Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

Page 11 of 18

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=20110)

Al Schlageter

04-17-2012 04:54 PM

Quote:

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.

So your Pilot notes are incomplete. That is, they are missing the Amendments.

Instructions issued 20-3-40.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ap1590b.jpg

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

41Sqn_Banks

04-17-2012 05:07 PM

3 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410312)

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.

Here is the page from "Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III, 2nd Edition January 1939".
As I'm holding it in my hands right now I can assure you that it is not photo-shopped.

Actually I was wrong, the use of higher boost than +6 1/4 was according to this manual not only allowed for take-off but also for emergency.

41Sqn_Banks

04-17-2012 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410336)

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.

Please read the other pages from the manual, e.g.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1332111649
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...3&d=1332111666

41Sqn_Banks

04-17-2012 05:23 PM

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter (Post 410349)

So your Pilot notes are incomplete. That is, they are missing the Amendments.

Not necessarily. Air Publications have a "disclaimer" at the first page. Orders or leaflets are the overriding authority in case they are contradicting to the initial publication or a amendment list. So even if it wouldn't be mentioned in the Pilot's Notes of June 1940 (which it is, see post above), the leaflet from March that authorized the use would have priority.

Osprey

04-17-2012 06:02 PM

12lbs boost, get voting

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

Glider

04-17-2012 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410312)

I

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.

Can I ask again for a link to the notes you are looking at or the parts where they refer to the propeller in use or the section on protection for the pilot.

The notes you quote do not seem to tie up to what is know about the updated version of the Spitfire in use during the BOB.

I am happy to be wrong but would like to look into it in more detail

Al Schlageter

04-17-2012 07:47 PM

Do try to clue in Eugene.

1. testing of 100 octane fuel was completed in 1939.

2. conversion to 12 lb boost was started in early 1940.

3. before the BoB started, ~30 squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes are known to have been converted to 12 lb boost. These squadrons would be those that would most likely come in contact with the Luftwaffe.

4. by the end of the BoB, Fighter Command had converted to 12lb boost.

5. there was never a shortage of 100 octane fuel.

6. stock of 100 octane fuel had doubled by the time the BoB ended.

7. the 800,000 tons of 100 octane reserve was not reached till late 1941.

8. 87 octane fuel was the predominant fuel used by the RAF as other Commands and units used 87 octane fuel.

9. 100 octane was the predominant fuel used by Fighter Command.

10. the 16 + 2 was a pre-war plan that was scraped due to the national emergency.

Crumpp

04-17-2012 07:49 PM

Quote:

Please read the other pages from the manual, e.g.

I have read those Banks. You misunderstand what I wrote. A.P. 1590B/J.2-W is incorporated into the June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes.

If the aircraft in service were most commonly using 100 Octane, those limits would be the ones listed under the limiting Operating Conditions of the Pilots Operating Notes.

That is how it works.

The 87 Octane limiting operating conditions are published as the predominate operating limits of the aircraft in June 1940. References to 100 Octane are minor footnotes denoting specialized circumstances that are not the common configuration.

Al Schlageter

04-17-2012 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 410369)

Yes that too. :) He still does not have an complete Pilot Notes.

Crumpp

04-17-2012 07:50 PM

Quote:

Can I ask again for a link to the notes you are looking at

I don't have a link Glider. These are not posted on some website but part of my collection. I scan the pages and post them.

Quote:

The notes you quote do not seem to tie up to what is know about the updated version of the Spitfire in use during the BOB.

Exactly. Quite a large "Fly in the Ointment" for silly claims like:

Quote:

before the BoB started, ~30 squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes are known to have been converted to 12 lb boost. These squadrons would be those that would most likely come in contact with the Luftwaffe.

Quote:

100 octane was the predominant fuel used by Fighter Command.

And depending on the dates you pick for the battle to be over:

Quote:

by the end of the BoB, Fighter Command had converted to 12lb boost.

You wonder why I question what you claim "is known." Facts are it is not known.

Crumpp

04-17-2012 08:15 PM

Quote:

there was never a shortage of 100 octane fuel.

What?? There was a shortage of 100/130 grade on several occasions during the war.

There are several reports on the aviation gasoline situation available at both Maxwell AFB and Dayton OH.

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9...ocksoffuel.jpg

Osprey

04-17-2012 08:44 PM

Redbeard Rum.

Glider

04-17-2012 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410441)

I don't have a link Glider. These are not posted on some website but part of my collection. I scan the pages and post them.

So can you scan and show us the sections I have asked for?

JG5_Thijs

04-17-2012 08:55 PM

Hello all,

With great interested I’ve been following the discussion regarding the use of 100 octane fuel by the RAF in the Battle of Britain. I decided to look up some scientific articles, but could only find the following:

Gavin Bailey, ‘Narrow margin of criticality: The question of the supply of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain’ English Historical Review volume 123 number 501 (2008) p 394-411. (This article was quoted earlier by 28_Condor on page 98 of this thread, he, however, did not quote the article fully since there are some interesting points that Bailey brings up regarding the impact of 100 fuel use.)

There are some interesting things in this article regarding the use of 100 octane fuel and the performance of the Spitfire Mk I and II. A short summary. First a quick summary of the availability of 100 octane fuel, then the operational usefulness of 100 octane fuel.

Bailey on the availability of 100 octane fuel

Bailey states that at the time the war broke out there was 153,000 tons of 100 octane fuel in stock, compared to 323, 000 tons of other aviation fuels. In February 1940 the stock of 100 octane fuel had risen to 220,000 tons. In May 1940 fighter units began converting to 100 octane fuel and there was plenty of 100 octane fuel available for the duration of the Battle of Britain.(406)

Note by me about 100 octane being used in the game in this respect: This quote above, and the other information provided by other people on this forum, makes me conclude that use of 100 octane fuel was widespread during the BoB. It would therefore be fine to program RAF planes with 100 octane, or give the option to mission builders to choose between 87 and 100 octane fuel.
This, however, is not say anything on the great improvement of 100 octane fuel gives over 87 octane fuel as claimed by many authors and people on this forum.

Bailey on what other authors write about the use of 100 octane fuel:

He says that other authors argue that the use of 100 octane fuel from America was one of the critical advantages for British fighters during the battle, he does not agree with this vision.(394-395) Bailey argues that it tends to be forgotten that the widespread use of 100 octane fuel is in the same time period as the introduction of the constant-speed, variable pitch propeller which offers a much larger performance increase than the new fuel alone. (395)

To demonstrate this Bailey uses two tables:

The following table shows a test of a Spitfire Mk Ia and Spitfire Mk II (399)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57983337/Spit_100Oct_1.PNG

Spitfire MK I test with a fixed propeller.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57983337/Spit_100Oct_2.PNG

Table 1: There is only a marginal improvement in the rate of climb and maximum speed comparing both planes in the first table. There is however, a dramatic increase between a Spitfire with a fixed propeller and the newer variable pitch one. See table 2 (401)

Bailey concludes that the main advantage of 100 octane fuel was at lower altitudes, but was marginal at best at higher altitudes.(401) His table demonstrate that there is actually a drop in top speed at higher altitudes.

Bailey on the boost of the Merlin engine

The author gives the following information about the boost increase that was achieved by 100 octane fuel: Normal limitation on the supercharger compression of a Rolls-Royce Merlin III with 87 octane fuel was +6.25 inch above atmospheric pressure. The introduction of 100 octane fuel increased this to +12 for short periods, not exceeding 5 minutes.(398)

Take off to 1,000 ft — 3,000 rpm at +7 psi/+12.5 psi;
Maximum climb (1-hr. limit) — 2,850 rpm at +7 psi/+9 psi;
Combat (5 min. maximum) — 3,000 rpm at +7 psi/+12 psi.
(This chart is about Spitfire MK II with 100 octane boost which Baily took from the following source: Air Ministry, Air Publication 1565B, Pilots Notes, Spitfire IIA and IIB Aeroplanes, Merlin XII Engine (anonymous Air Ministry publication, London, 1940, amended 1942).)

Conclusion by Bailey:

He concludes that the dramatic performance increase because of 100 octane is overrated and that other, earlier, authors wrongly claim that there is. These other authors forgot that the variable pitch prop was the real source of the dramatic performance increase of RAF planes which they contribute solely to 100 octane fuel.

Comment by me regarding the information given above: It seems that an increase from 87 to 100 octane fuel (but with a variable pitch for both) only leads to a marginal improvement. Whether the planes in this game are modelled correctly is not within the scope of this argument.

Regards,

Thijs

Crumpp

04-17-2012 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410336)

Quote:

Glider says:
So can you scan and show us the sections I have asked for?

Already done.

Crumpp

04-17-2012 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410441)

I don't have a link Glider. These are not posted on some website but part of my collection. I scan the pages and post them.

Exactly. Quite a large "Fly in the Ointment" for silly claims like:

Quote:

Milo Morani says:
before the BoB started, ~30 squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes are known to have been converted to 12 lb boost. These squadrons would be those that would most likely come in contact with the Luftwaffe.

Quote:

Milo Morani says:
100 octane was the predominant fuel used by Fighter Command.

And depending on the dates you pick for the battle to be over:

Quote:

Milo Morani says:
by the end of the BoB, Fighter Command had converted to 12lb boost.

You wonder why I question what you claim "is known." Facts are it is not known.

See above, Glider.

NZtyphoon

04-17-2012 09:39 PM

2 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410317)

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?

Crumpp, Crumpp Crumpp, kindly explain how it is that 52,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel was consumed between July 1940 and October 1940 if, as you claim, only 16 Squadrons were using 100 Octane - so far you have made a lot of fuss regarding fuel shortages etc but you have not explained where 52,000 tons of it went.

Only 15,000 tons was needed to complete all defensive sorties flown by Merlin engined fighters - so again please explain to everyone what happened to 35,000 tons of 100 octane fuel?

I want documentation from you to prove your case, not conjecture.

Prove that there were frontline Merlin engined squadrons using 87 Octane fuel during the battle - I mean combat reports, squadron ORBs and other such documentation - evidence NOT your conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410312)

That looks like somebodies photo-shop work.

And so do your "June 1940" pilot's notes which you claim embody A.P. 1590B/J.2-W, but, conveniently, haven't shown. I want to see the front cover, inner cover and the relevant fly leaf which has the date.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410438)

You misunderstand what I wrote. A.P. 1590B/J.2-W is incorporated into the June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes.

Then why haven't you shown the relevant pages in the first place, including A.P. 1590B/J.2-W? - better still show us the relevant pages, listed above, including the date of publication.

Al Schlageter

04-17-2012 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410441)

And depending on the dates you pick for the battle to be over:

Still haven't clued in Eugene have you?

All your talk of 87 octane fuel being the predominant fuel is for the whole of the RAF.

Bomber Command had at least 24 squadrons when war broke out. Each a/c in those squadrons carried enough fuel to fuel a squadron of fighters.

Al Schlageter

04-17-2012 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410460)

What?? There was a shortage of 100/130 grade on several occasions during the war.

What the hell does 100/130 fuel, which wasn't even around during BoB, have to do with 100 octane fuel?

We still haven't seen from you the identity of the 16 squadrons that you say were the only squadrons converted to 12 lb boost.

kendo65

04-17-2012 11:38 PM

Great post JG5_Thijs. Thanks.

Seadog

04-18-2012 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG5_Thijs (Post 410497)

The following table shows a test of a Spitfire Mk Ia and Spitfire Mk II (399)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57983337/Spit_100Oct_1.PNG
Table 1: There is only a marginal improvement in the rate of climb and maximum speed comparing both planes in the first table...

Bailey concludes that the main advantage of 100 octane fuel was at lower altitudes, but was marginal at best at higher altitudes.(401) His table demonstrate that there is actually a drop in top speed at higher altitudes.

Bailey on the boost of the Merlin engine

The author gives the following information about the boost increase that was achieved by 100 octane fuel: Normal limitation on the supercharger compression of a Rolls-Royce Merlin III with 87 octane fuel was +6.25 inch above atmospheric pressure. The introduction of 100 octane fuel increased this to +12 for short periods, not exceeding 5 minutes.(398)

Take off to 1,000 ft — 3,000 rpm at +7 psi/+12.5 psi;
Maximum climb (1-hr. limit) — 2,850 rpm at +7 psi/+9 psi;
Combat (5 min. maximum) — 3,000 rpm at +7 psi/+12 psi.
(This chart is about Spitfire MK II with 100 octane boost which Baily took from the following source: Air Ministry, Air Publication 1565B, Pilots Notes, Spitfire IIA and IIB Aeroplanes, Merlin XII Engine (anonymous Air Ministry publication, London, 1940, amended 1942).)

Conclusion by Bailey:

He concludes that the dramatic performance increase because of 100 octane is overrated and that other, earlier, authors wrongly claim that there is. These other authors forgot that the variable pitch prop was the real source of the dramatic performance increase of RAF planes which they contribute solely to 100 octane fuel.

Comment by me regarding the information given above: It seems that an increase from 87 to 100 octane fuel (but with a variable pitch for both) only leads to a marginal improvement. Whether the planes in this game are modelled correctly is not within the scope of this argument.

Regards,

Thijs

The performance figures given in your post are for the MkI/IIaircraft using 6.25/8.8lb boost and the actual performance test results verifying this can be seen here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

but the data you quote also states the maximum boost as 6.25lb/9lb respectively, which explains the small margin of improvement of the MkII over the MkI, especially as the MkII is somewhat heavier as well.

Thus neither aircraft was using the 5min/12lb boost combat rating of the engine which was only possible when using 100 octane fuel. By way of comparison a Hurricane I could achieve ~323mph at 10,000ft by using 100 octane fuel/12lb boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-l1717-cal.jpg

and here's the RAE data for a Spitfire I with various boost levels:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/s...-rae-12lbs.jpg

A RAF memo from 1939 confirms all the above:

Quote:

It will be noted from the service reports that an approximate increase in speed due to the use of emergency 12lb boost of 28/34mph is obtained depending upon the altitude flown up to 10,000ft.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg.

28_Condor

04-18-2012 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410330)

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:

OK, But in which scientific article I can read this information? :confused:

Interesting: I read again the CLIFFS OF DOVER AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS checklists by Composite Aviation Regiment 2nd Guards (OP2GvSAPINST 3710.1A 15 July 2011) and there all aircrafts are operating on 100 octane (frist part), and in the second part you can read:

Quote:

Errata
Additional Aircraft
Known Sim Inaccuracies or Limitations
Operating Limits and Procedures for Non-Standard (87 Octane, Fixed Pitch Props) or Non-Pilotable (Anson) Aircraft

Meanwhile, in the A2A Spits: :grin:

Quote:

Types You Can Fly
We have three Spitfire models available, the Mk Ia, fitted with a Merlin III engine designed for 87 octane fuel, +6 psi max boost, or a Mk II
with a Merlin XII, designed for the higher 100 octane fuel, beefier block, slightly increased supercharger, and capable of a higher +12 psi.

41Sqn_Banks

04-18-2012 05:25 AM

5 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410438)

If the aircraft in service were most commonly using 100 Octane, those limits would be the ones listed under the limiting Operating Conditions of the Pilots Operating Notes.

That is how it works.

The 87 Octane limiting operating conditions are published as the predominate operating limits of the aircraft in June 1940. References to 100 Octane are minor footnotes denoting specialized circumstances that are not the common configuration.

So how do you know it worked that way? Source please.

Here is evidence that it didn't work that way:

Hurricane I "operational limitations" May 1941 (thanks Klem):

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...4&d=1334674718
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1334674727

Spitfire I "operational limitations" January 1942 (I'm sure someone has a better copy of this)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1334723739
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...6&d=1334723745

Merlin II, II and V "operational limitations" November 1940

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...7&d=1334724557
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1334724563
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...9&d=1334724569

In all of these publications 100 octane fuel and +12 is only a "minor footnote" and the "All out" limit is given as +6 1/4.

41Sqn_Banks

04-18-2012 05:38 AM

2 Attachment(s)

And the explanation for this is given in Pilot's Notes General (1st Edition 1941, not the 2nd Edition).

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1334727256
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1334727263

We know that the Merlin II and III was designed for 87 octane and therefore the operational limits are always given for 87 octane.

lane	04-18-2012 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 410623)

Nice 41Sqn_Banks, thanks for sharing :)

NZtyphoon

04-18-2012 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410438)

I have read those Banks. You misunderstand what I wrote. A.P. 1590B/J.2-W is incorporated into the June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes.

Okay, so how about showing the pages incorporating A.P. 1590B/J.2-W, plus the front cover, inner cover and fly leaves confirming the date of publication?

Crumpp

04-18-2012 12:28 PM

Quote:

Spitfire I "operational limitations" January 1942

The change jumps right out at you. Go compare the operating limits page I posted from June 1940 with the page from January 1942.

You should see it plain as day. If you don't I will point it out to you later.

Why do you think they republished the Operating notes in January 1942? The Spitfire Mk I was not the latest Spitfire Mark at that time. However, 100 Octane was common by that date and required a republication of the notes.

Osprey

04-18-2012 01:51 PM

Face it Crump, even Kurfurst has realised that 100 was in full use - he lost the argument and disappeared. You remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting the war on some island right up to the 1970's.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...-Ryukyus-4.jpg

Chaps, there's a bug raised about the boost on the bugtracker that I need to update so I will grab this latest stuff for it so it can finally be implemented into the sim.

41Sqn_Banks

04-18-2012 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410768)

So even with 100 octane fuel being the common fuel in January 1942, the "All out" limit remained +6 1/4. So obviously there is no relation between introduction of 100 octane fuel and the fact that the "All out" limit remained +6 1/4.

Fact is that the June 1940 manual already included all information needed by the pilot for the use of 100 octane and +12 boost:
- The use of 87 octane and 100 octane fuel is allowed (see Section 1 "Fuel", I will provide the page later)
- The boost-control cut-out allows to obtain +12 boost
- The use of the boost-control cut-out is allowed in emergency cases for short periods and when 100 octane is used

The fact that the January 1942 manual introduces an additional limitation of the fuel for operational and training units doesn't outweigh the fact that there not a single line in the June 1940 manual that would prevent the use of 100 octane fuel of whole Fighter Command in June 1940.
It doesn't proof that they did, but it doesn't proof that they didn't - which is your claim.

Glider

04-18-2012 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410506)

See above, Glider.

All I see is someone who will not scan and post the sections that I am now asking for, a third time, as I am confident that those sections on the Propeller and the pilot protection would give us a good idea as to which version of the Spitfire your pilots notes refer to.

Can you even tell us where you got them so I can obtain a copy?

I should remind you that you accused me of posting selective and misleading papers. My reply was to ask which paper you are talking about and I would give you everything I have on those papers or get a full copy for you when I am next at the NA which will be next week. You have not yet told me which paper of mine you were referring to and the offer is still open until next week. I have made this offer twice.

Some people who would think that this insistance on two sets of rules, one for when you post papers, and one where others post papers as a little dodgy?

Kurfurst, if you are reading this the offer is open to both of you. I am going for other purposes so will not spend a lot of time on this topic, but if you can agree one paper I will supply it.

Al Schlageter

04-18-2012 04:42 PM

Crumpp still is evading identifying the 16 squadron that he claims were the only squadrons that used 100 octane fuel.

Crumpp

04-18-2012 05:03 PM

Quote:

Yes!!

Read the instructions for using +12lbs boost. First you have to override the normal controls and it emphasized that it is a very overloaded condition.

+12lbs is almost 3 times more pressure than the engine was designed to handle.

The modifications to the cylinder heads changes the frequency harmonics in order to reduce the incidence of cylinder head cracking. It does not increase the design strength of the engine.

BMW did the same thing when attempting to raise the motor to 1.8ata in the BMW801D2. The service trials resulted in a high incidence of cylinder cracks so they changed the cylinder barrel liners to ones that conformed harmonically under the new load.

Think of a tuning fork, if you want to change the frequency you adjust the length of the tines. To change the frequency in the merlin III, they added .020 inches to the spigot.

winny

04-18-2012 05:04 PM

If we are now taking the 1938-9 Spitfire pilot's notes literally (like Crumpp is) then we also need to replace the reflector sight with an iron sight, remove the bullet proof glass and at least 30 other modifications that were in the original notes that were simply out of date in 1940.

The pilot's notes were written using the 2nd production Mk1 (it went specifically to the RAF for this exact purpose)

Like it says in the front of the notes.

"Air Ministry Orders and Vol. II leaflets as issued may affect the subject matter from time to time. It should be understood that amendment lists are not always issued to bring the publication into line with orders or leaflets and it is for holders of this book to arrange the necessary link up.

When an order or leaflet contradicts any portion of this publication an amendment list will generally be issued, but when this is not done, the order or leaflet must be taken as the over-riding authority"

I'd like to see a scan of the amendment certificate in the front of this "June 1940" pilot's note book.

Robo.

04-18-2012 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410887)

Yes!!

Read the instructions for using +12lbs boost. First you have to override the normal controls and it emphasized that it is a very overloaded condition.

Yes of course, but it was possible therefore it should be possible in the sim, too. No matter how you look at it, I really try hard to see your point, but you're wrong on so many levels I am afraid. Why are you doing this anyway? :o

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410887)

+12lbs is almost 3 times more pressure than the engine was designed to handle.

It is approximately 2 times more than original nominal rating. And the RR engineers have had slightly different approach to getting more power from their designs - testing, breaking and consequently reinforcing what breaks first, hence so many mods and pilot notes amendmets that seem to confuse you.

+16lbs was 3 times more pressure and it was still used on Sea Hurricanes on the very same engine for obvious reason - no problem except drastically limited lifespan of the engine.

Honestly, Crumpp :eek::eek::eek:

41Sqn_Banks

04-18-2012 06:12 PM

1 Attachment(s)

Crumpp is right that +12 boost is about 3 times higher than the maximum continuous rating (+ 4 1/2), which is the highest rating that is not considered a overload condition (see attachment). I don't know if this was the rating the engine was designed for.

IIRC we know that +12 boost reduced the life-time to about 20 hours instead of 100 hours at maximum continuous rating.

Al Schlageter

04-18-2012 06:28 PM

The 12lb boost was a reduction from the 17lb boost that there normally would be. Yes there are references to this boost of 17lb. The boost was cut back to 12lb for reliability.

Crumpp still is evading identifying the 16 squadron that he claims were the only squadrons that used 100 octane fuel.

Robo.

04-18-2012 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 410911)

I see what he means now, thank you. It doesn't make much sense though - engines are designed for certain HP and that was never achieved at max. continuous rating as far I can tell.

41Sqn_Banks

04-18-2012 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo. (Post 410922)

I see what he means now, thank you. It doesn't make much sense though - engines are designed for certain HP and that was never achieved at max. continuous rating as far I can tell.

Rolls Royce gives 990 b.h.p as "international power rating" (+ 6 1/4 Boost with 2,600 RPM at 12,250 feet), see http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1334724563.

Don't we have to convert the boost values to ata before we compare them make a statement about the factor between them? Otherwise the atmospheric pressure offset is not eliminated.

Seadog

04-18-2012 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo. (Post 410922)

I see what he means now, thank you. It doesn't make much sense though - engines are designed for certain HP and that was never achieved at max. continuous rating as far I can tell.

Actually 12lbs of boost is not "three times" what the engine was designed for; 4lbs of boost = 15psi (1 atmosphere) + 4psi = 19psi while 12lbs = 15psi (1 atmosphere) + 12psi = 27 psi, so 12lb of boost is actually about 1.5x the pressure level.

This can be more easily seen by using inches of mercury instead of lbs of boost:

inches of mercury (inHg)or absolute pressure = Pounds per square inch of boost or gauge pressure.
80 inHg= +25 lbf/in² boost
67 inHg= +18 lbf/in² boost
61 inHg= +15 lbf/in² boost
46 inHg= +8 lbf/in² boost
44.5 inHg= +6 lbf/in² boost

ACE-OF-ACES

04-18-2012 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 410797)

Face it Crump, even Kurfurst has realised that 100 was in full use - he lost the argument and disappeared.

Funny part is five or so years ago these two were viewed as the end all be all souce of info at the ubi and other forums!

Back then only a few people saw through thier biased smoke screens

Thus I can not tell you how happy it makes me to see so many more people comming to the same conclusion!

S!

Osprey

04-18-2012 07:27 PM

If you have not voted chaps, then you need to.

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

I would appreciate one of the well written and thorough performance explanations on the bug report please to cover each type we have in the sim. Luthier will need it.

Sod Crump, we have the issue raised to the mods, issue the coups-de-grace via the Bugtracker

Robo.

04-18-2012 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 410930)

My point is that early Merlin were not designed to operate at 4.5lbs. boost max. I am aware of the conversion issues and I only tried to point out that Crumpps assumtion was wrong.

41Sqn_Banks

04-18-2012 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo. (Post 410939)

My point is that early Merlin were not designed to operate at 4.5lbs. boost max. I am aware of the conversion issues and I only tried to point out that Crumpps assumtion was wrong.

According to this article the Merlin was designed as "1,100 hp-class" engine to fill the gap between the 700 hp Peregrine and the 1,500 hp Vulture.

However I don't think Crumpp claims that the Merlin was limited to +4 1/2 boost at any time, if he does he will certainly provide a document to support this claim. I think he consider the "maximum continuous rating" of every engine as the design goal and uses this value to compare different engines. He's free to do so. Others consider the maximum power, and some may use the takeoff power. It doesn't matter, the engine remains the same.

NZtyphoon

04-18-2012 09:26 PM

2 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 410954)

The first document, dated November 1939, confirms that after modifications the Merlin II and III were cleared for using 100 Octane and +12 boost, and confirms the potential limits of the engine as +17 lbs. It also shows that modifications to the boost control cut out were already in hand:

Paragraph 9: "The modification to the boost control cut out to limit the maximum boost to 12 lbs sq. in. are simple and in hand (otherwise full throttle would give about 17 lbs sq. in.)

It also confirms that stocks of 100 Octane were considered high enough to allow Merlins to use it, contrary to Crumpp's opinion, based as it is on a pre-war document.

Paragraph 11: The decision on this question (conversion of Merlins for +12 lbs boost) must be dependent to a large extent on sufficient stocks of 100 Octane fuel; but as it is understood there are adequate reserves of this fuel for the purpose it is accordingly recommended that approval...be given forthwith.

So far Crumpp has not shown us the relevant pages to confirm his "pilot's notes" are from June 1940, nor has he shown the relevant details of how A.P.1590B/J.2-W was already incorporated into them, as he claimed here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410438)

I am seriously thinking he has evaded the question. Tsssk tsssk. :shock: :rolleyes:

Crumpp

04-18-2012 10:40 PM

Quote:

the "maximum continuous rating" of every engine as the design goal

It is the design goal. Maximum continuous is the power the engine is designed to develop and maintain.

It represents 100% of the power capability of an aircraft engine. Anything over that is an overload condition and will shorten the life of the engine.

Typically you see overload capability in take off ratings, sometimes climb ratings, and in emergency ratings.

It is the power the engine can produce at 100% capability that is the primary focus.

28_Condor

04-19-2012 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG5_Thijs (Post 410497)

Gavin Bailey, ‘Narrow margin of criticality: The question of the supply of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain’ English Historical Review volume 123 number 501 (2008) p 394-411. (This article was quoted earlier by 28_Condor on page 98 of this thread, he, however, did not quote the article fully since there are some interesting points that Bailey brings up regarding the impact of 100 fuel use.)

Thijs

The download link didnt work :-P

You can make the file available here? Thank you! :)

NZtyphoon

04-19-2012 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 410983)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 410954)

However I don't think Crumpp claims that the Merlin was limited to +4 1/2 boost at any time, if he does he will certainly provide a document to support this claim. I think he consider the "maximum continuous rating" of every engine as the design goal and uses this value to compare different engines. He's free to do so. Others consider the maximum power, and some may use the takeoff power. It doesn't matter, the engine remains the same.

Not so long ago Crumpp claimed that the Merlin was only capable of generating 400hp...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 406190)

You are talking about running the engine at 3 times its original design maximum capacity. Really guy? You think just changing the fuel did that?

I asked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 406203)

So you think the Merlin was designed to run at about 400 hp?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 406994)

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

So he is trying to claim the Merlin III's maximum designed continuous power rating was +4 1/2 lbs at 2600rpm, and about 400hp.

41Sqn_Banks

04-19-2012 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 411030)

So he is trying to claim the Merlin III's maximum designed continuous power rating was +4 1/2 lbs at 2600rpm, and about 400hp.

I don't know if power at maximum continuous rating was 400hp, I've never seen a value for it. Rolls Royce always give International Rating, Maximum Rating and Maximum Take-off Rating. Sometimes Minimum Take-off Rating (this is at maximum allowed take-off boost with minimum allowed RPM, which is only important for fixed propellers).

Maximum continuous rating (1,15ata 2000 PRM) of DB601A was 810hp (@0km) to 860hp (@5km). As the maximum output is almost the same we can assume that the Merlin has a comparable power at continuous rating.

Here is the (not so serious) protocol from the design meeting at Rolls-Royce when they thought about their new high performance fighter engine. Engineer A is a daredevil, he likes fast, loud and dangerous stuff. Engineer B is a square and a careful engineer, he likes reliably stuff.
Engineer A: "I think with that design we should get 1,100hp maximum output. That's a great improvement compared to the 700hp of the Peregrine. Image how fast our fighters will fly with that. What do you think?"
Engineer B: "Hmm ... yes this should give about 800hp at a reasonable engine life of 100 hours between overhaul. I'm cool with that."
Engineer A: "Yeah whatever ... So we define our design goal as 1,100hp maximum and 800hp continuous output. Deal?"
Engineer B: "Deal! Let's do it!"

Later at Air Ministry ...

Engineer B: "This is our new engine design. We estimated it will will produce 800hp ..."
Engineer A: *facepalm*
Air Ministry: "What? The Germans build engines with 1000hp maximum output! You are useless!"
Engineer A: "May I interrupt? The 800 hp is the continuous rating, the maximum output will be 1,100hp."
Air Ministry: "... OK now that sound good. We want 900 engines delivered in 3 month. ... Oh and next time just tell me the maximum output. At Air Ministry we like fast, loud and dangerous stuff."

While leaving Air Ministry ...

Engineer A: "I told ya!"
Engineer B: "..."

winny

04-19-2012 07:21 AM

There's a book called "Britains war Machine" that I found last night. It contains a section devoted to the supply, use and production of 100 octane fuel.

It explains the whole Trimpell (Trinidad - ICI - Shell) refinery set up and says that the "shortage of 100 octane is a myth"

It's available as an e-book.

Glider

04-19-2012 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 411030)

Not so long ago Crumpp claimed that the Merlin was only capable of generating 400hp...

I asked:

So he is trying to claim the Merlin III's maximum designed continuous power rating was +4 1/2 lbs at 2600rpm, and about 400hp.

Must be a hell of a design to get 340 ish mph on 400 HP. Imagine what it could do with a decent engine in it

lane	04-19-2012 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 411048)

I don't know if power at maximum continuous rating was 400hp, I've never seen a value for it. Rolls Royce always give International Rating, Maximum Rating and Maximum Take-off Rating.

Test certificates on fairly early Merlin II/III running on 87 octane show:

Rated power 990 b.h.p. at 2600 r.p.m. 12,250 feet at 6 1/4 lbs/sq.in. boost
Maximum power 1030 b.h.p at 3000 r.p.m. 16,250 feet at 6 1/4 lbs/sq.in. boost

The power curves at 12,250 feet give 829 b.h.p. at +4.2/2400 with Merlin II No.2855 and 822 b.h.p. at +4.2/2400 with Merlin III No.7491.

Merlin II installed in K.9787

Merlin III installed in N.3171

See also Merlin II & III ratings as shown in the The Merlin in Perspective, (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Derby, 1983)

41Sqn_Banks

04-19-2012 09:44 AM

Power curves of Merlin XX:
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2815/powercurves.jpg

Crumpp

04-19-2012 12:56 PM

Quote:

Not so long ago Crumpp claimed that the Merlin was only capable of generating 400hp...

Quote:

Baloney, re-read what I wrote. IF that is what it produced at maximum continuous...

Operative word being IF....

In the english language, IF denotes a conditional clause or supposition.

As for posting any pages, I am on a laptop. My old Desktop is getting repaired and going to my daughter. I have a new desktop being built but it will be a week or so before it is ready.

Crumpp

04-19-2012 01:05 PM

If you look at Banks chart, you will see that Merlin XX is a ~625 hp at 4 1/2 lbs at sea level on a standard day.

On a summer day, it would considerably less at ground level on most airfields in England.

Why? Engine power is a function of atmospheric density. That is why superchargers were invented to slap a band-aid on that fact to try and overcome it.

Of course, some one will stand up to defend their gameshape and think I am slighting their favorite cartoon.

NO, I am only pointing out that Banks chart is a good one for you guys to understand how engines work in airplanes. It is a fact that the 100% power capability of the Merlin II and III is 4 1/2lbs MS gear as listed in all the Pilots Operating Notes.

Robo.

04-19-2012 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 411225)

NO, I am only pointing out that Banks chart is a good one for you guys to understand how engines work in airplanes. It is a fact that the 100% power capability of the Merlin II and III is 4 1/2lbs MS gear as listed in all the Pilots Operating Notes.

If you intend to stick to this logic that's fair enough. As long as the engines in the sim produce correct amount of power at either of these settings used in real life, e.g. +6.25lbs. or +12lbs. as it is the case of early Merlins, I am happy.

MS gear is not Merlin II or III related btw. No matter how you look at it, the final result is exactly the same. And so is the reality that at this moment, what the title of this thread says is true, unfortunately.

41Sqn_Banks

04-19-2012 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo. (Post 411236)

Yes it's all fine. Changing the definition doesn't change the engine.

Code:

+4.5 is 100% ...; +6.25 is 108% ...; +12 is 138% of "maximum continuous" boost

+4.5 is  92% ...; +6.25 is 100% ...; +12 is 127% of "all out/climb/take off" boost

+4.5 is  72% ...; +6.25 is  79% ...; +12 is 100% of "emergency" boost

Osprey

04-19-2012 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winny (Post 411075)

ISBN number please?

Osprey

04-19-2012 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 411225)

I don't know where you are from Crump but there's no such thing as a standard day in England. We have a hosepipe ban here, yet as I write it's chucking down a ton of rain - typically British.

According to your logic the German engines are also affected, so they must be producing loads of power over in standard France but by the time they arrived in sunny England they were down to a couple of hundred HP. :cool:

41Sqn_Banks

04-19-2012 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 411225)

If you look at Banks chart, you will see that Merlin XX is a ~625 hp at 4 1/2 lbs at sea level on a standard day.

I don't think you are reading the chart correctly. If you following and extending the line of +4.5 boost to sea level the rpm is decreasing at the same time which gives lower bhp.

However I've found a better source for the power of Merlin XX. It has a max. economic cruise rating of +4 boost and 2,650 rpm which gives 800bhp at sea level and 900bhp at FTH MS gear. Reference: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...x-curve-c1.jpg

So even if we assume that the Merlin III and XX are comparable (I wouldn't do it, to much guesswork in it but anyway ...) this would give for the Merlin III between 800 and 900bhp (which is achieved at lower boost but slightly higher rpm) from sea level to FTH, which is supported by the 830bhp (which is achieved at lower boost and lower rpm, so actual power is higher) given by lane.

BTW: The Maximum cruising rating is +7 boost and 2,650 rpm which gives 1000bhp at sea level and over 1100 at FTH MS gear.

Seadog

04-19-2012 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 411225)

What complete $#^&%@!

100% power is full throttle, full boost, just like any IC piston engine.

winny

04-19-2012 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 411269)

ISBN number please?

Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War - David Egerton
Hardcover: 464 pages
Publisher: Allen Lane; First Edition edition (31 Mar 2011)
Language English
ISBN-10: 0713999187
ISBN-13: 978-0713999181

It's on Amazon.
EDIT:
Here's the page I was refering to.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...trone/BWM1.jpg

It then goes on to explain the sources of this fuel.
Kurfurst will hate it but the stock figures are from Gavin Bailey's paper..

Crumpp

04-19-2012 07:24 PM

Quote:

I don't know where you are from Crump but there's no such thing as a standard day in England.

All - righty then....

Crumpp

04-19-2012 07:51 PM

Quote:

All it does Robo is point out how much of an overloaded condition +12lbs was on the engine.

Crumpp

04-19-2012 07:56 PM

Quote:

What the hell does 100/130 fuel, which wasn't even around during BoB, have to do with 100 octane fuel?

Do you know what 100 Octane fuel is, Milo?

winny

04-19-2012 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 411582)

All it does Robo is point out how much of an overloaded condition +12lbs was on the engine.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. There was a war on you know..

Robo.

04-19-2012 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 411582)

All it does Robo is point out how much of an overloaded condition +12lbs was on the engine.

RR approved overload during the war? Fair enough, should be in game. ;)

NZtyphoon

04-19-2012 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 411221)

Fair enough, you did say If. So in about a week you'll be showing the pages incorporating A.P. 1590B/J.2-W, plus the front cover, inner cover and fly leaves confirming the date of publication? Much appreciated. :-)

Crumpp

04-19-2012 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 411271)

Osprey,

This is the kind of baloney that adds nothing to the credibility of participants in this thread.

It concretely demonstrates you have no idea how aircraft work.

Standard Day exists everywhere in aviation and is very important. It is the atmospheric conditions that most of the data you see is converted too. Aircraft performance varies greatly based on density altitude, including your engines power development.

And yes, conditions do change but not based on any countries borders. Why do you think the very first thing Air Traffic Control will relay to you as a pilot, is the altimeter setting?

Quote:

Issue the altimeter setting:

1. To en route aircraft at least one time while operating in your area of jurisdiction. Issue the setting for the nearest reporting station along the aircraft's route of flight:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...c/atc0207.html

Crumpp

04-19-2012 08:58 PM

Quote:

RR approved overload during the war?

Yes, after you replace the cylinder heads and/or piston rings. Then you must modify the fuel metering system.

As they state, it is a definate overload condition!!

Crumpp

04-19-2012 09:34 PM

Quote:

In all of these publications 100 octane fuel and +12 is only a "minor footnote" and the "All out" limit is given as +6 1/4.

In the January 1942 edition it is definitely NOT a minor footnote. It is included in paragraph 1 above the operating limitations. They even specify January 1942 - ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS: 100 Octane ONLY

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/3...uary194202.jpg

The technical order for this modification was not published until February 20, 1940.

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/2397/ap1590b.jpg

This is not a minor modification nor is it an easy one from a manufacturing standpoint. Cylinder heads are a major component. Two heads have to be produced for every engine on the assembly line. All of the engines in the RAF inventory also have to have new cylinder heads produced as well. It is not going to happen overnight.

Milo Morani posted the instructions for Pilot Operating Notes earlier in this thread. The way it works is any technical instructions or service bulletins kept with the Operating Notes and act as updates as they are published.

When a new edition of the Operating Notes is published, all technical instructions issued since the previous Operating Notes edition are incorporated into the new edition of the Operating Notes.

That means we should see a mirror reflection of the January 1942 Operating Notes in our June 1940 edition if 100 Octane fuel was the standard and our technical instruction dated February 20, 1940 was intended for all operational aircraft.

Our June 1940 notes should alert the pilot in the operating that 100 Octane is the fuel for ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS just like the January 1942 edition IF 100 Octane is the standard fuel in use.

June 1940 Edition:

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/1957/june1940.jpg

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/3...kijune1940.jpg

They do not reflect anything about 100 Octane fuel in the operating limits and nothing about it being for ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS.

This timeline of a gradual phase in of 100 Octane fuel begining in June 1940, becoming significant in October 1940, and operational conversion by December 1940 is evident from two sources.

You can see this in the Pilot's Operating Notes and the amount of fuel available at the airfields prior to June 1940. 100 Octane use is insignificant until October 1940. Proir to June 1940 we do not see a “combined” amount available at the airfields unless folks are now going to start claiming 100 Octane was in widespread use in 1938!!

I am sure that will be the next argument.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/970...mptionbob2.jpg

Kurfürst

04-19-2012 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog (Post 410565)

and here's the RAE data for a Spitfire I with various boost levels:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/s...-rae-12lbs.jpg

A RAF memo from 1939 confirms all the above:

I've always wondered who had really drawn that graph. :D

Kurfürst

04-19-2012 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winny (Post 411562)

Kurfurst will hate it but the stock figures are from Gavin Bailey's paper..

Actually I like Gavin Bailey's paper.

It says 100 octane was introduced to 'select' Squadrons in May 1940, and I cannot find any statement or reference in it or anything that would support the every-last-Hurricane-even-in-Northern-Scotland-was-running 100 octane theory.

Though as others has noted the paper is more concentrating on dispelling the 'myth' of dependency of US 100 octane fuel supplies, argues to downplay the significance of extra performance of 'US 100 octane' versus the extra performance by the addition of 'pure British' CSP units, and has overall quite a bit of anti-american tone, perhaps due to nationalistic grievance about the UK becoming a sort of a US satellite state after the war.

Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks :D :D :D eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.

Glider

04-19-2012 10:26 PM

Crumpp
I think I can truly say that I have never seen such rubbish posted from someone who pretends and likes to believe that they know about aircraft.

The first document supports the contention that operational units had 100 octrane and non operational units had 87 octane. Something that has been said from the start.

The Alterations and Precautions Paper
This has three main sections:-
a) Modified Boost Control
The modifications as outlined in the paper are very straightforward and can easily be undertaken. Basically you drill two holes and reassemble the cut out valve, to pretend this is a major task shows a massive disrespect to the ground crew and support teams.
b) Modified Cylinder Top Joint
This change is already incorporated in new engines and is already being addressed in normal mainantence, so nothing to be done there
c) You need 100 Octane fuel

Which is what we have been saying from the start.

Your Pilots Notes dated June 1940
I do not believe for a moment that these are from June 1940. Reason is simple, it doesn't mention any fuel type. In June 1940 we know for certain from combat reports and station/squadrons records that 100 Octane was in use in a number of squadrons. If the type of fuel isn't mentioned then it can only be because only one type of fuel exists and that puts the pilots notes in 1938/9. Crumpp has been asked many times to supply other parts of the Pilots Notes to help us tie this issue down. His refusal to do so I believe speaks volumes.

Consumption Chart
The figures up to May are combined 87/100 octane figures which is why they are in the centre, a junior school student could work that one out.

These figures are for the RAF not Fighter command and I draw your attention to the figure for August 1940 36,000 tons of fuel were used by the RAF. In September 37,000 tons almost the same but the proportion of 100 Octane had gone up, In October 35,000 tons again a figure in the same ball park and 100 octane proportion again went up.

The question is, What changed between August and October? The reply is again very simple All operational Commands were Authorised to use 100 Octane in August. As the units in Bomber Command and Coastal Command switched over, so the proportion of 100 Octane increased.

Its also worth noting that in April 1941 when we all (I think) agree that 100 Octane was in use in Operational Commands the split between 87 Octane and 100 Octane was still 50/50. Training, Transport, BOAC, manufacturers and other non operational flights, use a lot of fuel.

Kurfürst

04-19-2012 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 411662)

The question is, What changed between August and October? The reply is again very simple All operational Commands were Authorised to use 100 Octane in August. As the units in Bomber Command and Coastal Command switched over, so the proportion of 100 Octane increased.

Funny but the the August 1940 document you posted does not say this at all, that the authorization only effects Bomber Command and Coastal Command.

It says all operational aircraft. That includes Fighter Command, too. This whole 'other commands' is entirely your brainchild David, the paper simply does not use such term as 'other'.

I guess is rather plain and simple, in May 1940 select fighter units of Fighter Command which were 'concered' by the decision switched over to 100 octane, and in early August all operational aircraft of Fighter (etc.) Command(s) were authorized to follow their example.

I guess the newborn optimism was fueled (getit?) by the fact that compared to the rather low stocks of reserves in the spring of 1940, the avgas stocks significantly increased by the summer as a result of shipments from the Middle East.

The fuel issue papers show that the process did not actually start until late September, by which time the great day fighter battles were over.

Glider

04-19-2012 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 411659)

Actually I like Gavin Bailey's paper.

Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks :D :D :D eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.

Re the Above I think its worth noting Gavins responce and I leave the reader to decide. For those who wish to check up I am confident that Gavin will respond to anyone contacting him at the University where he works using the details on his paper.

Dear 'Kurfurst'. In response to your claims that I am impersonating myself, I would like to point out that my contact details (including an email and postal address) have been publicly-available since the publication of the relevant article, e.g. on the EHR website, here -

The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain -- Bailey CXXIII (501): 394 -- The English Historical Review

I note that, to this point, I have received no communication from you or anybody claiming to be you in regard to confirming my identity, despite having received several emails and letters from others in regard to my EHR article.

I also note that you post under a pseudonym without revealing your full identity.

It is clear that you disagree with the content and conclusions of my research, but I am afraid if you want to refute them, you will be required to engage with the sources which have been cited. Until you do so, and based on the evidence you have posted so far in this thread, your disagreement has no merit.

You go on to state the following -

I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point.

NZtyphoon

04-19-2012 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 411659)

You can email Dr Bailey here and repeat these allegations to him: he still wants to discuss a little matter of you repeatedly misrepresenting his copyrighted paper, despite being asked not to several times. As for your sick, cowardly little comments about "anti American bias" - totally expected from a low-life like you.

Better still, because you have made such public allegations in this forum, how about a Forum administrator email Dr Bailey just to confirm that your allegations are true, and clear this up for all time?

Glider

04-19-2012 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 411671)

As so often your reply leaves more questions. If as is believed by Crumpp that 16 squadrons used 10,000 tons of 100 octane, then when 60 squadrons used 100 Octane the figure should be what, 30-40,000 tons of 100 Octane, PLUS Bomber and Coastal Command. But the figure never went to anything like that figure. So explain that and support it and you have a case.

PS I never said Bomber and COastal Command I used the correct quote.

Kurfürst

04-19-2012 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 411674)

I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point. [/I]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst reply to whoever was posting under the login handle 'gbailey'

This opinion was posted already in the other discussion, but unfortunately it was not possible due to refute it because the premature closing of that thread due to the behaviour of the poster.

However, the notion and implication that the only 100 octane fuel used by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain originates to British stocks of 100 octane fuel, captured from British airfields in France after the premature leave by the British Army in June 1940 is a dangerous myth, which needs to be promptly refuted, before any credence is attributed to it. Even if I did not want to engage in continuing that discussion here, given that the title discusses the RAF use of such fuel in 1940, the above repetence of it warrants a proper refutation of the claim by poster 'gbailey'.

Some of the documents already posted from the Australian archieves already show that already in 1938 the British were concerned of German 100 octane fuel developments and the capacity to produce this fuel on an industrial scale. Please refer back to these before proceeding further.

Please also refer to the German datasheet of the DB 601N. This type of engine was developed for German 100 octane 'C-3' fuel use, and went into mass production in late 1939 (October 1939 via Manfred Griehl to be exact)

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/dat.../601N_Emil.jpg

It extremely puzzling, to say the least, why would the Germans decide to mass produce an engine, specifically made for 100 octane fuel use, without having any own stock of 100 octane fuel. And then equip whole wings of fighters, bombers, and zestoerers with the said engine.

As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance.

It should be noted, however, that during the war, there were different octane ratings used for aviation gasoline. Allied states generally preferred to give octane rating at its rich mixture, while the Germans preferred the CFR method, which gave the octane rating at weak mixture.

The bottomline of the story, the green 'C-3' type fuel that the Germans were calling 96 octane fuel by the CFR method, was the equaivalent of 96/110 octane fuel as the Allies would call it. In other words, actually a bit better at rich mixture and for knock resistance than ordinary 100 octane fuel.

Also it is evident from these documents that the British were aware of the existance and use of German 100 octane - for simplicity's sake lets ignore for a moment it superior qualities and call it the same since the summer of 1940.

Examples of such fuel were found and analysed in crashed Ju 88 and Me 110 aircraft. The use in the former type is especially interesting as the types capable of taking advantage of higher octane fuel were DB 601N-powered Bf 109Es and Bf 110Cs. These latter were already in service by July 1940. By the automn, 1200 DB 601N engines were delivered, divided amongst Bf 110, Bf 109 units, Bf 109F production and reserve engines. Priority was given to Bf 110 units until the automn for these engines. The use of 100 octane C-3 thus may appear to be superflous in German bomber aircraft, nevertheless is was an existing practice.

The British report do not seem to mention 100 octane fuel found in Bf 109s, but this may be due to the limited scope of the report. See the image of Bf 109E-4/N, W.Nr. 1190, 'White 4', is being unloaded by Curtiss workers. The Emil belonged to 4. Staffel Staffel of JG 4, and was flown by Uffz. Horst Perez on, when it was shot down on the 30th September 1940 over East Dean during the Battle of Britain. Note the fuel triangle with the '100' label, pointo to 100 octane fuel and the DB 601N.

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/fil...t1940b_DFC.jpg

As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - www.kurfurst.org

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_000.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_001.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_003.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_005.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_007.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...2-c3_table.jpg

Needless to say, 'gbailey' did not respond to this and disappeared from the board forever.

I found it interesting that a 'gbailey' login appeared very shortly on that board after NZTyphoon registered to that board.

Even more curiously, one of the most important things in NZTyphoon's life is deleting content from wikipedia that refers to 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. It's an interesting parallel to note that the 'gbailey' handle also denied 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe.

I guess everybody can put two and two together. ;)

NZtyphoon

04-19-2012 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 411693)

Since I have already responded to that on the other board (in a new thread - the moderators were forced to close the first one because of this 'gbailey' login's hysterics), I can copy-paste that here too.

But the short story: whoever the guy was posting under the gbailey handle had absolutely no idea of what he was talking about or simply lied about the documents.

I have tracked down the document the guy was referencing (he refused to post it or anything) and found the following:

Needless to say, 'gbailey' did not respond to this and disappeared from the board forever.

I found it interesting that a 'gbailey' login appeared very shortly on that board after NZTyphoon registered to that board.

Even more curiously, one of the most important things in NZTyphoon's life is deleting content from wikipedia that refers to 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. It's an interesting parallel to note that the 'gbailey' handle also denied 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe.

I guess everybody can put two and two together. ;)

:grin::grin::grin::grin: You really have to become a comedian Barbi - which thread are you referring to? WW2 Aircraft forum ,from which you have been banned? - if so post the link to this new thread, and to your specific posting, so we can all see.

As for Wikipedia? I didn't take anything out, just tidied up the mess you left behind

Kurfürst

04-19-2012 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 411679)

Well if Dr. Bailey wants to discuss the contents with Dr. Kurfurst he is welcome to do so at kurfurst.org@gmail.com.

Quote:

As for your sick, cowardly little comments about "anti American bias" - totally expected from a low-life like you.

Well that's MA., Dr. iur 'low-life' for you. What are your scientific creditentials, long-time student in a not-so-well known NZ educational establishment, Mr. NZTyphoon? :D

Seadog

04-19-2012 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 411649)

I've always wondered who had really drawn that graph. :D

Do you wonder who wrote the memo stating a 28/38 mph increase in speed under 10,000ft?

Quote:

It will be noted from the service reports that an approximate increase in speed due to the use of emergency 12lb boost of 28/34mph is obtained depending upon the altitude flown up to 10,000ft.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg.

Do you wonder who wrote this graph:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-l1717-cal.jpg

and do you wonder why these numbers are all so consistent? Are you trying to imply that 12lb boost will not result in an increase in speed over 6.25lb boost?

It also seems that you are trying to imply that the RAE Spitfire I data for 12 and 16 lbs boost was falsified? I really hope that this is not the case.

Seadog

04-19-2012 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 411659)

It says 100 octane was introduced to 'select' Squadrons in May 1940, and I cannot find any statement or reference in it or anything that would support the every-last-Hurricane-even-in-Northern-Scotland-was-running 100 octane theory.

I have repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence of even a single Spitfire/Hurricane 87 octane operational squadron combat sortie during the BofB. This should be an easy task if, as you contend, the majority of RAF FC Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons were using 87 Octane fuel.

So I'll issue the challenge again and again, until you answer it or admit that your contention is unsupported by the historical record.

Glider

04-19-2012 11:49 PM

As for the use of 100 Octane in the BOB by the Luftwaffe I don't have an interest, it was your personal attacks that were totally unfounded and are still well out of order.

What does interest me is your refusal to adress any questions put to you, the most recent being in my last reply in 1077.

PS I thought you were a lawyer

Kurfürst

04-19-2012 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 411714)

As for the use of 100 Octane in the BOB by the Luftwaffe I don't have an interest, it was your personal attacks that were totally unfounded and are still well out of order.

Can you specify these so called 'personal attacks'?

Quote:

What does interest me is your refusal to adress any questions put to you, the most recent being in my last reply in 1077.

Well if you are interested in realistic fuel consumption requirements, for example the British estimated that 15 000 tons / month of 150 grade fuel was to be neccessary for the 25 Sqns of Spitfires in the 2nd TAF that converted to the fuel in 1945. 1000 tons/month was required by engine manufacturers, 20 000 tons / month by the 8th AAF, and a just couple of Squadrons in Fighter Command in England required 2000 tons/month.

Your opinion that a mere 10 000 tons would be enough for 60 s-e Sqns at a very high operational activity PLUS several Blenheim Squadrons is ill-founded IMHO, given the above.

NZtyphoon

04-20-2012 12:07 AM

Waiting for you to post that link to the thread in which you claim to have sent Dr Bailey packing.

Crumpp

04-20-2012 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 411662)

Quote:

All operational Commands were Authorised to use 100 Octane in August.

Please just post the Spitfire Pilot Operating Notes from August. They will match the January 1942 and specify ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS if you claim is true. I highly doubt you can post them. Yes, changing fuel type is a big deal in aircraft. You can bet they published a new edition to the Pilot Operating Notes.

Post that August 1940 Operating Notes and it is Argument over, end of discussion.

Crumpp

04-20-2012 01:38 AM

Quote:

The figures up to May are combined 87/100 octane figures which is why they are in the centre, a junior school student could work that one out.

Just like the 1938 figure is combined. Really? I highly doubt it.

If 100 Octane was on the airfields in significant amounts, it would reflect on that document.

It does not and you can read the Operating Notes to see that 87 Octane is the most common fuel in June 1940.

NZtyphoon

04-20-2012 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 411754)

What 1938 figure? You can doubt all you like, provide some evidence that this meant there was no 100 Octane fuel available.

It is quite clear that in May 1940 Hurricanes of the BEF in France were using 100 Octane fuel. Starting 7 May 1940 we have 660,056 gallons, 2111 tons of 100 octane in France: this was before the balloon went up:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...cks-7may40.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...stocks-pg1.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...stocks-pg2.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...stocks-pg3.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...stocks-pg4.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...nt-15may40.jpg

Note too that there is another grade of fuel mentioned in the second to last document D.T.D.224 (77 Octane) which was used in light aircraft "Trinidad Leaseholds Limited" the documents on fuel consumption say "Other Grades" meaning 87 Octane fuel wasn't the only other type of fuel being used.

You continue to fail to mention that 87 Octane was being used by heavy bombers and flying boats in June 1940.

You have not yet accounted for 52,000 tons of 100 Octane being used by 16 squadrons between July and October, in spite of being asked several times.

You have not provided any documentation showing proof of the logistical arrangements the RAF used to ensure only 16 squadrons ran on 100 Octane for "intensive operational trials".

While you're asking others to post the August 1940 Pilot's Notes how about you post the relevant information requested for your "June 1940" notes, viz: front cover, inner front cover, fly leaves showing date and the A.P1590B you insist is inserted? You can still scan and you don't need a PC to post them.

camber

04-20-2012 04:30 AM

Dear Kurfurst,

I can't agree with your characterisation of your interaction with Gavin Bailey, (author of The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain; the English Historical Review) and reading through it seems very unlikely that there was a mischevious impersonator in the mix.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 411659)

Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks :D :D :D eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.

The thread in question is only a click away
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...b-16305-5.html

I will quote the most relevant parts. The original thread is above in case you wish to check whether Gavin Bailey dropped his approach of professionalism and became rude or inappropriate at any point.

To me this is not going ape in a childish fashion:

Quote:

Dear 'Kurfurst'. In response to your claims that I am impersonating myself, I would like to point out that my contact details (including an email and postal address) have been publicly-available since the publication of the relevant article, e.g. on the EHR website, here -

The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain -- Bailey CXXIII (501): 394 -- The English Historical Review

I note that, to this point, I have received no communication from you or anybody claiming to be you in regard to confirming my identity, despite having received several emails and letters from others in regard to my EHR article.

I also note that you post under a pseudonym without revealing your full identity.

It is clear that you disagree with the content and conclusions of my research, but I am afraid if you want to refute them, you will be required to engage with the sources which have been cited. Until you do so, and based on the evidence you have posted so far in this thread, your disagreement has no merit.

You go on to state the following -

I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point.

The mods note that the discussion is heated and (rather lazily) ask both parties to desist. Gavin Bailey quite reasonably points out he is the wronged party.

Quote:

Micdrow,

In threads on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain hosted on this site, the poster known as Kurfurst has, aside from accusing me of making false claims;

1. Misrepresented and selectively distorted the results of my published work (in 'Hurricane vs.Bf-110' thread, on 1 January 2009 and repeated subsequently).

2. Ignored citations from original Air Ministry documents which disprove his belief (my post as 'gavinb' in 'Use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF during BOB' on 31 January 2009).

3. Been unwilling or unable to supply proof of his assertions when challenged (e.g. my post on 7 February 2009).

4. Accused me of lying about my identity without, apparently, having taken the most elementary steps to confirm it (his post of 5 June 2009). He has subsequently repeated this accusation elsewhere.

I suggest my responses have been entirely reasonable attempts to prevent somebody misrepresenting my work during which I have had to deal with accusations that I have impersonated myself. This would be comic if it wasn't for the issues of integrity which are involved. Having re-read my posts on this forum, I believe they have been a) entirely on-topic and b) remarkably civil in tone in the circumstances.

In the end the mods rather apologetically (to Gavin) lock the thread so not to have to deal with it.

Sadly, camber

CWMV	04-20-2012 05:39 AM

Jesus tap dancing Christ, can all of you just present your evidence, nock off the character assassination crap and for the love of God grow up?
My God...just....my God!

Edit: Kurfurst, crump, nztyphoon et al, just what exactly do you all gain in this?

Seadog

04-20-2012 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 411719)

20 000 tons / month by the 8th AAF,

So 8th AAF required 20,000 tons/month? How many squadrons and aircraft in 8th AAF?

Robo.

04-20-2012 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 411624)

I am sure that will be the next argument.

There is no argument whatsoever :grin: There is just you having this ridiculous claims (like a child covering its own eyes thinking ''if I can't see them, then they can't see me yay'').

You're wrong on so many levels (100 octane fuel stock and usage, early Merlin operational ratings)yet you keep on going stubbornly. :o Why are you doing this? Are you actually interested in fixing the FM in the sim? Do you actually fly Cliffs of Dover?

gavinb

04-20-2012 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CWMV (Post 411818)

The problem here is the behaviour of one poster in particular.

In the case of nztyphoon at least, he is accurately posting information from a previous 'discussion' elsewhere in which Kurfurst misrepresented my reserarch and my personal views. I note Kurfurst is doing this again to further his own rather selective and ahistoric views on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain.

In my case I went to the trouble of researching the issue and then publishing an article on it in a respected peer-review publication. I've received a fair number of inquiries as a response, most of which have been genuine expressions of interest from people interested in the subject, and I've generally been happy to pass on further details from my research in response. However, since Kurfurst started up in about 2009 I've had about as many inquiries from people questioning me on the basis of what they've read about my work in online debates started by Kurfurst.

In the case of Kurfurst, nobody claiming to be him has ever attempted to contact me before repeatedly misrepresenting my views, and then accusing me of impersonating myself, and all on public forums. This has been done on ww2aircraft.net, wikipedia and now here.

This is discreditable to the point of being comic, but in my view a more serious issue for anybody who wants these internet dicussion forums to be taken seriously is the way in which more responsible contributors are forced on to an equivalent level with participants such as Kurfurst by the editorial approach on forums such as this. There is no illusiary middle-ground to be found here; Kurfurst's behaviour has clearly been (and apparently remains) ahistorical mendacity. Anybody in any doubt about this should familiarise themselves with the details of Kurfurst's behaviour as posted previously.

One minor result of this is that I don't feel any encouragement to contribute anything to sites like this or ww2aircraft.net because there is little or no value to be had from being pressured by lies to engage in 'debates' where genuine information and discussion is so consistently distorted by the activities of trolls.

I don't gain anything from this. Quite the opposite. In fact, even when I don't participate in the discussion, as a result of Kurfurst's behaviour I am forced to waste time that I would prefer to spend completing a new book in dealing with three-year old canards which have already been refuted. But the alternative is that the only exposure many will have to my work is through the wilful distortions of Kurfurst. Therefore I'm indebted to people like nztyphoon who have actually taken the trouble to challenge Kurfurst's views and accurately represent mine. The evidence posted by several people in response to Kurfurst has been genuinely informative, and I'd like to thank them for the effort.

One last point. I'm not that concerned with specific responses to Kurfurst, as he has been refuted before, and given his inability to modify his views or posting behaviour in response to evidence, continued debate with him is a waste of time and effort. However, the allegation that I hold anti-American views is a new departure, and I'd like to respond to that here.

In my view, the development of the Anglo-American alliance was both a fundamentally-important objective of British strategy, and was also critical to a successful outcome of the Second World War. However, any understanding the historical reality of how that alliance developed and how that war was fought must proceed from the historical evidence, regardless of any impact that has on post facto anti- or pro-American or British views held more than sixty years later.

If anybody wants to, they can contact me via the email address given on my departmental website -

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/

In the meantime, I suggest a more constructive approach would be to ignore Kurfurst and concentrate on the evidence other posters have already provided here and elsewhere which refutes Kurfurst's views but is also of larger historical interest.

Gavin Bailey

RCAF_FB_Orville

04-20-2012 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gavinb (Post 411851)

Hello Dr Bailey. Rest assured that people who have been around many aviation and simming interest forums know all about a certain parties maliciously disruptive MO, their propensity to level scurrilous and completely unfounded allegations, and willfully mendacious behavior. He is still permanently banned from 'Warbirds' ww2aircraft.net, as well as serving a life time ban from editing wiki.

As you are well aware, there are very good and justifiable reasons for this, despite the many warnings he has had, as well as temporary bans (on other forums too) he will not adjust his behaviour. The leopard never changes its spots. Though of course it is all some elaborate 'grand conspiracy' and nothing whatsoever to do with the poster themselves actual conduct. Its just other people.

It really doesn't matter what he or Kettenhunde-Crummp 'think', as anyone with a modicum of intellect can see that their 'arguments' such as they are, hold no water. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that only 16 (or even 19) squadrons were using 100 octane in the Battle of Britain for some kind of 'test purpose' (or safety, or supply problems), it was in use and tested well before (dating back to the Battle of France, as has been conclusively shown), with primary source evidence.

To maintain that the pre war Morgan-Shacklady document, predating the BoB by some 18 months, represents what actually happened in practice, when there is an avalanche of corroborated evidence in this thread to the contrary (well done to all concerned), is simply risible. When one examines the facts, there is really no 'controversy' whatsoever regarding the widespread FC use of 100 octane fuel in the BoB. Its not unlike the deliberate types of 'Faux-controversy' manufactured by for example Creationists under the guise of 'fact' with rubbish like Intelligent design, when in fact there is no controversy in the scientific community at large at all.

Some people seem to have a problem with understanding the basic requirement to qualify a statement or assertion with actual evidence. They can 'believe' what they want of course, but its not quite good enough for the purpose of historiographical inquiry. As you of course are well aware, hehe.

People are still waiting for the mountain of combat reports detailing the allegedly predominant use of 87 octane fuel in the BoB by fighter command, which if this were true (and it most certainly is not) would of course be a relative cinch to find. They also eagerly await the infamous '16 squadrons' designated for 100 octane use, with proof and details of their supply during the battle itself. Strangely, this information is conspicuous by its absence and does not appear to be forthcoming.

I believe that the vast majority of reasonable, thinking people know why. :)

Anyway, don't worry Gavin. We know. Case closed.

Cheers.

Kurfürst

04-20-2012 10:14 AM

It appears that another 'gbailey' handle appeared again, strangely enough he seems to appear everywhere where NZTyphoon appears, and continues to evade to answer the questions. As usual lot of pompous and empty hot air is vented, without adressing the issue of his(?) former false and/or ill-informed claims about German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.

We have seen that this 'gbailey' login has taken an ahistorical stance and appears to have taken a complete denial on the production of German synthetic 100 octane, and its operational use by the Jagd- and Zestörerverbanden during the Battle of Britain. He advances an ahistorical, and I think its approriate to say, partisan thesis that the Luftwaffe had no access to its own produced 100 octane supplies, and had to do with captured British stocks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbailey

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point. [/I]

To support this claim, the abovementioned document was referred to by this 'gbailey' login, which was supposed to support that the only 100 octane fuel found in crashed German aircraft during the Battle of Britain was of British origin.

An alarming result of the examination of this paper, as far as the credibility and expertise of the 'gbailey' login is concerned, is that the referred to trail of documents was positively misquoted, its contents were falsified and presented in a misleading manner.

Reviewing the document, presented below show that the British correctly identified German-produced C-3 grade 95/115 in several downed aircraft's tanks, chiefly Bf 110 destroyers, and curiously, even Ju 88 bombers. The latter case is interesting given that the bombers gained nothing from using higher grade fuels, their engines having been designed for 87 octane fuels and boost levels. There's also a wealth of sources by German and other authors, showing the details of LW HQ meetings making reference to operational use of German domestic produced synthetic 100 octane fuel, as well as photographic, oral etc. evidence.

Needless to say, this makes the whole claim and poses serious question about the true identity and credibility of the said login handle. One would believe that it is a minimum professional standard for any, even an amateur historian to report the contents of historical documents accurately and true to their full contents, and not selectively or falsified, as was the case.

I am absolutely certain that anyone with an actual degree in history would follow these basic requirements to the letter, which is why a serious doubt can be raised whether this 'gbailey' login is who he who claims himself to be. I am sure the actual Gavin Bailey has high professional standards which are evident from the article presented in the English historical review, and in which I did not find any trace of a reference of 'widespread' operational use of 100 octane fuel by the RAF. It surely mentions the use of such fuel by select fighter squadrons starting in May 1940, and the main line seems to be to downplay the importance of the fuel as far as fighter aircraft performance is concerned, and the importance of American supplies.

Therefore, a very strange strong divergence can be observed between the statements of Dr. Gavin Bailey in the article represented in the English Historical Review, and the statements of the login handle 'gbailey' who's appearance is always coincided with the appearance of NZTyphoon, who also seems to be in denial of German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.

If 'gbailey's claimed identity is true, I am afraid that would be even more concerning, as there is a proven misrepresentation of a historical source and probably worthy to the attention of the Rector of Dundee University, as well as Professor Black and Professor Dobson, for further investigation into professional standards and lack of civil conduct in the public, which may pose questions about the suitability of the candidate, who refuses to address the question directly, upon having been caught in the act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst reply to whoever was posting under the login handle 'gbailey'

The notion and implication that the only 100 octane fuel used by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain originates to British stocks of 100 octane fuel, captured from British airfields in France after the premature leave by the British Army in June 1940 is a dangerous myth, which needs to be promptly refuted, before any credence is attributed to it. Even if I did not want to engage in continuing that discussion here, given that the title discusses the RAF use of such fuel in 1940, the above repetence of it warrants a proper refutation of the claim by poster 'gbailey'.

Some of the documents already posted from the Australian archieves already show that already in 1938 the British were concerned of German 100 octane fuel developments and the capacity to produce this fuel on an industrial scale. Please refer back to these before proceeding further.

Please also refer to the German datasheet of the DB 601N. This type of engine was developed for German 100 octane 'C-3' fuel use, and went into mass production in late 1939 (October 1939 via Manfred Griehl to be exact)

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/dat.../601N_Emil.jpg

It extremely puzzling, to say the least, why would the Germans decide to mass produce an engine, specifically made for 100 octane fuel use, without having any own stock of 100 octane fuel. And then equip whole wings of fighters, bombers, and zestoerers with the said engine.

As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance.

It should be noted, however, that during the war, there were different octane ratings used for aviation gasoline. Allied states generally preferred to give octane rating at its rich mixture, while the Germans preferred the CFR method, which gave the octane rating at weak mixture.

The bottomline of the story, the green 'C-3' type fuel that the Germans were calling 96 octane fuel by the CFR method, was the equaivalent of 96/110 octane fuel as the Allies would call it. In other words, actually a bit better at rich mixture and for knock resistance than ordinary 100 octane fuel.

Also it is evident from these documents that the British were aware of the existance and use of German 100 octane - for simplicity's sake lets ignore for a moment it superior qualities and call it the same since the summer of 1940.

Examples of such fuel were found and analysed in crashed Ju 88 and Me 110 aircraft. The use in the former type is especially interesting as the types capable of taking advantage of higher octane fuel were DB 601N-powered Bf 109Es and Bf 110Cs. These latter were already in service by July 1940. By the automn, 1200 DB 601N engines were delivered, divided amongst Bf 110, Bf 109 units, Bf 109F production and reserve engines. Priority was given to Bf 110 units until the automn for these engines. The use of 100 octane C-3 thus may appear to be superflous in German bomber aircraft, nevertheless is was an existing practice.

The British report do not seem to mention 100 octane fuel found in Bf 109s, but this may be due to the limited scope of the report. See the image of Bf 109E-4/N, W.Nr. 1190, 'White 4', is being unloaded by Curtiss workers. The Emil belonged to 4. Staffel Staffel of JG 4, and was flown by Uffz. Horst Perez on, when it was shot down on the 30th September 1940 over East Dean during the Battle of Britain. Note the fuel triangle with the '100' label, pointo to 100 octane fuel and the DB 601N.

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/fil...t1940b_DFC.jpg

As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - www.kurfurst.org

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_000.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_001.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_003.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_005.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_007.jpg

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...2-c3_table.jpg

I believe the fact that the 'gbailey' handle consistently evades to address the question of possible misrepresentation - either willfully or out of ignorance - of historical documents and the German use of 100 octane in the Battle of Britain can be considered an answer to the question of credibility and identity as well.

NZtyphoon

04-20-2012 10:38 AM

For my part I am deeply angry that Dr Bailey has had to field the effects of Kurfurst's constant abuse of his research, even though he is not a part of this or any other forum. I could not care less what Kurfurst says let alone thinks about me, because it has long been a part of his MO to abuse those who oppose him on this and on other forums, from which he has been mostly banned; what I will not tolerate is his cowardly and behind-the-back abuse of people, such as Dr Bailey, who carry out genuine work, and who have a balanced and scholarly approach to historical research. I lost my temper earlier because of this and I apologise to CWMV and others on this forum, for allowing myself to sink to that level. :(

Kurfurst is on my ignore list permanently, and I suggest that everyone else in this forum do likewise. It is simply a waste of time attempting to "debate" any issues with him without the risk of ending up being entangled in prolonged and usually circular and fruitless argument - witness the 110 pages to this thread - and I begrudge the hours I have wasted responding to his nonsense. :cool:

Osprey

04-20-2012 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 411605)

You keep referring to your PPL as a licence for you to be a know-it-all. There you go again confusing modern day process in the USA with that of wartime Britain in 1940. That's what 'balony' really is.

So, what's a 'standard day' in England Crump? And what evidence do you have that this information was relayed to aircrew as they scrambled? According to your own logic, if you cannot provide this as proof then it didn't happen.

Glider

04-20-2012 10:48 AM

Kurfurst
Can I point out one rather large significant problem in the paper that you quote the the use of Captured Fuel in the Luftwaffe during the BOB

The Paper Gavin quotes is :-
direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

Gavins reference Paper covers November 1939 to September 1940 and was produced in Nov 1940

Your paper covers the period Summer 1940 to Autumn 1943

They are different Papers. If you are going to comment on someones work, at least get the right paper.

To try and compare fuel consumption i n the BOB to the situation in 1944 is comparing Pears and Bananas, the planes were different, they had bigger tanks, drop tanks were used. But you know this its a tactic you have tried before. We are talking about the BOB so stick with it.

winny

04-20-2012 10:50 AM

1 Attachment(s)

Here are some records of fuel import and consumption from the National Archive

I'm in the process of getting all of the Oil related memos and Cabinet meetings.

I had to zip them up because they are to big as PDF's

Contents: Cabinet Papers.zip

War Cabinet Oil Position December '39
War Cabinet Oil Position March '40
War Cabinet Oil Position June '40
War Cabinet Oil Position July '40
Memo on the completion of the Thornton plant - November '40

I will add anymore that I find.

Osprey

04-20-2012 10:59 AM

I will never put Kurfurst on ignore because I want to know he posted so I can give him a right slagging off.

Kurfurst, you are such a knob - perhaps you and Crump should meet up for a cock-in.

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:04 AM.

Page 11 of 18

« First

Last »

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page