Spit1a > SpitII

[Ze-Jamz]

Does anyone know the difference in performance...quick answer :)

Same engine/boost etc?

cheers

[Ze-Jamz]

No Spitty fans here...? ;)

[Formula88]

I play online and no servers run the Spit2 since apparently its faster AND more manueverable than the 109, if that helps. Also, the Hurricane>Spit1a since it accelerates faster, climbs better and is faster in level flight by around 15-20 MPH.

[Blackdog_kt]

The Spit II and Bf-110 are the only ones getting historical performance at the moment (even though the 110 is modeled with the weaker engine variant when many were fitted with the better BD601Ns, it gets more or less correct performance for the engines it uses) ,almost everything else is slower than it should.

That should easily answer you question, Spit Mk.II is probably the best all around performer in the sim for now, until the rest of the FMs are adjusted and we get Mk.I variants with constant speed props.

[Ze-Jamz]

The Spit II and Bf-110 are the only ones getting historical performance at the moment (even though the 110 is modeled with the weaker engine variant when many were fitted with the better BD601Ns, it gets more or less correct performance for the engines it uses) ,almost everything else is slower than it should.

That should easily answer you question, Spit Mk.II is probably the best all around performer in the sim for now, until the rest of the FMs are adjusted and we get Mk.I variants with constant speed props.

I understand that but how much difference in RL which obviously will/should be in game was the performance between Spit1a to the SpitII and also do we know how much in game the 109 is underpowered?

Guess I thought I'd get a quick responce without trolling through loads of threads. Doesn't matter that much, just interested for future reference

[BGs_Ricky]

Spit Ia feels a bit weird, setting prop-pitch to coarse rpms drop down to just under 2000, and I can't seem to get faster than 240mph in level flight at aboout 1000m height...

[JG53Frankyboy]

I understand that but how much difference in RL which obviously will/should be in game was the performance between Spit1a to the SpitII ..................

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

[Kurfürst]

I understand that but how much difference in RL which obviously will/should be in game was the performance between Spit1a to the SpitII and also do we know how much in game the is 109 underpowered?

In real life, there was no appreciable performance difference between the Spit I and II, as long as they had the same equipment, and same boost, fuel etc.

The airframes were very similiar, and the engine output was almost the same, the Spit II's Merlin had a marginally higher altitude performance, and a consequence, worse low altitude performance. But as I noted, the difference was completely insignificant - similiar differences were there between various Bf 109E variants with the old type and new type supercharger, for example. Both had pilot armor, armored windscreen and were (retro)fitted with CSP during the Battle. IMHO the only 'major' difference was the different starter system of the Mark II.

In the game the difference is due to that the Spit I variants appear to be modelled with 87 octane and lower engine outputs, while the Mark II with 100 octane and considerably higher engine outputs. Again in real life both types operated on both types of fuel, and then performance was similiar.

[Ze-Jamz]

Thanks for the replys fellas...

[Osprey]

I like this bit :D

Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
June 1940
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304
Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109.


About the Spit II numbers
Deliveries of Spitfire IIs began in June 1940. No. 611 fully converted to Spitfire IIs in August 1940, thus being the first squadron to become fully operational with the type. Nos. 266 and 74 followed in early September, with Nos. 19 and 66 switching during the latter half of the month. In October, it was 41 and 603 squadrons turn, bringing to 7 the number of squadrons to fully equip with this varient during the Battle of Britain.

[Ze-Jamz]

I like this bit :D

Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
June 1940
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304
Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109.

The devs may need to read that :)

[Kurfürst]

I like this bit :D

Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
June 1940
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304
Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109.


Meanwhile on the other side of the Channel.... ;)



From : Kr.-Fernschr.Ob.d.L.,Führ.Stab Ia Nr.8092/40 g.K. (II)
(only to Lfl.3)

Subject : Comparison flight between Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss.



In the following the performance- and air combat comparison that has been performed
at the E-Stelle Rechlin between Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C and the captured enemy fighters
Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss shall be brought to acknowledgement. The results of
the comparison are to be announced immediately to all Jagd- and Zerstörer units under
command, to guarantee the appropriate air combat behavior in the engagements on the
basis of technical conditions.

The Bf 109 E type clearly outperforms all foreign planes:

Speed: the Spitfire is at 0 m by ca. 20 km/h, at 4 km by ca. 10 km/h, Hurricane and
Curtiss at 0 and 4 km altitude by ca. 60 km/h. A similar superiority of the Bf 109 E
exists in the climb performance as well. Climb times to 4 km:
Bf 109 E 4.4 min, Spitfire 5 min, Hurricane 5.6 min, Curtiss 5.2 min.

The plane Bf 110 C is speed-wise inferior to the Spitfire, superior to the Curtiss
and Hurricane. Regarding the climb performance is the Curtiss equal at ground level,
up to 4 km superior then inferior. Hurricane is inferior up to altitude 2 km, then
superior up to 6.5 km. Spitfire is equal at ground level, otherwise superior.

The best climb for Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C is achieved with shallow climb angle
and higher speeds than at the enemy fighters. It is wrong to climb away steep or climb
behind an enemy fighter with the same angle.

Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

For this the following suggestions are given:

The Spitfire and partly the Hurricane have two-pitch propellers.
Climbing away with the Bf 109 and Bf 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or
even higher speeds of about 280 – 300 km/h. On aircraft with two-pitch propellers with
low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, and on the other
hand with high blade angle high boost pressure – therefore in other words, performance loss.

On sudden push forward on stick to below, the carburetor of the enemy fighters cuts out
due to the negative acceleration. This [evasive] measure is also recommended.

The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109.
Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire
load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and
significantly disturb the aiming.

In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German
planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator
stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known
shooting-technique disadvantages.



Lfl.Kdo.3/Führ.Abt./Ia. op 1
Nr. 3951/40 g.Kdos.
signed, K o l l e r
F.d.R.

[Ze-Jamz]

Meanwhile on the other side of the Channel.... ;)



From : Kr.-Fernschr.Ob.d.L.,Führ.Stab Ia Nr.8092/40 g.K. (II)
(only to Lfl.3)

Subject : Comparison flight between Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss.



In the following the performance- and air combat comparison that has been performed
at the E-Stelle Rechlin between Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C and the captured enemy fighters
Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss shall be brought to acknowledgement. The results of
the comparison are to be announced immediately to all Jagd- and Zerstörer units under
command, to guarantee the appropriate air combat behavior in the engagements on the
basis of technical conditions.

The Bf 109 E type clearly outperforms all foreign planes:

Speed: the Spitfire is at 0 m by ca. 20 km/h, at 4 km by ca. 10 km/h, Hurricane and
Curtiss at 0 and 4 km altitude by ca. 60 km/h. A similar superiority of the Bf 109 E
exists in the climb performance as well. Climb times to 4 km:
Bf 109 E 4.4 min, Spitfire 5 min, Hurricane 5.6 min, Curtiss 5.2 min.

The plane Bf 110 C is speed-wise inferior to the Spitfire, superior to the Curtiss
and Hurricane. Regarding the climb performance is the Curtiss equal at ground level,
up to 4 km superior then inferior. Hurricane is inferior up to altitude 2 km, then
superior up to 6.5 km. Spitfire is equal at ground level, otherwise superior.

The best climb for Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C is achieved with shallow climb angle
and higher speeds than at the enemy fighters. It is wrong to climb away steep or climb
behind an enemy fighter with the same angle.

Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

For this the following suggestions are given:

The Spitfire and partly the Hurricane have two-pitch propellers.
Climbing away with the Bf 109 and Bf 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or
even higher speeds of about 280 – 300 km/h. On aircraft with two-pitch propellers with
low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, and on the other
hand with high blade angle high boost pressure – therefore in other words, performance loss.

On sudden push forward on stick to below, the carburetor of the enemy fighters cuts out
due to the negative acceleration. This [evasive] measure is also recommended.

The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109.
Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire
load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and
significantly disturb the aiming.

In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German
planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator
stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known
shooting-technique disadvantages.



Lfl.Kdo.3/Führ.Abt./Ia. op 1
Nr. 3951/40 g.Kdos.
signed, K o l l e r
F.d.R.

The Devs may need to look at this..Whos next?

[Kurfürst]

The Devs may need to look at this..Whos next?

The Italians...? >D

[Ze-Jamz]

The Italians...? >D

It is quite funny though...captured enemy aircraft performance charts and how they differ...I mean those 2 examples above are like chalk n cheese..

It is hard for the devs when it comes to ww1/ww2 aircraft FM's...what a task!

If only they were still in the numbers that they could be tested and tested again by non biased pilots..and see how the FM's in this game and IL2 actually stand up

[Kwiatek]

It is important to know what exacly type of planes was used in test flights and what sort of equimpment was used.

In German test quoted by Kurfurst we clearly have:

" The Spitfire and partly the Hurricane have two-pitch propellers.
Climbing away with the Bf 109 and Bf 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or
even higher speeds of about 280 – 300 km/h. On aircraft with two-pitch propellers with
low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, and on the other
hand with high blade angle high boost pressure – therefore in other words, performance loss."

So Spitfire and Hurrciane used in German test flights had 2 stage prop pitch and looking for speed comparison clearly used 87 octan fuel.

Also interesting is that German found that both Spitfire and Hurricane even with 2 stage prop pitch unit could outturn 109 E.

" Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance."

Also 109 climb adventage was only in shallow and higher speed climb not with steep one:

" The best climb for Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C is achieved with shallow climb angle
and higher speeds than at the enemy fighters. It is wrong to climb away steep or climb
behind an enemy fighter with the same angle."

So it was 109 against Spitfire and Hurrciane with 2 stage prop pitch and 87 octan fuel - so common version pre battle of bitain.

In Brirish test there were used 109 E-3 against Spitfire MK1 with CS unit ( constant speed propeller):

" Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
June 1940
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304
Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109."

Both British and German flight test showed that Spitfire and Hurrciane could outturn 109, also Spitfire with CS propeller and 100 octan fuel was faster (at low to medium alts).


But here are also some interesting test ( British):

http://i51.tinypic.com/16anmh4.jpg

http://i51.tinypic.com/35bvx9h.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.com/33m682b.jpg

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

[Kwiatek]

Here are full above flight test:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

[Ze-Jamz]

Here are full above flight test:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

very interesting read..thks mate

[Osprey]

I don't understand your post really Kurfurst. It pretty much backs up a lot of the RAF tests only without the detail - it's more of a confidence report for pilots in combat.
Furthermore, as Kwaitek correctly pointed out, it was vs a 2 stage prop Spitfire on 87 octane and this wasn't a BoB aircraft. Granted, the Rotol prop fitted to the 109E may affect performance but it is a CSP so I'd doubt it makes a marked difference.
Finally, I have a faith problem with the items you post because you appear so damned biased towards blue anyway and frequently rebuff good information to the contrary, so I cannot trust your opinion I'm afraid. Sorry about that, in England we call it "The boy who cried wolf". Sadly the effect of this may well lead to bias in the sim in order to appease the complainers and the likes of Kwaitek and I really don't want that. I don't care if the Spitfire was hopeless IRL vs the 109, I just care that the sim best replicates RL performance and history.

[Kurfürst]

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109."

Both British and German flight test showed that Spitfire and Hurrciane could outturn 109, also Spitfire with CS propeller and 100 octan fuel was faster (at low to medium alts).

I think the dead give away in the British test is the finding that the Spitfire is faster in level flight, even with 6 1/2 lbs boost. Which it simply wasn't, take a look at the maker's performance curves or the Rechlin tests findings. However the French had already noted some DB 601 engine troubles with this 109E in 1939, as did the British later when testing Bf 110 and 109 in test report "Performance tests on a Me 110 and a Me 109 (DB 601 engines):

"Both airplanes were fitted with DB 601A engines which gave considerable trouble during the test. A marked falling off of power was noticed as the tests progressed and some of the most important results could not be repeated".

[Kurfürst]

I don't understand your post really Kurfurst.

You don't? But I thought its obvious. I was a bit tongue and cheek as I believe they call it in England. Point is, that the both teams on both times of the Channel was a bit dissing about enemy equipement because its not like theirs, so it must be inferior. British (too stable for a fighter) and German comments (far too unstable for a firing platform) on control characteristics are esp. revealing.


Furthermore, as Kwaitek correctly pointed out, it was vs a 2 stage prop Spitfire on 87 octane and this wasn't a BoB aircraft.

Where do you get that the Germans tested the Spitfire on 87 octane?
And, why would they do that, if not for other reason then to test it in the condition they found it to be operated by the British?

BTW there were certainly Spitfires flying with 2 pitch screws and on 87 octane during the BoB, though it eventually all changed.

Finally, I have a faith problem with the items you post because you appear so damned biased towards blue anyway and frequently rebuff good information to the contrary, so I cannot trust your opinion I'm afraid. Sorry about that, in England we call it "The boy who cried wolf". Sadly the effect of this may well lead to bias in the sim in order to appease the complainers and the likes of Kwaitek and I really don't want that. I don't care if the Spitfire was hopeless IRL vs the 109, I just care that the sim best replicates RL performance and history.

NP with that m8, you are from England, and you don't like guys are not biased towards England. Perfectly understandable. ;)

[heloguy]

I don't understand your post really Kurfurst. It pretty much backs up a lot of the RAF tests only without the detail - it's more of a confidence report for pilots in combat.
Furthermore, as Kwaitek correctly pointed out, it was vs a 2 stage prop Spitfire on 87 octane and this wasn't a BoB aircraft. Granted, the Rotol prop fitted to the 109E may affect performance but it is a CSP so I'd doubt it makes a marked difference.
Finally, I have a faith problem with the items you post because you appear so damned biased towards blue anyway and frequently rebuff good information to the contrary, so I cannot trust your opinion I'm afraid. Sorry about that, in England we call it "The boy who cried wolf". Sadly the effect of this may well lead to bias in the sim in order to appease the complainers and the likes of Kwaitek and I really don't want that. I don't care if the Spitfire was hopeless IRL vs the 109, I just care that the sim best replicates RL performance and history.

This is a little silly. Kurfurst just has an affinity for the German aircraft. It's not about Red vs. Blue. I haven't seen anything posted on his website that's questionable, although admittedly I haven't read it all.

At any rate, I think he would be the first to say that aircraft performance in game should be affected in a very limited manner, if at all, by accounts like these. Performance should be dictated by viable sources, ie manufacturer's documents, and replicated as best as possible in game.

Comparisons do little to give hard numbers. There is no way for anyone to reproduce every time the results in either one of those tests. We aren't provided with enough information on atmospheric conditions, engine settings in all regimes, and on top of that, the aircraft aren't being flown by the pilots that have trained to fly and fight in them. As an example, most 109 pilots knew about the aileron snatching. Personally, I wouldn't have tried to turn that tight unless I was evading, or just being overzealous in trying to get a kill. It isn't an indication of the Spitfire being completely superior to the 109 or vice versa.

In fact, the problem with these comparisons is that they fuel the idea that, even if by all accounts it's said that these aircraft were evenly matched, well then surely the (insert your aircraft here) was still 5 or 10 kmh faster, could turn tighter, and climb 200-700 fpm faster. That's just the way it was. ;)

Evenly matched also doesn't mean that they had the exact same numbers in every category. It only means that they were close in most categories, and in the ones that were different, it took the skill of the pilot to exploit these advantages to their fullest, and not let himself be drawn to expose his machine's own weaknesses.

[Osprey]

You don't? But I thought its obvious. I was a bit tongue and cheek as I believe they call it in England. Point is, that the both teams on both times of the Channel was a bit dissing about enemy equipement because its not like theirs, so it must be inferior. British (too stable for a fighter) and German comments (far too unstable for a firing platform) on control characteristics are esp. revealing.



Where do you get that the Germans tested the Spitfire on 87 octane?
And, why would they do that, if not for other reason then to test it in the condition they found it to be operated by the British?

BTW there were certainly Spitfires flying with 2 pitch screws and on 87 octane during the BoB, though it eventually all changed.

NP with that m8, you are from England, and you don't like guys are not biased towards England. Perfectly understandable. ;)


Let me be quite clear. I'm not interested in bigging up the Spitfire, I just want a sim as close to how it was as possible. I don't think you share that agenda and unfortunately it is types like you who will batter 1C and spoil it.

This report, which I consider rather unscientific, is pre-BoB because all fighting Spits had CSP and 100 octane for the BoB. Perhaps it would be easier for you to prove to us that this tested Spitfire was using 100 octane? Even if it were the report does say that it has a two stage prop and that's enough for us to know that it has inferior performance.

100 octane and a CSP makes the Spitfire a different animal. That is the animal the 109's faced, not the example you cited.

[Osprey]

This is a little silly. Kurfurst just has an affinity for the German aircraft. It's not about Red vs. Blue. I haven't seen anything posted on his website that's questionable, although admittedly I haven't read it all.

At any rate, I think he would be the first to say that aircraft performance in game should be affected in a very limited manner, if at all, by accounts like these. Performance should be dictated by viable sources, ie manufacturer's documents, and replicated as best as possible in game.

Comparisons do little to give hard numbers. There is no way for anyone to reproduce every time the results in either one of those tests. We aren't provided with enough information on atmospheric conditions, engine settings in all regimes, and on top of that, the aircraft aren't being flown by the pilots that have trained to fly and fight in them. As an example, most 109 pilots knew about the aileron snatching. Personally, I wouldn't have tried to turn that tight unless I was evading, or just being overzealous in trying to get a kill. It isn't an indication of the Spitfire being completely superior to the 109 or vice versa.

In fact, the problem with these comparisons is that they fuel the idea that, even if by all accounts it's said that these aircraft were evenly matched, well then surely the (insert your aircraft here) was still 5 or 10 kmh faster, could turn tighter, and climb 200-700 fpm faster. That's just the way it was. ;)

Evenly matched also doesn't mean that they had the exact same numbers in every category. It only means that they were close in most categories, and in the ones that were different, it took the skill of the pilot to exploit these advantages to their fullest, and not let himself be drawn to expose his machine's own weaknesses.


The pilot was trained for the 109 first, he didn't just get in it. Besides, these are test pilots, not just any pilot. We can only go by the information we have available just as the pilots did in real life in 1940, in this case they are formal tests by RAE. What else are we going to use?

[fruitbat]

In real life, there was no appreciable performance difference between the Spit I and II,.........

..........the Spit II's Merlin had a marginally higher altitude performance, and a consequence, worse low altitude performance. .

Lol.

One that put it 3000 feet above the 109. Ask Ulrich Steinhilper if it was marginal.

[TomcatViP]

[edited]
12lb is pushing the donkey too far. Just like stating a Merlin was producing 1.3K HP

We can all agree abt 12lb as Emergency (it regards devs to found a sense of wht emergency use could be in the sim and server to add this or not to their options)

1300+HP stop the joke right there. Enough of revisionism !!:evil: Look what happend to the strong IL2 com with those fancy moder.

[TomcatViP]

Lol.

One that put it 3000 feet above the 109. Ask Ulrich Steinhilper if it was marginal.

+1

[Flanker35M]

S!

Ask Helmut Wick how easy it was to kill Spitfires, he did so on regular basis in TURN fights..Really, you can argue until your face turns blue and it will never change. It was the pilot, not the plane back then. And most kills were of surprise, not prolonged turn fights as in this game. We can NEVER get accurate performance in a game on a PC. Only an approximation what could have been.

Sissyfire lovers will swear it was the savior of the world where Bf109 fans will swear it was their crate. If you ask those that flew against eachother, they respected their adversary's plane and could never tell how the engagement would turn out. So tired of this same crap going on with EVERY SINGLE game with Sissyfires or Bf109..and I bet it will never end either.

[Kurfürst]

Let me be quite clear. I'm not interested in bigging up the Spitfire, I just want a sim as close to how it was as possible. I don't think you share that agenda and unfortunately it is types like you who will batter 1C and spoil it.

OK, let me be clear too.

I was a beta tester of the origianal Il-2. Ever since I am following this series, and contributed to it with work and date, as well as testing. And you?

As for the FM models, I don't really care who's bigging up. All I do is providing the historical data from my collection, for free, and the devs do whatever they want with it. Hopefully what they will do with it is modelling the planes as accurately as possible after every country's own specs, if these are available, rather than according to foreign testing papers of often semi-functioning, crashlanded junks. Fanboys of course won't be happy it with in any time, they will want only the "bestest" versions and forget the realities life, like you do.


This report, which I consider rather unscientific, is pre-BoB because all fighting Spits had CSP and 100 octane for the BoB. Perhaps it would be easier for you to prove to us that this tested Spitfire was using 100 octane? Even if it were the report does say that it has a two stage prop and that's enough for us to know that it has inferior performance.

The Rechlin paper, which was forwarded to all German fighter units was - IMHO rather useful - a tactical advice for fighter pilots based on the available information and strenghts and weaknesses of enemy types derived from testing. It should be useful in the game against the same type of aircraft, ie. 2 pitch Spits and Hurris, but some other advice is valid for improved types, too.

As for the all of them had the best stuff etc. I consider it wishful thinking and without evidence. As far as CSPs go we know that they just started to be retrofitted at start of the battle, and the process wasn't about finished until mid-August, so yes, you could definietely meet up with two-pitch in July 1940, early in the battle. As for 100 octane, it was done to death. No evidence or documentation was ever presented by anyone, that would specifically say that all aircraft are using 100 octane, or even all aircraft are planned to use 100 octane. All we know is that the original early 1939 plans called for 16 fighter and 2 blenheim bomber sqns. to be provided with 100 octane by September 1940.The high octane stuff was introduced to select fighter (and some Blenheim bomber) stations in spring of 1940, from which it follows that not all had it. We also have evidence that further conversion of units was stopped in May 1940 due to concerns of overseas supply, especially as the Germans were sinking tankers at an alarming rate, and all 100 octane came from overseas; we also know that the conversion continued, and was finished later in the automn. We also know that about 2/3s to 3/4 of the avgas consumed in the BoB was 87 octane. We also know that there's evidence for about 1/3 of the fighter stations for 100 octane used, predominantly Sector stations and in 11 Group. Everything else is just a wet dream at the currently available evidence.

So I am patiently waiting for someone to post a primary document that would say that all Squadrons are using 100 octane. Until that happens, I consider it wishful and baseless, and contradicted by evidence.

As for the Rechlin tested Spitfire. You claimed that all Spits had 100 octane. Would it not be strange for the Germans, to capture a plane with 100 octane fuel in its tanks, and then test it with something else than 100 octane fuel, when they had plenty of supply of that, both captured stocks and their own production of high grade C-3 fuel..?
Of course, they may have operated it on 87 octane, but that would only make sense if the plane they captured also had 87 octane in its tanks when it was captured..

100 octane and a CSP makes the Spitfire a different animal.

Yup.

That is the animal the 109's faced, not the example you cited.

So, how come the Germans captured one in such condition.. if it did not exist, as you say? :)

[Kurfürst]

Lol.

One that put it 3000 feet above the 109. Ask Ulrich Steinhilper if it was marginal.

As others told you, it was the pilot, not the plane back then. One Spitfire pilot was lucky, and climbed higher than his 109 pilot opponent, so he had the advantage, and shoot the other guy down on that day. It has nothing to do with the planes.

The Mark II was practically the same plane as the Mark I, not some wonder fighter some want to make it to be. Just look at the engine outputs. The only difference between the Merlin III and XII was that the latter had about 1500 feet higher rated altiude, otherwise it had the same output, just 1500 feet higher. That's a whopping 500 meter... :D

Oh wait.. the same difference existed between various Bf 109 models.. some had DB 601A engines an older type of supercharger, some had with improved vaned diffusor superchargers in the Battle, too? Do you want to guess how much they differed from one another in rated altitude? By the same 'mighty' 500 meter / 1500 feet. And then of course there were the units with DB 601N, which had extremely good high altitude output. So, even on the German side, you had at least 3 different engines in the same airframe.

[heloguy]

The pilot was trained for the 109 first, he didn't just get in it. Besides, these are test pilots, not just any pilot. We can only go by the information we have available just as the pilots did in real life in 1940, in this case they are formal tests by RAE. What else are we going to use?


Have you ever heard the term jack-of-all trades, and master of none? I know a lot of aircraft were similar to fly back then, but especially different countries had way different ergonomics and gauges.

As a pilot, I've flown with pilots that are rated on different aircraft that they fly all the time (these test pilots flew 109s at only a certain point in their careers). They are not experts on all types, and tend to make mistakes. These mistakes aren't usually dangerous, but they can potentially cause the aircraft to not fly at its full potential.

All I'm saying is that documents with actual performance numbers should be those that are used for FMs, not comparisons that say Plane A is better than Plane B in this maneuver. There's nothing scientific about that.

[Kurfürst]

All I'm saying is that documents with actual performance numbers should be those that are used for FMs, not comparisons that say Plane A is better than Plane B in this maneuver. There's nothing scientific about that.

Yup, the simplest route, and in fact the only making sense... its measurable, and objective.

[TomcatViP]

OK, let me be clear too.

The Rechlin paper, which was forwarded to all German fighter units was - IMHO rather useful - a tactical advice for fighter pilots based on the available information and strenghts and weaknesses of enemy types derived from testing. It should be useful in the game against the same type of aircraft, ie. 2 pitch Spits and Hurris, but some other advice is valid for improved types, too.



+1

This shld hve some influence on the way they fighted and it's easy to see how they applied those recommendations in combat report.

On the contrary comments of the type : "I start climbing to evade him" or " I give chase to this 109 knowing that my plane was faster on deck" ... I never read anything like this untill the MkIX came out.



As for the all of them had the best stuff etc. I consider it wishful thinking and without evidence. As far as CSPs go we know that they just started to be retrofitted at start of the battle, and the process wasn't about finished until mid-August, so yes, you could definietely meet up with two-pitch in July 1940, early in the battle. As for 100 octane, it was done to death. No evidence or documentation was ever presented by anyone, that would specifically say that all aircraft are using 100 octane, or even all aircraft are planned to use 100 octane. All we know is that the original early 1939 plans called for 16 fighter and 2 blenheim bomber sqns. to be provided with 100 octane by September 1940.The high octane stuff was introduced to select fighter (and some Blenheim bomber) stations in spring of 1940, from which it follows that not all had it. We also have evidence that further conversion of units was stopped in May 1940 due to concerns of overseas supply, especially as the Germans were sinking tankers at an alarming rate, and all 100 octane came from overseas; we also know that the conversion continued, and was finished later in the automn. We also know that about 2/3s to 3/4 of the avgas consumed in the BoB was 87 octane. We also know that there's evidence for about 1/3 of the fighter stations for 100 octane used, predominantly Sector stations and in 11 Group. Everything else is just a wet dream at the currently available evidence.

As for the Rechlin tested Spitfire. You claimed that all Spits had 100 octane. Would it not be strange for the Germans, to capture a plane with 100 octane fuel in its tanks, and then test it with something else than 100 octane fuel, when they had plenty of supply of that, both captured stocks and their own production of high grade C-3 fuel..?
Of course, they may have operated it on 87 octane, but that would only make sense if the plane they captured also had 87 octane in its tanks when it was captured..





Good post Kurf. I hope we will see more like this

[pupo162]

luftwhining and reDluving apart, thnaks for the posts both Kurfurst and Osprey. A very nice read.

[winny]

OK, let me be clear too.


As for 100 octane, it was done to death. No evidence or documentation was ever presented by anyone, that would specifically say that all aircraft are using 100 octane, or even all aircraft are planned to use 100 octane. All we know is that the original early 1939 plans called for 16 fighter and 2 blenheim bomber sqns. to be provided with 100 octane by September 1940.The high octane stuff was introduced to select fighter (and some Blenheim bomber) stations in spring of 1940, from which it follows that not all had it. We also have evidence that further conversion of units was stopped in May 1940 due to concerns of overseas supply, especially as the Germans were sinking tankers at an alarming rate, and all 100 octane came from overseas; we also know that the conversion continued, and was finished later in the automn. We also know that about 2/3s to 3/4 of the avgas consumed in the BoB was 87 octane. We also know that there's evidence for about 1/3 of the fighter stations for 100 octane used, predominantly Sector stations and in 11 Group. Everything else is just a wet dream at the currently available evidence.

So I am patiently waiting for someone to post a primary document that would say that all Squadrons are using 100 octane. Until that happens, I consider it wishful and baseless, and contradicted by evidence.

As for the Rechlin tested Spitfire. You claimed that all Spits had 100 octane. Would it not be strange for the Germans, to capture a plane with 100 octane fuel in its tanks, and then test it with something else than 100 octane fuel, when they had plenty of supply of that, both captured stocks and their own production of high grade C-3 fuel..?
Of course, they may have operated it on 87 octane, but that would only make sense if the plane they captured also had 87 octane in its tanks when it was captured..



Yup.



So, how come the Germans captured one in such condition.. if it did not exist, as you say? :)

Stocks of 100 octane fuel as of April 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100octane-annexure-2april40.jpg

This document shows that by May 1940 all fighter command squadrons had recieved 100 octane fuel. Bomber Command had to wai till 1941 to be fully converted
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/18may40-100octane.jpg

100 octane conversions
611 squadron - 21/3/40
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-100oct.jpg
74 Squadron
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no74-100oct.jpg
602 Sqadron
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/602-16feb40-100octane.jpg
North Weald
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/151-orb-16feb40.jpg
111 Squadron
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/111-15feb40-100-octane.jpg
Al Deere using +12 over Dunkirk - May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/deere-26-5-40.jpg
Order for 100 octane fuel in 1938
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/6dec38-100octanefuel.jpg

I've also looked for Combat reports from May - July 1940 that mention +12lb
I counted 30 different squadrons that have combat reports from that time frame and used +12lb boost.

The germans tested the Spitfire Mk1 with thier own fuel at Rechlin. This lead to slightly decreased performance and unreliable performance data.

[Ze-Jamz]

Again, very nice findings

This debate is getting quite interesting

[TomcatViP]

interestingly he gave chase to both Me110 using emergency power (12LB). ;)

[Kurfürst]

This document shows that by May 1940 all fighter command squadrons had recieved 100 octane fuel. Bomber Command had to wai till 1941 to be fully converted
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/18may40-100octane.jpg

Nope, it says the "The Units concerned" are now stocked. It means some, but now all. Otherwise the distinction is about the 'units concerned' makes no sense.
Probably the same 16+2 Squadrons that were discussed earlier.

And, if you read the preceeding documents, not just the ones you find on the site, you will notice that bomber units concerned (3 stations) had priority.


100 octane conversions
611 squadron - 21/3/40
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-100oct.jpg
74 Squadron
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no74-100oct.jpg
602 Sqadron
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/602-16feb40-100octane.jpg
North Weald
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/151-orb-16feb40.jpg
111 Squadron
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/111-15feb40-100-octane.jpg
Al Deere using +12 over Dunkirk - May 1940
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/deere-26-5-40.jpg
Order for 100 octane fuel in 1938
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/6dec38-100octanefuel.jpg

That's nice and valid evidence for about half a dozen Squadrons out of about 50-60 participating the Battle.

I've also looked for Combat reports from May - July 1940 that mention +12lb
I counted 30 different squadrons that have combat reports from that time frame and used +12lb boost.

The problem is that it was fighter stations that were stocked with fuel, not "Squadrons". A Squadron is just a bunch of men and planes. It can't store fuel. Airfields and Stations can.

Now as it goes a number of Stations were supplied with high octane fuel. The Squadrons stationed there could use it. But the Squadrons themselves continously rotated amongst stations, so its difficult to say how many Squadrons had access to it at a time.

For example, No 41 Sqn was at Catterick in May, but transferred to Hornchurch on 28 May, then back to Catterick on 8 June, then again back to Hornchurch on the 25 July, then beck to Catterick again until 2 September, and then again Hornchurch. The others did the same, or even more chaotically.

That makes things a bit difficult. If for example A station has 100 octane, B station doesn't, and we have X any Y Squadrons. Say X Sqn is at A station, reports +12 boost use. Then it transfers to B stations, and of course cannot report +12 boost use, because it doesn't have the fuel anymore at the Station. But Y takes it place at A station and also reports +12 boost use. It would seem that both X and Y Squadrons were using 100 octane during the period, whereas in reality only until they were at a given station.

A while ago the Grunch collected the Stations we know from one source or another to have used 100 octane (ie. they physically had it).

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

to which I replied a while ago:

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



Besides the use of 100 octane fuel appears to be already covered by an Australian researcher. We had a discussion about it a good while ago on Butch2k's board.

This is from a researcher, researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives, from a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance. It was a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report titled Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War.

The reason why it is included amongst AWM papers was because the Australian Government at that time was protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

"The first bulk shipment of 100 octane fuel had arrived in Britain in June 1939 from the Esso refinery in Aruba. This and subsequent tanker shipments from Aruba, Curacao and the USA were stockpiled while the RAF continued to operate on 87 octane petrol. Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.

Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.

The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940.

The problem was that Britain was getting all of it's 100 octane from overseas imports, which meant that it had to be brought in by sea by tankers, which were sunked at the time in large number by U boats, mines and aircraft. From the start of the war up until the end of the Battle the subs etc. sank some 550 000 tons of Allied tanker tonnage alone, carrying some 400 000 tons worth of oil cargo. I have most them in my database, with time, cause of loss and cargo type.

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

The germans tested the Spitfire Mk1 with thier own fuel at Rechlin. This lead to slightly decreased performance and unreliable performance data.

Source for the type of fuel used in Rechlin please. Oh, wait - Mike William's lying article in which he simply made this up, amongst a dozen other things..?

Besides the Germans had access to captured British/French 100 octane (unimportant - it was all American import) which on occasion they even used in their own aircraft to add salt into the Dunkeque wound, and their own 100 octane fuel of course which I believe at this point was actually better than British 100 octane.

[lane]

interestingly he gave chase to both Me110 using emergency power (12LB). ;)

Well, as Air Chief Marshal Dowding put it (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf)

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. ;)

[winny]

Nope, it says the "The Units concerned" are now stocked. It means some, but now all. Otherwise the distinction is about the 'units concerned' makes no sense.
Probably the same 16+2 Squadrons that were discussed earlier.

The units concerned are all frontline Spitfire and Hurricane units.

And, if you read the preceeding documents, not just the ones you find on the site, you will notice that bomber units concerned (3 stations) had priority.



That's nice and valid evidence for about half a dozen Squadrons out of about 50-60 participating the Battle.

I counted 30 squadrons combat reports that mention +12lb between May and July , how do you explain that?


The problem is that it was fighter stations that were stocked with fuel, not "Squadrons". A Squadron is just a bunch of men and planes. It can't store fuel. Airfields and Stations can.

As usual you apprear to be focusing on symantics, playing with words.


Now as it goes a number of Stations were supplied with high octane fuel. The Squadrons stationed there could use it. But the Squadrons themselves continously rotated amongst stations, so its difficult to say how many Squadrons had access to it at a time. You appear to have no problem making assumptions from this, why can't I?

For example, No 41 Sqn was at Catterick in May, but transferred to Hornchurch on 28 May, then back to Catterick on 8 June, then again back to Hornchurch on the 25 July, then beck to Catterick again until 2 September, and then again Hornchurch. OK, what's your point? A lot of stations were supplied with smaller ammounts of 100 octane because they understood that not every Aircraft would return to it's own base to refuel.


Besides the use of 100 octane fuel appears to be already covered by an Australian researcher. We had a discussion about it a good while ago on Butch2k's board.

This is from a researcher, researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives, from a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance. It was a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report titled Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War.

The reason why it is included amongst AWM papers was because the Australian Government at that time was protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

"The first bulk shipment of 100 octane fuel had arrived in Britain in June 1939 from the Esso refinery in Aruba. This and subsequent tanker shipments from Aruba, Curacao and the USA were stockpiled while the RAF continued to operate on 87 octane petrol. Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.

Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.

The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940. OK so the first Middle east (Iraq?) was 12th August, what about all the 100 Octane we got from America in '38, '39' '40?



Source for the type of fuel used in Rechlin please. Oh, wait - Mike William's lying article in which he simply made this up, amongst a dozen other things..?
Can you prove this? And no I didn't get the info from Mike Williams. You're reaction 'Lying article' says more about this..

Besides the Germans had access to captured British/French 100 octane (unimportant - it was all American import) which on occasion they even used in their own aircraft to add salt into the Dunkeque wound, and their own 100 octane fuel of course which I believe at this point was actually better than British 100 octane.

Hang on, you can just say something like 'I believe German 100 octane was better" without anything to support it. Double standards.

The RAF painted '100' on the engine cowling of converted Spitfires. Obviously they would only need to do this whilst there were 2 types of fuel being used at the same time to ensure the correct fuel was used. I can't find a picture any later than July 1940 where '100' is on there. If they got rid of that then that must mean the conversion was complete?

Consumption of 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain was 58,000 tons
I ton of fuel is just over 14 barrels, 35 gallons in a barrel. 1 ton of fuel = 490 gallons. That is 28 million gallons. So by your number of 125 converted aircraft that would mean average use per Aircraft of 227,000 gallons in 12 weeks. What? Where did it all go?

[Kurfürst]

The units concerned are all frontline Spitfire and Hurricane units.

That's your assumption, against what the sentence means. You are welcome to prove it with evidence.

Plus, if one reads the documentation apart from the single page you supplied, it makes it clear that it names specific Bomber Stations, and that Bomber Stations have priority over specific Fighter Stations. It means something explictely different than "all frontline Spitfire and Hurricane units" which has to be stressed to be hoghwash and that it was made up, typically by the fans of the aircraft. There is no trace of anything like that in the available papers.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/Item36thMeetingactionsfrom5thmeetingA.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/Item46thMeetingactionsfrom5thMeetingB.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/Item56thMeetingMinuteA.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/Item66thMeetingMinuteB.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/Item76thMeetingSummaryofconclusionsA.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/Item86thMeetingSummaryofConclusionsB.jpg

Hang on, you can just say something like 'I believe German 100 octane was better" without anything to support it. Double standards.

Red Herring. I can, but its not the subject. Read some of the documents on my site. As a matter of fact, one of the driving forces behind British 100 octane import was the fact that the Germans, with their large synthetic capacity, were seen to be in a good position to produce 100 octane domestically.

OK so the first Middle east (Iraq?) was 12th August, what about all the 100 Octane we got from America in '38, '39' '40?

This was already answered in the source, just read it again. ;)

I also do not intend to answer some of your other questions again, since I've already answered them. Please read them again.

The RAF painted '100' on the engine cowling of converted Spitfires. Obviously they would only need to do this whilst there were 2 types of fuel being used at the same time to ensure the correct fuel was used. I can't find a picture any later than July 1940 where '100' is on there. If they got rid of that then that must mean the conversion was complete

Again, a wild assumption - and one that is based on merely that _you_ haven't seen something, and this MUST mean something you would like to be true.

Reminds me of this one, sorry for the pun.

http://youtu.be/30x8VTCaOws


Consumption of 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain was 58,000 tons
I ton of fuel is just over 14 barrels, 35 gallons in a barrel. 1 ton of fuel = 490 gallons. That is 28 million gallons. So by your number of 125 converted aircraft that would mean average use per Aircraft of 227,000 gallons in 12 weeks. What? Where did it all go?

Again, assumptions and oversimplifications.. I suggest you read the previous thread, where fuel requirements for non-operational flights, engine manufacturers were discussed in detail.

[TomcatViP]

Intersesting reading.

At least I found here again what I hve read for years in UK/US books and not such upside down history account. I guess I am not the only one here with such a feeling.

Regarding the merlin power, may I suggest we give enough details giving perf to determine if the it was a static test run or an in flight measure (typically corrected to 10kft with RAE formula).

Engine data in RAF at the time depict performances WITHOUT Supercharger or being corrected with pre-war formula (hence the the extra 15/30% power) - RR heritage trust / The perf of aero eng / pg 5.


This illustrate why with all the raw data that are now available on the web (but with sometime questionable sources) giving any interpretations or deductions without taking into account years of research from historians is somewhat hazardous.

Usually it ends up like this : all before me was wrong listen what I have to say... Man shld be cautious when entering such a buffer zone

I have in mind that latter analysis in war corrected the early data with the new state of the Art resulting in the normal linear improvement curves we have all in mind of teh Marlin during WWII.

Interestingly I found the related article in Wiki really good. Have a look !

[winny]

Again, a wild assumption - and one that is based on merely that _you_ haven't seen something, and this MUST mean something you would like to be true.
It's an assumption based on the fact that I can't find a picture of a '100' marked spitfire dated any later than July 1940. It's not something I would 'like' to be true, I don't operate like that. I'm coming at this from an unbiased approach.




Again, assumptions and oversimplifications.. I suggest you read the previous thread, where fuel requirements for non-operational flights, engine manufacturers were discussed in detail.

No, I suggest that you tell me how they could use 27,000,000 gallons of 100 octane fuel during BoB. Hasn't one of your arguments been that they had limited supply, now you're saying they didn't?


I noticed you made no remark about the fact that I can find combat reports from May-july 1940 that show at least 30 squadrons were using 100 octane

Is this also oversimplified or assumption? No, it's fact.

So I'll ask you again. How do you explain this?

EDIT : I've noticed that the Gallons per ton figure I quoted is wrong, Sorry..

Like I said, I'm trying to be unbiased so it's only fair that I point out my own mistakes.

I've since found a figure that 1 gallon of 100 octane weighed 7.2 lb.
2000 lb's in a ton so the usage for BoB was 161 million Gallons.
(58,000 X 2000 / 7.2 = total gallons?)

[Kurfürst]

I noticed you made no remark about the fact that I can find combat reports from May-july 1940 that show at least 30 squadrons were using 100 octane.

Because I already answered that. Squadrons were rotating between Stations.

No, I suggest that you tell me how they could use 27,000,000 gallons of 100 octane fuel during BoB.

And I already told you to read the previous thread. You ignored that and asked the same question again.

I suggest you to back up your earlier claims with something. So far you could not.

Hasn't one of your arguments been that they had limited supply, now you're saying they didn't?

No, you have claimed that all Squadrons were using 100 octane fuel during the Battle. You pointed to a paper that said the opposite. And then you say at least least 30 squadrons were using 100 octane, because you found combat reports. You then asked me to explain me this, despite that I already did.

It is you who is changing his position all the time, not me. As far as it goes, you've made two positive claims

a, All FC Sqns were using 100 octane fuel, and nothing else
b, Rechlin trials did not use 100 octane fuel

The burden of proof is on you. You could prove neither. Therefore, they are unproven, insufficiently supported by documentation which was my point.
That of course does not mean that a considerably number of RAF fighters did not use 100 octane fuel - they did.

The fanboyism part starts where somebody starts to ask for only the best variants to be represented, and start to claim something extreme that all the sudden the 'poorer' variants was not used at all.

[winny]

Because I already answered that. Squadrons were rotating between Stations.

I don't understand why them rotating would make any difference. I thought that once an engine had been converted to 100 that was what they put in it, regardless of where it was stationed? Why paint 100's onto them if it didn't matter what fuel you put in?



No, you have claimed that all Squadrons were using 100 octane fuel during the Battle. You pointed to a paper that said the opposite. And then you say at least least 30 squadrons were using 100 octane, because you found combat reports. You then asked me to explain me this, despite that I already did. OK I retract the all - I stand by the fact that I can find reference to 100 octane use in at least 30 squadrons before August 1940, happy? Didn't think so.

It is you who is changing his position all the time, not me. As far as it goes, you've made two positive claims

a, All FC Sqns were using 100 octane fuel, and nothing else OK, prove me wrong.
b, Rechlin trials did not use 100 octane fuel - OK prove me wrong

The burden of proof is on you. You could prove neither. Therefore, they are unproven, insufficiently supported by documentation which was my point.
That of course does not mean that a considerably number of RAF fighters did not use 100 octane fuel - they did.

The fanboyism part starts where somebody starts to ask for only the best variants to be represented, and start to claim something extreme that all the sudden the 'poorer' variants was not used at all. I'm not interested in fanboys, at all.

I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards. So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?

[pupo162]

I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards. So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?

I think what kurfurst is trying to say is that german had both 87 and 100 fuel. So if they captured a British spittie, they WOULD tested it with the same fuel it was being used on it, not a different one. SO basicly if you say "they all had 100 gallon" then the captured one HAD to had 100 gallon. if the captured was 87 then that means not all of the spitis were 100 gallon, and there were 87.

thats what i got out if it.

jkeep up the discussion, its keeping me from studying math all day :grin:

[Kurfürst]

I don't understand why them rotating would make any difference.

I already explained. See A and B station, X and Y Squadron. In short it makes assessing the number of Squadrons using 100 oct at the same time difficult. But not impossible.

I thought that once an engine had been converted to 100 that was what they put in it, regardless of where it was stationed?

The engine mod only made it available to take advantage of higher boost. It did not cut you off from using 87 octane in the future.

To my best knowledge the 100 octane engine mod. simply changed the way how the automatic boost cutout worked. Before the mod. it was a switch for "manual override for automatic boost limit", meaning you could select whatever boost (even overboost) and after the mod it was a "+12 lbs instead of 6 1/4 automatic boost limit". It didn't make 87 octane incompatible with the engine, but of course you shouldn't use the +12 boost in this condition.

Why paint 100's onto them if it didn't matter what fuel you put in?

Because they do that in every air force. I believe you will find that they continued to paint 100 on them, just not on the side of the cowling, but on the top, with dark letters (like in the Il2 skin).

OK I retract the all - I stand by the fact that I can find reference to 100 octane use in at least 30 squadrons before August 1940, happy? Didn't think so.

Yes, happy. I have no problem acknowledging that there were a significant number of Squadrons using 100 octane and had improved performance. There's is no lack of evidence for that. I just don't believe it realistic that all of them suddenly switched overnight. There is contradictionary evidence.


It is you who is changing his position all the time, not me. As far as it goes, you've made two positive claims

a, All FC Sqns were using 100 octane fuel, and nothing else OK, prove me wrong.
b, Rechlin trials did not use 100 octane fuel - OK prove me wrong

Sorry, you made these claims... I don't have to prove them wrong. It just doesn't work that way that if you make a claim, and I can't or won't prove it wrong, you're right.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards.

So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

I said that they - at Rechlin - were perfectly capable of carrying out with 100 octane. They were. The Germans were using 100 octane fuel in their own planes (fighters, heavy fighters, bombers), both their own type and captutre, during the Battle. So what would keep them from using the same fuels in captured enemy aircraft..?

I also said that this would be logical, IF they captured the aircraft with 100 octane. If I find a Spit filled with 100 octane, and would want to try out what it is capable of so that my pilots could fight it better, why would I create conditions that give me a false view and put me into a disadvantage..? Sorry, the guys at Rechlin were not stupid, just like their collegues in Russia, Uk, US, they were amongst some of the finest engineers and pilots of the world.

This was in response to your categoric statement that the Rechlin tests were NOT carried out with 100 octane. Frankly I believe this is just said all the time because the E-Stelle Rechlin did not paint so positive picture of the aircraft, so people want to dismiss it.

[QUOTE]In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?/QUOTE]

Sure, though I think I did above. I don't believe, due to lack of any kind of positive evidence to such claims, and due to the evidence that contradicts it, that every and all FC Sqn was running solely on 100 octane fuel. I believe some stations (Sqns) were supplied with 100 octane, and some with 87 octane, as the decision makers were - rightly - concerned about the flow of supplies, and the consequences if those supplies were cut off. I also believe that as the Battle progressed, more Squadrons were using 100 octane.

It would also makes sense. I have NEVER seen in all my studies of WW2 air forces that things just changed all the sudden, that they would introduce a new type of aircraft and it would immidiately replace the old ones, or fuel, for that matter. Its unrealistic.

I also understand that this is a claim put forward typically by RAF fanboys (not meaning you) who want to fly only the best variant, so they could argue it was the *only* variant around, that's the only variant that should be present on ie. Dogfight servers. Personally, I don't have a stake in it, because I don't fly on those servers for years BTW. Nor do I care of the variant present - the way I fight, it doesn't matter what plane I dive on and attack with great speed advantage.

[Kurfürst]

I think what kurfurst is trying to say is that german had both 87 and 100 fuel. So if they captured a British spittie, they WOULD tested it with the same fuel it was being used on it, not a different one. SO basicly if you say "they all had 100 gallon" then the captured one HAD to had 100 gallon. if the captured was 87 then that means not all of the spitis were 100 gallon, and there were 87.

thats what i got out if it.

jkeep up the discussion, its keeping me from studying math all day :grin:

Yeah I guess you just explained my position much better than I was capable of.. :D

[lane]

Intersesting reading.

At least I found here again what I hve read for years in UK/US books and not such upside down history account. I guess I am not the only one here with such a feeling.

Regarding the merlin power, may I suggest we give enough details giving perf to determine if the it was a static test run or an in flight measure (typically corrected to 10kft with RAE formula).

Engine data in RAF at the time depict performances WITHOUT Supercharger or being corrected with pre-war formula (hence the the extra 15/30% power) - RR heritage trust / The perf of aero eng / pg 5.


This illustrate why with all the raw data that are now available on the web (but with sometime questionable sources) giving any interpretations or deductions without taking into account years of research from historians is somewhat hazardous.

Usually it ends up like this : all before me was wrong listen what I have to say... Man shld be cautious when entering such a buffer zone

I have in mind that latter analysis in war corrected the early data with the new state of the Art resulting in the normal linear improvement curves we have all in mind of teh Marlin during WWII.

Interestingly I found the related article in Wiki really good. Have a look !

Perhaps you are looking for conspiracies that aren’t there? Have a closer look at Hooker, Reed and Yarker's The Performance of a Supercharged Aero Engine, first published in March 1941. I believe you are barking up the wrong tree ;) See attached for an example of calculated versus tested & measured engine power.

Also see Bailey's The Merlin in Perspective first published in 1983 by the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust. Bailey worked for Rolls for over 40 years and has some knowledge of the subject. ;) See relevant pages attached.

[Ze-Jamz]

RAFfanboys and luftwiners...

Gota love em

oh wait..i started this

[pupo162]

RAFfanboys and luftwiners...

Gota love em

oh wait..i started this


so... we meet again.... :P

[Ze-Jamz]

so... we meet again.... :P

;):cool:

[Kwiatek]

Osprey,

Side note, I don't know where it states in the German reference that the Spit was on 87 octane, surely the Germans had it available, just not in quantity. At this point of the war, weren't the Germans still importing fuel from Russia, and using stocks captures from France (i.e. French and British fuels)?

There is no reference about which octan fuel was used. But there is reference that both Spit and Hurrciane had 2 stage prop pitch.

Looking at speed comparision between Rechlin tested Spitfire, Hurricane and 109 E it is clearly too me that British fighters were used only 87 octan fuel.

" Speed: the Spitfire is at 0 m by ca. 20 km/h, at 4 km by ca. 10 km/h, Hurricane and
Curtiss at 0 and 4 km altitude by ca. 60 km/h. A similar superiority of the Bf 109 E
exists in the climb performance as well."

So in Rechlin test 109 E at sea level was faster by 20 km/h from SPit and 60 km/h from Hurrciane.

100 Octan fuel Spitfie MK1 ( +12 lbs) was faster then 109 E at low to medium alts and Hurriciane ( +12 lbs) should be slowier about 20-30 km/h then 109 ( at low alts)

It is clearly to me that British fighters in Rechlin used only lower 87 octan fuel.

RL Data Speed for comparsion between Sptfire MK1 +6 1/2 lbs (blue line) - Spit MK1 +12 lbs ( red) - Hurricane MK1 +12 lbs ( green) - 109 E-3 1.45 Ata ( black - based on German manual)

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

500 km/h at sea level is the best speed score for 109 E-3 as i saw in RL data ( it is from german manual for E-3 ) but most common known speed score is 467 km/h at 1.3 Ata ( 5 Minute Emergency Power). For SPitfire MK1 at + 6 1/2 lbs (87 octan fuel) is ab. 450 km/h ( 280 mph) and for Hurricane MK1 at 6 1/2 lbs ( 87 octan fuel) is ab. 426 km/h ( 265 mph).



And disscussion about how many squadrons used 100 Octan fuel during BOB is pointless to me. WE know that many squadron used 100 Octan fuel during BOB expecially these most importants sectors squadrons. So both version were used during BOB.

So to be fair we should have 2 or 3 version of Spitfire MK1 and Hurricane MK1 - with 2 stage prop pitch and 6 1/2lbs (pre BOB version without pilot armour and armoured windshield), 2 stage prop pitch at 12 lbs (early BOB version) and CS propeller at 12 lbs.

[whoarmongar]

BLAH, blah, blah,

ENOUGH for Gods sake.

All I can say is.

Do you really think, with Britain in a crucial battle for its life and existence, a fact fully recognised by its political leadership and the leadership of fighter command and having made strenuous efforts to get high octane fuel it would then deny that very fuel to the crucial fighter units in eleven and twelve group ? Well do you really ?

To be honest I have no axe to grind here, I really couldnt care if the flight models are correct, I dont even care very much if the spit has the wrong prop, fuel, performance.Or if the 109 is the wrong model, wrong speed or poor prop control or that the blenny struggles to make it off the runway let alone to France and back.

To be honest this game is neither fish nor fowl,
It clearly isnt a proper sim, how could it be ? It cant even get the most basic issues like fuel mix or aircraft ceiling correct
It clearly isnt a game, the campaign gameplay and missions are terrible, the multiplayer is poor.

The sound of you all argueing with real life data for this game is pathetic really
Venturi effects, drag coefficients,air compressability,fuel octane etc etc etc it has no meaning, I very much doubt this game models any of it.
For example I always fly at 22000 feet in a spit canopy open for better view,
I suffer no aerodynamic loss, no wind noise or buffeting, no adverse effects whatsoever. I always use lean mix in a spit coz the engine runs better even for take off, if I switch to lean the engine revs pick up, rich mix is not of any use whatsoever, so much for being a sim.

So cite your sources,gather your eye witness accounts, collate your historical documents, do your web searches to prove that your particular viewpoint is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It means nothing I doubt the devs even look on this site, I very much doubt any of your arguements will have any effect whatsoever on the future development of this game.

[winny]

BLAH, blah, blah,

ENOUGH for Gods sake.

All I can say is.

Do you really think, with Britain in a crucial battle for its life and existence, a fact fully recognised by its political leadership and the leadership of fighter command and having made strenuous efforts to get high octane fuel it would then deny that very fuel to the crucial fighter units in eleven and twelve group ? Well do you really ?

To be honest I have no axe to grind here, I really couldnt care if the flight models are correct, I dont even care very much if the spit has the wrong prop, fuel, performance.Or if the 109 is the wrong model, wrong speed or poor prop control or that the blenny struggles to make it off the runway let alone to France and back.

To be honest this game is neither fish nor fowl,
It clearly isnt a proper sim, how could it be ? It cant even get the most basic issues like fuel mix or aircraft ceiling correct
It clearly isnt a game, the campaign gameplay and missions are terrible, the multiplayer is poor.

The sound of you all argueing with real life data for this game is pathetic really
Venturi effects, drag coefficients,air compressability,fuel octane etc etc etc it has no meaning, I very much doubt this game models any of it.
For example I always fly at 22000 feet in a spit canopy open for better view,
I suffer no aerodynamic loss, no wind noise or buffeting, no adverse effects whatsoever. I always use lean mix in a spit coz the engine runs better even for take off, if I switch to lean the engine revs pick up, rich mix is not of any use whatsoever, so much for being a sim.

So cite your sources,gather your eye witness accounts, collate your historical documents, do your web searches to prove that your particular viewpoint is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It means nothing I doubt the devs even look on this site, I very much doubt any of your arguements will have any effect whatsoever on the future development of this game.

Awesome, thanks for that I'll take your advice and shut up then, I really really don't want to upset you more than you are already.

No more chatting XXXX about 109's and Spits because CoD is broken.
Whoarmonger has spoken.

How I pass my time has **** all to do with you.

[Danelov]

Yes, that´s right. Finally is only a game. If the idea is to find and flight a good Spitifire with good aerodynamics, taking in count all the variables, try FS2004 and FSX. There are very good stuff there and quite well simulated. And also as option, if you are not happy , the flight models can be edit and changed.Parameters like, power, prop type, engine gear ratio, props diameter, power absorved, coefficients, drag, fuel,fuel pressure, oil pressure, etc,etc.

[Kwiatek]

Sry but Fs2004 and FSX are really off in terms of realisitc flight models and performacne of planes.

Good combat flight simulator requires such things like realistic flight models and peformacne of planes beacuse if it doesnt have it would be only arcadish shooter like many others.

If i would like to play arcade flight shooter i will play WOP and there would be nonsense to make such game like ROF, A-10, Black Shark or even COD lol

[Kongo-Otto]

100 octane fuel used during the BOB?
Ah yes, i did read about that at an other forum, very interesting read indeed. (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-during-bob-16305.html)

[winny]

I've seen this line on a website for Trimpel Oil refinery (http://www.heyshamheritage.org.uk/html/trimpell.html)

By May 1940, reconnaissance Spitfires had begun flying combat missions using the 100 octane fuel. By 31 July 1940, there were 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using the 100 octane fuel.

There's no reference to where they got the 384 in 19 squadrons from.

[Danelov]

This one is really great and very well done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsgEiJoBxX0

[Ze-Jamz]

This one is really great and very well done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsgEiJoBxX0

Superb detail..

They say that this has the 87Octane fuel in yet isnt that a Mk4 or 5 shown in the external view? Im sure it has Hispanos

[winny]

Superb detail..

They say that this has the 87Octane fuel in yet isnt that a Mk4 or 5 shown in the external view? Im sure it has Hispanos

Which bit of the vid? Looks like a Mk1 to me.

[fruitbat]

100 octane fuel used during the BOB?
Ah yes, i did read about that at an other forum, very interesting read indeed. (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-during-bob-16305.html)

Haha Kurfurst pawned again on 100 octane fuel.

rules for arguing with Kurfurst.

you have to show absolute proof, he can interpret what he wants and it becomes fact (in his mind anyway).

its to funny.

[Ze-Jamz]

Which bit of the vid? Looks like a Mk1 to me.

Look towards the end when its in an external view..

Mk1's didnt have cannons

[fruitbat]

Look towards the end when its in an external view..

Mk1's didnt have cannons

a very limited few did.

search for 19 squadron.

had major problems with jamming though.

[Ze-Jamz]

a very limited few did.

search for 19 squadron.

had major problems with jamming though.

Yea very very limited..seems strange they modeled there AC on that type...

Right thats it...!

DEVS CANNONS PLEASE :rolleyes:

[winny]

Look towards the end when its in an external view..

Mk1's didnt have cannons

Oh yeah, I didn't get that far first time.

[Kwiatek]

It is Spitfire MK IIB RF-A in 303 RAF Polish SQN paintschame.

[Ze-Jamz]

Its a spitfire MkII with cannons. thats all i need to know..

Expect to see a thread anytime soon :cool:

[lane]

I've seen this line on a website for Trimpel Oil refinery (http://www.heyshamheritage.org.uk/html/trimpell.html)

By May 1940, reconnaissance Spitfires had begun flying combat missions using the 100 octane fuel. By 31 July 1940, there were 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using the 100 octane fuel.

There's no reference to where they got the 384 in 19 squadrons from.

Interesting link winny, thanks for sharing! Just as significant as the passage you quoted is this one in my opinion:

"Bulk supply contracts for higher octane fuel were placed by the Air Ministry and it was put into widespread use in the RAF in March 1940 when Spitfires' Rolls Royce Merlin engines were converted to use the 100 octane fuel."

This seems in agreement with other published sources, such as the one below from A. R. Ogston, although your earlier posting did show units converting in February 1940.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/aircraft-lubricants-pg12.jpg

[Kurfürst]

I've seen this line on a website for Trimpel Oil refinery (http://www.heyshamheritage.org.uk/html/trimpell.html)

By May 1940, reconnaissance Spitfires had begun flying combat missions using the 100 octane fuel. By 31 July 1940, there were 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using the 100 octane fuel.

Interesting page on Heysham, thanks for sharing.

There's no reference to where they got the 384 in 19 squadrons from.

I would say its simple guesswork that it was used in all aircraft.

The funny thing you see is, with all the years and fantatic research, the fanatics of the cause could not produce but ONE paper stating even remotely saying such.

Its funny, compared to how allegedly 'uniform' its use was, that there's no single paper of it. Instead, the propagators just get wildly excited and hysterical, as usual, trying to make up with noise for something they cannot make up with substance.

It all reminds me of the old, now debunked claims by the same bunch of people at the ex-Spitfireperformance.com website. That time it was claimed 150 grade was a de facto standard fuel for Spitfire in 1944, and every Spitfire run just on that an nothing else. They even went as far as showing cropped original documents mentioning +25 lbs boosted Griffons, for example. "Only" the part of the paper that said that the engine failed almost immidiately was cut off... its funnily analouge to the current situation, because we have again cropped documents, oddly enough just forgetting about the period (May-September) in which Lord Beaverbrook noted that the conversion of the force halted.

Probably the simplest for would be get a full copy of AVIA 10/282 from Kew, as it would put all doubts to rest I believe.

[winny]

Interesting page on Heysham, thanks for sharing.



I would say its simple guesswork that it was used in all aircraft.


Probably the simplest for would be get a full copy of AVIA 10/282 from Kew, as it would put all doubts to rest I believe.

Like I said earlier, I'm not biased, I just like a good discussion and I like to come at things from a slightly different angle..

What is AVIA 10/282? I'd love to spend a day in the archives..

[Kurfürst]

Like I said earlier, I'm not biased, I just like a good discussion and I like to come at things from a slightly different angle..

I love to hear this, and you can be sure I am interested in the same. That's why I do not bother to answer to poster who are not.. and that's why I keep responding to you. There's always something to learn IMHO!

Now, it may be me, but the thing is that I always like to get statements based on solid evidence.

Same thing with the Luftwaffe in the BoB - you won't find me saying that all of the LW was flying on 100 octane fuel, even though I could present such evidence that would make it seem as much that everything from 109s to 110s and even 88 flew on the thing... I know perfectly well that there was but a wing of 109, a couple of more wings of 110s, and the 100 octane fuel found in a Ju 88 tank was probably a matter of simplier logistics or a shared airfield with a 100 octane unit...

What is AVIA 10/282? I'd love to spend a day in the archives..

Its the archival refernce to the file held at the British National Archives in Kew, which contains the meetings relevant to the decisions behind the use of 100 octane in the Battle of Brtiain. Some (in fact: all) papers I've seen from I've already posted in the thread.

AVIA 10/282 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: meetings 1-25

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=4223197&j=1

AVIA 10/283 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: fuel-oil requirements

should be also interesting.

I believe you can take copies with a digital camera for free, though you might need to pre-register. I'd believe the contents of this file pretty much settle the issue for good. All the decisions should be recorded in it, so either it says they converted all fighters and supplied fuel to them or not...

[winny]

I love to hear this, and you can be sure I am interested in the same. That's why I do not bother to answer to poster who are not.. and that's why I keep responding to you. There's always something to learn IMHO!

Now, it may be me, but the thing is that I always like to get statements based on solid evidence.

Same thing with the Luftwaffe in the BoB - you won't find me saying that all of the LW was flying on 100 octane fuel, even though I could present such evidence that would make it seem as much that everything from 109s to 110s and even 88 flew on the thing... I know perfectly well that there was but a wing of 109, a couple of more wings of 110s, and the 100 octane fuel found in a Ju 88 tank was probably a matter of simplier logistics or a shared airfield with a 100 octane unit...



Its the archival refernce to the file held at the British National Archives in Kew, which contains the meetings relevant to the decisions behind the use of 100 octane in the Battle of Brtiain. Some (in fact: all) papers I've seen from I've already posted in the thread.

AVIA 10/282 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: meetings 1-25

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=4223197&j=1

AVIA 10/283 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: fuel-oil requirements

should be also interesting.

I believe you can take copies with a digital camera for free, though you might need to pre-register. I'd believe the contents of this file pretty much settle the issue for good. All the decisions should be recorded in it, so either it says they converted all fighters and supplied fuel to them or not...

Thanks for the link, I'll get in touch with Kew and see what the score is..

I'm starting to think this 100 octane issue is just one factor in the speed issues.

I suppose we'd need to know what the serial of the Rechlin MK1 was, when it was captured and what condition it was in and it's age. It could have been knackered!

I was reading an account yesterday by Pete Brothers (It might have been Tom Neil!) and he took the mirror off his Spit and fitted a car mirror inside the cockpit, he reckoned he gained 4mph, he also spent his time when on standby filing down rivet heads which he reckoned gave him another 4 or 5 mph.
I also read a guide to the groundcrew reminding them that battered bodywork and poorly fitted fairings could cost as much as 10mph.


It's a minefield really, the Brits, French, Russians and Germans all tested Mk1 spits and none of them came back with the same top speed..

[IvanK]

I love to hear this, and you can be sure I am interested in the same. That's why I do not bother to answer to poster who are not.. and that's why I keep responding to you. There's always something to learn IMHO!

Now, it may be me, but the thing is that I always like to get statements based on solid evidence.

Same thing with the Luftwaffe in the BoB - you won't find me saying that all of the LW was flying on 100 octane fuel, even though I could present such evidence that would make it seem as much that everything from 109s to 110s and even 88 flew on the thing... I know perfectly well that there was but a wing of 109, a couple of more wings of 110s, and the 100 octane fuel found in a Ju 88 tank was probably a matter of simplier logistics or a shared airfield with a 100 octane unit...



Its the archival refernce to the file held at the British National Archives in Kew, which contains the meetings relevant to the decisions behind the use of 100 octane in the Battle of Brtiain. Some (in fact: all) papers I've seen from I've already posted in the thread.

AVIA 10/282 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: meetings 1-25

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=4223197&j=1

AVIA 10/283 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: fuel-oil requirements

should be also interesting.

I believe you can take copies with a digital camera for free, though you might need to pre-register. I'd believe the contents of this file pretty much settle the issue for good. All the decisions should be recorded in it, so either it says they converted all fighters and supplied fuel to them or not...

I get to the UK regularly and visit the archives and photograph AVIA files. I will visit the archives in a week or so and look up these files.

The archives are great. On your first visit you need to get a readers card. This requires 2 forms of photo ID a short CBT session on handling documents and then you are good to go. Just allow an extra 40minutes for this on your first visit. The readers card is valid for 3 years. Subsequent visits are a card swipe and you are in. Document retrieval is straight forward and on average takes about 20mins. Once in your hands you can photograph away to your hearts content.

You can also organise the archives to copy any of the files for you but the costs are simply astronomical.

[Biggs]

bottom line: SpitIa need CSP and 100 oct performance figures...

should be basically the same as mkII in much respects except at highest alt speed.

[Kongo-Otto]

100 octane fuel used during the bob?
Ah yes, i did read about that at an other forum, very interesting read indeed. (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-during-bob-16305.html)haha kurfurst pawned again on 100 octane fuel.

Rules for arguing with kurfurst.

You have to show absolute proof, he can interpret what he wants and it becomes fact (in his mind anyway).

Its to funny.

Qft! :)

[EAF331 Starfire]

And disscussion about how many squadrons used 100 Octan fuel during BOB is pointless to me. WE know that many squadron used 100 Octan fuel during BOB expecially these most importants sectors squadrons. So both version were used during BOB.

So to be fair we should have 2 or 3 version of Spitfire MK1 and Hurricane MK1 - with 2 stage prop pitch and 6 1/2lbs (pre BOB version without pilot armour and armoured windshield), 2 stage prop pitch at 12 lbs (early BOB version) and CS propeller at 12 lbs.

+1

Hear! Hear!
That way the mission makers can make it as historic as possible :grin:

[EAF331 Starfire]

Its a spitfire MkII with cannons. thats all i need to know..


And it should come with a probability rutine. So that the cannons should jam the correct amont of times :grin:

[EAF331 Starfire]

Yes, that´s right. Finally is only a game.
To you it might be, but some of us would not fly sim if it was not for closeness to the real thing. Just as so many other around here, I don't fly the a/c becaurse of their performance. I simply adjust my combat style to get the most of the idividual a/c.
I am not only a virtual combat pilot but also a history buff, and only by discussing in a correct scientific way will we be able to get closer to a more data and with a bit of hope, a more accurate sim.

If you don't like the such discussion you are free to avoid them and go somwere else. Please don't discurage us from getting to the scientic trueth.

This have been one of the most exiting threads I have read for a long time. The discussion have been good a true. With points and counterpoints. Semantics can be irritating, but are none the less important for the outcome.

What we want is a little interpretation as possible. Just facts.

"Assumption is the Mother of All f...ups"!



Question everything
Particularly the most important assumptions
Accept nothing as true
Unless you have drilled down to bedrock
Blind faith is religion

[TomcatViP]

And it should come with a probability rutine. So that the cannons should jam the correct amont of times :grin:

If you mean that their use hev to be accurately rendered as pointless I don't see any reason for devs to loose time on these.

;)

[TomcatViP]

Ok, still learning stuff from everyone here, and I have a question...

I see lots of people reference those graphs in different posts. Are those original graphs by the test crews during ww2? The sharpness and colors used seem a bit "odd" for historical documents from that era.

If not, do they have the raw data they extrapolated those graphs from? It seems mighty familiar to the IL-2 Compare, that's not coming out of data from the game is it?

IMHO there is no logic in those curves. I will be cautious giving definitive interpretation only based on this one.

[Kurfürst]

Thanks for the link, I'll get in touch with Kew and see what the score is..

I get to the UK regularly and visit the archives and photograph AVIA files. I will visit the archives in a week or so and look up these files.

Thank you for that, both of you. I guess most of us would be greatly interested in your findings, as you seem to be honestly curious about the truth behind the matter, just like I am. Frankly people so far only seem to have been interested in putting forward snippets, and curiously their story just 'cuts' after May 1940, which I find somewhat suspicious because of the findings of that Australian reasearcher I already quoted, and the tanker situation that appears to be recorded by most authors (Blair, Morgand and Shacklady etc.).



I'm starting to think this 100 octane issue is just one factor in the speed issues.

I suppose we'd need to know what the serial of the Rechlin MK1 was, when it was captured and what condition it was in and it's age. It could have been knackered!

One can try his luck with Morgan and Shacklady's serial number listings, perhaps somthing turns up. However I was checking into my files, and found a German document of a captured Spitfire II and tests done with it - albeit with a Merlin III which would pretty much make it a Spit I.. though I'd believe that they coulnd't capture this example earlier than 1941. What is interesting though that they make a comparison between the Spit I and II, and list the Spit I with 87 octane and 2 bladed wooden (fixed) propeller, which is indeed true for the initial few dozen, and the Spit II with CSP and 100 octane. I don't think much should be read into it though, given the uncertainities. Whatever its worth, they measured the Spit II/Merlin II to be good for 547 km/h, and then 557 km/h in a later test run, at 5km. Speed at 0 m alt. was 460, which would indicate +6 1/4 lbs.sq.inch boost.


I was reading an account yesterday by Pete Brothers (It might have been Tom Neil!) and he took the mirror off his Spit and fitted a car mirror inside the cockpit, he reckoned he gained 4mph, he also spent his time when on standby filing down rivet heads which he reckoned gave him another 4 or 5 mph.
I also read a guide to the groundcrew reminding them that battered bodywork and poorly fitted fairings could cost as much as 10mph.

Indeed its true, I have a UK report of Spitfire drag changes during the war, and the effect of serial production on performance. The mirror looks just about right, and its often the most unlikely items that cause the most surprising amunt of drag - cannon stubs, external arm. windcreen and even the internal one for example.

It's a minefield really, the Brits, French, Russians and Germans all tested Mk1 spits and none of them came back with the same top speed..

Yes, that's why I don't like to draw guesswork form relative test reports. For example Kwiateks observation about the relative speed difference of 109 and Spit are entirely reasonable, and I tend to believe myself that they probably captured and tested the said Spit with 87 octane in Rechlin. It probably neither had the fuel nor the mods at that time when captured yet.. also when you consider differences in invidual airframes, engines, day temperatures.. the margin of error just becomes too great. For example, manufacturers gave some + or - 5% tolerance on speed. That means we already have an anout 50 km/h margin of error. You can never know if it was a poorly made Spit (109) compared to a exceptionally well made 109 (Spit), how many hours were logged into the motor and so on..

BTW I did a bit of a comparison table of FC's sorties vs. the amount of 100 octane and 'other' (ie. 87 octane) aviation fuel issued during the month. Its interesting.

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

A few of my own observations:

a, It seems clear that 100 octane has begun replacing 87 octane towards the end of September / start of October. Until then, 87 octane is by far the major fuel consumed.
b, This corresponds with what the Lord Beaverbook memo noted about re-starting the conversion
c, Its also very appearant that issues have a bit of 'delay' built into them. Obviously supply's nature is that they re-supply after the fuel at the airfields has been used and there's reported need for new issues. This takes time.
d, 100 octane issue curves are clearly responding to FC sorties number increase/decrease. Though that's not news, FC used that fuel. But it should be kept in mind that number of Blenheim Sqns also used and were issued 100 octane fuel, and a Blenheim sortie would consume 4-6 times the fuel a fighter sortie would.
e, On the other hand, 87 octane issues ALSO clearly reacts to FC sorties number increase/decrease. It shouldn't, if all frontline Sqns would be using only 100 octane. ;)
f, Obviously the 87 octane curve reaction is less pronounced, as
fa, A good percentage of FC used 100 octane, so they don't their needs 'do not exists' from the 87 octane issues POV
fb, A large number of other aircraft also uses 87 octane, and many of them - bombers, patrol craft etc. - consume much more fuel than small fighters.

In my opinion, the most conclusive evidence that even towards the end of October a number of fighter squadrons were flying on 87 octane is evident by the sudden and perfectly parallel rise of both 87 octane issues and FC sorties curves at the time.

[Ze-Jamz]

And it should come with a probability rutine. So that the cannons should jam the correct amont of times :grin:

:)

[winny]

One can try his luck with Morgan and Shacklady's serial number listings, perhaps somthing turns up.



Just a quick note, I have Shacklady and Morgans Spitfire the History.

The only ref to a captured Mk 1 is N3277

234 sqn
Reported shot down over Isle of White 15th April 1940
(Actually forced landing in Cherbourg)
Later had DB engine fitted.

So it probably had The Rotol CS as the De Hav wasn't introduced till July.
Definitley a Merlin III. If it was 100 octane it would have been one of the early conversions.

Poking around the web a bit it would seem that this is the Rechlin MK1.

Just need to find out what it's service history was now!

EDIT: I got the dates wrong! See below.

[Ze-Jamz]

Cool..

Very interesting..

[ICDP]

Just a quick note, I have Shacklady and Morgans Spitfire the History.

The only ref to a captured Mk 1 is N3277

234 sqn
Reported shot down over Isle of White 15th April 1940
(Actually forced landing in Cherbourg)
Later had DB engine fitted.

So it probably had The Rotol CS as the De Hav wasn't introduced till July.
Definitley a Merlin III. If it was 100 octane it would have been one of the early conversions.

Poking around the web a bit it would seem that this is the Rechlin MK1.

Just need to find out what it's service history was now!

Just a heads up, the dates are wrong, the 15th April 1940 is the date it was delivered to 234 squadron. According to these links N3277 was shot down on 15th August 1940, this would put this particular Spitfire MkI as an almost definate BoB era 100 Octane variant.

An Image is available here. If you look at the cowling you can see some white stenciling, it should read DTD 100 OCT. It was painted here to remind ground crew what fuel to use.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/4871667320/

Production details for N3277.

http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/p003.htm

N3277 listed as lost on 15th August 1940.

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co.uk/Diary/losses/15-Aug-losses.htm

Info on the Pilot, PO Richard Hardy

http://www.thesoutheastecho.co.uk/Pilots/Hardy_R.htm

[winny]

Just a heads up, the dates are wrong, the 15th April 1940 is the date it was delivered to 234 squadron. According to these links N3277 was shot down on 15th August 1940, this would put this particular Spitfire MkI as an almost definate BoB era 100 Octane variant.

An Image is available here. If you look at the cowling you can see some white stenciling, it should read DTD 100 OCT. It was painted here to remind ground crew what fuel to use.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/4871667320/

Production details for N3277.

http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/p003.htm

N3277 listed as lost on 15th August 1940.

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co.uk/Diary/losses/15-Aug-losses.htm

Info on the Pilot, PO Richard Hardy

http://www.thesoutheastecho.co.uk/Pilots/Hardy_R.htm

You are absolutley right.. I hate the way it's laid out in "The History"

As it is in the book..

N3277 485 FF 5-01-40 MU 15-01-40 243s 15-4-40 reported shot down nr IoW, Was dam and f/ld in cherbourg france, 15-8-40 P/O Hardy PoW a/c had daimler benz engine fitted.

So it was converted to 100 oct, thanks.

Just an aside, reading through all the serial numbers is quite sobering..
I usually just find a particular a/c but when you just read line after line of P/O 'Smith' etc kld, FTR and so on for page after page it brings it home to me some how.

Anyway thanks again.

[ICDP]

You are absolutley right.. I hate the way it's laid out in "The History"

As it is in the book..

N3277 485 FF 5-01-40 MU 15-01-40 243s 15-4-40 reported shot down nr IoW, Was dam and f/ld in cherbourg france, 15-8-40 P/O Hardy PoW a/c had daimler benz engine fitted.

So it was converted to 100 oct, thanks.

Just an aside, reading through all the serial numbers is quite sobering..
I usually just find a particular a/c but when you just read line after line of P/O 'Smith' etc kld, FTR and so on for page after page it brings it home to me some how.

Anyway thanks again.

No problem.

So if N3277 was captured on the 15th of August 1940, it couldn't be the one used in the tests Kurfurst quoted, which were carried out on the 10th August 1940.

[winny]

No problem.

So if N3277 was captured on the 15th of August 1940, it couldn't be the one used in the tests Kurfurst quoted, which were carried out on the 10th August 1940.


Just when you think you're getting somewhere..

Was the Rechlin Spit an RAF one?

EDIT : I keep coming across references to Molders 'miserable' spitfire comments being made before the BoB, and also June 1940 seems to be quoted a few times.

[Kongo-Otto]

An Image is available here. If you look at the cowling you can see some white stenciling, it should read DTD 100 OCT. It was painted here to remind ground crew what fuel to use.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/4871667320/



The stenciling at the cowling, was not about Fuel Grade, as you can see at this Picture from the same aircraft.
The stenciling at the cowling is to read "Dirty Dick"
http://www.abload.de/img/azhspitfire0fg3.jpg


And for your special interest, a later Spitfire with the same Squadron Code AZ-H AD203 was also shot down over France, as you can see in the Pics below.
http://www.abload.de/img/spitfireazhmf40.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/spitfireazh1uc13.jpg

[Kongo-Otto]

As it is in the book..

N3277 485 FF 5-01-40 MU 15-01-40 243s 15-4-40 reported shot down nr IoW, Was dam and f/ld in cherbourg france, 15-8-40 P/O Hardy PoW a/c had daimler benz engine fitted.



The only Spitfire i know of, which was fitted a Daimler Benz engine was
Spitfire Mk.Vb NX-X EN830, 131 RAF "County of Kent" Sqn.

http://www.abload.de/img/hdbspit_12t13.jpg

EN830 Spitfire Mk.Vb (Merlin 45)
TOC/RAF 1.5.42
No.131 Sqn force-landed on Jersey after air combat 18.11.42 (P/O B. Scheidhauer, Free French Pilot)
Sent Messerschmitt factory Augsburg and to Stuttgart-Echterdingen in 12.42 (test flown by Willy Ellenrieder)
Armament & radio removed, 24-volt electrical system and DB601 engine installed
To E-Stelle Rechlin, marked 'CJ+ZY';
Comparison trials with Bf 109G in 1943
Technical failure 27.4.44
Destroyed on ground at Echterdingen by an USAAF bombing raid on 14.8.44; Wreck scraped at Klemm company Böblingen.

NOTE: P/O Scheidhauer took part in the Great Escape, but was recaptured at Saarbrücken, and shot dead by the Gestapo on 29 March 1944, along with 50 members of the Escape.

[winny]

Ok, So if the Rechlin tests were definitley on 10th August then it can't have been any of these Spits. All were captured later than then.

So... What about the 'French' Spitfire? Thought destroyed but then turned up later in the war marked FW-8 (Captured 18th June 1940)

It's one of only 2 Spitfires I can find that was captured before 10th August 1940.

The other one being K9867(?) which is listed as FTR (23rd May 1940) in Shacklady/Morgan but Kurfurst has posted elsewhere that it was captured.

Either way both of these machines had 3 blade, 2 Speed props.

[Kurfürst]

Ok, So if the Rechlin tests were definitley on 10th August then it can't have been any of these Spits. All were captured later than then.

Just a note, the telex message (from LW HQ) is dated 9 August, and it informs various Luftflotten about the results of the trials and gives tactical tips to troops, but the the trials were very likely to have been conducted some time before that, as it has to be written down, and go through some levels before sent out.

When Rechlin actually did the tests, that's a good question.

[winny]

Just a note, the telex message (from LW HQ) is dated 9 August, and it informs various Luftflotten about the results of the trials and gives tactical tips to troops, but the the trials were very likely to have been conducted some time before that, as it has to be written down, and go through some levels before sent out.

When Rechlin actually did the tests, that's a good question.

I think it might be THE question..

It's your area so I'm hoping you'll (Kurfurst) dig something up. I know practically nothing about Rechlin or what they did.

Also it would be nice to try and find out what date W Molders uttered his famous 'miserable fighting machine' comments. I've seen it being quoted in as July 40, which would fit into the 10th August for the paperwork..

This is interesting because the further back the date goes the chances of it being 100 octane decrease.

[Grand_Armee]

http://www.abload.de/img/hdbspit_12t13.jpg


This spit looks infinitely cooler than the run of the mill.

[Kurfürst]

It's your area so I'm hoping you'll (Kurfurst) dig something up. I know practically nothing about Rechlin or what they did.

Sorry the report I have on my site is the only thing I have on the matter, but it would be interesting indeed to identify the aircraft that were tested there.

A for Rechlin (Eprobungstelle Rechlin - Rechlin Testing Station), it was Luftwaffe's/Imperial Air Ministry's own 'state' testing centre for aircraft of the Luftwaffe, basically everything the Germans decided to operate went through here first. They tested and evaluated new aircraft (ie. Bf 109 and He 112), gave their opinion on their relative merits, and were also instrumental in 'bug' fixing of standardized designs.

E'Stelle Tarnewitz was responsible for aerial weapons testing IIRC.

Re-checking the LEMB forum, I've found the following post... so, pick the most symphatethic Spitfire! ;)

The following images and paraphrased text are from 'Spitfire at War part 3' by Dr. Alfred Price. These photos were originally posted on the old LEMB by Jerry Brewer; the photos have since been rescanned and are re-posted here for further comment.

Spitfire ZP-J of No. 74 Sqn. serial K9867 was the first intact Spitfire to be captured by the Germans. This aircraft force landed at Calais-Marck on May 23, 1940 and was subsequently captured by German forces when they took this airfield.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/mikermurphy/SpitfireMk1ZP-J.jpg

Spitfire ZD-A of No. 222 Sqn, serial P9317 was the second intact Spitfire captured by the Germans. This aircraft was captured by German troops on June 1, 1940 when it force landed at Le Touquet airfield.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/mikermurphy/SpitfireMk1ZD-Aa.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/mikermurphy/SpitfireMk1ZD-Ab-1.jpg

The third intact Spitfire captured by the Germans was a PR 1B of No. 212 Squadron, serial P9331. This aircraft made a forced landing at Rheims-Champagne on June 7, 1940 and was later captured when the airfield was taken by German forces.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/mikermurphy/SpitfireMk1bP9331b.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/mikermurphy/SpitfireMk1bP9331a.jpg

The fourth Spitfire captured was the only Spitfire delivered to the French prior to their capitulation. The two photos below show No. 1 after capture.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/mikermurphy/SpitfireMk1french01a.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/mikermurphy/SpitfireMk1FrenchNo1tailfinb.jpg