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. :)

So what are we looking at here? a lack of proof that 87 octane was/wasn't used, and evidence showing 100 octane was.

Hmmm....so 87 octane use is dubious at best, 100 octane is clearly in evidence.......I know lets instate the use of 87 octane as fact.

What use is your last post, bongodriver?

Clearly only a CoD-developer can answer your question, and i'd be really surprised to find one wandering in this part of the forum. :D :D :D

What use?....pretty much the same as yours, an oppinion based on the evidence provided, hopefully this issue will become compelling enough as proof to the majority of users that there has been a serious omission and would bring their support to it.

The problem is that before early 1940 every and all Fighter units were using 87 octane as standard. Now we know a fair number of units has switched over to 100 octane by the automn, but we do not have any shred of evidence that all have changed over.

I wonder why a unit, that operated on 87 octane in 1939 and kept operating at 87 octane through most of 1940 would mention anywhere that yes, the standard 87 octane fuel is still in use, just like yesterday.

The whole 'no proof that the standard fuel was kept being used' is a red herring by those who cannot provide evidence that every unit has changed over to 100 octane, simple as that. They can't prove their thesis, so they want others to disprove it. It's a weird, reversed logic.

Suppose I come up with an idea that there is a second, smaller sun in the Sol system, hiding behind the Sun all the time so we cannot see it. I can't prove it of course, but unless you prove its not there, I declare its very existence cannot be denied, due to the 'overwhelming' amount of evidence.

Anyway, the whole 100 octane stuff is going on for years and not a single shread of clear evidence has been found for its exclusive use by fighter squadrons. Of course it may exist still, but given such has been found for so many years, I seriously doubt the case. And the whole debate reminds me of this:

http://youtu.be/_w5JqQLqqTc

Wow.....may I ask....are you a lawyer?

because only a lawyer could possibly get away with convincingly theorising a second sun using that logic.

like OJ Simpson, he knows he did it, everybody knows he did it....but a Lawyer made sure he got away with it.

That is one of the most pathetic attempts at an argument I think I've ever seen.

There is PROOF of use of 100 octane in this very thread. It's now up to you to prove that 87 was also in use, not just because you say it is, but because, like us you present some proof.

You're basically doing the internet equivelent of sticking your fingers in your ears an 'la la la-ing'

How can the burden lie soley with one side of the discussion and not the other.

So, like I keep saying to Crumpp, present your case and stop trying to wriggle out of it with meaningless words.

Show me what makes an educated person like you think that 87 octane was in widespread use by FC during the BoB. Next post.

If 87 octane was still in use, proof should be easy to find. Can you find a dated picture of a Hurricane being refuelled with 87 octane fuel? I've seen such a picture for 100 octane fuel. Can you find a squadron record that documents changeover to 100 octane fuel in October 1940? I've seen such a document for April 1940.

Can you find a statement "not all operational fighter squadrons are using 100 octane fuel" in any document of that time?

I've been looking for exactly that, for some time now, and the more I look, the more I agree with Mr. Williams that all operational squadrons did indeed use 100 octane fuel. There simply is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL against that claim. This has also been confirmed in this topic by several people who appear to know more about the period than I do, while no-one objecting this conclusion as presented actual, factual evidence.

I'll keep on checking this topic for as long as it is going on, eventually, proof for 87 octane usage might pop up and I'll have learned something.

Absence of evidence is no proof.

I am really worried about people with black and white thinking, they are really prone to err.

So what you are saying is that all the evidence pointing to the use of 100 octane is actually damaging to the case? in fact it would have been better to not have any and claim it's absence as a lack of proof to it's contrary?

So when Madox Games gets around to modeling the late war Bf109K-4s, the 1.98ata boost model will not be done as there is no shred of evidence that is was used by any operational units when cleared for use.

Au contraire! Half the truths we know are based on absence of evidence for the contrary. If you can't provide a single bit of evidence for a theory, it is considered wrong. Doesn't matter if it concerns orange ravens, a second sun or 87 octane fuel.

Well there's sufficient evidence and Oleg chose to model the variant based on that evidence for Il-2:Sturmovik.

And you were permabanned when you called Oleg mental afterwards as I recall. I guess history will just have to repeat itself. :D

Well, we do know 87 octane was standard for Fighter Command at the start of the war and we know that by May 1940 only select Units of fighter command converted to 100 octane.

I'll let you guess what the rest of the Units kept operating on.

I'll leave the guessing to you, I'm interested in knowing.

We're not talking about May 1940. We're talking about the Battle of Britain.
So July, August, September. And we're not guessing.

So once again. Present you own argument and stop nit picking our's.

With some documents, circumstantial evidence, whatever it is that you've got that makes you so convinced that 87 octane was in widespread use by fighter command during the battle of Britain. Just saying that it was is a pathetic way to try and prove that what you say is correct. It's not like we're alone in our opinion. There are plenty of authors on the subject who agree with the argument that the conversion happened in the spring of 1940. If you want to change the general consensus then I'm afraid that "because kurfurst says so" isn't going to do it. It does however highlight what a closed mind you have.

Well here it is. It clearly says that 100 octane is only issued to select fighter stations, and this is how it stayed, given the lack of evidence to the contrary.

Disappointing.

Empty blabber...

So a very contemporary graphic (I'm sure this technology is post 1940's)....in low resolution is all you need for evidence?

what is the source of that graphic? what is the source of info used to produce that graphic? does that information have a date to refference?

Sufficient evidence? Not even an original document was ever presented. Only supposition and wishfulness on your part Barbi.

Another one of your lies Barbi.
Nope, I can register anytime I want to, but as the place is like a morgue, why bother.

And that's it? You're diregarding all the other meetings that took place after this one, including ones that have been posted in this thread that superceeded it.

What you're doing is desperatley clinging on to an outdated document.

By your example the earth is at the centre of the solar system, because I can find you a document that was written that says it is.

Pathetic. Desperate and laughable. Do me a favour and go away.

Well, the main thing is that the 2000 PS 109K was added and you were banned after one of your typical brainf*rts and insulting of Oleg. I guess you can squibble over the details. :D

Can I see them? Pleeeease? Pretty please with sugar on top?

You see, I am waiting for these to be shown for 1400+ posts, and despite all the verbal diarrhea on this thread, NONE of the pumpkins arguing in favour could post any of these supposedly existing 'superceding' documents!

So I, just like the others lost interest in their BS. ;)

Another garbage graph by Barbi.

As RAF FC was the major user of 100 octane fuel, the graph should show the 87 octane fuel issued to RAF FC NOT the 87 octane fuel issued to the whole of the RAF.

The only one having brainfarts is you Barbi, hence your faulty memory.

I am still wondering how many squadrons is the number you consider to be selected. Is it the 16 squadrons as per Crumpp or is it the 145 aircraft as per pips.

Hi David,

Can we see the full contents of AVIA 10/282 between November 1939 and November 1940?

Without a definition of selected squadrons your document is worthless.

End of.

Can I see a full list of the selected squadrons, pretty please.. Etc etc etc

You'll be pleased to know that I've requested this from the national archive. I'm waiting to hear back how much it's going to cost me. Whatever it costs it will be worth it.

To help the Dynamic Duo select the squadrons, here is a list of the squadrons:

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 3 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 17 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 19 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 23 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 25 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 29 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 32 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 41 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 43 (China-British) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 46 (Uganda) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 54 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 64 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 65 (East India) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 66 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 72 (Basutoland) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 73 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 74 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 85 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 92 (East India) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 111 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 141 Squadron - Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 145 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 151 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane and Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 213 (Ceylon) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 219 (Mysore) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 222 (Natal) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 229 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 232 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 234 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 235 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 236 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 238 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 242 (Canadian) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 245 (Northern Rhodesia) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 247 (China - British) Squadron - Gloster Gladiator
No. 248 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 253 (Hyderabad) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 257 (Burma) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 263 (Fellowship of the Bellows) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 264 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 266 (Rhodesia) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 302 Polish Fighter Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 310 Czechoslovak Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 312 Czechoslovak Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 401 Canadian Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 501 (County of Gloucester) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 504 (City of Nottingham) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 600 (City of London) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 601 (County of London) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 604 (County of Middlesex) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 605 (County of Warwick) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 607 (County of Durham) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 615 (County of Surrey) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 804 Naval Air Squadron - Fairey Fulmar
No. 808 Naval Air Squadron - Fairey Fulmar

Hi 41Sqn_Banks,

Please examine the following documentation showing Spitfire IIs of 611 Squadron using emergency boost in combat on 21 August 1940. This was very shortly after the Sptifire II first went operational in the RAF.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...3aug40-orb.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...1aug40-orb.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...g40-orb541.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-21aug40-1.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-21aug40-2.jpg

As I have said before that is a file of many documents. If you want it that bad you can always ask for it.

However all I want to know if you still believe that the RAF only had approx 145 fighters with 100 octrane, that was the last time you gave me a figure.

Thank you. That's a remarkable find and the proof I was looking for.

Another great find Lane, much thanks:)

+1
It's interesting to note that there are nine Spitfire Is from the first 'K' and second 'N' production series; those delivered to 611 Sqn were:
N3050 Ia 338 EA MIII FF 28-9-39 8MU 30-9-39 611S 1-3-40
N3051 Ia 340 EA MIII FF 29-9-39 8MU 2-10-39 611S 1-3-40
N3052 Ia 341 EA MIII FF 30-9-39 8MU 2-10-39 611S 1-3-40
N3053 Ia 342 EA MIII FF 1-10-39 24MU 5-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3054 Ia 343 EA MIII FF 2-10-39 24MU 5-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3055 Ia 344 EA MIII FF 3-10-39 fitt TR1133 24MU 5-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3056 Ia 345 EA MIII FF 2-10-39 24MU 5-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3057 Ia 346 EA MIII FF 3-10-39 24MU 4-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3058 Ia 347 EA MIII FF 4-10-39 24MU 7-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3059 Ia 348 EA MIII FF 5-10-39 27MU 7-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3060 Ia 349 EA MIII FF 4-10-39 27MU 7-10-39 611S 25-1-40
N3061 Ia 350 EA MIII FF 6-10-39 27MU 10-10-39 611S 15-2-40
N3062 Ia 351 EA MIII FF 6-10-39 27MU 10-10-39 611S 15-2-40
N3063 Ia 353 EA MIII FF 7-10-39 27MU 10-10-39 611S 15-2-40
N3064 Ia 352 EA MIII FF 6-10-39 27MU 10-10-39 611S 15-2-40
N3065 Ia 354 EA MIII FF 8-10-39 611S 16-3-40
N3066 Ia 355 EA MIII FF 9-10-39 9MU 11-10-39 611S 16-3-40
N3070 Ia 359 EA MIII FF 11-10-39 6MU 16-10-39 54S 18-11-39 611S 16-12-39
N3072 Ia 361 EA MIII FF 12-10-39 6MU 12-10-39 54S 18-11-39 611S 18-12-39
N3099 Ia 370 EA MIII FF 17-10-39 8MU 19-10-39 611S 21-1-40

From http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/p002.htm

When was 611 Sqn converted to 100 Octane fuel? Nine of them by 21/3/40...

K9963 Ia 176 EA MII FF 4-5-39 602S 8-5-39 AST 27-11-39 611S 4-6-40

All of these Spitfires had engines built well before AP1590/J.2-W was issued, showing that the required modifications on early Merlin IIIs were well in hand on 611 Sqn.

Just one 87 octane sortie...and you can't provide evidence for even that. How pathetic..

Yes and thanks for the update in bug 174 Banks. I'll be updating it for Artist to edit later.

Since it has been stated that there was a shortage of 100 fuel, I would like to see some references to a/c staying on the ground due to this shortage, like what happened in Germany late war.

Personally I would like to see any evidence of :-
a) a shortage of fuel
b) of 16 squadrons
c) of which squadrons or bases
d) why this isn't mentioned in any official document, book, history
e) of the process in delivering the fuel
f) when the rest of FC were transfered to 100 octane

in fact anything Crumpp and Kururst claim

Glider,

Why don't you state exactly what it is in your mind that you think I am claiming, first?

This is what I have said and is backed up by the facts:

In July of 1940, 100 Octane fuel was not the standard fuel of Fighter Command.

What facts would those be?

Do you really need someone to explain to you what you have been claiming for several pages? Your story keeps changing so much that not even you can keep track of what you have been claiming...

You should go back and re-read the thread without your emotional involvement.

It is a fact that in July of 1940, 87 Octane fuel was Fighter Commands standard fuel. They were definitely in the process of adopting 100 Octane and had begun operating aircraft that could only use 100 Octane like the Spitfire Mk II.

The Operating Notes are the primary source for flying the aircraft.

Notes on the Merlin Engine are by the Air Ministry, RAF, and convention a legal document that defines the airworthy limitations of the aircraft.

The Operating Notes are equivalent to a Flight Information Manual and will reflect the airworthy limitations of the type certificate.

That is how it works. It is that simple and elegant. The hatred of me for pointing that out is irrational and immature. Maybe some of you should consider getting out and socializing more?

Bottom line, there is no need to construct great leaps of logic built around circumstantial evidence. Especially when that evidence is misinterpreted such as using Estabilishments as proof of quantity on hand.

That's a claim, not a fact. For dozens of pages now several posters have been asking for proof, which you so far have not provided.

It is a fact, JtD. 100 Octane does not have a specification yet on the logistical documents posted but 87 Octane is a specified fuel.

Doesn't matter for practical purposes, and red herrings are of no interest to me.

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1335884379
AP 1590B Vol. I, A.L. 4

This is the specification of 100 octane fuel in November 1940. I've never seen this anywhere else, everywhere else (even in the same manual) it's simply called 100 octane fuel.

A fact would be RAF FC used 'X' ton of 100 fuel and 'Y' ton of 87 fuel with 'Y' being much much greater than 'X'.

Which documents would these be?

Provisional specification.....

And in May of 1940, it still had no specification and the estabilishment was still being discussed.

The case is not very strong for it being the main fuel of Fighter Command for much of the Battle of Britain.

Other than the many provided combat reports showing it's use and complete absense of any showing the use of 87 octane....no I guess there isn't the elusive document that says it verbatim.

I would suggest that this is a strong indication that "specifications" followed singnificantly behind widespread adoption in combat during this period.

It does not work that way.

So is it illegal to specify an unspecified element in a combat report?

Except for the stocks, combat reports, Oil Position meeting notes, various pilot's memoirs, squadron log books etc etc.

The case is stronger than the one you're putting which seems to be "because I say so". Time and time again you've made some statement which has turned out to be completely wrong, completely.

Then you come go quiet for a day and re-appear with a slightly differentley worded version of the same thing.

There were literally 100's of modifications applied to Mk1 Spitfires during the production run yet there aren't 100's of versions of pilot's notes.

There is only a small pool of squadrons on the combat reports. Only a fraction list +12lbs and instead use the phrase "pulling the plug" as proof of 100 Octane use.

While "pulling the plug" was used to express 100 Octane, it really just means they gave it all the engine has got.

Got proof?

I am speechles. :eek:

Good heavens! You're a cultural guru too Crump.:-)

Unfortunately the study of history works that way.
If you have positive evidence for the use of X, then official documentation which endorses X need not over ride the positive evidence, if found to be from a later date.

Below is what I would refer to as "positive evidence" of the use of 100 Octane prior to the "specification date". In fact the below gives us a strong indication, (and I would say proof in the case of the combat reports and photos referencing +12 and/or 100 octane directly) that, in fact 100 was being used prior to the specification. Not only that, but that 100 octane was used on a wide-scale, at least as far as the spitfire was concerned.

I have made a list, of all the references I can find to the use of 100 in COMBAT from freburary 1940 to September 1940, by squadron.

The list is not exhasutive and simply indicates the first date at which I can find various references. I have grouped these by the type of reference, from explicit mentions of particular boost or octanes (in photos or reports), down to mentions of "gate" or "emergency power/ boost cut out" which are almost as persuasive as direct references to the use of the 100 fuels. I am going to continue researching this to see if I can find further evidence/ data that indicates at a minimum the "in-use-by" date for the various squadrons.

Here is the results:

referecnes to +12 Lb and/or 100 octance
602 squadron: February 1940 - photo of squadron aircraft in in pre-BoB paint with 100 written on the fuseage + squad operations book entry on 16/2
54 Squadron: May 1940 - combat report from colin gray on 24/5 & AL Deere Combat report 26/5
19 Squadron: May 1950 - combat report from flt Lt Lane 26/5
610 Squadron: July 1940 - photo of 100 fuel bowser refuelling A/C
41 Squadron: June 1940 - combat report Flt Lt Webster 19/6
64 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from P/O Donahue
72 Squadron: September 1940 - Combat report from P/O Elliot 9/9

References to Boost Cut out/ emergency boost/ "gate"
74 Squadron: May 1940 - combat report from P/O Freeborn 24/5
611 squadron: June 1940 - combat report from P/O Brown 2/6
610 Squadron: June 1940 - combat report order to "gate" 12/6
616 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from F/O Dundas 15/8
603 SQuadron: August 1940 - combat report from P/O Morton 28/6
152 Squadron: September 1940 - combat report from P/O Hall on 4/9
66 Squadron: September 1940 - combat report from F/O Oxsrping 6/9
234 Squadron: August OR September 1940 - recollections from P/O Doe
92 Squadron: September 1940 - recollections from Goeffrey Wellum

reference to high boost (+10 LB)
602 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from Flt Lt Boyd 18/6

I am not sure how many of the above are spitfire squadrons, but there are 16 Squadrons listed there (610 is listed twice, as I located references in two categories). I understand there are only 19 Spitfire squadrons which have battle honours for the BoB.

Now, to wider matters, it seems to me that there are two separate assumptions being made in this discussion, these boil down to:
1. That twe must assume the use of 87 octane UNTIL we have positive evidence of the use of 100
2. That we must assume the use of 100 UNLESS we have evidence of 87.

I would say that Crumpp, falls into category 1. I agree with him/her on this account. However, I think we have ample evidence to suggest that many units were in fact using 100 on a staggered basis from February 1940.

So now it's about the definition of pulling the plug?

Really?

LOL, the 'song and dance routine' is changed, again. Anything to not admit being wrong.

None of the combat reports I can find use this term.The term is only used by the author of the spitfireperformace.com page.

Crump doing what Crump does best..

People trying to disparage someone, are doing it to themself in reality!

Good Stuff....

By July it shows ~8 Squadrons and I imagine some of those squadrons are operating Spitfire Mk II's.

August adds another 5 Squadrons and by sometime in September, a full 16 squadrons online as researched by Morgan and Shacklady.

According to the RAF estabilishment by September there were 33 squadrons of Hurricanes and 19 Squadrons of Spitfires.

Not quite, here are some reports you've missed: Donaldson 151Sqdn-18May40.pdf

Dutton 145 Sqn 1July40.pdf

There were several other colloquial expressions used to describe using +12 lbs boost, all with the same meaning, regardless of what Crumpp might think. And wouldn't ya know it, these squadrons are not on pstyle's list...

The first unit to use Spitfire IIs was 611 Sqn starting in August, as was established back here

plus add 11 Hurricane squadrons
17, 56, 73, 79, 87, 85, 151, 229, 245 Sqns May,

145 Sqn, July,

1 Sqn. August,

43 Sqn June

That makes 18 squadrons Feb-July another 6 in August...oops! that equals 24 in August plus another eight September = 32 squadrons. Why that's exactly twice as many squadrons than Morgan and Shacklady tssk tssk tssk. :shock:
Breakdown = 15 Spitfire, 17 Hurricane

There are also records for useage of boost cut out or 12 lbs for the following squadrons, as can be found here:

111, 151 - Feb 1940
1, 3, 17, 56, 73, 79, 85, 87, 229, 245 - May 1940
43 - June 1940
145 - July 1940
249, 303 - September 1940

Even if Crump is wrong at all some here is has no more than "ad hominem" behaviour. Some of them act in similar ways in another threads, trying to negate the fact presented, creating arguments, digging others, misleading some and given their own deturpated interpretation even when the data were against their favourite a/c.

All this turned on a childish fight where wins who gives the last word even if wrong word in an vicious looping.

All us have some bias however we have to try clear our minds. My suggestion is that you put your arguments and give a time. Everyone put the arguments over the table and let the readers decide. Stop trying to counter any time. Please, this is for all.

You claim being scientific and rational, but nothing here is in this way at all.

I posted this list before:

By Month

No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 92 (East India) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940 H
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron pre BoB S

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 3 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 17 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 19 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 54 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 73 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940 H
No. 41 Squadron June 1940 S
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940 S

No. 145 Squadron July 1940 H

No. 64 Squadron 5 Aug 1940
No. 65 (East India) Squadron 12 Aug 1940 S
No. 234 (Madras Presidency) Squadron 18 Aug 1940 S
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron 31 Aug 1940 S
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron 15 Aug 1940 S

No. 66 Squadron 6 Sept 1940 S
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron 4 Sept 1940 S
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron 6 Sept 1940 H
No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron 9 Sept 1940 H

It is not complete, so if any one wants to add, please do. It was compiled using pilot reports and squadron logs easily found on the internet.

It is only for Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons. Not listed is other squadrons with Merlin powered a/c.

Here is a list of the squadrons for the BoB:

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 3 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 17 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 19 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 23 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 25 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 29 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 32 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 41 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 43 (China-British) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 46 (Uganda) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 54 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 64 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 65 (East India) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 66 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 72 (Basutoland) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 73 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 74 Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 85 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 92 (East India) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 111 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 141 Squadron - Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 145 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 151 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane and Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 213 (Ceylon) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 219 (Mysore) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 222 (Natal) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 229 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 232 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 234 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 235 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 236 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 238 Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 242 (Canadian) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 245 (Northern Rhodesia) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 247 (China - British) Squadron - Gloster Gladiator
No. 248 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 253 (Hyderabad) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 257 (Burma) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 263 (Fellowship of the Bellows) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 264 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Boulton Paul Defiant
No. 266 (Rhodesia) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 302 Polish Fighter Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 310 Czechoslovak Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 312 Czechoslovak Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 401 Canadian Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 501 (County of Gloucester) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 504 (City of Nottingham) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 600 (City of London) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 601 (County of London) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 604 (County of Middlesex) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
No. 605 (County of Warwick) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 607 (County of Durham) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 615 (County of Surrey) Squadron - Hawker Hurricane
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron - Supermarine Spitfire
No. 804 Naval Air Squadron - Fairey Fulmar
No. 808 Naval Air Squadron - Fairey Fulmar

That makes 18 squadrons Feb-July another 6 in August...oops! that equals 24 in August plus another eight September = 32 squadrons. Why that's exactly twice as many squadrons than Morgan and Shacklady tssk tssk tssk. :shock:
Breakdown = 15 Spitfire, 17 Hurricane

Ah ha! + 1 Defiant Squadron:
264 Sqn Welsh 29May40.pdf

so-er-19 Squadrons Feb-July + 6 August + 8 September = 33 squadrons - 17 more than specified by the May '39 paper and repeated by Morgan and Shacklady and Crumpp.

Using the above list, these are the bases that required 100 octane fuel:

10 Group

Filton No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940
St Athan - training base

11 Group

Biggin Hill
No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H,
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940

Manston

Marlesham Heath
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H

Hornchurch
No. 41 Squadron June 1940,
No. 65 (East India) Squadron 12 Aug 1940
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S

Northholt
No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940

Croydon
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB

Tangmere
No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H

Debden
No. 17 Squadron May 1940

North Weald
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940,
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940

No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H

12 Group

Duxford
No. 19 Squadron May 1940

Digby
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron June 1940

Leconfield
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron 15 Aug 1940,
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron 6 Sept 1940

Church Fenton
No. 73 Squadron May 1940,
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H,
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron 15 Aug 1940

Wittering
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

13 Group

Drem
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB

Turnhouse
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron 31 Aug 1940

Grangemounth

Acklington
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron 4 Sept 1940,

Catterick
No. 41 Squadron June 1940

The above is not complete so if any feel inclined to do so, update and repost.

To support that you need to give some awnsers to the questions you have avoided for the following reasons

Personally I would like to see any evidence of :-
a) a shortage of fuel
If there was no shortage then there would be no need to reduce the roll out

b) of 16 squadrons
Which squadrons or if you go down the it was 16 squadrons at any one time

c) of which squadrons or bases
This brings the difficult questions
i) If 100 octane was in short supply when did Drew a small satellite station in Scotland have 100 octane when the priority stations in the South East didn't
ii) At one point in the BOB Duxford had the big wing of five squadrons. Are you really saying that almost a fifth of the RAF supply was in one 12 group station?.

d) why this isn't mentioned in any official document, book, history
Simple request, why in the most documented air battle in history has no one picked this important factor up. Support your theory with some supporting documentation, not an off the wall conspiracy theory

e) of the process in delivering the fuel
As there is no mention of a any limitation in the distribution of 100 octane fuel in the Oil Committee papers who distributed it

f) when the rest of FC were transfered to 100 octane
As (e) there is no mention of any further roll out of 100 Octane in the Oil Committee papers so when was it done?

I've been looking at a few individual Hurricane plane histories. It is interesting to see that there are planes that came from a unit which has been documented to use 100 octane fuel, and went to a unit where there's no dedicated record, on occasion after having been to a maintenance unit. Imho, there's no reason to assume that the new squadrons weren't using 100 octane fuel as well, unless RAF logistics were run by brain dead people. If some folks around here have detailed resources, it might be worth a little more digging.

I did look at a number but not all of the squadron records of squadrons that formed after May 1940. I checked these records from formation until March (ish) 1941 and none of those records mention 100 octane, 87 octane or any issues. The assumption I was working on was that by March 1941 they would be using 100 octane in view of the instruction we have for all commands to use 100 Octane given in August 1940.
Given that, my view is that 100 Octane wasn't mentioned after May 1940 because it was standard issue.

Do you really believe that? Even after that a few post before it was posted that not all squadrons used 100 oct.???

Who posted that not all squadrons used 100 octane?

And you really believe a statement made without any evidence whatsoever? ah yes "absence of evidence" etc etc - which can mean anything you want it to mean, including no evidence means that (supply event that can be proven because there is no evidence) must have happened because there is no evidence that it didn't happen. Conspiracy theorists discussing the assassination of JFK have long relied on a lack of evidence to prove that there is a conspiracy.

Taking that further I can claim that the Apollo astronauts found that the moon is made of cheese but on the way home the astronauts got hungry and made toasted mooncheese sandwiches out of the samples they were bringing back - the report was quietly dumped in a file, and the samples replaced by rocks, which is why there is no evidence that the moon is made out of cheese.

So far no-one has explained what happened to 52,000 tons of 100 Octane avgas consumed between July - end October 1940. Crumpp had a stab at it by saying it wasn't really consumed, just mixed, then it disappeared into an unexplained administrative hole. Really?

Morgan and Shacklady's quoting of the pre-war meeting is just that. A quote from a pre war meeting. There are a few things mentioned in that meeting which simply didn't happen. Most obviously the projected consumption figure of 10,000 tons per annum. This must have changed between the meeting and the BoB. Records from the time show that there were 5,000 tons of 100 oct in France as part of the BEF. They only operated Hurricanes in France so why the need for the fuel?

The other obvious 'thing that changed' is the reserve figure of 800,000. If you read the Oil Position meeting notes that I posted you'll notice that this figure was projected for 1943.

Add into that the fact that nobody thought war was going to happen until at least 1941 when the M&S quote was written, and you begin to see how unreliable a document written in March '39 is when trying to use it as proof for something that happened 10 months later. So if the reserve figure and the consumption figure are incorrect, what makes you think that the 16 squadrons is correct?

Happily I've requested the full set of these meeting notes from the National Archive from '38 to '41. That should clear this 16 squadrons thing up. Then you can go back to the pilots notes.

Pstyle,

I was refering to fact a military fuel must carry a specification approved by that organization.

It will not become the standard fuel without a full specification. The completion of the specification IS the process of adoption. A provisional specification gets it into the system so it can be tested.

Understand?

This is yet more meaningless technobabble, and yet another red herring: fact is 100 Octane was always called 100 Octane in RAF service, right throughout the war; the relevant designation was B.A.M (British Air Ministry) 100, but it was seldom referred to as such.

D.T.D = Directorate of Technical Development, which dealt with developing equipment, aircraft and stores for the RAF. Because 100 Octane fuel was developed outside of the RAF and Air Ministry's direct control as a private venture by oil companies it was never allocated a DTD number.

The first plant to be able to produce 100 Octane fuel cheaply and quantity did not come into operation until right before the war started. There was a shortage of 100/130 grade through most of the war that is discussed in Allied Oil Committee meetings. Specifically it is mentioned in a 1944 meeting on adopting a higher octane grade as a limitation to the production of the more powerful fuel. The refineries cannot meet the current requirements and have never been able to meet them with the exception of a few short months in 1943. Therefore they do not want to devote any refinery capability to production other than the amount required for testing purposes.

That shortage of 100 Octane is why domestically, the United States used 91 Grade CONUS and the RAF used 87 grade for non-operational purposes for most of the war. 100 grade was in short supply and reserved for operations.

Glider, the document you post from December 1938 very clearly states that all stations will recieve an adequet supply of 100 Octane before the first aircraft is converted. If stations were not getting fuel then that is proof the operational adoption did not occur until all stations had it. Think about it, it just makes sense. You cannot easily switch fuels back and forth. If you add a lower knock limited performance fuel to the tanks, you must use lower operating limits or you will experience detonation which can end a flight very quickly.

This is the kind of thing that undermines the credibility of the posters in this thread.

All one needs to do is look the immaturity exhibited in this thread. Do you really think the evidence has been sifted through with a mature outlook and placed in context? I certainly don't think so at all. More effort has been devoted to finding cartoons and taking opinion polls than looking objectively at the evidence.

If you are going to use logistical documents, then you better have a good understanding of the logistical system and how the accounting process works. One should understand things like "Estabilishment vs Strength", how a fuel becomes specified, how does the testing process work, and what are the constraints.

All one has to do is look at the projections for fuel requirements for a week of operations in the 18 May 1940 document in order to support just four squadrons. You need almost 3000 tons of fuel in the tanks forward of the logistical node to support a week of operations!! That is to burn ~230 tons a week in their fuel tanks.

Compare that with Table II fuel at the airbases for June thru August of 10,000 tons.

What are you talking about? Glider, I use the documents provided in this thread. I just don't read into them and fit them in the context of how things work.

I just read what the document says.......Establishment vs. Strength.....All stations have to receive an adequate supply of 100 Octane before the first unit is converted....

Now, I believe that constraint of all stations receiving 100 Octane as applying to operational adoption and not Phase IV testing. Phase IV testing would continue using the provisional specified fuel. It is impossible to move forward with operational adoption if Phase IV testing is not complete. In Phase IV testing, you would see handfuls of squadrons using the fuel in order to fulfill the requirements of that test phase. You do realize that the fact we only see a few squadrons using the fuel before September very much supports that notion. Occam’s razor, Glider....


Sure there is and the language is "units concerned". That tells us there is a limitation. We don't know if it is self-imposed as part of Phase IV testing or a supply issue. It really is irrelevant though in determining if all operational units were using the fuel in July 1940 as the fact remains there was a limitation in place. The Oil Committee was aware of it.

When did FC fully convert? That is question we are trying to answer. The evidence seems to suggest sometime after October 1940. I think it is very likely there is another edition of the Operating Notes for the Spitfire Mk I and Hurricane series we don't have at the moment.

It is a fact that in July 1940, all of FC was not using 100 Octane.
The rotation of squadrons does put a restraint on the ability to determine just how many squadrons were using it at one time without a timeline and further research.

non-operational and training units prob used 87 octane while the 100 was diverted to the operational units, simple solution and nobody is wrong.

100LL for example has a specification by convention. It also has a defence specification for NATO as it is in the supply inventory.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarti...ontentId=57723

All approved aviation fuels must recieve a full specification from the aviation authority in place by convention. 100 Octane is no different and the provisional specification has already been posted in this thread.


That being said.......

If you have not picked up on it, I pretty much ignore you NzTyphoon.

If you learn how things work in aviaton, you will be far more successful in interpreting original documentation.

That's ok, but you're still wrong :grin:

I agree at least as far as Hurricanes are concerned, as the policy was to convert Hurricanes first, Spitfires later. In May, Spitfires had at least been partially converted, meaning Hurricanes had to be complete. Necessary modifications were started in late 1939, so it adds up.

From POWE 33/1363, Report of actual production 100/130 and 100/150 gasolines and components. 1 bbl (barrel) = 35 imp gallons, 1 ton = 2240lbs

1944 150 grade 150 grade as a % 130 grade
February 24908 tons 221400 bbls 61.5% 15570 tons 138400 bbls
March 35483 tons 315400 bbls 69.6% 15491 tons 137700 bbls
April 4928 tons 43800 bbls 7.4% 52988 tons 471000 bbls
May 8033 tons 71400 bbls 17.3% 38329 tons 34700 bbls
June 24446 tons 217300 bbls 64.8% 13286 tons 118100 bbls
July 38790 tons 344800 bbls 71.7% 15300 tons 136000 bbls
August 31376 tons 278900 bbls 66.1% 16110 tons 143200 bbls
September 35640 tons 316800 bbls 66.6% 17910 tons 159200 bbls
October 24154 tons 214700 bbls 50.4% 23749 tons 211100 bbls
November 19384 tons 172300 bbls 54.8% 15964 tons 141900 bbls
December 33165 tons 294800 bbls 61.5% 20801 tons 184900 bbls

1945
January 31984 tons 284300 bbls 77.1% 9484 tons 84300 bbls
February 33525 tons 298000 bbls 70.1% 14310 tons 127200 bbls
March 23569 tons 209500 bbls 48.9% 24671 tons 219300 bbls
April 50141 tons 445700 bbls
May 56914 tons 505900 bbls

Total 150 production, February 44 to March 45:- 369,385 tons, 3,283,400 bbls, 114,919,000 gallons.

Total 130 production, February 44 to March 45:- 293,963 tons

Total aero fuel production:- 663,348 tons of which 55.7% was 150 grade.

You were saying Eugene.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...roduction.html

We are all still waiting for you to ID the 16 squadrons that were the only squadrons that used 12lb boost/100 octane fuel in Sept 1940.

What the hell has NATO got to do with world war 2 and the Battle of Britain, what history books have you got?

There was no shortage of 100 Octane in the UK until May 1944. Find any quote to support your theory that there was a shortage of 100 Octane in the UK during the BOB.

US engines were not designed for 100 octane in 1940 also the main reason for the RAF using 87 octane for non operational purposes was cost. That is a recurrent theme in a number of the papers. Bomber Command wanted all thier stations to have 100 octane 100% but they were turned down on cost. You did reead the papers didn't you?


Actually on the whole I do think the case for the use has been presented well, with a wealth of original documentation. Just look at what you have just posted. No evidence just a lot of assumptions. Everything I have posted is supported by documents, if you belive that certain = 16 squadrons then support it, its as simple as that.
I agree with that 1938 paper but why do you ignore the dec 1939 paper that said that fuel reserves were sufficient and that the roll out could commence? I believe that its this blatent dismissal of original documents that undermines any debate.

I have a very good understanding as to logistics, I also know the meaning of current or actual establishment and authorised establishment they differ.

Show me any document that says 1940 is for testing, another example of a theory and nothing to support it.