Apologies for possibly restarting an old debate but there would be no need for tanks to be refilled with 87 octane as all RAF front line squadrons were fully equipped with 100 Octane. 87 Octane was used in OCU units that were equipped with Spitfires and Hurricanes but not front line units.

I am the poster who disagreed with Kurfurst in the WW2 Aircraft forum and am able to support any statement or figure that was made by myself in that forum on this subject with published information and or original documentation. If you have incorporated any of Kurfursts theories into your work then I am afraid that you have been seriously misled.

You will find that Kurfurst will not be able to support his statements. If you have any questions or doubts then please do not hesitate to raise them and I will be able to adress them in open discussion.

Can you present a single document stating so..?

I've asked you several times to do so. You were not able to.

During the previous discussion, you have supplied a paper which directly contradicted your past and present claims, stating that 100 octane was to be supplied to "certain Fighter and Blenheim Squadrons":

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...meetingA-1.jpg

Kurfurst
While I wait for the other questions can you tell me what certain means such as how many and of what type?
You have encouraged some big assumptions in this thread so how many is certain and how did you come to that assumption?

I will support my statement that you know, as I have always done before, but I want to know how you came to these figures.

For the meaning of certain, please refer to: http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdic...nary/certain_1

I am pretty sure though its meaning is in stark contrast with all.

Clarify what 'some big assumptions' supposed to mean. You are again only presenting rhetorics.
The document you posted and which directly contradicts your thesis speaks of no uncertain terms of certain Fighter and Blenheim Squadrons.
That's not an assumptopn - it's a fact.

Can you present a single document stating so..?

I've asked you several times to do so. You were not able to.

I've asked again in this thread. You've evaded the question.

So I ask again: Can you present a single document stating so..?

The reason I have to ask you for the second time and about the tenth time since we have this discussion is because you were completely unable to support your statement.

Kurfurst You know why I asked you about the number of squadrons and fighters with 100 Octane, its something we have covered before and I want to know if your position has changed.

All
The link that is most important is the following
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html
To save time I will often refer to postings in this thread but I am afraid that Kurfurst has misled you from the start. His posting 24 is little more than a fantasy.

For example
The paper that is supposed to be from the Australian Researcher doesn’t as far I am aware exist. It is supposed to be held at the Australian records, who when I asked for a copy could not find it, they could not find it when the Wikipedia people asked for it and this was most interesting we discovered that Kurfurst hadn’t even tried to look for it. See his posting 92 and my reply 96
Even if it does exist it is riddled with errors to be worthless for instance
1) It talks about a great strain on the 100 octane fuel reserves. Posting 2 shows a stockpile of 400,000 tons in August 1940 which consumption in the period of July to August averaged 10,000 tons a month, making it a three and a half year stockpile. I don’t call that a shortage or a strain.
2) It talks about the Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. These meetings didn’t mention 100 octane at all, there were no decisions made and 87 octane was not deemed to be the primary fuel. See my posting 174
3) It says that large quantities of fuel were not available until August which is clearly wrong. Posting 2

In Kurfursts posting on this thread no 24 he says things that he knows to be untrue such as
1) He clearly accuses me of ‘subtle manipulation of the original papers’. This is a lie.
2) He says that I was in communication with the Australian researcher. That's is unfortunate, because I saw the authors of said article discussing the same subject with an Australian researcher. Again this is a lie indeed I was keen to have such communication. See my posting 96 where I ask Kurfurst to get him to contact us. This never happened.

Another tactic the Kurfurst uses is not divulging all the information that he has if its not convenient and there is a good example re the number of Blenheim units that were equipped with 100 octane. He seems to have led you to believe that only two squadrons were so equipped. Lets look at this
1) Posting 2 is a letter from the ACAS on behalf of the Chief of the Air Staff asking for squadrons equipped with fighters and Blenheim to be equipped with 100 Octane
2) Posting 3 covers the arrangements for the transfer
3) Posting 4 is an update showing that Bomber command is going well but there is a misunderstanding re fighter command
4) Posting 6 is a note of thanks for the job done.
In other words all Blenheim bomber units had the fuel. Kurfurst was well aware of this detail.

I have accused Kurfurst of serious things and I have done this with care but he has a track record. I suggest you review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ai...tle_of_Britain
It’s the discussion section on the Aircraft of the Battle of Britain. Here you will see the sort of accusation that Kurfurst has not hesitated to use.

I should add that I am not Gavin Bailey my name is David Slack.

Glider, why aren't you posting proof that all RAF units were supplied with 100 octane?

Dear David/Glider,

I am not going to lower myself to your level of evading questions and instead of putting forward your evidence, repeatedly requested by myself in this and other threads, entering into pitiful personal attacks. Its sufficient to say that despite being asked about 3 times already to put forward the evidence to your claims, you've utterly failed to do so. Instead, you've only managed to claim that the evidence I put forward in my earlier posts are 'fantasy' - very convincing and mature arguement indeed!

Therefore, I find it sufficient to point out the following facts. Regarding the Australian Researcher's findings, you strongly distort what he says, and put up strawman arguements, such as putting into his mouth that 'large quantities of fuel were not available until August' - he never said such a thing. You simply make up a lie and then 'disprove' your own lie. He notes that the decisions were made in may 1940 due to concerns of future fuel supplies, which makes the arguement about what the storage was in August completely irrelevant - in may the fuel supply was still just about 200 000 tons, and at the RAF's consumption rate of 40-50k tons per month it would be sufficient for but a few months, had complete 100 octane conversion would have been decided. Regarding you claims about British War Cabinet meetings, earlier you claimed you went into the NA in Kew and 'found nothing' -I am totally on the opinion that you have simply made this up in desperation.

Regarding your comments regarding my posting on this thread no 24, they only show that you are completely lack reading comprehension skills, which makes you probably the least qualified person in this thread to make summaries of far more complicated papers than a forum post written in simple English. Regarding the Australian researchers findings, I must also note that despite I made it clear where the qoutes come from, you first have repeatedly told others that those are my finding and I should produce the paper; you have had to be told several times over and over again that the research was done by an Austrialian fellow, and you were even given a link to the discussion concerned; then you kept claiming some conspiracy that the link wasn't working for you, and now you admit that you in fact seen the thread, but now claim that for some reason you couldn't contact him; I wonder why, when you have seen the thread, you could send him a PM any time have you really wished; why I would need to ask to contact you is beyond my imagination.

Aware of what..? I am glad to see that you are resorting to your favourite tactic, you were asked to support evidence for your claim that all fighter command fighter were running on 100 octane, and utterly failed at that; so instead now you change the subject and brought up a new claim, that all Blenheims were running on 100 octane as well. What's next, Glider? But very well, support that claim as well, I willing to believe if I see the evidence, because your papers, whatever you want to read into them plainly say that

"certain Fighter and Blenheim Squadrons"

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...h-meeting-.jpg

"the Bomber Stations concerned was practically complete (these Stations are Wyton Watton, Wattisham, West Rayham)"

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...ng-minute-.jpg

Quite clearly only four Bomber/Blenheim bases were 'concerned' with 100 octane fuel. If those four stations held all Blenheim Squadrons, your claim may be true, but somehow I doubt it.

Wyton had two Blenheim Squadrons at the time: Nos. 15 and 40
"In December 1939, both Wyton squadrons were sent to France and Nos. 15 and 40 Squadrons returned from the Continent to Wyton, the first step in converting Battle squadrons to Blenheims. Both squadrons flew their first bombing raids from Wyton on May 10, 1940 against targets in the Low Countries. The Blenheims of No. 57 Squadron were based briefly at Wyton in June before going south, returning for two weeks the following month before flying north only to appear again at Wyton in late October. "

Wattisham had also two, Nos. 107 and 110 Squadrons http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/s30.html
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/s106.html

Watton also had two Blenheim Squadrons: Nos.21 and 82 Squadrons
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/s31.html

West Rayham had only one Blenheim Squadron, No. 139, and possibly from June 1940 also no. 18 also operating.

That's 7 or more like 8 Blenheim Squadrons on 100 octane. At that time there were 15 Bomber Command Sqns. operating Blenheim IVs. But this pretty much explains where 100 octane fuel went in such quantities - even those 8 Blenheim Squadrons were consuming a lot. Total tankage was 468 imp. gallons compared to 85 gallons on the Spit - a worth of about 45 Fighter Squadrons.. ;)

Its very straightforward there is a limit to what I can and cannot prove and that is something that I have always been open about. I do not make assumptions, neither do I post part of the information available to me. So going back to the thread that I put a link in to earlier.

Posting 2
Shows the instruction from the Chief of the Air Staff for fighters and Blenheim units to be equipped with 100 octane. The ACAS has made the request but its safe to assume he wouldn't do this without the authority from the top. Its a clear request without any limits, it doesn't say certain, or limit the issue by Group or any other qualification.

Posting 3
Contains two papers the one that Kurfurst quotes saying Certain squadrons and the second paper that gives the actual status in both Bomber and Fighter commands.
Its worth noting that I didn't have to post the first paper, I knew at the time that the word 'certain' could be used to discredit the position and had I not posted it no one would have known, but for completeness I did include it.
If you look at my posting 12 it includes the line
I could see one line which I knew Kurfurst would almost certainly leap on and could have left it out, but that would have broken the train so I kept it in.
I can only assume that he didn't dare use that word then but has now decided to do so. Anyway back to your question.

Posting 4
Here you can see that as a cost saving measure the Authorities wanted to keep one tank of 87 octane for visiting aircraft passing through. Bomber Command were against this and permission was given in some cases for all the fuel to be 100 Octane.

Note the terminology - the 87 Octane wasn't for non operational flights, but for aircraft passing through.
Note also the reference to the four bomber bases - these four bases were the only ones allowed to be 100% 100 Octane, the other bases had to keep one tank for the aircraft passing through. It certainly wasn't only these four bases were to have 100 octane.

Posting 5
is an update report

Posting 6
Is the paper confirming the completion of the switch from 87 to 100 octane. I do make the observation that
What is interesting is what isn't in the file and its a big file. At no stage is any concern expressed about any shortage of 100 Octane Fuel the level of stocks or any lack of supply. There was never any mention of capping distribution or shipping stocks from one station to another or sector

Posting 12
This is interesting for a different reason. It refers to the experimental production of 100 Octane fuel at a UK Refinery which produced 35,000 tons over four months, at a time when average useage was 10,000 tons a month. In other words had there been a shortage then the UK could easily have been self sufficient. The experiment did take place but due to cost grounds it was switched back to normal production when complete

I was asked if I had a list of when each station was equipped with 100 octane but there wasn't a schedule in the NA files.

It should also be noted that Kurfursts position was that only 18 fighter squadrons were equipped with 100 Octane which is one reason why I was asking him to state what number of aircraft or squadrons was he talking about in this forum being equipped with the better fuel.
It should be noted that we identified well over 30 squadrons which reported the use of the extra boost and additional stations which had 100 octane over and above the ones listed in the records. 100 octane was used in France and Norway so it was widely used and a standard issue

Posting 63
Kurfurst was getting a little desperate at this stage and I was totally open about my position saying
I think one thing has to be made clear. Can I give a 100% Cast Iron, Gold Plated guarantee that every station in fighter command had 100 Octane fuel. No I cannot, as that would involve checking vast amounts of data and I have a life to lead, so in short there could be one station in the back end of nowhere which didn't get the fuel. As Kurfurst rightly pointed out I used the phrase , "sources links that exist and support the view that Fighter Command was effectively fully converted to 100 Octane by May 1940. Note the word effectively.
That said I do believe and there is no evidence in my mind to contridict the view that all stations did have the 100 Octane Fuel.

This remains my position. There is no evidence anywhere that Fighter Command was anything but 100% fully equipped with 100 Octane. Hundreds of books have been written about the battle, probably more than on any other conflict and scores or personal memories and no one ever has mentioned this theory. No one has mentioned the obvious logistical or practical problems that having mixed fuel would mean.

We have a document trail from the instruction from the Chief of the Air Staff asking for fighters to be equipped with 100 Octane and the other papers that follow the implementation until completion. Why did someone type in certain on one paper I have no idea and am not making any assumptions.

We have other papers that were issued by Dowling about the dangers of using the extra boost and not telling the ground crews, papers that were issued to all of fighter command not just some units or stations.

Against this we have a paper that is supposed to exist in Australia which they have never heard of, which Kurfurst has never seen and had never asked for and finally if it does exist, is riddled with errors.

I am very aware that I have made serious accusations about Kurfurst but I have supported my comments and before anyone deletes these postings I suggest you check them out.

If you incorporate his theories into any code then you do stand a chance of being made to look very foolish..

Here's a source that states, unambiguously, that all of RAFFC converted to 100 octane:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0...lin_100oct.jpg

A. R. Ogston, excerpt from History of Aircraft Lubricants (Society of Automotive Enginers, Inc. Warrendale, PA USA), p. 12.