Wouldn't it be more relevant to ask in a less biased manner how many conversion were done before August 40 ? :confused::!:

You ask them. I'll ask what I want to know. Thanks.

Hopefully Holmes had more a Cartesian thinking ! ???!!!

I'm no Sherlock, that much is elementary my dear TCVIP.

Anyway, I've only made a brief enquiry at RR, just to see if they hold Service records for Merlins.

I didn't wanna start the whole thing with..'There's this argument on the internet... etc'

Just a brief message to say that I did try the NA this week. I didn't get what I wanted, the airfield records differ considerably, some go into some detail as to what was going on on the base, some stuck rigidly to the base and concerned themselves with transfers, promotions and visitors. Finally some had pages missing, Duxfords for instance had the pages for January to April missing. I was only able to look at six reports and gave up after that.

All I found were some more details re the import of fuel for the period June to August when approx 250 tankers arrived or were expected to arrive in the UK carrying petroleum products. It didn't split these into MT, 87 or 100 Octane totals.

I also found a memo dated dated Nov and its clear that the reserves were more than healthy. The Phrase 'We are very well ahead in our fuel reserve and shall not make an appreciable increase in the pesent stocks' is used. (note their English not mine).

I will have another go next week.

However the War Cabinet records are on line at the NA website if someone wants to support the view held by Pips that they discussed the lack of fuel in May and made the decisions he states, they are free to try. I did look a second time at the originals, but again didn't find anything apart from some weekly reports (from May monthly) but again they support the steady increase in stocks.

So much fuel arrived in June 1940 that storage capacity for MT fuel was brimmed out (their phrase).

Absolutely agree with the above. There's no doubt a significant number - how many, we do not know - Mark Is and IIs, and Hurricanes were running on 100 octane with the associated boost levels. There's a need for a Spitfire MK.I with CSP and CSP+100 as you say. Mission designers and server admins will then decide which will be used based on the evidence found on whether the home station was historically supplied with the fuel or not.
In contrast Glider's position is that the basic Spitfire MK.I with CSP should be not modelled at all, so that nobody would have choice to make up his mind wheater 100 octane was in universal use or not. Glider himself will have the right to make that decision instead of them and the developers.

I doubt it is about balance; after all, we have the Mark II which is already running on 100 octane and with a performance that is virtually identical to Mark Is with 100 octane. The problem is the FM has simulation-wide issues, and presently the 109E are not runing at historical performance levels. I do not think a 109F is needed for "balance", after all the basic 109E with 601A had very similiar performance as the 100 octane RAF birds, and we do not even have 601N powered Emils or similar 110 Ceasars.

Overall, however, I do not think this thread warrants more discussion on the subject, as the current evidence level is simply lacking. We will see if Glider or others can shed light on the issue based on hard evidence in the archives. Otherwise, its just neverending talk, talk, talk..

Can you give a link to these online sources, David?

I'm not David, but I think he means here

Thats correct. I believe the files that you want start CAB 65/7/1 and should be available to download. If you are stuck on anything let me know on the thread or via a PM.
Good Luck

Have you got any luck in the archives, David, you have been a bit silent for a month about the subject.