Questions on 100 Octane

[Crumpp]

All of the baloney on these boards stems from the fact a few individuals did not agree with my conclusions on 100 Octane use.

Where is all the data on performance with 100 Octane?

There is mounds of data on the specified fuel, 87 Octane all they way through the Battle of Britain. There is very little on 100 Octane. If the fuel was the standard in operational use, why even bother testing with 87 Octane? The performance would be irrelevant.

Why isn't it listed as a Specified Fuel until after the Battle of Britain?

It was not listed as a specified fuel in any Operating Notes and instructions for its use the airplanes will be modified at normal periodic maintenance.

If it was in such great quantity and so urgent, why not modify them now?

That is what happenend with giving the RAF fighters a constant speed propeller!! The capabilty was available, necessary, the logistics achievable, and the modification was done rapidly. The claim is there was such a great rush to get it into service.

Instead the RAF chose to gradually modify the aircraft on a normal maintenance schedule. WHY?

According to participants, the modification was extremely simple and easy to do.

Why is the RAF still testing 100 Octane in mid August 1940 if it was the standard fuel?


These are the questions the "great debate" did not answer and why I took the position the fuel was in use but not the standard or only fuel available that operational units used.

[Robo.]

Very good questions Crumpp.

I am sure you spent more time than anyone arguing about this particular topic, most of the answers are covered in those lengthy threads already - although you seem to have overlooked that - it was something about war going on and German invasion threat or something like that, I don't remember exactly what the overall situation was back then.

What exactly would you like to achieve by beating this dead horse (again)?

[fruitbat]

its groundhog day again.

[pstyle]

Hi Crumpp, Just want to check on two of your reasonings.
It's possible I've totally misread you here.

You ask (rhetorically) in the answer to your first question that data on 87 fuel was being produced "all of the way through" the BoB; and that, if 100 was the "standard" fuel in use, why would they continue to test 87… (I take your implication to be that 87 must have been in substantial operational use, given the apparent use in testing at that time) However, in your last question you ask “why is the RAF testing 100 fuel if it is the standard fuel” in use. This appears to suggest that testing of a fuel once it is in use is redundant to a degree, and therefore the fact that it is being tested indicates it must NOT be standard.

Does your answer to question 1, not also apply to the last? You indicate that your believe (correct me if I am wrong) that 87 was continually tested while it was the “standard” fuel in use, then you seem to have trouble understanding why the RAF would test a fuel when it is standard. Are we, in all cases, talking about primarily testing THE FUEL, or are we talking about testing the AIRCRAFT (or engine) WITH the fuel. I think here is a distinction between these two types of inquiry that will help us understand what isgoing on.

I suspect the issue here is also about engines and airframes. Not only are the RAF testing FUELs, they are testing the performance of new engines and propeller systems. So it is no wonder that we have 100 and 87 data throughout the period, because we also have different airframe types coming along. As an aside, If we want to rely heavily on “volume of testing carried out with fuel type” as some proxy for proportions of operational use, what we really need to do, is systemically record the dates of each of the actual tests and the fuels being used, in addition to any other variables being studies in the tests (i.e. engine, airframe etc). I thuinki, only then could we get a more reliable feel for the proportion of fuel type being tested, and perhaps (only paerhaps) make some assumptions about operational use on that basis. I don’t think we are at that level of information yet.

[Osprey]

What a massive troll this bloke is. I guess they just hazed him too hard in the army.

[Bounder!]

obvious troll is obvious

[JG52Uther]

This subject has been done to death. Title of this sub forum is:

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Note the 'in CoD' bit, thats important.This is not a forum for trolling posts.