Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please. [Archive] - Page 2

Seadog

06-04-2012, 08:59 PM

Agree. In addition the papers David showed specifically mention that ca. 3-4 Bomber Command stations were only to be supplied with 100 octane fuel.

So I guess the million dollar question is who (BC Stations, FC Stations, manufacturers etc.) used and what amount of the fuel, and in what role (operational/non-operational flights, test trials).

Show us evidence for at least one operational 87 octane RAF FC combat sortie during the BofB or admit that you have no evidence to contradict the multiple sources that state 100% 100 octane use by RAF FC during the BofB, such as:

...I do not believe that it is generally recognised how much this
superiority would have been affected had not the decision been
taken to base aircraft engine design on the use of 100-octane
fuel instead of the pre-war standard grade of 87-octane rating.
In fact, it was only a few months before the Battle of Britain
that all fighters were changed over from 87- to 100-octane
fuel, a change which enabled the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine
of that period to be operated at an increased supercharger
pressure which immediately gave an extra 200 h.p. or more.
Subsequent engine developments made possible by the use of
100-octane instead of 87-octane fuel have since permitted a
truly phenomenal increase in the power of the original engine
without any change in its basic size or capacity.
It is very interesting to refer back to the records of serious
discussions which took place only a year or two before the war
when certain authorities expressed the very gravest misgivings
at the proposal to design engines to require a '' theoretical type
of fuel" (i.e., 100 octane), which they feared would not be
available in adequate quantity in time of war, since we were
mainly dependent on America for its supply. Fortunately for
Britain, the majority of those directly concerned took a different
view, and I might quote a rather prophetic statement made by
an Air Ministry official at a Royal Aeronautical Society meeting
in February, 1937, who, in referring to the advent of
100 octane, said: " Let there be no doubt, however, that
petroleum technologists and fuel research workers now have
the opportunity to provide by their efforts an advance in aircraft
engine development, with its effect on air power, which
the engine designer by himself cannot hope to offer by any
other means."
May I conclude by also quoting a reply reported to have
been made recently in the U.S.A. by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, M.P.,
Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and
Power, in answer to the question: " Do you think 100 octane
was the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain in 1940 ? "
To which Mr. Lloyd replied: " I think we would not have won
the Battle of Britain without 100 octane—but we DID have
the 100 octane."
Nevertheless, let us not forget that between the fuel and the
airscrew there are also many other links in the chain, any one
of which, had it failed, could have vitally affected the issue,
while all the technical superiority in the world would, of course,
have been of no avail at all without the efficient training, skill,
and courage in combat of the Battle of Britain pilots.

Flight Magazine, Jan 06 1944
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1944/1944%20-%200044.html

Kurfürst

06-04-2012, 09:10 PM

Seadog, do I take it right that your most serious evidence for 100% 100 octane fuel use is a wartime British article from a aviation magazine?

NZtyphoon

06-04-2012, 09:20 PM

All aircraft fuel must be specified.

100 Octane was always called 100 Octane in RAF service, right throughout the war; the relevant designation was B.A.M (British Air Ministry) 100, but it was seldom referred to as such, being referred to in Pilot's Notes right through the war as 100 Octane with no D.T.D = Directorate of Technical Development, which dealt with developing equipment, aircraft and stores for the RAF. Because 100 Octane fuel was developed outside of the RAF and Air Ministry's direct control as a private venture by oil companies it was never allocated a DTD number.
I do like the way that the big questions get ignored while attention is diverted down side streets.
However there is no doubting that on average 10,000 tons of the stuff was consumed each month from April - July 1940. We have combat reports that say that it was used and station reports that say that they had been equipped with 100 octane. We also know that Bomber Command, Transport Command, Coastal Command, Non Operational units didn't use it until post August 1940
So if the nay sayers say that FC didn't use it, who did?

Its worth remembering that the whole of the UK only used 36,000 tons of fuel a month so 10,000 tons is just under 30% of the fuel used in the UK. Now if Crumpp can give a reply to that question with some evidence instead of just another theory then its worth paying attention to it.

Note also that the only engines cleared to use 100 Octane fuel in 1940 were Merlin II & III, XII and XX and the Bristol Mercury XV - which is a very good indicator as to what aircraft types used 100 Octane fuel.

Seadog

06-04-2012, 09:22 PM

Seadog, do I take it right that your most serious evidence for 100% 100 octane fuel use is a wartime British article from a aviation magazine?

That article excerpt was at hand; but it states unequivocally that 100 octane was in universal use. The evidence for 100% 100 octane use by RAF FC during the BofB is extensive and overwhelming. There are multiple other sources that state 100% 100 octane use during the BofB, and more that infer 100% use, but no sources have ever been produced or presented by you to challenge these sources. You talk about "serious evidence" and then present us with absolutely laughable material that long predates the BofB. You use the methods of a holocaust denier and then expect us to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

You can't produce evidence for a even single operational 87 octane RAF FC sortie during the BofB.

Glider

06-04-2012, 10:42 PM

Crumpp

06-04-2012, 10:54 PM

I guess if you look a little bit more, you can find a dozen others, at least half of which could be used with the Merlin.

If you look JtD, it is in every airplane's published material.

Just like the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes clearly states DtD 230 is the specified fuel.

It is not always in the same location or format, though. Unfortunately they did not think to standardize Operating Instruction formats by convention until much later.

The convention's in place during WWII only agreed the information must be published and followed.

Crumpp

06-04-2012, 10:55 PM

The evidence for 100% 100 octane use by RAF FC during the BofB is extensive and overwhelming.

Keep repeating it and might come true!!

It worked for Dorathy.

Kurfürst

06-04-2012, 11:07 PM

Why do you always ignore the other papers that show the rule of thumb was to have 5/6th of the fuel to be 100 octane and 1/6th 87 octane.

Because AFAIK there are no such papers. The one you refer to merely makes a practical example for fuel storage with ad hoc numbers, as you are well aware.

You know that only 4 No 2 Grp stations were 100% equipped with 100 Octane.

Apparantly you are aware of that too - Bomber Command was using 100 octane as of May 1940. Of course other Blenheim stations must have had some, too, for the some of their fuel tanks to help with takeoff at great loads, given the Blenheims modest capabilities as a bomber, it was important to get any sort of range (the other alternative to overboost was lightening the aircraft, ie. carrying less fuel).

Yet you have claimed:

We also know that Bomber Command, Transport Command, Coastal Command, Non Operational units didn't use it until post August 1940

You see David, one of the reasons only a priviliged few is buying your story is that you have continously misrepresent these papers.

Al Schlageter

06-04-2012, 11:09 PM

Keep repeating it and might come true!!

It worked for Dorathy.

You have documentation showing how much 87 octane was consumed by RAF Fighter Command.

NZtyphoon

06-04-2012, 11:41 PM

Other than it is the specified fuel and listed in all the Operating Notes besides the Spitfire Mk II as the required fuel for the type?

Or the fact it is the largest portion of aviation fuel in the Air Ministry and 100 Octane does not make a significant portion of fuel at the airfields until after October 1940?

Seems a pretty lock tight case that 87 Octane fuel was used in considerable amounts....at least according to the Air Ministry.

Actually the proportion of 100 Octane use cf "Other Grades"* rises well before October and stocks of 100 Octane were far healthier than "Other Grades" well before October.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/100oct-consumption-bob.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/17thMonthlyOPRNovember1941-page-006.jpg

Once again, the only engines cleared to use 100 Octane at the time were Merlin IIs (in reality no Merlin IIs were in frontline use by June 1940) IIIs, XIIs and XXs and Bristol Mercury XV. 52,000 tons of 100 Octane was used July-end October and only a few aircraft types were able to use the stuff.

Just the fact it is the specified fuel and the FC consumed millions of gallons of it.

Not that Crumpp has actually proven this by providing one single piece of documentation specifying that only a few frontline FC units were allowed to use 100 octane while the rest had to make do with 87. Payton-Smith specifies that 87 octane was required for non-operational purposes.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/oilpage56-57100octanerevised.jpg

Keep repeating it and might come true!!

It worked for Dorathy.

*Crumpp and Kurfurst continually refer only to 87 Octane when other grades of fuel, such as D.T.D 224 (78 Octane, used for de H Gypsy engines etc) were also lumped in with 87 Octane, so the actual amounts of 87 Octane in stock and consumed are lower than the charts would suggest.

Glider

06-05-2012, 12:20 AM

Because AFAIK there are no such papers. The one you refer to merely makes a practical example for fuel storage with ad hoc numbers, as you are well aware.

Apparantly you are aware of that too - Bomber Command was using 100 octane as of May 1940. Of course other Blenheim stations must have had some, too, for the some of their fuel tanks to help with takeoff at great loads, given the Blenheims modest capabilities as a bomber, it was important to get any sort of range (the other alternative to overboost was lightening the aircraft, ie. carrying less fuel).

Yet you have claimed:

You see David, one of the reasons only a priviliged few is buying your story is that you have continously misrepresent these papers.

No 2 Group was using 100 Octane from May that we both know. We both know that the rest of Bomber Command didn't use it until August. We both know that is the position and we both know that you haven't given any evidence for the use of 87 octane after June in FC.

If I confused anyone by referring to Bomber Cammand and no 2 Group I apologise completely.

Seadog

06-05-2012, 02:02 AM

If you look JtD, it is in every airplane's published material.

Just like the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes clearly states DtD 230 is the specified fuel.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-100oct.jpg
and
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no74-100oct.jpg
and:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/602-16feb40-100octane.jpg

Apparently not.

You are quoting from a pre 1940 manual.

NZtyphoon

06-05-2012, 04:31 AM

As it stands neither Crumpp nor Kurfurst have added anything useful to this thread, including any documentation showing that FC required the majority of its squadrons to continue to use 87 Octane while only a small proportion are to use 100; all they are doing is regurgitating everything they've previously pushed in the 170 plus page thread on 100 Octane, (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110) ignoring everything that's been posted there. I cannot see any future in responding to either of them as long as they have nothing new to present which comprehensively refutes everything that has been posted here and elsewhere.

Osprey

06-05-2012, 12:30 PM

Seadog, do I take it right that your most serious evidence for 100% 100 octane fuel use is a wartime British article from a aviation magazine?

You have been using a reference to an article in a 1950's copy of 'Flight' to say that it wasn't used. You even posted the article in Bug 174 but I had it removed because it wasn't actual evidence.

Such hypocracy........:rolleyes:

Seadog

06-05-2012, 07:35 PM

Yet another RAF force multiplier was high-octane fuel. When the war began, both the Luftwaffe and the RAF were using 87 octane aviation fuel. Beginning in May 1940, the RAF obtained 100 octane fuel from the United States and used it throughout the battle. It boosted the performance of the Merlin engines in the Hurricanes and Spitfires from 1,000 to about 1,300 horsepower.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/August%202008/0808battle.aspx

By the summer of 1940,
modiications had improved the
performance of the Spitire and
Hurricane. The Spitire’s original
two-blade wooden propeller was
replaced, irst by variable pitch
three-blade units, and then by a
constant-speed unit. This signiicantly
improved take-of performance and the
vital rate of climb. From May 1940 the
use of 100-octane fuel, as used in the
1931 Schneider Trophy races, increased
the Merlin’s performance from 1,000 to
some 1,300hp.p77
70th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain
Published in association with Royal Air Force Media and
Communications, Headquarters Air Command
www.raf.mod.uk

The most dramatic benefit of the earliest Houdry units was in the production of 100-octane aviation gasoline, just before the outbreak of World War II. The Houdry plants provided a better gasoline for blending with scarce high-octane components, as well as by-products that could be converted by other processes to make more high-octane fractions. The increased performance meant that Allied planes were better than Axis planes by a factor of 15 percent to 30 percent in engine power for take-off and climbing; 25 percent in payload; 10 percent in maximum speed; and 12 percent in operational altitude. In the first six months of 1940, at the time of the Battle of Britain, 1.1 million barrels per month of 100-octane aviation gasoline was shipped to the Allies. Houdry plants produced 90 percent of this catalytically cracked gasoline during the first two years of the war.
http://www.nacatsoc.org/history.asp?HistoryID=30

That process would make a crucial difference in mid-1940, when the Royal Air Force started filling its Spitfires and Hurricanes with 100-octane gasoline imported from the United States instead of the 87 octane it had formerly used. Luftwaffe pilots couldn't believe they were facing the same planes they had fought successfully over France a few months before. The planes were the same, but the fuel wasn't. In his 1943 book The Amazing Petroleum Industry, V. A. Kalichevsky of the Socony-Vacuum Oil Company explained what high-octane gasoline meant to Britain: "It is an established fact that a difference of only 13 points in octane number made possible the defeat of the Luftwaffe by the R.A.F. in the fall of 1940. This difference, slight as it seems, is sufficient to give a plane the vital `edge' in altitude, rate of climb and maneuverability that spells the difference between defeat and victory."
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Eugene-Houdry-Octane1oct04.htm

The second was the lack of suitable
engines to power a heavy bomber. The
"difficulties experienced by German engine
manufacturers in producing engines that met
comparable performance standards of
American and British industry," limited the
design and performance of their aircraft.38
This was partly due to the late start German
engineers had in designing high-performance
engine types and partly due to the low octane
fuels on hand to operate them. The Germans
entered the war using 87–89 octane fuels.
This octane rating, however, could only be
achieved "by adding 15–18 percent aromatics
with tetraethyl lead to the synthetic fuel."39
In contrast, during the Battle of Britain the
British used 100 octane fuels supplied by the
United States.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ww2/batlbrit.pdf

The plant at Heysham, together with those at Stanlow and Billingham produced iso-octane additives required to raise 87 octane fuel to 100 octane rating. Initially, the limited size of the 100 octane fuel stockpile required strict rationing until supplies could be increased to meet requirements and the 100 octane fuel was dyed green to distinguish it from the 87 octane fuel which was blue.
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.

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.
http://www.heyshamheritage.org.uk/html/trimpell.html

February 16
All the Squadron aircraft [Hurricane 151 squadron] had been modified to enable them to operate on 100 Octane fuel. This gave the capability of operation at +12 boost to meet operational emergencies without damage to the engines.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kelsey.family/1940.htm

The Allies have an important advan-
tage over Germany because of their un-
limited access to the highest-grade
aviation fuels.
"Petroleum Press Service," official Journal
of the British oil industry, states that, until
recently, the fuel most widely used, both by
civil and military aircraft, had an octane (or
measure of anti-knock value) rating of around
87, but that there Is now a rapidly growing
tendency to use 100 octane spirit. This enables
the compression ratio of an engine to be
Increased, and, therefore, raises the power.
Spirit of an octane rating of 87 generally
is obtained by the addition of small quantities
of tetra-ethyl lead to good-quality "straight
run" petrol. Germany, it is thought, Is un-
likely to suffer from a shortage of this grade
of fuel.
But if, as Is probable, the Allies eventually
resort to the almost exclusive use of 100
octane fuel, Germany's problem will be more
difficult, for there are definite technical limits
to the use of lead 'c'opa," the only practicable
way of producing 100 octane spirit being to
employ high-qualitv blending agente, such as
"mixed octanes."
Seven or eight plants for the manufacture ol
this vital blending material, with an aggregate
capacity of about 100,000 tons a year, are now in
operation or under construction In Germany.
This quantity would be sufficient for the pro-
duction of about 220,000 tons of 100 octane
aviation petrol-a total which might possibly
be raised to 400,000 tons by the end of 1941
if adequate quantities of other high-octane
blending agents could be spared for the
purpose.
In view of the heavy military consumption
of aircraft fuel by Germanv, however, and
because the total supply of petrol is limited
and big hydrogénation plants are vulnerable
to air attack, her prospects would not appear
to be enviable on the basis of existing
knowledge
The Sydney Morning Herald, April 3 1940

Secrets of the Heinkel
(By Air Mail)
LONDON.
ALTHOUGH the Heinkel III,

which had a "happy landing" to the west of the Maginot Line, after its personnel had found safety in parachutes, revealed no secrets of German aircraft-most of the apparatus had been thrown out by the parachutes-a similar plane shot down later in Scotland proved a veritable mine for the R.A.F. experts.

It is revealed that the Germans use a feed pump regulating the flow through injectors of tiny particles of gasoline direct into each cylinder. The gas ls injected in a fanwise spray and comes into contact with supercharged air heated under pressure.

One advantage is the elimination of freezing which is prolific of air accidents. This is especially important in the operation of air- craft in Arctic zones and at great altitudes.The fuel taken from the Heinkel's tanks proved to be "87 octane," and it is believed that one of Germany's main reasons in employing direct in- jection has been the possibility of using low-grade fuel. Nowadays, for high-performance aircraft, fuel of , "100 octane" is used.
APPEARANCE
The limits to which gasoline injection pump components have to be manufactured are very fine, and it is estimated that the Heinkel's outfit cost not less than £400 to produce. Against this may be set the fact that periods between overhaul are lengthened, al- though surfacing work can be carried out only by specially trained mechanics.

lt is stated that the internal finish or the engine in the shot-down plane is of high order, but the external appearance and detail work do not ap- proach the standard of British planes.
Sunday Times (Perth, WA) Sunday 7 July 1940.

Where Hurricanes Score!
...When Hurricanes return from a patrol special refuelling lorries attend to several machines simultaneously.
These pump in petrol of 100-octane capacity...
Sunday Times (Perth, WA) Sunday 1 September 1940

SPITFIRES FASTEST FIGHTERS.
...It is now possible to reveal one step which has been taken to increase the efficiency of British fighters, namely, the employment of
"100 octane fuel." which, with specially built engines, is able to increase speeds up to 30 miles an hour. Spitfires, using this fuel, are unquestionably still the fastest fighters actually serving un any air force...
The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW) 2 April 1940

Sir Hugh Tett
Sir Hugh Tett, former chairman and managing director of Esso Petroleum, was born on December 28, 1906. He died on January 2 aged 94.
Oil executive who pioneered leaded petrol and concocted the high-octane fuel that made the Spitfire outperform the Messerschmitt
Research by Hugh Tett at the beginning of the Second World War helped the RAF to win the Battle of Britain. Taking over from a colleague who had been called up, he developed a 100-octane fuel for fighter aircraft such as the Hurricane and Spitfire which helped them to outperform the Messerschmitt. He then had the job of persuading the Americans to produce it for beleaguered Britain, as the RAF braced itself to face the Luftwaffe...
The Times (London) January 31, 2001

Higher Performance by Fighters
Change in Fuel
From our aeronautical correspondent

It is now permissible to describe some of the steps that have been taken since the outbreak of war to increase the efficiency of British interceptor fighting aeroplanes.
One measure of importance is the increased aircraft performance secured by the employment of 100 octane fuell. This has long been known to those in touch with the Service, but up to now it has been thought inadvisable that it should be publicly discussed.
The use of 100 octane fuel was always visualized in peace. It allows higher boost pressures to be used with out damage to the engine. Although to obtain the full benefit th engine must be built to use it, it does in practice give an improved performance in speed and climb when used for engines normally taking 87 octane fuel. The speed increase may be anything from five to 20 miles an hour.

It will be recalled that Sir Kingsley Wood, in his speech on the Air Estimates in the House of Commons, said that the Spitfire had undergone a "further"speed increase of 10 per cent. Its previous official speed figures was 367. miles an hour, though whether the Minister meant a 10 per cent increase on that is not quite clear. At any rate, it is positive that the Spitfire, with the aid of 100 octane and some minor improvements, Is still holding its position as the fastest standard fighting aeroplane in any air service
The Times (London, England), Monday, Apr 01, 1940; pg. 5; Issue 48578.

Seadog

06-06-2012, 06:00 AM

Yet another RAF force multiplier was high-octane fuel. When the war began, both the Luftwaffe and the RAF were using 87 octane aviation fuel. Beginning in May 1940, the RAF obtained 100 octane fuel from the United States and used it throughout the battle. It boosted the performance of the Merlin engines in the Hurricanes and Spitfires from 1,000 to about 1,300 horsepower.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/August%202008/0808battle.aspx

By the summer of 1940,
modiications had improved the
performance of the Spitire and
Hurricane. The Spitire’s original
two-blade wooden propeller was
replaced, irst by variable pitch
three-blade units, and then by a
constant-speed unit. This signiicantly
improved take-of performance and the
vital rate of climb. From May 1940 the
use of 100-octane fuel, as used in the
1931 Schneider Trophy races, increased
the Merlin’s performance from 1,000 to
some 1,300hp.p77
70th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain
Published in association with Royal Air Force Media and
Communications, Headquarters Air Command
www.raf.mod.uk

The most dramatic benefit of the earliest Houdry units was in the production of 100-octane aviation gasoline, just before the outbreak of World War II. The Houdry plants provided a better gasoline for blending with scarce high-octane components, as well as by-products that could be converted by other processes to make more high-octane fractions. The increased performance meant that Allied planes were better than Axis planes by a factor of 15 percent to 30 percent in engine power for take-off and climbing; 25 percent in payload; 10 percent in maximum speed; and 12 percent in operational altitude. In the first six months of 1940, at the time of the Battle of Britain, 1.1 million barrels per month of 100-octane aviation gasoline was shipped to the Allies. Houdry plants produced 90 percent of this catalytically cracked gasoline during the first two years of the war.
http://www.nacatsoc.org/history.asp?HistoryID=30

That process would make a crucial difference in mid-1940, when the Royal Air Force started filling its Spitfires and Hurricanes with 100-octane gasoline imported from the United States instead of the 87 octane it had formerly used. Luftwaffe pilots couldn't believe they were facing the same planes they had fought successfully over France a few months before. The planes were the same, but the fuel wasn't. In his 1943 book The Amazing Petroleum Industry, V. A. Kalichevsky of the Socony-Vacuum Oil Company explained what high-octane gasoline meant to Britain: "It is an established fact that a difference of only 13 points in octane number made possible the defeat of the Luftwaffe by the R.A.F. in the fall of 1940. This difference, slight as it seems, is sufficient to give a plane the vital `edge' in altitude, rate of climb and maneuverability that spells the difference between defeat and victory."
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Eugene-Houdry-Octane1oct04.htm

The second was the lack of suitable
engines to power a heavy bomber. The
"difficulties experienced by German engine
manufacturers in producing engines that met
comparable performance standards of
American and British industry," limited the
design and performance of their aircraft.38
This was partly due to the late start German
engineers had in designing high-performance
engine types and partly due to the low octane
fuels on hand to operate them. The Germans
entered the war using 87–89 octane fuels.
This octane rating, however, could only be
achieved "by adding 15–18 percent aromatics
with tetraethyl lead to the synthetic fuel."39
In contrast, during the Battle of Britain the
British used 100 octane fuels supplied by the
United States.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ww2/batlbrit.pdf

The plant at Heysham, together with those at Stanlow and Billingham produced iso-octane additives required to raise 87 octane fuel to 100 octane rating. Initially, the limited size of the 100 octane fuel stockpile required strict rationing until supplies could be increased to meet requirements and the 100 octane fuel was dyed green to distinguish it from the 87 octane fuel which was blue.
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.

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.
http://www.heyshamheritage.org.uk/html/trimpell.html

February 16
All the Squadron aircraft [Hurricane 151 squadron] had been modified to enable them to operate on 100 Octane fuel. This gave the capability of operation at +12 boost to meet operational emergencies without damage to the engines.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kelsey.family/1940.htm

The Allies have an important advan-
tage over Germany because of their un-
limited access to the highest-grade
aviation fuels.
"Petroleum Press Service," official Journal
of the British oil industry, states that, until
recently, the fuel most widely used, both by
civil and military aircraft, had an octane (or
measure of anti-knock value) rating of around
87, but that there Is now a rapidly growing
tendency to use 100 octane spirit. This enables
the compression ratio of an engine to be
Increased, and, therefore, raises the power.
Spirit of an octane rating of 87 generally
is obtained by the addition of small quantities
of tetra-ethyl lead to good-quality "straight
run" petrol. Germany, it is thought, Is un-
likely to suffer from a shortage of this grade
of fuel.
But if, as Is probable, the Allies eventually
resort to the almost exclusive use of 100
octane fuel, Germany's problem will be more
difficult, for there are definite technical limits
to the use of lead 'c'opa," the only practicable
way of producing 100 octane spirit being to
employ high-qualitv blending agente, such as
"mixed octanes."
Seven or eight plants for the manufacture ol
this vital blending material, with an aggregate
capacity of about 100,000 tons a year, are now in
operation or under construction In Germany.
This quantity would be sufficient for the pro-
duction of about 220,000 tons of 100 octane
aviation petrol-a total which might possibly
be raised to 400,000 tons by the end of 1941
if adequate quantities of other high-octane
blending agents could be spared for the
purpose.
In view of the heavy military consumption
of aircraft fuel by Germanv, however, and
because the total supply of petrol is limited
and big hydrogénation plants are vulnerable
to air attack, her prospects would not appear
to be enviable on the basis of existing
knowledge
The Sydney Morning Herald, April 3 1940

Secrets of the Heinkel
(By Air Mail)
LONDON.
ALTHOUGH the Heinkel III,

which had a "happy landing" to the west of the Maginot Line, after its personnel had found safety in parachutes, revealed no secrets of German aircraft-most of the apparatus had been thrown out by the parachutes-a similar plane shot down later in Scotland proved a veritable mine for the R.A.F. experts.

It is revealed that the Germans use a feed pump regulating the flow through injectors of tiny particles of gasoline direct into each cylinder. The gas ls injected in a fanwise spray and comes into contact with supercharged air heated under pressure.

One advantage is the elimination of freezing which is prolific of air accidents. This is especially important in the operation of air- craft in Arctic zones and at great altitudes.The fuel taken from the Heinkel's tanks proved to be "87 octane," and it is believed that one of Germany's main reasons in employing direct in- jection has been the possibility of using low-grade fuel. Nowadays, for high-performance aircraft, fuel of , "100 octane" is used.
APPEARANCE
The limits to which gasoline injection pump components have to be manufactured are very fine, and it is estimated that the Heinkel's outfit cost not less than £400 to produce. Against this may be set the fact that periods between overhaul are lengthened, al- though surfacing work can be carried out only by specially trained mechanics.

lt is stated that the internal finish or the engine in the shot-down plane is of high order, but the external appearance and detail work do not approach the standard of British planes.
Sunday Times (Perth, WA) Sunday 7 July 1940.

Where Hurricanes Score!
...When Hurricanes return from a patrol special refuelling lorries attend to several machines simultaneously.
These pump in petrol of 100-octane capacity...
Sunday Times (Perth, WA) Sunday 1 September 1940

SPITFIRES FASTEST FIGHTERS.
...It is now possible to reveal one step which has been taken to increase the efficiency of British fighters, namely, the employment of
"100 octane fuel." which, with specially built engines, is able to increase speeds up to 30 miles an hour. Spitfires, using this fuel, are unquestionably still the fastest fighters actually serving in any air force...
The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW) 2 April 1940

Sir Hugh Tett
Sir Hugh Tett, former chairman and managing director of Esso Petroleum, was born on December 28, 1906. He died on January 2 aged 94.
Oil executive who pioneered leaded petrol and concocted the high-octane fuel that made the Spitfire outperform the Messerschmitt
Research by Hugh Tett at the beginning of the Second World War helped the RAF to win the Battle of Britain. Taking over from a colleague who had been called up, he developed a 100-octane fuel for fighter aircraft such as the Hurricane and Spitfire which helped them to outperform the Messerschmitt. He then had the job of persuading the Americans to produce it for beleaguered Britain, as the RAF braced itself to face the Luftwaffe...
The Times (London) January 31, 2001

Higher Performance by Fighters
Change in Fuel
From our aeronautical correspondent

It is now permissible to describe some of the steps that have been taken since the outbreak of war to increase the efficiency of British interceptor fighting aeroplanes.
One measure of importance is the increased aircraft performance secured by the employment of 100 octane fuell. This has long been known to those in touch with the Service, but up to now it has been thought inadvisable that it should be publicly discussed.
The use of 100 octane fuel was always visualized in peace. It allows higher boost pressures to be used with out damage to the engine. Although to obtain the full benefit the engine must be built to use it, it does in practice give an improved performance in speed and climb when used for engines normally taking 87 octane fuel. The speed increase may be anything from five to 20 miles an hour.

It will be recalled that Sir Kingsley Wood, in his speech on the Air Estimates in the House of Commons, said that the Spitfire had undergone a "further"speed increase of 10 per cent. Its previous official speed figures was 367. miles an hour, though whether the Minister meant a 10 per cent increase on that is not quite clear. At any rate, it is positive that the Spitfire, with the aid of 100 octane and some minor improvements, Is still holding its position as the fastest standard fighting aeroplane in any air service
The Times (London, England), Monday, Apr 01, 1940; pg. 5; Issue 48578.

It seems that even in April 1940 every schoolboy from Britain to Australia knew that RAF FC was using 100 octane fuel...it was no secret and was widely reported in the press.

robtek

06-06-2012, 07:36 AM

........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.
http://www.heyshamheritage.org.uk/html/trimpell.html.........

That says that the Spitfire conversion was done at 31st july,

The start of the BoB was at the 10th of July (Channel Battles) with the preparations for Seeloewe by decimating the fighter force.

British historians see a different beginning date in august with the beginning of large day bombing raids.

Seadog

06-06-2012, 08:40 AM

That says that the Spitfire conversion was done at 31st july,

The start of the BoB was at the 10th of July (Channel Battles) with the preparations for Seeloewe by decimating the fighter force.

British historians see a different beginning date in august with the beginning of large day bombing raids.

No, it says on July 31st there were 384 Spitfires in 19 squadrons (every Spitfire squadron in RAF FC) flying with 100 octane fuel. These aircraft were converted to 100 octane well before that date, unless you somehow believe that they were all converted on the same day! The article quoted states:

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.

Robo.

06-06-2012, 09:04 AM

Osprey

06-06-2012, 09:17 AM

Game set and match. Well done Seadog.

Robtek, swallow your pride and take it on the chin. Unless you can prove these articles false any persistence in your argument is just going to make you look foolish.

6S.Manu

06-06-2012, 09:27 AM

Great! Good job Seadog!

Now we have to wait for the developers... :)

II/JG54_Emil

06-06-2012, 09:31 AM

In my opinion there is too much emotional stuff inbetween the lines.

If you guys could keep it to arguments only and leave out all the rest this could be an interesting thread.

robtek

06-06-2012, 09:35 AM

It isn't my fight and i have nothing to loose here, but having only the 100oct. versions represented is a loss for all.

bongodriver

06-06-2012, 09:41 AM

It isn't my fight and i have nothing to loose here, but having only the 100oct. versions represented is a loss for all.

But who is asking specifically for the removal of 87 octane? this is all about the acceptance that 100 octane was the main fuel used as evidence shows.

Robo.

06-06-2012, 09:51 AM

It isn't my fight and i have nothing to loose here, but having only the 100oct. versions represented is a loss for all.

We should have both, I agree. It looks like we'll only have one though. And with that being the case, it should be 100 octane.

Or do you believe that there were any 87 octane fighters flying combat sorties in summer of 1940? ;)

GraveyardJimmy

06-06-2012, 10:37 AM

I think what it boils down to, as other have said is this:

The game needs 87 and 100 octane version to allow for pre-BoB scenarios and mission makers discretion.

However, if the devs are only going to implement a single variant of the aircraft with only one performance and boost model the decision has to be made as to whether it is 87 or 100 octane. This is not the optimum solution but failing to have both variants we need to have the one that was used for the most of BoB. In this case the evidence suggests that it is 100 octane that made up most of the fighter fuel.

Therefore if possible, everyone would want both variants modelled. If it is only possible to have one, then there has to be 100 octane represented.

Osprey

06-06-2012, 11:10 AM

It isn't my fight and i have nothing to loose here, but having only the 100oct. versions represented is a loss for all.

You've been arguing against 100 octane use across FC in 11 group during the BoB, please don't pretend that you were arguing for multiple fuels in game now this evidence has refuted that claim. Now that you know the truth please go to bug 174 and add your support :) Thanks.

robtek

06-06-2012, 01:31 PM

You've been arguing against 100 octane use across FC in 11 group during the BoB, please don't pretend that you were arguing for multiple fuels in game now this evidence has refuted that claim. Now that you know the truth please go to bug 174 and add your support :) Thanks.

You wont find a post from me arguing against 100 octane fuel for the FC, only not to exclude 87 octane!

Oh, i'll vote, as soon as i see you've voted for bug #200 :D

bongodriver

06-06-2012, 01:40 PM

You wont find a post from me arguing against 100 octane fuel for the FC, only not to exclude 87 octane!

Oh, i'll vote, as soon as i see you've voted for bug #200 :D

If there was the likelyhood that the devs would implement sub-types of fuel then I would vote for #200 immediately, the whole point of this is that the 'main' fuel for RAF FC is not modelled and we have to settle for FM's so bad they underperform even for 87 octane sub type.

So you see the point now?.....there is a massive error in the fuel modelled for the RAF, it's in the interest of accuracy to have 100 octane, the LW sub types would just be a bonus if the sub types feature were likely to be implemented.

Osprey

06-06-2012, 02:23 PM

You wont find a post from me arguing against 100 octane fuel for the FC, only not to exclude 87 octane!

Oh, i'll vote, as soon as i see you've voted for bug #200 :D

Hmmm, I might take up that challenge because you've certainly implied that it wasn't in full use. Nobody has argued to exclude 87 here though, we've been arguing that for BoB that 100 needs to be modelled, because it isn't.

I've said before, I only vote for things I know about.

Crumpp

06-06-2012, 03:56 PM

you've certainly implied that it wasn't in full use.

It wasn't in full use until very late in the Battle depending on the dates you end it.

If you use 15 September it was never in full use.

If you use December 1940, it might have been in full use and if you use the German dates of May 1941, it was definately in full use.

Al Schlageter

06-06-2012, 04:00 PM

It wasn't in full use until very late in the Battle depending on the dates you end it.

If you use 15 September it was never in full use.

If you use December 1940, it might have been in full use and if you use the German dates of May 1941, it was definately in full use.

We are all still waiting for you to name those FC squadrons that were still using 87 octane fuel before the end of September. Can't, then they must have been using 100 octane fuel.

fruitbat

06-06-2012, 04:08 PM

It wasn't in full use until very late in the Battle depending on the dates you end it.

If you use 15 September it was never in full use.

If you use December 1940, it might have been in full use and if you use the German dates of May 1941, it was definately in full use.

Its no good saying that without something substantial to back it up.

So much has evidence from a myriad of sources has been posted that disagrees with your contention.

bongodriver

06-06-2012, 04:12 PM

Oh god.......and now the inevitable excuse from Crumpp.........

[whiny nasal jobsworth desk jockey voice on]

'But aircraft can only use a specified fuel....it says so in books and manuals'

[stupid voice thing off]

Glider

06-06-2012, 04:55 PM

bongodriver

06-06-2012, 06:28 PM

should really be asking for evidence of it 'not' being in full use before may 1941.

Osprey

06-06-2012, 07:01 PM

It wasn't in full use until very late in the Battle depending on the dates you end it.

If you use 15 September it was never in full use.

If you use December 1940, it might have been in full use and if you use the German dates of May 1941, it was definately in full use.

You have been presented with an ENORMOUS amount of evidence to the contrary yet you STILL go on and on and on and on and on and on and on like you are right, even though you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support what you are talking about.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_EfW9znJYjw/0.jpg

lane

06-06-2012, 10:09 PM

Nice Seadog. Here's another reference in agreement with the ones you listed:

Fuels and Lubricants Handbook: Technology, Properties, Performance, and Testing edited by George E. Totten, Steven R. Westbrook, Rajesh J. Shah, (ASTM International, 2003) (http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/MNL/SOURCE_PAGES/MNL37.htm)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/Fuels_and_Lubricants_Handbook_p89.jpg

Crumpp

06-07-2012, 02:26 AM

So much has evidence from a myriad of sources

If just because it gets repeated means it was reality.

The Operationing Notes and consumption reports is much more definative that any post war magazine article written by an amatuer historian.

Seadog

06-07-2012, 05:23 AM

If just because it gets repeated means it was reality.

The Operationing Notes and consumption reports is much more definative that any post war magazine article written by an amatuer historian.

Operating notes? You mean the ones you claim that state that the Spitfire I had to use 87 octane because that's in the manual you claim dates from July 1940; even though it also mentions the Merlin II which had long been out of production? We have proof that numerous Spitfire squadrons were using 100 octane months before July 1940. The consumption data is also completely consistent with RAF FC, and select BC squadrons using 100 octane.

There is an overwhelming mass of data that all points to RAF FC exclusively using 100 octane fuel during the BofB and absolutely none that contradicts the exclusive use of 100 octane.

Glider

06-07-2012, 06:16 AM

should really be asking for evidence of it 'not' being in full use before may 1941.

I disagree. Crumpp has made a definate statement that 100 Octane was in full use in May 1941, all I want is his evidence that says it was May 1941.

Crumpp is very keen on us supporting anything we say and I want to know what his evidence is for May 1941.

NZtyphoon

06-07-2012, 10:15 AM

If just because it gets repeated means it was reality.

The Operationing Notes and consumption reports is much more definative that any post war magazine article written by an amatuer historian.

Consumption reports that say that 61,000 tons, 315 imp gallons per ton, 192,151,000 imp gallons of 100 Octane was consumed between June and end October 1940

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/100oct-consumption-bob.jpg

So, where did 192,151,000 gallons of 100 Octane go if it was only consumed by a small number of RAF fighters and some Blenheims?

Interestingly stocks of 100 Octane had already become greater than "Other Grades" by June - NOT October, as Crumpp has surmised:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/10MonthlyOPRApril1941-page-008revised-1.jpg

Crumpp obviously believes that he knows better than all those "amateur" aviation historians who have written about 100 Octane so how about Crumpp takes some time out to write a best seller on 100 Octane, based on his professional expertise, and leave all of us confounded by his brilliance? :cool:

Old-Banger

06-07-2012, 10:19 AM

'So, where did 192,151,000 gallons of 100 Octane go if it was only consumed by a small number of RAF fighters and some Blenheims?'

Perhaps all the aircrew were putting it in their MG sports cars and BSA motorcycles? Thats one helluva lot of trips to the pub. ;)

Kurfürst

06-07-2012, 10:50 AM

So, where did 192,151,000 gallons of 100 Octane go if it was only consumed by a small number of RAF fighters and some Blenheims?

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

Glider

06-07-2012, 11:23 AM

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

Our view is that it was used by FC and No 2 Group, that you know.

If you and Crumpp believe that the use of 100 Octane was restricted to the number of squadrons/bases that you believe then the onus is on you to say where it went.

GraveyardJimmy

06-07-2012, 11:24 AM

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

I think you misunderstand. Crumpp asserts that a fraction of the force were using 100 octane, yet a lot of fuel was used. What used this fuel? Wither he is wrong in that only a small amount used it, or he has an explanation for the use of the fuel, though he hasn't come up with anything yet.

lane

06-07-2012, 12:42 PM

Interestingly stocks of 100 Octane had already become greater than "Other Grades" by June - NOT October, as Crumpp has surmised:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/10MonthlyOPRApril1941-page-008revised-1.jpg

That's a good one NZtyphoon and shows that 100 octane was the predominant aviation fuel in stock in the UK throughout the Battle of Britain.

Osprey

06-07-2012, 12:45 PM

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

Here's my answer. It was burned in Merlin engines on the front line providing the edge needed to knock down the Hun. Prove it wasn't.

fruitbat

06-07-2012, 01:46 PM

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

No, That's a question you, and Crumpp need to answer, Kurfurst.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

fruitbat

06-07-2012, 01:47 PM

GraveyardJimmy

06-07-2012, 02:38 PM

Great post, thanks for sharing.

100 octane fuel the main fuel stocked during the BoB, slam dunk.

And of course it would make little sense to stockpile fuel when in the most intense air fighting of the period for the RAF. They would need every chance they could get.

Crumpp

06-07-2012, 03:34 PM

Interestingly stocks of 100 Octane had already become greater than "Other Grades" by June - NOT October, as Crumpp has surmised:

That document does not look altered one bit...not at all, lol.

Of course you can save a fuel you are not consuming at a high rate. They wanted 800,0000 tons on hand before the first operational aircraft used it, remember??

Look at the fuel at the airfields in your first document. 100 Octane is less than 38% of the fuel on hand in June-August.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/100oct-consumption-bob.jpg

bongodriver

06-07-2012, 03:38 PM

That document does not look altered one bit...not at all, lol.

True the red stuff looks altered but the relevant stuff from June looks perfectly legit to me.....tsk tsk Crumpp that was a desparate attempt without even thinking.

Oh anyone wondered why the fuel is listed as 100 octane and 'other grades'?.......it's almost like anything that isn't 100 octane is secondary :rolleyes:

bongodriver

06-07-2012, 03:46 PM

Crumpp.....in the long run it is going to be less embarrassing just to admit you are wrong on this, it takes balls to do it so I won't hold my breath.

GraveyardJimmy

06-07-2012, 03:57 PM

That document does not look altered one bit...not at all, lol.

What about June '40?

Glider

06-07-2012, 04:04 PM

fruitbat

06-07-2012, 04:12 PM

What about June '40?

I think its called clutching at straws.....

lane

06-07-2012, 04:12 PM

Here's another copy of the document NZtyphoon shared. Obviously NZtyphoon added the other 100 octane data prior to June 1940, taken from similar War Cabinet documents, to show the trend and build up of 100 octane fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/100-oct-stocks-June40-April41.jpg

This can also be obtained from the National Archives at CAB 68/8/36 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=7&CATID=-4242686&SearchInit=4&SearchType=6&CATREF=cab+68%2F8%2F36)

Al Schlageter

06-07-2012, 04:19 PM

ATAG_Snapper

06-07-2012, 05:42 PM

With factory-new replacement fighters continually arriving at all airfields from July '40 onwards, I just can't see two sets of fuel bowsers crisscrossing each other in the dispersal area -- a combat zone, no less -- going from fighter to fighter asking "Premium or Regular?" "Do your windshield?" "Check your oil?"

Nope, one fuel only. And no one is putting 87 octane into a 100 octane-rated engine, but there would be no hesitation putting 100 octane into an older 87 octane-rated Merlin. Common sense and expediency rules in a combat zone.

Pass the grenades!

So devs -- give us our 12 lbs boost. This is what it's all about, isn't it?

Crumpp

06-07-2012, 05:52 PM

So who was using the 10,000 tons a month, just under 30% of the fuel being consumed by the UK Crumpp?

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.

I just can't see two sets of fuel bowsers crisscrossing each other in the dispersal area

Spend some time on an airfield....

That is why placarding is not a choice or option. Any alternative fuels will be specifically listed by specification.

That is by convention and still followed today.

Primary, alternate, and emergency fuel for all
turbojet and turboprop engines installed in Air
Force aircraft will be listed in the aircraft -1 flight
manual.

In order of decreasing precedence, fuel
use for Air Force aviation applications (excepting
the U-2) is as follows.
1. JP-8/JP-5
2. Jet A/Jet A-1 (with SDA, FSII, and CI)
3. TS-1 (with SDA, FSII, and CT)
4. Jet A/Jet A-1 (neat)
5. TS-1 (neat)
TS-1 must meet the Russian GOST 10227-
86 specification if used on US military aircraft.

http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100111-038.pdf

Al Schlageter

06-07-2012, 06:16 PM

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.

The graphic is titled : TABLE II - CONSUMPTION
It is 10K tons consumed by airplanes.

If I consume a glass of beer, the beer is in my stomach, not still in the glass.

bongodriver

06-07-2012, 06:31 PM

That straw is getting awfully short Crumpp

Seadog

06-07-2012, 06:39 PM

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

LoL, I've pressed you to supply details of even a single 87 octane RAF FC sortie, during the BofB and you can't do it.

Your credibility has been destroyed.

Why not go away and come back when you find evidence for 87 octane use, or are when you ready to man up and admit that you are wrong.

100% 100 octane use = no evidence for 87 octane because it wasn't used.

Seadog

06-07-2012, 06:43 PM

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

And the next month's consumption?

:-P

NZtyphoon

06-07-2012, 08:18 PM

That document does not look altered one bit...not at all, lol.

Of course you can save a fuel you are not consuming at a high rate. They wanted 800,0000 tons on hand before the first operational aircraft used it, remember??

Look at the fuel at the airfields in your first document. 100 Octane is less than 38% of the fuel on hand in June-August.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/100oct-consumption-bob.jpg

10,000 tons = 3,150,000 imperial gallons consumed per month June-August

Here are the documents which show the cumulative fuel stocks from which the figures in red are taken:

17th Weekly Oil Position Report Dec 31 1939:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/17thWeeklyOPR31December1939-page-004.jpg

24th WOPR
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/24thWeeklyOPR21Feb1940-page-006.jpg

25th WOPR 28 Feb 1940

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/25thWeeklyOPR28February1939-page-008.jpg

28th WOPR 17 Mar 1940
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/28thWeeklyOPR17March1940-page-008.jpg

33rd WOPR 23 April 1940
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/OilPosition33rdweekly23April1940-page-006.jpg

Note also how much 100 Octane fuel is being stocked outside of Britain ie; West of Suez - the only other active war theatre was France and, later Norway.

And the reasons why Crumpp's reasoning that stocks of 800,000 tons was required, based on pre-war plans, is so erroneous (Oil HMSO Payton-Smith)

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/oilpage259100Octane.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/oilpage260100octanerevised.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/oilpage137storagecopy.jpg

The pre-war plans were based on an assumption that American supplies would be withheld and that losses due to air attack would be heavy. Using pre-war plans to decide what happened in wartime is a waste of time; as is obvious here, those plans for stocks of 800,000 tons were not realised even two years into the war:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/17thMonthlyOPRNovember1941-page-006.jpg

Also note that stocks of 100 Octane v Other Grades reached near parity in May 1940 294,000 tons v 298,000 tons, and by August, when permission was given to use 100 Octane in all commands, it was the dominant fuel.

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

Prove it by providing one single WW2 RAF or Air Ministry document which says that the fuel was merely kept at airfields and not consumed. By the same reasoning it could be argued that the RAF didn't consume "Other Grades" of fuel either, which makes one wonder what was used instead of aviation fuel?

Gabelschwanz Teufel

06-07-2012, 08:35 PM

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.

Spend some time on an airfield....

That is why placarding is not a choice or option. Any alternative fuels will be specifically listed by specification.

That is by convention and still followed today.

http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100111-038.pdf

And you think that all military airfields stock 5 different types of fuel? You would be full of ****. Your base is stocked with what is required for the A/C that you operate. Not, repeat, not what might land there. If someone needs Jet A instead of JP they stop and a civilian airport and fuel there.

Seadog

06-07-2012, 08:41 PM

NZtyphoon, great post:!:

Glider

06-07-2012, 09:10 PM

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.
As has been mentioned the form is titled CONSUMPTION.

If we follow your logic the 26,000 tons of 87 octane consumed wasn't consumed either, it was also at the airfields. So the next question would be, what were the RAF consuming ( sorry, would you prefer burning up, using, please tell us what term you would prefer)

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.
I would love to see you support that view. Following up this logic each month over this period a further 10,000 tons of 100 Octane and 26,000 tons of 87 octane weere also piling up at the airfields. Where did they put it all and more intrestingly what did they use in the aircraft?

Spend some time on an airfield....
I have spent a lot of time on airfields and the longer this goes on, I suspect that I have spent a lot more time than you on an airfield.

That is why placarding is not a choice or option. Any alternative fuels will be specifically listed by specification.
What exactly have this got to do with a chart showing the fuel consumed per month in the UK?

PS still waiting for you to say where you got the information re the full transfer of FC to 100 octane completing in May 1941.
If you do not support that statement can you give one good reason as to why we shouldn't ignore every other statement that you have made without support.

Crumpp

06-07-2012, 09:10 PM

it was the dominant fuel.

In the strategic reserve but that says nothing about operational use. Looking at supply side evidience does not answer operational question.

Once again, I have not seen a thing that overrides the operational doucmentation or what the Notes on a Merlin Engine say for the specified fuel. When 100 Octane becomes the norm, Notes on a Merlin engine relects it.

You guys are all in a frenzy and foaming at the mouth to disprove the fact the Battle of Britain was transitional time period and we need to have more information.

bongodriver

06-07-2012, 09:12 PM

In the strategic reserve but that says nothing about operational use. Looking at supply side evidience does not answer operational question.

Once again, I have not seen a thing that overrides the operational doucmentation or what the Notes on a Merlin Engine say for the specified fuel. When 100 Octane becomes the norm, Notes on a Merlin engine relects it.

You guys are all in a frenzy and foaming at the mouth to disprove the fact the Battle of Britain was transitional time period and we need to have more information.

Un.....be.....lieveable!

Glider

06-07-2012, 09:17 PM

Crumpp

06-07-2012, 09:19 PM

CONSUMPTION.

We have been over it before Glider.

I know what it means it terms of strategic logistics. Because you don't accept it does not make it not true or invalid.

Once again, you are all trying really hard to disprove the fact the Battle of Britain was transitional time period and we need to have more information.

There is not any new developments and you are all posting the same old logistical documentation like it is new or changes the picture.

Seadog

06-07-2012, 09:20 PM

Once again, I have not seen a thing that overrides the operational doucmentation or what the Notes on a Merlin Engine say for the specified fuel. When 100 Octane becomes the norm, Notes on a Merlin engine relects it.

I guess you're blind then...:rolleyes: as I have repeatedly shown you "things that override the operational documentation"
What about:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-100oct.jpg
and
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no74-100oct.jpg
and:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/602-16feb40-100octane.jpg

According to you 100 octane use is forbidden on the Spitfire I.

How is that we have whole squadrons running on 100 octane well before the BofB, and how is it the manual you claim is from July 1940 mentions the use of the Merlin II that went out of production in 1939?

Al Schlageter

06-07-2012, 09:41 PM

robtek

06-07-2012, 10:30 PM

When i look at this picture:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/100-oct-stocks-June40-April41.jpg
i see that in june 1940 336000 tons of 100 octane fuel were supposed to be used
336000 tons would be 10584000 gallons
used by about 700 fighters that would be 151200 gallons per fighter
Average consumption for the Merlin mostly climbing would be about 75 gallons/h, so we get 2016 h flight time for each fighter.
Divided by 30 days that would give about 67,2 h a day flight time.
Now, where is the error?

Or are this only the stocks?

bongodriver

06-07-2012, 10:39 PM

Now, where is the error?

Ummm....you forgot about the other RAF commands using 100 octane as it had become the main fuel for operational units so it was being used by bombers too.

robtek

06-07-2012, 10:41 PM

Consumption reports that say that 61,000 tons, 315 imp gallons per ton, 192,151,000 imp gallons of 100 Octane was consumed between June and end October 1940

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/100oct-consumption-bob.jpg

So, where did 192,151,000 gallons of 100 Octane go if it was only consumed by a small number of RAF fighters and some Blenheims?

Interestingly stocks of 100 Octane had already become greater than "Other Grades" by June - NOT October, as Crumpp has surmised:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/10MonthlyOPRApril1941-page-008revised-1.jpg

Crumpp obviously believes that he knows better than all those "amateur" aviation historians who have written about 100 Octane so how about Crumpp takes some time out to write a best seller on 100 Octane, based on his professional expertise, and leave all of us confounded by his brilliance? :cool:

When i read 192151000 gallons for 150 days for about 700 fighters at about 75 gallons/h i calculate 24,2h flight time a day. Confusing!

Al Schlageter

06-07-2012, 10:43 PM

Or are this only the stocks?

Yes.

See the 1st chart in post #292 for consumption.

Seadog

06-07-2012, 10:44 PM

Glider

06-07-2012, 10:44 PM

We have been over it before Glider.

I know what it means it terms of strategic logistics. Because you don't accept it does not make it not true or invalid.

Once again, you are all trying really hard to disprove the fact the Battle of Britain was transitional time period and we need to have more information.

There is not any new developments and you are all posting the same old logistical documentation like it is new or changes the picture.

I am afraid old son that you are a busted flush.

Stocks = Stocks i.e. what is stockpiled

Consumption = consumption i.e. what has been used.

What exactly is so difficult to understand

Trying to pretend that consumption is some form of reserve in a different place is plainly false, unless you can explain what fuel the UK was using. After all it had to come from somewhere.

PS I repeat the question about full conversion of FC to 100 Octane in May 1941, its a simple statement that you made, without any pressure and a simple question.

What do you have to support this statement?

You would expect far more from me if I made such a statement, so its only fair.

To not reply to such simple questions is in your words amaturish.

robtek

06-07-2012, 10:46 PM

Ummm....you forgot about the other RAF commands using 100 octane as it had become the main fuel for operational units so it was being used by bombers too.

Wasn't only the 2nd groups Blenheims using it in the outer tanks for take off and escaping?

Al Schlageter

06-07-2012, 10:49 PM

When i read 192151000 gallons for 150 days for about 700 fighters at about 75 gallons/h i calculate 24,2h flight time a day. Confusing!

150 days?

10 July – 31 October 1940 = 114 days

bongodriver

06-07-2012, 11:06 PM

Wasn't only the 2nd groups Blenheims using it in the outer tanks for take off and escaping?

Well they were ordered late 1938 so by late 1939 one can guess everything switched to 100 octane (the conversion to use 100 octane is not exactly a staggering piece of engineering achievement) but so far that is a guess, I also believe bomber command was cleared for the use of 100 octane in 1940.

Crumpp's theory on BoB being a transitional period is daft, the fuel transition was complete by the start, the only transition was the introduction of new marks of Spitfire.

NZtyphoon

06-07-2012, 11:35 PM

When i read 192151000 gallons for 150 days for about 700 fighters at about 75 gallons/h i calculate 24,2h flight time a day. Confusing!

Exactly, please explain why so much fuel was expended, yet Crumpp et al maintain that only about 1/3rd of the RAF's frontline fighter strength was responsible, plus Blenheim squadrons? Say 250 fighters? How did 250 fighters chew through 192,151,000 gallons of fuel? - by flying about 72 hrs a day. Whats more confusing, the fact that 192,151,000 gallons of 100 octane fuel was consumed, or that only a small proportion of FC's frontline strength was responsible for using it?

No doubt Crumpp will come up with some old shop-worn argument that Consumption didn't mean consumption, but he has no evidence for that either, just speculation.

Crumpp

06-07-2012, 11:51 PM

Or are this only the stocks?

Yes it is only the stocks. The fuel distributed to the supply system for use was only 10,000 tons for Jun-Aug 1940.

Considering that the RAF planned for 2770 tons for 4 squadrons of Hurricanes per week. Now that includes all the feeder/emergency fields to be stocked with a supply, 3 weeks of operational stores in case the trains gets bombed, and all the flying required.

Using their math, 10,000 tons is enough for 15 squadrons or adding 5 squadrons per month.

Seadog

06-08-2012, 12:10 AM

Yes it is only the stocks. The fuel distributed to the supply system for use was only 10,000 tons for Jun-Aug 1940.

Considering that the RAF planned for 2770 tons for 4 squadrons of Hurricanes per week. Now that includes all the feeder/emergency fields to be stocked with a supply, 3 weeks of operational stores in case the trains gets bombed, and all the flying required.

Using their math, 10,000 tons is enough for 15 squadrons or adding 5 squadrons per month.

2770 tons = 6204800lb or 861778 gals. If we allow 75 gallons per sortie, this is sufficient fuel for 11490 sorties...

if we assume 3 sorties a day (an impossibly high number per day!), for 80 aircraft, this gives us enough fuel for 48 days at 240 sorties/day...:!:

Crumpp, you seem to have no problems producing pages of complex formulas regarding flight data but then fall flat on your face with these simple calculations...:rolleyes:

Al Schlageter

06-08-2012, 12:16 AM

Considering that the RAF planned for 2770 tons for 4 squadrons of Hurricanes per week.

Using their math, 10,000 tons is enough for 15 squadrons or adding 5 squadrons per month.

Source?

Which 15 Hurricane squadrons?

Crumpp

06-08-2012, 01:05 AM

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/AASF-Fuel.pdf

Crumpp

06-08-2012, 01:13 AM

if we assume 3 sorties a day (an impossibly high number per day!), for 80 aircraft, this gives us enough fuel for 48 days at 240 sorties/day...

It is a little more complicated than that seadog. The RAF correctly plans for their logistical train to be interupted by the enemy.

Therefore, they correctly plan to emplace several weeks supply at the aerodrome, supply the emergency fields the aircraft might have to land at, and keep several more weeks of fuel dispursed around the log train earmarked for that unit.

If you just plan to have enough fuel on hand for what you are going to fly, then you will be in real trouble when the enemy bombs your airfield storage tanks, shoots your trucks up on the road, or hits the railyard. You will be out of the game in one enemy attack.

Read the logistical plan if they had to supply the 4 squadrons in France. That is the amount of fuel in the system earmarked for those squadrons to fly for just ONE WEEK.

If they want to continue to fly operationally and resupply their unit after an enemy attack, the RAF is planning to have some 8 weeks worth of fuel on the ground and available at short notice.

Don't you think that makes sense given the fact the Luftwaffe was targeting the airfields during the BoB?

So when you do your simplistic calculation for one week of flying, keep in mind, there is 8 weeks of fuel required to be available for that one week in the air.

Seadog

06-08-2012, 03:28 AM

NZtyphoon

06-08-2012, 05:26 AM

It is a little more complicated than that seadog. The RAF correctly plans for their logistical train to be interupted by the enemy.

Therefore, they correctly plan to emplace several weeks supply at the aerodrome, supply the emergency fields the aircraft might have to land at, and keep several more weeks of fuel dispursed around the log train earmarked for that unit.

If you just plan to have enough fuel on hand for what you are going to fly, then you will be in real trouble when the enemy bombs your airfield storage tanks, shoots your trucks up on the road, or hits the railyard. You will be out of the game in one enemy attack.

Read the logistical plan if they had to supply the 4 squadrons in France. That is the amount of fuel in the system earmarked for those squadrons to fly for just ONE WEEK.

If they want to continue to fly operationally and resupply their unit after an enemy attack, the RAF is planning to have some 8 weeks worth of fuel on the ground and available at short notice.

Don't you think that makes sense given the fact the Luftwaffe was targeting the airfields during the BoB?

So when you do your simplistic calculation for one week of flying, keep in mind, there is 8 weeks of fuel required to be available for that one week in the air.

Not forgetting that Crumpp has previously stated that "Making the conclusion Hurricanes were using 100 Octane in the Battle of France based off some logistical projections for future war is amatuerish and clumsey. It is a paper tiger. That document is a calculation of projected needs written on 7 May 1940. The British Expeditionary Force was on the Beaches of Dunkirk 18 days later.

How much of those calculation and projections for future war do you really think became ground reality in 18 days? "
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=416213#post416213

A lot of nonsense, of course but just a reflection of how much Crumpp tries to twist things to suit his own POV.

So, there was enough 100 Octane stored in France to supply all Hurricanes and Blenheims with 8 weeks worth of fuel. As can be seen in just one WOPR (33rd 23 April 1940) there was 7,600 tons of 100 Octane fuel in the only logical location West of Suez ie; France
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/OilPosition33rdweekly23April1940-page-006.jpg

It also means that the RAF provided all of its frontline Merlin engine FC squadrons in France with 100 Octane in May 1940, which make's Crumpp's continued assertions that only 16 squadrons of its frontline fighter squadrons in Britain were supplied look very suspect. 192,151,000 gallons or 61,000 tons was used between June-end October When i read 192151000 gallons for 150 days for about 700 fighters at about 75 gallons/h i calculate 24,2h flight time a day. Confusing!

150 days?

10 July – 31 October 1940 = 114 days

More than enough to supply all frontline FC fighters with plenty to spare.

So tell us again Crumpp, how did the RAF ensure that just a few squadrons used 100 Octane, while the rest went without? How was this allocated?

What were the logistical arrangements used toe ensure only 16 squadrons used 100 octane.

How were the pilots briefed "Sorry chaps X Y and Z squadrons get the 100 Octane today, the rest of you stick with 87"?

How about Crumpp provide some documentary evidence showing that frontline fighter squadrons were using 87 octane fuel on a consistent basis throughout the battle. He has been asked time and time again but has provided nothing.

robtek

06-08-2012, 06:13 AM

If "west of suez" means the bef in france, why are then 3 quarters of the aviation fuel not 100 octane?

Somehow that doesn't make sense when there were only fighters using 100 octane.

CaptainDoggles

06-08-2012, 06:20 AM

Hi guys. I've just got back from my trip to the 1940's where I had a nice cup of tea with Hugh Dowding. Nice guy. Later on, the two of us met up with Churchill and went to the strip club.

He says that this is a generally irreconcilable issue since more detailed records were not being kept (it was a war, after all. Poor bloke seemed quite stressed).

He says that we should have all the different fuels (100 octane, 87 octane, c3, b4, etc) modeled in our game, and that if a particular mission builder wants to pit 87-octane spitfires against Fw 190-D9s, then that's their choice.

He also says that wasting so much energy arguing over what exact percentage of his units were using which fuel is very silly.

That ought to settle things, I think.

Osprey

06-08-2012, 06:58 AM

Keep going Crumpp. Everytime you open your mouth another piece of your credibility disappears.

This isn't a 'Rocky' movie, you're getting beaten up bad and the fight is over, they'll be no Hollywood comeback versus Creed and Drago.

Seadog

06-08-2012, 06:58 AM

If "west of suez" means the bef in france, why are then 3 quarters of the aviation fuel not 100 octane?

Somehow that doesn't make sense when there were only fighters using 100 octane.

Read page 3:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/RAF-Component-15may40.pdf
note that only 100 octane is specified for the Hurricanes.
and then read:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/AASF-Fuel.pdf

and note that only 100 octane is specified for the Hurricanes.

Glider

06-08-2012, 07:06 AM

Tell me Crumpp do you read your evidence before posting it?

It is a little more complicated than that seadog. The RAF correctly plans for their logistical train to be interupted by the enemy.

Therefore, they correctly plan to emplace several weeks supply at the aerodrome, supply the emergency fields the aircraft might have to land at, and keep several more weeks of fuel dispursed around the log train earmarked for that unit..
The paper clearly states one week supply of fuel to be at the aerodrome enough for 480 sorties. The rest are reserves in different types of store, Advanced, Forward and Base Areas

If you just plan to have enough fuel on hand for what you are going to fly, then you will be in real trouble when the enemy bombs your airfield storage tanks, shoots your trucks up on the road, or hits the railyard. You will be out of the game in one enemy attack..
There in much bigger trouble if they follow your idea and have it all up front

Read the logistical plan if they had to supply the 4 squadrons in France. That is the amount of fuel in the system earmarked for those squadrons to fly for just ONE WEEK..
Yes I agree with you its always a good idea to read the logisitical plan.

Its one week supply on the aerodrome (480 sorties) and a further two weeks supply in the forward dump including the additional reserve (1360 sorties).

The stocks in the Advanced Base and Main Base areas give an additional 8 weeks of fuel (2 at the advanced base and 6 at the main base) at a rate of 120 sorties per week per squadron.

So the logistical plan is for eleven weeks of flying not one.

If they want to continue to fly operationally and resupply their unit after an enemy attack, the RAF is planning to have some 8 weeks worth of fuel on the ground and available at short notice.

Don't you think that makes sense given the fact the Luftwaffe was targeting the airfields during the BoB?

So when you do your simplistic calculation for one week of flying, keep in mind, there is 8 weeks of fuel required to be available for that one week in the air.
This is I am afraid total bull. Apart from the obvious fact that the paper covers 11 weeks of fuel and not 8 and there is three weeks of fuel available at or near the station, not one to assume that the RAF plan to lose 8 times to enemy action compared to what it uses in the air is rubbish. In the worse case scenario and all the one week supply of fuel at a station is destroyed in one go, which is unlikely as they were not all stored in the same place, the advanced stocks had a further 2 weeks supply of fuel.
Unless of course you can support your theory?

Its worth remembering that the RAF didn't lose any 100 octane in the BOB despite heavy attacks on the bases. If there is one thing the RAF knew about it was how to take care of its fuel.

Finally this paper has nothing to do with consumption reports, its an interesting diversion of the type you I admit are very good at. This is a plan not a report on consumption

Which of course reminds me, where did you support your other assertion about the complete transfer of FC in May 1941.
If you cannot support it then we will have to ignore it.

Kurfürst

06-08-2012, 07:10 AM

It also means that the RAF provided all of its frontline Merlin engine FC squadrons in France with 100 Octane in May 1940, which make's Crumpp's continued assertions that only 16 squadrons of its frontline fighter squadrons in Britain were supplied look very suspect.

I love Jeff's attempts at logical thinking.

'All of its frontline Merlin engine FC squadrons in France' - now how many FC Squadrons were in France flying Hurricane's, like about SIX (depending on when you look at it, but when stocking was made, only six were there)?

How excactly does the fact that about six Hurricane Squadrons were supplied with 100 octane in France make it 'very suspect' (Jeff loves big words :D ) that Britain had only 16 squadrons of its frontline fighter squadrons supplied with 100 octane? (which is BTW documented as opposed to Jeff's fantasies).

I really, really try to understand his emulation of logical thinking. He basically says:

Statement A is 6 Sqns. in France using 100 octane
Statement B is 16 Sqns in total is using 100 octane
Statement A and B rule out each other...

:D :D

How about Crumpp provide some documentary evidence showing that frontline fighter squadrons were using 87 octane fuel on a consistent basis throughout the battle. He has been asked time and time again but has provided nothing.

Likewise, you have been asked to provide some documentary evidence showing that frontline fighter squadrons were using 100 octane fuel on a consistent basis throughout the battle.

You have been asked time and time again but has provided nothing.

Problem is, the burden of proof is on you. Which is why just about anybody with a brain is unconvinced of your claims and have noted that your documentation is way insufficient to make the conclusions you are trying to make.

Glider

06-08-2012, 08:14 AM

Problem is, the burden of proof is on you. Which is why just about anybody with a brain is unconvinced of your claims and have noted that your documentation is way insufficient to make the conclusions you are trying to make.

This as you know is rubbish. If you and I were to each submit a research paper on our opposing views I would be able to quote a mass of published works from different historians, participants in the battle, official papers, prime sources of data, publications from engineers, combat reports, station reports and others to support my case.
You would be limited in the extreame. Little more than an over emphasised minute from one meeting, an operating manual for an engine that had been out of production some time before the BOB and not a lot more

Now I agree that doesn't automatically mean that I am right, but the burden of proof is on you to support your case with facts not theories.

I have said many times that the case for is a strong one not a perfect one but its a heck of a lot better than he case that you have

Osprey

06-08-2012, 08:42 AM

Kurfurst must be very envious of the massive supporting evidence of 100 octane use by FC. Funny how he doesn't need even a fraction of this level of direct evidence and records to convinced himself that the Germans were using 100 octane though. One photo of a destroyed 109 is enough for him and it unquestionable from then on - Germany must have had it in abundance and were using it from day 1. :rolleyes:

What a fanboy.

And Crumpp, I reckon he only passes tests and exams because he grinds down the examining board. Probably failed his PPL but battered them into passing him because they had actual lives - it's like Chinese water torture.

Kurfürst

06-08-2012, 09:00 AM

This as you know is rubbish. If you and I were to each submit a research paper on our opposing views I would be able to quote a mass of published works from different historians, participants in the battle, official papers, prime sources of data, publications from engineers, combat reports, station reports and others to support my case.

You would be limited in the extreame. Little more than an over emphasised minute from one meeting, an operating manual for an engine that had been out of production some time before the BOB and not a lot more

You see that's your problem. You desperately try to support a fantasy by spamming a lot of irrevelant papers that do not even support your case, while all I need to is to produce about 5 papers which clearly support my case.

Now I agree that doesn't automatically mean that I am right, but the burden of proof is on you to support your case with facts not theories.

There's no theory here but facts. Fact is that the RAF originally meant to support a limited number of fighter Squadrons, fact is that the only paper available shows they did convert a limited number of fighter Squadrons by May 1940, fact is that full clearance was not given until August and fact is that fuel issues show the majority of the fuel issued during the Battle was 87 octane, fact is that evidence of 100 octane use only exist for about 1/3 of the Fighter stations, and even many of those only towards the end of the Battle.

I have said many times that the case for is a strong one not a perfect one but its a heck of a lot better than he case that you have

Despite that perception of yours most people here handle your theory with a great deal of scepticism.

Kurfürst

06-08-2012, 09:05 AM

Kurfurst must be very envious of the massive supporting evidence of 100 octane use by FC. Funny how he doesn't need even a fraction of this level of direct evidence and records to convinced himself that the Germans were using 100 octane though. One photo of a destroyed 109 is enough for him and it unquestionable from then on - Germany must have had it in abundance and were using it from day 1. :rolleyes:

Sadly for you the use of 100 octane by the German fighters from the start of the Battle is documented in far greater detail than in the case of RAF Fighter Command. We know the exact dates, the exact units using the fuel, we have detailed records of German High Command meetings detailing these as well as British reports of captured fuel samples, photograph of downed aircraft and so on. We even know the exact amount of aircraft using the fuel at some date.

The envy and denial is all yours.

robtek

06-08-2012, 09:15 AM

.....One photo of a destroyed 109 is enough for him and it unquestionable from then on - Germany must have had it in abundance and were using it from day 1. :rolleyes:

What a fanboy.......

With such ridiculing, wrong statements you don't improve your image!!

He has never said or written what you have posted.

That 109 is proof that c3 fuel was used in frontline squadrons, as the number of mounted DB601N engines on Bf109 and Bf110 is evidence for it.

Though only a lesser part of all fighters used it.

I say it again, it is proofed that many british fighters used 100 octane, there is only evidence that ALL did use it.

There possibly will never be a PROOF that 100% of all fighters of the FC used 100 octane during the BoB, so this discussion is becoming more and more futile.

For CoD the implementation of duplicate models with slightly different FM shouldn't be that hard, i assume, so that the mission builders and server operators can create their version of the BoB / BoF / CB.

GraveyardJimmy

06-08-2012, 09:27 AM

There possibly will never be a PROOF that 100% of all fighters of the FC used 100 octane during the BoB, so this discussion is becoming more and more futile.

But only because no matter how often evidence is produced there will always be someone who says "ah! But you don't have a document showing that the out of commission aircraft that was being scrapped for parts wasn't leaking 87 octane rather than 100!"

bongodriver

06-08-2012, 09:35 AM

When evidence becomes practically overwhealming it is as good as proof, the real futility is the resistance being put up against 100 octane fuel, this thread is 'not' about the LW use of 100 octane it is about the fact that right now the fuel modelled for the RAF is incorrect and more to the point the performance even for that fuel is incorrect, it really does seem there is only scope for single fuel types in game therefore the most prevalent ones should be modelled, in the case of the LW that is 'not' 100 octane and in th case of the RAF it is 100 octane.

robtek

06-08-2012, 09:47 AM

But the evidence isn't overwhelming, there is lots of evidence for single flights, but where is i.e. the collection of reports from a single AC from ALL active fighter squadrons on a given day during the BoB, documenting the use of 100 octane on that day, that would be overwhelming evidence.

The evidenc is so far only indicating that there is a strong possibility that ALL used it.

Kurfürst

06-09-2012, 08:55 AM

Kurfurst you said:

"The Spit II runs on 100 octane by default, but its emergency limits are lower - 9 lbs vs 12 lbs - and is/was at low altitude. It is a bit better at higher altitudes though."

That is not IMO correct. In the case of the SpitII +9lbs basically became the full throttle setting (i.e. the equiv of 6.25Lbs in the MKI) 12Lbs was still available in two ways by way of the throttle gate for take off operations and by Boost Cut out for combat use.

This is a correct description IMHO for 1941. It is not a correct description for 1940.

It depends on what timeframe you are looking at.

The BoB era summer 1940 (unamended) manual of the Spitfire II clearly notes the limits being:

+12 lbs for take-off up to 1000 feet or 3 minutes.
+9 lbs for combat (5 minute limit)

This +12 lbs could be used near the deck of course, but its near useless since boost will immidiately start to fall with altitude (unlike the Spit / Hurri I's boost cutout, it does not lasts up to FTH).
Boost drop curves of Mk II trials suggest that even with the gate open, the boost will fall back from +12 at SL to normal combat rating of +9 lbs by 4000 feet altitude (ca. 1200 meters), obviously with the same performance.
Thus its somewhat similiar to the 109E/110C 1-minute takeoff boost - its effective up to 1-2000 meters only.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9288&d=1335381803

It's only later, amended manuals (presumably from 1941) that are clearing +12 lbs for combat, too.

The RAE standard climb tests are flown at +9Lbs Boost for instance.

RAE tests were flown +9 lbs boost and 2850 rpm, as noted in the Spitfire II manual this was the 30-min rating at the time. It did not give the same power and performance as +9 lbs/3000 rpm, of course.

In short our Spitfire II with its maximum +9 lbs rating and performance is correct and historically accurate for the BoB airframe. +12 lbs rating was not cleared for it for combat use during the BoB period.

Should 1C decide to introduce a post-BoB 1941 variant (doubtful), a +12 lbs version would be feasible, of course.

bongodriver

06-09-2012, 09:12 AM

Kurfürst

06-09-2012, 09:25 AM

something is not quite right about a 9lbs boost being ok for climb for 30 minutes when climbing is the more stressfull in terms of cooling etc and only having a 5 min limit in level flight with more cooling, I don't see why 9lbs boost and 2,850 rpm couldnt be maintained in level flight for at least 30 mins.

I don't see a reason either. These names for the ratings are somewhat arbitrary, naturally there's nothing preventing you from using 9lbs boost and 2,850 rpm for level flight, apart from temperatures and increasing engine wear. The names like 'combat' and 'climb' were somewhat arbitrary.

bongodriver

06-09-2012, 09:31 AM

apart from temperatures and increasing engine wear

which logic dictates are lesser in terms of level flight.........it has occurred to me that those limitations seem more geared toward RPM as opposed to boost, if 9lbs boost can be used for 30 mins then tchnically it is not limiting, usually a 5 min limit is the true factor, this is still a factorisation that applies today even in jets, TO thrust is a 5 min limit, anything below that is a MCT (max continuous thrust), I susspect the 30 min limit is really a limit in terms of oil cooling for the prop govenor system.

Kurfürst

06-09-2012, 09:39 AM

which logic dictates are lesser in terms of level flight.

Yes. Which is why they let you use 3000 rpm instead of 2850 rpm in level flight with the same boost. ;)

Like I said, the names were somewhat arbitrary, iirc in British manuals 'climb' rating was previously referred to as 'normal' (or the other way around?).

Back on new 100 octane models, the two things I wonder about:

1, What will be the new FM's be based on? There's not a single flight tests for +12 lbs performance. How are climb, turn etc. times are derieved - will they be estimated?

2, How will aircraft with a cooling system designed for ca. 900-1000 HP (+6.25) will cope with thermal loads occuring at 1100-1300 HP (+12 lbs). I would expect that temperature management will be more challanging at higher boost and power. Are there any radiator suitability figures available for the Spit/Hurri I?

SlipBall

06-09-2012, 09:42 AM

2850 level seems an very extreme high number to me, but I have not flown that model much to have any real practical knowledge in game...:grin:

41Sqn_Banks

06-09-2012, 12:09 PM

This posses the questions, were there any modifications to the merlin XII engine that allowed it to work at the higher boost for the extended periods in 1941?

Or was it a decision based on accepting reduced engine life to keep the aging MKII competitive in air combat?

Or were the 1940 limits too conservative so they were increased?

A higher "emergency" boost than the rated +9 was definitely used from 21 August 1940 on, there are combat report and ORBs that proof this.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-13aug40-orb.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-21aug40-orb.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-21aug40-orb541.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-watkins-21aug40-1.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-watkins-21aug40-2.jpg

Kurfürsts has the theory that the whole squadron called the regular climbing/rated boost of +9 boost in this instance "emergency boost". However he didn't came up with an explanation why they would do this.
Note that this reports explicitly mention "emergency boost" and don't mention "emergency power", the later could be interpreted as the normal "All out" setting of +9 and 3000 RPM, which was only allowed for emergencies. But as this is not the case it's clear that a boost higher than +9 was used in this instance.

There are also other reports from November 1940 that show the use of the boost control cut-out. The use of the cut-out only makes sense to increase boost beyond the rated +9 or when there is a failure in the boost control.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/74-morrison-2nov40.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/74-stephen-30nov40.jpg

Kurfürst

06-09-2012, 12:36 PM

A higher "emergency" boost than the rated +9 was definitely used from 21 August 1940 on, there are combat report and ORBs that proof this.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-13aug40-orb.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-21aug40-orb.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-21aug40-orb541.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-watkins-21aug40-1.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/611-watkins-21aug40-2.jpg

Note that none of these papers ('proof') specify any kind of boost rating. They merely say they used max. power. And max. power was +9.

Kurfürsts has the theory that the whole squadron called the regular climbing/rated boost of +9 boost in this instance "emergency boost". However he didn't came up with an explanation why they would do this.

Because that was the maximum allowed for the Spitfire II as demonstrated.
Its no more than an awfully silly theory that when pilots made reference to emergency power, they meant using an emergency power far above the sanctioned limits for emergency power.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9288&d=1335381803

In contrast 41Sqn_Banks has the theory that a reference to emergency boost *MUST* refer to +12 lbs, even though +12 lbs is not listed anywhere, not referred to by any pilot, report or manual.

I'd like to see the reasoning why it is so certain that a reference to the emergency rating refers to a higher than +9 lbs boost. I call it wishful thinking.

What he didn't came up is an explanation why would the Spitfire II manual lists +9 lbs as maximum combat boost (whereas the Spitfire I manual lists +12 lbs.)

Note that this reports explicitly mention "emergency boost" and don't mention "emergency power", the later could be interpreted as the normal "All out" setting of +9 and 3000 RPM, which was only allowed for emergencies. But as this is not the case it's clear that a boost higher than +9 was used in this instance.

All this is playing with the words, assuming a random rating which is not listed anywhere.

It's simply your assumption that the mention of emergency boost or cut out refers to +12 lbs.

My assumption is that emergency boost simply refers to the +9 lbs combat limit, which is underlined by the fact that this is the limit specified by the manual.

You are welcome to prove that emergency boost allowed for greater than +9 lbs, in the summer of 1940.

There are also other reports from November 1940 that show the use of the boost control cut-out. The use of the cut-out only makes sense to increase boost beyond the rated +9 or when there is a failure in the boost control.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/74-morrison-2nov40.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/74-stephen-30nov40.jpg

Problem is the maximum rating allowed was +9 lbs.

There's a logical failure in your assumption that the boost cut-out would increase boost beyond +9 lbs. Its quite likely in fact that the pilots obtained +9 by using the boost cut-out, as on the Spitfire I.

Fact is that the Spitfire I manual of the era lists +12 as the limit, obtainable with the boost cut-out. When Spitfire I pilots refer to using the boost, they sometimes specify the boost used as well (+12).

Its only logical that since the the Spitfire II manual of the era lists in contrast only +9 as the limit, it would mean that when Spitfire II pilots refer to using the +9 boost, w/o specifing the boost used and referring it in vague terms like 'emergency boost'.

P.S. Curious, isn't it, that there's not a single hint or tests for +12 Spitfire IIs isn't it.

But if we are going down the road of fantasy boosts that are much higher than the limits listed in the engine/aircraft manuals, I want my 1.7 ata 109E, too. Even though if the manuals say something completely different. Hell if official limits are to be ignored on Spitfires, we might as well ignore them on Messerschmitts as well, and come up with whatever fantasy we may like.

41Sqn_Banks

06-09-2012, 01:31 PM

Kurfürst I'm not saying it was +12 boost, only that the boost must have been higher than +9, as it wouldn't make sense to use the cut-out without getting any benefit. I don't think there is so far any definite proof for the exact emergency boost value of the Spitfire II in 1940. However the fact that earlier (Merlin III), similar (Merlin XX) and later (Merlin 45) engines had +12 emergency boost in 1940 (the Merlin 45 of course in 1941), and the fact that +12 boost is documented for the Merlin XII for 1942(?) is a strong indicator that +12 boost was the emergency limitation of the Merlin XII.

BTW in RAF terminology "All-out" is not equal to "emergency". This can be seen in the Spitfire V test report: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/aa878.html

Max. for all-out level flight (normal rating)(5 minute limit) +9
Max. for all-out level in special emergency (prior to increase to +16) +12
Max. for climb and level flight (combat rating)(3 min. limit) +16

Of course this is not a Merlin XII engine but it shows that there could be different boost limitations for "all-out normal rating" and "all-out emergency".

bw_wolverine

06-09-2012, 01:38 PM

This is a correct description IMHO for 1941. It is not a correct description for 1940.

It depends on what timeframe you are looking at.

With all due respect, the thing being modelled is the equipment, not the time period. If the IIa that was cleared for 9 lbs continuous is the same basic piece of equipment that was used in 1940, then we should have it.

If you want to model the orders from FC, then convince the various RAF squadrons to impose 6.25 lbs continuous on their pilots.

Otherwise, you should also be campaigning for the reduction in the 109 fuel tank to help simulate the time spent in France before heading over the channel and reducing fuel load, or whatever other things.

Simulate the tools, let us play with them as we see appropriate.

Osprey

06-09-2012, 01:50 PM

Yes it was inevitable that "the worst person on the forum to answer his question" would do so and bend it against the RAF. His argument is of course about 'official clearance' in the manual, which is nonsense in RL combat and what actually happened. Indeed, a different throttle with a gate, 9lbs continuous hence the flight tests @ 9lbs (8.8), recommended 12lbs through the gate for takeoff power to 1000ft however this could still be used below the FTH (about 17k ft) anytime but for limited periods.

Predictably it took only about 3 more posts in the thread before........

This is a correct description IMHO for 1941. It is not a correct description for 1940.
............
It's only later, amended manuals (presumably from 1941) that are clearing +12 lbs for combat, too. <------ HA HA
............
Should 1C decide to introduce a post-BoB 1941 variant (doubtful), a +12 lbs version would be feasible, of course.[/b]

I love this.....

Note that none of these papers ('proof') specify any kind of boost rating. They merely say they used max. power. And max. power was +9.

max·i·mum (mks-mm)
n. pl. max·i·mums or max·i·ma (-m)
1.
a. The greatest possible quantity or degree.
b. The greatest quantity or degree reached or recorded; the upper limit of variation.
c. The time or period during which the highest point or degree is attained.
2. An upper limit permitted by law or other authority.

That would be 12 then.

Its no more than an awfully silly theory that when pilots made reference to emergency power, they meant using an emergency power far above the sanctioned limits for emergency power.

Yes I'm struggling to see why anybody would try to save their life if it meant breaking a sanction.

In contrast 41Sqn_Banks has the theory that a reference to emergency boost *MUST* refer to +12 lbs, even though +12 lbs is not listed anywhere, not referred to by any pilot, report or manual.

You aren't reading the reports then. They do frequently say this but others say 'pull the tit' or 'through the gate', which means to operate the ABC therefore use 12lbs, otherwise it would be 6.25 or 9. It's RAF slang from the time.

"I call it wishful thinking".......

......."My assumption"......blah, 109 never beaten, blah...."Its quite likely"......lie, make something biased up

"Its only logical"......

More opinion.

P.S. Curious, isn't it, that there's not a single hint or tests for +12 Spitfire IIs isn't it.

Maybe it's because the engine would blow up after a while?? Jeez.......

....come up with whatever fantasy we may like.

We hear you Kurfurst. You think that 12lbs is 'fantasy' lol This thread is going to be locked, I can see it already.

camber

06-09-2012, 02:26 PM

There's a logical failure in your assumption that the boost cut-out would increase boost beyond +9 lbs. Its quite likely in fact that the pilots obtained +9 by using the boost cut-out, as on the Spitfire I.

This is contradicted by the July 1940 Spit II manual which you are quoting. 30 minute climb rating is +9psi, 30 minutes, 2850rpm. The boost cutout description is listed as EMERGENCY override of automatic boost control, sealed against inadvertant use. 30 minute climb is not an emergency, thus clearly +9psi is available on normal throttle operation (also +9psi is typically referred to as rated boost in Spit II publications).

It does beg the question, what kind of boost control override installation is being described in the July 1940 Spit II manual? An original type, which gives full throttle plate control in the event of controller failure and is unsuitable as a combat boost? Or the modified type, which is not really a cutout but an increment for the boost control setpoint (to +12psi)?. The July 1940 manual does not let us know.

It seems commonsense that the Spit II boost cutout was the +12psi type, and use of it as combat boost was approved and occurred during the BoB (although not in the July 1940 manual). This is considering the use of +12psi Spit I's during the same period and combat reports as above. But specific documents appear to be lacking.

camber

Zachariasx

06-09-2012, 03:54 PM

This is contradicted by the July 1940 Spit II manual which you are quoting. 30 minute climb rating is +9psi, 30 minutes, 2850rpm. The boost cutout description is listed as EMERGENCY override of automatic boost control, sealed against inadvertant use. 30 minute climb is not an emergency, thus clearly +9psi is available on normal throttle operation (also +9psi is typically referred to as rated boost in Spit II publications).

It does beg the question, what kind of boost control override installation is being described in the July 1940 Spit II manual? An original type, which gives full throttle plate control in the event of controller failure and is unsuitable as a combat boost? Or the modified type, which is not really a cutout but an increment for the boost control setpoint (to +12psi)?. The July 1940 manual does not let us know.

It seems commonsense that the Spit II boost cutout was the +12psi type, and use of it as combat boost was approved and occurred during the BoB (although not in the July 1940 manual). This is considering the use of +12psi Spit I's during the same period and combat reports as above. But specific documents appear to be lacking.

camber

I think too that makes logical sense. Kurfürsts document mention 3 min +12 lbs take off power which translates into "it was physically possible to increase power to +12lbs". I would think now this is the case whether the landing gear is up or down. Now lets say, you fly down on the deck and a 109 is after you. Would you say "oh my, it is VERBOTEN to use +12 but MAYBE it's gonna save my sorry ass for some minutes and go to +12, or stay with the book that says "well, factory gives clearence only for +9 lbs while in flight, but then up to 30 mins". Or does the engine kinda know you're cheating and it just won't let you go to +12 because "it's not right"?

I also think it yould be strangeif one called something an "emergency boost" that you can use for 30 mins?

Zach

41Sqn_Banks

06-09-2012, 04:02 PM

There's a logical failure in your assumption that the boost cut-out would increase boost beyond +9 lbs. Its quite likely in fact that the pilots obtained +9 by using the boost cut-out, as on the Spitfire I.

This is not correct. The "early" manual states that +9 is obtained when the throttle lever is at the rated gate position, see attachments.

Sorry for OT, maybe one of the moderators can move the posts into FM subforum.

lane

06-09-2012, 06:48 PM

Here's a couple more RAF Hurricane squadron Operations Record Books that mention 100 octane fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/504-orb-24feb40-100-octane.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/605-orb-28may40_100-octane.jpg

II/JG54_Emil

06-09-2012, 07:04 PM

Here's a couple more RAF Hurricane squadron Operations Record Books that mention 100 octane fuel.

Which says that it was tested and later that it wasn´t avaiable...

ATAG_Snapper

06-09-2012, 07:27 PM

Hmmmm, no 100 octane at Shawberry. Shawberry!!!!! Well, there you have it, then. (He misspelled "octane" as well, another indicator that this whole 100 octane thing is a hoax).

Good catch!

lane

06-09-2012, 08:58 PM

When viewed in context the picture is clearer. Other units and stations at the time were clearly doing quite a bit more than "tested" 100 octane:

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

611 Squadron
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-100oct.jpg

74 Squadron
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no74-100oct.jpg

605 Squadron left Hawkinge on 28 May 1940 where 100 octane was obviously present enroute to Drem, also which obviously had 100 octane. For some reason they stopped over at Shawbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Shawbury), which I understand was a Flying Training School and apparently didn't stock 100 octane ("unavailable"). It's interesting that it was determined that the Squadron was unable to proceed further without the 100 octane fuel. This suggests that once having converted to 100 octane, whatever fuel the flying school was using (87 octane?) was unsuitable.

610 Squadron Spitfire Mk I at Hawkinge in early July 1940. Note the petrol bowser marked for 100 octane fuel.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no610hawkinge-july40-b.jpg

100 octane was required at Drem, 605 Squadron's destination, as well as Debden where 504 Squadron was based.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/7dec39-100oct-issue.jpg

Obviously Drem was stocked with 100 octane fuel by February 1940

602 Squadron
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/602-16feb40-100octane.jpg

Fighter Station, With the Spitfires in Scotland. Flight, No. 1631 Vol. XXXVII, March 28, 1940 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/Flight_March28_1940_Fighter_Station.pdf) (602 Squadron at Drem)

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

Kurfürst

06-09-2012, 09:43 PM

· Added new Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I variants with constant speed propellers and fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel. Older 87-octane variants also remain available. (Please note that the new planes use existing cockpits, so the boost indicator gauge shows new extrapolated values)
[/FONT][/B]

End of story.

(reminds me awfully of the 150 grade tale :D )

Glider

06-09-2012, 09:43 PM

Training schools didn't have 100 octane that was always the intention.

Remembering Crumpp insistance that the changes required to the aircraft/engine were extensive, its interesting to note how quickly the change over took place. On 15th Feb the squadron was released but found time to take part in some practice missions, drain the tanks for 100 Octane and the next day the squadron was available. Its also worth noting that Drem is a small satallite station with a limited infrastructure apart from day to day maintanence and fairly simple repair facilities.

bongodriver

06-09-2012, 09:50 PM

Glider remember we are talking RAF here, they had to figure out which way to turn the spanner to take out the spark plugs :grin:

Kurfürst

06-09-2012, 09:51 PM

People should know when they are conquered.

Seadog

06-09-2012, 10:46 PM

People should know when they are conquered.

Yeah, but don't take it too hard.

Glider

06-09-2012, 11:04 PM

Glider remember we are talking RAF here, they had to figure out which way to turn the spanner to take out the spark plugs :grin:

True story. I did a five year apprenticeship in the FAA in the early 70’s. Part way through the third year of the course by which time it’s fair to say that while far from being qualified, we didn’t count ourselves as being totally without skills. We had to do a whole day session on how to use a hammer. The instructor recognised that this was stupid, signed us off as having passed and let us catch up on revision, homework etc. So as they say, anything is possible

41Sqn_Banks

06-09-2012, 11:07 PM

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/605-orb-28may40_100-octane.jpg

Thanks for sharing, lane. This one is rather unexpected, not that there was no 100 octane in Shawbury, but that they didn't continue without 100 octane.

ACE-OF-ACES

06-09-2012, 11:12 PM

I am just glad that the people at 1C were able to see through the Kurfurst and Crump smoke screen and gives us what the UK had during BoB, 100 oct power

Osprey

06-09-2012, 11:28 PM

Osprey

06-09-2012, 11:35 PM

People should know when they are conquered.

They did a long time ago. But thanks for making all of the real historians pull out hard evidence to nail the coffin lid down on your fantasy. :rolleyes:

Al Schlageter

06-09-2012, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by robtek View Post
But the evidence isn't overwhelming, there is lots of evidence for single flights, but where is i.e. the collection of reports from a single AC from ALL active fighter squadrons on a given day during the BoB, documenting the use of 100 octane on that day, that would be overwhelming evidence.

The evidenc is so far only indicating that there is a strong possibility that ALL used it.

No, it's overwhelming.

It will be interesting when 1C gets around to modeling late war a/c with robtek's logic with regards to the 1.98ata Bf109K-4.

Osprey

06-09-2012, 11:47 PM

Don't be silly Al. The raids devastating the Ploieşti refineries in late 44 didn't affect fuel supplies at all. Any tactician knows that a successful fuel blockade can only be achieved through sinking about 5% of inbound fuel tankers ;) :D

NZtyphoon

06-10-2012, 12:00 AM

Thanks for sharing, lane. This one is rather unexpected, not that there was no 100 octane in Shawbury, but that they didn't continue without 100 octane.

Reading this about 42 (Maintenance) Group:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/AP3397_Maintanancea.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/AP3397chapter7_0004a.jpg

shows that the RAF did not stock fuel at smaller airbases and that transport arrangements were flexible enough to allow the 100 Octane to be trucked to Shawbury using civilian drivers.

It also confirms that "Other Grades" meant 77 and 87 Octane fuel.

Info about Shawbury: (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/stations.cfm?selectStation=9E12F9A6-B8DA-64D5-AE845401BC41C88C#cgi.script_name#) "Home to 11 FTS and 27 MU..."

Al Schlageter

06-10-2012, 12:08 AM

It also shows that the 800,000 ton reserve was overly optimistic.

Kurfürst

06-10-2012, 08:29 AM

They did a long time ago. But thanks for making all of the real historians pull out hard evidence to nail the coffin lid down on your fantasy. :rolleyes:

Well unfortunately for you it was you who have argued that there were absolutely no Spitfires and Hurricanes flying with 87 octane fuel, they should not be in the sim, as you have claimed that the only ones ever flying were all 100 octane ones.

You wanted to enforce this fantasy on all others, and wanted that 1C should only model RAF fighters on 100 octane, and deprieve all others to have choice wheter to believe your fantasies or not.

The rest of us were deeply sceptical of your story. We've believed, and still believe of course that both RAF fighters were fueled by both 87 octane and 100 octane, depending on the station, and this was supported by massive evidence.

In the end, most of the 1C community and 1C developers took the more sensible, more realistic position that was well supported by the actual documentation and uniformly shared by respected authors.

They've acknowledged that the evidence for your story was unconvincing and insufficient, and I am sure after careful inspection of the available documents come to the same conclusion as the rest of us, that both 87 and 100 octane models were present in the Battle. They have ignored your revisionist version of history. Accordinly, and true to the historical reality, they have modelled both versions, which every ones of us, expect you and a handful of fanatics, has supported all the way along.

Twitch all you want about it, but you have lost and failed in your agenda.

Osprey

06-10-2012, 09:14 AM

Well unfortunately for you it was you who have argued that there were absolutely no Spitfires and Hurricanes flying with 87 octane fuel, they should not be in the sim, as you have claimed that the only ones ever flying were all 100 octane ones.

Ha ha it's funny watching you misquote me and do you selective editing. Just to correct your LIES, I support 87 octane in game, just want the 100 available, because the only fighters fighting in 11 group mapped in game were using 100 octane. But you could always learn the FMB and turn off your Steam updates so you'll have an easy time online and live your dream that Hitler won the war.

You wanted to enforce this fantasy on all others, and wanted that 1C should only model RAF fighters on 100 octane, and deprieve all others to have choice wheter to believe your fantasies or not.

The important thing is that your big lie was destroyed. I noticed that you said "Game Over", which means that your agenda wasn't historically based but rather that you're a crappy pilot who needs false advantages in game. I bet when you play FIFA on PS3 you turn off the red cards so you can foul the opposition lol

The rest of us were deeply sceptical of your story. We've believed, and still believe of course that both RAF fighters were fueled by both 87 octane and 100 octane, depending on the station, and this was supported by massive evidence.

You mean you and Crumpp. We are talking about you, an extremist fanatic, and Crumpp, an 'advisor to the experts' who is willing to argue his case regardless of how obvious to everybody else that he is wrong. "Massive evidence" - LMAO!!!

In the end, most of the 1C community and 1C developers took the more sensible, more realistic position that was well supported by the actual documentation and uniformly shared by respected authors.

Indeed they were sensible enough to disagree with you. You admitted defeat remember.......JAT

They've acknowledged that the evidence for your story was unconvincing and insufficient, and I am sure after careful inspection of the available documents come to the same conclusion as the rest of us, that both 87 and 100 octane models were present in the Battle. They have ignored your revisionist version of history. Accordinly, and true to the historical reality, they have modelled both versions, which every ones of us, expect you and a handful of fanatics, has supported all the way along.

If you can get Luthier or Black Six to agree with this I'll eat my rudder pedals.

Twitch all you want about it, but you have lost and failed in your agenda.

That must be why I posted this when the update was announced.:rolleyes:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=433129&postcount=33

Huzzah for 100 octane!!