|
It has been very long, interesting discussion about... FUEL and I would like to ask you guys what you propose in the next patch Flex-Fuel Spitfire or Spitfire Hybrid?:)
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/...el-works-6.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
MerlinXX ! ALT(ft) SHP BHP (diff correspond to the power used to drive the supercharger) 15K 1267 1048 20K 1298 1073 20K+ 1362 1126 25K 1162 960 30K 945 778 35K 700 568 More over the subsequent Merlin (the XX) developed to give more power to the Hurri (what the RaF felt was more a need) was limited to 9lb at 20Kft but 12lb in T.O/Emergency I think that you are confounding higher grade and NOS and don't forget all the cooling prob with the Merlin in the RAFFC's fighters Quitely again as I hve said it does not fit any logics. ~S! |
Quote:
A Spit from Toyota's Burnaston plant ? With all those big Merc and BMW engines Germany won't hve a chance there ;). |
Think of milage and service costs.. :D
|
Quote:
My GF took these pictures a few weeks ago. http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/5...nderstorm2.jpg |
Well Kurfurst, in your posting 179 you did ask for evidence of a change of plan and there is no doubt that you have had the evidence of such a change.
Which from a sources point of view, just leaves you with PIPS posting which most people would not consider a source, just an unsupported posting. |
Quote:
The problem is of coure there were a total of 51 fighter bases (19 Sector stations, 32 Fighter stations) from which British fighters operated during BoB. And up to 21 out of 51 that may or may not have been approved is less then half in any case. Quote:
Pips sourced posting, the fact that the 18 May 1940 and previous papersspeaks that only select Stations are supplied with 100 octane, the fact that you admitted that this was not revised, and the fact that the vast majotity of the fuel consumed was steadily 87 octane until the end of September 1940 (in agreement with Pips) Spitfire II and other manuals listing both 87 and 100 octane ratings vs. your unsupported mere belief. Do you have the post May 1940 files or only the ones you have posted? You seem to tend to evade that question constantly. |
I will do this justice tomorrow but in the meantime
a) are you confirming that what PIP posted is your belief as to what happened b) where you say I admitted that this was not revised, can you point me to the posting. re (b) I am not doubting you, I just want to avoid a misunderstanding as a lot has been said. Speak to you tomorrow |
Quote:
Quote:
In all the documentation Neil and you publicly provided, there's a huge gap between May and August 1940. And let's be frank about it, both of you are fanatic about the subject, and that's exactly the timeframe Pips was talking about YEARS before you found that paper. That's some food for thought isn't it. I am pretty sure of two things: that you weren't running out of battery in your camera when you got there, and if it would revise the 18 May paper in a way positive to you and say that all Sqns gonna use 100 octane, it would be posted all over the place. See ya tomorrow. ;) |
Thanks for that, I must go now but will be in touch
|
Quote:
The linkage is inescapable and provides solid proof. The RAF was systematically supplying ALL Stations which had Merlin equipped aircraft with 100 octane fuel. The 2nd memo indicates the process was ongoing. Church Fenton, Grangemouth and Filton are expected to be hosting Merlin equipped Squadrons in the near future, so they are added to the list of Stations requiring 100 octane. This follows naturally with the conversion of RAF Fighter Squadrons from Gladiators/Gauntlets etc. to Hurricanes/Spitfires/Defiants during 1939 and early 1940. Gladiators/Gauntlets and all the obsolete types use 87 octane, of fighters, only Merlin equipped Spitfires/Hurricanes/Defiants use 100 octane. Note also the stations requiring the fuel are "operational" stations, the stations not requiring the fuel are "nonoperational". Clearly the stations being supplied are central to the RAF's Tactical plan. Only Stations which are hosting Squadrons which have been declared operational are supplied, ie. only stations whose aircraft have been released to conduct interceptions, attacks etc. Ie. the fighting force of the RAF is stationed at fields with 100 octane. Squadrons which have not been released for combat are based at fields with no 100 octane supply. Again, the logic is inescapable, the RAF is preparing to fight with aircraft based at stations supplied with 100 octane fuel. Let us also remember, stations supplied with 100 octane DO NOT retain enough supply of 87 octane to fuel Squadrons based there who use that fuel type, only enough 87 octane is retained to supply the occasional aircraft which is forced to land due to mechanical or combat issues. |
I like how you guys present letters that talk about planning to supply these stations with fuel as concrete evidence that they were supplied.
|
Quote:
Contrast with the Luftwhiner side, which has yet to provide a single document indicating any RAF fighter Squadron used 87 octane during the battle. But of course, that's not surprising, that is the double standard the luftwhiners insist on. |
Your bias for the red side was established long long ago, Buzzsaw.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The only case where you would have mis-matched fuel types in a single flight is if you diverted to another field using a different octane rating and then taking part in a scramble before going back to your own base. Even so, maintaining formation is not done on full throttle anyway, so the point is moot. A flight leader will always fly slightly lower power settings than the nominal values for a very simple reason: if you're the first to take-off and start climbing (aka getting into a region of a higher TAS as you go along) it's increasingly harder for the wingmen to keep up with you if you are already running the maximum values. Another reason is fuel economy, yet another one is that the faster you go the more pronounced any mistake is in station keeping. Have you ever flown formation to the AI in IL2:1946 with their magic, non-overheating engines? If you did then you know what i'm talking about. Since the amount of boost and RPM used is what governs produced HP, it's perfectly possible to keep formation even when using different octane rating fuel. The only case where a discrepancy would occur and aircraft would be spaced apart is when going to full power, because a difference in O.R. institutes a difference in what full power is for each aircraft. But then again, this happens in combat where (gasp!) it actually makes sense to loosen and even break up the formation, something the RAF realized early on after incidents where multiple losses were incurred because pilots were more busy keeping a close vic formation than actually splitting up and flying combat properly, so they switched their tactics. In short, a different O.R. has minimal effect in how you keep formation because formations are not flown at full power. You think too much in terms of pure numbers and totally sidestep tactical considerations and how a mission profile usually plays out. But then again, you're convinced it's possible to run engines on full WEP all day long, so i'm not surprised. :-P As for the Blenheim, yes it takes time until the residual fuel is burned up and there might even be a case of air in the lines when switching over from tank to tank, which is why it's standard procedure in many aircraft to turn on the fuel boost pumps whenever changing tanks and keep them running for a short while. Also, full fuel was not only loaded for ferry flights. It was specifically used for long range raids, like the one on the Cologne power station. I have the actual pilot's manual and the main reason they used 100 octane in the first place was because the aircraft was too heavy to safely get off the ground with a full fuel load without the extra boost. |
Quote:
Quote:
It was common for pilots to land and refuel at the most convenient base, then return to base and fly another mission, so if 100 octane wasn't universally used then there is a high probability that fighter squadrons would be forced into combat with mixed 87 and 100 octane fuel loads, yet there is no historical account of this ever happening. Quote:
It was possible, and was done on multiengined Merlin aircraft, when one or more engines failed. 12lb boost is not an excessive boost level even for a Merlin III, and as long as the cooling and lubrication stay in the black, the probability of failure is low: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/webster-28-7-40.jpg Dover Castle to Hornchurch is ~55 miles, or about 11 minutes at 300mph, and this pilot was further east than Dover Castle.. |
Quote:
As for the rest of your post, 11 minutes is a reasonable amount of time (even though exceeding the specified guidelines) and a far stretch from all day long WEP running. Let me ask you one question just to eliminate any suspicion of bias and restore my willingness to be convinced that your arguments are about what you perceive to be historically accurate and not about gameplay advantages: if someone finds combat reports stating similar situations for 109s, will you be content to let DB601s run WEP in a similar fashion (ie, with the only constraint being fuel expense)? |
Quote:
A Merlin III at 12lb/3000rpm will typically use 115 gal/hr. The maximum possible time for a Spitfire is 45 mins, and about 55mins for a Hurricane. Using say 20 gals for non boost operations, the max time for a Spit falls to 34 mins. I suspect that info on WEP times for the Luftwaffe's engines must exist and I have no doubt that some of them could be run for extended periods at WEP, and it would be interesting to read such info. I have no doubt that an Me110 pilot might feel compelled to run at WEP for extended periods, when in combat with one engine out and multiengined Merlin powered aircraft had similar experiences, but a SE Merlin engined fighter doesn't have enough fuel to run for very long at 12lb/3000rpm. |
Quote:
It is also clear that the plan is dependent on the oil stocks being in place and that once those reserves are in place can be initiated. So the next question is when were the fuel reserves in place and when was the permission to proceed given as permission is obviously needed. PS did you ever get the link to the paper that you requested from Kurfurst? |
I am afraid that I don't have the time I thought I was going to have but can quickly deal with the comment Kurfurst made about the Pilots notes for the Spit II.
There are two sets of pilots notes for the Spit II both of the dated June 1940 which is confusing. Kurfursts one states both types of fuel mine only 100 octane so there is an obvious queston as to which one applies at what time. The decider I believe is in the other details in the pilots notes. The one Kurfurst quotes in section 35 and the gun controls goes into detail about how to choose the 20mm and/or the LMG's. The one that I have only talks about one firing choice withthe 8 guns specifically mentioned in item 44. As we know the Spit II in the BOB was only armed with 8 x LMG so I believe that this is the one for the BOB period. Twin fuel options for the 20mm cannon armed Spit II does make sense in early/mid 41, as the Spit II was quickly followed into service by the Spit V and the earlier Spits transfered to training roles which used 87 Octane fuel. I attach links to both sets of notes for people to look at and comment on. The version Kurfurst has http://www.plane-design.com/document...e%20Manual.pdf The Version I am referring to http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...uals-9050.html So to sum up I believe that the 8 guns version with only 100 octane fuel is the BOB version. The 20mm gunned version with both 87 and 100 octane fuel is post BOB when in training command. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The owner, butch2k doesn't seem to be very experienced at administrating forums.
Apparently he manually approves all registrations, and unless you have an existing user to vouch for you your account is not approved. |
2 Attachment(s)
Kurfurst
Its late but I will comment on another of your points namely The fact that the vast majotity of the fuel consumed was steadily 87 octane until the end of September 1940 (in agreement with Pips) The important thing is the noticable increase in 100 Octane in September. Unfortunately we only have an average consumption figure for June to August of 10000 tons a month. I would expect the August figure to be very similar to September. There is little doubt that the consumption of 87 Octane was broadly similar until the end of Sept 1940 (Paper Attached) but I wouldn't have expected anything else. The Other Commands were not given clearence to use 100 Octane until August 1940 (Paper attached) and it would have taken a little time to move the quantaties of fuel around. In fact its noticable that in September the usage of 87 octane fuel started to fall despite the intensity of operations. The overall consumption figure, (combined 87 and 100 Octane) for August is almost identical to September 36,000 tons vs 37,000 tons but the 100 octane is going up and the 87 Octane down. Remembering that the policy for the replacement of fuel in No 2 Group was to replace empty 87 Octane tanks with 100 Octane, the immediate effect would be little difference in the consumption of 87 Octane in late August / early September as the tanks are emptied, but a significant increase in the proportion of 100 Octane issued, to refill the empty tanks. |
Quote:
|
I've been in contact with someone on ww2aircraft.net who is trying to help me out. If/when my account gets activated I'll see if I can get you set up.
|
Quote:
Shoot me an IM with your info CaptainDoggles. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf The following is the link to where you identified the notes you were using as being the Zeno Notes http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...a-20108-8.html Post numbers 108, 112, 116 |
Okay lets' cut a long story short, if only for game purposes. What is modelled in Clod, 87 Octane or 100 Octane?
Is this just a debate between intellectuals with different viewpoints or a game breaker? I struggle to find the relevance if it is not game related and if it is why have the developers not weighed in? If it is just two standpoints then to each his own but if it materially affects game play the I want 100 Octane fuel to be an option at least and let the mission designer decide on it’s historical merit ;) |
Quote:
Instrument indications say that we have 87 octane boost limits, and strange behaviour of the boost control cutout. Speeds and rates of climb are somewhat equivocal. Last time I checked, the Spitfire II was too fast and had strange full throttle heights, but boost topped out at about +8. TBH it might be more reasonable to just say that there appear to be issues with the models rather than to try to pin this down to a fuel standard, because really we don't know enough about the assumptions underlying the FM, nor do we have the test technology (device link autopilot etc) to speak with the same certainty about CoD that we could talk about IL2/1946. |
Quote:
"Fuel: 100 octane (the reduced limitations for use with 87 octane are shown in the brackets)" Also this, for Spitfire I from same timeframe I believe: "When using 100 octane.." And above it limiations we know for being for 87 octane. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1pn2-a.jpg |
Quote:
|
Pilot's Notes were issued but then revised constantly, so an issue date of July 1940 does not mean that all the info therein dates to July 1940, but in any event, even if it does, publishing the 87 octane limits are still prudent, since an aircraft may land at a training field, or even a civil airport and be forced to fuel up with 87 octane. Additionally, OTU aircraft may have run on 87 Octane and hence the info would still be needed, and overseas 100 octane was still scarce, and the writers could not know where an aircraft might be operating.
The fact remains that there are no published reports stating that Hurricane/Spitfires used anything but 100 octane during the BofB. My friend has a car with a HO engine, and it requires 100 octane fuel, but the owners manual contains info regarding lower octane fuel use and prudent operating cautions. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Nothing will ever be changed. I doubt whether a Russian developer is going to wade through 20 to 30 pages of a thread to figure out what the end result is. I am 100% for 100 Octane but the developers need it in a simplified form and with documents to back up why the change needs to be made. They could maybe just introduce field-modified 100 Octane Spitfire 1’s and 1a ‘s and have the Spitfire 2 already with 100 Octane as an example. Again this will leave the choice to the purists when mission building. I doubt even Kurfürst can argue against that. |
Quote:
However There is nothing published anywhere that says that there was a fuel shortage, that they were forced to use 87 octane on operaions. All Kurfurst has posted is a pre war paper that said 18 squadrons of fighters and 2 squadrons of twin engined bombers. Plus an unsubstantiated posting from an Australian which a) is riddled with errors. b) is not supported by anything c) that no one (not even Kurfurst) has seen d) whee the archives that are supposed to hold it do not recognise. Now the point of this was to ensure the people who are involved in the coding of the flight simulation were aware that if they followed the ideas put forward by Kurfurst were leaving themselves wide open for adverse comments. I believe the case put foward for the use of 100 Octane in FC by all the units is a strong case, not perfect but strong. We have a) the pre war intention, of 18 + 2 squadrons b) the preparation in Dec 1939 for the issues to the FC command stations in two stages initially the First Instance (covering all the Operational Bases and those that were identified at that time that would become operational) and the second tranch (The Non Operational bases). This paper outlines the conditions to be met (stocks to be in place) before it can be used. c) the request from the Chief of the Air Staff simple and without limitation for fighter units and Blenheim units to start using the 100 Octane. The Chief of the Air Staff doesn't ask permission from the Oil Committee which is headed up by a senior but junior to him Air Force Officer. In the the British Armed Forces orders from senior officers were and are still today, requests. d) The Oil Committee getting this underway. The Magic 'Certain' word comes up at this stage. Do I wish he hadn't written certain, of course, but I believe that it will refer to the first instance i.e. the operational stations not all the stations in Fighter Command. But Please note, I knew that information would casue confusion and I could have left it out, but I didn't I gave all the information that I had to the forum. d) A very clear path that shows without any ambiguity that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group had 100 Octane e) Confusion in Fighter Command about the changes needed and the sorting out of those questions (Mr Tweedie) f) The completion of the task by the oil committee and the note of thanks on the job done. Note that was all done by May. Even if there was a slight delay the BOB didn't start in anger until a few months later so time was on their side. g) Finally we have in August permission given to use 100 Octane in all the commands. All the above supported by consumption details, stock supplies, a good cross section of squadron notes, station notes and other documentation. As I said earlier, is it a perfect case no, but its a strong one with a lot of documentation to support it. What documentation have you got to say that 87 Octane was used in Operational missions during the BOB. None. Some people doubt that all units didn't have 100 octane, so prove it, find any book, any article, any pilots story or other station record that says that. I will review Pps posting again with supporting docs as that seems to be key to the anti 100 Octane Brigade and then leave you to it. I can add nothing more. |
5 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The question I suggest we need to ask is If you have what is in effect a two and a half year stockpile, is this a strain, let alone a great strain on the stockpile. In my opinion it isn’t a strain at all, it’s barely noticeable Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I should point out that all my comments are supported by original documentation. The posting isn't supported by anything. If the people working on the code base there scenario's on Pips posting as above, they have only themselves to blame if the adverse comments arrive. |
Quote:
|
I think there's a way to prove the majority of bases were converted, but it'll be time consuming.
Cross reference the combat reports from the battle mentioning 12lb boost, with the squadron involved, to the movements of that squadron for that date. ie. where were they, a: stationed? and b: where they scrambled from? (not always the same station). In the past I counted at least 30 squadrons refering to 12lb boost in combat reports between May - July 1940.. That's nearly half of all FC's squadrons. Add that to the fact that there were only around 30-32 'operational' stations being used at the time, and the rotation system, it would suggest widespread use of 100 octane. Also does anyone know if you could actually run a converted Merlin on 87 oct? If it was a case of just swithcing fuels then why the modification to the engine? |
Quote:
This is why I call the case a strong case but not a perfect case. The case for the limited use of 87 octane isn't supported by anything, making it a very weak case. They only have Pips posting which I have challenged with supporting documentation. I would suggest that those who believe in the limited use of 100 octane should be asked to support that view. If they believe that Pips posting is the correct version of events then they need to support it and disprove the original documents that have been posted. A converted Merlin could run on 87 octane but the performance would obviously be less. In a similar manner, a non converted merlin would run on 100 octane, but to get the performance gain, you need the fuel and the conversion |
Quote:
;) I don't understand the spit lover that are arguing for 100oct when the Spit FM makes her Zip Zapping the air like a cartoon rubber ball |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you read in the July 1940 POH for the Spitfire II, it clearly lists 100 Octane as the fuel and that +12lbs is a Take Off rating and +9lbs is an Emergency rating limited for 5 minutes. |
Mike (this time using the handle lane) already knows that for years, in fact he has seen the papers showing the early rating of +9 for All out level, but hey, he was never afraid of posting manipulating BS in order to push an agenda under various new logins.. ;)
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The paper is not riddled with errors. It is supported by your own documentation - 18 May 1940 paper showing only select units using 100 octane, - fuel consumption papers showing large scale conversion did not start until late September, - early operating Limits of Merlin III XII (+9 except for take off) Pips seen it and gave reference to it. The archieves recognise the paper, they have told you loud and clear that you have not asked for the paper with proper description. So stop lying. Its showing desperation and dishonesty. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
a, It actually say 18 + 2 Squadrons, until September 1940. Also that 800 000 tons of reserves need to be accumulated. In spring 1940 there were but 220 000 tons accumulated. Target was not met, period. b, The document you speak of is a simply assessement of requirement. It mentions 21 Stations (out of ca. 60 operational in BoB). Can you explain how these 21 Stations of December 1939 magically got 60 by July 1940? You have absolutely no evidence to that, in fact, you haven't find anything to prove your thesis. c, It doesn't mention anywhere 'without limitation'. This is simply made up by you. d, Given the lenght of discussion attached to it, you simply lie that the word certain only appeared in early 1940. It was present in all documents dealing with the subject. I've dealt with this in my earlier post, you've seen it, so stop lying. e, You've got that right. Question arises though - if FC command did not even get the basics yet in spring of 1940, how would they plan for complete changeover - of which there's no sign yet in the papers.. f, All that was done by May is noting that select units were cleared for 100 octane used. You have admitted that nothing changed afterwards, it remained in use with select units. g, Fuel consumption papers show the actual conversion process did not start until late September 1940. Quote:
Quote:
YOU CANNOT DANCE AROUND THAT FACT, I am sorry. Quote:
Can we say the complete file of these meetings, David? Why are you holding them back so fiercely? I think this is the best question in thread. Quote:
Quote:
That as of May 18 1940, select Fighter and Bomber stations were supplied with 100 octane. Despite numerous request, you have refused to show what has happened after May 1940, when Pips showed that the conversion stopped. That in early August 1940 100 octane use was authorized for all aircraft. That this wasn't even started to be implemented until late September 1940. |
Quote:
Quote:
At 10 000 tons per month consumption the storage would be enough for 20 months, but this is with about 25% of the fighters and some bombers running 100 octane. Complete conversion would have meant the reserves would not be enough for more than about 5-6 months, running out by October. Morgan and Shacklady in Spitfire the History also notes the concerns about supply, and the U boot thread. In fact up to that time about 300 000 tons of oil shipments were sunk by uboots and mines. http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...00octane_2.jpg Quote:
Quote:
So in three months the equivalent of one months of supply arrived. Do we need to make even more clear why the British were concerned about a complete conversion to 100 octane? Quote:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...vember1940.png Noteworthy that the consumption remains pretty much the same between May (when select Fighter Squadrons converted) and late September 1940. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Combat reports mentioning 12lb and home station (therefore 100 octane must be present at station) 74 Squadron 24th May 1940 - Hornchurch & Manston - 100 octane 54 Squadron 25th May 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane 19 Squadron 26th May 1940 - Duxford - 100 octane 611 Squadron 2nd June 1940 - ? (Catterick?) or Duxford 610 Squadron 12th June 1940 - Biggin Hill - 100 octane 41 Squadron 19th June 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane Looks like 4 stations must have had 100 octane in May/June (Keep in mind that these are just the combat reports I've found, need more) No new squadrons appear till August when first new references to 12lb start to appear.. for 64, 603, 602 and 234 squadrons In September more appear 152, 66, 72, 609, 222. I haven't checked the stations for August / September, yet Anyone know of any good BoB combat report sites? |
Quote:
However if someone pretends he hadn't seen the posts in this (and other) threads and pretend they do not exist, and keep posting that has not seen anything, it is something different. He knows they exists, he is aware of the points taken in them. To say that nothing was put forward when it was done is a lie intend to mislead those who did not read the thread, pure and simple. There's no reason to call this incorrect. To say for example that nothing proves that Pips was right about the late September 1940 conversion, when I have shown David the fuel deliveries at least three times now, showing exactly what Pips notes, and he quickly jumps over it and fails to comment, I will not say he is incorrect when he again starts saying the same thing again a few pages later like if nothing happened. It would be a different matter if he would say he does not agree with my conclusions, but he keeps making these foggy references to "hundreds books" etc. David is in pure denial and now he is becoming desperate and starting to use underhand tactics instead of putting forward a good arguement, and good sources. To put it blunt, all he does in the 20 or so pages is to threaten to developers that they will be considered donkeys if they do not follow his opinion, and post the same two papers in which he reads something that goes to directly against the meaning of the words on the paper. Apparantly that just about nobody agrees with his interpretation of the May 18 and previous papers, which clearly say select squadrons, this does not stop him from keeping saying he has seen nothing, and keep telling everyone nobody has managed to prove him wrong, imply to everyone that the Australian paper is a lie. At the same time he simply does not asnwer the questions put to him. That's desperate. Quote:
I think this approach is the most useful, as this gives the best idea to identify 100 octane Stations. Ie. 74, 54 and 41 Sqns all reported 100 octane use, and all of them were at the time based in Hornchurch. |
Quote:
A prime example of Barbi's manipulating BS is the graph he posted on the issuing of fuel. First off, he doesn't give a source for the data points he plotted on his graph. Secondly, the fuel issuing was for the whole RAF, not for FC. To see the double standard of proof used by Barbi one only has to look at his 1.98ata boost for the K-4. He even goes on and suggests that other units besides the 4 Gruppen converted to 1.98ata. :rolleyes: There should be no question that 100 octane fuel was in widespread use by RAF FC during the BoB if one uses Barbi's logic for the widespread use of 1.98ata boost by the 109s. |
Who says 1,98ata was in widespread use? It seems it was in use in four or five Gruppen. Possibly more, but nobody is getting a heart attack over the question, just a few RAF zealots that bite into a citrus over 100 octane.. but these same guys even question that MW-50 was in use, so why would anyone concern himself with such people? :D
|
My reservations about 'certain stations' are that it's very vague, and unless it can be quantified it's pretty mute. 3, 4 or 5, or 10, 11 or 12..?
I'm going to have a look at what other squadrons were operating out of Hornchurch, Biggin Hill and Duxford at the time too. It's harder to find BoB combat reports than I thought, initially (with VERY limited data) it would appear that some 3 or 4 stations were first issued 100 oct in May/June, then more were added in July (found ref to 2) August is where it seems to get busy.. Which slightly counters Kurfursts claim that the roll-out of 100 octane didn't happen till September.. Some were obviously converted by the end of August However September/October do seem to have way more 12lb combat reports (20+ squadrons) than all the other months. |
Quote:
. Quote:
. Quote:
- The Fuel consuption figures do show an increase in 100 octane in September. This is due to the Other commands starting to transfer from 87 Octane to 100 Octane after permission was given in August for which documentation evidence was provided. If you believe otherwise provide your evidence. -The Archives did not recognise the paper when I asked for it, they did not recognise the paper when the Wiki editors asked for it and last I heard from you, you have NEVER asked for it. All you need to do therefore is ask for it and post it when you find it. You know I can provide evidence for all these requests so once again, provide some evidence to support your statement. - If Pips has seen it then please provide some evience as no one else has seen it. Quote:
Quote:
b The document is more than an assesment. It is a clear statemnt that the oerational stations were to be treated as a first tranch and a second set of non operational stations were to be treated as a second tranch. Hence my belief that in the paper when the magic certain word was used it refered to the first tranch. What we don't know is how many other stations were equipped in the roll out, was it the 21 or was it all the operational stations. What we do know is that in May squadrons in France who do not appear on the list were equiped with 100 Octane and in Norway so its my belief that the fuel was issued as a normal supply item. If not can you explain why these units were equipped? c The Request from the Chief of the Air Staff was for fighters and Blenheim units to be equipped with 100 Octane. It didn't say some, or certain, or by station, squadron or Group. It was a blanket request without limitation. d My posting 177 and 178 deal with this question e I agree that the confusion was unexpected but the paper trail shows that the issue was adressed and the roll out didn't slow down while the discussion was underway f I admit that the supply was to all the units in the first tranch. As I said in (B) we know that additional units were issued with 100 Octane such as those in France and Norway. Its my belief that all operation stations had the 100 Octane and its mprobable that by the time July August arrived those in Tranch 2 the non operational units would have been stocked but cannot prove that to be the case. g Fuel Consupmtion paper prove that in September the use of 100 Octane fuel increased as the other operational commands started to use 100 Octane. They also prove that for June to August approx 10,000 tons a month were being used up. Have you tried to work out how many flights those 125 aircraft mentioned by Pips would have to do to get through 10,000 tons a month? Have you anything to support the 125 aircraft figure Quote:
Quote:
Its my belief that the other operational stations would also have been equipped but recognise that I don't have any paper to support that. Just the indication that if the Operational stations in France were equipped in May I find it hard to believe that the other operational units in UK wouldn't have been. Quote:
With luck I aim to get to the NA next week. Tell me which meeing you want and I will copy everything for that meeting. The notes for the meeting, the meeting notes, actions arising and any additional papers. The same goes for the War Committee meeting. Name which meeting you want and I will copy everything, I am not going to copy all the notes for all the meetings. I cannot be fairer than that. In return you get a copy of the Pips papers how does that sound? Quote:
Select fighter stations are as a minimum the first tranch 21 stations plus those we know were equipped France and Norway Select Bomber equals all Blenheim units in No 2 Group posting 122 and 134 cover this Pips hasn't showed anything. Its an unsubstantiated posting and the reason for his statment doesn't hold water Its all operational aircraft in all commands not the rest of fighter command |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
27th February 1940 220,000 tons 31st May 1940 294,000 tons 11th July 1940 343,000 tons 31st August 1940 404,000 tons Stocks went up in about 6 weeks by approx 50,000 tons (May - July) and again in about 6 weeks by another 60,000 ish tons (July - August) Over this time the consumption was about 30,000 tons (Ave figure June - August) So imports over the period June to August must have been in the order of 140,000 tons (consumption plus increase in stocks). Consumption therefore was approx 17.5% of imports which is an ample margin for safety and more than enought reason to allow the use of 100 Octane to be given to all operational aircraft in all commands. It also questions Pips statement and view that the stocks were under severe strain. We need to know how he arrived at that assumption. If you want to accuse me of misrepresenting the figures and papers that I have put forward explain how you arrived at your figures and calculations. Can I ask where you got your figures for stocks and consumption as they do not match the documents shown. Where on earth did 50,000 tons a month come from for consumption? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Does the NA at Kew have squadron maintenence records? Campaign diaries? I've enquired about combat reports from May '40 to September '40 but there are hundreds of them.. I've mentioned it before but does anyone know if the Merlin conversion was one way? ie. once converted it would not work on 87oct. The reluctance to convert until stocks were high enough would suggest that it was a one way conversion. Otherwise it wouldn't have mattered. |
Quote:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html |
Quote:
The Holy Grail is some form of status report that mght say stations A have ben equipped, stations B are being equipped and stations C will be done by such and such a date. That would finish it off once and for all |
Quote:
I'm interested to see what you can find. |
Quote:
For example: Combat report of 151 Squadron from 18 May 1940 follows the squadron’s conversion to 100 octane fuel in February 1940: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...dn-18may40.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rb-16feb40.jpg Combat report of 611 Squadron from 2 June 1940 follows the squadron’s conversion to 100 octane fuel in March 1940: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/6...wn-2june40.jpg http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-100oct.jpg Combat report of 74 Squadron from 24 May 1940 follows the conversion to 100 octane fuel in March 1940: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/freeborn-24-5-40.jpg http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no74-100oct.jpg There are several combat reports available from units stationed at Hornchurch during the Dunkirk battle that mention +12 boost, demonstrating that the station and the units flying from there were supplied with 100 octane fuel. During the Dunkirk action in May/early June 1940 Nos. 19, 41, 54, 65, 74, 222, and 616 Squadrons in Spitfires were stationed at Hornchuch. For example: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/deere-26-5-40.jpg http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lane-26-5-40.jpg It follows that 19, 41, 54, 74, 222 and 616 squadrons were all supplied with 100 octane. Similar analysis can be applied to other stations such as North Weald (56, 111 & 151): http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...qdn-9may40.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...100-octane.jpg ...Biggin Hill (32, 79, 213, 229, 242, 610); Tangmere (601, 145), Hawkinge (245) Kenley, Northholt, etc, etc… |
Quote:
I should have said the 'first recorded use in combat' of 100 oct. It gives us at least a provable date by which the relevant station must have had 100 oct on site.. I can now add to the list of stations with 100 oct before August 40. I've got Hornchurch, Manston, Duxford, North Weald, Digby, Catterick, Biggin Hill, Croyden, Debden, Digby, Wick. I'm trying to avoid making the assumption that if a certain station had 100 oct that all squadrons using that base would also be converted (even if it is a logical step). I think that was the case, but without evidence the argument gets stuck. As we all know Kurfurst has very high, and hard to meet standards when it comes to what constitutes evidence. If I was in charge of FC at the time I would have made sure that 11 and 12 group converted asap. I think that's probably what happened. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It was tounge in cheek. I think kurfurst will take it in the spirit it was meant, we've been straight with each other in the past. Even if we disagree. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The thing is, if I found a doc tomorrow that proved that Kurfurst was right I'd post it. I'm not so sure if it happened the other way around that that would happen. I just want to know that when I'm flying towards a 109 in a Spit that I've got exactly what the guys in 1940 had. I want the 109 guys to have exactly what the LW pilots had too. In a combat simulator realistic FM's are paramount, otherwise its bollocks. Forget AA, textures, sound, terrain, clouds, lighting, balistics, dials and switches. If it dosn't fly right then it's not doing what a simulator should be doing. I don't want it clouded by opinion, I want fact. Regardless of emotional attachment to either the 109 or Spitfire. |
Quote:
I firmly believe that the RAF had the 100 Octane and that the evidenc shows it. However in the various threads in the WW2 website where aircraft are discussed my choice for the BOB period is the Me109 not the Spitfire |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No way! This is a contradiction in terms! |
Quote:
As for the straight bit, he stays polite until backed into a corner then the insults come think and fast. I think I was accused three times of being a lliar, one of holding information back and two of misrepreseting the facts when all I did was supply original documentation |
Quote:
So, may I ask why are you pretending to all these fine people there that you do not know all of the above? Personally, I have no reason not to believe that Pips summary of the documents are honest and accurate. Quote:
And I do not mean how you interpret them, because it takes quite a bit of imaginatory power to fill in the gaps, and these gaps can be filled both ways. For example, you claim the December 1939 mentioning of Stations is a definiete order of these stations to be supplied, even though nobody seem to have approved the request (it may have been, but it is pure guesswork to say so). You also claim that "certain" was either a typo (which is clearly against the trail of papers, I already pointed tihs out, actually only one paper does not use the limiting word, but it does on the previous page which you do not post..) You also claim that two previous claims would be true, the 21 or so Stationed mentioned were equipped with 100 octane, and in your understanding, that what the 18 May 1940 paper say. But you still owe us an explanation how did this 20-odd station become 60-odd stations between May and July 1940. You do not even give guesswork how. You simply say it happened. When, how, you do not care. It must have happened. I am afraid it is you who is cornered, not me. You see, everyone is asking you, not me, to put some substance in your claims. I guess everyone is a bit tired of of guy who registered on this board with an agenda and an axe to grind, and ever since does not doing anything but running in circles, and posting the same papers, even after just about everybody told him his interpretation of the papers is more than a bit wishful. After all, it is you who wave about a paper that says certain Squadrons are to convert, and say that means they all converted. You have promised to do so, so we are eager to see your papers if you manage it to NA, and I hope we all learn from it. All I am asking is to support to papers. If your papers prove your thesis, I do not doubt that anyone, including me, would express any doubts. But I have some experience with these type of discussions, every time someone fanatically wanted something extreme about such stuff to be true, ie. every single fighter suddenly getting a huge boost of power due to some unique exotic fuel overnight, which was only available to that side etc. etc. usually hit the brick wall and bounced back painfully. Just ask "lane" about how "all of Fighter command" converted to 150 grade fuel in 1944, +25 lbs XIVs he is chasing for twelve years, oh and BTW, why is the Monty Berger quote is missing from the end of his 150 grade article. :D Quote:
I do not think I wish to waste much time on this until you live up to your word and support the papers which establish the basis of your thesis. I await with an open mind. In any case, thanks for your efforts and time in advance, also in the name of this community if I may, I guess many will like to read the decisions in these meetings between December 1939 and October 1940 in their completeness. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
So, if you have no reason to believe that Pips summary of these Australian papers are honest and accurate, then why do you continue to use them? Winny, Barbi is only hard to please when the subject of discussion is the British and the Spitfire. Unfortunately, when it comes to Nazi Germany and the 109, any thing will do to become an absolute factual truth. Quote:
|
What is your purpose in life?
Because if this is it, I guess its a most severe form of punishment in itself, and I don't have to lift a finger, just leave you be as you are. :D |
Just one...
We're still waiting for proof that even one RAFFC Merlin engined fighter squadron used 87 octane operationally during the BofB.
|
Don't get me wrong, I get annoyed by Kurfurst, sometimes very annoyed.
Deflection is an art form, Kurfurst's a master. There are forums all over the place with threads about this subject and Kurfurst is present in all of them. The subject gets bogged down in the supply issue, it's a red herring. The whole argument seems to hinge on the 'select or certain stations' There is no definite definition of certain stations so again it's a red herring. If the question is 'Were the RAF using 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain' the answer is a definite yes. It's just how many. To go back to the 1938 doccument, written at a time when Britain were in the process of rearmament, not war, is another deflection. To say that that doccument is relevant to a battle that took place 2 years later, under a different government is wrong. Unless a doccument is post the invasion of Poland then its frankly irrelevant. Nobody expected the war to start in 39. Most were gearing up for 42. I can prove to anyone that up to 30 squadrons used 100 octane during The battle. At the very least 4 at dunkirk At the very least another 6 in June. That's 30% of the total number of FC sqns at the time (around 330 operational Hurricanes and Spitfires). Kurfurst has never quantified his argument. No numbers for squadrons. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The changes to the engine were small and could easily been doe on the stations, yet the performance gain was very significant. So it isn't a technical or manufacture issue, its down to supply. Without a shortage of fuel there is no logic to holding the supplies back. Indeed this is probably the one thing that I agree with re Pips posting, its centred on supply. I just disagree with his assumption that there was a shortage. |
Quote:
Or a third of the Hurri/Spit squadrons at the time. I'm starting with a low number. It's a definite which is more than I've seen for the other side of the argument. I've found combat reports that back this up, and as Pilots had to record use of 12lb I think there must be more. |
Quote:
I have 10 Hurricane squadrons and 3 Spitfire squadrons with combat reports in May alone. Hurricane 85, 1, 73, 79, 87, 151, 56, 17, 229 and 245 squadrons Spitfire, 74, 54 and 19 squadrons Links http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html |
Quote:
I just think it's being used to hide behind. The records are vague and it's the point Kur keeps coming back to. All the other forums threads seem to get stuck at the supply issue. So, let's by-pass it and go to evidence of 100 octane use in battle. Easier to prove. Unless someone finds the 'holy grail' doccument regarding supply/conversion this supply debate is just going to keep looping around. It's interesting to note that all of the early doccuments say that the conversion would not happen till they had enough supplies. There is no doubt the conversion started before The BoB, so logically someone must have decided that there was enough 100 octane or they wouldn't have done it. I still think Squadron operations log books and combat reports are the key to this one. We don't need to prove that the conversion happened, because it did. We don't need to prove that the stocks of 100 octane were adequate, because someone made the decision at the time that there was enough, or the conversion wouldn't have happened. We just need to prove widespread use in combat. That's what it's all about. |
Quote:
10 squadrons in May is equal to a third of the operational FC fighter (Hurri/Spit) squadrons at the time. I'll have a look and see what stations they were all flying out of. I made some brief enquiries at the national archive, they have over 1600 combat reports from the BoB. The answer to this must be in them, given that RAF pilots HAD to report any 12lb boost usage it would be pretty easy to see when and where the conversions happened. I'm seriosly considering hiring a researcher at the archive to dig them out... EDIT: I've also decided to get in touch with Rolls Royce at Derby to see if they have anything on wether or not a converted 100oct Merlin would run on 87 oct. The reason is that a lot of Squadrons used 2 stations. One where they stayed overnight and a forward base. If the conversion meant that a merlin wouldn't run on 87 then that would mean both stations would have to have had 100 oct, meaning more stations, more fuel, etc.. |
As talks begin to wander towards personals things, I want to point out one thing. This thread was created for discussions about inaccuracies between FM and RL data, however later it took the course of debating if planes present in game are suitable for BoB period.
Although Kurfurst doesn't agree that all Spitfires MK.I were on 100 octane, I think he won't disagree that Spitfire MK.I on 100 octane were not such rare and exotic breed (ala I-185, Mig-3U and so on), which would not be worth to be modeled. I think both sides would agree that we need 2 additional Spitfire MK.I models: CSP and CSP+100 octane. This is what is required from devs now. Everything else (debates about how much 100 octane were available) would be more helpful for mission designers and not to devs (somehow I don't think they would invest much time correcting campaigns). |
Quote:
There would be too much flak. I doubt if this discussion will sway them, they have their own ideas I'm sure. This is really about ending the whole 'it shouldn't be there because...' argument. I think it's relevant and I aslo find it interesting (that's because I've nothing better to do :) ) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm looking from the MP side of things here, not the BoB. There will be more flyables, but it's a game, and developers balance games. Maybe the 100 oct Mk I is so much better than a 109-E that they had to leave it out. :rolleyes:, people have already complained that the Spit is too good, imagine what it would be like if the 100 oct was in there.. Mutiny :) |
Quote:
|
I thought the ingame variant was already 100 octane performance wise, but only the dial indicates a too low value of boost. Or did I miss something again? :grin:
|
As Barbi puts much much stock in what Oliver Lefebvre says, this is what he said on the DB601N engines:
Wastel are you sure about the E-7/N for 41 ? AFAIR my delivery data show a much lower amount of E-7 with the DB601N. While the E-7 was planned for use with the DB601N, the installation of this engien was quite troublesome on the Emil and few were actually fitted with it. I'll try to come up with my numbers if the documents have not already been packed away... http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...=515&hl=db601n |
With the Bf 109 E you can't really take delivery numbers for the DB 601N engined crates. Most of them were re-engined after some time (even some E-1s).
|
One has to take in account also that more than half of the DB601N production went to the 110's, which used them in the BoB.
|
Quote:
It could just boil down to faulty instruments. (But where's the fun in that?!) |
Quote:
|
Some of the last comments tells a lot abt what are the seriousness of some on this discussion. I don't want to be personal but I nearly spit of my coffee reading that some are seriously thinking that the Spit was like a X-wing fighters in BoB skies. The I-185 ? the Mig 3 U ???!!! Hey boy do you know how many were built and sent to the front ? Pls stop turning those brave young men that fought in harsh conditions stupid as they might hve knew nothing abt facebuk and Showme !
Pls dev paint a SPit half in Pink, add a methane pulse detonation engine at the rear end and load our guns with some talk powder that we can cleanup this discussion right now :rolleyes: |
Quote:
If that's true, then it actually means it would be easier to install in a 110 as it's a bigger airframe with more available space. Quote:
Exactly, best post in the entire number of threads concerned with the octane issue. Give us all the Spit Mk.I variants that were relevant in the timeframe of BoB and BoF, then it's the mission designer's/server admin's job to decide what to do with them. If people don't like it they fly another offline campaign, modify it to include their preferred ride or fly on a different server, problem solved. |
I am not sure it can works like that. For example I hve bought RoF with enthusiasm as soon as it was released and can't play it anymore.... There is no default FM left anywhere on any server !
|
The following Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons are known to have used 100 octane fuel before or during the BoB:
1, 17, 19, 41, 43, 54, 56, 64, 65, 66, 72, 73, 74, 79, 85, 87, 92, 141, 145, 151, 152, 222, 229, 234, 245, 249, 264, 303, 602, 603, 605, 609, 610, 611, 616 These squadrons were stationed at the following airfields (bold text) at sometime during the BoB. 11 Group RAF Biggin Hill - RAF West Malling RAF Debden - RAF Martlesham Heath RAF Hornchurch - RAF Hawkinge - RAF Gravesend - RAF Manston, night fighter base - RAF Rochford RAF Kenley - RAF Croydon RAF Northolt RAF North Weald - RAF Martlesham - RAF Stapleford RAF Tangmere - RAF West Malling - RAF Ford - RAF Lee on Solent, RN airfield - RAF Gosport, RN airfield - RAF Thorney Island - RAF Westhampnett Not sure which Sector airfield these were assigned to but as all the sector airfields had 100 octane fuel, these to would need a stock of 100 octane fuel. RAF Detling RAF Eastchurch RAF Hendon RAF Lympne In 10 Group, 5 of the 6 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel. In 12 Group, 7 of the 8 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel. In 13 Group, 7 of the 10 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel. Of the 3 that possible didn't have stocks of 100 octane fuel, one was based in the Shetland Is. and the other in the Orkney Is. |
Quote:
74 squadron were based at Hornchurch but flew (I think) to a forward Station (Manston) every day. You should maybe add that. Good list :) |
Quote:
Yes, a good list. Not more mistery about this theme. |
Quote:
AFAIK there would be no problem associated with running a Merlin on 87 octane post conversion provided that the appropriate boost limits were respected. However, just filling up with 100 octane afterwards doesn't then cut the mustard as you'd have to clean the fuel system out. Otherwise you'd be running on a mixture which might be say 95 octane, potentially causing trouble at +12. Therefore, I don't think people would make a habit of switching from one grade to another. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.