Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Osprey]

I'm about to update bug #174 on the Merlin 100 octane issue. I have re-written the bug for Artist as requested and would like a review. Kurfurst and Crumpp will be ignored, I am interested in ratification from one or more from Glider/Banks/NZTyphoon/Robo/lane. If this is ok I'll post the update, if there is anything I can add such as a good graph or table or test please post. Thanks.

Description
Presently if the Automatic Boost Control (ABC) is pulled on Spitfires and Hurricanes and full throttle applied there is no increase in boost above 6.25lbs even when the ABC is enabled. This results in reduced and inaccurate performance of RAF fighter aircraft.

During the BoB all frontline fighters had been modified to use 100 octane fuel in their Merlin II and III engines which allowed the engine to achieve 12lbs boost under strict limits. The Merlin XII engine fitted to the Spitfire II was designed to use this fuel from the factory. The approval and introduction of these changes gave the RAF fighters a performance boost in top speed, acceleration and rate of climb up to the Full Throttle Height (FTH) of about 18,000ft. At sea level a Spitfire was about 30mph faster when the ABC was enabled.

Merlin II and III (fitted to Spitfire Ia and Hurricane Ia)
The Merlin engines have a mechanical supercharger and can deliver up to 20lbs of boost at S.L. with the throttle valve fully open using either 87 or 100 octane fuel however this would cause serious engine damage by pre-detonation in the cylinders. Because of this the Merlin II and III have a boost controller fitted which limits the boost to only 6.25lbs. With modification to use 100 octane fuel the pilot could achieve 12lbs boost by pulling the Automatic Boost Control increasing the ‘safe’ power that the engine could produce. When the pilot applied the ABC on the Spitfire a thin wire was broken to indicate to the ground crew that ABC had been used and to make necessary checks. The Hurricane had a valve which was pulled (“pulling the tit”)

Merlin XII (fitted to Spitfire IIa)
The Merlin XII did not require modification in order to use 100 octane fuel. It had a slightly different throttle system and used a ‘gate’ on the throttle control. This allowed the pilot to achieve 12.5lbs boost on takeoff and is allowed up to 1000ft when he moved the throttle past the gate. Up to the gate 9lbs boost was achievable up to the FTH of 17000ft and later clearance was granted to use 12lbs boost (see pilot notes) There are lots of combat reports supporting this.

Here are the engine power ratings for given boost vs altitude
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin3curve.jpg

Spitfire Ia prop tests using 6.25lbs boost and 87 octane
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html
It contains information on the clearance and usage of 100 octane fuel including this graph for the Spitfire Ia using 12lbs boost
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg

Here is the performance test for the Hurricane Ia using 100 octane fuel and 12lbs boost
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html

Here is the performance for the Spitfire IIa
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html
Note that the boost for the tests is 8.8lbs, that is up to the ‘gate’ and this falls away from 17,500ft, the FTH.

Pilot notes for the Spitfire IIa indicate the limitations
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit2pnfs3.jpg

This report is evidence for the approval of 12lbs/100 octane prior to the Battle of Britain start
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ap1590b.jpg

This is supported by lots of evidence of its use in combat reports (supplied by others in this bug report)

These reports not only supply data on the speed per altitude but also rate of climb and acceleration, plus some information of spin characteristics, dive ability and rate of turn. This should all be used to improve the current flight models for RAF types.

[Glider]

looks good to me

[41Sqn_Banks]

- IIRC ABC stands for "automatic boost control" and not the cut-out.

- Spitfire II had "gate control" for fixed take-off boost (it gave a fixed throttle valve setting) and "boost control cut-out" like the Spitfire I, see this thread: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31319

[fruitbat]

I think 1C will be as stubborn about this as they were about the FW190 bar in il2.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Could you add any indications of the duration for which running at 12lbs / 12.5 lbs was allowed? They would have to model engine damage if the time was exceeded and is essential for any correct FM/DM

[Glider]

The official limit was 5 mins but there was nothing to stop pilots going for a lot longer than that. Dowding issued a memo to all pilots that warned them of overusing the boost. In some of the combat reports you sometimes see words along the line of switched guns to fire, lowered the seat and pulled the plug.

[Osprey]

@Banks: Thanks.
@Stormcrow: Pilot notes specify the limits.

[Bonkin]

Wow. That's a wealth of information that you have accumulated there Osprey.

I have an original Air Publication 1565A "The Spitfire I Aeroplane Merlin II Engine" manual which I thought might be useful - but I think those references you have must cover it all. I went through it specifically looking for performance charts but unfortunately there are none. There are change bars around the fuel and pitch sections though... and it states:

Fuel ....... Specification D.T.D.230
Note:- 100 octane fuel may be used, if the engine has been suitably modified.

Under the Automatic boost control it does mention +12lb/sq.in at sea level but does not tie this to 100 octane fuel.

[Osprey]

Just had a speed test in the Rotol Hurricane. Couldn't get more than 230mph ASi out of it, trimmed, level flight, at various RPm (best 2650). According to this:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html

I should get 261mph with the Rotol which is 290mph TAS.

[Biggs]

i have a feeling as well that we will not have correct speed performance for these engines for a while.

I applaud the efforts of you and others to try and keep this issue near the forefront... 1C needs to get it right.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

i have a feeling as well that we will not have correct speed performance for these engines for a while.

I applaud the efforts of you and others to try and keep this issue near the forefront... 1C needs to get it right.

Same feeling. The tendency of the last beta patch is clear. Instead of improving the performance of all planes minus the spit 2 they degrade the spit 2 and the hurri. Even though now relative performance is restored historic wise we are now further from historic absolute values. I wonder if this is an integral part of the strategy in the light of the upcoming sequel.

(ok, I may be simplifying a bit but overall this is the tendency how I see it)

[Glider]

I am more than a little concerned at the thought of a sequal built on sand.

[IvanK]

Just had a speed test in the Rotol Hurricane. Couldn't get more than 230mph ASi out of it, trimmed, level flight, at various RPm (best 2650). According to this:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html

I should get 261mph with the Rotol which is 290mph TAS.

261 IAS converting to 291TAS is a huge difference at sea level. 30 Mph diff is not feasible.

[Osprey]

Apologies IvanK, I missed you off the list to review my OP, please advise anything you think is incorrect.

Regarding your comment though, what do you mean by 'not feasible' in this context? You mean it just shouldn't happen because it is a lot? Trouble is it is actually worse than just 30mph because this is WITHOUT 12lbs boost, so you can add another 25mph to that figure. Essentially the Hurricane is 50-60mph too slow. When I looked at the graphs too the 109 is faster than RL up to 6km too, so we have an inaccuracy of around 80mph!!

[IvanK]

No probs. Regarding the comment on speeds I am only referring to getting 291MPH TAS from an IAS of 261MPH. At Sea Level IAS is going to be pretty close to TAS +- a nanofart.

I agree just about every RAF fighter is too slow in the patch at sea level.

(Check PM in about 10 mins)

[Kurfürst]

When I looked at the graphs too the 109 is faster than RL up to 6km too, so we have an inaccuracy of around 80mph!!

On the graphs posted by BlackSix the 109 is actually a hair bit slower than real life specs.

[Osprey]

Not with WEP on it isn't.
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=153533&d=1334842797

[CaptainDoggles]

Spitfire 1a is faster than 109 with or without WEP above 6000m after the patch.

What exactly is the problem?

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

To my understanding the 109 is definitely very much slower than RL at altitudes above 5500m, at 7000m by 30-40 kph. That is a huge discrepancy. As far as I can read kyrillic letters (I am learning Russian a little bit) the blue curve shows RLE values (so flight tests by the British), the purple one says something like "igra forsash" (= game XYZ?) and the grey "igra bez forsasha" (= game ....?)

My guess is that the purple line is post patch the grey pre patch. the purple line is following the grey line (just beneath it) from alt 5200m.

[CaptainDoggles]

Purple line is with WEP. Форсаж (Forsazh) translates roughly to "boost". Без Форсаж (Bez forsazh) translates to "without boost" therefore grey line is without WEP.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Thanks. It is still too slow at high alt compared to RLE data.

[Kwiatek]

I checked 109 sea level speeds and nothing change comparing to pre beta patch version.

So i think there is no changes in FM of 109 ( also there is no info about it in beta patch notes). So still 109 is to slow ab. 20 km/h at 1.3 Ata power and ab. 20 km/h at 1.4 Ata - so generally 40 km/h slowier at the deck.

Moreover i checked british fighters in beta patch and i got:

Hurricane MK 1 Rotol

238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!

So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!

There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts

Spitfire MK1a

255 mph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph !!!!

So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.

No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.

Spitfire MK II

268 mph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is very accurate result!!!!

Still no 100 octan fuel performance - so no emergency +12 lbs.

[41Sqn_Banks]

There was no WEP for DB601 A1/Aa, only a special take-off boost. There is nothing that indicates that 1' Minute 1.4/1.45 was used for anything else than take-off or above 1-1.5 km altitude.

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/40#note-10
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/40#note-11

[CaptainDoggles]

Kwiatek, are you just really good at keeping the stick level or is there a trick? I want to test at FTH but I have trouble keeping the aircraft steady.

Maybe I need to decrease sensitivity on my trim controls.

[Osprey]

Try not to move your hand so much. I realise that it's so used to vigorous movements that it's tough for you, but I reckon you can manage it if you concentrate enough.

[CaptainDoggles]

Are you upset that I called you out for trying to misrepresent a historical quote?

[Kurfürst]

There was no WEP for DB601 A1/Aa, only a special take-off boost. There is nothing that indicates that 1' Minute 1.4/1.45 was used for anything else than take-off or above 1-1.5 km altitude.

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/40#note-10
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/40#note-11

On the other hand there is nothing to suggest that 1,40/1,45 ata was not possible use at any altitude. So far I have not found any evidence that this was mechanically restricted to the 1st supercharger speed, and it quite likely that it was not.

OTOH I agree that the manuals insist that is to be used for special take off conditions. Which is kinda parallel to the Spitfire II limitations (which limit +12 to take off conditions only), so it just might be good idea to include a code that this 'WEP' on both planes should be only usable when the wheels are on the ground.?

[Kurfürst]

Purple line is with WEP. Форсаж (Forsazh) translates roughly to "boost". Без Форсаж (Bez forsazh) translates to "without boost" therefore grey line is without WEP.

It depends on how 1C interpreted 'WEP'. Is it referring to the 5-min 'Vollast/Kurzleistung' (1.35/2400) or the 1 min 'erhoehte Kurzleistung'?

In the former case, if the 1C WEP is equivalent to the historical 5-min rating, 500 km/h on the deck is correct and historically accurate result.

If however they understand WEP as the equivalent of the historical 1-min rating, there is a rather mixed situation: you can indeed reach the historical top speed, but as Banks have noted, by using a rating that was historically prescribed to special takeoffs.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I checked 109 sea level speeds and nothing change comparing to pre beta patch version.

So i think there is no changes in FM of 109 ( also there is no info about it in beta patch notes). So still 109 is to slow ab. 20 km/h at 1.3 Ata power and ab. 20 km/h at 1.4 Ata - so generally 40 km/h slowier at the deck.

Moreover i checked british fighters in beta patch and i got:

Hurricane MK 1 Rotol

238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!

So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!

There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts

Spitfire MK1a

255 mph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph !!!!

So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.

No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.

Spitfire MK II

268 mph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is very accurate result!!!!

Still no 100 octan fuel performance - so no emergency +12 lbs.

Hi Kwiatek,

I did some trials both online (ATAG Server) and offline with the Spitfire Mark Ia and IIa. The online flight model does not match the offline flight model for the Spit IIa at altitudes of 5,000 and 10,000 feet.

For the Spit IIa, going into full overboost at 2800 rpms I recorded the following IAS (mph) at the different altitudes:

Sea level: online 292 ; offline 288
5,000 feet: online 270 ; offline 288
10,000 feet: online 262 ; offline 290

The methodology was simple: fuel 100%, radiator 50%, trim for level flight at designated altitude, then fly level and record direct off airspeed indicator.

Bizarrely, the Spitfire Ia showed a slight dip in IAS at 5,000 feet, then a small increase at 10,000 feet (online), offline it simply showed a significant decrease in IAS at 10,000 feet.

When adjusting prop pitch to 3,000 rpms at full overboost the Spitfire Ia showed a slight increase in speed at all altitudes tested, but the Spitfire IIa consistently blew its engine at the higher altitudes, although the same online difference in speed vs the offline speed was likewise reflected prior to engine failure.

The majority of combat online (ATAG Server) currently occurs at 10,000 feet or less, even with bomber streams at 11K - 14.5K. Airfield suppression (vulching) is permitted on ATAG which drags the action down to sea level, but steps are being taken with mission design & scoring to strongly encourage both sides to take the fight realistically higher -- much higher.

I was skeptical when I first heard of differences between the online and offline flight models until I actually tried them myself. I certainly encourage anyone to try this themselves, especially with other RAF and LW aircraft.

I've included the data I recorded (attached).

[CaptainDoggles]

It depends on how 1C interpreted 'WEP'. Is it referring to the 5-min 'Vollast/Kurzleistung' (1.35/2400) or the 1 min 'erhoehte Kurzleistung'?

In the former case, if the 1C WEP is equivalent to the historical 5-min rating, 500 km/h on the deck is correct and historically accurate result.

If however they understand WEP as the equivalent of the historical 1-min rating, there is a rather mixed situation: you can indeed reach the historical top speed, but as Banks have noted, by using a rating that was historically prescribed to special takeoffs.

Sadly I think getting that answer out of them might be difficult. The "afterburner" function in-game ( :rolleyes: ) doesn't last anywhere close to 5 minutes, so I would guess they're interpreting it as the 1-minute "increased short-term performance".

[Kwiatek]

Sadly I think getting that answer out of them might be difficult. The "afterburner" function in-game ( :rolleyes: ) doesn't last anywhere close to 5 minutes, so I would guess they're interpreting it as the 1-minute "increased short-term performance".

It is easly readable on ATA guage where it show after WEP button - 1.45 Ata power - so 1 minut take off power.

Moreover most know German and other county test for serial 109 E planes are very close and showed 467 km/h at deck for 1.3 Ata power ( 5 minute emergency power). So for 1.35 Ata it should be just little faster - a few kph.

Kurfurst think that 109 E was such fast like 109 F-2 but if he belives that Emil has similar speed like more aerodynamical cleaning plane with better enginehe is really not serious man for me :cool:

[Kurfürst]

Moreover most know German and other county test for serial 109 E planes are very close and showed 467 km/h at deck for 1.3 Ata power ( 5 minute emergency power). So for 1.35 Ata it should be just little faster - a few kph.

I have already explained that the test you have showned are undoubtedfully showing only Hoehenlader performance (ie. for our English friends using FS gear - that was optimized for high altitudes - for all altitudes, and it will naturally show lower results at low altitude.)

Kurfurst think

Correction: Messerscmitt AG thinks that, based on flight test results. And it was so certain about that contracted for about 4000 planes at around 50 000 Reichsmarks each, all reaching 500 km/h at +/- 5% tolerance. That means that Messerschmitt AG would loose about 50 000 Reichsmarks on each 109E that did not reach at least 475 km/h, the absolute minimum. The one the French tested reached about 485 iirc, albeit at only 1.3ata.

that 109 E was such fast like 109 F-2 but if he belives that Emil has similar speed like more aerodynamical cleaning plane with better enginehe is really not serious man for me :cool:

The 109E was not as fast as the F-2, the F-2 was rated iirc around 515 kph, the E-1/3/7 at 500 kph. The major difference is not only the engine, or the aerodynamics, but also the propeller. The Emil had a very different propeller one with larger diameter, and had distinctly different propeller effiency than one mounted on the F-2. Even between later G-14 and G-14/AS (different propellers) there was about 10 km/h difference in favour of the G-14 with a low-medium altitude propeller at low altitudes, despite both aircraft having exactly the same amount of power available - 1800 PS.

As for the 109F's aerodynamically more favourable shape, yes it was but it seems its rather overrated. Much of the higher top speed came from the fact that the 601N fitted to the F-2 had much much better altitude output than the 601Aa in the Emils. My studies indicate that the aerodynamic improvements amounted alone for about 15-20 km/h top speed (which is BTW excellent for an aerodynamic improvement)increase, the other 20-25 km/h was entirely down to the increased engine outputs and as noted, the new propeller.

It's hardly a unique situation anyway, the early Spit Vs were much slower than Spit Is at low altitudes, early Spit IXs were again slower than the latest (uprated boost) Spit Vs at lower altitudes etc. High altitude performance was more important for everyone, and propellers can't be just as good in both dense air (low altitude) and thing air (high altitude).

But you know what write a letter to MBB and tell them that you do not like their precedessor's 1940 specs at all. ;)

[41Sqn_Banks]

On the other hand there is nothing to suggest that 1,40/1,45 ata was not possible use at any altitude. So far I have not found any evidence that this was mechanically restricted to the 1st supercharger speed, and it quite likely that it was not.

OTOH I agree that the manuals insist that is to be used for special take off conditions. Which is kinda parallel to the Spitfire II limitations (which limit +12 to take off conditions only), so it just might be good idea to include a code that this 'WEP' on both planes should be only usable when the wheels are on the ground.?

The take-off boost in Spitfire II was provided by a "gate control" which caused a fixed throttle valve setting, thus boost would fall off quickly with altitude (the throttle valve didn't open progressively to maintain the take-off boost)*.
The boost control cut-out on the other hand opened the throttle valve progressively to kept the +12 boost until it was completely opened, thus emergency boost was maintained up to FTH.

The DB601 manual indicated that for the take-off power the throttle valve is opened slightly more than under normal condition. This would theoretically allow to use 1' Minute boost up to FTH.

* with increasing altitude the throttle valve would again open progressively to keep +9 boost as the throttle lever is logically in the most forward position, but as we know it should only be used up to 1,000 feet this would normally not occur.

[Kurfürst]

Thx for the explanation, Banks. Regardless of the lack of mechanical restriction on the 109E, I think our virtual selfs should be limited by what was authorized and how. At least the manuals set these limitations out in clear-cut manner to which I believe most pilots had adhered.

Otherwise its a very swampy terrain we are heading. Field mods this, field mods that, weren't really followed in the field, yes it was, no it wasn't.. you get the point.

[41Sqn_Banks]

I think the only bad thing that would happen in the DB601 is excessive engine wear, much like the use of take-off or emergency power for Merlin engine.

The explanation for Gate control comes from: http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Rolls-Royce/R-RmerlinABC/R-RmerlinABC.shtml

Agreed about the virtual limitation. It would be the best if take-off boost settings simply wouldn't provide a increased boost above their limiting altitudes. The engine seems to be able to handle this, as can be seen in the speed graphs of Blenheim and Fiat G.50 (I didn't test so far what happens if take-off boost is used above that altitude in these planes).

Alternatively engine damage could be forced above these altitudes, much like the GM-1 restriction from old IL-2. But I guess this would be incorrect in most cases.

[klem]

It seems to me that the historically available boost/overboost capabilities should be modelled for all aircraft whether their use in any particular circumstance was authorised or not. Any pilot having the need to save his backside would use whatever was available to him, authorised or not, and I can't see Dowding, Park, Molders, Galland or anyone else ripping into a pilot for damaging his engine to save his life.

CEM should be used to damage the engine if the prescribed time limits, or perhaps an increased % of the time limits like 125%, were exceeded as that is the only way we have of bringing some kind of limitation to its use and representing engine damage. CEM already does this to Merlin engines if max boost and rpm are maintained for too long although I haven't tested what those limits are.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

When we have finally a reasonable scoring system online and a reasonable career mode I'd suggest that all pilots violating engine wear limits get penalties on online score and career progress offline.

[CaptainDoggles]

When we have finally a reasonable scoring system online and a reasonable career mode I'd suggest that all pilots violating engine wear limits get penalties on online score and career progress offline.

That's actually a pretty interesting idea for online wars.

[Kurfürst]

When we have finally a reasonable scoring system online and a reasonable career mode I'd suggest that all pilots violating engine wear limits get penalties on online score and career progress offline.

I was just thinking about the same thing! :)

[DD_crash]

This might be a dumb question but has anyone asked the question of 100 octane availabiliy during BoB at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford?

[Kwiatek]

This might be a dumb question but has anyone asked the question of 100 octane availabiliy during BoB at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford?

But what for??

There is no question that 100 Octan fuel was used during BOB.

[DD_crash]

Not according to Herr Kurfaust. And the "discussion" is about how common it was. If "a lot" or "most" squadrons used it then surely it should be in the game?

[Kwiatek]

Really dont care Herr Kurfurst. He is known 109 fanboy and it is really hard to call him objective in such case regarding 109 vs Spit performance.

Im sure 100 Octan performance for british fighters should be implement in game.

[Kurfürst]

I wonder why I voted for the inclusion of 100 octane in the bugreport forum. Oh, yes, I forget, I am a mindless fanboy. :D

[NZtyphoon]

I wonder why I voted for the inclusion of 100 octane in the bugreport forum. Oh, yes, I forget, I am a mindless fanboy. :D

Mind you he's still spamming the bug report with rubbish (http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174) so it's quite clear that Barbi has a fixed agenda and is trying to ensure that the message about 100 octane and +12lbs boost is scrambled and confused for the developers. He's still trying to present the spurious "Pips papers', which he has never seen, as "evidence" that the RAF only allocated the fuel to a select few frontline fighter squadrons. Pathetic and laughable. :grin::grin::grin:

[Kurfürst]

I post the evidence I have on a thread which is about collecting all the evidence to be reported to the developers.

NZTypoon and Osprey wanted to keep that evidence away from the developers, now asking the evidence to be removed and present only filtered evidence.

A verdict on this is easy to make.

[41Sqn_Banks]

I post the evidence I have on a thread which is about collecting all the evidence to be reported to the developers.

NZTypoon and Osprey wanted to keep that evidence away from the developers, now asking the evidence to be removed and present only filtered evidence.

A verdict on this is easy to make.

IMHO most of your comments are very valid and add some evidence that were not presented in the bug report so far. I don't understand why they should be removed, especially as they support the request for +12 boost.

- They clearly show how the amount of issued 100 octane increases during and eventually overtakes the issued of 87 octane.
- They show that selected stations (Bomber Command stations with Blenheim and Fighter Command stations with Hurricane and Spitfire) received 100 octane in May 1940.

Regarding the opinion of Pips I'm sure we all will be glad to consider the the "Pips papers" as a valuable evidence as soon as they are found and properly sourced.

[NZtyphoon]

IMHO most of your comments are very valid and add some evidence that were not presented in the bug report so far. I don't understand why they should be removed, especially as they support the request for +12 boost.

- They clearly show how the amount of issued 100 octane increases during and eventually overtakes the issued of 87 octane.
- They show that selected stations (Bomber Command stations with Blenheim and Fighter Command stations with Hurricane and Spitfire) received 100 octane in May 1940.

Regarding the opinion of Pips I'm sure we all will be glad to consider the the "Pips papers" as a valuable evidence as soon as they are found and properly sourced.

I know 'Pips', who is a member of this forum, absolutely rushed to validate the existence and authenticity of the papers he claimed to have discovered when asked, very politely, by others to participate in the thread pertaining to 100 octane fuel...but then again a second hand summary of papers Barbi has never seen on a seven year old thread which is closed to non-members of that particular forum is more than enough evidence to prove anything. :rolleyes:

[Kurfürst]

Regarding the opinion of Pips I'm sure we all will be glad to consider the the "Pips papers" as a valuable evidence as soon as they are found and properly sourced.

IMHO the 'Pips papers' fit in well with the current trail of evidence. After all the May papers as you noted tell of the issue of 100 octane to the selected stations (which is what Pips is saying, though he quantyfies it at 25%).

He notes that the situation eased in August with the arrival of the first Middle East fuel shipsments. This is again reflected in the August 7 memo posted which notes 100 octane is now cleared for all operational aircraft.

The fuel issues again show the issues increased in the automn, especially end of September which is again line with the 'Pips paper' and Pips statements.

I wouldn't be surprised if Pips would have found the same papers, but had an access to a more complete trail of papers, than what is Glider/lane has been willing to disclose to us. Nota bene that Pips shared his findings some 8 years ago, well before Glider had seen these documents himself.

But this has been done to the death. The devs will decide, but indeed the papers I have posted definitely support the need for the addition of RAF 100 octane variants.

[41Sqn_Banks]

@Ospey I'd like to rephrase some sentences in the initial post. The changes sentences are in bold.

Description
Presently if the boost control cut-out is enabled on Spitfires and Hurricanes and full throttle applied there is no increase in boost above 6.25lbs. This results in reduced and inaccurate performance of RAF fighter aircraft.

During the BoB all frontline fighters had been modified to use 100 octane fuel in their Merlin II and III engines which allowed the engine to achieve 12lbs boost under strict limits. The Merlin XII engine fitted to the Spitfire II was designed to use this fuel from the factory. The approval and introduction of these changes gave the RAF fighters a performance boost in top speed, acceleration and rate of climb up to the Full Throttle Height (FTH) of about 18,000ft. At sea level a Spitfire was about 30mph faster when the boost control cut-out was enabled.

Merlin II and III (fitted to Spitfire Ia and Hurricane Ia)
The Merlin engines have a mechanical supercharger and can deliver up 17lbs to 20lbs of boost at S.L. with the throttle valve fully open using either 87 or 100 octane fuel however this would cause serious engine damage by pre-detonation in the cylinders. Because of this the Merlin II and III have a boost controller fitted which limits the boost to only 6.25lbs. A boost control-cut was fitted to disable the boost control and give the pilot direct control over the throttle valve. With modification to use 100 octane fuel the boost control cut-out was modified to limit the boost to +12 even if the boost control was disabled. The pilot subsequently could increase from +6.25lbs boost to +12lbs boost for emergency (= combat) purposes by enabling the boost control cut-out, which was the ‘safe’ power that the engine could produce when 100 octane was used. The use of emergency boost was limited to 5 minutes. The boost control cut-out was wired to indicate to the ground crew that it had been used and to make necessary checks. The Spitfire had a red lever at the front of the throttle control that was flipped and the Hurricane had a valve at the instrument panel which was pulled (“pulling the tit”).

Merlin XII (fitted to Spitfire IIa)
The Merlin XII did not require modification in order to use 100 octane fuel and had two systems to increase the boost above rated boost of +9lbs.

a. Boost control cut-out
The boost control limited the boost to the rated +9 lbs of the Merlin XII. The boost control cut-out was fitted to achieve emergency (= combat) power of +12lbs boost (see pilot notes) for 5 minutes up to full throttle height. The use of emergency boost is reported since 21 August 1940, 8 days after the Spitfire II entered service.

b. Gate control
In addition a gate control was fitted to achieve a special take-off boost. The gate control was enabled by pushing the throttle above the rated position through the gate. The gate control set the throttle valve to a predefined opening to achieve 12-12.5lbs boost. As the opening is not adjusted with the decreasing atmospheric pressure at altitude the boost will fall off very quickly. The take-off boost was limited to 1 minute and 1000ft altitude.

[Kurfürst]

Emergency / Combat boost was +9 on the Spitfire during the BoB, not +12.

[NZtyphoon]

Emergency / Combat boost was +9 on the Spitfire during the BoB, not +12.

Utter nonsense, of course

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

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

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lane-26-5-40.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/webster-28-7-40.jpg

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

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/elliott-9-9-40.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/McMullen-15oct40.jpg

[Kurfürst]

Correction: Spitfire II limitations for BoB were +9, not +12.

See:

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

[Robo.]

Correction: Spitfire II limitations for BoB were +9, not +12.

I am sorry but you're wrong. +12 was used in Spitfires Mk.II during BoB.

[Kurfürst]

I am sorry but you're wrong. +12 was used in Spitfires Mk.II during BoB.

And the source for that..?

[41Sqn_Banks]

The use is reported on:
- 21 August 1940 http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=417112&postcount=1441
- 2 and 30 November 1940 http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=417638&postcount=55

The page from the Pilot's Notes is from June 1940. Spitfire II entered service on 13 August 1940.

[Kurfürst]

The use is reported on:
- 21 August 1940 http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=417112&postcount=1441

Only mentions "emergency boost", at 4000 feet, does not specify boost used/obtainable.

- 2 and 30 November 1940 http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=417638&postcount=55

Only mentions "boost cut-out", at 4500 feet, does not specify boost used/obtainable.

The page from the Pilot's Notes is from June 1940. Spitfire II entered service on 13 August 1940.

And the point is?

+12 lbs boost was only usable for take off and at low altitudes, and it fell of rapidly, in contrast to Spitfire I pilot notes which notes its effective up to rated altitude. There was no 'two different' sytems on the Spitfire II during BoB.

See:

[41Sqn_Banks]

There was no 'two different' sytems on the Spitfire II during BoB.


AP 1565B, Vol I, Section 8 was issued in August 1940 and mentions the "two different" systems. "6. The quadrant plate has a ... gate for the throttle lever in the take-off position". And in paragraph 7 mentions that the "red-painted thumb lever can be pushed forward in emergency".

[JtD]

+12 lbs boost was only usable for take off and at low altitudes, and it fell of rapidly, in contrast to Spitfire I pilot notes which notes its effective up to rated altitude. Now how would they technically do that, make the boost of 12" drop off quickly instead of having it follow the outside pressure? What did the automatic boost control cut out do on the Spitfire II if not disable automatic boost control?

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

To my understanding (please correct me) of the pilot's notes page posted:

During take-off EITHER 3000 rpm OR 12 lbs boost + 2270 rpm up to 1000ft alt or for 3 mins ?????? (which indicates that 12 lbs boost could be used beyond 1000ft but only for 3 mins, but at lower rpm???)

30 min climb: max boost 9 lbs + 2850 rpm

cruising 7 lbs + 2650 rpm normal mixture
cruising 3 3/4 lbs +2650 weak mixture (fuel saving)

all out : 9lbs + 3000 rpm for 5 min

max dive for 20 sec: 9 lbs + 3600 rpm (cooking your engine quickly I imagine)

[JtD]

12 lbs boost + 2270 rpm2270rpm is the minimum to prevent engine damage, 3000 was the proper setting.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Ah thanks. I did not read minimum:

so

for take-off they say:

rpm in between 2270 and 3000 with max boost 12 boost either up to 1000 ft for extended time or up to 3 min.

[Kurfürst]

AP 1565B, Vol I, Section 8 was issued in August 1940 and mentions the "two different" systems. "6. The quadrant plate has a ... gate for the throttle lever in the take-off position". And in paragraph 7 mentions that the "red-painted thumb lever can be pushed forward in emergency".

They are the same. The throttle had a section for takeoff gate postion, and the "Red painted thumb lever" covered that position as safety switch, physically preventing the throttle to be pushed into the take off position until it was pushed forward.

Hence the confusion. The manual itself does not describe any two different systems.

[Kurfürst]

Now how would they technically do that, make the boost of 12" drop off quickly instead of having it follow the outside pressure? What did the automatic boost control cut out do on the Spitfire II if not disable automatic boost control?

As I understand, the cut out as its name suggest disabled to automatic boost control and gave direct control to the pilot over the boost. Maximum forward position on the throttle was set to open the cross section for +12 lbs at SL, and naturally this fell off with altitude; the pilot would have to open even further to compensate, which was however physically impossible - the throttle could not be pushed even further, it was already in the end position.

This graph suggest (see boost falling) that +12 fell back to +9 within about 2500 feet. This would also suggest that using the boost cutout was quite useless above that altitude, since it gave you the same performance as not using it at all.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p7280-speed.jpg

Come to think of it, it seems to work exactly the same as the 109E's 1-minute rating, altough that latter was automated.

[41Sqn_Banks]

They are the same. The throttle had a section for takeoff gate postion, and the "Red painted thumb lever" covered that position as safety switch, physically preventing the throttle to be pushed into the take off position until it was pushed forward.

Hence the confusion. The manual itself does not describe any two different systems.

Please explain how the red painted thumb lever was able to physically prevent the throttle to advance into the gate position.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9554&d=1336907008

[Kwiatek]

Ah thanks. I did not read minimum:

so

for take-off they say:

rpm in between 2270 and 3000 with max boost 12 boost either up to 1000 ft for extended time or up to 3 min.

Exacly +12 lbs up to 1000ft or up to 3 minutes. Merlin XII was initialy adopted for 100 Octan fuel not like Merlin III which required modification. Im sure that in SPitfire MK II was allowed for +12 lbs for emergency for short time from the begning. ( initialy up to 3 minutes later up to 5 minutes).

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

[Kurfürst]

Please explain how the red painted thumb lever was able to physically prevent the throttle to advance into the gate position.

In the override position...? ;)

Use your imagination a bit where that little thing just above the "Push" sign goes when the red painted thumb lever is rotated back. ;) Yup, it prevents the throttle from being pushed into the takeoff gate.

[41Sqn_Banks]

As I understand, the cut out as its name suggest disabled to automatic boost control and gave direct control to the pilot over the boost. Maximum forward position on the throttle was set to open the cross section for +12 lbs at SL, and naturally this fell off with altitude; the pilot would have to open even further to compensate, which was however physically impossible - the throttle could not be pushed even further, it was already in the end position.

This graph suggest (see boost falling) that +12 fell back to +9 within about 2500 feet. This would also suggest that using the boost cutout was quite useless above that altitude, since it gave you the same performance as not using it at all.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p7280-speed.jpg

Come to think of it, it seems to work exactly the same as the 109E's 1-minute rating, altough that latter was automated.

The "gate control" set a fixed throttle valve position. Indeed this was not adjusted by decreasing atmospheric pressure and thus would fall off with altitude as you describe.

The "boost control cut-out" did not set a fixed throttle valve position. The position was directly controlled by the pilot but limited the opening of the valve that +12 boost was not exceeded. Thus when the throttle was fully forward (not in the gate position) the opening would increase with decreasing atmospheric pressure until it is fully open (at FTH).

This is explained here: http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Rolls-Royce/R-RmerlinABC/R-RmerlinABC.shtml

[41Sqn_Banks]

In the override position...? ;)

Use your imagination a bit where that little thing just above the "Push" sign goes when the red painted thumb lever is rotated back. ;) Yup, it prevents the throttle from being pushed into the takeoff gate.

Both positions of the red painted lever are shown in the drawing. I painted red lines into the drawing to show that the lever doesn't obstacle the gate position in any of the two positions.

[JtD]

This graph suggest (see boost falling) that +12 fell back to +9 within about 2500 feet. This would also suggest that using the boost cutout was quite useless above that altitude, since it gave you the same performance as not using it at all.This graph shows that 12lbs boost would be available below about 15k feet, 2.5k feet below the full throttle altitude of 9lbs boost. That's how it works with outside pressure. And that's what being made possible with the abc cut out, see 41Sqn_Banks link.

[Kurfürst]

The "gate control" set a fixed throttle valve position. Indeed this was not adjusted by decreasing atmospheric pressure and thus would fall off with altitude as you describe.

The "boost control cut-out" did not set a fixed throttle valve position. The position was directly controlled by the pilot but limited the opening of the valve that +12 boost was not exceeded. Thus when the throttle was fully forward (not in the gate position) the opening would increase with decreasing atmospheric pressure until it is fully open (at FTH).

This is explained here: http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Rolls-Royce/R-RmerlinABC/R-RmerlinABC.shtml

The article decribes various systems used on the Merlin in general, not the Merlin XII in the summer of 1940, which the question at hand.

You have just posted the August 1940 manual of the Spitfire II, what engine limitations does it show? It would settle the matter quickly, wheter there was any change compared to the June/July manual, which clearly states +9 lbs for all out.

After all, this is what its all about. The fact alone that there's a boost control cutout doesn't give a single idea about the permissable boost, which as noted was set as +9 in the earlier manual. We need to know if this was changed or not.

It may well be a simple emergency override for manual boost control, as was its original function, i.e. a the pilot manually controlling boost depending on altitude, which may well allow him to overboost and damage the engine.

Both positions of the red painted lever are shown in the drawing. I painted red lines into the drawing to show that the lever doesn't obstacle the gate position in any of the two positions.

Hmm, you are probably right, at first the little notch seemed to be getting into the throttle's way, and it would be logical, given its location, but come to think of it, the notch is probably just to set the angle of the red lever itself against the t. quadrons when its not engaged.

This graph shows that 12lbs boost would be available below about 15k feet, 2.5k feet below the full throttle altitude of 9lbs boost. That's how it works with outside pressure. And that's what being made possible with the abc cut out, see 41Sqn_Banks link.

IF the ABC cutout was set to maintain +12 lbs boost and not +9, that is. Currently it seems as per the July 1940 manual that the ABC cotout was maintain +9 lbs boost. But as the evidence stands, the ABC cutout was unlikely to have been modified until 1941, when +12 was cleared for 5-min all out level.

Yes theoretically its possible for the supercharger to maintain that boost, but certainly not with the gate control.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

This graph shows that 12lbs boost would be available below about 15k feet, 2.5k feet below the full throttle altitude of 9lbs boost. That's how it works with outside pressure. And that's what being made possible with the abc cut out, see 41Sqn_Banks link.

The notes posted by Kwiatek show that for the later 100 octane planes where use of 12min for 5min instead of 3min was allowed the effectiveness of the boost is up to 10.5 kfeet

To my understanding one could go to 9 lbs without physical restriction on the throttle but had to push through the override (applying a small extra force?) in order to go to 12 lbs. Once engaged there was no more indication to the pilot through "feel" if the throttle was at 9 lbs or 9.5 lbs. Of course he would have to be carefull when using 9 lbs also.

[41Sqn_Banks]

I just checked the the Spitfire II Pilot's Notes and it clearly mentions the "Boost cut-out EMERGENCY control", note that the page is not amended and shows the June 1940 content:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9556&stc=1&d=1336912226

[JtD]

IF the ABC cutout was set to maintain +12 lbs boost and not +9, that is. Currently it seems as per the July 1940 manual that the ABC cotout was maintain +9 lbs boost. But as the evidence stands, the ABC cutout was unlikely to have been modified until 1941, when +12 was cleared for 5-min all out level.Please show the evidence for a single Merlin engine ever being fielded with a boost control cutout modified for 9lbs boost. I may then consider this hypothesis of yours for an argument.

But IF we were talking hypotheticals, it's still totally absurd to assume that the boost control cut out has no effect if used under full throttle conditions. What a bunch of idiots the engineers must have been.

Curious to see evidence.

[41Sqn_Banks]

But as the evidence stands, the ABC cutout was unlikely to have been modified until 1941, when +12 was cleared for 5-min all out level.

You do have evidence for the clearance of +12 boost for 5 minute "all out" in 1941? This would obviously close the case.

[klem]

In the override position...? ;)

Use your imagination a bit where that little thing just above the "Push" sign goes when the red painted thumb lever is rotated back. ;) Yup, it prevents the throttle from being pushed into the takeoff gate.

The 'little thing' above the Push sign is the actuator for the 'throttle closed warning' horn switch. Look closely.

Also examine the boost page that you yourself published here
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=424809&postcount=66

It says COMBAT 5 MINS LIMIT. 3,000 rpm +12lbs

The Merlin XII was able to use constant boost pressure of up to +12 psi using 100 octane fuel

With +12lbs available it would have been used whenever the pilot felt he needed it. There was no air ministry beaurocrat sitting in the cockpit to slap his wrist. Engine life/wear may have been a consideration but the Merlin XII was built nore strongly than the Merlin III for just that reason.

This has been hammered out again and again and you constantly come back with red herrings. Give it up.

[Buzpilot]

You have just posted the August 1940 manual of the Spitfire II, what engine limitations does it show? It would settle the matter quickly, wheter there was any change compared to the June/July manual, which clearly states +9 lbs for all out.

Is it possible, that the June/July manual was written for 87 octane?

[camber]

The "gate control" set a fixed throttle valve position. Indeed this was not adjusted by decreasing atmospheric pressure and thus would fall off with altitude as you describe.

The "boost control cut-out" did not set a fixed throttle valve position. The position was directly controlled by the pilot but limited the opening of the valve that +12 boost was not exceeded. Thus when the throttle was fully forward (not in the gate position) the opening would increase with decreasing atmospheric pressure until it is fully open (at FTH).

This is explained here: http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Rolls-Royce/R-RmerlinABC/R-RmerlinABC.shtml

Exactly correct as I understand it from data posted in previous thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29031

One thing about the Spit II throttle quadrant diagram posted by Banks in this thread is that it does not include the cable attached to the red tab going to the boost control cutout, without the cable it is easier to confuse it for some type of physical barrier (as the CloD devs did).

The Spit II is rather confusing with two separate systems (gate take off boost and boost override), especially as they give approx the same boost (+12psi) in quite different ways, from controls (throttle gate; red tab) that are about an inch away from each other. I think CloD should probably not model the take off boost system anyway, it is not really relevant for combat.

It also creates confusion that +9psi is the normal full throttle boost for the II (as +6 1/4 psi is for the Spit I), and does not require the boost override (which gives +12psi). CloD gets this rather wrong by modelling Spit II boost behaviour like a +6 1/4 psi Spit I with +9psi instead of +12 psi after boost override. On the bright side, the (post patch) Spit II sea level speed at +9psi is about right (even though the boost is acheived incorrectly), and the 109s are (unhistorically) slow enough to compensate for the lack of +12psi and give a most fun 109/Spit II matchup (at around 30kmh too slow for both :)).

camber

[NZtyphoon]

It may well be a simple emergency override for manual boost control, as was its original function, i.e. a the pilot manually controlling boost depending on altitude, which may well allow him to overboost and damage the engine.

The Merlin was always equipped with an automatic boost control which prevented the engine being overboosted ie; with 100 Octane fuel it was potentially capable of reaching +17 lbs boost but the ABC limited it to +12 lbs for the Merlin II and III

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/spit1-12lbs3.jpg

[NZtyphoon]

Is it possible, that the June/July manual was written for 87 octane?

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

[Glider]

I wouldn't be surprised if Pips would have found the same papers, but had an access to a more complete trail of papers, than what is Glider/lane has been willing to disclose to us. Nota bene that Pips shared his findings some 8 years ago, well before Glider had seen these documents himself.

.
I do get a little bored with these constant snipes at what I have and haven't disclosed without anything to support them.

I repeat (for I think the third) time, you can always ask for a copy and prove me wrong. On the other hand if Pips had found the papers I found he wouldn't have made his claim.

I have asked you to supply any evidence to support any one (note not all) of the claims he made. For example the May meeting of the War Cabinet that was supossed to have started the whole thing off by stopping the roll out and the fuel shortage he commented on.

The only person who hasn't provided any evidence, or even a statment on what you believe the position to be is you. You only overstate the importance of one document that I left in to maintain the document trail

[Kurfürst]

I do get a little bored with these constant snipes at what I have and haven't disclosed without anything to support them.

I repeat (for I think the third) time, you can always ask for a copy and prove me wrong.

Well can we see the contents of AIR documents or not? We have been asking for them for three years, you REFUSE to show the whole document.

That's a fact David.

On the other hand if Pips had found the papers I found he wouldn't have made his claim.

Its your opinion, not Pips. You certainly like to misrepresent other people's positions.

I have asked you to supply any evidence to support any one (note not all) of the claims he made. For example the May meeting of the War Cabinet that was supossed to have started the whole thing off by stopping the roll out and the fuel shortage he commented on.

Dear David, you are pretending again that you have not been answered on that multiple times. I have made it very clear to you that the above is based on the documents Pips has found.

Asking me to provide the papers Pips found in Australia was silly in the first place, pretending I am refusing to supply the papers I have nothing to do with for the umpteenth time is dishonest.

The only person who hasn't provided any evidence, or even a statment on what you believe the position to be is you.

Yada-yada-yada, the usual BS, repeated forever in Goebbels style. I have made my position very clear, several times. It seems redundant to repeat it again, since your standard operational procedure in the past was, and is ever since, to wait a few days and lie again that nothing was provided, not even the position was made clear etc.

All what you have done yourself so far is keep making the same statements, ignore other's position and even your very own papers, and then lie that they have supplied nothing and did not make their position clear. Its a petty attitude.

You only overstate the importance of one document that I left in to maintain the document trail

Nope. All documents Pips and you have found notes that only select converted in May 1940. You simply ignore what is in your own papers.

[Glider]

Well can we see the contents of AIR documents or not? We have been asking for them for three years, you REFUSE to show the whole document.

That's a fact David.
I have shown everything that I have. I repeat its easy for you to obtain copies of the papers. Find that I have witheld anything of importance (and I will let the mods decide) and I will apologise to one and all and withdraw from the forum. If you repeat these allagations without support then I expect you to apologise and withdraw from the forum.
Call my bluff


Its your opinion, not Pips. You certainly like to misrepresent other people's positions.
Give one example to support this statement?


Dear David, you are pretending again that you have not been answered on that multiple times. I have made it very clear to you that the above is based on the documents Pips has found.
No one has seen the papers that Pips is supposed to have found, not even you. If it was that easy for him then something would have appeared.

Asking me to provide the papers Pips found in Australia was silly in the first place, pretending I am refusing to supply the papers I have nothing to do with for the umpteenth time is dishonest.
Then all you have is Pips unsupported posting.
You have
a) No supporting information that there was s fuel shortage
b) No mention in the Cabinet War papers for May saying that the roll out was halted.

It is by definition an unsupported posting


Yada-yada-yada, the usual BS, repeated forever in Goebbels style. I have made my position very clear, several times. It seems redundant to repeat it again, since your standard operational procedure in the past was, and is ever since, to wait a few days and lie again that nothing was provided, not even the position was made clear etc.

Then prove my lie (another accusation I note) find where you stated your belief. The only ones that I know of are your statement re the use of 100 Octane in France, and a couple of years ago a statement that you supported Pips view that approx 145 fighters were converted.
If you believe that its the 16 + 2 then say so and I will never ask the question again, ever. But I will ask how you support that view.


All what you have done yourself so far is keep making the same statements, ignore other's position and even your very own papers, and then lie that they have supplied nothing and did not make their position clear. Its a petty attitude.

Again prove my lie, show me what you have supplied and my very own papers. We have a different view on what certain squadrons means, that I agree but the paper trail I believe supports my view and I ham always happy to stand by it.

You keep making these statements and its time to support them

[pstyle]

I have shown everything that I have. I repeat its easy for you to obtain copies of the papers. Find that I have witheld anything of importance (and I will let the mods decide) and I will apologise to one and all and withdraw from the forum. If you repeat these allagations without support then I expect you to apologise and withdraw from the forum.

Glider, (this is a bit of a tangent)
Did you order the papers from the archives at Kew?
I live not far from there and was going to order some docs. Approximately how much do the documents cost?

[NZtyphoon]

IMHO the 'Pips papers' fit in well with the current trail of evidence. After all the May papers as you noted tell of the issue of 100 octane to the selected stations (which is what Pips is saying, though he quantyfies it at 25%).

He notes that the situation eased in August with the arrival of the first Middle East fuel shipsments. This is again reflected in the August 7 memo posted which notes 100 octane is now cleared for all operational aircraft.

The fuel issues again show the issues increased in the automn, especially end of September which is again line with the 'Pips paper' and Pips statements.

I wouldn't be surprised if Pips would have found the same papers, but had an access to a more complete trail of papers, than what is Glider/lane has been willing to disclose to us.

Pips is a member of this forum and has been contacted here and elsewhere to comment on these papers, but has not done so, so whatever Kurfurst thinks Pips may have found is meaningless hearsay, as are the "papers" themselves, which are so full of flawed logic and nonsense reasoning that they are worthless anyway. As it is Kurfurst cited Pips' "summary" verbatim in the Feature # 174 Report (http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174) only to have it deleted, so the managers don't consider a summary from an old thread in a locked members only forum to be evidence of anything, nor should anyone else. They might be relevant in Kurfurst's HO but nobody else shares that HO - including Pips.

[Kurfürst]

I have shown everything that I have. I repeat its easy for you to obtain copies of the papers. Find that I have witheld anything of importance (and I will let the mods decide) and I will apologise to one and all and withdraw from the forum. If you repeat these allagations without support then I expect you to apologise and withdraw from the forum.
Call my bluff


Give one example to support this statement?


No one has seen the papers that Pips is supposed to have found, not even you. If it was that easy for him then something would have appeared.
Then all you have is Pips unsupported posting.
You have
a) No supporting information that there was s fuel shortage
b) No mention in the Cabinet War papers for May saying that the roll out was halted.

It is by definition an unsupported posting



Then prove my lie (another accusation I note) find where you stated your belief. The only ones that I know of are your statement re the use of 100 Octane in France, and a couple of years ago a statement that you supported Pips view that approx 145 fighters were converted.
If you believe that its the 16 + 2 then say so and I will never ask the question again, ever. But I will ask how you support that view.



Again prove my lie, show me what you have supplied and my very own papers. We have a different view on what certain squadrons means, that I agree but the paper trail I believe supports my view and I ham always happy to stand by it.

You keep making these statements and its time to support them

I don't care for your rubbish. The next time you lie about my or other people's posts or position they have taken, the proper course of action shall be taken. You refuse to disclose the documents in full, end of story.

Also please take note for the future that I have decided not to waste any more time on replying to your posts.

[Kurfürst]

From ANA.

[Al Schlageter]

I don't care for your rubbish. The next time you lie about my or other people's posts or position they have taken, the proper course of action shall be taken. You refuse to disclose the documents in full, end of story.

Also please take note for the future that I have decided not to waste any more time on replying to your posts.

Everyone to the lifeboats.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zzHOHGgheac/TqBfuiauGDI/AAAAAAAAAlQ/oXaBkHQG_Mk/s1600/crying.jpg

[Kurfürst]

Proposals to secure sufficient 100 octane supplies.

[Glider]

I don't care for your rubbish. The next time you lie about my or other people's posts or position they have taken, the proper course of action shall be taken. You refuse to disclose the documents in full, end of story.

Also please take note for the future that I have decided not to waste any more time on replying to your posts.

You may have replied to my posts but you have rarely awnsered any questions or supported your statements.

This is another example of you throwing demeaning comments around and when asked to support, substantiate or provide examples, you run and hide. Sadly I expected nothing less.

I repeat, if you think that I have lied, provide examples that satisfy the Mods who are independent, and I will leave the Forum for good. Its a simple, clear statement I cannot and will not hide from.

Your inability to do this will speak volumes.

PS If Publishing some pre war papers that show that the RAF had plans to equip approx 2,500 front line aircraft with 100 octane around the end of 1940 is the best you can do then I feel secure

[fruitbat]

Kurfurst, you haven't shown any actual evidence, its that simple.

Lots of pre war documents and personal speculation/spamming/personal attacks, It's tiresome and irrelevant.

[NZtyphoon]

I don't care for your rubbish. The next time you lie about my or other people's posts or position they have taken, the proper course of action shall be taken.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/ff3lu.gif

And still he tries to post non evidence in the Bug Report (http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174) hoping that the mangers will accept a verbatim account of a summary presented on an old, members only thread...

[Glider]

Glider, (this is a bit of a tangent)
Did you order the papers from the archives at Kew?
I live not far from there and was going to order some docs. Approximately how much do the documents cost?

I went to the archives and looked at the files myself. As to the cost I don't know but the Oil Committee file is a big one with hundreds of pages so expect cost to be high. I just copied anything which mentioned 100 Octane, they discussed other things but those I left.

I suggest going yourself its a bit special and you can ask for almost anything. Also some things that cost such as downloads of combat reports to your home are free at the NA. You can take a camera in and photograph what you want so you don't have to copy everything out word for word. The first visit is a bit of a fag as you have to get your pass but its worth the effort.

I admit to getting a buzz out of holding the original documents. When this pips thing came up one of his claims was that the War Cabinet stopped the deployment of 100 Octane in May 1940. I went to the NA and was able to get hold of the original papers, and to just handle these original papers that were at the table with Churchill and the others does make it a bit special.
These are now free on line and the originals stored but its an example.

Its a short walk from Kew underground station and well signposted so thats my choice of getting there

[NZtyphoon]

Here's what Oil: A study of war-time policy and administration by D J Payton Smith (HMSO 1971 part of the official war series) says about 100 Octane fuel pre- war plans and the so-called supply problems alluded to by Pips:

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

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

"The pre-war activity had been based on the assumption that United States supplies would be denied to Britain in time of war. In the event, as was shown, they remained available."

"100 Octane came into general use during the Battle of Britain..." confirming the All Commands memo issued on 7 August.

"...there was NO anxiety in these early months of the war about the prospects of supply."

[Osprey]

I wonder why I voted for the inclusion of 100 octane in the bugreport forum. Oh, yes, I forget, I am a mindless fanboy. :D

You did vote for it, then proceeded to spam the bug report with nonsense about the power it gives, the usage of it, the damage it causes and the availability of it - all to derail the true position.

[Osprey]

@Ospey I'd like to rephrase some sentences in the initial post. The changes sentences are in bold.


OK, I just served a really over the top ban from Alpha so only just got back to this.

[Osprey]

Also please take note for the future that I have decided not to waste any more time on replying to your posts.

Don't hold back, just stop posting.

[Seadog]

Proposals to secure sufficient 100 octane supplies.

What the hell do these documents from late 1938 have to do with the BofB?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Can all stop the bashing and the personal attack please?

[41Sqn_Banks]

A.P. 3397 Maintenance (1954)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9777&stc=1&d=1337715952

[NZtyphoon]

A.P. 3397 Maintenance (1954)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9777&stc=1&d=1337715952
Brilliant! Where did you find this?

[Kurfürst]

What's the excitement, we know for some time that the first stations changed over to 100 octane in February, hardly any news in that..

[fruitbat]

What's the excitement, we know for some time that the first stations changed over to 100 octane in February, hardly any news in that..

so you got any proof yet that any fighter in 11 group during BoB wasn't using 100 octane fuel yet........

and i mean proof, not your spam.

just one fighter report will do.......

are you ever going to rely on anything other than pre war documents, lol.

[Seadog]

Those years of research to make 100 octane commercially available paid off magnificently in historical significance during World War II. While aware of the superior quality of 100 octane as aviation fuel, Germany had neither indigenous petroleum Production nor a highly developed refining industry, and the possibilities of domestic production or storage on a large scale were limited. Indeed, when Hitler marched into Poland in 1939, the hydrogenation plant of Jersey's affiliate, Standard Oil of Louisiana, in Baton Rouge, was alone turning out more 100 octane gasoline than all the combined refineries and synthetic oil plank in Germany. Throughout the war, the Luftwaffe was forced to rely on aromatic types of synthetic fuels. The combat effectiveness of 100 octane was strikingly demonstrated initially in the Battle of Britain where Royal Air Force Spitfires and Hurricanes outfought the enemy. Germany lost 2,152 planes to Britain's 620.

The petroleum industry exerted a tremendous effort to keep the Allies supplied with 100 octane gasoline during the war years...
MJ Rathbone (President of Standard oil Company)Fuel for Flight, Flying Magazine Oct 1958, p37.


Funny how there's a complete lack of sources stating that RAF FC didn't exclusively use 100 octane fuel during the BofB...

[NZtyphoon]

More Oil...

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

[Crumpp]

Funny how there's a complete lack of sources stating that RAF FC didn't exclusively use 100 octane fuel during the BofB...


Except the original documents.....

I believe that by the time the battle ended by the German dates, the entire RAF FC was using 100 Octane.

Maybe, just maybe, if you end the battle in November or December 1940, the entire RAF FC had converted.

If you want to say in July thru September 1940 that the entire FC had converted you would be wrong. They were in the process of converting during that time.

You can line up all the evidence presented until July 1940 and it fits perfectly within normal convention phase testing for adaptation.

The Notes on a Merlin Engine portion of the Operating Notes are part of the airworthiness of the design and list the specified fuel for the aircraft. The conversion was important enough to publish a very clear instructions for ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS to use 100 Octane when Fighter Command converted. You do not see that in any Notes on a Merlin Engine prior to January 1942.

Boost override was available and authorized to be used by the Operating Notes. That calls into question any combat report which makes a reference to any over boost condition as being proof of 100 Octane fuel use.

The logistical documents are just that, logistics and not operational. Before the operational side of the house can do anything, they must have the logistics solved and the materials in hand. That they had the stuff is not proof of when it was used. It is only proof that they had it which is not in dispute.

The consumption reports do not show any 100 Octane being out at the airfields in useable quantity until the June thru July timeframe. In those months, it represents a small portion of the fuel used. In the October and beyond, 100 Octane consumption clearly shows a marked increase to reach some 34% of the Air Ministries fuel supply "forward of the railheads". In other words, not sitting in a tanker as part of the strategic reserve.

In other words, the developers of IL2 CLOD would be accurate in modeling both types of fuel not in modeling 100 Octane exclusively.

[Seadog]

Except the original documents.....

I believe that by the time the battle ended by the German dates, the entire RAF FC was using 100 Octane.

Maybe, just maybe, if you end the battle in November or December 1940, the entire RAF FC had converted.

If you want to say in July thru September 1940 that the entire FC had converted you would be wrong. They were in the process of converting during that time.

You can line up all the evidence presented until July 1940 and it fits perfectly within normal convention phase testing for adaptation.

The Notes on a Merlin Engine portion of the Operating Notes are part of the airworthiness of the design and list the specified fuel for the aircraft. The conversion was important enough to publish a very clear instructions for ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS to use 100 Octane when Fighter Command converted. You do not see that in any Notes on a Merlin Engine prior to January 1942.

Boost override was available and authorized to be used by the Operating Notes. That calls into question any combat report which makes a reference to any over boost condition as being proof of 100 Octane fuel use.

The logistical documents are just that, logistics and not operational. Before the operational side of the house can do anything, they must have the logistics solved and the materials in hand. That they had the stuff is not proof of when it was used. It is only proof that they had it which is not in dispute.

The consumption reports do not show any 100 Octane being out at the airfields in useable quantity until the June thru July timeframe. In those months, it represents a small portion of the fuel used. In the October and beyond, 100 Octane consumption clearly shows a marked increase to reach some 34% of the Air Ministries fuel supply "forward of the railheads". In other words, not sitting in a tanker as part of the strategic reserve.

In other words, the developers of IL2 CLOD would be accurate in modeling both types of fuel not in modeling 100 Octane exclusively.

Again, this is your thesis, but you have not presented any evidence to support your contention that RAF FC was using both 87 and 100 octane during the BofB (by British dates, from July 10 onward). The facts are that documents from March 1940 indicate that all new Merlin engined aircraft were equipped to utilize 100 octane, and given the wastage rates of existing aircraft, production rates of new aircraft and the conversion program for older aircraft, there simply wouldn't have been sufficient numbers, if any, of 87 octane only aircraft for RAF FC to have retained 87 octane as a front line fuel. The idea that RAF FC would retain 87 octane when all its fighters were equipped to handle 100 octane is simply preposterous, and completely unsupported by the facts, and a complete dearth of supporting evidence for 87 octane fuel use. The increase in 100 octane consumption was a reflection of the fact that the RAF won the BofB and RAF FC and BC were expanding rapidly.

Some more supporting data:

Prometheans in the Lab: Chemistry and the Making of the Modern World, McGrayne: "Britain's petroleum secretary Geoffrey Lloyd said later, "we wouldn't have won the Battle of Britain without 100 octane..." "p103.

Two Historians in Technology and War, Howard and Guilmartin:
The importance of oil to the conduct and outcome of the Second World War extended well beyond quantitative, macro-economic considerations. High octane aviation gasoline gave British and American aircraft, particularly fighters, a critical performance boost not enjoyed by their Axis equivalents; indeed, some have gone so far as to attribute British victory in the Battle of Britain to 100 octane gasoline. Axis engineers were well aware of the performance advantages conferred by high octane, but the refining process was highly inefficient, many more barrels of crude being required per barrel of refined gasoline as octane increased. So long as their sea lanes stayed open, Britain and America could afford the inefficiency; the Germans, Japanese and Italians could not, and their fighter pilots entered combat at a significant handicap. p11.


Air Warfare: an International Encyclopaedia: A-L, Walter J. Boyne
On 9 August 1940, fighters available for combat in Fighter Command included 568 Hawker Hurricanes and 328 Supermarine Spitfires. Although the Hurricane I could not match the performance of the Bf 109E, it was easy to fly, could absorb much damage, and was quick to repair. The Spitfire was based upon an advanced elliptical wing design by Reginald Mitchell that featured maximum area, low wing loading, great strength, and as thin an airfoil as possible. The Spitfire proved a good match against the Bf IO9E. Visibility in the Spitfire was excellent. Both fighters were armed with eight .303-caliber machine guns and featured armor protection for the pilot and a bulletproof windscreen.

Both British fighters benefited from 100-octane fuel. German aircraft used synthetic gasoline of 87-89 octane. Use of 100-octane fuel in the English Merlin engines raised horsepower from 1,030 to 1,310 (the Daimler Benz engine in the Bf I09E was rated at I,175 hp). Consequently, the Hurricane was able to hold its own and the Spitfire gained an edge...p108

others:

The Most Dangerous Enemy: An Illustrated History of the Battle of Britain
By Stephen Bungay p56, 59

and another:

Sydney Camm and the Hurricane, Fozard, Foreword by Sir Peter G. Masefield:

...Sir Thomas Sopwith who, early on, had recognized Sydney's worth and with rare foresight and confidence on his judgement of the Hurricane's quality, took a financially hazardous decision in 1936 to authorize it's large scale production ahead of an Air Ministry order. Hence 400 extra Hurricanes were available for action in June of 1940; just sufficient to tip the balance of that "Narrow Margin" where, otherwise an overwhelming disparity of numbers could have had only one result. There was, too, the RR Merlin engine - the heart of Camm's Hurricane; and of Mitchell's Spitfire. Without the Merlin, and just in time, 100 octane fuel - there would have been no prospect of success...

Masefield's bio:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1510672/Sir-Peter-Masefield.html

Why would Masefield say that "...without... "100 octane fuel" - there would have been no prospect of success"?

[Seadog]

and present their history prof with a thesis:

"RAF FC used 87 octane and 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain"

"An excellent thesis" says the prof, at the start of the term, "if you can prove it you will have altered our understanding of one of the most crucial battles in modern history."

A few months later they are called into the prof's office: "How are you two getting along with your paper? I expected something from you by now...but I'll let you have a few more days. By the way, what proof have you got? Remember, the term is almost over, and I expected a finished paper by now."

Crumpp and Kurfurst pull out a 1/2 dozen pages and place them on the prof's desk: "Well we have some papers dating from 1938 and we think that some aircraft manuals state that 87 octane was required."

"Hmmm..." says the prof, staring at the meagre number of pages: "You mean to say that's all you've got? I think you need to go the library, the archives, and the even the web, and dig up some solid evidence for 87 octane use during the actual battle...after all there's numerous sources that state that 100 octane fuel was used during the battle. You are now making an 'extraordinary claim' which is all well and good but as you well know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I'm sorry gentleman, but I don't see any such proof in the rather sparse data that you've presented.

Crumpp and Kurfurst look downcast and stare at their feet: "We have looked high and low and this is all we can come up with."

"Oh my" says the prof... he pauses for a few moments, moves back to marking papers and then glances up and states: "No problem gentlemen; you have a few more days...just make sure that your paper states that you conclude that your thesis is false, based upon the lack of any direct evidence for 87 octane fuel use, and the mass of contradictory evidence stating that 100 octane fuel was in universal use. Good day"

[Kurfürst]

Two Historians in Technology and War, Howard and Guilmartin:

The importance of oil to the conduct and outcome of the Second World War extended well beyond quantitative, macro-economic considerations. High octane aviation gasoline gave British and American aircraft, particularly fighters, a critical performance boost not enjoyed by their Axis equivalents; indeed, some have gone so far as to attribute British victory in the Battle of Britain to 100 octane gasoline.

Evidently the authors are wrong. Germans were using 92/110 grade (later 96/145 grade) fuel through the war for their fighters, from the start of the Battle of Britain.

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/files/109E4N_20Sept1940b_DFC.jpg
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/C3/report_G8_June44_C3.jpg
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/C3/report_G6_July44_C3.jpg
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/C3/report_G14_Normandy_C3.jpg
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/C3/report_G14_Jan45_C3.jpg
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/C3/report_G10_C3.jpg
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/C3/G10U4_Magg_Visconti_via109StoriaDelCaccia.jpg
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/C3/G10U4_Rosmarie_100oct_IIJG52_JapoG10U4.jpg


Axis engineers were well aware of the performance advantages conferred by high octane, but the refining process was highly inefficient, many more barrels of crude being required per barrel of refined gasoline as octane increased. So long as their sea lanes stayed open, Britain and America could afford the inefficiency; the Germans, Japanese and Italians could not, and their fighter pilots entered combat at a significant handicap. p11.

Evidently the authors are wrong in this as well. The Germans did not rely on crude oil to produce their high own high octane aviation fuel, but on the synthetic oil produced from coal. Both their high and normal octane aviation fuels had the same composition, expect for additional aromatics in their high octane fuel, which was produced by getting the normal grade fuel through an extra chemical process.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9727&d=1337621766




Air Warfare: an International Encyclopaedia: A-L, Walter J. Boyne

Both British fighters benefited from 100-octane fuel. German aircraft used synthetic gasoline of 87-89 octane.

Evidently Boyne's research was sloppy too. The Germans were using synthethic 92/110 octane fuel for their Me 109s, Me 110s and Ju 88 during the Battle of Britain. In early 1941, practically all of the Luftwaffe se fighters converted to 100 octane (109E-7/N, F-1, F-2).

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/106392d1253525093-use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-c3_table.jpg

Sydney Camm and the Hurricane, Fozard, Foreword by Sir Peter G. Masefield:

Why would Masefield say that "...without... "100 octane fuel" - there would have been no prospect of success"?

Because he overstates technical aspects over operational aspects. BTW loss rates of RAF fighters to German fighters is sobering - it ran around 2:1 in the German's favour during the Battle. RAF Fighter Command lost over 100% of the force it started the Battle within four months.

[Seadog]

Evidently the authors are wrong. Germans were using 92/110 grade (later 96/145 grade) fuel through the war for their fighters, from the start of the Battle of Britain.

Because he overstates technical aspects over operational aspects. BTW loss rates of RAF fighters to German fighters is sobering - it ran around 2:1 in the German's favour during the Battle. RAF Fighter Command lost over 100% of the force it started the Battle within four months.

Again, with the 1938 documents, which have no bearing on the BofB...:-P Contemporary 1940 documents clearly establish that more than adequate supplies of 100 octane fuel were in stock and under production during the battle. If you have no evidence of RAF FC use of 87 octane, why don't you simply state that?

German use or not, as the case may be, of hundred octane fuel, has no bearing on RAF FC use of said fuel during the BofB. Again, you have no evidence for RAF FC use of 87 octane fuel, yet there is abundant sources and direct evidence for the production, and use of 100 octane fuel by the entire RAF FC from July 10 1940 onward, while no evidence for even a single RAF FC frontline Hurricane/Spitfire combat sortie during the BofB, has ever been produced, despite the logistical nightmare that this would have created for RAF FC, not to mention the morale effect of having only select units using 100 octane fuel, when every fighter in RAF FC was capable of using it.

RAF FC was tasked with destroying Luftwaffe bombers, and it did this in large enough numbers to win the battle, and achieve an overall kill ratio superiority during the BofB. The Luftwaffe lost the battle and it's Commander in chief, went on to accuse his own fighter pilots of cowardice; why?

BTW, how many French Channel based Me109s were using 100 octane on July 10 1940? On Aug 1 1940? On Sept 1 1940? On Oct 1 1940? How are 1944 documents relevant to this discussion?

[robtek]

When i read this, or one of the countless other, 100-octane threads i see two sides:

a) FC used only 100 octane through the BoB

b) FC was in the conversion from 87 octane to 100 octane and used both fuels

where

a) has lots of evidence that 100 octane was used but no proof that 87 octane was not used

b) has evidence that 87 octane was used in the RAF and possibly in the FC but can not prove the use by the FC

my resume would be

a) tends to see the world in black or white, which never works this way in real life

b) says that there is always a grey area, which should be taken in account, a practical approach, imo.

[Seadog]

a) has lots of evidence that 100 octane was used but no proof that 87 octane was not used



Evidence for 100 octane fuel use and no evidence for 87 octane fuel use = proof of 100% 100 octane fuel use by RAF FC

If no 87 octane was used then we expect to see no evidence for its use, and indeed there is no such evidence.

British Piston Aeroengines and their aircraft:
"...As a result of satisfactory trials in March 1940, it was decided to switch Fighter Command to 100 Octane fuel, followed by Bombed Command about year later..." p313

[NZtyphoon]

a) has lots of evidence that 100 octane was used but no proof that 87 octane was not used

b) has evidence that 87 octane was used in the RAF and possibly in the FC but can not prove the use by the FC


The fact that Dowding felt the need to send out a memo to all squadrons in FC during the early stages of the battle reminding all pilots not to use +12 lbs boost for trivial reasons is proof enough that all squadrons were using 100 octane fuel.

By your analogy (one side lots of evidence, the other side not so much - but a more practical approach) anything can be proven - which is precisely how the various conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, or whether or not Apollo reached the moon work. Just produce enough "evidence" to leave a little doubt, and throw lots of smoke and noise around to provide distraction and make the few facts thrown in seem far more important than they really are. I guess it works because people are taken in by this ahistorical approach to historical research all the time.

[Seadog]

and present their history prof with a thesis:

"RAF FC used 87 octane and 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain"

"An excellent thesis" says the prof, at the start of the term, "if you can prove it you will have altered our understanding of one of the most crucial battles in modern history."

A few months later they are called into the prof's office: "How are you two getting along with your paper? I expected something from you by now...but I'll let you have a few more days. By the way, what proof have you got? Remember, the term is almost over, and I expected a finished paper by now."

Crumpp and Kurfurst pull out a 1/2 dozen pages and place them on the prof's desk: "Well we have some papers dating from 1938 and we think that some aircraft manuals state that 87 octane was required."

"Hmmm..." says the prof, staring at the meagre number of pages: "You mean to say that's all you've got? I think you need to go the library, the archives, and the even the web, and dig up some solid evidence for 87 octane use during the actual battle...after all there's numerous sources that state that 100 octane fuel was used during the battle. You are now making an 'extraordinary claim' which is all well and good but as you well know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I'm sorry gentleman, but I don't see any such proof in the rather sparse data that you've presented.

Crumpp and Kurfurst look downcast and stare at their feet: "We have looked high and low and this is all we can come up with."

"Oh my" says the prof... he pauses for a few moments, moves back to marking papers and then glances up and states: "No problem gentlemen; you have a few more days...just make sure that your paper states that you conclude that your thesis is false, based upon the lack of any direct evidence for 87 octane fuel use, and the mass of contradictory evidence stating that 100 octane fuel was in universal use. Good day"

It looks like they're headed for a failing grade...:rolleyes:

Anyone who has had to write a paper knows that they have to provide evidence for their thesis, and to date none has been forthcoming, for Crumpp and Kurfurst's thesis of mixed 87 octane and 100 octane fuel use by RAF FC during the BofB.

[robtek]

The fact that Dowding felt the need to send out a memo to all squadrons in FC during the early stages of the battle reminding all pilots not to use +12 lbs boost for trivial reasons is proof enough that all squadrons were using 100 octane fuel.

By your analogy (one side lots of evidence, the other side not so much - but a more practical approach) anything can be proven - which is precisely how the various conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, or whether or not Apollo reached the moon work. Just produce enough "evidence" to leave a little doubt, and throw lots of smoke and noise around to provide distraction and make the few facts thrown in seem far more important than they really are. I guess it works because people are taken in by this ahistorical approach to historical research all the time.

The facts are:

1. evidence is no proof

2. to preclude a possibility, however remote, without proof is unscientific

[NZtyphoon]

The facts are:

1. evidence is no proof

2. to preclude a possibility, however remote, without proof is unscientific

Evidence is no proof? That means any evidence can be dismissed out of hand, regardless of how solid it is. How do you work that one out?

If that's true, I can prove the moon is made out of cheese; the evidence is lacking because when the Apollo astronauts landed with samples of moon cheese they were immediately turned into toasted cheese sandwiches and eaten by hungry NASA staff, and the reports were then fudged and rocks were substituted.

Now, you can provide evidence in the form of moon rocks and scientific reports and I can dismiss the evidence because I didn't actually travel to the moon with the astronauts and watch them pick up the rocks, nor did I see the scientific reports being processed. So the fact is the moon is made out of cheese and my belief in that is scientific because I am not precluding the possibility, however remote it may seem; in fact there's even a web page showing that the moon is made of cheese (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Is_the_moon_made_of_cheese%3F) and that's evidence in itself. It's a brilliant concept because I can prove anything I like! :cool:

[robtek]

Evidence is no proof? That means any evidence can be dismissed out of hand, regardless of how solid it is. How do you work that one out?

If that's true, I can prove the moon is made out of cheese; the evidence is lacking because when the Apollo astronauts landed with samples of moon cheese they were immediately turned into toasted cheese sandwiches and eaten by hungry NASA staff, and the reports were then fudged and rocks were substituted.

Now, you can provide evidence in the form of moon rocks and scientific reports and I can dismiss the evidence because I didn't actually travel to the moon with the astronauts and watch them pick up the rocks, nor did I see the scientific reports being processed. So the fact is the moon is made out of cheese and my belief in that is scientific because I am not precluding the possibility, however remote it may seem; in fact there's even a web page showing that the moon is made of cheese (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Is_the_moon_made_of_cheese%3F) and that's evidence in itself. It's a brilliant concept because I can prove anything I like! :cool:

The problem is only seeing black and white, believe me.

Black and white scenarios are so rare in real life, i really doubt anybody here has experienced one.

To think in black and white makes only shure you are NOT 100% right.

Evidence is only proof if it removes any doubt.

[NZtyphoon]

Evidence is only proof if it removes any doubt.
Meaning absolutely nothing can be proven, no matter how much evidence is presented, because there will always be doubt in someone's mind. All this is is a very convenient out from using ones brains, or for those who refuse to believe any evidence, no matter how compelling.

And for me, that clinches it: the moon is made out of cheese and there's nothing anyone can show me that will remove any doubt. NASA plotted to keep this important information from the public and Neil Armstrong ate the evidence. :cool:

[Kurfürst]

Robtek, I find the argue with fanatics is a waste of time. You can't fix their head.

[ATAG_Snapper]

It's already been pointed out that common sense has to apply here. There was high turnover of fighter aircraft during the BoB by all squadrons -- combat, accidents, engine/airframe wear & tear. There was no shortage of replacement aircraft. It stands to reason the replacement aircraft were factory-new and using 100 octane.

The airfields did NOT have two sets of fuel bowsers driving about the dispersal area looking to see who took 87 or 100 octane. There was a war on, fergawdsakes!!!! :rolleyes:

[Glider]

Robtek, I find the argue with fanatics is a waste of time. You can't fix their head.

Priceless

[GraveyardJimmy]

The airfields did NOT have two sets of fuel bowsers driving about the dispersal area looking to see who took 87 or 100 octane. There was a war on, fergawdsakes!!!! :rolleyes:

This is a valid point, it would stand to reason that in the mayhem that would be fixing aircraft and high turnaround during raids that the organisation that would be necessary to ensure no 100 octane got in the non-modified engines would have been remarked on by some source.

[ATAG_Snapper]

This is a valid point, it would stand to reason that in the mayhem that would be fixing aircraft and high turnaround during raids that the organisation that would be necessary to ensure no 100 octane got in the non-modified engines would have been remarked on by some source.

Very likely, but I'm not going to spend these fine Spring mornings searching through dusty tomes to check! LOL

A question, though. In motor vehicles it doesn't really matter if you put 89 or 91 (or even 94 like we can get locally in Ontario) octane gas in a vehicle rated for 87 octane. You're just wasting money on the higher octane gas since you'll see no performance benefit, but the higher octane won't damage your 87-rated engine. Would this apply to Merlin engines rated at 87 octane that received a fill up of 100 octane?

If there were no harm (or benefit) that would come of this, I could see at the start of the Battle of Britain some of the older Spits & Hurries receiving 100 octane out on the field.

[Kurfürst]

Very likely, but I'm not going to spend these fine Spring mornings searching through dusty tomes to check! LOL

A question, though. In motor vehicles it doesn't really matter if you put 89 or 91 (or even 94 like we can get locally in Ontario) octane gas in a vehicle rated for 87 octane. You're just wasting money on the higher octane gas since you'll see no performance benefit, but the higher octane won't damage your 87-rated engine. Would this apply to Merlin engines rated at 87 octane that received a fill up of 100 octane?

If there were no harm (or benefit) that would come of this, I could see at the start of the Battle of Britain some of the older Spits & Hurries receiving 100 octane out on the field.

The answer is also certainly yes, unless some extra complication occure - spark plugs may foul from deposits because the different chemical composition of different grade fuel, for example, as happened with 150 grade. But overall this seems unlikely, at least the papers I have show the Germans too were running some of their Ju 88s - which's engine was designed for 87 octane - on their own 100 octane fuel. So the practice for it was there, on both sides.

[Seadog]

March 28 1940.
Hundred Octane
THE article Fighter Station in this issue contains a
significant reference to the use of fuel of 100
octane number by our fighters. Precise figures
for the increase in performance attained are not immediately
available, but it may be said that in an
emergency the Merlin engines as used in the Spitfires
and Hurricanes can be boosted to a pressure of I2lb.
It is also permissible to state that with its two-speed
supercharger in high gear and operating on 100-octane
fuel the Merlin R.M.2S.M. engine has a maximum output
at 16,750ft. of 1,145 h.p. The effect of the forward facing
air intake will raise considerably the height for
maximum speed.
Like other nations, America has for some time past
used iso-octane fuel in limited quantities for her military
aircraft. Lately she has adopted it as a standard,
and we may refer to the performance figures for the
Republic single-seater of the type used by the U.S. Army
Air Corps. The top speed is increased by five m.p.h.
(to 315 m.p.h.) ; the maximum rate of climb is
•3,150 ft./min. instead of 2,950 ft./min., and the ceiling
•is raised from 29,500ft. to 31,500ft. These increases do
not represent such improvements as are claimed for a
Continental machine with a Bristol Mercury XV. Using
ioo-octane fuel the top speed is 260 m.p.h. at 17,300ft.
whereas with " 8 7 " it was 236 m.p.h. at 15,700ft. The
rate of climb to 19,500ft. is reduced by four minutes.
The immense improvement in the range of the Bristol
Blenheim can be attributed directly to the use of ioooctane
fuel which permits take-off at a much higher all-up
weight. Actually the Mercury now gives 1,050 h.p. for
take-off, compared with 830 h.p.
Whatever the gains which accrue from the use of the
new fuel in our Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiants, it is
certain that they now have an even better chance of
catching and shooting down raiders.

www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940 - 0897.html?search=octane

and from the article Fighter Station in the same issue:


Hundred-octane fuel surges along the triple arms of a Zwicky unit into the tanks of Spitfires.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940%20-%200931.html?search=octane

The Bristol flew across the aerodrome full out, which led one to suggest
that, like the Spitfires' Merlins, the Mercurys were
burning 100-octane fuel. But the Spitfires overhauled it
and one by one simulated a stem attack '' opening fire
at what must have been 400 yd. range. As one pilot
broke off his attack and wheeled away another Spitfire
closed in to cover him.
In the afternoon a flight of Spitfires staged some plain
and fancy " beat-ups" of the aerodrome in formation
(excellent vie and echelon) and singly after a peel-off. This
pastime is normally frowned upon, though a certain
amount of joie de vivre is countenanced if the machines
concerned are returning from a victorious interception or
if they are demonstrating for pressmen. Here, again, the
100-octane fuel (which enables the Merlin to receive no less
than 12 lb. boost in emergency) must have been an asset.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940%20-%200933.html

[Crumpp]

The airfields did NOT have two sets of fuel bowsers

Of course they did. They had more than two sets when Jets came along too.

The Germans had even more. They used LOX and LNOX. You don't want to mix those two up.

Fortunately they had different nozzles and you would have to be pretty dense to force it past the filler plate.

That is why aircraft are required to be correctly placarded at all fill points. It is part of the airworthiness.

[Crumpp]

Again, this is your thesis, but you have not presented any evidence to support your contention that RAF FC was using both 87 and 100 octane during the BofB (by British dates, from July 10 onward). The facts are that documents from March 1940 indicate that all new Merlin engined aircraft were equipped to utilize 100 octane, and given the wastage rates of existing aircraft, production rates of new aircraft and the conversion program for older aircraft, there simply wouldn't have been sufficient numbers, if any, of 87 octane only aircraft for RAF FC to have retained 87 octane as a front line fuel. The idea that RAF FC would retain 87 octane when all its fighters were equipped to handle 100 octane is simply preposterous, and completely unsupported by the facts, and a complete dearth of supporting evidence for 87 octane fuel use. The increase in 100 octane consumption was a reflection of the fact that the RAF won the BofB and RAF FC and BC were expanding rapidly.

Some more supporting data:

Prometheans in the Lab: Chemistry and the Making of the Modern World, McGrayne: "Britain's petroleum secretary Geoffrey Lloyd said later, "we wouldn't have won the Battle of Britain without 100 octane..." "p103.

Two Historians in Technology and War, Howard and Guilmartin:



Air Warfare: an International Encyclopaedia: A-L, Walter J. Boyne


others:

The Most Dangerous Enemy: An Illustrated History of the Battle of Britain
By Stephen Bungay p56, 59

and another:

Sydney Camm and the Hurricane, Fozard, Foreword by Sir Peter G. Masefield:



Masefield's bio:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1510672/Sir-Peter-Masefield.html

Why would Masefield say that "...without... "100 octane fuel" - there would have been no prospect of success"?

Nothing in any of those references says a thing about exclusive use or 100% of Fighter Command using 100 Octane. It says they used it and not the quantity or frequency.

In otherwords, YOU say "ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS - 100 Octane Fuel Only" in early 1940 but the RAF does not say that until January 1942.

[Glider]

Of course they did. They had more than two sets when Jets came along too.

The Germans had even more. They used LOX and LNOX. You don't want to mix those two up.

Fortunately they had different nozzles and you would have to be pretty dense to force it past the filler plate.

That is why aircraft are required to be correctly placarded at all fill points. It is part of the airworthiness.

Almost. Most RAF front line stations had one tanker for 87 octane for visiting non operational aircraft but to all intents and purposes they only had one set of bowsers for operational use. This is a general statement but the modern tankers that could refuel two or three aircraft at the same time were used for ops, the older single point tanker tended to be for 87 Octane.

There was an amusing side to this in the NA. Churchill was visiting a fighter station during the BOB when one of the junior pilots said that the turnaround time could be much improved if the staions had just one extra tanker. Churchill wrote to the Chief of the Air Staff about this wanting more information. The CAS had to get his people to look into it and prove beyond any doubt that the main problem with turn around time wasn't fuel it was the time taken to rearm the eight guns on the fighters. Back came Churchill asking what he was doing about it and in the end they trained other station personell such as guards in some of the rearming tasks so if there was a rush they could help out.
What was interesting were the words the CAS was using. You could almost feel his frustration at have to spend a fair amount of time on a topic caused by a junior officer. Equally it showed the care that CHurchill put into listening to his pilots.

[Al Schlageter]

When are we going to read a post stating which squadrons were using 87 fuel and which 16 squadrons were using 100 fuel by the end of Sept 1940?

[Seadog]

Nothing in any of those references says a thing about exclusive use or 100% of Fighter Command using 100 Octane. It says they used it and not the quantity or frequency.

In otherwords, YOU say "ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS - 100 Octane Fuel Only" in early 1940 but the RAF does not say that until January 1942.

My thesis is this:

RAF FC used 100 octane exclusively during the BofB.

There is abundant evidence for 100 octane use, and that its' use was critical to victory. There are no references (and I mean NO, none, zilch, nada, etc etc...) to 87 octane use during the battle.

The available data supports my thesis. It does not support your thesis of mixed 87 and 100 octane use. In the absence of evidence your thesis fails, but the absence of evidence for 87 octane is what my theory predicts; my theory, therefore, fits the facts, while yours doesn't.

[Glider]

the RAF does not say that until January 1942.

Is this your 1942 manual for the Mk I Spitfire or some other paper that I have missed?

[Crumpp]

There is abundant evidence for 100 octane use, and that its' use was critical to victory.

I hardly think 100 Octane was critical to victory.

The RAF won because they fought every day and they had a logistical system they allowed them to replace their losses.

That same logistical system, the Civilian Repair Organization combined with some very good pre-war planning in manufacture, allowed them to increase their numerical superiority during the battle.

So while the RAF took heavier losses in air to air combat compared to the Luftwaffe, they replaced those losses at a faster rate and were able to move from numerical parity in Single Engine fighters to numerical superiority during the battle.

[macro]

I hardly think 100 Octane was critical to victory.

The RAF won because they fought every day and they had a logistical system they allowed them to replace their losses.

That same logistical system, the Civilian Repair Organization combined with some very good pre-war planning in manufacture, allowed them to increase their numerical superiority during the battle.

So while the RAF took heavier losses in air to air combat compared to the Luftwaffe, they replaced those losses at a faster rate and were able to move from numerical parity in Single Engine fighters to numerical superiority during the battle.
The raf took heavier losses? Didnt know that. I thought they had to shoot them down at a better rate than 2-1 to win

[Skoshi Tiger]

The raf took heavier losses? Didnt know that. I thought they had to shoot them down at a better rate than 2-1 to win


Don't think so
After a quick search I found this. I'm sure there are other sources. From my understanding Britain had more of a problem replacing pilots than planes. Still they did have the home ground advantage.


Total losses of aircraft in the Battle of Britain


Month----------------RAF------Luftwaffe
July (from10th)------90--------165
August--------------399-------612
September-----------416------ 554
October-------------182------- 321
Total----------------1087----- 1652

http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html

[fruitbat]

I think what Crumpp is getting at is purely fighter vs fighter, in which he is correct.

Of course this is ridiculous as the only opposition for the Luftwaffe was RAF fighters, but the RAF had bombers to shoot down as well.

Air superiority is only important so your airforce can inflict damage on the ground after all, and was the German goal for an invasion....

But he has to show that the Luftwaffe were superior somehow.

[Al Schlageter]

Numerical parity?

Aug 13 1940
Jafu 2 and 3 had 891 Bf109s while 11 Group had maybe 440 (22 sqd x 20 a/c) Spitfires/Hurricanes.

[bongodriver]

440 spits and hurris against 891 whine 'o' 9's.....i call that a parity :)

[Glider]

On the 13th August 1940 at 09.00 hrs Fighter Command had the following servicable fighters in the UK

■Blenheim - 71
■Spitfire - 226
■Hurricane - 353
■Defiant - 26
■Gladiator - 2

People get hung up about numbers of aircraft but as has been stated pilots are much more important. It takes a lot longer to train a pilot than build an aircraft and you cannot just up the production.

For the Luftwaffe Pilots were if anything a bigger problem than for the RAF.

On the 29th June the Luftwaffe had 856 servicable single engine fighters and 906 pilots ready for duty
On the 29th September the Luftwaffe had 712 servicable single engined fighters and 676 pilots ready for duty

On the 29th September the RAF had the following servicable fighters:-

■Blenheim - 59
■Spitfire - 227
■Hurricane - 387
■Defiant - 16
■Gladiator - 8

The earliest numbers I have for the ARF servicability are for the 17th July

■Blenheim - 67
■Spitfire - 237
■Hurricane - 331
■Defiant - 20


So if your comparing 109's against Spits and Hurricanes the RAF broadly speaking retained their strength whereas the 109's were reduced significantly and without the 109 the air war couldn't be won

[Crumpp]

The raf took heavier losses? Didnt know that. I thought they had to shoot them down at a better rate than 2-1 to win


Yes the RAF took heavier losses than the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe consistantly won the aerial engagements but each loss the RAF inflicted added up in the big picture.

The RAF logistical system was able to maintain and replace their losses while the Luftwaffe's system was not.

Both airforces had pilot shortages before the battle even began.

The basic difference in the two logistical systems was who was responsible for repairs.

The Luftwaffe Jadgegeschwaders TO was responsible for each aircraft in the unit. When it was damaged, he had to see to its repair with his unit assigned maintenance personnel. If it required organizational level maintenance, then the airframe was sent off but still remained on that Geschwader's books. The unit was down an airframe until it came back repaired or was stricken off and replaced.

The Squadrons in the RAF did not own the airframe. Squadron maintenance personnel performed for the most part only basic maintenance and mission configuration changes. The RAF had an organization called the Civilian Repair Organization. Basically every airplane repair facility in the United Kingdom was pressed into service repairing RAF aircraft and was made responsible under Air Ministry supervision for the airframes. They also ran the ASU or Aircraft Supply Units which were storage facilities located on British airfields that housed the airframes that were ready for issue.

As an aircraft was damaged and could not be repaired for the next flight, it would be pushed to the side and the CRO would take responsibility of it. They would issue a servicable aircraft and repair the damaged one putting it back in the ASU when repairs were completed.

This translated into the RAF being able to keep their units at a much higher strength throughout the course of the battle despite their higher loss rate.

The logistical genius of the CRO/ASU combined with some good pre-war planning on the industrial side so that the United Kingdom exceeded its aircraft production goals in single engine fighters and outproduced the German 2:1. The serviceability rates of the RAF actually rose during the battle to 98% while the Luftwaffe's servicability rates steadily declined.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_4_24/ai_74582443/?tag=content;col1

[macro]

Total losses of aircraft in the Battle of Britain


Month----------------RAF------Luftwaffe
July (from10th)------90--------165
August--------------399-------612
September-----------416------ 554
October-------------182------- 321
Total----------------1087----- 1652

this (posted by someone above, dont know if its accurate) shows that the germans took considerably heavier losses, or am i missing the point entirely here :confused:

[fruitbat]

Yes the RAF took heavier losses than the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe consistantly won the aerial engagements but each loss the RAF inflicted added up in the big picture.



What a load of BS.

Total losses of aircraft in the Battle of Britain

Assuming these are correct, haven't checked from my books

Month----------------RAF------Luftwaffe
July (from10th)------90--------165
August--------------399-------612
September-----------416------ 554
October-------------182------- 321
Total----------------1087----- 1652

The RAF did loose more fighters than the Luftwaffe, but not more planes.

So much for consistently winning the aerial engagements.

Or do bombers not count.......

[bongodriver]

The air must be very thin where Crumpp is....the guy is just not right in the head.

[Seadog]

The air must be very thin where Crumpp is....the guy is just not right in the head.

Yes, classic symptoms of oxygen starvation!

[Robo.]

The Luftwaffe consistantly won the aerial engagements but each loss the RAF inflicted added up in the big picture.

I just finished reading Stainhilper's 'Spitfire on my tail' again and he thinks otherwise. :grin:

Yes the RAF took heavier losses than the Luftwaffe.

No, it was the other way around, that's why they lost this 'Battle of Britain'.

[Glider]

To be fair to Crumpp he is correct about the British having a better production and repair set up so the RAF were never in any real danger of running out of aircraft.

However the RAF were training more pilots than the Luftwaffe which enabled them to maintain the numbrs. No one is trying to pretend that the mid 1940 training of the RAF was up to pre war standards but then again neither was the Luftwaffe training.
The RAF trained 300 pilots a year in 1935, by August 1940 they were training 7,000 pilots a year. You do not get that size of increase without problems and shortages of everything, training aircraft, trainers, airfields take your pick. I do not know the numbers for the Luftwaffe but would expect them to also suffer shortages as they would also be ramping up whilst fighting a major campaign

Basically the RAF were better prepared infrastructure wise that the Luftwaffe (including fuel)

I totally disagree with his assertion that the Luftwaffe consistantly won the air battles. If he could support that with numbers lost compared to actual kills it would be interesting. Or he could explain why so many bomber raids were turned back before reaching the target, a lot got through but a lot didn't.

[CaptainDoggles]

Or he could explain why so many bomber raids were turned back before reaching the target, a lot got through but a lot didn't.

My understanding was that the appalling losses inflicted by the Luftwaffe on RAF Bomber Command was instrumental in switching to night bombing, and the subsequent development of the various navigation aids such as Oboe, GEE, H2S, etc.

[Glider]

My understanding was that the appalling losses inflicted by the Luftwaffe on RAF Bomber Command was instrumental in switching to night bombing, and the subsequent development of the various navigation aids such as Oboe, GEE, H2S, etc.

Partly true. There is no doubt that the RAF switched its heavy long range bombers to night raids although a number of daylight raids continued all through the war. The RAF always had a strong interest in night raids for instance I don't think the Whitley was ever used on a daylight raid, but it is true to say that the losses forced a switch to night raids. However No 2 Group concentrated on daylight raids all through the war. I cannot think of any raids that did not get to the target, no doubt some didn't but the vast majority did.

But we are talking about the BOB. If the Germans according to Crumpp won the vast majority of the engagements, why were a number of the raids turned back.

[fruitbat]

Also, the mauling that the Luftwaffe bombers had during BoB (during the air battles that the Luftwaffe consistently won:rolleyes:), was why they to switched to night bombing too, ever heard of the Blitz?

[Seadog]

Next Crumpp will be telling us that the Luftwaffe won the BofB...:rolleyes:

[NZtyphoon]

The RAF logistical system was able to maintain and replace their losses while the Luftwaffe's system was not.

Both airforces had pilot shortages before the battle even began.

The basic difference in the two logistical systems was who was responsible for repairs.

The Luftwaffe Jadgegeschwaders TO was responsible for each aircraft in the unit. When it was damaged, he had to see to its repair with his unit assigned maintenance personnel. If it required organizational level maintenance, then the airframe was sent off but still remained on that Geschwader's books. The unit was down an airframe until it came back repaired or was stricken off and replaced.

The logistical genius of the CRO/ASU combined with some good pre-war planning on the industrial side so that the United Kingdom exceeded its aircraft production goals in single engine fighters and outproduced the German 2:1. The serviceability rates of the RAF actually rose during the battle to 98% while the Luftwaffe's servicability rates steadily declined.


So essentially Crumpp has been trying to tell us - over several threads and in interminable detail - that logistically the RAF was not able to provide sufficient 100 octane fuel to allow all frontline, single-engined fighters to operate using the fuel, yet was able to ensure an adequate supply of fighters, both through the factories and through the CRO/ASU repair organisations.

I would think that an organisation which had the logistical genius to plan pre-war for high production rates, and set up proper repair facilities in wartime, also had the nouse to provide all of its frontline units with the best available fuel, contrary to Crumpp's stated beliefs.

[CaptainDoggles]

So essentially Crumpp has been trying to tell us - over several threads and in interminable detail - that logistically the RAF was not able to provide sufficient 100 octane fuel to allow all frontline, single-engined fighters to operate using the fuel, yet was able to ensure an adequate supply of fighters, both through the factories and through the CRO/ASU repair organisations.

I would think that an organisation which had the logistical genius to plan pre-war for high production rates, and set up proper repair facilities in wartime, also had the nouse to provide all of its frontline units with the best available fuel, contrary to Crumpp's stated beliefs.


http://i.imgur.com/SwoW0.png

[NZtyphoon]

And your point Mr Doggles?

[JtD]

If you have nothing to add but insult, please don't post. It is one thing to strongly disagree with each other, but it's another to take it personal and carry personal issues over to every other topic possible. It will just serve to get interesting topics spoiled, destroyed and locked and members banned. It's annoying.

[CaptainDoggles]

And your point Mr Doggles?

That guy in the graphic? That's you and whoever else keep slagging the 100 octane issue and the ad hominem attacks, especially after the other thread's been locked. Please just stop.

[Seadog]

This thread is about the incorrect modeling of 12lb boost in CloD.

[CaptainDoggles]

... and the ad hominem attacks ...

It's really not necessary to keep taking swings at each other. NZTyphoon isn't adding anything of value, he's just trying to stir up the argument again, like the guy in the pic I posted.

[fruitbat]

You've just said "It's really not necessary to keep taking swings at each other" and then with the following sentence took a swing......shakes head mystified......

Still, I'm very happy to keep this thread just about the incorrect modelling of 100 octane fuel, which is incorrect of course.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Well, I'm hoping the next patch will render all these discussions moot, in addition to addressing the 109 shortcomings as well.

[Seadog]

More evidence:

...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


87 Octane was not used by RAF FC in frontline squadrons during the BofB.

[Crumpp]

87 Octane was not used by RAF FC in frontline squadrons during the BofB.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82_xzHcAQgo

Why is it proof?

Some guy says these aliens exist!! It must be true.

[bongodriver]

OMG Crumpp has turned into raaaid.......

[Glider]

[QUOTE=Crumpp;429244Why is it proof?

Some guy says these aliens exist!! It must be true.[/QUOTE]

Some guy says that the RAF used 87 octane on ops in the BOB with the same level of evidence. Is he the same guy?

[NZtyphoon]

All sorts of things can be proven to be true even if there isn't any evidence to prove it - the reasoning goes that the evidence hasn't been found yet, or its a plot by ***** (add secret organisation here) to hide the truth from the great unwashed. For example, did anyone know that Hitler was a British Secret Agent???!!! (http://www.whale.to/b/hallet_b.html) And wait, there's MORE - Osama Bin Laden was an American Agent!!!!!!!!

Therefore, FC must have used 87 octane for the majority of its frontline, single engined fighters during the B of B because the evidence is out there...somewhere...

[Seadog]

Some guy says these aliens exist!! It must be true.

I'm sure that you believe in them, but regarding 87 octane and RAF FC during the BofB, you have yet to provide even a shred of evidence for your contention.

[fruitbat]

I suspect that there's more chance of bumping into aliens than seeing these pilot anecdotes of flying at +16 LBS on 87 octane.

[Al Schlageter]

Why is it proof?

Some guy says these aliens exist!! It must be true.

What proof do you have that front line squadrons used 87 octane fuel? Don't bother saying manuals/notes but give the Squadrons in 11 Group that used 87 octane fuel.

There has to be at least 6 as the other 16 squadrons were using 100 octane fuel as per Morgan and Shacklady.

[Kurfürst]

Some guy says that the RAF used 87 octane on ops in the BOB with the same level of evidence. Is he the same guy?

David,

Have you found evidence that all Fighter Command Squadrons were using 100 octane fuel yet?

Do you still propose that thesis?

[fruitbat]

Kurfurst, have you found any evidence that a single fighter in 11 group used 87 octane fuel during BoB yet?

We're still waiting.

Don't bother quoting the prewar document again, its worthless.

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst, have you found any evidence that a single fighter in 11 group used 87 octane fuel during BoB yet?

Out of curiosity, what sort of evidence do you have in mind?

We're still waiting.

Out of curiosity, who are 'we'?

[Crumpp]

87 octane and RAF FC during the BofB, you have yet to provide even a shred of evidence for your contention.


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.

[Al Schlageter]

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.


So what RAF FC squadrons were using 87 octane fuel.

Well of course 87 octane fuel was used in considerable amounts as the a/c in other RAF Commands require the fuel. :rolleyes:

[Glider]

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?
Ignoring the evidence re 12 lb boost being linked to 100 octane


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?
After it had been released to All operational Commands so not unexpected.


Seems a pretty lock tight case that 87 Octane fuel was used in considerable amounts....at least according to the Air Ministry.
Correct, by Bomber Command, Training Command, Coastal Command, Manufaturing plants of engines and aircraft, BOAC and of course other Non operational units but not operational Fighter Command units.

You are the one that seems to stick to the 16 + 2 pre war proposal, but have no papers to support it. All we ( you can include me in that we) are waiting for is anything that supports your contention.
Anything at all, a reference to which squadrons, or which stations, or any decision as to timing or reporting path, a book that complains about being moved to an 87 otane unit/station or indeed one that rejoices as the move to a 100 octane unit/station. Absolutely anything at all, note not everything that supports your view, just anything that supports your view

[Kurfürst]

Correct, by Bomber Command, Training Command, Coastal Command, Manufaturing plants of engines and aircraft, BOAC and of course other Non operational units but not operational Fighter Command units.

Source please for 87 octane not being issued operational Fighter Command units.

I say you just made that up.

[Glider]

Source please for 87 octane not being issued operational Fighter Command units.

I say you just made that up.

I will rephrase it, 87 octane was used in fighter command for operational missions until the switchover to 100 Octane. However there is no evidence that 87 octane was used for combat missions after the switchover during the BOB from July onwards.

Now if you or Crumpp can supply any evidence that says 87 octane was used in operational missions in or after July 1940 a lot of people would be very interested.

[Seadog]

Source please for 87 octane not being issued operational Fighter Command units.

I say you just made that up.

You show us your evidence for 87 octane use, for even one combat sortie by an operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadron during the BofB.

We're getting a bit tired of your reliance on 1938 documents.

You won't because they used 100 octane, exclusively, throughout the battle.

My thesis is this:

RAF FC used 100 octane exclusively during the BofB.

There is abundant evidence for 100 octane use, and that its' use was critical to victory. There are no references (and I mean NO, none, zilch, nada, etc etc...) to 87 octane use during the battle.

The available data supports my thesis. It does not support your thesis of mixed 87 and 100 octane use. In the absence of evidence your thesis fails, but the absence of evidence for 87 octane is what my theory predicts; my theory, therefore, fits the facts, while yours doesn't.

Crumpp and Kurfurst go to college...
and present their history prof with a thesis:

"RAF FC used 87 octane and 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain"

"An excellent thesis" says the prof, at the start of the term, "if you can prove it you will have altered our understanding of one of the most crucial battles in modern history."

A few months later they are called into the prof's office: "How are you two getting along with your paper? I expected something from you by now...but I'll let you have a few more days. By the way, what proof have you got? Remember, the term is almost over, and I expected a finished paper by now."

Crumpp and Kurfurst pull out a 1/2 dozen pages and place them on the prof's desk: "Well we have some papers dating from 1938 and we think that some aircraft manuals state that 87 octane was required."

"Hmmm..." says the prof, staring at the meagre number of pages: "You mean to say that's all you've got? I think you need to go the library, the archives, and the even the web, and dig up some solid evidence for 87 octane use during the actual battle...after all there's numerous sources that state that 100 octane fuel was used during the battle. You are now making an 'extraordinary claim' which is all well and good but as you well know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I'm sorry gentleman, but I don't see any such proof in the rather sparse data that you've presented.

Crumpp and Kurfurst look downcast and stare at their feet: "We have looked high and low and this is all we can come up with."

"Oh my" says the prof... he pauses for a few moments, moves back to marking papers and then glances up and states: "No problem gentlemen; you have a few more days...just make sure that your paper states that you conclude that your thesis is false, based upon the lack of any direct evidence for 87 octane fuel use, and the mass of contradictory evidence stating that 100 octane fuel was in universal use. Good day"

[Osprey]

Robtek, I find the argue with fanatics is a waste of time. You can't fix their head.

I think this is my new sig.

[Osprey]

Source please for 87 octane not being issued operational Fighter Command units.


You'll find it in the same place as the source for tomato ketchup not being issued as ammunition.

[Kurfürst]

I will rephrase it, 87 octane was used in fighter command for operational missions until the switchover to 100 Octane.

Thank you. When did this alleged switch over to 100 octane happened, dear David? With documentary evidence if possible.

However there is no evidence that 87 octane was used for combat missions after the switchover during the BOB from July onwards.

Of course, since it was standard fuel in the RAF. Similarly, there's no evidence that 100 octane fuel was used in more than a a couple of dozen cases out of thousands of fighter sorties, right David?


Let's get back to that allaged switchover, now you have seem to have changed your position and now state that this was supposed to have happened in July 1940. What documentary evidence can you offer to this so-called switchover, David?

Now if you or Crumpp can supply any evidence that says 87 octane was used in operational missions in or after July 1940 a lot of people would be very interested.

Again, we need to specify the type of evidence required. Should combat reports that do not mention the use of emergency boost or +12 lbs/sq.inch constitute such an evidence, David?

[Osprey]

Notice that Kurfurst has deliberately avoided the fact that guns in the BoB were armed with common sauces.

The Luftwaffe had access to British HP brown sauce after over-running British bases in France 1940 and decided that it was suitably spicy to load their MG's with it before moving to their own brand. The RAF tried it but stocks were low so switched to tomato ketchup just before the BOB. This was issued to all airfield NAAFI wagons and armourers would just take all the sachets direct from there. If you correlate the growth of Heinz and HP companies from pre to post war, looking at use of sauces, and the fact that there is no mention of this in any flight report anywhere ever, then we can conclude that it was in full use by both sides. I think the British experimented with Indian curry sauce on the Spitfire Ib model but it was a bit lumpy and the guns would jam. That squadron asked for their ketchup back immediately.

Since there is no evidence of this it can't be ruled out.

[robtek]

Still both sides have evidence but no proof.

The issue seems very similar to the "schroeders cat" problem.

Everybody and his uncle "knows" the cat is dead, but it can't be proven until the box is opened.

So, everybody, and his uncle, "knows" there was only 100 oct. used by the active part of the FC, but as in "Schroeders cat" all possibilities are equal true until there is proof (box opened).

[Seadog]

Of course, since it was standard fuel in the RAF. Similarly, there's no evidence that 100 octane fuel was used in more than a a couple of dozen cases out of thousands of fighter sorties, right David?




Actually we have lots of evidence for squadron usage even prior to the BofB - and lots of sources stating conversion of RAF FC in the Spring of 1940.

[Seadog]

Still both sides have evidence but no proof.




Show me the evidence for 87 octane fuel use by RAF FC during the BofB.

100 octane - lots of evidence.
87 octane - no evidence.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

What's the difference between evidence and proof?

[Das Attorney]

What's the difference between evidence and proof?

More than 184 posts! :)

[Glider]

Still both sides have evidence but no proof.

The issue seems very similar to the "schroeders cat" problem.

Everybody and his uncle "knows" the cat is dead, but it can't be proven until the box is opened.

So, everybody, and his uncle, "knows" there was only 100 oct. used by the active part of the FC, but as in "Schroeders cat" all possibilities are equal true until there is proof (box opened).

One side has evidence of widespread use if only the use of on average approx 10,000 tons a month until 100 Octane was issued to all operational commands. We know that Bomber Command, Coastal Command plus non operational units didn't use 100 Octane until August/September. So its worth trying to work out who was using 10,000 tons a month if it wasn't fighter command and no 2 Group.

I am very confident that Kurfursts couple of dozen sorties will not account for 10,000 tons.
That also ignores the other papers that I am not going to mention as they have been raised before

[Kurfürst]

One side has evidence of widespread use if only the use of on average approx 10,000 tons a month until 100 Octane was issued to all operational commands. We know that Bomber Command, Coastal Command plus non operational units didn't use 100 Octane until August/September. So its worth trying to work out who was using 10,000 tons a month if it wasn't fighter command and no 2 Group.

I am very confident that Kurfursts couple of dozen sorties will not account for 10,000 tons.
That also ignores the other papers that I am not going to mention as they have been raised before

Glider evades to give a straight answer.

[Al Schlageter]

kurfurst evades to give a straight answer.

fixed.

[NZtyphoon]

Source please for 87 octane not being issued operational Fighter Command units.

I say you just made that up.

No, Kurfurst is just making up stories that 87 Octane was used in operational FC units, with absolutely no written evidence to back such claims. In fact Payton-Smith makes it specific that 87 octane was used for non-operational flying (top of p 56).
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/oilpage56-57100octanerevised.jpg

and Dowding specifies it in a circular to all FC units

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/dowding-page-001.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/dowding-page-002.jpg

NB: Kurfurst tried to post his "evidence" of the "Pips' Papers" in the bugtracker report http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174 only to have it tossed out - twice (# 41 and 61) by unanimous decision; # 66 he demanded that my post # 65 be deleted, complaining it was nothing but spam, and that demand got tossed out as well. Personally I couldn't care less if Kurfurst and Crumpp don't believe that all FC frontline units used 100 Octane - their opinions don't count because they don't have any evidence to back up their own claims, apart from some pre-war planning papers.

[Kurfürst]

Glider evades the straight answer then disappears, NZTyphoon becomes hysterical and tosses some bile and a smokescreen. He also couldn't care less about the 100 octane fuel issue, then he registeres on three separate boards just to argue about it and makes almost 300 posts about it 3 months. Expects to be taken seriously.

http://bluejacket.com/usn/images/sp/oth/w1_destroyer_smoke-screen.jpg

[Kurfürst]

Still both sides have evidence but no proof.

The issue seems very similar to the "schroeders cat" problem.

Everybody and his uncle "knows" the cat is dead, but it can't be proven until the box is opened.

So, everybody, and his uncle, "knows" there was only 100 oct. used by the active part of the FC, but as in "Schroeders cat" all possibilities are equal true until there is proof (box opened).

Well summarized and logical assessement robtek, though I assume the words of reason will fail to have an effect on blindfolded minds.

[Glider]

Glider evades the straight answer then disappears, NZTyphoon becomes hysterical and tosses some bile and a smokescreen. He also couldn't care less about the 100 octane fuel issue, then he registeres on three separate boards just to argue about it and makes almost 300 posts about it 3 months. Expects to be taken seriously.



My documentation has been posted a number of times and is supported by the on average 10,000 tons of fuel consumed each month. In short the 10,000 tons was used by FC and I believe that FC and No 2 Group were converted by the end of May. I have said a number of times its a strong not a perfect case, an honest statement.

If Kurfurst would like to explain how 10,000 tons were used each month, if not by FC then I would be interested to know who did.

Indeed I would be interested to know how much of FC he believes were using 100 Octane in the Period Fen to Aug 1940

[Kurfürst]

My documentation has been posted a number of times and is supported by the on average 10,000 tons of fuel consumed each month. In short the 10,000 tons was used by FC and I believe that FC and No 2 Group were converted by the end of May. I have said a number of times its a strong not a perfect case, an honest statement.

If Kurfurst would like to explain how 10,000 tons were used each month, if not by FC then I would be interested to know who did.

Indeed I would be interested to know how much of FC he believes were using 100 Octane in the Period Fen to Aug 1940

David you continue to evade to answer the question posed.

Earlier this thread you have seem to have changed your position and due to your lasting silence on the matter it is increasingly likely that you have simple made up a falsehood about a supposed Fighter Command change-over to 100 octane fuel in July 1940.

You have made a very specific claim for a very specific date.

What documentary evidence can you offer to this alleged switchover, David?

[Al Schlageter]

adam you continue to evade to answer the question posed.

fixed

[Al Schlageter]

crumpp evades the straight answer then disappears, kurfurst becomes hysterical and tosses some bile and a smokescreen. Expects to be taken seriously.


fixed

[Crumpp]

Everything that gets posted is not always worth responding too....

;)

[Glider]

David you continue to evade to answer the question posed.

Earlier this thread you have seem to have changed your position and due to your lasting silence on the matter it is increasingly likely that you have simple made up a falsehood about a supposed Fighter Command change-over to 100 octane fuel in July 1940.

You have made a very specific claim for a very specific date.

What documentary evidence can you offer to this alleged switchover, David?

The words I used were

However there is no evidence that 87 octane was used for combat missions after the switchover during the BOB from July onwards.

There is no evidence for 87 octane being used in combat for June either however I have worked n the roll out of IT systems across scores of establishments for HMG and inevitably there is at least one site where the there is a delay for one reason or another. So I was leaving June free in case of such a delay, no more no less. Its what Programme Managers call Contingency

Which leaves the small matter outstanding such as, to what extent do you believe 100 Octane was used by the RAF in the BOB from Feb to Aug 1940

[Kurfürst]

However there is no evidence that 87 octane was used for combat missions after the switchover during the BOB from July onwards.

There is no evidence for 87 octane being used in combat for June either

And how on Earth is this proof to complete changeover to 100 octane, which is what you claim?

The vast majority of those who have participated in these discussions readily understand that the evidence is insufficient to make categorical conclusions about the sole use of this or that fuel. You simply tend to jump one logical step.

Which leaves the small matter outstanding such as, to what extent do you believe 100 Octane was used by the RAF in the BOB from Feb to Aug 1940

My position was made clear 14 months ago on the matter in the thread you have participated, despite this you continuously claim that my position is unclear.

Since you have refuse to spend the time (apprx. 1 minute search) required to understand my position I make it clear to you again. You can read it again on this page:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110&page=5

Note that the current level of evidence shows 8 out of 19 Sector Airfields and 9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields using 100 octane fuel. Also note that many of these stations only show sign of 100 octane use in August or later and not before.

[Robo.]

Note that the current level of evidence shows 8 out of 19 Sector Airfields and 9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields using 100 octane fuel. Also note that many of these stations only show sign of 100 octane use in August or later and not before.

Are you serious?

[bongodriver]

Guys......we need to give up on Crumpp and Kurfurst....let them have their fantasy, only the devs need to be aware of the obvious truth or else COD is just going to be a complete 'what if' for the LW fantasists.

[Kwiatek]

I am full of admiration for those who have the strength and desire to keep sterile discussions with such people

:rolleyes:

[Kurfürst]

It seems you are applying for membership in ROLC, Kwiatek.

[Glider]

And how on Earth is this proof to complete changeover to 100 octane, which is what you claim?.
You have seen it, we disagree on it but you have seen it.

.

My position was made clear 14 months ago on the matter in the thread you have participated, despite this you continuously claim that my position is unclear.

Since you have refuse to spend the time (apprx. 1 minute search) required to understand my position I make it clear to you again. You can read it again on this page:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110&page=5

Note that the current level of evidence shows 8 out of 19 Sector Airfields and 9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields using 100 octane fuel. Also note that many of these stations only show sign of 100 octane use in August or later and not before.

Many thanks, that wasn't too painful was it

[Kwiatek]

It seems you are applying for membership in ROLC, Kwiatek.

Well i think i have not such skill and time for these :)

Maby beacuse over these i definitly prefer to do these:

http://i45.tinypic.com/10n4wns.jpg

or these

http://i48.tinypic.com/2cieedf.jpg


:rolleyes:

[Ernst]

Still both sides have evidence but no proof.

The issue seems very similar to the "schroeders cat" problem.

Everybody and his uncle "knows" the cat is dead, but it can't be proven until the box is opened.

So, everybody, and his uncle, "knows" there was only 100 oct. used by the active part of the FC, but as in "Schroeders cat" all possibilities are equal true until there is proof (box opened).


I agree with this Robtek. I do not see any definitive proof by both sides. Outstanding claims requires outstanding proof. And both failed to provide.

[fruitbat]

hmmmm, i see lots of evidence from one side, but i quite readily concede not absolute conclusive proof beyond all doubt, and no evidence at all on the other side that has any bearing, from the church of the luftwhiners.

but i await to be dazzled by some evidence from Kurfurst/Crummp, and there disciples of the church of luftwhiners, Ernst Robtek and Doggles, at some point.

[robtek]

hmmmm, i see lots of evidence from one side, but i quite readily concede not absolute conclusive proof beyond all doubt, and no evidence at all on the other side that has any bearing, from the church of the luftwhiners.

but i await to be dazzled by some evidence from Kurfurst/Crummp, and there disciples of the church of luftwhiners, Ernst Robtek and Doggles, at some point.

Beginning to call the other side names is not the most subtle avowal of defeat.

[fruitbat]

Beginning to call the other side names is not the most subtle avowal of defeat.

so where's your evidence:rolleyes:

by the way, Kurfurst and Crummp have been insulting people for pages now, lol!

[bongodriver]

I agree with this Robtek. I do not see any definitive proof by both sides. Outstanding claims requires outstanding proof. And both failed to provide.


Both may have failed to provide definitive proof but only the advocates of RAF 100 octane use have come up with 'any' evidence, give the debate has now turned to wether the RAF's use of 100 extensive or not the distinct lack of any evidence of 87 octane use works in it's favour.

definitive proof may ultimately prove to be unobtainable, so common sense would dictate the acceptance of exclusive use of 100 octane based on the 'only' evidence provided.

[fruitbat]

Both may have failed to provide definitive proof but only the advocates of RAF 100 octane use have come up with 'any' evidence, give the debate has now turned to wether the RAF's use of 100 extensive or not the distinct lack of any evidence of 87 octane use works in it's favour.

definitive proof may ultimately prove to be unobtainable, so common sense would dictate the acceptance of exclusive use of 100 octane based on the 'only' evidence provided.

What he said.

But all said and done, from the games point of view, as i have said before along with others, this argument is largely irrelevant, as everyone agrees that there should be 100 octane spits and hurris. Frequency is what is being argued about, mission builders can decide that in there own missions, and people can vote with there feet, based on what they believe.

[ATAG_Snapper]

My post to Black Six last February 10th re 100 octane shows we're no further along; in fact we were pushed backward in flight modelling since then with the recent alpha patch + Hotfix.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=389481&postcount=84

I am not optimistic about any further FM "improvements", especially in how any specifics are being withheld.

[fruitbat]

I don't think that they will model 100 octane fuel.

I've pretty much given up on this game having any historical relevance to the BoB.

In fact, I've pretty much given up on the game being fixed full stop.

[Seadog]

I don't think that they will model 100 octane fuel.

I've pretty much given up on this game having any historical relevance to the BoB.

In fact, I've pretty much given up on the game being fixed full stop.

I hope you're wrong, but I understand how you feel.

It's pretty incredible that the RAF fighters are so poorly modelled.

[fruitbat]

to be fair its not even just the RAF fighters.

[6S.Manu]

In fact, I've pretty much given up on the game being fixed full stop.
This one...

[Al Schlageter]

I agree with this Robtek. I do not see any definitive proof by both sides. Outstanding claims requires outstanding proof. And both failed to provide.

So tell me if you, and Robtec, with your absolutely unbiased minds, if the game makes it far enough and the developers model late war a/c, would you support the inclusion of the 1.98ata boost Bf109K-4 in the game?

[Crumpp]

Crummp have been insulting people for pages now

Feel free to point that out fruitbat.

[robtek]

So tell me if you, and Robtec, with your absolutely unbiased minds, if the game makes it far enough and the developers model late war a/c, would you support the inclusion of the 1.98ata boost Bf109K-4 in the game?

I, for my part, am for the inclusion of ANY variant of EVERY model of airplane from any nation which flew between 1935 and 1947.

It is up to the server operator/mission builder to create his version of the most accurate picture of the intended scenario.

To have a unlimited fundus to create this scenario from would really help.

But you miss the question here, it is not about having the 100 oct. versions included in game, that is what we all want.

It seems it is about to get the 87 oct. versions excluded, as the claim is that only 100 oct. was used by the FC.

I am against ANY exclusion of a plane, or a version of a plane, that did fly between 1935 and 1947.

[Robo.]

It seems it is about to get the 87 oct. versions excluded, as the claim is that only 100 oct. was used by the FC.

I am against ANY exclusion of a plane, or a version of a plane, that did fly between 1935 and 1947.

I appreciate what you're saying, it would be really great to have all variants. I am all for 1938 Spitfire with early canopy, manual gear control, Woodbridge propeller, 87 octane fuel and early antenna mast, although this variant has been never used in a combat (except for Battle of Barking Creek lol). But for what this simulator is - Battle of Britain, summer of 1940, we should have upgraded version of the fighter and that includes 100 octane spirit. There is no question that this is what they had in the fueltanks since Dunkirque. Yes, 87 octane fuel has been used but is irellevant to what we have in the game - 11th group, summer 1940, frontline fighters facing Luftwaffe. No 87 octane fuel in this case. 100%-ly.

[robtek]

...... There is no question that this is what they had in the fueltanks since Dunkirque. Yes, 87 octane fuel has been used but is irellevant to what we have in the game - 11th group, summer 1940, frontline fighters facing Luftwaffe. No 87 octane fuel in this case. 100%-ly.

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

[Osprey]

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

And it's never been disproved that the Luftwaffe weren't using HP brown sauce sachets in their MG's either. You are using the exact argument that religious people use about god - "Prove he doesn't exist". The thing is you cannot provide evidence for something that is not there, you can only say it is not there because there is no evidence.

Imagine if our courts worked like this - "We have no evidence that you were at the murder scene so we cannot rule out that you weren't there - Guilty". It's nonsense Robtek i'm afraid.

[bongodriver]

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!


it's not about wether 87 octane use can be disproved, it's about only evidence for 100 octane exists and common sense.

[Crumpp]

You are using the exact argument that religious people use about go

Do you guys actually believe yourselves when you say stuff like this??

:rolleyes:

We are not talking some abstract concept.

An airplane must use a specified fuel. Dtd 230 was 87 Octane.

What was the service specification for 100 Octane? You know, the non-provisional one?

[bongodriver]

An airplane must use a specified fuel. Dtd 230 was 87 Octane.


Precisely.......so when they filled Blenheims with 87 'and' 100 octane the fuel was specified.....besides wasn't 100 octane DTD 224?

[Osprey]

It would take a little common sense to understand the logic I demonstrated. I'm not interested in your red tape based argument, it's complete nonsense.

[Crumpp]

besides wasn't 100 octane DTD 224?


Yes, the provisional specification that does not appear anywhere else.


On the otherhand, DTD 230 is commonly referenced both in the Operating Notes and Air Ministry.

Common sense dictates.....


;)

[Crumpp]

I'm not interested in your red tape based argument, it's complete nonsense.


It is no not nearly as nonsensical as the argument that Fighter Command was not using the specified fuel listed in the Operating Notes as well as the fuel that was the major type on the airfields.

Your argument is based on the disbelief that convention does not exist in aircraft so they are not strictly regulated and everything is implicit in their operation.

[bongodriver]

To be honest 100 octane never seemed to get an official DTD number (unless you can lay your hands on a source)

But considering 100 octane was in use by civil operators in Britain before 1939...even found an article from 1937 discussing the use of diesel engines to replace 100 octane burning petrol engines, and by 1940 there were already plans on making fuels of more than 100 octane widely available then yes common sense would dictate that by the outbreak of war 87 octane was already relegated to secondary use while being phased out.

heres some stuff I found while researching, just thought some was interesting reading.

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

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.military/2008-10/msg00226.html

[bongodriver]

Couple more..

p.s. ignore the second image, it has no relevance, I attached it by mistake.

[Crumpp]

besides wasn't 100 octane DTD 224?

LOL, NO, that was 77 Octane fuel, the fuel that DTD 230 replaced.

[Crumpp]

But considering 100 octane was in use by civil operators in Britain before 1939

Yes it was....

It actually was available pretty early. Problem was there was not way to make it in quantity or economically.

It was about 2 dollars a gallon in 1939 while 87 Octane was ~.15 cents a gallon.

[Crumpp]

How Much things cost in 1939
Average Cost of new house $3,800.00
Average wages per year $1,730.00
Cost of a gallon of Gas 10 cents
Average Cost for house rent $28.00 per month
A loaf of Bread 8 cents
A LB of Hamburger Meat 14 cents
Average Price for new car $700.00
Toaster $16.00


http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1939.html

[bongodriver]

LOL, NO, that was 77 Octane fuel, the fuel that DTD 230 replaced.

Yeah.....I eventually saw that, question is still can anyone find the oficial DTD number for 100 octane?


It was about 2 dollars a gallon in 1939 while 87 Octane was ~.15 cents a gallon.


Irrelevant, there is pretty much no upper price limit in times of war...hence why Britain was 'broke' by the end of war.

[Crumpp]

I am sure you can find all kinds of references to 100 Octane fuel in the 1930's.

Here is the Popular Science archives to help you out!

http://www.popsci.com/archives

It was quite a leap forward in fuel technology and was greatly anticipated.

[bongodriver]

Help me how?.....I wasn't highlighting surprise at reference to 100 octane prior to 1939, it's practically common knowlege.

No the real surprise is that you 'still' insist 87 octane was the main fuel in use......has anyone asked you to produce a shred of 'evidence' yet?

[Kurfürst]

Irrelevant, there is pretty much no upper price limit in times of war...hence why Britain was 'broke' by the end of war.

Britain was 'broke' by 1941, that's why L-L came into existence in the first place. The British could no longer pay the US supplies.

Fuel costs were a factor, reading the papers show that the British were quite aware and sensitive of the costs. Bomber Command's request for uniform supply of stations with 100 octane was turned down, even at the cost of a rather awkward system with both 87 and 100 octane stocks at these stations.

The British got their fuel supplies from the market, and had limited amount of cash. Try doing some shopping without money.. things don't come free, even in war.

[JtD]

Yeah.....I eventually saw that, question is still can anyone find the oficial DTD number for 100 octane?Not issued. Initially using a provisional specification R.D.E./F/100, later manuals refer to 87 octane, 100 octane or 150 octane fuels as such.

[Crumpp]

No the real surprise is that you 'still' insist 87 octane was the main fuel in use......has anyone asked you to produce a shred of 'evidence' yet?

Again,

Read the Operating Notes.....Spitfire Mk I, July 1940:

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/576/july1940fuelspecificati.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/802/july1940fuelspecificati.png/)

[Robo.]

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

I respect your opinion, of course. But with this logic, you can not disaprove anything, really. Somebody mentioned orange crows in here already... ;)

With all due respect - there is lots of literature written about this era. It's one of the most researched in all aspects. I've never heard of pilot account mentioning something like ''Oh blimey I've been just transferred to this new squadron and they still fly on low octane fuel and gosh is it difficult now to fight the Jerry''. I hope you agree that the difference was big enough to be mentioned. Somewhere. I've just spent last year reading all these books and articles again while I am involved in this sim. Fascinating stuff on both sides. No mention of 87 octanes whatsoever.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence (direct and indirect) about 100 octane spirit since the French campaign. Please don't get yourself confused with certain claims some people here are trying to make, these theories are rather ridiculous. :grin:

Although I agree we never know if all the RAF fighters got only 100 octane fuel, it is the most relevant for what this sim represents. Unless you want to fly some OTU Spitfire in Scotland. Yet, we haven't got it modelled. :(

[Crumpp]

Not issued. Initially using a provisional specification R.D.E./F/100, later manuals refer to 87 octane, 100 octane or 150 octane fuels as such.


All aircraft fuel must be specified.

[Crumpp]

No mention of 87 octanes whatsoever.


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

[JtD]

All aircraft fuel must be specified.Not referenced in aircraft and engine manuals, though. Because there was a variety of 100 octane fuels which could be used. Asking for THE specification of "100 octane" is like asking for THE flavour of "ice cream". There are plenty.

[Crumpp]

Asking for THE specification of "100 octane" is like asking for THE flavour of "ice cream".

No it is not.

From the January 20, 1943 Edition of the P-47B, C, and D Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions:

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1723/p47fuelspecification.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/411/p47fuelspecification.png/)

All fuel is specified by convention and by convention is part of the airworthiness instructions for the design. The aircraft's publications will list the fuel by specification that is authorized.

[Robo.]

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

Yes, but not in front line fighters. ;)

Edit - ah, just noticed Crumpp is saying FC. No, not millions of gallons then. :D

[Al Schlageter]

There is data on 100 octane consumption by RAF FC but I don't see anything on consumption from those claiming 87 octane.

How much 87 octane fuel did RAF FC consume during the BoB?

[JtD]

No it is not.Congrats, you just found one. 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.

[Glider]

I do like the way that the big questions get ignored while attention is diverted down side streets.

The arguement seems to be the RAF couldn't use 100 octane because a manual that may or may not have an accurate date, may or may not have all the updates posted in it, didn't mention 100 Octane in one section. Maybe its being simplistic but if I have a combat report from a Spitfire Unit saying that it was used in combat then the engine had been modified to use it and it was used.

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.

[JtD]

Blenheim IV manual amendment 3 issued no later than January 1940 says 100 octane in the outer fuel tanks. I'd therefore disagree that BC did not use 100 octane until August 1940.

[Seadog]

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

Source please.

[Seadog]

Again,

Read the Operating Notes.....Spitfire Mk I, July 1940:
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/576/july1940fuelspecificati.png


Spitfire 1 entered service in 1938 and the reference to the Merlin II, an engine no longer in production by July 1940, indicates that this manual refers to a pre-1940 variant:

From the 175th production aircraft, the Merlin Mk III, which had a “universal” propeller shaft able to take a constant-speed de Havilland or Rotol propeller, was fitted. Just before the Battle of Britain a de Havilland constant speed propeller, of the same diameter as the two-position unit, became available. Although this was a great deal heavier than the earlier types (500 lb (227 kg)) it gave another substantial improvement in take-off distance and climb rate.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/supermarine-spitfire-variants-the-initial-merlin-powered-line.html










ii

[Kurfürst]

Blenheim IV manual amendment 3 issued no later than January 1940 says 100 octane in the outer fuel tanks. I'd therefore disagree that BC did not use 100 octane until August 1940.

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).