It is not even close to being the same.

Think about it. Two countries build airplanes but each has no idea if the other countries airplanes are safe to have over the heads of their citizens.

So how do they visit each other?

In 1919, many countries sat down and answered that question. They decided that the only way to ensure everybody else's aircraft were safe to fly over the heads of their citizens, was to agree to meet the same standards and principles.

They agreed on navigation, charts, landing procedures, and other things about how airplanes are built and operated.

One of the major things was the standards of airworthiness. Why are the operating limitations part of the airworthiness? That is what the manufacturer has certified the airplane will fly at within the very narrow engineering safety margins that are required to achieve flight. The airplane is only reasonably guarentee'd to work when operated within those published limits. It is airworthy airplane only within those operating limits.

Once again, the engineering safety margins are just too small. What does that mean? It means an airplane is not overbuilt. It is built to exactly what it needs and nothing more. When it says in an operating manual something is a limit, it is real honest to god limit. Push an airplane past what is written in the Operating Limitations is a great way to die in reality. A fighter, like any airplane by design operating limits is already operating on the ragged edge of disaster. There just isn't any wiggle room. Sure you might hear a few cool stories about guys how did it and got lucky. You won't hear the stories of the guys who did it and were not so lucky. Not adhereing to the published operating limits in an airplane is a really, really, stupid thing to do. It is playing Russian roulette and hoping the outcome is good.

In fact, the FAA determined that deviating from operating instructions is a factor in 85% of the accidents in aviation. What does that mean? It means if you disregard the operating limitations in an aircraft, the chances are extremely high it will come back to haunt you.

http://www.sefofane.com/faq_engine.html

Now, how does a country ensure that the people that make and fly airplanes are abiding by this agreement among nations and at the same time ensure their own nations aircraft are airworthy? They make adhereing to the documentation governing aircraft airworthiness have the weight of law and they enforce it. It is common sense too. You just are going to win a war if your airplanes don't fly.

But again, what does this have to do directly with the Spits and Hurris in BoB?
Not round about, but a direct correlation.

The January 1942 Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes clearly states in Notes on the Merlin engine that 100 Octane is for all operational units and all others will use 87 Octane.

The July 1940 Notes on the Merlin Engine only list 87 Octane operating limits and make no mention at all of 100 Octane. That is not to say 100 Octane was not in use. It was and the manual itself but not under the Notes on the Merlin engine references it "IF" the plane is equipped for it and "IF" the fuel is available.

"IF" would not even be in the manual "IF" all operational units were using the fuel in July 1940.

Any airframe using the fuel was doing so on a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine. The airframe serial number Operating Notes issued would reflect 100 Octane's use in that specific aircraft and once it becomes the standard fuel for the type, the General Information on the type Operating Notes will reflect that change.

Ok, but your working off of an assumption here. Its not direct evidence.
Pilot's from the BoF saying that they used 12lbs is direct.

Now for the aircraft in game to be modeled for 12 lbs we don't need to determine that every single plane in fighter command was using 100 octane, only that it was in widespread use.
And that is what we apparently have here.
Your using the lack of documentation here as evidence that the planes didn't use this fuel. That's not the case, it just means you don't have the doc's.
Do you have anything that says they were still using 87 for the majority of aircraft?

Crumpp....are you serious? you tried to explain this using an analogy of 2 different nations needing reassurance that aircraft were 'safe' to fly over each others countries, bearing in mind said aircraft are loaded with guns and ammo and bombs to drop/fire on said counrties, military aircraft are practically exempt from civillian regulations....if they weren't we'd all be going to war in cessnas and airbuses.

Once again Crumpp is blowing smoke:

The reason why the Pilot's Notes used the operating limits for 87 Octane has already been explained three times, but completely ignored by Crumpp. Pilot's Notes were modified using supplementary slips issued with the Pilot's Notes issued to the pilot by the unit to which he was sent.

This statement "Any airframe using the fuel was doing so on a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine." is pure speculation on Crumpps part with no evidence whatsoever.

Provide documentary evidence that RAF pilots in frontline fighter squadrons were not allowed to use 100 Octane during the Battle of Britain.

Provide documentary evidence stating that RAF frontline fighter pilots were told not to use +12 lbs boost during the Battle of Britain.

Provide documentary evidence that RAF frontline fighter aircraft went into action using 87 Octane fuel.

Provide documentary evidence that the RAF restricted the issue and consumption of 100 octane fuel to selected squadrons.

All Crumpp has wasted the last 40 something pages on is speculation, and nothing else. He has not provided a single solitary piece of evidence bearing out any of his beliefs.

I thought he showed a scan of a generic extract from a modern light single aircraf POH.

After following this thread with growing disinterest i believe the conclusion, without any personal opinions, should be:

As there is lots of evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel by operational fighter units before and during the BoB this can be taken as a fact.

However that isn't the proof that all operational units did actually use 100 octane fuel only.

The use of 87 octane fuel wasn't documented, as it wasn't special, only diversions from the norm are remarkable.

That means that the use of 87 octane fuel by operational fighter units can't be generally ruled out for lack of proof, even if the evidences indicate otherwise.

Imo, of course.

This is true, and the whole debate would be null and void if there was an option for fuel types, but instead the red side is left with the lowest denominator......why?

That's a very good summary. I agree completely, nothing needs to be added. :)