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

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)

If I can address the question of the number of Blenheim squadrons which were stocked with 100 octane.

Kurfurst had until the last few days said that there were only two squadrons and asked me to supply my evidence.

The following papers which he has seen before and quoted on recently make it clear that the four stations are the only stations to be fully fuelled with 100 octane. The paper makes it clear that these are the exception and that the norm must be to retain one tank of 87 octane for aircraft that are passing through.

Note 1 - all Blenheim units are to be equipped with 100 octane
Note 2 - only the four specified bases are to be only equipped with 100 octane
Note 3 - the 87 octane is for aircraft passing through not non operational flying

If anyone wants any additional information please let me know

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 298446)

If I can address the question of the number of Blenheim squadrons which were stocked with 100 octane...

Hi. Can you attaching higher resolution picture? I can not read the second page :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom (Post 298452)

Hi. Can you attaching higher resolution picture? I can not read the second page :(

Save n Zoom?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz (Post 298456)

Save n Zoom?

the 300 pixel wide text part will not be more detailed, just bigger :)
The native language of who is English, read it more easily sure...

It is a dreadful copy but the following may help

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 298459)

It is a dreadful copy but the following may help

Thank you, it helps :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles (Post 298346)

Kurfurst,

Could you kindly post a link to this article written by the australian author directly? I have been waiting almost 2 weeks for my account at allaboutwarfare.com to be activated but it hasn't happened yet.

I can re-post for you the original post(s) from July 2004. Needless to say, Neil Stirling got a heart attack when he saw it. ;) Neil, like some other here were pushing for a pet theory about 100% 100 octane use in FC for some years, but have found no evidence during 10 years of research. It must have been very sobering to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PipsPriller on Jul 12 2004 at [url

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=230&st=0&start=0][/url]
The first bulk shipment of 100 octane fuel had arrived in Britain in June 1939 from the Esso refinery in Aruba. This and subsequent tanker shipments from Aruba, Curacao and the USA were stockpiled while the RAF continued to operate on 87 octane petrol. Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.

Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.

The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940.

Given that large quantities were not available until late August, the volume of usage/week of 87 Octane must be far higher than that quoted for 100 Octane.

I came across it when I was in fact researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives.

It's from a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance.

It was quite an interesting paper actually, even though i found it to be a very dry subject.

The most interesting part is that "Pips" found this well before, in 2004 or earlier, and it agrees with every single document Neil managed to dig up afterwards, though Neil and now Glider tries to discredit this research with whatever means, basically calling Pips a liar behind his back at every opportunity, but never to his face.. The problem is, if Pip would have made it up, he was extremely talented, because Pips information from 2004 - for example that the large scale fighter conversion begun in late September 1940 - agrees perfectly with what Neil found in British archives in 2009 about 87 vs 100 octane consumption rates (and then waited two years before publishing it, as it was obviously not very helpful to his own thesis).

Note that as per the consumption figures, 100 octane did not become the main fuel until late September 1940, just like Pips stated, 7 years ago.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1..._duringBoB.png

[QUOTE=Glider;298446]Kurfurst had until the last few days said that there were only two squadrons and asked me to supply my evidence.

Stop making things up and putting into other's mouths. As others have noted, it makes you look petty, petulant, and juvenile. Its the lowest form of arguement, when you have nothing worthwhile to offer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 298446)

Note 1 - all Blenheim units are to be equipped with 100 octane

The paper does not say that. You have made it up.

Quote:

If anyone wants any additional information please let me know

I would like to see the complete papers, not just snippets you wish to show.

Here's what the best Spitfire book (Morgan/Shacklady: Spitfire, the History), by far, has to say on the question.

Take note that it very well mentions the supply problems with the import of 100 octane from overseas, and also take note Glider is very well aware of this work, having shown this several times. Instead, he sells a story about 'hundreds' of books not mentioning a thing.. ;)

The relative lifespan of the engine (10-20 hours on +12 lbs vs 100 hours on +6 1/4 lbs) is also of interest.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...00octane_1.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...00octane_2.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 298446)

Those two images you attached speak pretty clearly to me, and say that the DTD230 (which I assume is 87 octane?) is not simply "for aircraft passing through" but rather the station must include aircraft passing through when calculating its total consumption requirements for DTD230. In other words, the station must take into account not only its own consumption of 87 octane but also the consumption of any aircraft that might be passing through.

In fact the first scan states quite clearly that the decision to eliminate their holdings of DTD230 should not be taken as a precedent, so to me this is in fact quite compelling evidence that the RAF had not converted all its aircraft to 100 octane (at least in April of 1940 when the document is dated).