Kurfurst
That file is many hundreds of pages long and you are not going to get it all, which meeting are you interested in or which paper of mine do you consider to be partial and I will post the rest.
I have looked up previous postings of yours and the one paper you have mentioned is the Oil Co ordination committee meeting after the May meeting when the roll out was confirmed as being complete. If you want something apart from that you need to be more precise

The 100 octane mods specify different plugs. Typically you will not want to run 87 octane in an engine with 100 octane plugs.

That is Kurfurst's MO

He has allways played both sides of the argument, posting in bold the items that support his arguments, ignoring the items that weaken his arguments.

With that said

Let's play thier game for the moment..

Lets assume that all RAF planes were running 87 oct and all nazi planes were using 100 oct..

Thus they are asking us to belive that the Spitfires runnin 87 oct were able to clear the skys of 109 running 100 oct

Would be interesting to see how they try and spin that one ;)

Of course and this is same note appears in the 1939 Operating Notes.

The fly in the ointment is the January 1942 Operating Notes clearly state, OPERATIONAL UNITS-100 OCTANE ONLY.

January 1942, Pilots Operating Notes, Spitfire Mk I:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3...uary194202.jpg

That is definative and it is a fact all operational units flying a Spitfire are using 100 Octane in January 1942.

Before the January notes, the only mention of 100 Octane is "100 octane may be used, if the engine has been suitable modified" That "may be used....IF" is definative as well. All operational units flying a Spitfire Mk I were not using 100 Octane in June of 1940...for a fact.

Ace of Aces...ie Tagert, It was you who did not understand atmospheric conditions effect on aircraft performance and was crying about gameshapes being mismodeled.

When I pointed that out, you spent pages attacking me personally.

Then you proceed with "testing" showing the creation and destruction of energy. I tried to help you by explaining how a specific set of formulation, Total Energy Concepts for Aircraft Performance works and once again you spent your time flinging personal insults.

I would ask the mods to please remove those who contribute nothing but personal insults.

There is good information in this thread and I think we are getting closer to the answer.

According to AP1590B A.L. 4 (November 1940) the different sparking plugs are "very desirable" but not required. So using 100 octane with the regular sparking plugs seems to work, however it doesn't sound like a good idea. In addition it doesn't mean that the 100 octane plugs work satisfactory with 87 octane.

The major change is the cylinder heads. Without those, you are going to have cracking.

Exactly. It specifies the four types of plugs which may be used for 100 Octane. You would have to look the spark plugs authorized for 87 Octane and see if any of them match the part numbers.

I actually have to put the certificate that comes with a set of plugs in the logbook of the aircraft we work on and sign it. It is a required entry and the certificate must state the plugs are authorized to use in the aircraft.

Aircraft maintenace is very tightly controlled by convention.

Now wait ... did I understand that correct:

Didn't you just say some posts above that the use of 100 octane fuel on one day doesn't mean it was used on the next day?
So the RAF filled there aircraft on one day with 100 octane, changed the sparking plugs, did all the certificate stuff. On the next day the drained the tanks, filled in 87 octane, reverted to the old sparking plugs, again certificate stuff.

And if they were really fast they might find have one hour per day to fight the Luftwaffe.

Seriously?

If nothing has changed in a chapter, it will be added "as is" to the new publication. That is one of the reasons all the convention signers went to a standard format for all POH's in the 1980's. The edition cover, changes, and new table of contents is generally republished. The British manuals publish a table with each manual listing the updates incorporated, it is at the front of the Operating Notes.


German Flugzueg Handbuchs can be a nightmare to put together by chapter because of this too. That is why we get paper originals and not electronic copies. I find the wartime German system, especially the parts manuals, a pain in the rear to look up information. Good detail, drawing, and information but tedious to work with.

Then back up your "facts" with something substantive:

Explain how 16 Squadrons consumed 52,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in just 3 months (Jul - October) with documentation.

Explain which squadrons were selected for your "intensive operational trials" and explain how the RAF ensured that only the selected units were supplied, with documentation.

You insist that the RAF needed to have 800,000 tons of 100 octane in reserve, based on pre-war papers, yet you have never explained why the RAF was using "Other Grades" when the reserves of those were falling below the reserves of 100 Octane as the battle progressed; if, as you state
I repeat, the "reserves to production ratio" of "Other Grades" of fuel was falling below that of 100 Octane; taking that hypothesis to its logical conclusion the RAF would not have been using any fuel.

But, wait, there's more, "That does not necessarily mean aircraft were feeling a shortage"...really hedging your bets there Crumpp.

You then go on to state:

A poor comparison because the RAF's supply system was not put under the same strain and the RAF was able to supply its airfields throughout the battle.

All this means is that you want things both ways - first you insist the reserves were inadequate, and have spent ages pushing that position - now you insist weeell it doesn't matter anyway.

One or t'other - did the RAF have enough reserves of 100 Octane fuel to potentially supply all frontline fighter squadrons throughout the battle - yes or no?