I have asked you a couple of times once in the forum and once in a PM to let me know which document you are referring to as being out of context and I would do everything I can to ensure that you get everything I have. I even offered to get you a full copy of the paper you have concerns about

To date you haven't told me which ones you are referring too just that you are getting your own.

What I do ask, is that you stop running down the papers that I have posted until you can prove that they are out of context or in any way misleading.

If they are then I will apologise to one and all and leave this forum for good. However if they are not miseading or out of context then I expect you to apologise for this accusation.
If you cannot support your theory that the RAF only had 16 squadrons of fighters using 100 Octane at any one time then I expect you to withdraw that theory and apologise for wasting everyones time. Is that fair enough?

I repeat that I believe my case to be a strong case not a perfect one, but I have at least supplied a number of documents covering, all aspects of the case. Which is a lot more than can be said for the 16 squadron theory

Glider and NZt have made good posts so there is nothing to add.

I would still like to know which 16 squadrons were the only squadrons to use 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel. To help with the selection of these 16 squadrons the following are the Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons that participated in the BoB:

Hurricane
No. 1 (Canwpore) Squadron RAF JX (squadron code)
No. 3 Squadron RAF OQ
No. 17 Squadron RAF YB
No. 32 Squadron RAF GZ
No. 43 (China-British) Squadron RAF FT
No. 46 (Uganda) Squadron RAF PO
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron RAF US
No. 73 Squadron RAF TP
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron RAF NV
No. 85 Squadron RAF VY
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron RAF LK
No. 111 Squadron RAF JU
No. 145 Squadron RAF SO
No. 151 Squadron RAF DZ
No. 213 (Ceylon) Squadron RAF AK
No. 229 Squadron RAF RE
No. 232 Squadron RAF EF
No. 238 Squadron RAF VK
No. 242 (Canadian) Squadron RAF LE
No. 245 (Northern Rhodesia) Squadron RAF DX
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron RAF GN
No. 253 (Hyderabad) Squadron RAF SW
No. 257 (Burma) Squadron RAF DT ALERT
No. 263 (Fellowship of the Bellows) Squadron RAF HE
No. 501 (County of Gloucester) Squadron AuxAF SD
No. 504 (City of Nottingham) Squadron AuxAF TM
No. 601 (County of London) Squadron AuxAF UF
No. 605 (County of Warwick) Squadron AuxAF UP
No. 607 (County of Durham) Squadron AuxAF AF
No. 615 (County of Surrey) Squadron AuxAF KW
No. 1 (401) Squadron RCAF (Canadian) YO
302 (City of Poznan) Squadron (Polish) WX
303 (Warsaw - Kosciuszko) Squadron (Polish) RF
No. 310 (Czechoslovak) Squadron (Czech) NN
No. 312 (Czechoslovak) Squadron (Czech) DU

Spitfire
No. 19 Squadron RAF QV (squadron code)
No. 41 Squadron RAF EB
No. 54 Squadron RAF KL
No. 64 Squadron RAF SH
No. 65 (East India) Squadron RAF YT
No. 66 Squadron RAF LZ
No. 72 (Basutoland) Squadron RAF RN
No. 74 Squadron RAF ZP
No. 92 (East India) Squadron RAF QJ
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron RAF UM
No. 222 (Natal) Squadron RAF ZD
No. 234 (Madras Presidency) Squadron RAF AZ
No. 266 (Rhodesia) Squadron RAF UO
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron AuxAF LO
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron AuxAF XT
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron AuxAF PR
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron AuxAF DW
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron AuxAF FY
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron AuxAF QJ

Good post #982 Ace.

I will add that only the fighter bases used by Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons using 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel that are on the CloD map need be considered. It will cut down immensely on the data that has to be collected and sent to 1C. All other bases are irrelevant for the game though not for history.

Just a word on how British airbases were supplied with aviation fuel: according to the Official War History "Oil" starting in 1938 the British built a network of pipelines which distributed fuel from ports, refineries, (eg; Stanlow), through a series of Air Force Distribution Centres - small, well protected fuel bunkers, to airfields (p.64). The airfields themselves did not store large quantities of fuel;

from The Battle of Britain Then and Now Vol V.:

Debden: Sector Station had fuel storage for 72,000 gallons or 228 tons.(p. 190)
Kenley, Sector Station, had fuel storage for 35,000 gallons or 110 tons (p. 46) - with two to three squadrons operating from a sector station how long would it take to use up the fuel stored on site?

Westhampnett, had storage for 24,000 gallons of aviation fuel, or 76 tons (p. 42):
Many of the smaller airbases did not have fixed fuel storage, relying on petrol bowsers (tanker trucks to Americans).

The unit responsible in 1940 for the distribution of Aviation Spirit and Explosives was 42 Maintenance Group, which was formed in Jan 1939 http://www.rafweb.org/Grp04.htm

lol, no worries, just oversight. I was worried for a second that you were doing a Kurfurst on me ;)

Well I think there are multiple related problems but the main would be

Bug: Boost cut out does not apply boost power to the spitfire or hurricane and the boost gauge does not read 12lbs. According to the pilots notes it should.......blah blah.....FTH.....blah

Missing Feature: FMB, option to add either 87 or 100 octane fueled RAF aircraft to a mission. The flight models would be different for each type when full power is applied.

Going waaay back is this observation: (I've added some of the units which reported the use of 100 Octane.)

18 Airbases - not Squadrons which have combat reports confirming the use of 100 Octane fuel between Feb - Sept 1940;

20 squadrons preliminary count - er- er - I though someone said only 16 Squadrons used 100 Octane, pending an "eventual change" meaning (say) 10 airbases - er - how do 20 Sqns go into 16? (Feel free to add other squadrons/airbases).

Why has someone not bothered mentioning Blenheims also using 100 Octane while, some time ago, acknowledging that Blenheims used 100 Octane fuel? Has this since been retracted, or just -conveniently - forgotten about?
More to the point why is it that more than a year later someone is still arguing over the number of Squadrons using 100 octane - apart from wasting time and sheer bloodymindeness? :roll:

That does not mean every airplane on the field was using 100 octane.

You have 18 squadrons by that list by sometime in September.

You only have 16 squadrons thru August.....

You have 12 squadrons in July.....

10 Squadrons in June....

9 in May......

5 squadrons in March....

4 Squadrons in February....

Seems a much more realistic deployment schedule for operating the engines at 3 times their design capacity.

If that is what the engine produces at maximum continuous...YES.

Get a Spitfire Mk I POH and read the maximum continuous rating. That is the maximum power the engine is designed to safely and reliability produce.

Mixture control Normal = +4 1/2 lbs at 2600rpm

Why do you think the RAF called +12lbs "a definite overload condition"?

Speculation on your part, without one shread of evidence, because its what you want to believe:rolleyes:

No, actually I am just taking you guys at your word. He stated he cross referenced the logs with the time period and bases.

I just counted the squadrons by month and dropped the repeats....

At least 28 squadrons using 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel before Sept 1940

By Month

No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 92 (East India) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940 H
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron pre BoB S

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 3 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 17 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 19 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 54 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 73 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940 H
No. 41 Squadron June 1940 S
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940 S
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron June 1940 S

No. 145 Squadron July 1940 H

No. 64 Squadron 5 Aug 1940
No. 65 (East India) Squadron 12 Aug 1940 S
No. 234 (Madras Presidency) Squadron 18 Aug 1940 S
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron 31 Aug 1940 S
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron 15 Aug 1940 S

What!!! The Merlin had only a design capacity of 3-400hp. Unbelievable, truly. How ever did Rolls-Royce ever get over 1500hp from the Merlin 45M and 55M engines?

This is Priceless! :grin::grin::grin::-P:-P

Name the 16 squadrons you claim were the only ones using 100 Octane fuel on operational trials - with documentary evidence please.

Explain how 16 squadrons managed to chew through 52,000 tons, that's 16,405,633 gallons of 100 Octane fuel while on operational trials - with documentary evidence please. In fact, considering that the "trials" started in February, explain how 16 squadrons chewed through about 74,000 tons, 23,346,748 gallons of 100 Octane fuel February - September 1940, with documentary evidence please.

Explain the logistical arrangements the RAF made to supply only 16 squadrons with 100 octane fuel, with documentary evidence please.

Prove that the Merlin was rated at 400hp with documentary evidence, thank you.

NZtyphoon, add 65 squadron at Manston during August (when they were not at Hornchurch).

Post 372 demonstates that all the Hurricane units with the AASF and Air Component in France required 100 octane fuel and that 100 octane was held at the Aerodromes and depots.

Combat reports show that 11 Group Reinforcements in France also used 100 octane fuel.

From: Brian Cull, Bruce Lander and Heinrich Weiss, Twelve Days in May, (Grub Street, London, 1999), p. 309

"On 17 May the following Hurricane units were represented in France: 1, 3, 17, 32, 56, 73, 79, 85, 87, 111, 145, 151, 213, 229, 242, 245, 253, 501, 504, 601, 607, and 615 Squadrons."

Various Combat Reports from Hurricane units in France during May 1940 noting boost cut out used, +12 lbs, etc. signifying use of 100 octane fuel:

1 Squadron, 11 May 1940, F/O Paul Richey
3 Squadron, 14 May 1940, Sgt. R. C. Wilkinson
17 Squadron, 18 May 1940, F/O C. F. G. Adye
17 Squadron, 19 May 1940, F/O C. F. G. Adye
56 Squadron, 18 May 1940, P/O F. B. Sutton,
73 Squadron, 14 May 1940, F/O E. J. Kain
79 Squadron, 14 May 1940, P/O D. W. A. Stones
79 Squadron, 20 May 1940, Sgt. L.H.B. Pearce
85 Squadron, 10 May 1940, S/L J.O.W. Oliver,
87 Squadron, 15 May 1940, P/O R. P. Beamont
87 Squadron, 18 May 1940, F/Lt I. R. Gleed
87 Squadron, 19 May 1940, F/Lt I. R. Gleed
151 Sqquadron, 18 May 1940, S/L E. M. Donaldson
151 Squadron, 18 May 1940, P/O John Bushell
229 Squadron, 28 May 1940, Sgt. J. C. Harrison
229 Squadron, 29 May 1940, P/O C. M. Simpson
245 Squadron, 28 May 1940, P/O K. B. McGlashan

Lane, it doesn't matter how many squadrons are shown using 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel, the fact is there was only 16 squadrons that did so and that was in testing, there was never enough 100 octane fuel and the Merlin would blow itself to smithereens if more than 4.5lb of boost was used. :rolleyes:

Hey, I'm confident that Crumpp will trumpp everyone with extensive documentation, proving beyond doubt that the RAF kept all of its 100 Octane fuel in strategic reserve while only allowing 16 squadrons to use maybe 74,000 tons to cover intensive operational trials - in which only some squadrons would use the fuel full time - in order to convince the RAF that the fuel worked in Merlin engines rated for 400hp. Its gonna happen. Have faith. :cool:

So much for the 1/3 power.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18865

Can somebody give me some cliff notes on this and what's wrong with which planes atm? I hear a lot of tips for the 109 vs spit suggesting the 109 dive away/use superior speed. So was the 109 faster, if the spit was supposed to have 12lb boost and 100 octane fuel? How should the 109 fight the spit if the spit was in fact faster, climbed better and outturned it?

Was the G50 really as bad as it is ingame? How is it that it has a higher HP:KG ratio by some margin than the Hurricane yet the latter is practically the equal of the Spit/109 ingame?

All around confused here.

Spitfire Mk I Pilots Operating Notes, dated June 1940:

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/3...kijune1940.jpg

This is an Inspection and Test Certificate for a specific aircraft with a Merlin Mk III engine. Inspection and Test Certificate is probably the same as an FAA Form 337 allowing major modification for research or testing purposes. Note the document clears a single aircraft by serial number on 28 February 1940. The July of 1940 Spitfire Mk II manual clears the Merlin III engine for use of 100 Octane fuel and notes +12lbs may be used.

That is not the Spitfire Mk I but rather the Spitfire Mk II. There is nothing authorizing the Spitfire Mk I to use +12lbs in any of the Operating Notes.

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4...testcertif.jpg

I think there is a typo in this sentence. Not sure if you mean Spitfire I or Merlin XII.

Crumpp Interesting find, can I ask if you can show the page where it mentins the fuel to be used?
If it doesn't then it would be refering to the early war 87 octane as that was the only fuel available. The date of the Pilots Notes is not a definitive statement as was proved by Kurfursts version of the Mk II pilots notes which had an incorrect date.
Other clues would be the instructions re the prop normally around the mid 20's section and the fitting of armour plate for pilots protection normally around item 40.

Look forward to seeing the above.

PS How are you getting on re the proving of 16 squadrons?

I thought Kurfurst proved someone photo-shopped that version.

I have not seen anything that proves there were any more by September. What I have seen is misuse of information such as a single Inspection and Test certificate to build a case the entire RAF was using 100 octane or failure to explain an illogical use to reserve ratio.

Do you know what a Cylinder head spigot is?

In order to use +12lbs on the Merlin engine, you had to replace the heads with a new design with a increased spigot depth of .020. There were two authorized heads being manufactured to convert engines. One could use the existing rings while the other required a specific set of rings to be installed. Once that was done, the fuel metering system had to be modified. You can figure they would have had a 4 to 1 stock of heads before they started modifying aircraft. They would maintain that ratio even if it limited the size of the force they could convert.

In that memo dated 20 March 1940, it states this will be done as service maintenance. That means it was done on the equivalent of an annual inspection. So depending on when the aircraft made its service maintenance inspection is when it would be modified. Of course, Air Forces generally do it on an hourly basis such as 100 hrs, 200 hrs, 500 hrs up to 2000hrs. The Focke Wulf FW-190 was a 10/200hrs schedule for example. That is a 200 hour inspection can be done 10 times before the aircraft is sent depot level maintenance for overhaul.

Quite dodging the question. What are squadron numbers for these 16 squadrons.

Fill in the blanks __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ .

And? All that it means is that the Pilot's notes, which you say were printed in June 1940, did not show 100 Octane fuel.

The problem is that any changes to the notes, before the next issue was printed, were altered through sets of amendments which were noted in the inner front cover of the book, and by gummed slips which amended the text in the appropriate locations. All this shows is that this particular set of notes was not amended. Look in the front cover of the notes and you will see this.

Better still how about showing all of us the front covers, including the inner fly leaf and index pages which show the date these notes were printed?

Attachment 3 shows that Merlins in Hurricanes of 151 Sqn had been converted to 100 Octane in February 1940.

The certificate, printed in February 1940, specifically discusses one aircraft, for sure, however, there are TWO problems:

1) There were no Mk II Spitfires in production in February 1940, and the engine is described as a Merlin III, although the power ratings suggest a Merlin XII which, as attach 1 shows, had been cleared to use +12.5 lbs boost.

2)Clearly this was a Spitfire I being used to either type test a Merlin XII or test a Merlin III at higher boost pressures. All it proves is that this particular certificate belonged to a test aircraft. How does this prove that this aircraft was the only Spitfire using 100 Octane fuel, and how did this lone Spitfire manage to chew through 52,000 tons of the stuff?

You have not explained why it is that there is a great deal of evidence showing that Merlin IIIs were modified and rated to use +12lbs boost and there are combat reports showing this. And why did Dowding feel compelled on 1 August 1940 to issue a general notice to all squadrons warning them against excessive use of +12 boost when only 16 Squadrons were using the fuel? http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

* AP1590B/J.2-W (attached) 20 March 1940 (the "memo") states that the modifications were "already being done" as service maintenance, with no mention of it being done as an "annual inspection" (nor does it mention the service intervals of aircraft) - the "annual inspection" is pure speculation on your part, with no evidence, as per usual.

* AP1590B/J.2-W goes on to say that "Newer engines will already have Mod.No.Merlin/136 embodied" meaning all production engines from March 1940 did not have to be modified because Mod No. Merlin/77 (modified spigots Merlin/64 plus modified piston rings) was incorporated on the production line as a production modification (Mod.No. Merlin/136). But you didn't mention that inconvenient fact - just another example of your misreading/misuse of documentation.

How many Merlin IIIs built before March 1940 would have still been in operational use by July? The modifications Mod/64,77 & 154 also applied to Merlin IIs not many of which would have been in service by July 1940.

Much of the rest of AP1590B/J.2-W describes modifications needed to the cut-out valve, then it sets out the engine's operating limits and is a general note for pilots.

* The comment about a "4 to 1 stock of heads" is pure blather and speculation on your part, with no documented evidence, and with no relevance to AP1590B/J.2-W.

Once again, for your benefit Crumpp:

*Explain how the RAF ensured that only 16 squadrons used the fuel - with documentation. Explain why at least 30 Squadrons - Hurricanes Defiants and Spitfires - report the use of 100 octane fuel when you insist only 16 squadrons used it - with documentation please.

*Explain what happened to at least 52,000 tons of 100 octane fuel with documentation.

*List the 16 squadrons authorised to participate in trials, with documentary evidence showing they were only participating in trials.

*Prove that the Merlin III was designed for only 400hp - with documentation.

All the rest is a smokescreen, showing your total lack of evidence for anything you say.

The only one misusing/misrepresenting information is your good self -

* You have not explained, for example, why the "use to reserve ratio" of Other Grades of aviation fuel, including 87 Octane, were lower during the battle than 100 Octane fuel, reserves of which continued to increase throughout?

Please answer these specific questions instead of dodging them, as per usual.

The writer Michael Korda, who served in the RAF, said in his latest book ("With Wings Like Eagles") that the RAF as a whole was served by american 100-octane fuel since 1939. And that was the advantage used against the German fighters that had fuel injection (but 87 octane fuel).

The British only really manufactured the fuel of 87 octane. It was Dowding who insisted that the British government to acquire the fuel from the Americans.

See this post for the relevant pages of AP1565A Vol. I that cover +12 Boost and 100 Octane.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...9&d=1332111633
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1332111638
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1332111649
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...2&d=1332111659
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...3&d=1332111666

Note Sec. 2 Para XII where the increase of boost to +12 is mentioned. Note Sec. 8 Para 7 the use is "authorized" for short period and when 100 octane is used. Also note the "List of Content" of Sec. 8, it shows Sec. 8 was issued with A.L. 6 in July 1940.

Note that Sec. 8 Para 7 also refers to AP1590B Vol. I (manual of Merlin II and III) for the required modifications. IIRC in this manual only Mod 154 (modification that limits the boost to +12) is mentioned as required and the other modifications are recommended. I will look these pages up later. EDIT: The manual states that both mods are required.

Please correct this statement. It's unlikely that the Spitfire II manual (which has a Merlin XII engine) clears anything for the the Merlin III engine.

According to some sources, the test certificate (this 'Page 40' document) is from testing of Merlin III improvements - of what has later become the Merlin XII. Unfortunately, without the rest of this paperwork (previous 39 pages) we can only assume what exactly is that all about I am afraid...

Anyway, knowing RR habit of testing and 'breaking' engines while improving parts that fail first to get more power, this makes perfect sense to me. Ratings of both Merlin XII and Merlin III are well documented and researched - Merlin in perspective pg. 155 and onwards states all ratings according to improvements along from III to XII:

R.M.1.S. (Merlin III)

combat power: 1310hp, 3000rpm, 9000ft., +12lbs
(combat power: 1440hp, 3000rpm, 5500ft., +16lbs - Sea Hurricane only)
take off: 880hp, 3000rpm, +6.25lbs.
cruising: 2600rpm, +4.5lbs.
climbing: 2600rpm, +6.5lbs.

R.M.2.S. (Merlin III, as R.M.1.S. but with increased take-off power on 100 octane fuel, superseded by the use of combat ratings on R.M.1.S.)

combat power: 1000hp, 3000rpm, 15500ft.,+6.25lbs.
take off: 1000hp, 3000rpm, +8.25lbs.
cruising: 2600rpm, +4.5lbs.
climbing: 2600rpm, +6.5lbs.

R.M.3.S. (as Merlin IV but higher supercharger gear ratio (note was 8.588 on Merlin III, is 9.089 on Merlin XII) and 100 octane fuel. For Spitfire II)

combat power: 1280hp, 3000rpm, 10500ft.,+12lbs.
take off: 1175hp, 3000rpm, +12.5lbs.
cruising: 2650rpm, +7bs.
climbing: 2850rpm, +9lbs.

R.M.4.S. was regarding further improvements on Merlin XII, but was never production type; superseded by Merlin 45

CRUMPP
Your reply doesn't give the additional pages of the pilots notes that would give some indication as to the type of Spitfire we are looking at.

Can you give us a link to the rest of the pilots notes so we can review them in detail. You will understand as the sheet from the pilots notes shown don't mention a date.

As I said if it doesn't mention the fuel then it almost certainly refer to an early version of the Spitfire. By June 1940 we know from combat and squadron records that 100 octane was in use and this would be reflected in the pilots notes.

One last thing, where do the pilots notes state 400 hp? or have we dropped that theory?

Glider, it is even less HP than that. Morgan and Shacklady in Spitfire: The History gives 990 hp for early Merlin engines. So that would be 330hp according to Eugene's generalization.

Eugene is a little short on specifics, isn't he? But that is understandable when a document shows a times 2.5 increase in hp over what he claims at a lower boost level. Until he comes up with specifics, it is only so much smelly shovel from him.

:rolleyes: So squadron log books and pilot reports are garbage. Sure. :rolleyes:

Quite dodging the question. What are the squadron numbers for those 16 squadrons.

Fill in the blanks __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ .

And while you're about it Crumpp,

* Please explain why the Merlin III was cleared to use +12lbs boost, and instructions were issued for all Merlin engines to be modified to use 100 octane fuel and +12lbs boost in November 1939? Please explain what "it is understood there are adequate reserves of [100 Octane] fuel for this purpose." means?

* Please explain why it was that several squadrons were using 100 Octane fuel in February 1940? Then explain when the RAF decided to restrict the fuel's use to operational trials. Properly documented, of course.

* Please provide documentation showing that the RAF was engaged in nothing more than "operational trials" from Feb - Sept 1940.

*Then explain why A.P1590B.J.2-W states that all production engines from March 1940 were fitted with the necessary modifications on the production line, contradicting your convoluted explanation that a limited number of Merlins might have been modified, based on a 4 to 1 head reserve?

* Please provide documentary evidence that a reserve of 4 heads to 1 was required by the RAF?

* Please explain why Hurricane squadrons based in France used 100 Octane fuel operationally during May 1940, when you insist the RAF needed to use 16 squadrons to engage in "operational trials" up to September.

* Then please explain why you now insist that no Spitfire Is used 100 octane fuel, based on a single, so far undated, set of pilot's notes, when there are squadron and combat reports clearly showing that emergency +12 lbs boost was used by Spitfire, Hurricane and Defiant units?

* Please explain the administrative and logistical arrangements FC put in place to ensure that only 16 squadrons were able to use 100 octane fuel.

* Please explain what happened to at least 52,000 tons of 100 octane fuel. Provide documentary evidence showing that the stuff was merely sent back to reserves, was stored, or rejected for use.

You have been asked several times to come up with some decent evidence to prove that your speculative spin is correct - instead all we have been treated to is your usual evasion and evidence avoidence. Please, stop wasting everybody's time, including your own.

How foolish of me. I know that the Rolls Royce Eagle in WW1 was producing 300 hp, do you think that he is mixing up Eagle and Merlin?

The British were manufacturing the iso-octane needed to produce 100 Octane fuel at Heysham, Billingham and Stanlow in Britain, while there were other sources of 100 Octane fuel from the Dutch East Indies, Trinidad etc, mostly from the British Shell Company and Anglo-American Oil Co, so it's not correct to say that all 100 Octane fuel came from the United States. (see attachments)

For Crumpp's benefit: the Trimpell article states that by 31 July 1940 there were 384 Spitfires in 19 Squadrons using the fuel, as well as PR Spitfires -

* On 13 July the OOB's show 19 Spitfire squadrons; in addition there are 31 Hurricane squadrons and 2 Defiant.

Crumpp can sneer all he likes, but this alone scuppers his blind addiction to 16 fighter squadrons.

NZt, there is that river in Egypt called the da nile.;)

I think some forgot about these:

Pilot's Notes. Spitfire I Aircraft. AP 1565.

Merlin III Engine limitation:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1pn2-a.jpg

Thanks for the info, NZtyphoon!

The author probably meant the largest supplier. The book is well written, but not detailed. I think the author wanted to emphasize the drama of the fuel transported by sea in wartime ;)

Interesting! That would mean a mission built historically at least 4/5 of the available fighters should have the option of 100 octane! And almost all squads spits...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tain_squadrons

Very good research, NZtyphoon!

Not my research - thank Glider and lane in particular, who have spent hours delving into archives - note that it can cost about £3.50 to copy each of the files (?), so it adds up - and who have presented these, and many other papers, time and again in this thread, only to have them sneered at, dismissed as being "scraps of paper used out of context", or a "misuse of information" or "propaganda" by the likes of Barbi and Crumpp, who have not presented a shred of real evidence showing that the majority of frontline RAF fighters were still using 87 Octane fuel during the battle.

As for misusing and misrepresenting material? Not so long ago Crumpp, in post #921 for example, quoting A.P.1590B of March 1940 (attachment), tried to make out that the modifications needed on Merlin IIs and IIIs to use 100 Octane fuel were so extensive that very few of them could be modified in time for the battle...

What he conveniently left out is that the necessary modifications had already been introduced on the production lines, and the document was discussing modifying older engines to the required standards.

Starting way back in post #376 Crumpp, quoting from a pre-war paper said:Crumpp has been asked time and again to present documentary evidence that only 16 squadrons of RAF fighters used 100 Octane fuel, and that the RAF went ahead with its pre-war plans, regardless of the fact that a full scale air assault was underway, but of course he has not come up with anything.

He has not explained how the RAF managed to issue 61,000 tons or 19,245,500 imperial gallons of 100 Octane fuel July - October 1940, consumed 52,000 tons (16,406,000 gal), while needing only 15,184 tons (4,790,552 gal) to fly all defensive sorties, day and night, flown between 10 July - 6 October 1940 post #784. And all the while the reserves of 100 Octane fuel continued to increase.

He has not explained how only 16 squadrons of single-engined fighters managed to consume all that fuel. Instead we get blather about "strategic reserves".

Nor has Crumpp explained, and it has not yet registered with him, that heavy bombers, flying boats etc were all still using 87 Octane fuel, which might explain why it was "predominate".

Crumpp has had all of this explained very carefully, time and time again, but has continued to insist, and will continue to insist that he alone is right. If nothing else it's entertaining. :grin:

My congratulations then also for Glider and Lane ;)

As a university researcher I know and recognize good research ;)

I think this whole collection of documents should be taken seriously by Luthier!

If I read things rightly this is where we came in...about 94 pages ago! :grin::grin::grin: Really, this thread has run its course - if Crumpp wants to continue with his evidence avoidance, fact evasion, all round inability to respond to direct questions and general time wasting he can do so alone. I have far more important things to do with my life.

28_Condor; lane, aka Mike Williams has an excellent site here Well worth the time to go through.

Thanks again, Typhoon

I do not advocate the balance of planeset, because to me it makes no sense ...

But as they say in my language, "we need to put all cards on the table" (hope that makes sense in English :grin: )

If 100-octane fuel was used it had to be represented in the CLOD, no doubt :!:

Actually, you don't have more important things to do with your life. It's sad.

You are insecure and frustated, and anyone with some brain matter sees that you are just trying to get some reassurance and attention. Confident people do not get a heart attack over every issue or different opinion, nor they seem to be hell bent on to follow people to various discussion boards just to bark at them all day like you do.

You quite simply do not have a life, and it shows. You seem to think its important to follow up your discussion partners to various forums and continue your pathethic little feud there as well, and you probably think you are a smart and extremely cunning person if you constantly scheme and try organize a lynch gang via PM. To me it just proves you have no priorities for life.

Maybe you even like to entertain yourself you are some sort of expert of the subject or a historian - you try so hard to portray yourself as such at wiki - where you spend the rest of your day. Maybe this has something to do that you can't even seem to be able to finish your studies for long-long years now. Too much time on forums and scheming on wikipedia to always have the last word, eh? But, I am sure you find it satisfying enough.

Others have noted as well that the thread had become increasingly demented. That's a curious observation, since all I can see is your posts: big words thrown about by a child. Myself, I haven't even bothered to make a post a single post in the last 200 posts or so. But you seem to be enjoying talking to yourself very much, and hoping for some response, so there you go, this is the only one you'll get to disabuse you of any illusions.

You cannot seem to get why others attidude towards you have become, as you put it, an 'all round inability to respond to direct questions'. Let me clarify that for you. I think I can speak in Gene's name, too when I say that we are not responding to you because you are well past of taken seriously. You don't have anything to say anyway, so we do not waste any time on you. Capiche?

More like you Barbi, and Eugene, have nothing to say in response to the overwhelming evidence that 100 octane fuel was in widespread use during the BoB.

Your 16 squadrons that were the only squadrons that used 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel has been busted thoroughly.

The most boring in this forum are these type of personnal attack :(

I want reference of research, not opinions...

I started with wikipedia too (why not?):

(...)
[28] Payton-Smith, D J. Oil: A Study of War-time Policy and Administration. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1971. (no ISBN) SBN 1-1630074-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraf..._aviation_fuel

If this is wrong I want references about ;)

Kurfurst
Your last posting, I believe they call that a very reflective piece.

Yes, Kurfürst argument totally busted.

When people start talking like that it is clear they've lost the argument. Let's give it a rest now please.

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

Its not too difficult to find out that the editor falsifying wikipedia was Minorhistorian, NZTyphoons local handle. ;) He was busy pushing that agenda (and equally busy removing any references to the German use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle in all articles. As a matter of fact, he seems to be very busy degrading any Luftwaffe related article).

He added the line "100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940" and 'quoted' Payton-Smith, because wikipedia generally require references, but in reality Payton-Smith says such thing nowhere.

It's quite simply that our friend NZTyphoon wanted his own opinion represented there, and to give weight to it he falsified the source.

Quite a bit like when lane manipulated the May 1940 paper on his website. ;)

Comedy gold.

How many times have you had temporary bans from editing items on Wikipedia? I think it was eight, but it might have changed by now.

:grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin: :-P:-P:-P:-P

This from the "editor" who has been blocked from editing in Wikipedia: because of his disruptive and contentious attitude

after being blocked several times before: then tried to sneak in again under his ISP no. and has been blocked - again:

and his "contributions" like these: and these - meant degrading every article on Allied equipment he could lay his paws on while busily promoting everything German, and tying up the discussion pages with endless conflicts because of his constant abuse of references. That he takes himself so seriously - priceless! :grin::grin::grin:

Gee Jeff, you really have sooo many more important issues in your life, eh? :D

I note though that you are very silent about that falsified 'quote' from Payton-Smith you have inserted into that article I mentioned.

I can't be bothered to go into lenghts about your latest rant, but its suffice to say that you have been deeply involved in degrading articles on Wikipedia. You have been especially bent on degrading articles about the Bf 109 and Fw 190, for whatever reason, I guess its some sort of sick way to express your admiration to the Spitfire.

Your "contributions" are largely limited to the passion of deleting and falsifying information in that article. You seem to be hell bent on inserting false climb rates and engine ratings for the 109K, deleting referenced specs for the G-10 , removing references to Mine shells use in the Battle of Britain , repeatedly removing references to German 100 octane production with the pretext that they are 'almost impossible to access' and so on.

Who do you think you are kidding? Its all too obvious from the above edits what your agenda is, and that you have nothing better to do with your life than this petty for of existence. As for the block on wikipedia, I recall you had a buddy there with, let's just say, an interesting psychological profile, who was going after my edits, kept removing them, just like he did get into conflict with every other editor. He was, much like yourself, a student in his early 20s having nothing better to do with his life than to edit wikipedia all day, and getting his daily satisfaction from it. He was blocked repeatedly for his behaviour, and eventually normal interaction with others was just too much to him and he quit. As for me, I was simply blocked by an admin who has a record of going after German editors and seeked an excuse to do so, despite the fact that all my edits were constructive. It doesn't really matter, because I have already brought up all the articles I wanted to sufficiently good level that not much work is needed there.

Anyone who has edited wiki fully knows that it has its share of frustrated nutjobs who lead a miserable life and try to be someone on the internet. They have all the day for scheming and 'wikipolitics', because having the last word there is their life's only satisfaction and purpose. NZTyphoon/Minorhistorian's day are basically spent like this - he amuses himself as some sort of ultimate expert, deciding over the validity other people's contributions, posting ridiculus warnings on their talk page about 'disruptive' edits, stalking them, and reporting them to the administrators if he can't have his way. He pretty much does the same here, as he only registrered to this discussion board to stalk me because of his earlier frustrations he couldn't yet work out for himself, and he goes on for a hundred posts frothing about me and more recently Crumpp just to get a response. I guess its the peak of his day when he finally gets one. :D

I am sorry to say but I can't be bothered about it. :D

Well, since Wikipedia is not reliable ... :rolleyes:

I searched on google scholar and found dozens of pages just the same opinion: the RAF used 100 octane at the beginning of the Battle of Britain.

Scientific knowledge is built upon scientific consensus.

Please, someone show me a literature review that contradicts the dogma of the 100 octane in the RAF ...

Here are some of the references that I gathered in google academic (only those with full text or intelligible):

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...0808battle.pdf

http://portal.acs.org/preview/appman...rl_var=region1

http://books.google.com.br/books?hl=...ritain&f=false

http://web.mit.edu/~bmich/Public/16....A-6946-976.pdf

http://212.24.128.164/data/veda-a-vy...ry.pdf#page=77

This issue impacts the credibility of CLOD as a simulator and should be treated based on more extensive research.

Congratulations! I've been on the Internet since '94 and this is the single most hypocritical post I have ever seen.

Every single point you made can be levelled at you. X10

Edit: and the absence of any form of argument other than personal attacks is also noted.
Oh and don't kid yourself - people aren't stalking you, they are stalking the facts

Which is why I called his previous posting, a reflective posting.

Barbi goes on these berserker rants when he gets pwnd.

Eugene disappears from a thread to escape admitting he is wrong.

Well its always refreshing to hear some mature arguments gentlemen. Please do carry on.

Dear Condor,

I will look into the papers you have provided, though in my opinion not much new is surfacing in the thread, some people just like to repeat themselves. As others have correctly observed, this thread long took a demented course ever since some people graced us with their enduring presence. Most of us, and I dare to say correctly, already drawn the conclusion that the amount of Stations/Squadrons operating on 100 octane fuel cannot be ascertained - although its well known and undoubted for 70 years that it was used - we lack sufficient evidence to form an educated opinion about its extent.

Well that is a slight change on your position. On another forum you believed that it was a Pips posting ie approx 145 fighters, which was enough for about 7 squadrons with a few in reserve

I fear that you have not yet quite understood my position.

Pips noted that in May 1940 the British decided to stop the roll out of 100 octane and limit it to apprx. 25% of the force.

We of course know from the papers in AVIA 282 that in May 1940 the British indeed noted that they have supplied 100 octane to select fighter stations and a number of bomber stations.

Pips also noted that later when the supply situation eased they decided to continue with the changeover. Pips noted that the changeover was completed by the late autumn.

We also know from the same AVIA papers that it was not until early August 1940 the British finally decided to authorize 100 octane use for all operational aircraft. Of course it was just that, an authorization. The actual steps took some time.

From the fuel consumption and issue papers we know that 87 octane was the primary fuel, and 100 octane issues only increased towards late September 1940.

Unfortunately I did not have access to the stuff paid for, but these seem more clearly explained the use of 100-octane:

But even "the amount of Stations/Squadrons operating on 100 octane fuel cannot be ascertained" the amount of fuel existed:

If that amount was really enough there is no reason to suppose that the british would not use it in yours fighters.

The most correct would be to have the 100 octane as an option for missionbuilders.

Each server would built their missions according to their historical consciousness:

1/5, 1/3, 4/5, whatever it is, what can not is to deny the existence and use of 100 octane :!:

Again, please provide evidence for a SINGLE Spitfire/Hurricane, operational squadron, 87 octane combat sortie during the BofB.

Just one...:rolleyes:

apparently wikipedia isn't the only place that "...has its share of frustrated nutjobs..." ;)

LOL, he we go again with the Pips paper :rolleyes: while ignoring the number of squadron over and above the 16 +2 that used 100 octane fuel.

You continually fail to supply a breakdown of which RAF Commands received what fuel.

A single bomber in BC carried enough fuel to fuel an entire squadron of Spitfires or Hurricanes.

Can I quote this line when 1C does late war with the 109K-4 and 1.98ata?

Same old same old; Adam-Barbi doesn't have a single scrap of evidence to prove anything he claims, so he'll just go over the same old ground again, with the same old arguments.:lol: :lol:

Let’s look at some of the facts being supplied.

First we have this document:

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/2...ane29oct40.jpg

Estimates...estimates for consumption and estimates future stocks two months ahead of 29 Oct 1939.

Estimates = best educated guess. An estimate is not a fact. While interesting, it means nothing for establishing the extent of use of 100 grade. It does establish the fact in October 1940 the United Kingdom had just over half the 800,000tons of 100 Octane in strategic reserve they initially required. There was a shortage of 100 Octane fuel.

We have evidence that some 100 Octane was used as early as 16 February 1940. This squadron log definitively states the aircraft are converted and using the fuel.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7...orb16feb40.jpg

It is a fact; this unit was using 100 grade. However, that does not mean the RAF had adopted the fuel or it was in widespread use.

A technical order for conversion of the aircraft had not even been published at that time. It is highly unlikely that the RAF was in the process of widespread conversion to 100 Octane without disseminating the technical knowledge to convert the airplanes in the force.

Technical Order dated March 1940:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2397/ap1590b.jpg

The technical order tells us the major work required to convert an engine by replacing the cylinder heads, in some cases piston rings, and altering the fuel metering system. It also gives us the plan to make the conversions. Airplanes were to be converted when their service inspections where due. In order to make this conversion, there must be an adequate supply of the new cylinder heads and parts in the inventory to replace the old ones. Somebody has to make the parts required and distribute them.

These squadron log entries prove that the conversion was taking place. It does not show that they were using 100 octane fuel. The only fact it shows is that the planes were converted according to the plan laid out in the technical order.

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5323/no611100oct.jpg

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/2448/no74100oct.jpg

Looking at this document, we know for a fact nobody in the United Kingdom was using any sizable quantity of 100 Octane fuel before June of 1940.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7...umptionbob.jpg

That would make sense given the other facts we have at hand.

1. There was no technical order or instructions to convert until March 1940.
2. Conversion required major work and a supply of cylinder heads to be in the manufactured and distributed to the inventory.
3. Conversion was done on the periodical major inspection schedule of the aircraft when it was down for service anyway.
4. None of the POH's list +12lbs as authorized before June 1940. If it was the major fuel, those instructions would eclipse the instructions for 87 Octane.
5. There were no stocks in any quantity of 100 Octane fuel at any airfields prior to June 1940.
6. 100 Octane fuel does not become the major fuel on hand at any airfields until October 1940.
7. In October of 1940, the United Kingdom as just half the Strategic Reserve required of 800,000 tons. In other words, there is a shortage of 100 Octane fuel in the United Kingdom.

Even after June 1940, 100 Octane does not come anywhere close to eclipsing 87 Octane use. It represents on 27% of the fuel on the airfields during July thru August.

In September, 100 Octane represents 37% of the fuel on hand at the airfields. In October the increase is significant with 47% of the total fuel at the airfields being 100 Octane. The other 53% in October is still 87 Octane.

That concludes the facts at hand. All of this points to the biggest fact of all, we don't know for sure at this point.

Lastly lets address why I believe the 16 squadrons over simplistic calculations.

Now the 16 squadrons is found in two sources. First Morgen and Shacklady list RAF Fighter Command as having 16 squadrons for Fighter Command and 2 Squadrons for Bomber Command by September of 1940. The Trimpell Oil Company also confirms this plan. They list 19 squadrons and 384 Spitfires using the fuel by 31 July 1940. If we count squadrons listed in both sources:

16 squadrons in Fighter Command + 2 Squadrons in Bomber Command + 1 PRU unit in Coastal Command = 19 Squadrons.

16 Spitfire squadrons in Fighter Command = 352 A/C at the establishment of 22 A/C per squadron enacted in July 1940.

That leaves 32 Aircraft for Coastal Commands PRU unit.

Both sources seem to agree and their conclusions are close enough on the 16 squadrons. Those conclusions are backed by the Aircraft Operating Instructions and the airfield stocks as listed in the United Kingdom’s Table II - Consumption report and Strategic Reserve situation.

That 16 squadrons using 100 Octane fuel during the Battle of Britain puts the reserve to consumption ratio at a much more believable rate and the accounts for the inventory lag of replacing cylinder heads. In short, from a logistical standpoint, it is much more credible and is agrees with the evidence found in the aircraft operating instructions.

Now several second hand sources make the statement that 100 Octane was the predominate fuel for Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. This is true depending on the dates you choose to end the battle. On 15 September, I would say it was unlikely that 100 Octane was the predominate fuel. However by December 1940 it did become the predominate fuel and by the German date for the end of the battle, May 1941 when the bombers were transferred to the east, 100% of the RAF was using 100 Octane fuel.

Is a joke in academic circles. Including it as a source at the college I graduated from was an automatic failure.

Read Wikpedia's own General Disclaimer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ral_disclaimer

Read the first paper dated October 29 properly Crumpp: Deduct Estimated Consumption Nov/Dec - all this paper is doing is estimating consumption for November and December 1940 - it has absolutely nothing to do with actual fuel consumed July- October 1940.

As for the second document correct - the squadron was operational on 100 Octane fuel in February, meaning that the modifications to Merlins was well in hand before March...as for AP1590B March 1940;

Read AP1590B properly Crumpp; nowhere does this document mention overhauling aircraft, nor does it mention "service inspections". Just to make things especially clear to you:

Paragraph 4 states "Newer engines will already have Mod.No.Merlin/136 embodied" meaning that the conversion was already being undertaken on the production line.

This document refers to older engines being brought up to the same standards:

Paragraph 4 states ...Mod.No.Merlin/77 is already being done as service maintenance

As per usual you have utterly misrepresented what these documents are saying. :rolleyes:

No it estimates more than consumption, it estimates deliveries of the fuel and increases in strategic stocks.

As I pointed out, the only fact it does relate is:

Your statement about the squadron log:

1. There was no fuel at the airfields in any quantity. See the Table II consumption document. It is therefore unlikely this is any kind of widespread operational use.

2. Yes, that squadron used the fuel in February but no technical instructions were in widespread dissemination.

3. If the fuel was standard by June 1940, it would have eclipsed the 87 Octane Operating Instructions.

Who said anything about overhauling the aircraft? Do you know what a service inspection is NzTyphoon? It is the equivalent of an annual or a FAR 21.183 100 Hour inspection.

There is no misrepresentation and the language is quite similar to Service Bulletins and Airworthiness Directives in use today.

It clearly states the two methods of compliance by part number with the technical order and specifies which one will be incorporated in future production engines. The 900(+) Single Engined fighters using the Merlin already in service will have to be converted along with the maintenance stock of Merlin engines.

It means they have to manufacture quite a few new cylinder heads and rings. That is why the conversion will take place during the cyclic service inspection.

We have yet to see the identity of these 16 fighter squadrons from you Eugene.

Yet there is documentation that there was more than 16 squadrons with Hurricanes and Spitfires using 100 octane fuel even before the BoB started.

By Month

No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 92 (East India) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940 H
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron pre BoB S

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 3 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 17 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 19 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 54 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 73 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940 H
No. 41 Squadron June 1940 S
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940 S


There was NO SHORTAGE of 100 octane fuel. Total consumption for the whole of the BoB didn't come anywhere near what was in stock before the BoB started.

If there was no TO till March, then how did 611 Sqn convert in Feb?

Wrong question....

How did they know all the technical answers to publish instructions in March?

Answer....

They tested it over a period of time in a number of aircraft to get the data required.

Not at the required consumption to stock ratios....

Pretty much ends my conversation with you so I will put you back on the ignore list.

Frankly, it is very difficult to follow this discussion ...

For me it is easier to understand articles that have reviewed the literature and where I can draw conclusions:


Palucka, Tim. The Wizard of Octane. American Heritage of Invention & Technology, 20. 3 (Winter 2005): 36-45.
Resume: IF, AS THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SAID, the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, then one can assert with equal justice that the Battle of Britain was won at the Stevens Hotel, in Chicago, on November 18, 1938. It was there, at the annual meeting of the American Petroleum Institute, that Arthur E. Pew, vice president and head of research of the Sun Oil Company, described his company's extraordinary new catalytic refining process. Using it, he said, Sun was turning what was normally considered a waste product into gasoline-and not just ordinary gasoline, but a highoctane product that could fuel the era's most advanced airplanes. That process would make a crucial difference in mid-1940, when the Royal Air Force started filling its Spitfires and Hurricanes with 100-octane gasoline imported from the United States instead of the 87 octane it had formerly used. Luftwaffe pilots couldn't believe they were facing the same planes they had fought successfully over France a few months before. The planes were the same, but the fuel wasn't. In his 1943 book The Amazing Petroleum Industry, V. A. Kalichevsky of the Socony-Vacuum Oil Company explained what high-octane gasoline meant to Britain: "It is an established fact that a difference of only 13 points in octane number made possible the defeat of the Luftwaffe by the R.A.F. in the fall of 1940. This difference, slight as it seems, is sufficient to give a plane the vital `edge' in altitude, rate of climb and maneuverability that spells the difference between defeat and victory."

Bailey, Gavin. The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain. English Historical Review; Apr2008, Vol. 123 Issue 501, p395-411, 17p, 3 Charts
Resume: The article focuses on the supply of 100-octane fuel during the battle of Great Britain. Aviation historians have advanced the supply of 100-octane aviation fuel as critical American contribution to the battle. A study of the contemporary Air Ministry records in the Public Record Office shows that this assertion can be challenged. The challenge can be made on the grounds of the aircraft performance benefit involved, as showed by contemporary Royal Air Force (RAF) testing, and on the national origin attributed to 100-octane fuel supplies. The records reveal that contrary to the assertion of aviation history, the supply of 100-octane fuel to RAF in time for use in the battle must be attributed to pre-war British planning and investment on the rearmament period of the late nineteen-thirties.

My only conclusion is that only in this forum I read the statement that 100-octane did not have a role in the Battle of Britain (statement supported by the devs? :confused: ) ... and not supported in a peer-reviewed article...

You did, right here:
You have no idea what technical service documents were published between November 1939 and February 1940, so claiming that none had been published is completely wrong.

The designation AP1590B J.2-W indicates that there were documents before this one

Read AP1590B J.2-W properly Crumpp - it refers to older production Merlins

Paragraph 4 states[B]

1) .Mod.No.Merlin/77 is already being done as service maintenance "is already being done" means that the parts and the information needed was available before March 1940.

2)"Newer engines will already have Mod.No.Merlin/136 embodied" "Will already" means that production engines built before March 1940 incorporated the modifications.

Once again utter nonsense. You are still obsessed with a pre-war document to decide what happened in wartime when a country was under attack. Reserves of 100 Octane never reached 800,000 tons - in 1941, when all services had converted to the fuel, reserves reached a peak of 527,000 tons in February before steadily declining.

Strategic reserves of "Other Grades", including 87 Octane fuel, got far lower than 100 Octane in August 1940; 230,000 tons cf 404,000 tons of 100 Octane. Your "required consumption to stock ratio..." is completely erroneous

August 1940

Consumption of "Other Grades" = 26,000 tons plus reserves of 230,000 tons = 256,000 tons of other grades. Heavy bombers, flying boats etc were still consuming 87 Octane fuel considering that big aircraft with big fuel tanks were using the fuel the difference in consumption is a little easier to understand.

Consumption of 100 Octane
10,000 tons plus 404,000 tons in reserves = 414,000 tons of 100 Octane

Get it clear in your mind Crumpp - only 15,000 tons of fuel was needed to cover all operational defensive sorties flown by Merlin powered aircraft of Fighter Command right through the battle. You have never explained what happened to the remaining 36,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel consumed, and you never will. Instead, as per usual, you continue to evade some very basic questions.

The testing had been done long before mass conversions began early in 1940.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...t-approval.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...octanefuel.jpg

Then there is the document of Dec 1939 for stocking of 21 operation bases and 18 other bases with 100 octane fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0oct-issue.jpg

Notice North Weald is one of those stations. How many times have we heard from you that no mods could be done without proper documentation/orders? So 611 Sqn must have done the conversion without proper authorization.

However did RAF FC conduct operations after Oct 1940 when 100 octane fuel was the fuel of FC as it still hadn't reached 800,000 reserve tons?

As can be seen there was no worries about 100 octane fuel,
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/1...e-2april40.jpg

Even at the end of 1941 there still wasn't a reserve of 800,000 tons.



We have yet to see the identity of these 16 fighter squadrons from you Eugene.

There is nothing in that technical bulletin that reads engines produced before March 1940 will have the modification.

Once again, if it was the standard fuel in service, the Operating Instructions would reflect that.

They would not continue to publish 87 Octane Operating limits with scant references to the ability to use 100 Octane. They would publish the 100 Octane limits and the 87 Octane would be a foot note or a supplemental instruction.

Where is the 100 Octane fuel at the airfields in March??

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9...mptionbob2.jpg

Some must have been at North Weald for 151 Sqn and 611 Sqn.

Some must have been at Drem for 111 Sqn.

Someone needs to learn how to read a chart. The 23,000 ton figure for Mar to May 1940 is in the centre of the chart and is a combined figure for 100 and 87 octane fuel.

More like just learn to read.

Error

They were not using 100 Octane at least by the log entry posted in this thread.

The footnotes would point that out.

Clearly, 87 Octane is the only aviation fuel available before June 1940.

Once again, this is reflected in the Operating Instructions as well.

If 100 grade was the standard, it would be the standard in the Operating Instructions.

Typo...I know the paper is October 1940.

Exactly. For example Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III. 2nd Edition January 1939. It doesn't mention +12 boost, it mentions that a unspecific higher boost than +6 1/4 can be used for take-off by operating the boost-control cut-out.
It doesn't mention any modification, only that 100 octane fuel must be used. (Note that the 4th Edition from April 1940 mentions that "sparking plugs approved to withstand this high boost must be used", so if there was any modification required in January 1939 it would have been mentioned.)
It does however state that this higher boost setting has to be determined on the ground before it is used by listening if there is detonation.

The 4th Edition from April 1940 now gives +12 boost and as already said mentions that specific sparking plugs must be used and that the boost-control cut-out has to be modified to limit boost to +12 boost.
Looks like in April the cylinder head modification was no longer required (maybe because all engines had been modified).

Read AP1509B again, properly it says:

"Newer engines will already have Mod.No.Merlin/136 embodied" it means what it says - new engines on the production lines - engines being built before the issue of this document - were already being fitted with the modifications. Older engines were also being modified.

Ever heard of wartime emergency modifications Eugene? - that means that normal, peacetime practices of leisurely annual maintenance are suspended in favour of ensuring that the latest modifications are embodied as quickly as possible in as many frontline units as possible.

A prime example:Starting on June 22 1940, in co-operation with de Havilland, the RAF mounted a crash program to ensure all of its frontline Merlin engine fighters were fitted with Constant Speed propellers

"Minutes of a meeting held on June 22nd with the Senior Technical Officer of Fighter Command relate that de Havillands would start the conversion at twelve Spitfire stations on Tuesday, June 25th (less than a week after the first test flight) and could provide twelve men capable of supervising a
station apiece; that the firm estimated that each squadron would take ten days to convert, and that all Spitfire squadrons could be completed by July 20th. The same minutes recorded that de Havillands had put in hand the production of 500 conversion sets, without contract cover, and that these would be coming out at the rate of 20 sets daily from June 24th, two days later. Supermarines were to be supplied with 20 sets per week from June 25th for aircraft coming off the production line; this would mean that two-thirds of the Spitfire production from that day onward would be "constant-speed...."

The conversion called for this constant-speed unit; a small shaft drive to connect it to the engine; four external engine oil pipes; a complete cockpit control with conduit, and detail parts. The airscrews did not have to be changed, having been designed for constant-speeding, but each had to be dismantled to move the index pins so as to give full pitch range....As Rolls-Royce could not, consistent with other heavy demands, produce the quill shafts for driving the c.s. units, or the engine oil pipes, the data were given to de Havillands and the facilities of the Gipsy engine factory were pressed into service to make over 1,000 sets of these parts. Everybody in the D.H. organisation who could contribute anything was transferred to this job....
The working times of the D.H. engineers during the ensuing weeks averaged about 105 to 110 hours (15 to 16 hours a day), with instances of 130 and up to 150 hours (19 to 21½ hours out of the 24). At some squadrons as many as four and five Spitfires were converted and test-flown in a day....
An entry dated Friday, August 2nd, records that by then, 44 days after the test flight of the first converted Spitfire, the production of conversion sets for all existing Spitfires (more than 800 sets, fulfilling the schedule of 20 a day) was complete, and they had therefore started producing for the Supermarine assembly line; De Havillands then had 400 Hurricane conversion sets in hand and expected to convert a total of 700, after which constant speed airscrews would be embodied in the new aircraft." (Before you dismiss this as "propaganda" this information is reproduced, almost word for word, in Morgan and Shacklady)

Wartime emergency: de Havilland worked overtime to manufacture, distribute and fit the CS conversion without a formal contract. In 44 days more than 800 propellers had been modified. Nothing like a wartime emergency to spur things along. And just to be clear, the same can apply to Merlins.

Let's see this unspecific boost!

The June 1940 Operating Instructions make no mention whatsoever for a higher boost at take off.


It is being read properly. That is backed up by the logs.

Notice the engine is modified during Service Inspection:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/2448/no74100oct.jpg

LMAO!! It specifics which method of compliance will be used in production. It does not say a single thing about engines produced in the past!!

Not a prime example, a very atypical example and heroic effort on the part of DeHavilland.

I am sure you would love to think this was normal.

Is extremely easy when compared to the technical level of producing a cylinder head.

Here's two more that come to mind:

245 Squadron, May 1940, Hurricane
264 Squadron, May 1940, Defiant

602 Squadron also at Drem
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/6...-100octane.jpg

Hi NZtyphoon,

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/1...ne-29oct40.jpg

The important figure to my mind on that document is simply 100 Octane Fuel Stocks in U.K. 29.10.40 = 423,400 tons.

Stocks of 100 octane at the end of December 1940 was 499,000 tons:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ocks-39-40.jpg

Yes, just as the Total for 1st Yr. = 267 refers to 100 Octane and Other Grades.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...mption-bob.jpg

My copy confirms your statement:

Emergency +12 lbs./sq. in. Boost Operation: Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...erlin3-pg6.jpg

As said, there is no fixed boost value specified. The possible boost value had to be determined individually before the take-off. I will dig out the pages ASAP.

It does:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1332111649
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...3&d=1332111666

Well, as long as you are not doing a "long period take-off" ...

I am sorry to jump into this discussion (I would prefer to burn in my burning Bf109 with a properly exploding central fuel tank than post in this thread, LOL) but I there is something that raised my curiocity:

I am looking at the numbers for the first year of war (Sep.'39 - Aug.'40)
Did anybody notice that the line Total for first year numbers make no sense?
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9...mptionbob2.jpg

Just wonder what the reason may be for this discrepancy.

~S~

Actually, the figures do add up and do make sense. The figures given are Monthly Average Consumption in thousands of tons.

For the 1st Year of War Sept.-Nov.'39, 16 is given as the monthly average, in thousands of tons, for that 3 months period.
With that understanding (16x3) + (14x3) + (23x3) + (10x3) + (26x3) = 267

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...mption-bob.jpg

Thanks lane though I am really only interested in Spit and Hurrie squadrons.

Did 245 still use 100 fuel after it went to Aldergrove in July 1940?

If you can't read properly that's your problem; the form says absolutely nothing about what type of inspection K9878 is undergoing, and the final sentence says END change to 100 Octane, referring to the fact that the entire unit has gone over to 100 Octane by 16 March 1940, PRE dating AP1590B which is dated 20 March 1940 and confirming what AP1590 says, that Merlin engines were already being modified.

I can read very well. The entry complies with the technical instructions found in A.P. 1590B/J.2W. It does not mean they are using 100 Octane fuel.

Once again, where is in any significant quantity of the fuel at the airfields in March 1940? Answer is there is no fuel in any significant quantity. Your own documentation shows that. Problem is you gamers are so bent on finding what you need that you do not see any other outcome.

Once again, if 100 Octane fuel is not listed as the primary Operating Instructions even in June 1940.

I have the June 1940 version. All previous instructions are included in the later version AND any technical orders are incorporated. That is a fact.

If the later version of the Operating Instructions does not include it, you can bet the earlier did not.

That looks like somebodies photo-shop work.

Baloney.

Total is just that...TOTAL for the year.

In 1938 they had 100 Octane in quantity?? No they did not.

I don't think it has anything to do with the columns above it. Can you prove it does not?

It is not at take off. The +12lbs is allowable up to 1st Gear FTH.

Even in June 1940, 100 Octane has not eclipsed 87 Octane as the predominate fuel. The Pilots Operating Instructions would have published with the latest data. This is reflected in Table II as no significant quantities of 100 Octane exist at the airfields.

If the technical instructions were published in March then that gives them 4 months until the update is published.

The Operating Notes still list 6 1/2lbs as the 5 minute all out emergency setting for the engine as the most common configuration.

The limiting operational conditions does not make any mention at all of 100 Octane.

The answer to the question of the extent of 100 Octane all depends on when you place the dates of the Battle of Britain. September 15th 1940 as an end date is a post war and has nothing to do with Fighter Command's actions in context.

The RAF official history takes the battle out to the end of October 1940 when German Daylight raids ceased. Other histories end the battle in December 1940:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/theaircra...eoffwellum.cfm

The German's end the battle in May 1941 when their bombers where transferred to the east and offensive operations against England were called off.

Pilots Operating Limitations, June 1940:

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/3...kijune1940.jpg

All out 5 minute Emergency rating as listed in June 1940:

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9...cyratingju.jpg

If by June 1940, 30 squadrons were operating 100 Octane, then almost the entire force would need the +12lbs boost instructions instead of the 87 Octane. The Operating Notes would have reflected this and the 100 Octane limits would have been included.

That is a fact and how it works.