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)

Quote:

EDIT - when I mentioned logistics you came back with "you can't use logistics to work out operational" (I'm paraphrasing) or some other nonsense, now you're using logistics.

You should just read the post because this does not make you look very good to anyone who did read it.

The logistical documents are used to answer logistical questions, "When can will we have the fuel to convert the first operational aircraft?"

Answer - When we have the fuel distributed to all the airfields.

Quote:

Don't you think it is a bit far-fetched to use this kind of manuals as a proof for the spread of use of 100 octane fuel? I am pretty sure that no manual was ever issued for all the different field modifications used by either side.

It is not a field modification, it is operational adoption.

Those generally follow convention and the evidence presented aligns with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog (Post 412366)

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.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

Still waiting...:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 415004)

I don't care what anyone else on here thinks about me. I'm not here to look good.

Like I said earlier, I'm working out what stations had 100 based on deliveries of Mk II's, but it's a very time consuming process.

So in the meantime, why don't you answer the question I keep having to ask.

What is you argument regarding the non use of 100 octane fuel in frontline spitfires during the battle of Britain?

EDIT: and I was actually referring to this post, the one after I'd posted all of the Oil Production meeting docs..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 412266)

Interesting but you cannot answer operational questions with logistical answers..

Anyway, it is interesting but not applicable because it is logistical documentation and not operational.

Who looks bad?
Like I said you're a hypocrite.

EDIT : Help required, I remember someone posted a chart showing the FC squadron movements from the period, I can't find it. It would speed things up a lot. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 415008)

It is not a field modification, it is operational adoption.

Those generally follow convention and the evidence presented aligns with that.

I know quite well. My point is that the manual that you presented was obviously! issued well after the moment when 100 octane became operational. It says nothing about when it became operational. It basically is just the proof that at the moment of its publication 100 octane was already in use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog (Post 412366)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 415017)

Stop waiting and read!! :grin:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1315

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1279

Neither of these posts demonstrates that RAF FC flew a even single Hurricane/Spitfire combat sortie using 87 octane fuel.

Where are the reports detailing fuelling difficulties because a 100/87 octane aircraft had to land at an 87/100 octane airfield? Where are the Airfield/Squadron commander/pilot reports complaining that their Airfield/squadron/aircraft was one of the unlucky ones not to be converted to 100 octane? Where are the pilot reports or memoirs noting 87 octane fuel use during the battle? Why do numerous sources state 100% conversion to 100 octane prior to the battle? Why did Moelders and Galland beg Goering for higher performing aircraft?

You still haven't shown that even a single Hurricane/Spitfire combat sortie was flown using 87 octane fuel during the battle, yet you contend that the majority of RAF FC was using 87 octane fuel!!! :confused:

Crumpp's condition:

Everbody's Wrong

Crumpp is just arguing for the sake of argument because it makes him feel important. It has nothing to do with 100 Octane and a great deal more to do with ego.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 414917)

First the principles are all the same by convention just as how the Operating Notes are updated.

Second, the AIAA 81-2375 is the history of flight test development!!

If you could access the AIAA library, you could get your own copy.

Maybe on some standard day they might let you in!! Ha ha ha ;)

You have to graduate from an accredited Aeronautical Sciences curriculum for membership.

https://www.aiaa.org/

Actually no you don't. Associate members don't need a degree only an interest in aerodynamics, and from what you have posted I suspect I am afraid that you are at best an associate member.

Quote:

Originally Posted by winny (Post 415019)

Like I said earlier, I'm working out what stations had 100 based on deliveries of Mk II's, but it's a very time consuming process.

EDIT : Help required, I remember someone posted a chart showing the FC squadron movements from the period, I can't find it. It would speed things up a lot. Thanks.

Hi Winny:
Fwiw, a quick review of Spitfire II squadrons from Rawlings for the period Sept. - Oct. 1940.:
611 Digby
266 Wittering
74 Cottishall & Biggin Hill
19 Fowlmere
66 Kenly, Gravesend, West Malling
41 Hornchurch
603 Hornchurch

From IWM: 19 Squadron, Fowlmere, Sept. 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...01357-1200.jpg