the Battle, units rotated in and out of the station on a daily basis.

RAF Exeter.

RAF Exeter was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 213 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 87 Squadron from 5 July 1940
No 601 Squadron from 7 September 1940

RAF Pembrey.

RAF Pembrey was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 92 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 79 Squadron from 8 September 1940

RAF Roborough.

RAF Roborough was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 247 Squadron from 1 August 1940

RAF St Eval.

RAF St Eval was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 222 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 236 Squadron from 8 August 1940
No 238 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 222 Squadron from 11 September 1940

RAF Warmwell.

RAF Warmwell was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 152 Squadron from 12 July 1940

12 Group

Group Headquarters

12 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Watnall, the administratve centre.

Sector Airfields

RAF Church Fenton.

RAF Church Fenton was home to the Church Fenton Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 87 Squadron from 26 May 1940
No 73 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 249 Squadron from 8 July 1940
No 85 Squadron from 5 September 1940

RAF Digby.

RAF Digby was home to the Digby Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 46 Squadron from 13 June 1940
No 29 Squadron from 27 June 1940
No 46 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 151 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 611 Squadron from 10 October 1939

RAF Duxford.

RAF Duxford was home to the Duxford Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 264 Squadron from 10 May 1940
No 19 Squadron from 3 July 1940
No 310 Squadron from 10 July 1940
No 46 Squadron from 18 August 1940
No 312 Squadron from 29 August 1940
No 242 Squadron from 26 October 1940
No 19 Squadron from 30 October 1940

RAF Kirton-in-Lindsey.

RAF Kirton-in-Lindsey was home to the Kirton-in-Lindsey Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 222 Squadron from 4 June 1939
No 253 Squadron from 24 May 1940
No 264 Squadron from 23 July 1940
No 74 Squadron from 21 August 1940
No 264 Squadron from 28 August 1940
No 616 Squadron from 9 September 1940
No 85 Squadron from 23 October 1940

RAF Wittering.

RAF Wittering was home to the Wittering Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 266 Squadron from 14 May 1940
No 74 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 266 Squadron from 21 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 9 September 1940

Fighter Airfields

RAF Coltishall.

RAF Coltishall was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 66 Squadron from 29 May 1940
No 242 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 616 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 74 Squadron from 9 September 1940
No 72 Squadron from 13 October 1940

RAF Leconfield.

RAF Leconfield was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 249 Squadron from 18 May 1940
No 616 Squadron from 6 June 1940
No 302 Squadron from 13 July 1940
No 303 Squadron from 11 October 1940

RAF Tern Hill.

Tern Hill was one of the 12 Group airfields used for resting units, and as a training airfield and maintneance depot. It was used as a relief landing ground and as a temporary base for night fighters operating against raids on Liverpool and cities in the north midlands.

13 Group

Group Headquarters

13 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Newcastle, the administratve centre.

Sector Airfields

RAF Acklington.

RAF Acklington was home to the Acklington Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 72 Squadron from 6 June 1940
No 79 Squadron from 13 July 1940
No 32 Squadron from 28 August 1940
No 610 Squadron from 31 August 1940

RAF Dyce.

RAF Dyce was home to the Dyce Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 248 Squadron from 22 May 1940
No 141 Squadron from 22 August 1940
No 145 Squadron from 31 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 9 October 1940

RAF Turnhouse.

RAF Turnhouse was home to the Turnhouse Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 603 Squadron from 5 May 1940
No 141 Squadron from 28 June 1940
No 253 Squadron from 21 July 1940
No 65 Squadron from 28 August 1940
No 141 Squadron from 30 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 14 September 1940
No 607 Squadron from 10 October 1940

RAF Usworth.

RAF Usworth was home to the Usworth Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 607 Squadron from 5 June 1940
No 43 Squadron from 8 September 1940

RAF Wick.

RAF Wick was home to the Wick Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 1 Squadron from 23 May 1940

Fighter Airfields

RAF Catterick.

RAF Catterick was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 219 Squadron from 4 October 1939
No 41 Squadron from 8 June 1940
No 54 Squadron from 28 July 1940
No 41 Squadron from 8 August 1940
No 504 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 54 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 600 Squadron from 12 October 1940

RAF Drem.
RAF Drem was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 145 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 263 Squadron from 2 September 1940
No 111 Squadron from 8 September 1940
No 141 Squadron from 15 October 1940

RAF Grangemouth.

RAF Grangemouth was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 263 Squadron from 28 June 1940

RAF Kirkwall.

RAF Kirkwall was used as a satellite and relief airfield for fighter and coastal operations over the Scottish Islands and naval bases there.

RAF Sumburgh.

RAF Sumburgh was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 248 Squadron from 20 July 1940
No 248 Squadron from 31 July 1940

fruitbat

04-03-2011, 01:57 PM

Unfortunately the squadron movement is even more confusing that that list would suggest.

take for example 54 squadron.

although it was 'based' at Hornchurch, because Rochford and Manston were the 'satalite' airfields for Hornchurch, individual flights or the squadron as a whole were often despatched to these airfields for the day, returning to hornchurch at night.

some official records for 54 squadron from July,

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110261.jpg

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110262.jpg

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110263.jpg

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110264.jpg

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110265.jpg

heres a useful link to from which i got these and you can find quite a few squadrons operational records during BoB, just enter the squadron, year and month:cool:

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/

really interesting site, just wish it was more complete, its really great for mission building.

Kurfürst

04-03-2011, 02:01 PM

Great find and good point... :)

JG4_Helofly

04-03-2011, 02:14 PM

So we need a +12 boost spit and hurri. Just one question: For how long could the +12 boost be engaged?

fruitbat

04-03-2011, 02:16 PM

5 minutes max i believe.

and i for one, want that reflected in the modelling.

Moggy

04-03-2011, 02:18 PM

So we need a +12 boost spit and hurri. Just one question: For how long could the +12 boost be engaged?

In all the Pilot's Notes I've read, the limit for boost as set by Rolls Royce is 5 minutes.

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 02:18 PM

No problem Kurfürst, just a matter of a few minutes and a good look at the RAF website vs. the combat reports on Mike Williams' site (is there not another source for these RAF combat reports anywhere else on the internet?). I'm not convinced myself that the supply was universal, but my personal impression is that at the very least 11 Group was converted almost universally before the battle "began".

Could I ask whether anyone is aware whether it's true (and I'm not sure where I heard this suggested) that the sector airfields and their satellites were supplied from the same depots? This would clear up a lot of the confusion, since we could then assume that many of the permanent fighter airfields were supplied as well.

Thanks VERY much for that link, fruitbat, I'll go through as many squadron ORBs from there as I can get to examine the 100 octane situation, when the squadron received CSUs, and indeed whether they were De Havilland or Rotol units, because if I remember correctly Kurfürst has posted in the past evidence that the De Havilland units were not as well-regarded by the RAF, and the widespread conversion to Rotol units afterwards seems to support this.

It's a pity the German record situation is not as complete or available. :(

Moggy

04-03-2011, 02:25 PM

You have to remember that the only RAF aircraft (as far as I'm aware) which would be using 100 octane fuel are the Spitfire, Hurricane and Defiant. I'm pretty sure (given stock levels during the battle) that the fuel was used universally amongst the groups. As we all know, squadrons changed groups as and when needed so the need for the fuel would of still been there, although I'd imagine an aircraft using 100 octane fuel would still be able to use 87 octane if needed...without the performance boost of course.

*EDIT*
Apologies if this has already been posted but Swallow has found an interesting piece of information in the Spitfire I pilot notes, Section 2; Handling and flying notes for the pilot, supplied with the Collector's Edition;

Fuel: - Operational units: 100 octane only. Other units: 87 octane

Kurfürst

04-03-2011, 02:51 PM

It's a pity the German record situation is not as complete or available. :(

If you mean German 100 octane (designated C-3) use, indeed the exact units are unclear, but the matter is simplier because in practice it only effects those 109/110 units that were re-engined to the DB 601N.

We know from the transcript of the Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on 19 July 1940 that 1 Gruppe (Wing, usually with 3 Staffeln, or Squadrons. Most likely one of the JG 26 Gruppen, evidenced by the photos) of Bf 109E and 3 Gruppen of 110C had been already converted to 601N. That's roughly 30-40 109s and 100-120 Bf 110s with 601N/C-3 at the time of the start of the Battle.

A fourth 110 Gruppe was converted IIRC in September, so its more of an issue for the 110s, much of them (roughly half) had the 601N, and it was a significant performance boost, with the 601A the 110 did something like 520 kph at altitude, the 601N had better output accross the whole altitude range, so it works out as 550-560 km/h, practically as fast as 109s/Spits, and faster than Hurris.

And the 601N wouldn't take anything else but 100 octane C-3, else they wouldn't fly at all. No headaches here which LW airfield got the fuel and which didn't. ;) As a matter of fact British analysis of captured LW fuel samples shows that C-3 was even found in the tanks of some Ju 88s, but that seems fairly irrelevant, as there would be no performance increase compared to 87 octane, to my best knowledge, with their Jumo engines.

Initially 110s had priority for 601Ns, the 109s got priority and begun receiving/retrofitting them at around October 1940.

As of 1 January 1941 there were 112 109Es of all subtypes and 5 109F-1s, 153 Bf 110C/D/Es around, plus 4 He 111P and 34 Do 215s.

See: http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB601_datasheets_N.html

But then again, I have trouble catching up with frigging Blenheims in the Quick Missions.. even with CEM disabled. So there are far more serious issues to be dealt with, either with the sims bugs, with my flying, or with both. :D

Kurfürst

04-03-2011, 02:55 PM

You have to remember that the only RAF aircraft (as far as I'm aware) which would be using 100 octane fuel are the Spitfire, Hurricane and Defiant.

Some (two?) Bristol Blenheim Squadrons also seem to have used it.

Moggy

04-03-2011, 03:00 PM

Bloody heck, well that does surprise me! Just checked in the Blenheim IV pilot notes and you're spot on the Blenheim can use 100 octane fuel. Wll they say you do learn something new everyday.

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 03:03 PM

Some (two?) Bristol Blenheim Squadrons also seem to have used it.
Was just about to mention this myself, yes.

Thanks for the info above Kurfürst, certainly the fact that the 601N could only use the C3 fuel does simplify matters considerably.

Moggy: Thanks for that info! Now we have to work out what 'operational' means! :lol: It's also worth considering whether it's a later edition of the manual, perhaps? It's definitely worth making sure we're 100% on the matter.

csThor

04-03-2011, 03:09 PM

It's most likely II./JG 26 which received the DB 601N-powered aircraft but I am still hesitant to see this type as more than a "candy bar" for the most successful pilots (still too much of a guess rather than knowledge). "White 4" (of Uffz. Perez) was the personal aircraft of Hptm. Karl Ebbinghausen (the commander of II./JG 26, hence the killmarks on said aircraft) before it was passed on to 4./JG 26. Having either the Bf 109 E-4/N or the Bf 109 F-0 tested by Stab/JG 51 in October 1940 would be interesting if the campaign engine allowed for such "rewards for outstanding performance". ;)

Moggy

04-03-2011, 03:21 PM

Moggy: Thanks for that info! Now we have to work out what 'operational' means! :lol: It's also worth considering whether it's a later edition of the manual, perhaps? It's definitely worth making sure we're 100% on the matter.

The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. I've just checked the date on the top of Section 2 and it's January 1942. :(

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 03:30 PM

It's most likely II./JG 26 which received the DB 601N-powered aircraft but I am still hesitant to see this type as more than a "candy bar" for the most successful pilots (still too much of a guess rather than knowledge). "White 4" (of Uffz. Perez) was the personal aircraft of Hptm. Karl Ebbinghausen (the commander of II./JG 26, hence the killmarks on said aircraft) before it was passed on to 4./JG 26. Having either the Bf 109 E-4/N or the Bf 109 F-0 tested by Stab/JG 51 in October 1940 would be interesting if the campaign engine allowed for such "rewards for outstanding performance". ;)
Maybe someone had better get coding one. ;) I wouldn't bet on a Maddox Games campaign engine any time soon.

The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. I've just checked the date on the top of Section 2 and it's January 1942. :(
I thought it might be, I knew there were two variants going about, sorry about that Moggy. :(

Moggy

04-03-2011, 03:38 PM

No worries, the closest I've got to 100 octane fuel being mentioned in pilot's notes are from June/July 1940 and the Spitfire IIa and I can't see any ammendment dates on that all. My Hurricane Mk.I notes pre dates 100 octane fuel and only mentions 87 octane as a result.

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 03:41 PM

Yeah, I've got those Hurri notes, as well, they only mention the two-blade fixed pitch wooden prop! :o

csThor

04-03-2011, 03:46 PM

Maybe someone had better get coding one. ;) I wouldn't bet on a Maddox Games campaign engine any time soon.

Well, I couldn't code if my life depended on it. But unfortunately I have to agree with you WRT a dynamic campaign from 1C:MG. :(

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 03:48 PM

Well, I couldn't code if my life depended on it. But unfortunately I have to agree with you WRT a dynamic campaign from 1C:MG. :(
I am asking a friend about it. Really it depends on how complete the logfile is, much like IL-2. If it's as good as IL-2's logfile, I think he might consider messing with it. He's a coder for a software company and has an interest in WW2 flight-sims so we'll see.

Kurfürst

04-03-2011, 03:59 PM

It's most likely II./JG 26 which received the DB 601N-powered aircraft but I am still hesitant to see this type as more than a "candy bar" for the most successful pilots (still too much of a guess rather than knowledge).

Agreed. For the most part of the big daylight battles, the 109s with 601N weren't that numerous to justify the coding required. A 110C-x/N on the other hand is a must IMHO, with roughly half the ZGs were flying, and giving the 110 flying some favour. And it's probably II/JG 26 as you say, though I'd wager that it wasn't handed out to the most successfull pilots of seperate JGs initially. The 19 July memo specifically mentions a Gruppe, plus otherwise logistics and maintaince would be nightmarish, with a mix of 601A and 601N powered Emils...

If I had to choose the line-up, I'd do this:

Bf 109E-1 of 1939, as E-3, but with four MG 17s
[b]Bf 109E-3 (what we have now) of 1939, manual prop pitch, probably no armor(?), 601A. This is pretty much as the 109E started the war in September. A good stand in for May 1940 France battles as well.

Bf 109E-4, 1940. Auto prop pitch, pilot/fuel tank armor in the fuselage. Optionally head/windscreen armor (the latter seems to have been randomly appearing on planes), MG FF/Ms (Mine shells :) ). Standard DB 601A. 'Boxy' canopy instead of the rounded one. This would represent the detail improvements made in the meantime of September 1939 - May-August 1940, just like the CSP/armor thing on BoB Spitties/Hurris. Plus most E-3 were converted to E-4 by August anyway (the designation was changed because of the MG - FF/M cannon, slightly modified to fire high capacity HE shells).

Bf 109E-7/N. As E-4, but with 601N, and the E-7 can also carry drop tank. Not only it could represent E-7s that started to arrive in August 1940 and become the major production model, it could step-in as the early few E-3/N or E-4/N 'candy bars', as well as older E-1/E-3/E-4 retrofitted with droptanks, and could be well used for later adds ons and scenarios, such as Afrika or Barbarossa, by which time the remaining Emils were typically E-7/Ns beside 109Fs.. I'd skip the basic E-7 entirely, it only differes from the E-4 in the droptank option, and the slightly more powerful (ca +50 HP..) DB 601Aa... needless waste of development time IMHO.

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 04:02 PM

I'd agree with that line-up wholeheartedly. :)

Going through ORBs now, and honestly sometimes it is hard to say. Often you can read about a squadron receiving a certain number of 'improved Hurricane aircraft from 5MU' and really there is little more information than that.

EDIT: Any comment on the phrase Me. Jaguars? Referring to aircraft dive-bombing? Maybe 110s?

csThor

04-03-2011, 04:46 PM

Jaguar was the propaganda nickname for bomb-carrying Bf 110s.

@ Kurfürst

Right now we don't have more than incomplete hints about the presence of DB 601N-powered Emils. I certainly agree that equipping a full Gruppe would be more logic WRT supply issues but when looking at the numbers of Bf 109s involved in the BoB that number is still quite insignificant. Like I said modelling the Bf 109 E-7/N (or E-4/N for that matter) could have gameplay value if the campaign engine was more sophisticated.

On the other hand you're right about the Bf 110s since they had absolute priority for getting the DB 601Ns at first.

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 04:59 PM

A total of 561 of all E-4 versions were built, [12] including 250 E-4, 20 E-4/N, 211 E-4/B and 15 E-4/BN. [11]

[11] RLM Lieferplan Nr. 18 Ausgabe 3, 01.11.1940 (Deliveries up to 31.10.1940)
[12] Ritger 2006, p. 171.

Wikipedia says this...not the most reliable source I know.

winny

04-03-2011, 05:20 PM

As I said earlier in the thread.. All operational Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant Squadrons in the RAF had been converted to 100 Octane by May 1940

Taken from Spitfireperformance.com

The use of 100 octane fuel was approved for Spitfire Squadrons by 24 September 1938. Fighter Command noted on 6 December 1938 that Duxford, Debden, Northholt and Digby had received 100 octane fuel. As of December 1938 Nos. 19 and 66 were based at Duxford and were the only RAF units then equipped with Spitfires.

The Air Ministry noted in a memo dated 12 December 1939 that "100 octane fuel is approved for use in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft, and state that issue will be made as soon as the fuel is available in bulk at the distribution depots serving the Fighter Stations concerned." Gavin Bailey concluded that "The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year." As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock.
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". The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons.

Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the R.A.F. By July 11th, 1940, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, twenty-one days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stock available on October 10th, 1940, was 666,000 tons. Oil reserves were 34,000 tons.

Wood & Dempster’s "The narrow margin" shows figures for stocks of 100 octane are in agreement with those of the War Cabinet, however, their figure of 22,000 tons issued falls short of the Air Ministry’s figures as shown below.

By 7 August 1940 "authority has been obtained for the use of 100 octane fuel in all operational aircraft and that instructions to that effect are being issued to Commands",

i.e. all operational aircraft in Bomber, Coastal, Training and Fighter Commands.
On October 29, just before the end of the Battle of Britain, 423,400 tons of 100 octane fuel was in stock in the UK. The War Cabinet recorded that 100 octane stocks stood at 202,000 tons on 31 December 1939 and that 100 octane stocks had risen to 499,000 tons one year later on 31 December 1940. The Air Ministry recorded that 58,000 tons of 100 octane were issued during the Battle of Britain. The War Cabinet recorded that 100 octane consumption within the UK for the whole of 1940 amounted to 130,000 tons, an average of 2,500 tons per week. Consumption of 100 octane during the Battle of Britain averaged 10,000 tons per month for the months of July and August rising to 14,000 tons in September followed by 17,000 tons during October. Total consumption of 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain therefore was on the order of 50,000 tons.

Kurfürst

04-03-2011, 05:24 PM

Wikipedia says this...not the most reliable source I know.

Yeah I edited that part there there.. ;-)

Though keep in mind that the delivery list is for newly produced (Neubau) aircraft, but apparantly, most 601N Emils were retrofits of existing airframes. Just check the 1st January 1941 strenght breakdown on my site, linked above - 54 E-4s (compare to the 20+15 factory produced..), 16 E-1/N (none produced by factories as per the Delivery Plans..) etc.

The story is that 110s had absolute priority at first, so they put up with producing a Gruppe worth of E-4/Ns. I can see the reasoning... the upped 110s would be just as fast as Spits, and much faster than Hurris.. as opposed to upped 109s being... more faster than the Hurricanes.. wait.. they are already faster than Hurris!

That changed in around October, 109s got priority, but by then the E-7 was the new (and IIRC - sole production type, with the E-1/E-3 already stopped and the E-4 stopping, older ones being upgraded to E-7 standard. So most 109E-x/N types were E-7/N, plus a number of older types that were retrofitted.

Radinger's 109A-E book's Delivery/Lieferplan based list of E-7 production seem to suggest that all (452 E-7 production total of the top of my head) had 601N instead of, but I have some doubts about that, probably some confusion when converting the original Lieferplan into book-form. I recall Olivier (butch2k) also said that all E-7s got the DB 601Aa instead of the 'vanila' 601A-1, besides the ones that got 601N.

That being said, IMO it is undoubtedly true and I agree that the 601N power Emils did not play a significant role the summer - quite simply just a handful were around. They were the highest performance fighters around, with speed I reckon in the order of 590-595 km/h. But the /N types did not become significant until towards the end of the year, and of course, the first half of 1941.

Hence why I believe an E-7/N would be a better choice, with an eye on forthcoming 1941 scenarios (Circuses and Rhubarbs and Africa, Greece, Barbarossa etc.). The E-7/N is simply a must for a late Emil that could be re-used in dozens of scenarios. Plus there would be no whining that Blue doesn't get da boosta variant. ;)

Modelling an 50-odd production run like the E-4/N would be a waste of time.. for the same reason, I am a bit puzzled about the Spitifire Mark II's ... pretty much the same thing as the Mark I, in every respect. Same speed, same climb, same guns.. Oh, sorry, different engine starter!!! :D as opposed to a Hurricane Mark II, that was significantly better than the Hurri Mk I..

Kurfürst

04-03-2011, 05:29 PM

EDIT: Any comment on the phrase Me. Jaguars? Referring to aircraft dive-bombing? Maybe 110s?

A fictional Jabo variant of the 110, that made into the English press at the start of the war. From English Flight magazine illustration from 1939, the Germans cunningly made it look like exactly as the 110. ;)

I suppose it was based on rumors of the Me 210 development (which indeed started out as a 110 with a bomb bay).

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 05:58 PM

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"[/B]. The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons.
As Kurfurst noted in the thread on ww2aircraft.net, that particular "Spitfire and Hurricane units" is an unnecessary alteration made by Mike Williams and it actually says "the Units concerned".
However I think the first quote you posted gets us *most of the way* toward saying that 100 octane was available at all operational units, i.e. "issue will be made as soon as the fuel is available in bulk at the distribution depots serving the Fighter Stations concerned".

csThor

04-03-2011, 06:10 PM

winny

04-03-2011, 08:01 PM

As Kurfurst noted in the thread on ww2aircraft.net, that particular "Spitfire and Hurricane units" is an unnecessary alteration made by Mike Williams and it actually says "the Units concerned".
However I think the first quote you posted gets us *most of the way* toward saying that 100 octane was available at all operational units, i.e. "issue will be made as soon as the fuel is available in bulk at the distribution depots serving the Fighter Stations concerned".

I don't really know enough about it! But I do know that there was a conversion involved to the Merlin and that if the fuel was at a certain airfield then some of the aircraft must therefore have been converted (or were in the process of being converted). It wasn't a complicted procedure.

Stocks were ample (given total usage for the battle of 55,000 tons).
so I think it's pretty safe to assume 100 octane to be in use by most if not all RAF frontline fighter sqns by June '40

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 08:27 PM

Haha, don't forget winny, this isn't about what's logical, this is about satisfying Lufwhiners...totally different matter. ;)

DC338

04-03-2011, 09:24 PM

On October 29, just before the end of the Battle of Britain, 423,400 tons of 100 octane fuel was in stock in the UK. The War Cabinet recorded that 100 octane stocks stood at 202,000 tons on 31 December 1939 and that 100 octane stocks had risen to 499,000 tons one year later on 31 December 1940. The Air Ministry recorded that 58,000 tons of 100 octane were issued during the Battle of Britain. The War Cabinet recorded that 100 octane consumption within the UK for the whole of 1940 amounted to 130,000 tons, an average of 2,500 tons per week. Consumption of 100 octane during the Battle of Britain averaged 10,000 tons per month for the months of July and August rising to 14,000 tons in September followed by 17,000 tons during October. Total consumption of 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain therefore was on the order of 50,000 tons.

So lets look at the figures again.

50,000 tons of 100 octane used is the equivalent of 185,750 hurricane sorties in which all fuel was used.

I think there is no doubt from the above figure that 100 was available and more importantly was actually consumed by the fighters of RAF. If you don't agree then how do you account for the consumption.

winny

04-03-2011, 09:56 PM

Haha, don't forget winny, this isn't about what's logical, this is about satisfying Lufwhiners...totally different matter. ;)

Ahhh, I see. I that case the whole of the RAF was on 100 octane simply because all the aircraft were so pretty and curvey.. :)

TheGrunch

04-03-2011, 10:20 PM

@DC338: That's enough for four full fuel tanks a day for 60 12-aircraft squadrons over 60 days. And as we know, Fighter Command didn't usually send up aircraft in squadron strength.

Not true winny, they were on 100 octane because it was green, and people didn't understand what "being green" meant back then. :lol:

Kurfürst

04-03-2011, 10:33 PM

50,000 tons of 100 octane used is the equivalent of 185,750 hurricane sorties in which all fuel was used.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course the figures above are just a rough guess, but then again simply dividing fuel/hurri tank capacity is even rougher..

winny

04-03-2011, 11:47 PM

This isn't a rough guess.

Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the R.A.F. By July 11th, 1940, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, twenty-one days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stock available on October 10th, 1940, was 666,000 tons. Oil reserves were 34,000 tons

TheGrunch

04-04-2011, 12:59 AM

Sounds like that's an extreme case to me Kurf. I've looked at a few of them, but so far:

32 Squadron flew 60 and-a-half non-operational hours in the first week of August 1940, all of which were transfers to and from their forward base.
43 Squadron flew approximately 10 non-operational hours in the first week of August 1940, namely one transfer of six aircraft and their return and another transfer of seven aircraft, and three night practise flights.
54 Squadron flew approximately 106 non-operational hours of a huge variety of kinds (beware that one page of the ORB appears twice in a search for some reason).

There's no data for 56 Squadron in 1940 so I'm not sure which one you looked at. Anyway, won't be posting for a while, I hear the human body needs sleep. :o

DC338

04-04-2011, 01:09 AM

Why would they use 100 octane fuel to run in a engine? If it was as scarce as you would have us believe surely they would have used 87oct for non operational purposes.

madrebel

04-04-2011, 01:21 AM

because there was a conversion process that wasn't exactly trivial. further engine testing would be done at the levels the engine was expected to run at. you wouldn't test an engien you planned to run on 100 octance with 87 octance.

etc.

TheGrunch

04-04-2011, 01:25 PM

It's definitely sensible to run-in engines at their 5-minute limit boost levels.

:rolleyes:

madrebel

04-04-2011, 07:20 PM

because that was the only difference right?

Triggaaar

04-04-2011, 09:25 PM

+1
I don't care if my plane is porked,as long it is historically porked to 1940's standards!Likewise. Besides, if my plane is correctly porked, I can always switch sides ;)

TheGrunch

04-05-2011, 08:56 AM

because that was the only difference right?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg

These were the alterations made (dated March 20th 1940). After the alteration the only difference in actual operation was the modified boost cut-out control allowing the ability of the engine to be run on 100 octane fuel up to +12lbs. sq. in. The engine was still perfectly capable of being run on 87 octane fuel and indeed this would avoid the problem of lead fouling of the spark plugs if they had not been changed to the new ones.
You will note the last paragraph. Mechanics were not likely to run the engine up to +12lbs on the ground. Its use significantly reduced engine life.

Viper2000

04-05-2011, 12:22 PM

TheGrunch

04-05-2011, 12:46 PM

Kurfürst

04-05-2011, 05:07 PM

TheGrunch

04-05-2011, 05:36 PM

My point was rather to illustrate that there would be considerable fuel requirement for non-combat sorties as well, which is usually not being taken into account.
Definitely agreed there. As it was stated earlier in the thread there was a lot of movement to and from forward bases which seems to have been the bulk of the non-operational flying for operational squadrons, particularly for squadrons flying into and out of Manston due to its exposed nature on the coast I suppose.

fruitbat

04-05-2011, 06:04 PM

Hi, Kurfurst the page you linked showing 54 squadron on training flights was during one of the times they were posted north to Catterick on a rest period.

54 squadron had 3 rest periods north, once after Dunkirk, once in june and once end of july/start of aug if memory serves me right.

Catterick was not an operational base during BoB, being well up north, one can only speculate at what fuel was being used there.

It would seem logical that 100 octane was not really needed there....

Viper2000

04-05-2011, 06:08 PM

Given that as far as I am aware the 100 octane fuel was mixed by mixing the iso-octane with existing 87 octane fuel I cannot imagine that a tiny remnant of 87 octane would be something to get distressed about, however I will admit that the possibility of Mod 154 being performed incorrectly might be something they would test, agreed. However the since local mod would be performed on existing engines that had already seen use I am unsure as to what this would mean in terms of the treatment of the engine immediately after the mod.

Isooctane is a specific chemical isomer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,2,4-Trimethylpentane). It was used as a reference fuel by Ricardo when he produced the Octane scale. The other reference fuel was n-Heptane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptane).

So
0 octane = 100% n-Heptane
50 octane = 50% n-Heptane + 50% iso-octane
100 octane = 100% iso-octane

Fuels are evaluated by testing them on a variable compression ratio engine and then mixing a reference fuel to match their performance.

Note that this scale cannot measure any fuel outside of the range 0-100 octane. There is quite a lot of casual incorrect use of the octane scale for values >100, but this is simply incorrect.

A different scale (Performance number) is used to rate fuels superior to 100 octane; the performance number being the ratio of the power produced by the reference fuel running on the test engine without detonation to that produced by 100 octane running on the test engine.

This naturally varies as a function of mixture strength, so for example modern 100 LL will give approximately 100/130 performance number (weak/rich), whilst late war purple fuel could give 115/145 Performance number.

Care must be taken when comparing fuels to check exactly which rating scale is in use; the power output achievable from a fuel is not necessarily a linear function of its octane number, so you can't make a direct comparison between an octane number and a performance number. Additionally, there were several different test procedures in use which would produce different results from identical fuels (ie MON, RON etc).

Production fuels were not made in a chemistry lab by mixing individual chemical isomers together; this would have been impractical. The Germans were somewhat closer to this approach with their use of Fischer-Tropsch derived synthetic oils, but even then they didn't go to the lengths of blending up their fuels isomer by isomer, because it just wouldn't be worth the effort. About the closest that anybody has ever come to this kind of "chemistry lab" approach was JP-7 for the SR-71, and that was phenomenally expensive stuff...

Instead, production fuels were made by distillation of crude and the judicious use of additives such as TEL. AFAIK, 100 octane used a slightly different distillation range from 87, and there may have been some catalytic processing (eg cracking etc) to improve yields, but without making direct reference to a contemporary reference on the subject I couldn't be certain off the top of my head.

However, I'm pretty certain that the main difference between 87 octane and 100 octane was the amount of TEL used. This would have been a variable, because different wells produce different crudes which will produce different products at the refinery, so the amount of TEL required to meet the 100 octane standard would have been varied from batch to batch. Even today, the specification therefore just includes an upper limit for TEL content (http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_Fuels_Local_TDS_Aviation_Fuels_TDS_-_Avgas_100_100LL.pdf).

To get an idea of just how many chemicals are actually contained in real fuel, you can read the safety sheet (http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GSAP_msds_00049735.PDF).

In any case, if you don't clean the tanks when swapping from 87 octane to 100 octane then you'll end up with a mixture which will have some undetermined intermediate octane rating. Running at +12 on this mixture is not the same as running at +12 on 100 octane, and might cause pre-ignition or detonation.

It would therefore be advisable to flush the fuel system thoroughly with 100 octane before embarking on +12 running, and the obvious way to do that without taking the whole aeroplane & engine to bits would just be to ground run through say a tank full of 100 octane. Then you can be pretty certain that all the 87 octane is out of the system and it should be safe to start testing at +12.

You would then probably conduct a few minutes of running at high boost to ensure that the boost control cutout was really delivering +12.

TheGrunch

04-05-2011, 06:41 PM

Thanks for the info Viper...possibly a bit of a Chinese whispers effect going on there as to how the fuel was mixed, then. :o

ivo

04-05-2011, 06:59 PM

Hi, where I can find on internet ''operation record book '' like 54° sq?
My bad, 54 Squadron. But I agree this could be an extreme case. My point was rather to illustrate that there would be considerable fuel requirement for non-combat sorties as well, which is usually not being taken into account.

Kurfürst

04-05-2011, 07:11 PM

At http://www.oldrafrecords.com/, posted a few pages back in the topic. ;-)

ivo

04-06-2011, 05:43 PM

Thanks a lot Kurfürst :)

Osprey

04-27-2011, 03:53 PM

+1
I don't care if my plane is porked,as long it is historically porked to 1940's standards!

Exactly. No screaming rubbish about bias to one flavour. I too am only interested in historical accuracy. What worries me is that in the long run the FM'S will get sodomised in oder to balance online dogfights. No, I want a planeset that performs as it did, even if it means I die a lot.

TomcatViP

04-27-2011, 04:33 PM

The whole story of Emil versions is a total mess since aircraft were retrofitted and changed versions all the time. It was not unusual to have an aircraft delivered as E-1 being refitted as E-4 being refitted as E-7 being refitted as E-7/N. And of course it would only appear as E-1 in official production lists ... :rolleyes:

I agree. There was no so much difference in E3-E7. In fact the only true variant could be the E3 with the options added on the field making it a E4 or E7 for historians. When factories added a particular kit it made it a E4/7 but those were more factory tunned.

Jus to add my 2 cents (speaking in € of course) the 601N eng was so only marginaly fitted to the 109 during the BoB that I can see its introduction in CoD just as an AI upgrade for unit commender (what it was in fact).

If anyone could infirm/confirm the following : the E3 Jabo unit might hve been the units lucky enough to get some of those engines.

Anyway dealing with the story of the DB601N, man hve to remind the political aspect of Nazi Germany at war and the influence of key individuals on any strategical assets. Note that this is exactly were the RAF beat the Nazi Luftwaffe and had much more success than France in the fight, not in the 200+lb Spitfire or Hurricane Mark XXX :rolleyes:

Peril

04-27-2011, 10:16 PM

Lets look at consumption: 10,000 tons of 100 octane spirit used per month in june and august.

10,000 tons = 10,160,000 Kilograms of Spirit due imperial tons.

Hawker Hurricane fuel Capacity 441 L = Approx 320 kg of fuel (SG of 0.72) I used the hurri becasue it carries 60L more than Spitfire.

So 10,000 tons of would provide 31750 full tanks of fuel for a hurricane. That would account for 1040 full tanks per day for hurricane for the 61 days of june and august. Make your own mind up if it is enough. I think it is enough to provide all front line fighter squadrons involved with 100 octane.

Ya gota admit, you can't fail the mans logic here. I'm pro data but where the data is grey you use logic and this is logical.

Now, can 1C make a plane that matches the data intended, what ever that may be? It seems to me the CoD FM engine is running so buggy it's not possible to dial that accuracy in yet?

41Sqn_Stormcrow

04-27-2011, 10:59 PM

TomcatViP

04-28-2011, 12:38 AM

I
Britain and the Commonwealth pilots at the Battle of Britain as seriously outnumbered as they were, 640 fighters facing 2600 Luftwaffe aircraft, where able to do what they did because of the relative performance of the machines involved, access to 100-octane fuel, combined with the advantage proffered by radar. Failure to portray the difference in performance is a huge disservice to everyone that was involved during that conflict regardless of the side they served.

This is totally BS. I can't believe to hve to read this.

The fact that two third of the Vics were scored by courageous pilots tht had to fight in the inferior Hurri prove this fact. Britain wons due to it's superior Strategical & tactical thinking, inspired personnels, luck (?) and the poor level of strategical thinking of the opposing Nazi leaders. In other word Britain in 1940 put the demonstration that a Democratic regime with some rationalized organisation could defeat the most militarized regime the world had ever seen.

This are facts written with gold and bloods in the history pages

I suggest you to read HurriVs109 a rather complete collection of Pilots account during BoB with fear, the lack of sleep, the chattering lead and the horrifics agonies of pilots roasted alive and the tiny cans of their aluminium cockpit. Those men deserve more respect than you silly phrasing suggesting that it was a piece of cake.

If you are lazy enough for not re-enacting the BoB in the way it was, there is some lower settings available for you.

Peril

04-28-2011, 04:29 AM

Let's wait and see what they are cooking right now. Luthier announced that they will do some plane performance adaptions and FM modifications in one of their next patches.

Currently I think the whole discussion on FM is a bit into the empty anyhow as we already know that the FM is wrong since RL ceilings can be reached by no a/c in game right now.

I don't adventure into guessing why even though I have some theories.

But I do appreciate the effort of actually collecting historical data. But if you do so please add the sources. This is vital if you want your data to have some credibility (no offence meant).

I got close in the latest patch, did not test before now so others will have to chime in with previous performance specs.

Latest Patch

Just climbed the latest patch Hurricane I with no CEM and managed to reach a ceiling of 30,000ft (RoC of 100 ftm) using 3000rpm.

Seems a little light on performance in climb test, data indicated rated climb was @ 2600rpm and was 400fpm @ 30kft. So whilst I did almost reach the RL ceiling I had to use more power ie. 3000rpm.

My data on the Hurricane is limited, looks like a rated max of ~32kft? seems to me like boost was a bit low generally, at higher rpm this should be higher alt rated, for others to resolve I guess.

Glider

06-16-2011, 01:56 PM

Since the FTH for +12 was 10,000 feet or so, it would be pretty reckless not to ground test at +12 to ensure that Mod. No. Merlin/154 was embodied correctly given that it was a local mod; otherwise there would be no guarantee that +12 might not be exceeded, leading to rapid failure in flight.

Reverting to 87 octane would require that the 87 octane limits be observed; since operation of the cutout would now give +12 it would probably be wired shut; clearly in this condition the aeroplane would not be exactly combat ready.

Having filled the tanks with 87 octane again, they would probably require cleaning when reverting to 100 octane to ensure that the fuel reaching the engine met the performance standard.

Changing fuel is not quite so small an undertaking as many would imagine; aeroplanes are less forgiving than cars, and the consequences of engine failure are inevitably more severe.

Apologies for possibly restarting an old debate but there would be no need for tanks to be refilled with 87 octane as all RAF front line squadrons were fully equipped with 100 Octane. 87 Octane was used in OCU units that were equipped with Spitfires and Hurricanes but not front line units.

I am the poster who disagreed with Kurfurst in the WW2 Aircraft forum and am able to support any statement or figure that was made by myself in that forum on this subject with published information and or original documentation. If you have incorporated any of Kurfursts theories into your work then I am afraid that you have been seriously misled.

You will find that Kurfurst will not be able to support his statements. If you have any questions or doubts then please do not hesitate to raise them and I will be able to adress them in open discussion.

Kurfürst

06-16-2011, 02:12 PM

Apologies for possibly restarting an old debate but there would be no need for tanks to be refilled with 87 octane as all RAF front line squadrons were fully equipped with 100 Octane. 87 Octane was used in OCU units that were equipped with Spitfires and Hurricanes but not front line units.

Can you present a single document stating so..?

I've asked you several times to do so. You were not able to.

During the previous discussion, you have supplied a paper which directly contradicted your past and present claims, stating that 100 octane was to be supplied to "certain Fighter and Blenheim Squadrons":

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/Item36thMeetingactionsfrom5thmeetingA-1.jpg

Glider

06-16-2011, 02:44 PM

Kurfurst
While I wait for the other questions can you tell me what certain means such as how many and of what type?
You have encouraged some big assumptions in this thread so how many is certain and how did you come to that assumption?

I will support my statement that you know, as I have always done before, but I want to know how you came to these figures.

Kurfürst

06-16-2011, 02:51 PM

Kurfurst
While I wait for the other questions can you tell me what certain means such as how many and of what type?

For the meaning of certain, please refer to: http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/certain_1

I am pretty sure though its meaning is in stark contrast with all.

You have encouraged some big assumptions in this thread so how many is certain and how did you come to that assumption?

Clarify what 'some big assumptions' supposed to mean. You are again only presenting rhetorics.
The document you posted and which directly contradicts your thesis speaks of no uncertain terms of certain Fighter and Blenheim Squadrons.
That's not an assumptopn - it's a fact.

Apologies for possibly restarting an old debate but there would be no need for tanks to be refilled with 87 octane as all RAF front line squadrons were fully equipped with 100 Octane. 87 Octane was used in OCU units that were equipped with Spitfires and Hurricanes but not front line units.

... I will support my statement that you know, as I have always done before, but I want to know how you came to these figures.
Can you present a single document stating so..?

I've asked you several times to do so. You were not able to.

I've asked again in this thread. You've evaded the question.

So I ask again: Can you present a single document stating so..?

The reason I have to ask you for the second time and about the tenth time since we have this discussion is because you were completely unable to support your statement.

Glider

06-16-2011, 10:05 PM

Kurfurst You know why I asked you about the number of squadrons and fighters with 100 Octane, its something we have covered before and I want to know if your position has changed.

Glider

06-16-2011, 11:02 PM

All
The link that is most important is the following
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108.html
To save time I will often refer to postings in this thread but I am afraid that Kurfurst has misled you from the start. His posting 24 is little more than a fantasy.

For example
The paper that is supposed to be from the Australian Researcher doesn’t as far I am aware exist. It is supposed to be held at the Australian records, who when I asked for a copy could not find it, they could not find it when the Wikipedia people asked for it and this was most interesting we discovered that Kurfurst hadn’t even tried to look for it. See his posting 92 and my reply 96
Even if it does exist it is riddled with errors to be worthless for instance
1) It talks about a great strain on the 100 octane fuel reserves. Posting 2 shows a stockpile of 400,000 tons in August 1940 which consumption in the period of July to August averaged 10,000 tons a month, making it a three and a half year stockpile. I don’t call that a shortage or a strain.
2) It talks about the Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. These meetings didn’t mention 100 octane at all, there were no decisions made and 87 octane was not deemed to be the primary fuel. See my posting 174
3) It says that large quantities of fuel were not available until August which is clearly wrong. Posting 2

In Kurfursts posting on this thread no 24 he says things that he knows to be untrue such as
1) He clearly accuses me of ‘subtle manipulation of the original papers’. This is a lie.
2) He says that I was in communication with the Australian researcher. That's is unfortunate, because I saw the authors of said article discussing the same subject with an Australian researcher. Again this is a lie indeed I was keen to have such communication. See my posting 96 where I ask Kurfurst to get him to contact us. This never happened.

Another tactic the Kurfurst uses is not divulging all the information that he has if its not convenient and there is a good example re the number of Blenheim units that were equipped with 100 octane. He seems to have led you to believe that only two squadrons were so equipped. Lets look at this
1) Posting 2 is a letter from the ACAS on behalf of the Chief of the Air Staff asking for squadrons equipped with fighters and Blenheim to be equipped with 100 Octane
2) Posting 3 covers the arrangements for the transfer
3) Posting 4 is an update showing that Bomber command is going well but there is a misunderstanding re fighter command
4) Posting 6 is a note of thanks for the job done.
In other words all Blenheim bomber units had the fuel. Kurfurst was well aware of this detail.

I have accused Kurfurst of serious things and I have done this with care but he has a track record. I suggest you review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain
It’s the discussion section on the Aircraft of the Battle of Britain. Here you will see the sort of accusation that Kurfurst has not hesitated to use.

I should add that I am not Gavin Bailey my name is David Slack.

CaptainDoggles

06-16-2011, 11:13 PM

Glider, why aren't you posting proof that all RAF units were supplied with 100 octane?

Kurfürst

06-17-2011, 04:11 AM

Dear David/Glider,

I am not going to lower myself to your level of evading questions and instead of putting forward your evidence, repeatedly requested by myself in this and other threads, entering into pitiful personal attacks. Its sufficient to say that despite being asked about 3 times already to put forward the evidence to your claims, you've utterly failed to do so. Instead, you've only managed to claim that the evidence I put forward in my earlier posts are 'fantasy' - very convincing and mature arguement indeed!

Therefore, I find it sufficient to point out the following facts. Regarding the Australian Researcher's findings, you strongly distort what he says, and put up strawman arguements, such as putting into his mouth that 'large quantities of fuel were not available until August' - he never said such a thing. You simply make up a lie and then 'disprove' your own lie. He notes that the decisions were made in may 1940 due to concerns of future fuel supplies, which makes the arguement about what the storage was in August completely irrelevant - in may the fuel supply was still just about 200 000 tons, and at the RAF's consumption rate of 40-50k tons per month it would be sufficient for but a few months, had complete 100 octane conversion would have been decided. Regarding you claims about British War Cabinet meetings, earlier you claimed you went into the NA in Kew and 'found nothing' -I am totally on the opinion that you have simply made this up in desperation.

Regarding your comments regarding my posting on this thread no 24, they only show that you are completely lack reading comprehension skills, which makes you probably the least qualified person in this thread to make summaries of far more complicated papers than a forum post written in simple English. Regarding the Australian researchers findings, I must also note that despite I made it clear where the qoutes come from, you first have repeatedly told others that those are my finding and I should produce the paper; you have had to be told several times over and over again that the research was done by an Austrialian fellow, and you were even given a link to the discussion concerned; then you kept claiming some conspiracy that the link wasn't working for you, and now you admit that you in fact seen the thread, but now claim that for some reason you couldn't contact him; I wonder why, when you have seen the thread, you could send him a PM any time have you really wished; why I would need to ask to contact you is beyond my imagination.

In other words all Blenheim bomber units had the fuel. Kurfurst was well aware of this detail.

Aware of what..? I am glad to see that you are resorting to your favourite tactic, you were asked to support evidence for your claim that all fighter command fighter were running on 100 octane, and utterly failed at that; so instead now you change the subject and brought up a new claim, that all Blenheims were running on 100 octane as well. What's next, Glider? But very well, support that claim as well, I willing to believe if I see the evidence, because your papers, whatever you want to read into them plainly say that

"certain Fighter and Blenheim Squadrons"

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/101697d1249770292-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-item-3-6th-meeting-actions-5th-meeting-.jpg

"the Bomber Stations concerned was practically complete (these Stations are Wyton Watton, Wattisham, West Rayham)"

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/101699d1249771277-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-item-5-6th-meeting-minute-.jpg

Quite clearly only four Bomber/Blenheim bases were 'concerned' with 100 octane fuel. If those four stations held all Blenheim Squadrons, your claim may be true, but somehow I doubt it.

Wyton had two Blenheim Squadrons at the time: Nos. 15 and 40
"In December 1939, both Wyton squadrons were sent to France and Nos. 15 and 40 Squadrons returned from the Continent to Wyton, the first step in converting Battle squadrons to Blenheims. Both squadrons flew their first bombing raids from Wyton on May 10, 1940 against targets in the Low Countries. The Blenheims of No. 57 Squadron were based briefly at Wyton in June before going south, returning for two weeks the following month before flying north only to appear again at Wyton in late October. "

Wattisham had also two, Nos. 107 and 110 Squadrons http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/s30.html
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/s106.html

Watton also had two Blenheim Squadrons: Nos.21 and 82 Squadrons
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/s31.html

West Rayham had only one Blenheim Squadron, No. 139, and possibly from June 1940 also no. 18 also operating.

That's 7 or more like 8 Blenheim Squadrons on 100 octane. At that time there were 15 Bomber Command Sqns. operating Blenheim IVs. But this pretty much explains where 100 octane fuel went in such quantities - even those 8 Blenheim Squadrons were consuming a lot. Total tankage was 468 imp. gallons compared to 85 gallons on the Spit - a worth of about 45 Fighter Squadrons.. ;)

Glider

06-17-2011, 04:46 AM

Glider, why aren't you posting proof that all RAF units were supplied with 100 octane?

Its very straightforward there is a limit to what I can and cannot prove and that is something that I have always been open about. I do not make assumptions, neither do I post part of the information available to me. So going back to the thread that I put a link in to earlier.

Posting 2
Shows the instruction from the Chief of the Air Staff for fighters and Blenheim units to be equipped with 100 octane. The ACAS has made the request but its safe to assume he wouldn't do this without the authority from the top. Its a clear request without any limits, it doesn't say certain, or limit the issue by Group or any other qualification.

Posting 3
Contains two papers the one that Kurfurst quotes saying Certain squadrons and the second paper that gives the actual status in both Bomber and Fighter commands.
Its worth noting that I didn't have to post the first paper, I knew at the time that the word 'certain' could be used to discredit the position and had I not posted it no one would have known, but for completeness I did include it.
If you look at my posting 12 it includes the line
I could see one line which I knew Kurfurst would almost certainly leap on and could have left it out, but that would have broken the train so I kept it in.
I can only assume that he didn't dare use that word then but has now decided to do so. Anyway back to your question.

Posting 4
Here you can see that as a cost saving measure the Authorities wanted to keep one tank of 87 octane for visiting aircraft passing through. Bomber Command were against this and permission was given in some cases for all the fuel to be 100 Octane.

Note the terminology - the 87 Octane wasn't for non operational flights, but for aircraft passing through.
Note also the reference to the four bomber bases - these four bases were the only ones allowed to be 100% 100 Octane, the other bases had to keep one tank for the aircraft passing through. It certainly wasn't only these four bases were to have 100 octane.

Posting 5
is an update report

Posting 6
Is the paper confirming the completion of the switch from 87 to 100 octane. I do make the observation that
What is interesting is what isn't in the file and its a big file. At no stage is any concern expressed about any shortage of 100 Octane Fuel the level of stocks or any lack of supply. There was never any mention of capping distribution or shipping stocks from one station to another or sector

Posting 12
This is interesting for a different reason. It refers to the experimental production of 100 Octane fuel at a UK Refinery which produced 35,000 tons over four months, at a time when average useage was 10,000 tons a month. In other words had there been a shortage then the UK could easily have been self sufficient. The experiment did take place but due to cost grounds it was switched back to normal production when complete

I was asked if I had a list of when each station was equipped with 100 octane but there wasn't a schedule in the NA files.

It should also be noted that Kurfursts position was that only 18 fighter squadrons were equipped with 100 Octane which is one reason why I was asking him to state what number of aircraft or squadrons was he talking about in this forum being equipped with the better fuel.
It should be noted that we identified well over 30 squadrons which reported the use of the extra boost and additional stations which had 100 octane over and above the ones listed in the records. 100 octane was used in France and Norway so it was widely used and a standard issue

Posting 63
Kurfurst was getting a little desperate at this stage and I was totally open about my position saying
I think one thing has to be made clear. Can I give a 100% Cast Iron, Gold Plated guarantee that every station in fighter command had 100 Octane fuel. No I cannot, as that would involve checking vast amounts of data and I have a life to lead, so in short there could be one station in the back end of nowhere which didn't get the fuel. As Kurfurst rightly pointed out I used the phrase , "sources links that exist and support the view that Fighter Command was effectively fully converted to 100 Octane by May 1940. Note the word effectively.
That said I do believe and there is no evidence in my mind to contridict the view that all stations did have the 100 Octane Fuel.

This remains my position. There is no evidence anywhere that Fighter Command was anything but 100% fully equipped with 100 Octane. Hundreds of books have been written about the battle, probably more than on any other conflict and scores or personal memories and no one ever has mentioned this theory. No one has mentioned the obvious logistical or practical problems that having mixed fuel would mean.

We have a document trail from the instruction from the Chief of the Air Staff asking for fighters to be equipped with 100 Octane and the other papers that follow the implementation until completion. Why did someone type in certain on one paper I have no idea and am not making any assumptions.

We have other papers that were issued by Dowling about the dangers of using the extra boost and not telling the ground crews, papers that were issued to all of fighter command not just some units or stations.

Against this we have a paper that is supposed to exist in Australia which they have never heard of, which Kurfurst has never seen and had never asked for and finally if it does exist, is riddled with errors.

I am very aware that I have made serious accusations about Kurfurst but I have supported my comments and before anyone deletes these postings I suggest you check them out.

If you incorporate his theories into any code then you do stand a chance of being made to look very foolish..

Seadog

06-17-2011, 05:14 AM

Glider, why aren't you posting proof that all RAF units were supplied with 100 octane?

Here's a source that states, unambiguously, that all of RAFFC converted to 100 octane:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0QgyynI6HjY/Tfrgg69OY4I/AAAAAAAAACQ/gbyH2vsdlT0/s640/All_merlin_100oct.jpg

A. R. Ogston, excerpt from History of Aircraft Lubricants (Society of Automotive Enginers, Inc. Warrendale, PA USA), p. 12.

CaptainDoggles

06-17-2011, 05:29 AM

Here's a source that states, unambiguously, that all of RAFFC converted to 100 octane:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0QgyynI6HjY/Tfrgg69OY4I/AAAAAAAAACQ/gbyH2vsdlT0/s640/All_merlin_100oct.jpg

A. R. Ogston, excerpt from History of Aircraft Lubricants (Society of Automotive Enginers, Inc. Warrendale, PA USA), p. 12.

Seems pretty straightforward but I wouldn't call this a primary source. Do they list their references?

CaptainDoggles

06-17-2011, 06:19 AM

Its very straightforward there is a limit to what I can and cannot prove and that is something that I have always been open about. I do not make assumptions, neither do I post part of the information available to me. So going back to the thread that I put a link in to earlier.

Posting 2
Shows the instruction from the Chief of the Air Staff for fighters and Blenheim units to be equipped with 100 octane. The ACAS has made the request but its safe to assume he wouldn't do this without the authority from the top. Its a clear request without any limits, it doesn't say certain, or limit the issue by Group or any other qualification.

Posting 3
Contains two papers the one that Kurfurst quotes saying Certain squadrons and the second paper that gives the actual status in both Bomber and Fighter commands.
Its worth noting that I didn't have to post the first paper, I knew at the time that the word 'certain' could be used to discredit the position and had I not posted it no one would have known, but for completeness I did include it.
If you look at my posting 12 it includes the line
I could see one line which I knew Kurfurst would almost certainly leap on and could have left it out, but that would have broken the train so I kept it in.
I can only assume that he didn't dare use that word then but has now decided to do so. Anyway back to your question.

Posting 4
Here you can see that as a cost saving measure the Authorities wanted to keep one tank of 87 octane for visiting aircraft passing through. Bomber Command were against this and permission was given in some cases for all the fuel to be 100 Octane.
Note the terminology, the 87 Octane wasn't for non operational flights, but for aircraft passing through.

Posting 5
is an update report

Posting 6
Is the paper confirming the completion of the switch from 87 to 100 octane. I do make the observation that
What is interesting is what isn't in the file and its a big file. At no stage is any concern expressed about any shortage of 100 Octane Fuel the level of stocks or any lack of supply. There was never any mention of capping distribution or shipping stocks from one station to another or sector

Posting 12
This is interesting for a different reason. It refers to the experimental production of 100 Octane fuel at a UK Refinery which produced 35,000 tons over four months, at a time when average useage was 10,000 tons a month. In other words had there been a shortage then the UK could easily have been self sufficient. The experiment did take place but due to cost grounds it was switched back to normal production when complete

I was asked if I had a list of when each station was equipped with 100 octane but there wasn't a schedule in the NA files.

It should also be noted that Kurfursts position was that only 18 fighter squadrons were equipped with 100 Octane which is one reason why I was asking him to state what number of aircraft or squadrons was he talking about in this forum being equipped with the better fuel.
It should be noted that we identified well over 30 squadrons which reported the use of the extra boost and additional stations which had 100 octane over and above the ones listed in the records. 100 octane was used in France and Norway so it was widely used and a standard issue

Posting 63
Kurfurst was getting a little desperate at this stage and I was totally open about my position saying
I think one thing has to be made clear. Can I give a 100% Cast Iron, Gold Plated guarantee that every station in fighter command had 100 Octane fuel. No I cannot, as that would involve checking vast amounts of data and I have a life to lead, so in short there could be one station in the back end of nowhere which didn't get the fuel. As Kurfurst rightly pointed out I used the phrase , "sources links that exist and support the view that Fighter Command was effectively fully converted to 100 Octane by May 1940. Note the word effectively.
That said I do believe and there is no evidence in my mind to contridict the view that all stations did have the 100 Octane Fuel.

This remains my position. There is no evidence anywhere that Fighter Command was anything but 100% fully equipped with 100 Octane. Hundreds of books have been written about the battle, probably more than on any other conflict and scores or personal memories and no one ever has mentioned this theory. No one has mentioned the obvious logistical or practical problems that having mixed fuel would mean.

We have a document trail from the instruction from the Chief of the Air Staff asking for fighters to be equipped with 100 Octane and the other papers that follow the implementation until completion. Why did someone type in certain on one paper I have no idea and am not making any assumptions.

We have other papers that were issued by Dowling about the dangers of using the extra boost and not telling the ground crews, papers that were issued to all of fighter command not just some units or stations.

Against this we have a paper that is supposed to exist in Australia which they have never heard of, which Kurfurst has never seen and had never asked for and finally if it does exist, is riddled with errors.

I am very aware that I have made serious accusations about Kurfurst but I have supported my comments and before anyone deletes these postings I suggest you check them out.

If you incorporate his theories into any code then you do stand a chance of being made to look very foolish..

I'm in the process of reading this thread and I can tell you that almost everyone involved "looks foolish", yourself included.

Stop editorializing what you think Kurfurst is doing (Kurfurst is desperate, etc) it only serves to make you look petty, petulant, and juvenile. Indeed from reading your postings at ww2aircraft.net that is the conclusion to which I have come about your character.

In any case, I'm still reading the two threads and have yet to come across any definitive proof that RAF aircraft were 100% equipped with 100 octane at all times. I'm willing to be persuaded but that has not yet occurred.

CaptainDoggles

06-17-2011, 06:20 AM

Danelov

06-17-2011, 07:13 AM

Data of the Fiat G.50 Freccia.

Weight(MTOW): 2402 kg
Empty weight: 1963 kg
Max speed: 472 kph/5000m
Cruise speed: 415 kph
Range: 670km
Ceiling: 10,700m
Climb rate: 6000m in 7'30'' ,5000m in 6'3''
Weapons: 2x Breda SAFAT with 150 rounds p/gun
Gunsight Type S.Giorgio at riflesione
Ammo: Counter included in panel
Fire system: Warning light, extintor at biossido di carbonio.
Radio: ARC 1
Fuel: 260 l(provision for 52 l of aux fuel in a fuselage tank)
Power: Engine Fiat A.74 RC, radial, 14 cylinders
740 HP in take off.
840 HP with 2400rpm at 4000m
879 HP with "+100"(WEP)
Propeller: Hamilton Standard 3D-41-1, constant speed, passo variabile
Misc: In panel/cockpit: Carburator heat switch, gear indicators, fire warning light, compressed air indicators, ammo counter, engine instruments, compass, cowling flaps selector, Flaps lever, parking brake lever.
Other: The G.50 turn well to the right but less satisfactory to the left . Stall with 125 to 130 kph. Exit of stall with turn to the right.

Dates from: "Fiat G.50 Le Macchine e la Storia, Stem Mucchi, Modena-Italia"

Seadog

06-17-2011, 07:36 AM

Seems pretty straightforward but I wouldn't call this a primary source. Do they list their references?

That's all I have for now.

Bobb4

06-17-2011, 08:40 AM

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/1940-0897.jpg
While not definative it provides a date when the British public may have become aware of 100 octane

Bobb4

06-17-2011, 08:48 AM

And here is a site that discusses in length the benefits of the 109/Spit including pilot anidotes and references the introduction of 100 Hi-Octane fuel
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

And for those to lazy to read...

The Merlin III engine data is from Rolls-Royce. 24 The DB 601A engine data is taken from curves found in the DB 601 A u. B Motoren-Handbuch of May 1942. 25 Trials were successfully carried out in October 1939 to increase the power of the Spitfire's Merlin II and III engines by raising the manifold pressure to +12 lbs./sq.in. 26 Air Ministry A.P.1590B/J.2-W. dated 20 March 1940 gives official notice that "The emergency use of higher boost pressures up to +12 lb./sq. in. is now permitted for short periods by operation of the modified boost control cut-out". 27 Also during February and March 1940 Spitfire and Hurricane Squadrons were converting their aircraft over to 100 octane fuel, which made possible an increase in engine power by raising the boost to +12 lb/sq.in.. 28a 28b 28c 28d 28e 28f 28g 28h 28i 28j 28k 28l 28m 28n 28o 28p 28q 28r 28s 28t Combat reports show that +12 lb boost was used by the Spitfire (and Hurricane) squadrons during their first combats with the Me 109 E in May 1940 while covering the Dunkirk evacuation. 29 30 Hurricane Squadrons based in France during May of 1940 were also employing +12 lbs/sq.in. boost in combat. 31 31b

The first Spitfire into service was delivered to No. 19 Squadron at Duxford on 4 August 1938. The use of 100 octane fuel was approved for Spitfire Squadrons by 24 September 1938. 32 Fighter Command noted on 6 December 1938 that Duxford, Debden, Northholt and Digby had received 100 octane fuel. 32b As of December 1938 Nos. 19 and 66 were based at Duxford and were the only RAF units then equipped with Spitfires. The Air Ministry noted in a memo dated 12 December 1939 that "100 octane fuel is approved for use in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft, and state that issue will be made as soon as the fuel is available in bulk at the distribution depots serving the Fighter Stations concerned." 32c Gavin Bailey concluded that "The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year." 33 As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock. 34 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 The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons. 36 Jeffrey Quill recalled:

It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb. 37

Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the R.A.F. By July 11th, 1940, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, twenty-one days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stock available on October 10th, 1940, was 666,000 tons. Oil reserves were 34,000 tons. 38

Wood & Dempster’s figures for stocks of 100 octane are in agreement with those of the War Cabinet, however, their figure of 22,000 tons issued falls short of the Air Ministry’s figures as shown below. By 7 August 1940 "authority has been obtained for the use of 100 octane fuel in all operational aircraft and that instructions to that effect are being issued to Commands", i.e. all operational aircraft in Bomber, Coastal, Training and Fighter Commands. 39 On October 29, just before the end of the Battle of Britain, 423,400 tons of 100 octane fuel was in stock in the UK. 40a The War Cabinet recorded that 100 octane stocks stood at 202,000 tons on 31 December 1939 and that 100 octane stocks had risen to 499,000 tons one year later on 31 December 1940. 40b The Air Ministry recorded that 58,000 tons of 100 octane were issued during the Battle of Britain. 40c The War Cabinet recorded that 100 octane consumption within the UK for the whole of 1940 amounted to 130,000 tons, an average of 2,500 tons per week. 40d Consumption of 100 octane during the Battle of Britain averaged 10,000 tons per month for the months of July and August rising to 14,000 tons in September followed by 17,000 tons during October. Total consumption of 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain therefore was on the order of 50,000 tons. 40e V. A. Kalichevsky, author of the 1943 book The Amazing Petroleum Industry wrote:

It is an established fact that a difference of only 13 points in octane number made possible the defeat of the Luftwaffe by the R.A.F. in the Fall of 1940. This difference, slight as it seems, is sufficient to give a plane the vital "edge" in altitude, rate of climb and maneuverability that spells the difference between defeat and victory. 40f

The Spitfire I Pilot's Notes lays out the use of +12 boost as follows:41

An August 1, 1940 memo from Air Chief Marshall Dowding to all Fighter Groups shows that the pilots often exceeded these limits.

The use of the automatic boost cut out control enables the pilot to get an emergency boost of + 12 lbs. per sq.in. from the engine for 5 minutes when circumstances demand it. Some pilots "pull the plug" with little excuse on every occasion. 42

Glider

06-17-2011, 09:06 AM

Stop editorializing what you think Kurfurst is doing (Kurfurst is desperate, etc) it only serves to make you look petty, petulant, and juvenile. Indeed from reading your postings at ww2aircraft.net that is the conclusion to which I have come about your character.

In any case, I'm still reading the two threads and have yet to come across any definitive proof that RAF aircraft were 100% equipped with 100 octane at all times. I'm willing to be persuaded but that has not yet occurred.

At least I am a petty, petulant and juvenile person who post sources, links and original documentation.
Being serious for a moment, if you have any questions or explanations don't hesitate to ask either on the forum or by PM. That offer is obviously open to anyone.

Bobb4

06-17-2011, 09:57 AM

Maybe i missed something but why the debate on 100 octane at all, is there a quotable source that says it was not available?
Again all the sources I have found indicate it was, and ironically even during the Battle for France 12 lb boost was used an indication 100 Octane was available then?

Glider

06-17-2011, 10:03 AM

Glider

06-17-2011, 11:08 AM

VO101_Tom

06-17-2011, 11:28 AM

If I can address the question of the number of Blenheim squadrons which were stocked with 100 octane...

Hi. Can you attaching higher resolution picture? I can not read the second page :(

Ze-Jamz

06-17-2011, 11:39 AM

Hi. Can you attaching higher resolution picture? I can not read the second page :(

Save n Zoom?

VO101_Tom

06-17-2011, 11:50 AM

Save n Zoom?

the 300 pixel wide text part will not be more detailed, just bigger :)
The native language of who is English, read it more easily sure...

Glider

06-17-2011, 12:01 PM

It is a dreadful copy but the following may help

VO101_Tom

06-17-2011, 12:15 PM

It is a dreadful copy but the following may help

Thank you, it helps :)

Kurfürst

06-17-2011, 03:08 PM

Kurfurst,

Could you kindly post a link to this article written by the australian author directly? I have been waiting almost 2 weeks for my account at allaboutwarfare.com to be activated but it hasn't happened yet.

I can re-post for you the original post(s) from July 2004. Needless to say, Neil Stirling got a heart attack when he saw it. ;) Neil, like some other here were pushing for a pet theory about 100% 100 octane use in FC for some years, but have found no evidence during 10 years of research. It must have been very sobering to him.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=230&st=0&start=0][/url]
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.

Given that large quantities were not available until late August, the volume of usage/week of 87 Octane must be far higher than that quoted for 100 Octane.

I came across it when I was in fact researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives.

It's 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 quite an interesting paper actually, even though i found it to be a very dry subject.

The most interesting part is that "Pips" found this well before, in 2004 or earlier, and it agrees with every single document Neil managed to dig up afterwards, though Neil and now Glider tries to discredit this research with whatever means, basically calling Pips a liar behind his back at every opportunity, but never to his face.. The problem is, if Pip would have made it up, he was extremely talented, because Pips information from 2004 - for example that the large scale fighter conversion begun in late September 1940 - agrees perfectly with what Neil found in British archives in 2009 about 87 vs 100 octane consumption rates (and then waited two years before publishing it, as it was obviously not very helpful to his own thesis).

Note that as per the consumption figures, 100 octane did not become the main fuel until late September 1940, just like Pips stated, 7 years ago.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/100-87issues-FC_sorties_duringBoB.png

Kurfürst

06-17-2011, 03:18 PM

Kurfurst had until the last few days said that there were only two squadrons and asked me to supply my evidence.

Stop making things up and putting into other's mouths. As others have noted, it makes you look petty, petulant, and juvenile. Its the lowest form of arguement, when you have nothing worthwhile to offer.

[QUOTE=Glider;298446]
Note 1 - all Blenheim units are to be equipped with 100 octane

The paper does not say that. You have made it up.

If anyone wants any additional information please let me know

I would like to see the complete papers, not just snippets you wish to show.

Kurfürst

06-17-2011, 03:22 PM

Here's what the best Spitfire book (Morgan/Shacklady: Spitfire, the History), by far, has to say on the question.

Take note that it very well mentions the supply problems with the import of 100 octane from overseas, and also take note Glider is very well aware of this work, having shown this several times. Instead, he sells a story about 'hundreds' of books not mentioning a thing.. ;)

The relative lifespan of the engine (10-20 hours on +12 lbs vs 100 hours on +6 1/4 lbs) is also of interest.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/shacklady100octane_1.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/shacklady100octane_2.jpg

CaptainDoggles

06-17-2011, 04:13 PM

If I can address the question of the number of Blenheim squadrons which were stocked with 100 octane.

Kurfurst had until the last few days said that there were only two squadrons and asked me to supply my evidence.

The following papers which he has seen before and quoted on recently make it clear that the four stations are the only stations to be fully fuelled with 100 octane. The paper makes it clear that these are the exception and that the norm must be to retain one tank of 87 octane for aircraft that are passing through.

Note 1 - all Blenheim units are to be equipped with 100 octane
Note 2 - only the four specified bases are to be only equipped with 100 octane
Note 3 - the 87 octane is for aircraft passing through not non operational flying

If anyone wants any additional information please let me know

Those two images you attached speak pretty clearly to me, and say that the DTD230 (which I assume is 87 octane?) is not simply "for aircraft passing through" but rather the station must include aircraft passing through when calculating its total consumption requirements for DTD230. In other words, the station must take into account not only its own consumption of 87 octane but also the consumption of any aircraft that might be passing through.

In fact the first scan states quite clearly that the decision to eliminate their holdings of DTD230 should not be taken as a precedent, so to me this is in fact quite compelling evidence that the RAF had not converted all its aircraft to 100 octane (at least in April of 1940 when the document is dated).

Seadog

06-17-2011, 06:31 PM

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/shacklady100octane_2.jpg

There are several errors in the above excerpt. The Merlin X had a two stage SC and was not a Merlin III modified to run on 100 octane.

British Tanker losses in the first year of the war were quite low.

OTOH, it shows clearly that the Merlin III could be run for long periods of time at 12lb/3000rpm. 10 hours in 1938 engines and 20 hours in later engines.

Seadog

06-17-2011, 06:55 PM

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/shacklady100octane_1.jpg

and this is a prewar planning document, and we all know that RAFFC made a wholesale conversion to CS props and 100octane fuel in the spring of 1940 in response to wartime events, especially the improved performance of the Me109. Conversion to 100 octane without changing over to CS props was almost pointless, but a March 1939 planning meeting could not have envisaged the largescale changes that would be required by Spring 1940.

Glider

06-17-2011, 08:40 PM

Those two images you attached speak pretty clearly to me, and say that the DTD230 (which I assume is 87 octane?) is not simply "for aircraft passing through" but rather the station must include aircraft passing through when calculating its total consumption requirements for DTD230. In other words, the station must take into account not only its own consumption of 87 octane but also the consumption of any aircraft that might be passing through.

In fact the first scan states quite clearly that the decision to eliminate their holdings of DTD230 should not be taken as a precedent, so to me this is in fact quite compelling evidence that the RAF had not converted all its aircraft to 100 octane (at least in April of 1940 when the document is dated).

This might clarify the position. The first paper you have seen before and is the Summary of the Conclusion of the 5th Meeting of the Oil Committee. You have seen this before its where the Chief of the Air Staff has requested that fighters and Blenheim units be equipped with 100 Octane.

The second paper is the actions from the 5th meeting of the Oil Committee for the 6th Meeting. Here the statment is quite clear that Blenheim units in No 2 Group were to switch to 100 Octane.

The previous two papers I posted highlighted that four stations were to be totally equipped with 100 Octane and the others were to keep one tank of 87 Octane. I should add that these were from the 6th meeting of the Committee. I should also add another paper from the 7th Meeting of the Oil Committee where they confirm that the fighter units concerned had been stocked with the 100 Octane Fuel and that the Air Minestry had been impressed with the way that the task had been handled.

You can of course read those previous papers how you wish, but to me when it says to keep one sixth of the fuel as 87 Octane and five sixths 100 Octane and we know that some of that 87 Octane is for visiting aircraft then operations are going to be on 100 Octane. Put all the papers together they tell me that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group are going to use 100 Octane on operations. I emphasise all, not two squadrons.

You may well consider me to be childish but I have produced original documentation to support my case.

Crumpp

06-17-2011, 09:12 PM

You may well consider me to be childish but I have produced original documentation to support my case.

The meeting notes you posted seem to confirm that Bomber command was using 100 Octane in the Blenheim's.

However it clearly states that Fighter Command was still not clear whether or not 100 Octane could even be used in Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft.

OTOH, it shows clearly that the Merlin III could be run for long periods of time at 12lb/3000rpm. 10 hours in 1938 engines and 20 hours in later engines.

Yeah...that is the times from the endurance trials, Seadog. It was 10 hours total time. That 10 hours at +12lbs was 5 minutes at a time with a 20 minute rest period in-between. It was not 10 hours straight at +12lbs....

:eek:

Glider

06-17-2011, 09:34 PM

The meeting notes you posted seem to confirm that Bomber command was using 100 Octane in the Blenheim's.

However it clearly states that Fighter Command was still not clear whether or not 100 Octane could even be used in Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft.

Re Fighter Command you are correct and from the papers it was clear that this was totally unexpected, after all the engines had been tested and aircraft equipped with them for performance testing. It was the last thing they expected and was dealt with as the following paper trail explains.

In the Summary of Conclusions of the 6th Meeting the following action was given to RDE 1 who was a Mr Tweedie, the action being to clarify the position with Fighter Command. In the 7th Meeting it was noted that the use of this fuel had been made clear to Fighter Command and that the Units had been equipped with the 100 Octane Fuel.

Viper2000

06-17-2011, 09:35 PM

Yeah...that is the times from the endurance trials, Seadog. It was 10 hours total time. That 10 hours at +12lbs was 5 minutes at a time with a 20 minute rest period in-between. It was not 10 hours straight at +12lbs....

:eek:

I don't think any aeroplane of the period had enough fuel to run for 10 hours straight at +12, so I don't think you have to worry too much about the engine not getting rest between bouts of torture... :-P

Crumpp

06-18-2011, 12:00 PM

I don't think any aeroplane of the period had enough fuel to run for 10 hours straight at +12, so I don't think you have to worry too much about the engine not getting rest between bouts of torture..

The endurance trials were conducted over the course of many flights. It was not done on a test stand but on a Hurricane IIRC. The airplane flew multiple flights to accumulate time and the test ended when the engine failed ~10 hours of operation at +12lbs.

Crumpp

06-18-2011, 12:05 PM

In the 7th Meeting it was noted that the use of this fuel had been made clear to Fighter Command and that the Units had been equipped with the 100 Octane Fuel.

Yes, it states the units concerned have been stocked.

What are the units concerned?

Glider

06-18-2011, 12:43 PM

It doesn't say but its a common phrase to say in this situation. We do know that the Chief of the Air Staff had asked for fighter units to be equipped with 100 Octane. This request wasn't limited to Group or squadron or any other kind of boundary so I believe that the units concerned are the Fighter units.
I admit that its the sort of ambiguity that some people will try to build a lot on, but I cannot help what a senior civil servant wrote down seventy years ago and have to live with the consequences.

Kurfürst

06-18-2011, 12:47 PM

We do know that the Chief of the Air Staff had asked for fighter units to be equipped with 100 Octane. This request wasn't limited to Group or squadron or any other kind of boundary so I believe that the units concerned are the Fighter units.

No, that's a quite untrue representation of the doucment. The document actually says: "At the last meeting AMSO referred to a proposal that certain Fighter and Bomber Squadrons should begin the use of 100 octane fuel..."

There's no uncertanity in here. You simply misquote the document.

Gilder, do you have the complete file?

Glider

06-18-2011, 12:54 PM

Clearly this posting (note not a paper) forms the core of the argument that RAF Fighter command were not fully equipped with 100 Octane so I will look at it in detail.

Originally Posted by PipsPriller on Jul 12 2004 at
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.

Fighter Command started converting its aircraft before March. An exact date I do not have but attach two documents showing that two squadrons were equipped by 16th February, the probability is that there were others but I cannot confirm that.

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of its 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 its reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.
The 25% figure by May 1940 I cannot confirm or deny so will not comment, but the rest of this section I do fundamentally disagree with. In December 1939 stocks of 100 Octane were 202,000 tons and by August 1940 stocks were at 404,000 tons (documents are attached). We know that in June – August the average consumption was 10,000 tons a month (document attached).
The questions I suggest that we need to ask are:-
1) If you have what is in effect a three and a half year stockpile, is this a strain, let alone a great strain on the stockpile. In my opinion it isn’t a strain at all, it’s barely noticeable
2) The implication that the RAF fought the BOB with only 25% of its aircraft converted is unbelievable. Think of the practical implications, squadrons with mixed fuels and mixed performances, what are new build aircraft 100 octane or 87 octane, engines are changed and replaced, again are these 100 octane or 87 octane. Why hasn’t anybody mentioned this in all the hundreds of books written on the BOB?

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 British War Cabinet didn’t discuss 100 Octane at all in May and as a result no decisions were made. I spent a day in the NA going through all the papers for the meetings, the meeting notes and the actions resulting, and Fuel of any kind was not discussed. I should add that in May 1940 the War Cabinet met almost daily and it was a huge amount of paper, literally hundreds of sheets. There were some interesting unexpected gems, the one I liked most was a decision to take over a number of Swedish Naval vessels by force and include them in the Navy. The First Sea Lord decided that while additional vessels were always welcome, giving Germany an excuse to invade Sweden to protect them from the British was too high a risk.

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 its fighter force by the end of November in 1940.

Given that large quantities were not available until late August, the volume of usage/week of 87 Octane must be far higher than that quoted for 100 Octane
I am afraid that this is incorrect. The previous paper giving the stocks in 1940 show a strong steady increase, it certainly wasn’t the case that they had to wait until August for additional stocks. There is no indication anywhere that the RAF stopped converting fighters in May, fought the BOB with 125 aircraft modified for 100 Octane and then re started converting the aircraft in late September.
In fact the stocks had reached such a level in August that the rest of the operational aircraft in the RAF were authorised to start using 100 Octane (paper attached on following posting).

I came across it when I was in fact researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives.

It's 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 its performance.

It was quite an interesting paper actually, even though I found it to be a very dry subject.

I am afraid that no one has seen this paper so cannot comment on the sources for the above posting.

Glider

06-18-2011, 01:05 PM

This posting contains the missing document from before and a couple of others that show the anticipated delivery/consumption and stocks.

Crumpp

06-18-2011, 02:30 PM

I admit that its the sort of ambiguity that some people will try to build a lot on

It is an ambiguity...period.

What else needs to be said?

The rest of the argument is built on speculation. What is the difference on the sides?

What sides are there anyway outside of gamer context?? There is only the facts and a mystery to be solved.

If you have consumption documents, why try to plot FC operations vs consumption of 100 grade.

If you see a the curves correspond, they it is probable the fuel was used by FC.

*Buzzsaw*

06-18-2011, 05:31 PM

It is an ambiguity...period.

What else needs to be said?

The rest of the argument is built on speculation. What is the difference on the sides?

What sides are there anyway outside of gamer context?? There is only the facts and a mystery to be solved.

If you have consumption documents, why try to plot FC operations vs consumption of 100 grade.

If you see a the curves correspond, they it is probable the fuel was used by FC.

The level of hypocrisy being put out by the Luftwaffles on this board is astounding.

On one hand they demand forms in triplicate showing every single British fighter aircraft and every single fighter field was provided with unlimited supplies of 100 octane. On the other hand, they put forward claims for the German use of high octane and DB601N engines with a complete lack of documentation.

In the this thread, and the threads from other boards we have had clear and comprehensive documentation for the use of 100 octane presented. This can be summarized as follows: (documentation for all these stages has been provided in this thread or the other threads from other boards which have been linked)

1) As far back as 1937, the RAF and British scientists recognize higher octane fuel provides the opportunity for higher power output and better performance for their fighter and bomber aircraft.

2) The RAF and British government begin planning for the accumulation of stocks of fuel, this begins with the importation of higher octane fuel from the US, but also involves the conversion of British refineries to allow domestic production if the US sources are jeapordized.

3) Testing of 100 octane fuel in the Hurricane, Spitfire and Blenheim aircraft types begins pre-war in March of 1939. Entire Squadrons are converted and standardized to the use of the fuel.

4) As a result of these tests providing successful results in the use of 100 octane, and the accumulation of several 100 thousand gallons of fuel, (more than two years supply) the RAF is given the go ahead to convert the entirety of Fighter Command and selected Blenheim Squadrons to the use of 100 octane. This process is directed to be initiated in March of 1940. The gravity of the strategic situation demands every step be taken. With plentiful supply, there is every reason to move ahead.

5) Reports from both the organizational bodies of the RAF, as well as plentiful Squadron and Pilot reports, during the period May-September 1940, mention the stocking and/or use of +12 boost and 100 octane in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft at all of the sector fields and most of the secondary fields in 10, 11 and 12 Groups, the three RAF Fighter Groups which were most heavily engaged in the Battle. Other Squadron and pilot reports note the use of 100 octane earlier during the Battle of France.

6) Mid battle, a memo is directed to ALL RAF Squadrons from Air Chief Marshal Dowding, the officer in command of Fighter Command, cautioning all pilots not to over use +12 boost, (only used with 100 octane fuel) in situations which are not emergencies.

7) Consumption of 100 octane fuel rises heavily from the period June to September 1940. Despite this, RAF stocks of the fuel remain plentiful thanks to deliveries from the US.

8 ) All newly manufactured RAF aircraft during the period July-September 1940 are standardized with new equipment which allows them to accept and run 100 octane fuel and higher boost.

With all this documentation, the weight of proof clearly indicates 100 octane fuel was in standardized use by Fighter Command in the 10, 11 and 12 Group areas during the Battle. These Group areas encompass the entire section of Britain represented in the COD map.

Only those who have closed minds and a fixed agenda can continue to against the inclusion of 100 octane fueled aircraft.

Meanwhile these self same naysayers make their claims for the use of high octane German fuel, and DB601N engines, with an infinitely smaller scale of proof.

Bobb4

06-18-2011, 06:07 PM

The level of hypocrisy being put out by the Luftwaffles on this board is astounding.

On one hand they demand forms in triplicate showing every single British fighter aircraft and every single fighter field was provided with unlimited supplies of 100 octane. On the other hand, they put forward claims for the German use of 100 octane and DB601N engines with a complete lack of documentation.

In the this thread, and the threads from other boards we have had clear and comprehensive documentation for the use of 100 octane presented. This can be summarized as follows: (documentation for all these stages has been provided in this thread or the other threads from other boards which have been linked)

1) As far back as 1937, the RAF and British scientists recognize higher octane fuel provides the opportunity for higher power output and better performance for their fighter and bomber aircraft.

2) The RAF and British government begin planning for the accumulation of stocks of fuel, this begins with the importation of higher octane fuel from the US, but also involves the conversion of British refineries to allow domestic production if the US sources are jeapordized.

3) Testing of 100 octane fuel in the Hurricane, Spitfire and Blenheim aircraft types begins pre-war in March of 1939. Entire Squadrons are converted and standardized to the use of the fuel.

4) As a result of these tests providing successful results in the use of 100 octane, and the accumulation of several 100 thousand gallons of fuel, (more than two years supply) the RAF is given the go ahead to convert the entirety of Fighter Command and selected Blenheim Squadrons to the use of 100 octane. This process is directed to be initiated in March of 1940. The gravity of the strategic situation demands every step be taken. With plentiful supply, there is every reason to move ahead.

5) Reports from both the organizational bodies of the RAF, as well as plentiful Squadron and Pilot reports, during the period May-September 1940, mention the stocking and/or use of +12 boost and 100 octane in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft at all of the sector fields and most of the secondary fields in 10, 11 and 12 Groups, the three RAF Fighter Groups which were most heavily engaged in the Battle. Other Squadron and pilot reports note the use of 100 octane earlier during the Battle of France.

6) Mid battle, a memo is directed to ALL RAF Squadrons from Air Chief Marshal Dowding, the officer in command of Fighter Command, cautioning all pilots not to over use +12 boost, (only used with 100 octane fuel) in situations which are not emergencies.

7) Consumption of 100 octane fuel rises heavily from the period June to September 1940. Despite this, RAF stocks of the fuel remain plentiful thanks to deliveries from the US.

8 ) All newly manufactured RAF aircraft during the period July-September 1940 are standardized with new equipment which allows them to accept and run 100 octane fuel and higher boost.

With all this documentation, the weight of proof clearly indicates 100 octane fuel was in standardized use by Fighter Command during the Battle.

Only those who have closed minds and a fixed agenda can continue to argue otherwise.

Meanwhile these self same naysayers make their claims for the use of high octane German fuel, and DB610N engines, with an infinitely smaller scale of proof.

+1

Blackdog_kt

06-18-2011, 06:45 PM

In regards to the Blenheim, the pilot's notes for the Mk.IV specify use of BOTH 87 and 100 octane fuel.

They wanted extra range so they added two extra fuel tanks (the outboard ones) along with a jettison valve for each one.

This made the aircraft heavier when fully fueled and they needed extra boost to maintain a safe takeoff distance. So they modified the engines to run +9 lbs and installed a boost cut-out.

The extra boost caused detonation so they needed 100 octane, but fighter boys needed it too.

The solution? When loaded for long range, Blenheims used 87 octane fuel in the inboard tanks and 100 octane fuel in the outboard tanks.

Take off was done on 100 octane and +9 lbs, climb was done on 87 octane and +5 lbs (ie, they throttled back and switched tanks right after takeoff), cruise was still on 87 octane with a limit of +3.5 lbs for auto-rich mixture and +1.5 lbs for auto-lean.

The standard operating procedure called for depleting the inboard tanks first because they lacked a jettison valve and their fuel contents couldn't be dumped to lighten up the aircraft in an emergency.

Once the inboard tanks were exhausted they were to fly the rest of the mission on 100 octane from the outboard tanks.

For short range missions they would only load the inboard tanks with 87 octane, because +5 lbs boost was deemed sufficient to takeoff with the reduced fuel load.

At least that's what the Mk.IV pilot's operating handbook states.

Kurfürst

06-18-2011, 07:01 PM

Sven

06-18-2011, 07:36 PM

Bravo! :)

Glider

06-18-2011, 08:17 PM

clarifying the ling No, that's a quite untrue representation of the doucment. The document actually says: "At the last meeting AMSO referred to a proposal that certain Fighter and Bomber Squadrons should begin the use of 100 octane fuel..."

There's no uncertanity in here. You simply misquote the document.

Gilder, do you have the complete file?

Kurfurst
The request from the ACAS is included in the first paper. You will see that its item 9 in the papers giving the summary of the conclusions of the 5th Meeting. This note is direct and simply asks for squadrons armed with fighters and Blenheims be equiped with 100 Octane fuel
The paper you are referring to is also attached for completeness. It is the summary of the actions from the 5th meeting for the 6th meeting. You will see that it specificly refers to item 9 in the Summary of Conclusions. So the paper trail is clear and complete. Now why he says certain I do not know and am not going to guess, but the request from the ACAS was clear and I did not misquote it.

Glider

06-18-2011, 08:29 PM

[QUOTE=Glider;298446]Kurfurst had until the last few days said that there were only two squadrons and asked me to supply my evidence.

Stop making things up and putting into other's mouths. As others have noted, it makes you look petty, petulant, and juvenile. Its the lowest form of arguement, when you have nothing worthwhile to offer.

Please see your posting 52 and 76 on this thread.

*Buzzsaw*

06-18-2011, 08:33 PM

5) Reports from both the organizational bodies of the RAF, as well as plentiful Squadron and Pilot reports, during the period May-September 1940, mention the stocking and/or use of +12 boost and 100 octane in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft at all of the sector fields and most of the secondary fields in 10, 11 and 12 Groups, the three RAF Fighter Groups which were most heavily engaged in the Battle.

Simple blatant lie. See:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=250639&postcount=42
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=250639&postcount=43

Actually the lie is yours, you lie by omission. Your links are an incomplete listing of combat reports, there are more than these available if you bother to look through the previously mentioned threads, needless to say, you have a vested interest in not doing so. AND in addition to the combat reports there are the administrative reports and photographs, listing deliveries or showing 100 octane being present at fields in fuelers.

6) Mid battle, a memo is directed to ALL RAF Squadrons from Air Chief Marshal Dowding, the officer in command of Fighter Command, cautioning all pilots not to over use +12 boost, (only used with 100 octane fuel) in situations which are not emergencies.

And another. The memo is a circular that was of course generally to be circulated to all Groups.

You keep throwing these 'lie' words about, yet the facts show you are the one who is misleading people... :D

Dowding's memo is a normal chain of command directive to all Group Commanders which was in turn to be communicated to all Squadron commanders and thence pilots. The Memo specifically says the memo is to be copied "...to all Squadrons and fighter stations". The content is worded and directed "Handling of Merlin in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant Aircraft", ie. instructions directed to the pilots who flew the aircraft.

Pdf here:

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

Why send a memo the contents of which are for the instruction of ALL fighter pilots unless those pilots are all using 100 octane?

8 ) All newly manufactured RAF aircraft during the period July-September 1940 are standardized with new equipment which allows them to accept and run 100 octane fuel and higher boost.

Source please.

Such demands... :D You already have seen the relevant memo many times over and unless your memory is as poor as your reasoning, you should be quite aware of the directive changing specifications for newer aircraft.

Memo dated March 20th 1940, noting the changes required to allow use of +12 boost notes modifications for aircraft already in field service. These are for engines manufactured prior to the approval for use of 100 octane and +12 boost.

As you know, once an engine modification has been officially tested and approved, Rolls Royce gave that mod a number and it was implemented on the factory floor for new engine manufactures.

The modification for the boost cutout valve is listed in the memo as 'Mod Number Merlin/154', ie. it is officially approved and now part of the engine production regime. It is a very simple case of drilling a couple of holes, shown in the official instructional drawing released with the modification. (Drg. No. A.P. 1590B/J.2/40) This drawing and the instruction would have been incorporated into the Merlin III assembly handbook used by factory mechanics, and all new Merlins would have this incorporated.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg

Actually, evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel is far more decisive and reliable than in the case of the RAF.

For example, we do not know how many RAF Fighter Stations were issued 100 octane fuel, apart from the 'certain' number 'concerned'. We do not know how many Merlins were converted and were in service use for 100 octane. We do not know how many RAF Fighter Stations were issued 100 octane fuel, apart from the 'certain' number 'concerned'. We do not know even how many FC Squads were using the fuel at the same time.

All we have is a handful of RAF fans who keep screaming hysterically, and showing childish innuendo waving around the same 3 worn pages over and over again, and try to read into them something they wish for but the papers do not say.

Again, your memory seems to be failing you. In fact, rather than 3 pages, we have presented dozens, close to hundreds of pages of documentation, they can be found in the threads linked earlier. Holding your breath and pretending not to be aware of them will not make them disappear.

In contrast, we know all this for the German side and have a much clearer picture without any need of dubious 'interpretation' by biased fanatics. The facts are plainly on the table. We know when, where, and how many planes were flying with DB 601N and in what units. Which is why there's so much less hysteria about it - well apart the aforementioned fanatics. ;) Solid research does that.

You are very strict about demanding proof from the British side, strange how there doesn't seem to be a quid pro quo as far as the standard of proof on your side. Perhaps you'd like to present your clear documentation comprehensively in a thread? I have yet to see examples of this 'solid research' in a thread entitled 'Use of high octane and the DB601N engine during the BoB'.

So how about it?

Glider

06-18-2011, 08:57 PM

All

Can anyone supply any information (apart from a pre war planning paper) that indicates that 100 Octane wasn't available to all of fighter Command.

The only one that I can think of is the posting from Pips which I have commented on in some detail and I cannot believe that anyone will nail their flags to that mast.

In the WW2aircraft forum Kurfurst did just that until awkward questions were asked such as:-
a) How do 30+ different squadrons share 125 aircraft
b) What happens about replacements
c) Why would a nation fighting for its life leave 350-400, 000 tons of high octane fuel sitting around unused when the changes to the aircraft were small and the impact in performance huge.

What evidence do they have remembering that every book both tactical and technical by every historian and every memoir supports the fact that it was supplied.

You can agree or disagree with what I and others have posted, lets see what evidence you can supply for us to agree or disagree.

Kurfürst

06-18-2011, 09:52 PM

Actually the lie is yours, you lie by omission. Your links are an incomplete listing of combat reports, there are more than these available if you bother to look through the previously mentioned threads, needless to say, you have a vested interest in not doing so. AND in addition to the combat reports there are the administrative reports and photographs, listing deliveries or showing 100 octane being present at fields in fuelers.

Yada yada yada....

You claim that all stations received the fuel and there documentation to.
It was shown to you which stations are indicated by this documentation, combat reports etc.
You now claim that certain stations/combat reports are omissioned.

You change the subject whenever it gets hot, and it threatens you with doing some actual research and providing evidence for your claims. Fine.The listing was compliled by the Grinch, and I trust he has done an honest job at it.

If you believe some stations were left out, list them. II expect that you will change the subject again and remain silent about this, probably resorting to another ad hominem attack or making another stupid claim you can't back up.

You keep throwing these 'lie' words about, yet the facts show you are the one who is misleading people... :D

You keep throwing about ad hominem insults all the time, attack posters but that only shows how childish you are and how utterly incapable of showing anything that would support your point. You are a waste of time for everyone here.

Why send a memo the contents of which are for the instruction of ALL fighter pilots unless those pilots are all using 100 octane?

For the same reason they sent out 150 grade instructions in the Spitfire IX to all Groups in ADGB in 1944, even when only two IX Squadrons (Nos 1 and 165) were actually operating on the fuel on an operational trials. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif

Its simply common good sense and practice to circulate such letters to everyone. It was done everywhere.

Memo dated March 20th 1940, noting the changes required to allow use of +12 boost notes modifications for aircraft already in field service. These are for engines manufactured prior to the approval for use of 100 octane and +12 boost.

As you know, once an engine modification has been officially tested and approved, Rolls Royce gave that mod a number and it was implemented on the factory floor for new engine manufactures.

The modification for the boost cutout valve is listed in the memo as 'Mod Number Merlin/154', ie. it is officially approved and now part of the engine production regime. It is a very simple case of drilling a couple of holes, shown in the official instructional drawing released with the modification. (Drg. No. A.P. 1590B/J.2/40) This drawing and the instruction would have been incorporated into the Merlin III assembly handbook used by factory mechanics, and all new Merlins would have this incorporated.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg[/QUOTE]

Well there you go! You were right on this one doubt. Now how about supporting your other claims the same way?

Again, your memory seems to be failing you. In fact, rather than 3 pages, we have presented dozens, close to hundreds of pages of documentation, they can be found in the threads linked earlier.

"Close to hundreds" - :D

Actually what Glider does is posting the same three pages hundreds of times for the lack of evidence, perhaps that the thing that confused you. They say that certain fighter stations/squadrons concerned will receive 100 octane fuel.

Regardless that its pretty obvious that this means selected units, as was pointed out to him here by at least 3 other posters and numerous others at ww2aircraft.net, disproving his thesis, he continously misrepresents that and mirepresents what the papers say. Its funny, because I remember he used to say the same about them, but then argued that these papers were 'revised' later. When asked to tell when this supposedly happened, he kept shooting random dates, but every time asked to present the papers, he went silent.

And now he claims that 'certain' Fighter Stations 'concerned' actually reads 'all'.

Note - I have been asking Glider if he has the complete file, and every time he remains silent. Truth is that he has never been in the National Archives at all and never seen the files.

Holding your breath and pretending not to be aware of them will not make them disappear.

I don't want them to be disappear at all. The documents posted say that as of May 1940, only selected Fighter command stations were supplied with 100 octane fuel.
That's my point all the way through and pretty much everybody elses in both this thread and ww2aircraft.net boards.

You are very strict about demanding proof from the British side, strange how there doesn't seem to be a quid pro quo as far as the standard of proof on your side. Perhaps you'd like to present your clear documentation comprehensively in a thread? I have yet to see examples of this 'solid research' in a thread entitled 'Use of high octane and the DB601N engine during the BoB'.

So how about it?

I already did that on this board, ww2aircraft.net boards and on my website as well.

That you or Glider wish to make up your own fantasies about that Germans didn't operationally employ 100 octane fuel is entirely your problem. Fact is that British pre-war desires to get 100 octane in their fighters was fueled by fears that the Germans were developing their engines for 100 octane fuel, and they were in a much better position to obtain 100 octane fuel, as they produced it themselves, and were not dependend on foreign availabilty or could be denied from it by blocking sea imports.

Glider

06-18-2011, 10:13 PM

Actually what Glider does is posting the same three pages hundreds of times for the lack of evidence, perhaps that the thing that confused you. They say that certain fighter stations/squadrons concerned will receive 100 octane fuel.
I notice a lack of evidence on your part here Kurfurst. I gave you two linking documents and admit I don't know why the person who received the paper said certain when the request was clear, but I didn't make any assumption. You have now made an assumption that it was limiting in some way, but in what way you don't know and don't supply anything to suggest what 'certain' meant interms of squadrons, bases, groups anything in fact.

Regardless that its pretty obvious that this means selected units, as was pointed out to him here by at least 3 other posters and numerous others at ww2aircraft.net, disproving his thesis
If I recall the debate went my way Kurfurst and no one disproved anything that I said.

, he continously misrepresents that and mirepresents what the papers say. Its funny, because I remember he used to say the same about them, but then argued that these papers were 'revised' later. When asked to tell when this supposedly happened, he kept shooting random dates, but every time asked to present the papers, he went silent.
Priceless

And now he claims that 'certain' Fighter Stations 'concerned' actually reads 'all'.
And where did I say that?

Note - I have been asking Glider if he has the complete file, and every time he remains silent. Truth is that he has never been in the National Archives at all and never seen the files.
I don'y have the complete file its huge, but I certainly went as a number of the documents were not in the public domain before I posted them

I don't want them to be disappear at all. The documents posted say that as of May 1940, only selected Fighter command stations were supplied with 100 octane fuel.
That's my point all the way through and pretty much everybody elses in both this thread and ww2aircraft.net boards.
Whch of us was banned from the WW2aircraft thread? and the Wikipedia editing thread? Me or you

That you or Glider wish to make up your own fantasies about that Germans didn't operationally employ 100 octane fuel is entirely your problem. Fact is that British pre-war desires to get 100 octane in their fighters was fueled by fears that the Germans were developing their engines for 100 octane fuel, and they were in a much better position to obtain 100 octane fuel, as they produced it themselves, and were not dependend on foreign availabilty or could be denied from it by blocking sea imports.
This is as you know total rubbish as documented in some detail by Gavin Bailey (a published historian from Dundee University) in his papers on fuel. You will remember him, the person you accused of coming from Pennsylvania, using another identity, purporting to be Gavin Bailey and grossly misrepresented his findings to the degree that he made formal complaints to the Wiki editing team.
Here is the link if you have difficulty remembering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain

What is missing from your tirade is any evidence to support your theory that the RAF wasn't effectively fully equipped with 100 Octane. All you have tried to do is distort other peolpes document supporting that theory.

PS do you still stick by Pips postins as the basis of your argument. If you don't then what is the basis of your argument?

robtek

06-18-2011, 10:25 PM

Could you two fight this out via PM????
That would be a relief for this topic as your post are OT!
Talk about performance and not the reasons why or why not it was reached.

Kurfürst

06-18-2011, 10:35 PM

I note you have again evaded my question.

Do you have the complete file of these meetings, Glider?

Answer the question if you want your questions to be answered.

All

Can anyone supply any information (apart from a pre war planning paper) that indicates that 100 Octane wasn't available to all of fighter Command.

So its up to others to disprove the claim you've made but could not prove? Sorry it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is upon you, otherwise we would be in a nonsensical case of Russel's teapot:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

But since you need evidence, I direct you to the papers you posted, which say that only certain Fighter Stations concerned will receive the fuel. Since all Fighter Stations previously held 87 octane, it follows that certain other Fighter Stations that were not 'concerned' kept operating at 87 octane, and not 100 octane.

It's clear-cut, we have document that says only select Fighter Sqns were supplied with 100 octane, we have fuel deliveries showing that 2/3s to 4/5 of the concumption was 87 octane, we have Spitfire II pilots notes which show rating for both 87 and 100 octane, and we have the papers which show that conversion of stations to 100 octane did not re-commence until late September. By coincidence, fuel issues papers also show that 100 octane did not begin to replace 87 octane as the main fuel consumed until late September..

The only one that I can think of is the posting from Pips which I have commented on in some detail and I cannot believe that anyone will nail their flags to that mast.

In contrast I cannot remember any paper that would say all fighter stations are supplied with 100 octane fuel. You have actually admitted yourself earlier this thread, that you have not seen one either.

In the WW2aircraft forum Kurfurst did just that until awkward questions were asked such as:-
a) How do 30+ different squadrons share 125 aircraft
b) What happens about replacements
c) Why would a nation fighting for its life leave 350-400, 000 tons of high octane fuel sitting around unused when the changes to the aircraft were small and the impact in performance huge.

The only awkward thing was your stubborn defiance to accept the facts. Several other posters in WW2aircraft forum told you that your 'evidence' is simply not sufficient to make the claims you were making. If you wish to believe your own fairy tale, that's your problem.

Now to answer your questions.

a, This was answered WW2aircraft forums and here earlier in this thread. Your dishonesty represents itself in that
aa, You make a nonsensical strawmen arguement. Pips noted that apprx. 25% of FC converted to 100 octane in May, which, in May, represneted about 125 aircraft. And here you say turn this inside out by comparing that May 1940 apprxtion of 125 to combat reports by ca. 30 Squadrons between May 1940 and November 1940 in a seven month period. Who do you think you're fooling - yourself?

b, They are cut in small pieces, gently fried, salted and peppered according to taste, and served after chilled. I hope you do not find this answer any more awkwardd than your question was.

c, Because they simply did not have 400 tons of fuel. They had but half of that when the decision was made.
ca, The Germans were sinking British tankers at an increasing rate, and all 100 octane fuel was coming in those tankers
cb, Because they consider pre-war (see March 1939 paper, 16+2 Sqns w. 100 octane by September 1940) that reserves of 800 000 tons were needed to be built up. By the end of 1939 they had accumalated only 200 000 tons. Five months later, their reserves of 100 octane were still just 220 000 tons. They expected another 436 000 tons to arrive, but this was increasingly uncertain as Uboot took their toll on the tankers, and, during May and June, until the French capitulation, with 25% of their fighters and some of their bombers running on 100 octane the British consumed 12 000 tons of 100 octane and 42 000 tons of other (87) grades, or 54 000 ton of avgas at total - and there was no tanker running in with 100 octane until August 1940. Thus, as the situation looked in May-June and July, replacing other grades with 100 octane was thus simply out of the question, as they could run out of 100 octane in that case in roughly 5 months time.

What evidence do they have remembering that every book both tactical and technical by every historian and every memoir supports the fact that it was supplied.

Your claim that "every historian and every memoir supports" your claim that 100 octane was supplied to all Fighter Command stations is simply hogwash. You managed to present one such book, that concentrates on engines and not on operations (and thus likely in error as it was not the authors field) that says that. In contast a far more respected source, Spitfire the History who's authors went into extreme depths in research such as listing the detailed fate of every single Spitfire ever built clearly state that the original plan was 16 Fighter Squadrons to be supplied, but there were problems with supply due to the Uboot threat, though this was eased later. This is exactly what Pip's papers say, and in fact, the same thing your papers say, too.

You can agree or disagree with what I and others have posted, lets see what evidence you can supply for us to agree or disagree.

Glider,

Your paper of the 7th meeting in May 1940 says that only select Fighter Stations are supplied with 100 octane fuel.

Deal with that.

TomcatViP

06-18-2011, 11:08 PM

Frankly I don't understand what are those ppl hijacking a game forum - that shld be dedicated mostly to young players - to rage a war that seems to count countless uneventful battles.

Now as I am not that much hypocrite I will tell you what I am thinking abt this debate that as lasted too long :

Firstly : Historically in none of the book that I hve read so far (and I hve read nearly a thousand on aviation field) have mentioned the fact that BoB RAF's Spitfire fleet did use 100oct
Secondly : none of you 10Other care much abt the Hurri despite that we know pretty well what Dowding fear most and the fact that Hurri were at that time accounting for two third of the RAF order of battle
Thirdly : your arguments (boost for HP and speed) regarding the use of 100oct does not fit any mechanical logic regarding the subsequent dev of the Merlin
Fourthly ; your over aggressive comments in such a sensitive time of history does not honor the fighting spirit of those "few" hundreds of men that didn't hesitate to make the ultimate sacrifice without loudly putting their case to the public(at least when all the pint of beer and bottle of whiskey stand at bay)
Fifth : The arguments you provided against does not convince us as much as those advocating the other thesis. If you can't prove that something does exist you can't say that it's a truth. Only believer can agree in certain case but I am sry to say that your lack of poetry and chivalry deserve your meaning.

Let's resume :
1st. We can say that some Spit and Hurri did rely to 100oct latte in BoB in frontline units.
2nd We can assume that 100oct was used on low alt raider bombers - perhaps "the some of the spits" were low alt escorting fighters. This makes more sense that 100oct being used at alt high fight (were BoB did occur : Bob was an anti-bomber campaign for the RaF !)
3rd The value for the HP provided are grossly overestimated and only focused on the Spit witch does not makes any sense as Spit and 109 were much close match and it seems to be well known for years
4th the Spit FM in CoD is so ridiculously CFS friendly that your lack of any ref to this fact makes your thesis very suspicious. If realism, impartiality and accuracy were your credo you sincerely miss there a strong opportunity to lift your case.
5th Average reader here (and I am one of us) does not know what are your anger against Kurf (with who I hve not particular preference but who did provide us better analysis in term of logics IMHO) but let me say that many of us does not approve any public hanging. In Eu these are( or must stay) facts of the past as are Nationalism, racism and revisionism...Thx so much to the very "Few" (and sadly millions of others)

I hope this sterile debate wld be close on this forum for now.

If you hve read all this text so far, thx for the time spent. Pls be assured that I don't want to hurt anyone based on quickly typed arguments on a public game forum. We are not historians.

~S!

Glider

06-18-2011, 11:40 PM

I will drop the agression and let the documents speak for themselves. The reason I went into this debate was to try and ensure that when you model the aircraft for the sim you need to ensure that the RAF fighters are equiped with 100 Octan performance.

If you don't then you stand a very high chance of being ridiculed by some very knowledgable people who will want to know what the evidence is.

Whatever the comments some vital documents have not been questioned so I will only touch on those here.

The stocks of 100 Octane were very significant and grew during the battle to approx 400,000 tons by the end of the battle at a time when consumption was only 10,000 tons a month on average between June and August so there was no shortage of the fuel.

We know that the changes to the engines to use the fuel were small and the performance gains substantial and we know that 30+ squadrons used the fuel including units in France and Norway. It was 30+ not because we only found 30+ squadrons but because we only looked at 30+ squadrons. I am very confident that if we looked at the rest we would find the same but cannot guarantee it

Although said with vigour, my postings have been honest and as complete as I can make them. Look at the explanations I have given in a cool light and you will see that where I don't know I have said I don't know for instance where the original papers said certain. Where I have made an interpratation I have tried to support it and explain why I made it. An example being the request from the ACAS which was clear but the Oil Committee members said proposal and certain. In these cases you need to look at both papers not just the one.

I don't know which books you have read but if you go to any bookshop or look online you will find a number of books that cover this topic and all of them agree with the proposal that the RAF did equip fighter command with 100 Octane. If you want to send me a PM I will supply some suggestions but don't want to lead you. If you want a balanced view ask Kurfurst and he mght be able to suggest some. I would be interested to know what he suggests.

I do believe that those who don't believe that FC wasn't fully equipped have not put forward any evidence relying on a misinterptritation of the papers put forward by myself and others.

You may want to check out those links I gave to Wikki and the WW2aircraft site to get a feel for things and additional information.

Once again I suggest you think long and hard before distributing a product that doesn't have the RAF with 100 octane as standard for its fighters.

Kurfürst

06-18-2011, 11:45 PM

I notice a lack of evidence on your part here Kurfurst.

I notice the lack of meaning in your posts, Glider. You are become increasingly rhetorical. You want people to disprove you, after you have failed to prove your point.

Even when you kept posting the same papers - five times on every page - that say only a portion of Fighter is using 100 octane was better.

I gave you two linking documents and admit I don't know why the person who received the paper said certain when the request was clear, but I didn't make any assumption. You have now made an assumption that it was limiting in some way, but in what way you don't know and don't supply anything to suggest what 'certain' meant interms of squadrons, bases, groups anything in fact.

Assumption? How more ridiculus can you get? The paper you posted says certain squadrons, in fact, a whole series of papers from March 1939 to May 1940 keep saying again and again that the conversion is limited to certain squadrons, and you keep arguing that certain does not mean a limitation, but it means all Squadrons.

If I recall the debate went my way Kurfurst and no one disproved anything that I said.

Yes, but this recall is from a person who thinks that certain Squadrons means the opposite, it means all Squadrons. :D As for the debate, the only people agreeing you were some of the most biased and self-dillusional persons on the whole board, of whom everyone knows in advance what they will say, kinda like clones of that poor member Buzzsaw over here, or yourself. You have never managed to convince anyone because never managed to prove anything, therefore there was nothing to disprove. All you did was the same as here, spamming the thread with the same paper over and over again, and becoming increasingly rhetorical, and finally hysterical like a 7 year old, see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-during-bob-16305.html#post449799

Ie. Vincenzo wrote:

"I read the docs in none it's write that 100 octane was in use in all the stations/squadrons (for hurri and spits), the docs clear that all spist and hurri can use the 100 octane fuel also with the engienes were not modified (but with no benefit). if i miss some show me."

Mkrabat42 also disagreed with you, and simply said that you only listed circumstantial evidence, but no solid proof to your case, and solid historical methods require things that you simply do not have.

I don'y have the complete file its huge, but I certainly went as a number of the documents were not in the public domain before I posted them

Well can we see the complete file, Glider? Or just the parts you wish us to see, cropped etc..?

Whch of us was banned from the WW2aircraft thread? and the Wikipedia editing thread? Me or you

Neither of us, actually. If I was banned from those threads, how on earth are my posts are there..? Hmm, Sherlock, how?

That you or Glider wish to make up your own fantasies about that Germans didn't operationally employ 100 octane fuel is entirely your problem. Fact is that British pre-war desires to get 100 octane in their fighters was fueled by fears that the Germans were developing their engines for 100 octane fuel, and they were in a much better position to obtain 100 octane fuel, as they produced it themselves, and were not dependend on foreign availabilty or could be denied from it by blocking sea imports.

This is as you know total rubbish as documented in some detail by Gavin Bailey (a published historian from Dundee University) in his papers on fuel. You will remember him, the person you accused of coming from Pennsylvania, using another identity, purporting to be Gavin Bailey and grossly misrepresented his findings to the degree that he made formal complaints to the Wiki editing team.

No unfortunately its totally true, and I have posted the papers of the evidence. You are again pretending to have not seen them, which is dishonest. As for Gavin Bailey's papers, they do not say such a thing. (not the person impersonating him on ww2aircraft.net, who btw was so primitive in his behaviour that got in confrontation with mods and they had to clear up his hysterical rantings and close the first thread because of him, and who also made some nonsense claim about the only 100 octane fuel in German aircraft being 'captured British stock' - unfortunately I had to paper he was 'quoting' too and handed his ass to him real nice.)

Nobody misrepresented the real Gavin Bailey's paper, you can read it here below. It again says that select Fighter Command stations were fueled with 100 octane.

Here is the link if you have difficulty remembering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain

I see the a wiki talk page in which Minorhistorian/NZTyphoon was desperately trying to force in his own POV, even through falsifying sources, and at the same time, remove all references to German 100 octane fuel use in BoB) into article for months, ' all the sudden' appearance anonymous, non-registered IP appears :D and claims to be a historian... uhum. And I am Tina Turner.

What is missing from your tirade is any evidence to support your theory

Now, this is what describes your posts. That is why you've got these replies from just about everyone in this thread that you are behaving childish, that your papers don't say what you claim them to say and so on. You are an increasingly desperate, self-dillusional person who started from an extremely biased, nationalism-fueled POV and managed to convince only himself but nobody else, and now got increasingly frustrated, and increasingly aggressive - and increasingly impotent in his arguements.

All you have tried to do is distort other peolpes document supporting that theory.

Which is why everyone is telling YOU and not ME that the documents you posted don't support what you say... right?

PS do you still stick by Pips postins as the basis of your argument. If you don't then what is the basis of your argument?

Well that the May 1940 papers clearly say that 100 octane is only supplied to select fighter command stations, of course. Nobody is sticking to Pips; there is no need, everything points to the same direction and fits together nicely, without any need to rape the primary papers like you do. But you can live in your partisan world, and believe what you want, nobody actually cares.

*Buzzsaw*

06-18-2011, 11:59 PM

Salute

What is clear is we have an individual, Kurfurst, (who hides his real name) and who has been banned from two respected sources for information on the subject, Wikipedia and WWII Aircraft Forum, during similar debates, and for behaviour inappropriate and claims which cannot be substantiated.

Now he is repeating the same claims and commentary here, again without substantiation or documentation.

If anyone chooses to believe there is veracity in his posts, then I guess that is their right.

Kurfürst

06-19-2011, 12:01 AM

Gavin Bailey wrote the following on the subject - I am not going to post here the whole article, as this would reasonably hurt the actual writer's interest, but the relevant part, permissable under free use; if anyone doubts anything significant was left out, contact me in PM.

"Similar figures at the intersection of the military and industrial spheres were to perform an identical role in advocating the adoption of 100-octane fuel in Britain as they did in the United States. As the USAAC moved towards the adoption of 100-octane, Klein's article was circulated in the Air Ministry and Rod Banks outlined the possible operational importance of the fuel in a paper delivered to the Royal Aeronautical Society and Institute of Petroleum in January 1937.27 Apparently as a direct consequence, the Air Ministry specified that future engine development should incorporate the capacity to use 100-octane fuel. Contracts were placed for the delivery of substantial quantities of 100-octane fuel, amounting to 74,000 tons of iso-octane per year from three supply sources, including one in Trinidad outside United States control.28 By the end of 1937, the Air Ministry had accepted 100-octane as the future standard for the RAF, and by early 1938 it was decided that the authorised war reserve stock of fuel was to be composed of as much 100-octane as possible.29

Significantly, at the same time as the British were preparing to take these preliminary steps required to utilise 100-octane fuel, a committee was formed consisting of representatives from the leading oil companies, Imperial Chemical Industries and Air Ministry officers. Chaired by Sir Harold Hartley, the chairman of the Fuel Research Board, the objective of the committee was to recommend measures to ensure that adequate supplies of 100-octane fuel could be supplied in wartime.30 The immediate impetus behind this development was the possibility that the main existing source of supply"”hydrogenation plants run by Standard Oil and Shell within the United States"”might become inaccessible owing to the embargo requirements of the US Neutrality Acts on the outbreak of war. A further consideration was the fact that 100-octane supplies were purchased in dollars in the case of Shell and Standard Oil production in the United States and in Dutch guilders for Shell production from Curacao in the Netherlands West Indies and later on from the Netherlands East Indies. This presented a potential problem for British balance of payments and foreign currency exchange which was only resolved in the short- and medium-term future by the adoption of supply under the terms of lend–lease in 1941.31

The Hartley Committee eventually determined in December 1938 that three new hydrogenation plants should be funded partially at government expense in Trinidad and in Britain to expand British-controlled annual 100-octane fuel production capacity to 720,000 tons above the level already in prospect from existing supplies. At this point Shell and ICI had co-operated to build the first hydrogenation plant in Britain at Billingham on Teeside and further plants were being planned at Stanlow in Cheshire by Shell and Heysham and Thornton in Lancashire by the Air Ministry.32 In January 1939, when the Hartley Committee report was adopted by the Committee of Imperial Defence, the Treasury was able to cancel one of the planned plants in Trinidad on the grounds of cost, in return for an expansion of the authorised war reserve from 410,000 tons to 800,000 tons, 700,000 tons of which were to consist of 100-octane. This represented an entire years worth of estimated consumption on the basis of the major expansion and production schemes then in force and required an enormous investment in building the required protected underground storage infrastructure.33

RAF tests with 100-octane had begun in 1937, but clearance for operational use was withheld as stocks were built up. In March 1939, the Air Ministry decided to introduce 100-octane fuel into use with sixteen fighter and two twin-engined bomber squadrons by September 1940, when it was believed that the requirement to complete the war reserve stock would have been met, with the conversion of squadrons beginning at the end of 1939.34

By the time war broke out, the available stocks of aviation fuel had risen to 153,000 tons of 100-octane and 323,000 tons of other grades (mostly 87-octane).35 The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year.36 The available stock of 100-octane fuel at this point was about 220,000 tons. Actual use of the fuel began after 18 May 1940, when the fighter stations selected for the changeover had completed their deliveries of 100-octane and had consumed their existing stocks of 87-octane. While this was immediately before the intensive air combat associated with the Dunkirk evacuation, where Fighter Command units first directly engaged the Luftwaffe, this can only be regarded as a fortunate coincidence which was contingent upon much earlier decisions to establish, store and distribute sufficient supplies of 100-octane fuel.37

While much of this total stock had originated from production in the United States, the actual anticipated sources of supply assessed one month later and given in Table 3 indicate the actual diversity of supply which allowed operational use to go ahead.

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

Table 3: Revised forecast of 100-octane fuel stock position: supplies due between 1 April 1940 and 31 December 1940 (figures in tons per annum)

It can be seen that, despite the preponderance of American supply, the extent of the existing accumulated reserve and the anticipated production from non-American sources of 100-octane do not conform to the blanket statements of dependency upon the United States alone which is asserted in many sources.

The extent and relative importance of this diversity can be seen in the Anglo-Iranian (British Petroleum (BP)) 100-octane plant in Abadan. The Abadan plant had been built as a private venture by BP and was producing 100-octane spirit which met the Air Ministry specification in June 1940 after production facilities had been expanded at Air Ministry request.38 The first delivery of fuel from Abadan to Britain took place in July 1940, and by the end of the year 23,000 tons had been delivered. The importance of this can be seen from the fact that the total supplied from this single non-American source equates to the issue of 22,000 tons of 100-octane fuel between 11 July and 10 October 1940 by Fighter Command, almost exactly corresponding to the accepted span of the Battle of Britain.39

Shipments from Abadan were later reduced in light of the availability of oil of all kinds from the United States, as the shorter voyage across the Atlantic from America economised on the tanker tonnage required for importation. But it remained a viable alternative to American supply sources. In February 1941 continuing uncertainties over dollar purchasing before the passage of the Lend-Lease Act led to the temporary abandonment of the ˜short-haul' shipping policy to the benefit of supplies from Abadan.

This reactive and dynamic process can also be seen in the case of the Shell/ICI hydrogenation plant at Billingham, which produced 30,000 tons of fuel in 1939.40 This plant, and the delivery of further supplies of 100-octane from BP refineries in Iran, provided immediately available substitutes which individually had the contemporary capacity to supply Fighter Command with the quantity of 100-octane fuel expended in the Battle of Britain. Beyond this, the German conquest of the Netherlands in May 1940 had prompted the British to immediately occupy the Netherlands West Indies, where the main Shell and Standard Oil 100-octane refineries were located.

The RAF remained alive to the issue of continuing supply into the summer of 1940. When towards the end of August it was suspected that an oil embargo on belligerents might be implemented in US administration policy in response to Japanese expansion in south-east Asia, a further review of existing stocks and future production indicated that stocks of 100-octane had risen to 389,000 tons while more than 75,000 tons could be expected from non-US sources before the end of the year.41

These facts significantly challenge the identification of the United States as the specific national origin of supply of 100-octane in isolation. While the development of 100-octane fuel and the early supplies of it to Britain in 1937–9 were heavily dependent on US production, this cannot be extended to become a critical dependency on American production alone once the extensive steps taken to ensure a diverse and reliable supply which were taken by the British during the period of rearmament are taken into account. The supply of 100-octane fuel to the RAF was the result of technological development initiated in the United States, but it was established and developed in Britain by a partnership of commercial oil companies and government agency within the cohesive framework of pre-war rearmament policy.

The United States was the single most important country of origin for RAF supplies of 100-octane fuel in the period 1939–40. Yet British importation plans in 1938 reveal that the United States was expected to contribute nothing to the initial accumulation of the war reserve up to March 1939, with the available storage capacity of about 103,00 tons in that month being partially filled with 12,000 tons from Aruba, 12,500 tons from Trinidad and 55,000 tons from the Shell hydrogenation plant at Pernis in the Netherlands.42

This geographical diversity in the relevant sources of supply can be seen as late as August 1940, when the fact that 6.3 million out of a total of 27.8 million tons of oil imports scheduled between May 1940 and April 1941 would originate in the United States could prompt the following observation."

Seadog

06-19-2011, 12:12 AM

All Figther Command Aircraft were operating on 87 octane previously; in March 1939 a decision was made to convert sixteen fighter Squadrons to 100 octane by September 1940, and in around May 1940 it was noted that 'certain' fighter squadrons were to be supplied with 100 octane fuel.

That's an interesting claim. Can you tell me how much 100 octane was spent on operational training, engine testing, run-in, was used up by Bomber Command's Blenheims etc..? Without that, your calculation is an extremely crude and wishful example..

RAFFC had about 45 Merlin engined fighter squadrons and 5 Blenheim Squadrons operational under RAFFC command on July 08. About 10 - 12 Hurricane, non operational squadrons were forming up.

so lets say that RAFFC had 57 operational squadrons during the 1st week of Sept. 57 squadrons into 5700 sorties = 100 sorties week/squadron. Lets assume 15 Blenheim squadrons (5 x RAFFC and 10 X RAFBC) = 1500 sorties at 230 gallons/sortie = 1108 tons of 100 octane. So our 5 Blenheim squadrons flew 500 of RAFFC's sorties leaving 5200 to be flown by Merlin engined fighters @ 75 gallons/sortie = 1254 tons, so total RAFFC and RAFBC 100 octane use = 2362 tons. This is only about 1/2 the total consumption of 100 octane and it accounts for 5200 SE fighter and 1500 hundred twin engined Blenheim sorties. There simply isn't enough 100 octane fuel users left over to consume the ~4400 tons if RAFFC isn't using 100% 100 octane.

5-10 000 tons a month - out of 50 000 tons total per months or compared to about 90 000 tons per month consumed by the Luftwaffe is hardly 'vast amounts'.
Its a tiny amount, even compared to 1940 overall or later RAF consumption.

According to the graph you supplied, the RAF used about 15000 tons of 100octane and ~ 24000 tons of other grade during Sept 1940. How much 100 octane did the Luftwaffe use?

Can you present evidence stating that even one operational RAFFC Merlin engined squadron was using 87 Octane from July to Oct 1940? If I was an RAFFC pilot and my Hurricane/Spitfire was using 87 octane, when the squadron down the road was using 100 octane, you can be sure that I would have mentioned it my memoirs or complained about it while writing up a combat report: "The Ju-88 got away because I couldn't use overboost..." Yet there isn't a single statement anywhere about RAFFC pilots complaining about the lack of 100 octane engines or fuel, during the Battle.

Kurfürst

06-19-2011, 01:06 AM

Can you present evidence stating that even one operational RAFFC Merlin engined squadron was using 87 Octane from July to Oct 1940?

Can you present evidence that there's no giant pink elephant with white stripes and a huge "Nokia" advertisment tattood on its forehead hiding behind the other side of the moon?

Yet there isn't a single statement anywhere about RAFFC pilots complaining about the lack of 100 octane engines or fuel, during the Battle.

There isn't a single statement about RAFFC pilots complaining about the lack of giant pink elephants with white stripes and a huge "Nokia" advertisment tattood on there forehead flying Spitfires during the Battle either.

Its shows very well that giant pink elephants with.... were well supplied to every FC Squadron during the Battle. I guess.

Kurfürst

06-19-2011, 01:53 AM

Let's resume :
1st. We can say that some Spit and Hurri did rely to 100oct latte in BoB in frontline units.
2nd We can assume that 100oct was used on low alt raider bombers - perhaps "the some of the spits" were low alt escorting fighters. This makes more sense that 100oct being used at alt high fight (were BoB did occur : Bob was an anti-bomber campaign for the RaF !)
3rd The value for the HP provided are grossly overestimated and only focused on the Spit witch does not makes any sense as Spit and 109 were much close match and it seems to be well known for years
4th the Spit FM in CoD is so ridiculously CFS friendly that your lack of any ref to this fact makes your thesis very suspicious. If realism, impartiality and accuracy were your credo you sincerely miss there a strong opportunity to lift your case.
5th Average reader here (and I am one of us) does not know what are your anger against Kurf (with who I hve not particular preference but who did provide us better analysis in term of logics IMHO) but let me say that many of us does not approve any public hanging. In Eu these are( or must stay) facts of the past as are Nationalism, racism and revisionism...Thx so much to the very "Few" (and sadly millions of others)

I hope this sterile debate wld be close on this forum for now.

If you hve read all this text so far, thx for the time spent. Pls be assured that I don't want to hurt anyone based on quickly typed arguments on a public game forum. We are not historians.

~S!

I agree with the above and share your conclusions. This debate has grown barren, and nothing new or useful seem to come out of it, so its seems better to end it, as the facts are on the table and there is no point in repeating the same arguements. Glider came here with an agenda, an axe to grind and a character assassination campaign in mind. It has backfired, and deserves no more attention IMO.

Seadog

06-19-2011, 02:32 AM

Can you present evidence ...

There isn't a single statement about RAFFC pilots complaining about the lack of ....

So the answer is no. You cannot present evidence showing that even a single operational squadron of merlin engined fighters was using 87 octane fuel during the battle.

Seadog

06-19-2011, 02:57 AM

Let's resume :
1st. We can say that some Spit and Hurri did rely to 100oct latte in BoB in frontline units.
2nd We can assume that 100oct was used on low alt raider bombers - perhaps "the some of the spits" were low alt escorting fighters. This makes more sense that 100oct being used at alt high fight (were BoB did occur : Bob was an anti-bomber campaign for the RaF !)
3rd The value for the HP provided are grossly overestimated and only focused on the Spit witch does not makes any sense as Spit and 109 were much close match and it seems to be well known for years

1) No, we can say that there is no evidence of 87 octane fuel use in any operational Merlin engined fighter squadron during the BofB.

2) All Merlin engined fighters saw a tremendous increase in climb rate due to the use of 100 octane fuel, when using the combat rating of the engine:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Climb-HRuch.png

for example, the Hurricane I's climb rate increased to ~3450fpm up to 10000ft and the time to 20,000ft declined to about 6.5min at 12lb/3000rpm from 9.75min at 6.25lb/2850 rpm at 6750lbs. The increased climb rate paid dividends even though the performance above ~16,000 ft was unchanged with 100octane fuel.

On the later Spit V at 6965 lbs, the combat rating climb performance was:

.(a) Climb performance.
Combat rating 16lb boost@3000rpm / Normal rating 9lb boost@2850 rpm.
Maximum rate of climb (ft/min) 3710 at 8,800 ft/2650 at 14,900 ft.
Time to 10,000 ft. (minutes) 2.7 / 3.8
Time to 20,000 ft. (minutes) 6.15 / 7.9 min
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/aa878.html

3) There was a considerable increase in performance for both the Hurricane and Spitfire.

Crumpp

06-19-2011, 03:59 AM

Timberwolf

06-19-2011, 05:20 AM

No idea why i just skimmed by 11 pages about 87-100 octane But from what i read (The Role Of Synthetic Fuel In World War II Germany by Dr. Peter W. Becker.) and heard from other pilots That The RAF were in shortage of high octane fuel and lots of it was shipped in from the USA and Canada as part of the lead/lease agreement. After the war Many test were done to see which was the better aircraft the Carb, Spitfire or F.I., 109 Which in many cases was tested using the same grade fuel and facts posted as such. Which were false.
Germany had a high import of oil pre war but a low storage of high octane
even with their infamous peace treaty with Russia in 1939 yielded them 4 million barrels of fuel per year (starting in 1940) and the Russians were diligent in delivering the fuel.

I'm no fuel expert or historian on ww2 fuel supplies but i don't think it would make 1c change to HP on the spit or 109 by 10mph

Seadog

06-19-2011, 05:52 AM

Can you clear up the ambiguity, please?

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0QgyynI6HjY/Tfrgg69OY4I/AAAAAAAAACQ/gbyH2vsdlT0/s640/All_merlin_100oct.jpg

No ambiguity, the RAFFC used 100% 100 octane during the BofB.

There is no evidence that the above source is wrong. None.

No one has presented a shred of evidence that even one RAFFC operational Merlin engined fighter squadron used anything but 100% 100 octane.

Kurfürst

06-19-2011, 10:16 AM

You sound like a religious fanatic, Seadog.. do you think that repeating the same and always having the last word is convincing? Let me tell you, it isn't.

Glider

06-19-2011, 11:49 AM

Can you clear up the ambiguity, please?

Crumpp
I believe I have done in my posting 150. Two papers are posted, the first item 9 in the summary of conclusions of the 5th meeting of the Oil Committee. This paper clearly and without any limitation says that the ACAS has requested that squadrons armed with fighters and Blenheims should begin to use 100 Octane

The second paper May 1940 which is for the Summary of actions for the 6th Meeting of the Oil Committee is the one that contains the magic Certain word. This paper specifically refers to item 9 of the Summary of the Conclusions of the 5th Meeting so it is clear that it is refering to the previous paper.

As I have said before I don't know why he said certain, but I do know that the first paper was clear and that the request was without limitation.
I am pretty sure that the Oil Committee largely staffed by Air Force Officers wouldn't overide the Chief of the Air Staff without some explanation.
I once worked for the Company Secretary of an Insurance Company and normal practice if the action had changed would be to document the change in the papers for the next meeting. Otherwise people would not know what actions to take or what the Oil Committee are expected to do or be responsible for.
Can I guarantee that they didn't follow standard practice, no I cannot, but Civil Service bodies all over the world love paperwork and the chances are very slim.

If people believe that Certain means a limit of some kind then I believe that they need to try and identify what that limit is and not make assumptions. I looked into it and the only link I found was to the first paper which is unambigious.

I repost the papers for you

Hope this helps

Crumpp

06-19-2011, 11:52 AM

There is no evidence that the above source is wrong. None.

Sure we do Seadog. You posted a secondary source. That is somebodies research paper.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event.

A journal/magazine article which interprets or reviews previous findings

We have a primary source that is clear in its declaration of "certain units".

Did the author of your article have the primary source in his possession? Probably not if he made that declaration in his article.

A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event.

http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html

Facts are nobody on these boards can say for sure at this time. We have a primary source that presents an ambiguity. You cannot alter the facts of the primary sources to suit your gaming needs. Primary sources present the facts that are the foundation upon which ALL secondary sources are developed.

Your secondary source contradicts a primary source and is therefore not the full story. In that sense, it is wrong.

Crumpp

06-19-2011, 12:07 PM

As I have said before I don't know why he said certain, but I do know that the first paper was clear and that the request was without limitation.

Without a doubt the RAF wanted 100 grade fuel without limitation.

The intention is certainly there to switch to 100 grade.

That does not mean it was possible in the time frame given. I read the first meeting declares the intention.

The first paper also states that FC is still not sure of technical requirements to make the switch and therefore has not even begun to operate any aircraft with the fuel.

I don't think they are not just going to switch the entire force in the midst of a fight for survival over without first making an operational test to ensure the fuel is suitable.

The second meeting authorizes the change for certain units. That is a fact. I don't believe that it was misspoken by the author.

Glider

06-19-2011, 12:08 PM

If we are talking of primary source and secondary sources of information. Is there any source to support the theory that the RAF in the BOB were not fully equipped with 100 Octane.

Pips posting presumably doesn't count as a source

Kurfürst

06-19-2011, 12:26 PM

As a matter of fact, despite Glider's claims the word certain is not limited to a single paper, it is kept repeated in all papers available. It hardly a case of mistyping as Glider would like you to believe.

12 December 1939 - 100 Octane, issue of. Again it talks of "Fighter Stations concerned" "certain Unitsin the Bomber Command" approved stations", "relevant stations".

That is pretty straightforward I think:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/24sept38-spitfire-100oct-approval.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/100octaneMar1939web.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/39-12-12_100octaneissueof.png
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/6th_meeting_actions.png
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/7th_meeting_summary.png

Glider

06-19-2011, 12:41 PM

Kurfurst
Thanks for that (and I do mean it) the problem is that the last paper is dated December 1939 and the others are pre war.

We are of course talking about decisions taken in 1940 so whilst they are interesting in a historical way, they are out of date. No long term plan of any kind in any nation goes unchanged once the bullets start flying, as priorities change. I take it you agree that Pips posting doesn't count as a source.

Glider

06-19-2011, 12:55 PM

Kurfurst
You are linking two totally different paper trails as if they were one.

The fourth paper that you have added is covered in my positing 150 and 172.

The fifth paper covers the equipment of Bomber Command with 100 Octane. The four stations mentioned are those that have to have the 87 octane fuel removed and they are the stations that were authorised to be 100% equipped with 100 Octane. The fighter command section is the removal of 87 octane from each fighter station concerned.

The last paper confirms that the fuel transfer has been completed concerned.

Concerned I take to mean that some will not need all the fuel removed. I would expect the large sector stations to keep some 87 Octane in a similar manner to Bomber Command and the Blenheims of No 2 group. The smaller stations would need to have the fuel removed as done for four stations in No 2 Group. Its worth remembering that some units started using 100 Octane in Feb 1940, before these decisions for a complete roll out were made so to some degree it was already out there and in use.

Clearly you believe that this is a limitation to the roll out, I have given my explanation and can prove it to a degree by supporting the use of 100 Octane in Feb, plus it follows the same principle as used in No 2 Group. Far from perfect I agree but better than nothing.

Can you support your contention that its a limitation to the scale of the roll out?

So back to the first question I ever asked you, what is certain? Which units, which bases

I also take this opportunity to post a War Cabinet Paper that I copied. Its not of interest but it might help you calm your concerns that I never went to the NA or saw the papers.

Kurfürst

06-19-2011, 01:07 PM

Kurfurst
Thanks for that (and I do mean it) the problem is that the last paper is dated December 1939 and the others are pre war.

You are welcome. Now, normal conversation is much more enjoyable, isn't it.. I hope we can keep it that way. I did add a couple of others in the meantime.

As far as I go, I see no problem. In March 1939 they decided that 100 octane will be issued to 16+2 Sqns, ie. a portion of FC and BC. They said the process shall start in the end of 1939, and indeed it did.

In short I do not see a single point that would show that they were doing anything else then (rather slowly) executing the plan according to the March 1939 plan.

We are of course talking about decisions taken in 1940 so whilst they are interesting in a historical way, they are out of date. No long term plan of any kind in any nation goes unchanged once the bullets start flying, as priorities change.

That would be a perfectly logical conclusion, a clausula rebus sic stantibus. However you can't simply assume this must have, and did happened. If they revised the pre-war plans, there should be documentation of it. Find it, present it, and I will believe your thesis immidiately.

I take it you agree that Pips posting doesn't count as a source.

No, I don't agree. It isn't a source in a way that we do not have scans of the original papers, on the other hand I have absolutely no reason to believe Pips would misreport his findings, and also his comments agree completely with what we found so far. I see no reason to doubt it.

If the pre-war plans were revised, I tend to believe this happened after May 1940. The 7th meeting etc. is clear that they supplied 100 octane to a number of FC/BC Stations/Squadrons, but not all.

That's why it would be interesting to look at the complete file, esp. the post May 1940 happenings to see when the original limited introduction of 100 octane was revised. The consumption figures between May - November 1940 do not lie: the 100 octane issues were practically the same in mid-May and mid-August, the height of activity, as long until the end of September indiciating that there was no expansion in the scale of use until late September, also shown by the sudden drop of 87 octane issues.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/87-100octane_cosumption_May-November1940.png

Kurfürst

06-19-2011, 01:13 PM

So back to the first question I ever asked you, what is certain? Which units, which bases

I direct you to post no. 42 by The Grunch:

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

RAF North Weald (11 Group) in February
RAF Drem (13 Group) in February
RAF Rochford (11 Group) in March
RAF Digby (12 Group) in March
RAF Hawkinge (11 Group) in May
RAF Hornchurch (11 Group) in May
RAF Tangmere (11 Group) in May
RAF Duxford (12 Group) in May
RAF Gravesend (11 Group) in June
RAF Catterick (12 Group) in June
RAF Biggin Hill (11 Group) in July
RAF Kenley (11 Group) in August
RAF Northolt (11 Group) in August
RAF Westhampnett (11 Group) in August
RAF Middle Wallop (10 Group) in August
RAF Leconfield (12 Group) in August
RAF Croydon (11 Group) in September
RAF Warmwell (10 Group) in September

Vengeanze

06-19-2011, 01:14 PM

Do you guys ever fly? :confused:

Glider

06-19-2011, 01:20 PM

I need to do some work that will take me until Wed Morning, don't take this a a sign of going away I will respond in detail to any questions when I am back.

However, to make no misunderstanding you believe that Pips posting with no documents is a valid source and you believe that they are accurate.

Glider

06-19-2011, 01:53 PM

Do you guys ever fly? :confused:

20 years on and off in Gliders, 8 years RN as an Airframes and Engines engineer and P2 time in a small number of powered aircraft from Chipmunks to Hunters.

But I suspect that isn't what you meant.:grin:

Vengeanze

06-19-2011, 04:17 PM

20 years on and off in Gliders, 8 years RN as an Airframes and Engines engineer and P2 time in a small number of powered aircraft from Chipmunks to Hunters.

But I suspect that isn't what you meant.:grin:

:-P

Seadog

06-19-2011, 05:56 PM

You sound like a religious fanatic, Seadog.. do you think that repeating the same and always having the last word is convincing? Let me tell you, it isn't.

"No one has presented a shred of evidence that even one RAFFC operational Merlin engined fighter squadron used anything but 100% 100 octane during the Battle of Britain."

You keep producing documents from well before the BofB, yet you can't produce a single document showing that even one operational Merlin engined fighter squadron was using 87 octane during the battle. There are literally hundreds of books that cover this subject, thousands of magazine, newspaper and journal articles, and yet not one states that a BofB Merlin engined fighter squadron used 87 octane operationally, yet despite this lack of evidence you persist with missionary zeal to try to win converts...and your behaviour is the mark of the true fanatic.

Crumpp

06-20-2011, 01:37 AM

Thanks for that (and I do mean it) the problem is that the last paper is dated December 1939 and the others are pre war.

The Summary of the Seventh meeting is dated 18 May 1940.

Glider

06-20-2011, 01:18 PM

The Summary of the Seventh meeting is dated 18 May 1940.

I have to agree that your eyesight is spot on.:grin:

Kurfursts posting 176 was timed at 1.26pm, my reply posting 177 was timed at 1.41pm, Kurfursts posting 176 was amended at 1.44pm. I noticed the change and made another posting 178 to cater for the additional documents at 1.55pm
The postings crossed something Kurfurst noted in his posting 179 when commented ‘I did add a couple of others in the meantime.’

I hope that clarifies the position, just a co incidence.

I did send you a PM earlier about the references to sides in a posting that I didn’t understand. Can I ask you to clarify that for me please, in case I have misunderstood something.

Thanking you in advance

Blackdog_kt

06-20-2011, 04:56 PM

As a by-stander in this with no real gameplay gains from the final verdict (i will fly pretty much everything, both sides of the sim), the way the whole thing reads to me is:

1) Fuel was the "property" of stations/airfields, not specific units.

2) Critical airfields received supplies of 100 octane fuel.

3) Units rotated between different airfields as operational needs dictated.

4) When a certain unit happened to operate from a field with 100 octane supplies they would use it, when operating from another field they would not.

5) This also explains why there are a lot of combat reports from different units mentioning the use of +12lbs boost.

I certainly can't believe they would be moving all their fuel supply with them whenever they changed stations :-P

Seadog

06-20-2011, 05:17 PM

4) When a certain unit happened to operate from a field with 100 octane supplies they would use it, when operating from another field they would not.

5) This also explains why there are a lot of combat reports from different units mentioning the use of +12lbs boost.

I certainly can't believe they would be moving all their fuel supply with them whenever they changed stations :-P

Why are there no reports, memoirs, articles about RAFFC pilots complaining about the lack of 100 octane fuel for their squadron, station, etc? If some stations have 100 octane and others not, it would have created real problems for pilots landing at alternate bases to refuel, since they would be forced to put 87 octane in aircraft modded for 12lb boost, yet no mention of such problems has ever been recorded.

The idea that RAFFC fought the battle with mixed 87/100 octane Merlin engined squadrons is wrong, and is not supported by the historical record. The battle was fought with 100octane only.

CaptainDoggles

06-20-2011, 05:52 PM

Why are there no ....

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

Kurfürst

06-20-2011, 06:06 PM

If some stations have 100 octane and others not, it would have created real problems for pilots landing at alternate bases to refuel, since they would be forced to put 87 octane in aircraft modded for 12lb boost, yet no mention of such problems has ever been recorded.

Because it wouldn't pose any technical problem, the plane would operate on +6.25 boost, and the boost cutout would not be used. In fact the Spitfire II manual from June 1940 notes exactly that, +6.25 boost limit on 87 octane, and +12 "When using 100 octane" or something along these lines.

Otherwise, you are like a broken record.

Seadog

06-20-2011, 06:35 PM

Because it wouldn't pose any technical problem, the plane would operate on +6.25 boost, and the boost cutout would not be used. In fact the Spitfire II manual from June 1940 notes exactly that, +6.25 boost limit on 87 octane, and +12 "When using 100 octane" or something along these lines.

Otherwise, you are like a broken record.

So they land at another base and fuel up on 87 octane and then they return to their home base with a tankful of 87 octane...forcing the ground crews to drain it before commencing combat operations with other aircraft of the same squadron flying 100 octane? This would have been a logistical nightmare that would have drawn lots of comments, mostly to the effect that it would be much simpler for everyone to simply use 100 octane fuel. Which is fact was done.

lane

06-20-2011, 09:07 PM

This paper clearly and without any limitation says that the ACAS has requested that squadrons armed with fighters and Blenheims should begin to use 100 Octane

The second paper May 1940 which is for the Summary of actions for the 6th Meeting of the Oil Committee is the one that contains the magic Certain word. This paper specifically refers to item 9 of the Summary of the Conclusions of the 5th Meeting so it is clear that it is refering to the previous paper.

As I have said before I don't know why he said certain, but I do know that the first paper was clear and that the request was without limitation.
---
Concerned I take to mean that some will not need all the fuel removed. I would expect the large sector stations to keep some 87 Octane in a similar manner to Bomber Command and the Blenheims of No 2 group. The smaller stations would need to have the fuel removed as done for four stations in No 2 Group. Its worth remembering that some units started using 100 Octane in Feb 1940, before these decisions for a complete roll out were made so to some degree it was already out there and in use.
… So back to the first question I ever asked you, what is certain? Which units, which bases.

Why are there no reports, memoirs, articles about RAFFC pilots complaining about the lack of 100 octane fuel for their squadron, station, etc? If some stations have 100 octane and others not, it would have created real problems for pilots landing at alternate bases to refuel, since they would be forced to put 87 octane in aircraft modded for 12lb boost, yet no mention of such problems has ever been recorded.

The idea that RAFFC fought the battle with mixed 87/100 octane Merlin engined squadrons is wrong, and is not supported by the historical record. The battle was fought with 100 octane only.

Check out Post 88 from The use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF pt 2 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-6.html#post560866). Sometime prior to 7 December, 1939 100 octane fuel was authorized for Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft in Fighter Command. It is quite clear that it was HQ, Fighter Command’s intention to supply all those stations in the UK that held operational Hurricanes & Spitfires with 100 octane fuel.

The operational stations at which the fuel will be required in the first instance are: Acklington, Biggin Hill, Catterick, Debden, Digby, Drem, Duxford, Hornchuch, Leconfield, Manston, Martlesham Heath, Northhold, North Weald, Tangmere, Turnhouse, Croydon, St. Athan and Wittering. Church Fenton, Grangemouth and Filton also “will have Merlin engine aircraft that will require 100 octane fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/7dec39-100oct-issue.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/9dec39-100oct-issue.jpg

Taken from: Post 88 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-6.html#post560866)

The Squadrons equipped with Hurricanes during December 1939 are as follows: 3, 17, 32, 43, 46, 56, 79, 111, 151, 213, 501, 504, 605.

During December 1939 these Hurricane Squadrons were stationed as follows.
3 – Croydon,
17 – Debden
32 – Biggin Hill
43 – Acklington
46 – Digby
56 – Martlesham Heath
79 – Manston
111 – Drem
151 – North Weald
213 – Wittering
501 – Tangmere
504 – Debden
605 – Tangmere

All these Stations were listed as requiring 100 octane fuel.

The Squadrons equipped with Spitfires in December 1939 are as follows: 19, 41, 54, 65, 66, 72, 74, 152, 602, 603, 609, 610, 611, 616.

During December 1939 these Spitfire Squadrons were stationed as follows:
19 - Duxford
41 - Catterick
54 - Hornchurch
65 - Northholt
66 - Duxford
72 - Drem
74 - Rochford
152 - Acklington
602 - Grangemouth
603 - Turnhouse
609 - Drem
610 - Wittering
611 - Digby
616 – Leconfield

Rochford is the only base not listed, however, 74 Operations Record Book indicates that they had 100 octane while at Rochford in March 1940.

Units converting to Hurricane or Spitfire after December 1939 and the station where they converted are as follows:

64 – Church Fenton
92 – Croyden
145 – Croyden
222 – Duxford
229 – Digby
232 – Sumburgh
234 – Leconfield
242 – Church Fenton
245 – Leconfield
253 – Manston
257 – Hendon
263 – Drem
266 – Sutton Bridge
302 – Leconfield
310 – Duxford
312 – Duxford
601 – Tangmere

Sumburgh is the only base not listed to receive 100 octane fuel. 232 formed there in July 1940.

With the one exception of Sumburgh, there is a perfect match between those stations that Fighter Command deemed required 100 octane fuel and those stations where all UK Spitfire & Hurricane operational squadrons were based. I looked through Rawling’s Fighter Squadrons of the RAF and the baseing info checks out.

Blackdog_kt

06-20-2011, 11:02 PM

If some stations have 100 octane and others not, it would have created real problems for pilots landing at alternate bases to refuel, since they would be forced to put 87 octane in aircraft modded for 12lb boost, yet no mention of such problems has ever been recorded.

Because it's possible to change octane ratings as long as you keep to the relevant limits?

Again, cue the Blenheim Mk.IV pilot's notes where it's clearly stated that it was standard operating procedure to switch between 87 and 100 octane mid-flight: the only limitation was keeping boost within the appropriate limits for each fuel type, the engine won't suddenly explode if you just throttle back and switch to the 87 octane tanks, even though the engines were modified for 100 octane use. ;)

Kurfürst

06-20-2011, 11:52 PM

The operational stations at which the fuel will be required in the first instance are: Acklington, Biggin Hill, Catterick, Debden, Digby, Drem, Duxford, Hornchuch, Leconfield, Manston, Martlesham Heath, Northhold, North Weald, Tangmere, Turnhouse, Croydon, St. Athan and Wittering. Church Fenton, Grangemouth and Filton also “will have Merlin engine aircraft that will require 100 octane fuel.

So these are the Stations Fighter Command would seen advantagous of having 100 octane fuel?

These are about 1/3 of the stations used by fighters in the Battle of Britain - ca 20 Stations out of ca 60.

Seadog

06-20-2011, 11:53 PM

Because it's possible to change octane ratings as long as you keep to the relevant limits?

Again, cue the Blenheim Mk.IV pilot's notes where it's clearly stated that it was standard operating procedure to switch between 87 and 100 octane mid-flight: the only limitation was keeping boost within the appropriate limits for each fuel type, the engine won't suddenly explode if you just throttle back and switch to the 87 octane tanks, even though the engines were modified for 100 octane use. ;)

P/O Art Donahue's account of using +12 boost during his first combat of 5 August 1940, whilst flying Spitfires with No. 64 Squadron out of Kenley, is typical:

“There are bandits approaching from the north” In quick response to this information, our leader sang out a command: “All Tiger aircraft, full throttle! Full Throttle!” That meant to use the emergency throttle that gave extra power to our engines. I was flying in our leader’s section, on his left. As he gave the command “Full throttle”, his plane started to draw ahead, away from me. I pushed in my emergency throttle in response to the command, the first time I had ever used it, and my engine fairly screamed with new power. I felt my plane speeding up like a high spirited horse that has been spurred. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Kinda hard to keep formation if some aircraft are using 87 octane and some 100 octane...

In a Blenheim flying a long range recon or ferry mission (which is the only time they could use the auxiliary tanks) it is quite reasonable that there will be long periods where the expectation of enemy encounters are low, and thus mixing octane types is a reasonable risk. The problem is that it will take many seconds before the change back to 100octane can be made, and during that time overboost will not be available and damage to the engine may result if overboost is applied too soon.

Kurfürst

06-20-2011, 11:55 PM

Kinda hard to keep formation if some aircraft are using 87 octane and some 100 octane...

I guess not so hard as if half of them are Hurricanes and the other half are Spitfires, even if they would use the same fuel type as long as they would be both stationed at the same fighter station...

Seadog

06-21-2011, 12:10 AM

I guess not so hard as if half of them are Hurricanes and the other half are Spitfires, even if they would use the same fuel type as long as they would be both stationed at the same fighter station...

Which is why squadrons are generally equipped with one aircraft type.

Crumpp

06-21-2011, 01:41 AM

Kinda hard to keep formation if some aircraft are using 87 octane and some 100 octane...

No, at any manifold pressure and rpm setting below the knock limited performance of the fuel, the power will be the same.

Basically at any manifold pressure below +9lbs (limit for 87 Octane) in the Merlin, the power is the same for 87 Octane or 100 Octane fuels.

CaptainDoggles

06-21-2011, 02:08 AM

VO101_Tom

06-21-2011, 02:19 AM

The problem is that people think the higher octane fuels magically give more horsepower when in reality they merely allow the engine to develop higher power at higher manifold pressures without engine knock.

This is totally true. :grin: To see every day on the street when the people buy it their car the expensive 100 octane "V-Power" fuel, though into the car 95 octane would be needed :rolleyes:

Kanalkrank

06-21-2011, 03:33 AM

Kanalkrank

06-21-2011, 05:00 AM

Do you guys ever fly? :confused:

good question:)

Seadog

06-21-2011, 08:11 AM

This is totally true. :grin: To see every day on the street when the people buy it their car the expensive 100 octane "V-Power" fuel, though into the car 95 octane would be needed :rolleyes:

Most cars these days, especially high performance vehicles, have engine knock sensors, which sense detonation and then automatically retard the timing to prevent pinging. Depending on the car and how its CEM is setup, higher octane fuel might give better performance.

Seadog

06-21-2011, 08:29 AM

TomcatViP

06-21-2011, 11:02 AM

Merlin engines were limited to 6.25lb boost when using 87 octane. At ~10,000 ft the Merlin III would produce 1310 hp at 12lb/3000rpm versus about 1000hp at 6.25lb boost. It might be possible to go past 6.25lb with 87 octane, but this leaves the engine with no safety margin since detonation is dependant on several factors, not just manifold pressure.

Wrong. See my post above and data pasted bellow. You need to take into account the s/c !

MerlinXX !

ALT(ft) SHP BHP (diff correspond to the power used to drive the supercharger)
15K 1267 1048
20K 1298 1073
20K+ 1362 1126
25K 1162 960
30K 945 778
35K 700 568

More over the subsequent Merlin (the XX) developed to give more power to the Hurri (what the RaF felt was more a need) was limited to 9lb at 20Kft but 12lb in T.O/Emergency

I think that you are confounding higher grade and NOS and don't forget all the cooling prob with the Merlin in the RAFFC's fighters

Quitely again as I hve said it does not fit any logics.

~S!

TomcatViP

06-21-2011, 11:06 AM

It has been very long, interesting discussion about... FUEL and I would like to ask you guys what you propose in the next patch Flex-Fuel Spitfire or Spitfire Hybrid?:)

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/how-e85-ethanol-flex-fuel-works-6.jpg

A Spit from Toyota's Burnaston plant ?

With all those big Merc and BMW engines Germany won't hve a chance there ;).

Kurfürst

06-21-2011, 11:17 AM

Think of milage and service costs.. :D

Crumpp

06-21-2011, 11:18 AM

Do you guys ever fly?

Sometimes....

My GF took these pictures a few weeks ago.

http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/5491/thunderstorm2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/846/thunderstorm2.jpg/)

Glider

06-21-2011, 12:16 PM

Well Kurfurst, in your posting 179 you did ask for evidence of a change of plan and there is no doubt that you have had the evidence of such a change.
Which from a sources point of view, just leaves you with PIPS posting which most people would not consider a source, just an unsupported posting.

Kurfürst

06-21-2011, 01:16 PM

Well Kurfurst, in your posting 179 you did ask for evidence of a change of plan and there is no doubt that you have had the evidence of such a change.

In what way there is an evidence of the change of plan? A request is not a change in plans, though I would not rule out at all or most of these 21 Stations were eventually approved.

The problem is of coure there were a total of 51 fighter bases (19 Sector stations, 32 Fighter stations) from which British fighters operated during BoB.
And up to 21 out of 51 that may or may not have been approved is less then half in any case.

Which from a sources point of view, just leaves you with PIPS posting which most people would not consider a source, just an unsupported posting.

Well if we look at it that way its

Pips sourced posting,
the fact that the 18 May 1940 and previous papersspeaks that only select Stations are supplied with 100 octane,
the fact that you admitted that this was not revised,
and the fact that the vast majotity of the fuel consumed was steadily 87 octane until the end of September 1940 (in agreement with Pips)
Spitfire II and other manuals listing both 87 and 100 octane ratings

vs.

your unsupported mere belief.

Do you have the post May 1940 files or only the ones you have posted? You seem to tend to evade that question constantly.

Glider

06-21-2011, 01:37 PM

I will do this justice tomorrow but in the meantime

a) are you confirming that what PIP posted is your belief as to what happened
b) where you say I admitted that this was not revised, can you point me to the posting.

re (b) I am not doubting you, I just want to avoid a misunderstanding as a lot has been said.

Speak to you tomorrow

Kurfürst

06-21-2011, 01:49 PM

I will do this justice tomorrow but in the meantime

a) are you confirming that what PIP posted is your belief as to what happened

It seems to me a reasonable and honest and referenced account based on archival documentations as to what happened from someone who does not seem to have a stake involved. It also fits well into the papers you posted. In short, yes.

b) where you say I admitted that this was not revised, can you point me to the posting.

David I've asked you literally dozens of times if you know of a paper that had revised the 18 May (and preceeding) decision about select/concerned/certain, ie. limited number of Squadrons being involved. You have never asnwered to that, that's just as good as admittence in my book.

In all the documentation Neil and you publicly provided, there's a huge gap between May and August 1940. And let's be frank about it, both of you are fanatic about the subject, and that's exactly the timeframe Pips was talking about YEARS before you found that paper.

That's some food for thought isn't it. I am pretty sure of two things: that you weren't running out of battery in your camera when you got there, and if it would revise the 18 May paper in a way positive to you and say that all Sqns gonna use 100 octane, it would be posted all over the place.

See ya tomorrow. ;)

Glider

06-21-2011, 02:09 PM

Thanks for that, I must go now but will be in touch

*Buzzsaw*

06-21-2011, 04:17 PM

Check out Post 88 from The use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF pt 2 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-6.html#post560866). Sometime prior to 7 December, 1939 100 octane fuel was authorized for Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft in Fighter Command. It is quite clear that it was HQ, Fighter Command’s intention to supply all those stations in the UK that held operational Hurricanes & Spitfires with 100 octane fuel.

The operational stations at which the fuel will be required in the first instance are: Acklington, Biggin Hill, Catterick, Debden, Digby, Drem, Duxford, Hornchuch, Leconfield, Manston, Martlesham Heath, Northhold, North Weald, Tangmere, Turnhouse, Croydon, St. Athan and Wittering. Church Fenton, Grangemouth and Filton also “will have Merlin engine aircraft that will require 100 octane fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/7dec39-100oct-issue.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/9dec39-100oct-issue.jpg

Taken from: Post 88 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-6.html#post560866)

The Squadrons equipped with Hurricanes during December 1939 are as follows: 3, 17, 32, 43, 46, 56, 79, 111, 151, 213, 501, 504, 605.

During December 1939 these Hurricane Squadrons were stationed as follows.
3 – Croydon,
17 – Debden
32 – Biggin Hill
43 – Acklington
46 – Digby
56 – Martlesham Heath
79 – Manston
111 – Drem
151 – North Weald
213 – Wittering
501 – Tangmere
504 – Debden
605 – Tangmere

All these Stations were listed as requiring 100 octane fuel.

The Squadrons equipped with Spitfires in December 1939 are as follows: 19, 41, 54, 65, 66, 72, 74, 152, 602, 603, 609, 610, 611, 616.

During December 1939 these Spitfire Squadrons were stationed as follows:
19 - Duxford
41 - Catterick
54 - Hornchurch
65 - Northholt
66 - Duxford
72 - Drem
74 - Rochford
152 - Acklington
602 - Grangemouth
603 - Turnhouse
609 - Drem
610 - Wittering
611 - Digby
616 – Leconfield

Rochford is the only base not listed, however, 74 Operations Record Book indicates that they had 100 octane while at Rochford in March 1940.

Units converting to Hurricane or Spitfire after December 1939 and the station where they converted are as follows:

64 – Church Fenton
92 – Croyden
145 – Croyden
222 – Duxford
229 – Digby
232 – Sumburgh
234 – Leconfield
242 – Church Fenton
245 – Leconfield
253 – Manston
257 – Hendon
263 – Drem
266 – Sutton Bridge
302 – Leconfield
310 – Duxford
312 – Duxford
601 – Tangmere

Sumburgh is the only base not listed to receive 100 octane fuel. 232 formed there in July 1940.

With the one exception of Sumburgh, there is a perfect match between those stations that Fighter Command deemed required 100 octane fuel and those stations where all UK Spitfire & Hurricane operational squadrons were based. I looked through Rawling’s Fighter Squadrons of the RAF and the baseing info checks out.

Great post.

The linkage is inescapable and provides solid proof.

The RAF was systematically supplying ALL Stations which had Merlin equipped aircraft with 100 octane fuel.

The 2nd memo indicates the process was ongoing. Church Fenton, Grangemouth and Filton are expected to be hosting Merlin equipped Squadrons in the near future, so they are added to the list of Stations requiring 100 octane.

This follows naturally with the conversion of RAF Fighter Squadrons from Gladiators/Gauntlets etc. to Hurricanes/Spitfires/Defiants during 1939 and early 1940. Gladiators/Gauntlets and all the obsolete types use 87 octane, of fighters, only Merlin equipped Spitfires/Hurricanes/Defiants use 100 octane.

Note also the stations requiring the fuel are "operational" stations, the stations not requiring the fuel are "nonoperational". Clearly the stations being supplied are central to the RAF's Tactical plan. Only Stations which are hosting Squadrons which have been declared operational are supplied, ie. only stations whose aircraft have been released to conduct interceptions, attacks etc. Ie. the fighting force of the RAF is stationed at fields with 100 octane. Squadrons which have not been released for combat are based at fields with no 100 octane supply. Again, the logic is inescapable, the RAF is preparing to fight with aircraft based at stations supplied with 100 octane fuel. Let us also remember, stations supplied with 100 octane DO NOT retain enough supply of 87 octane to fuel Squadrons based there who use that fuel type, only enough 87 octane is retained to supply the occasional aircraft which is forced to land due to mechanical or combat issues.

CaptainDoggles

06-21-2011, 04:36 PM

I like how you guys present letters that talk about planning to supply these stations with fuel as concrete evidence that they were supplied.

*Buzzsaw*

06-21-2011, 04:58 PM

I like how you guys present letters that talk about planning to supply these stations with fuel as concrete evidence that they were supplied.

Actually we have linked multiple times combat reports and other documents showing RAF Squadrons based at these fields were using +12 boost and 100 octane.

Contrast with the Luftwhiner side, which has yet to provide a single document indicating any RAF fighter Squadron used 87 octane during the battle.

But of course, that's not surprising, that is the double standard the luftwhiners insist on.

CaptainDoggles

06-21-2011, 05:27 PM

Your bias for the red side was established long long ago, Buzzsaw.

Blackdog_kt

06-21-2011, 05:57 PM

No, at any manifold pressure and rpm setting below the knock limited performance of the fuel, the power will be the same.

Basically at any manifold pressure below +9lbs (limit for 87 Octane) in the Merlin, the power is the same for 87 Octane or 100 Octane fuels.

This

The problem is that people think the higher octane fuels magically give more horsepower when in reality they merely allow the engine to develop higher power at higher manifold pressures without engine knock.

and this.

Kinda hard to keep formation if some aircraft are using 87 octane and some 100 octane...

In a Blenheim flying a long range recon or ferry mission (which is the only time they could use the auxiliary tanks) it is quite reasonable that there will be long periods where the expectation of enemy encounters are low, and thus mixing octane types is a reasonable risk. The problem is that it will take many seconds before the change back to 100octane can be made, and during that time overboost will not be available and damage to the engine may result if overboost is applied too soon.

Yes, it's kinda hard. And that's why whenever a squad was stationed on a field with available supplies of 100 octane they used that, when stationed on another one i guess they wouldn't.

The only case where you would have mis-matched fuel types in a single flight is if you diverted to another field using a different octane rating and then taking part in a scramble before going back to your own base.

Even so, maintaining formation is not done on full throttle anyway, so the point is moot. A flight leader will always fly slightly lower power settings than the nominal values for a very simple reason: if you're the first to take-off and start climbing (aka getting into a region of a higher TAS as you go along) it's increasingly harder for the wingmen to keep up with you if you are already running the maximum values.
Another reason is fuel economy, yet another one is that the faster you go the more pronounced any mistake is in station keeping.

Have you ever flown formation to the AI in IL2:1946 with their magic, non-overheating engines? If you did then you know what i'm talking about.

Since the amount of boost and RPM used is what governs produced HP, it's perfectly possible to keep formation even when using different octane rating fuel. The only case where a discrepancy would occur and aircraft would be spaced apart is when going to full power, because a difference in O.R. institutes a difference in what full power is for each aircraft. But then again, this happens in combat where (gasp!) it actually makes sense to loosen and even break up the formation, something the RAF realized early on after incidents where multiple losses were incurred because pilots were more busy keeping a close vic formation than actually splitting up and flying combat properly, so they switched their tactics.

In short, a different O.R. has minimal effect in how you keep formation because formations are not flown at full power.
You think too much in terms of pure numbers and totally sidestep tactical considerations and how a mission profile usually plays out. But then again, you're convinced it's possible to run engines on full WEP all day long, so i'm not surprised. :-P

As for the Blenheim, yes it takes time until the residual fuel is burned up and there might even be a case of air in the lines when switching over from tank to tank, which is why it's standard procedure in many aircraft to turn on the fuel boost pumps whenever changing tanks and keep them running for a short while.

Also, full fuel was not only loaded for ferry flights. It was specifically used for long range raids, like the one on the Cologne power station. I have the actual pilot's manual and the main reason they used 100 octane in the first place was because the aircraft was too heavy to safely get off the ground with a full fuel load without the extra boost.

Seadog

06-21-2011, 07:36 PM

.

In short, a different O.R. has minimal effect in how you keep formation because formations are not flown at full power.
You think too much in terms of pure numbers and totally sidestep tactical considerations and how a mission profile usually plays out.

.

I don't quite know how you managed to quote me without reading the extract where a pilot describes climbing in formation using overboost:

Quote:
P/O Art Donahue's account of using +12 boost during his first combat of 5 August 1940, whilst flying Spitfires with No. 64 Squadron out of Kenley, is typical:

“There are bandits approaching from the north” In quick response to this information, our leader sang out a command: “All Tiger aircraft, full throttle! Full Throttle!” That meant to use the emergency throttle that gave extra power to our engines. I was flying in our leader’s section, on his left. As he gave the command “Full throttle”, his plane started to draw ahead, away from me. I pushed in my emergency throttle in response to the command, the first time I had ever used it, and my engine fairly screamed with new power. I felt my plane speeding up like a high spirited horse that has been spurred. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
Kinda hard to keep formation if some aircraft are using 87 octane and some 100 octane...

It was common for pilots to land and refuel at the most convenient base, then return to base and fly another mission, so if 100 octane wasn't universally used then there is a high probability that fighter squadrons would be forced into combat with mixed 87 and 100 octane fuel loads, yet there is no historical account of this ever happening.

But then again, you're convinced it's possible to run engines on full WEP all day long, so i'm not surprised.

It was possible, and was done on multiengined Merlin aircraft, when one or more engines failed. 12lb boost is not an excessive boost level even for a Merlin III, and as long as the cooling and lubrication stay in the black, the probability of failure is low:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/webster-28-7-40.jpg

Dover Castle to Hornchurch is ~55 miles, or about 11 minutes at 300mph, and this pilot was further east than Dover Castle..

Blackdog_kt

06-21-2011, 09:40 PM

I don't quite know how you managed to quote me without reading the extract where a pilot describes climbing in formation using overboost

He didn't say anything about keeping station, he describes going full throttle in anticipation of an engagement. Neither of us knows if they were in formation at that point or if they had broken up to pick their targets, because the quote you supplied doesn't mention anything about it.

As for the rest of your post, 11 minutes is a reasonable amount of time (even though exceeding the specified guidelines) and a far stretch from all day long WEP running.

Let me ask you one question just to eliminate any suspicion of bias and restore my willingness to be convinced that your arguments are about what you perceive to be historically accurate and not about gameplay advantages: if someone finds combat reports stating similar situations for 109s, will you be content to let DB601s run WEP in a similar fashion (ie, with the only constraint being fuel expense)?

Seadog

06-21-2011, 11:09 PM

He didn't say anything about keeping station, he describes going full throttle in anticipation of an engagement. Neither of us knows if they were in formation at that point or if they had broken up to pick their targets, because the quote you supplied doesn't mention anything about it.

As for the rest of your post, 11 minutes is a reasonable amount of time (even though exceeding the specified guidelines) and a far stretch from all day long WEP running.

Let me ask you one question just to eliminate any suspicion of bias and restore my willingness to be convinced that your arguments are about what you perceive to be historically accurate and not about gameplay advantages: if someone finds combat reports stating similar situations for 109s, will you be content to let DB601s run WEP in a similar fashion (ie, with the only constraint being fuel expense)?

I think that its pretty clear that the Squadron leader wanted them to climb in formation.

A Merlin III at 12lb/3000rpm will typically use 115 gal/hr. The maximum possible time for a Spitfire is 45 mins, and about 55mins for a Hurricane. Using say 20 gals for non boost operations, the max time for a Spit falls to 34 mins.

I suspect that info on WEP times for the Luftwaffe's engines must exist and I have no doubt that some of them could be run for extended periods at WEP, and it would be interesting to read such info. I have no doubt that an Me110 pilot might feel compelled to run at WEP for extended periods, when in combat with one engine out and multiengined Merlin powered aircraft had similar experiences, but a SE Merlin engined fighter doesn't have enough fuel to run for very long at 12lb/3000rpm.

Glider

06-21-2011, 11:18 PM

I like how you guys present letters that talk about planning to supply these stations with fuel as concrete evidence that they were supplied.

But it is a plan, a plan that differs from the pre war intention, a plan based on stations not squadrons. This does make sense as pre war, squadrons were based at fixed stations but once the war started squadrons moved around so for logistical reasons it had to be stations.

It is also clear that the plan is dependent on the oil stocks being in place and that once those reserves are in place can be initiated.

So the next question is when were the fuel reserves in place and when was the permission to proceed given as permission is obviously needed.

PS did you ever get the link to the paper that you requested from Kurfurst?

Glider

06-22-2011, 12:48 PM

I am afraid that I don't have the time I thought I was going to have but can quickly deal with the comment Kurfurst made about the Pilots notes for the Spit II.

There are two sets of pilots notes for the Spit II both of the dated June 1940 which is confusing. Kurfursts one states both types of fuel mine only 100 octane so there is an obvious queston as to which one applies at what time.
The decider I believe is in the other details in the pilots notes. The one Kurfurst quotes in section 35 and the gun controls goes into detail about how to choose the 20mm and/or the LMG's. The one that I have only talks about one firing choice withthe 8 guns specifically mentioned in item 44.

As we know the Spit II in the BOB was only armed with 8 x LMG so I believe that this is the one for the BOB period.

Twin fuel options for the 20mm cannon armed Spit II does make sense in early/mid 41, as the Spit II was quickly followed into service by the Spit V and the earlier Spits transfered to training roles which used 87 Octane fuel.

I attach links to both sets of notes for people to look at and comment on.

The version Kurfurst has
http://www.plane-design.com/documentation/spitfire/Spitfire%20Manual.pdf

The Version I am referring to
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/spitfire-manuals-9050.html

So to sum up I believe that the 8 guns version with only 100 octane fuel is the BOB version. The 20mm gunned version with both 87 and 100 octane fuel is post BOB when in training command.

CaptainDoggles

06-22-2011, 03:12 PM

PS did you ever get the link to the paper that you requested from Kurfurst?

No. I'm waiting for my account to be activated at allaboutwarfare, but I think it's been deleted as I can no longer log in.

Glider

06-22-2011, 10:00 PM

No. I'm waiting for my account to be activated at allaboutwarfare, but I think it's been deleted as I can no longer log in.

Thanks for this, I keep renewing mine but it doesn't get activated.

CaptainDoggles

06-22-2011, 10:34 PM

Glider

06-22-2011, 10:42 PM

Kurfurst
Its late but I will comment on another of your points namely

The fact that the vast majotity of the fuel consumed was steadily 87 octane until the end of September 1940 (in agreement with Pips)

The important thing is the noticable increase in 100 Octane in September. Unfortunately we only have an average consumption figure for June to August of 10000 tons a month. I would expect the August figure to be very similar to September.

There is little doubt that the consumption of 87 Octane was broadly similar until the end of Sept 1940 (Paper Attached) but I wouldn't have expected anything else. The Other Commands were not given clearence to use 100 Octane until August 1940 (Paper attached) and it would have taken a little time to move the quantaties of fuel around.
In fact its noticable that in September the usage of 87 octane fuel started to fall despite the intensity of operations. The overall consumption figure, (combined 87 and 100 Octane) for August is almost identical to September 36,000 tons vs 37,000 tons but the 100 octane is going up and the 87 Octane down.

Remembering that the policy for the replacement of fuel in No 2 Group was to replace empty 87 Octane tanks with 100 Octane, the immediate effect would be little difference in the consumption of 87 Octane in late August / early September as the tanks are emptied, but a significant increase in the proportion of 100 Octane issued, to refill the empty tanks.

Glider

06-22-2011, 10:44 PM

The owner, butch2k doesn't seem to be very experienced at administrating forums.

Apparently he manually approves all registrations, and unless you have an existing user to vouch for you your account is not approved.

I wasn't aware of that. If there is anyone on this forum who could help speed things up, it would be appreciated

CaptainDoggles

06-22-2011, 10:47 PM

I've been in contact with someone on ww2aircraft.net who is trying to help me out. If/when my account gets activated I'll see if I can get you set up.

Crumpp

06-22-2011, 11:32 PM

If there is anyone on this forum who could help speed things up, it would be appreciated

I can try for you. Butch2K helped us to get some parts for our SVK-2 and i have his contact info around here somewhere.

Shoot me an IM with your info CaptainDoggles.

Kurfürst

06-23-2011, 09:45 AM

The version Kurfurst has
http://www.plane-design.com/documentation/spitfire/Spitfire%20Manual.pdf

The Version I am referring to
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/spitfire-manuals-9050.html

I dunno what you talk about mate, this one you kindly attribute to me is a Mark Niner... and this isn't the one I talk about.

Glider

06-23-2011, 10:13 AM

I dunno what you talk about mate, this one you kindly attribute to me is a Mark Niner... and this isn't the one I talk about.

Whoops the correct manual

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/Spit2Manual.pdf

The following is the link to where you identified the notes you were using as being the Zeno Notes

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-8.html

Post numbers 108, 112, 116

Bobb4

06-23-2011, 10:43 AM

Viper2000

06-23-2011, 11:52 AM

Okay lets' cut a long story short, if only for game purposes. What is modelled in Clod, 87 Octane or 100 Octane?

That depends how you look at it.

Instrument indications say that we have 87 octane boost limits, and strange behaviour of the boost control cutout.

Speeds and rates of climb are somewhat equivocal. Last time I checked, the Spitfire II was too fast and had strange full throttle heights, but boost topped out at about +8.

TBH it might be more reasonable to just say that there appear to be issues with the models rather than to try to pin this down to a fuel standard, because really we don't know enough about the assumptions underlying the FM, nor do we have the test technology (device link autopilot etc) to speak with the same certainty about CoD that we could talk about IL2/1946.

Kurfürst

06-23-2011, 09:28 PM

Whoops the correct manual

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/Spit2Manual.pdf

Thanks. It says July 1940, Spitfire IIA and IIB manual, and

"Fuel: 100 octane (the reduced limitations for use with 87 octane are shown in the brackets)"

Also this, for Spitfire I from same timeframe I believe:

"When using 100 octane.." And above it limiations we know for being for 87 octane.

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

Glider

06-23-2011, 11:08 PM

Thanks. It says July 1940, Spitfire IIA and IIB manual, and

"Fuel: 100 octane (the reduced limitations for use with 87 octane are shown in the brackets)"
I know it does, it also says 20mm cannon

Seadog

06-23-2011, 11:54 PM

Pilot's Notes were issued but then revised constantly, so an issue date of July 1940 does not mean that all the info therein dates to July 1940, but in any event, even if it does, publishing the 87 octane limits are still prudent, since an aircraft may land at a training field, or even a civil airport and be forced to fuel up with 87 octane. Additionally, OTU aircraft may have run on 87 Octane and hence the info would still be needed, and overseas 100 octane was still scarce, and the writers could not know where an aircraft might be operating.

The fact remains that there are no published reports stating that Hurricane/Spitfires used anything but 100 octane during the BofB.

My friend has a car with a HO engine, and it requires 100 octane fuel, but the owners manual contains info regarding lower octane fuel use and prudent operating cautions.

Seadog

06-23-2011, 11:59 PM

Okay lets' cut a long story short, if only for game purposes. What is modelled in Clod, 87 Octane or 100 Octane?
Is this just a debate between intellectuals with different viewpoints or a game breaker?
I struggle to find the relevance if it is not game related and if it is why have the developers not weighed in?
If it is just two standpoints then to each his own but if it materially affects game play the I want 100 Octane fuel to be an option at least and let the mission designer decide on it’s historical merit ;)

It seems that 87 octane is being used in the FMs, but to many people, including myself, a game like this is only of interest if it simulates RL performance. If it doesn't simulate RL performance, it is just another arcade game, of no more interest than Star Wars.

Bobb4

06-24-2011, 06:16 AM

It seems that 87 octane is being used in the FMs, but to many people, including myself, a game like this is only of interest if it simulates RL performance. If it doesn't simulate RL performance, it is just another arcade game, of no more interest than Star Wars.

100% agree with you. But can someone quote in game stats supporting this. It is all good and well this entire theoretical debate goes on but if the developers are not being told X should actually be Y and Y should include input from Z...
Nothing will ever be changed. I doubt whether a Russian developer is going to wade through 20 to 30 pages of a thread to figure out what the end result is.
I am 100% for 100 Octane but the developers need it in a simplified form and with documents to back up why the change needs to be made.
They could maybe just introduce field-modified 100 Octane Spitfire 1’s and 1a ‘s and have the Spitfire 2 already with 100 Octane as an example. Again this will leave the choice to the purists when mission building.
I doubt even Kurfürst can argue against that.

Glider

06-24-2011, 09:47 AM

The fact remains that there are no published reports stating that Hurricane/Spitfires used anything but 100 octane during the BofB.

.

On the contrary there are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the RAF was equipped with 100 Octane for the BOB.

However There is nothing published anywhere that says that there was a fuel shortage, that they were forced to use 87 octane on operaions. All Kurfurst has posted is a pre war paper that said 18 squadrons of fighters and 2 squadrons of twin engined bombers. Plus an unsubstantiated posting from an Australian which
a) is riddled with errors.
b) is not supported by anything
c) that no one (not even Kurfurst) has seen
d) whee the archives that are supposed to hold it do not recognise.

Now the point of this was to ensure the people who are involved in the coding of the flight simulation were aware that if they followed the ideas put forward by Kurfurst were leaving themselves wide open for adverse comments.

I believe the case put foward for the use of 100 Octane in FC by all the units is a strong case, not perfect but strong.

We have
a) the pre war intention, of 18 + 2 squadrons
b) the preparation in Dec 1939 for the issues to the FC command stations in two stages initially the First Instance (covering all the Operational Bases and those that were identified at that time that would become operational) and the second tranch (The Non Operational bases). This paper outlines the conditions to be met (stocks to be in place) before it can be used.
c) the request from the Chief of the Air Staff simple and without limitation for fighter units and Blenheim units to start using the 100 Octane. The Chief of the Air Staff doesn't ask permission from the Oil Committee which is headed up by a senior but junior to him Air Force Officer. In the the British Armed Forces orders from senior officers were and are still today, requests.
d) The Oil Committee getting this underway. The Magic 'Certain' word comes up at this stage. Do I wish he hadn't written certain, of course, but I believe that it will refer to the first instance i.e. the operational stations not all the stations in Fighter Command. But Please note, I knew that information would casue confusion and I could have left it out, but I didn't I gave all the information that I had to the forum.
d) A very clear path that shows without any ambiguity that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group had 100 Octane
e) Confusion in Fighter Command about the changes needed and the sorting out of those questions (Mr Tweedie)
f) The completion of the task by the oil committee and the note of thanks on the job done.

Note that was all done by May. Even if there was a slight delay the BOB didn't start in anger until a few months later so time was on their side.

g) Finally we have in August permission given to use 100 Octane in all the commands.

All the above supported by consumption details, stock supplies, a good cross section of squadron notes, station notes and other documentation.

As I said earlier, is it a perfect case no, but its a strong one with a lot of documentation to support it.

What documentation have you got to say that 87 Octane was used in Operational missions during the BOB. None.

Some people doubt that all units didn't have 100 octane, so prove it, find any book, any article, any pilots story or other station record that says that.

I will review Pps posting again with supporting docs as that seems to be key to the anti 100 Octane Brigade and then leave you to it. I can add nothing more.

Glider

06-24-2011, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by PipsPriller on Jul 12 2004 at
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.
As mentioned before the first units started using 100 Octane in February not March. Document Attached.

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.
As before this section I do fundamentally disagree with. In December 1939 stocks of 100 Octane were 202,000 tons, by May 1940 stocks were 294,000 tons and by August 1940 stocks were at 404,000 tons (documents are attached). We know that in June – August the average consumption was 10,000 tons a month (document attached).
The question I suggest we need to ask is If you have what is in effect a two and a half year stockpile, is this a strain, let alone a great strain on the stockpile. In my opinion it isn’t a strain at all, it’s barely noticeable

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 British War Cabinet didn’t discuss 100 Octane at all in May and as a result no decisions were made. I spent a day in the NA going through all the papers for the meetings, the meeting notes and the actions resulting, and Fuel of any kind was not discussed. I should add that in May 1940 the War Cabinet met almost daily and it was a huge amount of paper, literally hundreds of sheets making it impossible to copy and post. Clearly as this wasn't discussed there were no actons or decisions made along this line.

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.
The first part is correct, the first shipment from the middle East did arrive in August, however the rest is misleading. Numerous other tankers arrived from others parts of the world between May and August and stocks continued to increase . On July 11th stocks of 100 Octane were 343,000 tons as specified in the Narrow Margin page 87 (document attached).

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.
This is clearly wrong In August 1940 permission was given for all commands to use 100 Octane in Operational aircraft. (Document attached)

Given that large quantities were not available until late August, the volume of usage/week of 87 Octane must be far higher than that quoted for 100 Octane.
Given that FC were using 100 Octane and the bombers plus the rest of the RAF were using 87 Octane I would expect 87 Octane use to be higher.

It's 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 quite an interesting paper actually, even though i found it to be a very dry subject.

Now if someone could produce this and its supporting inforation then we would be in a good position.

I should point out that all my comments are supported by original documentation. The posting isn't supported by anything.

If the people working on the code base there scenario's on Pips posting as above, they have only themselves to blame if the adverse comments arrive.

Seadog

06-24-2011, 10:53 AM

On the contrary there are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the RAF was equipped with 100 Octane for the BOB.

However There is nothing published anywhere that says that there was a fuel shortage, that they were forced to use 87 octane on operaions. All Kurfurst has posted is a pre war paper that said 18 squadrons of fighters and 2 squadrons of twin engined bombers. Plus an unsubstantiated posting from an Australian which
a) is riddled with errors.
b) is not supported by anything
c) that no one (not even Kurfurst) has seen
d) whee the archives that are supposed to hold it do not recognise.

Now the point of this was to ensure the people who are involved in the coding of the flight simulation were aware that if they followed the ideas put forward by Kurfurst were leaving themselves wide open for adverse comments.

I believe the case put foward for the use of 100 Octane in FC by all the units is a strong case, not perfect but strong.

We have
a) the pre war intention, of 18 + 2 squadrons
b) the preparation in Dec 1939 for the issues to the FC command stations in two stages initially the First Instance (covering all the Operational Bases and those that were identified at that time that would become operational) and the second tranch (The Non Operational bases). This paper outlines the conditions to be met (stocks to be in place) before it can be used.
c) the request from the Chief of the Air Staff simple and without limitation for fighter units and Blenheim units to start using the 100 Octane. The Chief of the Air Staff doesn't ask permission from the Oil Committee which is headed up by a senior but junior to him Air Force Officer. In the the British Armed Forces orders from senior officers were and are still today, requests.
d) The Oil Committee getting this underway. The Magic 'Certain' word comes up at this stage. Do I wish he hadn't written certain, of course, but I believe that it will refer to the first instance i.e. the operational stations not all the stations in Fighter Command. But Please note, I knew that information would casue confusion and I could have left it out, but I didn't I gave all the information that I had to the forum.
d) A very clear path that shows without any ambiguity that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group had 100 Octane
e) Confusion in Fighter Command about the changes needed and the sorting out of those questions (Mr Tweedie)
f) The completion of the task by the oil committee and the note of thanks on the job done.

Note that was all done by May. Even if there was a slight delay the BOB didn't start in anger until a few months later so time was on their side.

g) Finally we have in August permission given to use 100 Octane in all the commands.

All the above supported by consumption details, stock supplies, a good cross section of squadron notes, station notes and other documentation.

As I said earlier, is it a perfect case no, but its a strong one with a lot of documentation to support it.

What documentation have you got to say that 87 Octane was used in Operational missions during the BOB. None.

Some people doubt that all units didn't have 100 octane, so prove it, find any book, any article, any pilots notes or other station record that says that.

I will review Pps posting again with supporting docs as that seems to be key to the anti 100 Octane Brigade and then leave you to it. I can add nothing more.

I completely agree with you.

winny

06-24-2011, 12:33 PM

Glider

06-24-2011, 12:46 PM

I think there's a way to prove the majority of bases were converted, but it'll be time consuming.

Cross reference the combat reports from the battle mentioning 12lb boost, with the squadron involved, to the movements of that squadron for that date. ie. where were they, a: stationed? and b: where they scrambled from? (not always the same station).

In the past I counted at least 30 squadrons refering to 12lb boost in combat reports between May - July 1940.. That's nearly half of all FC's squadrons.
Add that to the fact that there were only around 30-32 'operational' stations being used at the time, and the rotation system, it would suggest widespread use of 100 octane.

Also does anyone know if you could actually run a converted Merlin on 87 oct?

If it was a case of just swithcing fuels then why the modification to the engine?

Only a selection of squadrons were looked into so before you do this you would have to check every squadrons papers. You would also have to check every station for the fuel, a huge operation.
This is why I call the case a strong case but not a perfect case. The case for the limited use of 87 octane isn't supported by anything, making it a very weak case. They only have Pips posting which I have challenged with supporting documentation.
I would suggest that those who believe in the limited use of 100 octane should be asked to support that view. If they believe that Pips posting is the correct version of events then they need to support it and disprove the original documents that have been posted.

A converted Merlin could run on 87 octane but the performance would obviously be less. In a similar manner, a non converted merlin would run on 100 octane, but to get the performance gain, you need the fuel and the conversion

TomcatViP

06-24-2011, 01:40 PM

100% agree with you. But can someone quote in game stats supporting this. It is all good and well this entire theoretical debate goes on but if the developers are not being told X should actually be Y and Y should include input from Z...
Nothing will ever be changed. I doubt whether a Russian developer is going to wade through 20 to 30 pages of a thread to figure out what the end result is.
I am 100% for 100 Octane but the developers need it in a simplified form and with documents to back up why the change needs to be made.
They could maybe just introduce field-modified 100 Octane Spitfire 1’s and 1a ‘s and have the Spitfire 2 already with 100 Octane as an example. Again this will leave the choice to the purists when mission building.
I doubt even Kurfürst can argue against that.

Ok but then can we hve a <CFS friendly> and a <COD as advertised> buttons added as well
;)

I don't understand the spit lover that are arguing for 100oct when the Spit FM makes her Zip Zapping the air like a cartoon rubber ball

lane

06-24-2011, 11:06 PM

As mentioned before the first units started using 100 Octane in February not March. Document Attached.

As before this section I do fundamentally disagree with. In December 1939 stocks of 100 Octane were 202,000 tons, by May 1940 stocks were 294,000 tons and by August 1940 stocks were at 404,000 tons (documents are attached). We know that in June – August the average consumption was 10,000 tons a month (document attached).
The question I suggest we need to ask is If you have what is in effect a two and a half year stockpile, is this a strain, let alone a great strain on the stockpile. In my opinion it isn’t a strain at all, it’s barely noticeable

The British War Cabinet didn’t discuss 100 Octane at all in May and as a result no decisions were made. I spent a day in the NA going through all the papers for the meetings, the meeting notes and the actions resulting, and Fuel of any kind was not discussed. I should add that in May 1940 the War Cabinet met almost daily and it was a huge amount of paper, literally hundreds of sheets making it impossible to copy and post. Clearly as this wasn't discussed there were no actons or decisions made along this line.

The first part is correct, the first shipment from the middle East did arrive in August, however the rest is misleading. Numerous other tankers arrived from others parts of the world between May and August and stocks continued to increase . On July 11th stocks of 100 Octane were 343,000 tons as specified in the Narrow Margin page 87 (document attached).

This is clearly wrong In August 1940 permission was given for all commands to use 100 Octane in Operational aircraft. (Document attached)

Given that FC were using 100 Octane and the bombers plus the rest of the RAF were using 87 Octane I would expect 87 Octane use to be higher.

Now if someone could produce this and its supporting inforation then we would be in a good position.

I should point out that all my comments are supported by original documentation. The posting isn't supported by anything.

If the people working on the code base there scenario's on Pips posting as above, they have only themselves to blame if the adverse comments arrive.

Good post Glider. Amongst the odd things in that supposed Australian mystery document, this sentence struck me as rather off the mark: "This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude". This just doesn’t make sense when all the documentation available shows an increase in maximum boost from +6.25 to +12 with the Merlin III. That’s just a bloody obvious error. Dr. Alfred Price wrote that "The higher octane fuel allowed an increase in supercharger boost from +6 lbs to +12 lbs, without risk of detonation that would damage the engine. […] The emergency power setting increased maximum speed by 25 mph at sea level and 34 mph at 10,000 ft. It also improved the fighter’s climbing performance between sea level and full-throttle altitude" (see attached scan). The RAF’s old History page pretty much said the same thing. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/raf-history-100oct.jpg

Crumpp

06-25-2011, 10:00 AM

"This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude". This just doesn’t make sense when all the documentation available shows an increase in maximum boost from +6.25 to +12 with the Merlin III.

If you read in the July 1940 POH for the Spitfire II, it clearly lists 100 Octane as the fuel and that +12lbs is a Take Off rating and +9lbs is an Emergency rating limited for 5 minutes.

Kurfürst

06-25-2011, 10:05 AM

Mike (this time using the handle lane) already knows that for years, in fact he has seen the papers showing the early rating of +9 for All out level, but hey, he was never afraid of posting manipulating BS in order to push an agenda under various new logins.. ;)

Kurfürst

06-25-2011, 10:53 AM

On the contrary there are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the RAF was equipped with 100 Octane for the BOB.

Indeed. There are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the Spitfire I was equipped with only four machine guns. I think we should 'correct' the current error in the sim that it has eight.

However There is nothing published anywhere that says that there was a fuel shortage, that they were forced to use 87 octane on operaions. All Kurfurst has posted is a pre war paper that said 18 squadrons of fighters and 2 squadrons of twin engined bombers.

That is a lie. Excerpts from Spitfire the History, by far the most reliable Spitfire source was posted and it says that there were supply problems due to tanker sinkings by U boots.

Plus an unsubstantiated posting from an Australian which
a) is riddled with errors.
b) is not supported by anything
c) that no one (not even Kurfurst) has seen
d) whee the archives that are supposed to hold it do not recognise.

Again, lies.

The paper is not riddled with errors.
It is supported by your own documentation
- 18 May 1940 paper showing only select units using 100 octane,
- fuel consumption papers showing large scale conversion did not start until late September,
- early operating Limits of Merlin III XII (+9 except for take off)
Pips seen it and gave reference to it.
The archieves recognise the paper, they have told you loud and clear that you have not asked for the paper with proper description.

So stop lying. Its showing desperation and dishonesty.

Now the point of this was to ensure the people who are involved in the coding of the flight simulation were aware that if they followed the ideas put forward by Kurfurst were leaving themselves wide open for adverse comments.

The comments are not wide. Its you and another fanatic partisan arguing everyone else.

I believe the case put foward for the use of 100 Octane in FC by all the units is a strong case, not perfect but strong.

You said it rightly - it is your belief.

We have
a) the pre war intention, of 18 + 2 squadrons
b) the preparation in Dec 1939 for the issues to the FC command stations in two stages initially the First Instance (covering all the Operational Bases and those that were identified at that time that would become operational) and the second tranch (The Non Operational bases). This paper outlines the conditions to be met (stocks to be in place) before it can be used.
c) the request from the Chief of the Air Staff simple and without limitation for fighter units and Blenheim units to start using the 100 Octane. The Chief of the Air Staff doesn't ask permission from the Oil Committee which is headed up by a senior but junior to him Air Force Officer. In the the British Armed Forces orders from senior officers were and are still today, requests.
d) The Oil Committee getting this underway. The Magic 'Certain' word comes up at this stage. Do I wish he hadn't written certain, of course, but I believe that it will refer to the first instance i.e. the operational stations not all the stations in Fighter Command. But Please note, I knew that information would casue confusion and I could have left it out, but I didn't I gave all the information that I had to the forum.
d) A very clear path that shows without any ambiguity that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group had 100 Octane
e) Confusion in Fighter Command about the changes needed and the sorting out of those questions (Mr Tweedie)
f) The completion of the task by the oil committee and the note of thanks on the job done.ote that was all done by May. Even if there was a slight delay the BOB didn't start in anger until a few months later so time was on their side.
g) Finally we have in August permission given to use 100 Octane in all the commands.

re:

a, It actually say 18 + 2 Squadrons, until September 1940. Also that 800 000 tons of reserves need to be accumulated. In spring 1940 there were but 220 000 tons accumulated. Target was not met, period.
b, The document you speak of is a simply assessement of requirement. It mentions 21 Stations (out of ca. 60 operational in BoB).
Can you explain how these 21 Stations of December 1939 magically got 60 by July 1940? You have absolutely no evidence to that, in fact, you haven't find anything to prove your thesis.
c, It doesn't mention anywhere 'without limitation'. This is simply made up by you.
d, Given the lenght of discussion attached to it, you simply lie that the word certain only appeared in early 1940. It was present in all documents dealing with the subject. I've dealt with this in my earlier post, you've seen it, so stop lying.
e, You've got that right. Question arises though - if FC command did not even get the basics yet in spring of 1940, how would they plan for complete changeover - of which there's no sign yet in the papers..
f, All that was done by May is noting that select units were cleared for 100 octane used. You have admitted that nothing changed afterwards, it remained in use with select units.
g, Fuel consumption papers show the actual conversion process did not start until late September 1940.

All the above supported by consumption details, stock supplies, a good cross section of squadron notes, station notes and other documentation.

You have misquoted several papers as shown above and left out conviniently parts that did not fit your thesis.

As I said earlier, is it a perfect case no, but its a strong one with a lot of documentation to support it.

There is a case for select units being equipped in May 1940 with 100 octane fuel. There is no evidence for anything more.

YOU CANNOT DANCE AROUND THAT FACT, I am sorry.

What documentation have you got to say that 87 Octane was used in Operational missions during the BOB. None.

You keep asking that question, you keep answer, then you keep asking again. Who are you trying to bull here? Do you think if you ask the same question, all the uneasy evidence that were posted will just go away? Do you think that if you resort to Goebbels like tactics, repeating the same falsehood again and again, people will believe what you say? Is that the idea, David?

Can we say the complete file of these meetings, David? Why are you holding them back so fiercely? I think this is the best question in thread.

Some people doubt that all units didn't have 100 octane, so prove it, find any book, any article, any pilots story or other station record that says that.

It was already done. You own papers prove that 100 octane was issued to select units/stations. So what are you keeping arguing?

I will review Pps posting again with supporting docs as that seems to be key to the anti 100 Octane Brigade and then leave you to it. I can add nothing more.

Let me summarize what you have posted so far.

That as of May 18 1940, select Fighter and Bomber stations were supplied with 100 octane.
Despite numerous request, you have refused to show what has happened after May 1940, when Pips showed that the conversion stopped.
That in early August 1940 100 octane use was authorized for all aircraft.
That this wasn't even started to be implemented until late September 1940.

Kurfürst

06-25-2011, 11:25 AM

As mentioned before the first units started using 100 Octane in February not March. Document Attached.

Irrelevant.

As before this section I do fundamentally disagree with. In December 1939 stocks of 100 Octane were 202,000 tons, by May 1940 stocks were 294,000 tons and by August 1940 stocks were at 404,000 tons (documents are attached). We know that in June – August the average consumption was 10,000 tons a month (document attached).
The question I suggest we need to ask is If you have what is in effect a two and a half year stockpile, is this a strain, let alone a great strain on the stockpile. In my opinion it isn’t a strain at all, it’s barely noticeable

What you think is irrelevant again. The RAF considered 800 000 tons of reserves necessary, they had about 220-294 000 by the spring of 1940, and supply was uncertain.

At 10 000 tons per month consumption the storage would be enough for 20 months, but this is with about 25% of the fighters and some bombers running 100 octane.

Complete conversion would have meant the reserves would not be enough for more than about 5-6 months, running out by October.

Morgan and Shacklady in Spitfire the History also notes the concerns about supply, and the U boot thread. In fact up to that time about 300 000 tons of oil shipments were sunk by uboots and mines.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/shacklady100octane_2.jpg

The British War Cabinet didn’t discuss 100 Octane at all in May and as a result no decisions were made. I spent a day in the NA going through all the papers for the meetings, the meeting notes and the actions resulting, and Fuel of any kind was not discussed. I should add that in May 1940 the War Cabinet met almost daily and it was a huge amount of paper, literally hundreds of sheets making it impossible to copy and post. Clearly as this wasn't discussed there were no actons or decisions made along this line.

David, can we see the post-May 18 decisions by the Oil Committee in their completeness?

The first part is correct, the first shipment from the middle East did arrive in August, however the rest is misleading. Numerous other tankers arrived from others parts of the world between May and August and stocks continued to increase . On July 11th stocks of 100 Octane were 343,000 tons as specified in the Narrow Margin page 87 (document attached).

So in end of April there were 294 000 tons, and some three months later in July there were some 40 000 tons more? What was the total monthly consumption again - 40-50 000 tons?

So in three months the equivalent of one months of supply arrived. Do we need to make even more clear why the British were concerned about a complete conversion to 100 octane?

This is clearly wrong In August 1940 permission was given for all commands to use 100 Octane in Operational aircraft. (Document attached)

There's nothing wrong with it. Pips says the RAF emberked again to 100 octane conversion in late September 1940. Fuel consumption shows exactly that. Of course they made decision earlier, in August, but things seem to have take some time in the RAF. Just consider they made decision about supplying 18 squadrons with 100 octane in March 1939 - and when this was realized..? In May 1940...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/87-100octane_cosumption_May-November1940.png

Noteworthy that the consumption remains pretty much the same between May (when select Fighter Squadrons converted) and late September 1940.

Now if someone could produce this and its supporting inforation then we would be in a good position.

I agree. At which point again I ask: why are you holding back the papers you have dealing with period Pips research covers?

I should point out that all my comments are supported by original documentation.

I should point out that all you comments are supported by misrepresentation of original documentation.

The posting isn't supported by anything. If the people working on the code base there scenario's on Pips posting as above, they have only themselves to blame if the adverse comments arrive.

From whom, the lone partisans in the woods..? What pips says competely agrees with all the present documents. What you keep saying rapes the same papers - after all come on, you say that of Fighter Command was using 100 octane, and all the papers you wave around say select/concerned/certain Squadrons...?!