Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - 109 e3b against spitfire II

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - 109 e3b against spitfire II (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=23787)

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw* (Post 297799)

Once again Kurfurst continues his proud tradition of providing one sided disinformation, with no facts to back up his case

....

Article here:

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...1/394.abstract

The debate on the WWII Aircraft forum can be found in two threads. If you are seriously interested in understanding the facts, then take the time to read both threads in their entirety.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...bob-16305.html

Thanks, very good links, i noticed one thing, what was topic here, the "constant using 12lbs"topic...

"1st August 1940 Memo from Downing re the Handling of the Merlin Engine
This note is advising the pilots that there is an increase in engine failures in the overuse of the emergency 12lb boost.
The interesting thing is that this memo was sent to ALL fighter groups. Had we been talking about the 16 squadrons or less this would not have been the case. It would have been sent to the squadrons involved."

This clears up that question rather unambiguously. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP (Post 297761)

2. we hve started from a 6.5lb with an emergency boost of 12lb on a 87 oct and we were discussing abt a 100oct at 12lb vs what I think is a Merlin 100oct topped a 9 (my Merlin argumentation based on the RR sources you know pretty well and based on Qualorific assumption (the amount of heat generated).
Now if I read you well we shld hve a 17lb 100oct ? Humm will I hev to fear reading in the upcoming weeks about the Jet eng being available during BoB (see spitperf.com and blablabla) ? ;)
)

The Merlin XX was given official approval to use 12lb boost for combat in MS gear in Nov 1940, but the engine was cleared for 12lb boost/3000rpm for TO right from the beginning, and so was available to any pilot who cared to use it during combat.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...s-10june40.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...xx-15nov40.jpg

Approval for 14 and then 16lb boost was added later, along with the appropriate boost override modifications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw* (Post 297799)

And the conclusions are clear. RAF Fighter Command had 100 octane fuel in plentiful supply at all of its major 10, 11, and 12 Group fields.

Source please.

Quote:

(and these fields provided the supply for their satellite fields)

Source please. This was already discussed. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...0&postcount=38

Based on the current evidence (feel free to add new sources showing 100 octane at the said airfield during the Battle and I'll update the list) shows that 100 octane aviation spirit was supplied to

8 out of 19 Sector Airfields
9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields (however 7 of the 32 functioning as satellite airfield for rotation etc., with no Sqn permanently based there).

Quote:

The best debate on this issue occurred on the WWII Aircraft forum which has very high standards of proof required. The discussion was led by 'Glider', real name Gavin Bailey, who is published on the subject of high octane fuel use by the Allies in WWII. His article "The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain" was published by THE ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW, a well respected historical journal whose material is subject to critical scrutiny by the best of English historians.

Glider has nothing to do with Gavin Bailey, nor anyone participating in the thread for the matter.

As for Bailey's article, it doesn't state anywhere that 100 octane was universal for fighter use; actually, it gives little attention to subject of the extent of use, and instead it concentrates on belittlening the - allegedly widely and wrongly perceived - importance of American 100 octane imports, and the put emphasis of CSP propellerers.

On the matter of 100 octane use, it writes:

Quote:

By the time war broke out, the available stocks of aviation fuel had risen to 153,000 tons of 100-octane and 323,000 tons of other grades (mostly 87-octane).35 The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year.36 The available stock of 100-octane fuel at this point was about 220,000 tons. Actual use of the fuel began after 18 May 1940, when the fighter stations selected for the changeover had completed their deliveries of 100-octane and had consumed their existing stocks of 87-octane. While this was immediately before the intensive air combat associated with the Dunkirk evacuation, where Fighter Command units first directly engaged the Luftwaffe, this can only be regarded as a fortunate coincidence which was contingent upon much earlier decisions to establish, store and distribute sufficient supplies of 100-octane fuel.

Then it goes back again how little American supplies meant in RAf plans, how limited the importance of 100 octane was compared to CSPs etc. There's no doubt some nationalistic odor to it.

Comparison table of FC's sorties vs. the amount of 100 octane and 'other' (ie. 87 octane) aviation fuel issued during the month clearly show that Figther Command was relying on 87 octane for a number of its operational fighter Squadrons.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1..._duringBoB.png

A few of my own observations:

a, It seems clear that 100 octane has begun replacing 87 octane towards the end of September / start of October. Until then, 87 octane is by far the major fuel consumed.
b, This corresponds with what the Lord Beaverbook memo noted about re-starting the conversion
c, Its also very appearant that issues have a bit of 'delay' built into them. Obviously supply's nature is that they re-supply after the fuel at the airfields has been used and there's reported need for new issues. This takes time.
d, 100 octane issue curves are clearly responding to FC sorties number increase/decrease. Though that's not news, FC used that fuel. But it should be kept in mind that number of Blenheim Sqns also used and were issued 100 octane fuel, and a Blenheim sortie would consume 4-6 times the fuel a fighter sortie would.
e, On the other hand, 87 octane issues ALSO clearly reacts to FC sorties number increase/decrease. It shouldn't, if all frontline Sqns would be using only 100 octane. ;)
f, Obviously the 87 octane curve reaction is less pronounced, as
fa, A good percentage of FC used 100 octane, so they don't their needs 'do not exists' from the 87 octane issues POV
fb, A large number of other aircraft also uses 87 octane, and many of them - bombers, patrol craft etc. - consume much more fuel than small fighters.

In my opinion, the most conclusive evidence that even towards the end of October a number of fighter squadrons were flying on 87 octane is evident by the sudden and perfectly parallel rise of both 87 octane issues and FC sorties curves at the time.

Tendencies to have British aircraft using only the best possible configurations are nothing more than the naked truth of gamers wanting more advantage to their aircraft, regardless of historical accuracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog (Post 297809)

T.O low speed no ram effect + Optimum Air flow in term of Mass of air to cool the supercharger (see above what two speed use is abt)

@VO101_Tom : Nice found but I am sry this argument is not valid. Any Army makes the circulation of Info a strategical issue : you are flying in a fighter -> you get all the info cleared for your security level regarding that type of fighter.

It does not mean that they all hve used the famous 100oct

But As I hve alry said : let's give them their Barracuda engines that years of stupid mods can get a justification (and spare my own free time)

@Kurf : this is a neat explanation with proof reasoning. I hve read it the first time you put it on the forum and still wait for any argumentation since

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 297811)

Source please.

Source please. This was already discussed. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...0&postcount=38

Based on the current evidence (feel free to add new sources showing 100 octane at the said airfield during the Battle and I'll update the list) shows that 100 octane aviation spirit was supplied to

8 out of 19 Sector Airfields
9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields (however 7 of the 32 functioning as satellite airfield for rotation etc., with no Sqn permanently based there).

Glider has nothing to do with Gavin Bailey, nor anyone participating in the thread for the matter.

As for Bailey's article, it doesn't state anywhere that 100 octane was universal for fighter use; actually, it gives little attention to subject of the extent of use, and instead it concentrates on belittlening the - allegedly widely and wrongly perceived - importance of American 100 octane imports, and the put emphasis of CSP propellerers.

On the matter of 100 octane use, it writes:

Then it goes back again how little American supplies meant in RAf plans, how limited the importance of 100 octane was compared to CSPs etc. There's no doubt some nationalistic odor to it.

Comparison table of FC's sorties vs. the amount of 100 octane and 'other' (ie. 87 octane) aviation fuel issued during the month clearly show that Figther Command was relying on 87 octane for a number of its operational fighter Squadrons.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1..._duringBoB.png

A few of my own observations:

a, It seems clear that 100 octane has begun replacing 87 octane towards the end of September / start of October. Until then, 87 octane is by far the major fuel consumed.
b, This corresponds with what the Lord Beaverbook memo noted about re-starting the conversion
c, Its also very appearant that issues have a bit of 'delay' built into them. Obviously supply's nature is that they re-supply after the fuel at the airfields has been used and there's reported need for new issues. This takes time.
d, 100 octane issue curves are clearly responding to FC sorties number increase/decrease. Though that's not news, FC used that fuel. But it should be kept in mind that number of Blenheim Sqns also used and were issued 100 octane fuel, and a Blenheim sortie would consume 4-6 times the fuel a fighter sortie would.
e, On the other hand, 87 octane issues ALSO clearly reacts to FC sorties number increase/decrease. It shouldn't, if all frontline Sqns would be using only 100 octane. ;)
f, Obviously the 87 octane curve reaction is less pronounced, as
fa, A good percentage of FC used 100 octane, so they don't their needs 'do not exists' from the 87 octane issues POV
fb, A large number of other aircraft also uses 87 octane, and many of them - bombers, patrol craft etc. - consume much more fuel than small fighters.

In my opinion, the most conclusive evidence that even towards the end of October a number of fighter squadrons were flying on 87 octane is evident by the sudden and perfectly parallel rise of both 87 octane issues and FC sorties curves at the time.

Tendencies to have British aircraft using only the best possible configurations are nothing more than the naked truth of gamers wanting more advantage to their aircraft, regardless of historical accuracy.

All of this disinformation is more of the same, all put forward by you in the threads I linked from the WWII Aircraft forum, and all have been proven to be false.

You are a broken record Kurfurst, posting twenty times does not make a false statement anymore correct than if you post once.

Anyone who takes the time to read through the threads from WWII Aircraft will see how credible you are with your homemade tables and lack of original documents.

To deal with your point there was more 87 octane fuel issued, the reason was simple:

RAF Bomber command was conducting a night offensive throughout the battle, bomber fuel loads are roughly twenty to thirty times that of a fighter aircraft.

If you look at 100 octane usage, the figures are clearly in line with what consumption should be for the roughly 400 fighter aircraft based at 10, 11 and 12 Group fields. In 1944 and 1945, the whole of the 2nd TAF usage of 150 octane fuel was roughly 10,000 tons per month, and that was for over 900 aircraft, Spitfires, Typhoons, Tempests and Mustangs, all of which had larger fuel tanks, plus all of which were loaded with drop tanks for every mission, the drop tanks alone for '44/'45 aircraft held more fuel than a '40 aircraft held in its internal tanks. Drop tanks were not in use by the RAF during the BoB.

But I am not going to lay out all the arguments here, they have already been presented in the WWII Aircraft forum thread in more than enough detail.

Yes, I mis-linked 'Glider' with Gavin Bailey, the name Bailey actually uses in the thread is 'Gavin B', another 'G', in any case, Gavin Bailey clearly disagrees with Kurfurst in the threads, Kurfurst ends up insulting him and that is one of the reason Kurfurst is banned.

The links again:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...bob-16305.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP (Post 297812)

@VO101_Tom : Nice found but I am sry this argument is not valid. Any Army makes the circulation of Info a strategical issue : you are flying in a fighter -> you get all the info cleared for your security level regarding that type of fighter.

It does not mean that they all hve used the famous 100oct

But As I hve alry said : let's give them their Barracuda engines that years of stupid mods can get a justification (and spare my own free time)

If was used continuously the 12lbs boost, and the engine was ruined continuously, it does not interest, if COD makes the same one. :)
If I misunderstood it, then excuse me, but the object of the debate in the other topic, that the 12 lbs were useful without the damaging of engine - from what it follows, that let COD not take it into consideration...

Buzzsaw, apart from your usual tirades and various lies about my person,

A, can you produce even a single primary document saying all of Fighter Command using 100 octane fuel and 100 octane fuel only?
B, can you explain, that if FC would use only 100 octane fuel, why do 87 octane issues suddenly rise at the moment Fighter Command is flying more operational sorties?

Should you be able to do so, I may be able to take you seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog (Post 297809)

GP! The bottomline though, the initial combat rating was clearly +9 (until november).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 297824)

B, can you explain, that if FC would use only 100 octane fuel, why do 87 octane issues suddenly rise at the moment Fighter Command is flying more operational sorties?

Because 87 octane is being used by Coastal Command, Bomber Command, RN, OTU and flight training units, all of whom will increase their activities during periods of good weather, which was when the Luftwaffe also increased it's activity over Britain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP (Post 297798)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ
If I recall correctly: middle mouse button + right mouse button gives you additional 2 DOF. Move head to right and leave it there. Should work with panning, but I am not sure about snap views.

Post of the year IMHO. Thx ! :-P

+1

I will check that out, if it works it would be a great improvement, thanks!