|
Quote:
I did say tht there is the logical hypothesis that 100 octane was used as a meaning to make available the stock of old fuel (74?) due to the probably huge quantity stocked and the very high price of tht fuel. It's seems very easy to check to see if I am right or wrong as I said : as we hve the qty of old fuel and 100oct per month and the formula for the blending, just making the math shld give an accurate awnser. However I don't take orders from anyone NZTyph and certainly don't think that there is any time left for discussion after being insulted. You better take tht into account. This debate is over for me as... there is no debate. |
Quote:
|
Robert Schlaifer, Development of Aircraft Engines, (Harvard University, Boston, 1950). pp 222 - 223
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...s_Page_222.jpg |
Quote:
reading this thread, and a few peoples opinion reminds me of this, http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/x...C117656571.jpg |
Quote:
Quote:
As they required 90 octane fuel the they could either blend the 87 octane fuel even more to get 90 octane fuel or they could mix 97 octane fuel with 100 octane fuel. They've chosen to use the later method. Reason: Blending 87 to 90 octane would violate the specification for 90 octane because to much additives have to be added. Therefore this was only a emergency solution. There was no need for this as they didn't have problems to obtain 100 octane fuel. |
So, lets have a look at the evidence presented in 50 pages that large numbers (up to 2/3rds) of frontline units of Fighter Command were using 87 octane fuel right through until at least September 1940...
A summary of a document, apparently found in the AWM (which cannot find the document) and which was part of a thread from 2004, in another forum; this can only be read by members of that forum. The document itself has not yet been seen by the one who pins 100% faith on its authenticity. Quote:
Quote from Morgan and Shacklady. Otherwise nada, zip. Lots of bluster and smokescreens and diversions, but no documentary evidence showing that 100 Octane use was restricted to "selected", "concerned" or "certain" frontline Fighter Command units during the Battle of Britain. When directly asked to build a case, using documentary evidence, for the widespread use of 87 octane fuel by frontline units of Fighter Command during the B of B, the protagonists either go silent, or feel "insulted". The people who should feel insulted are those who have gone to a huge amount of effort to find and present documents supporting a case for the full scale use of 100 0ctane fuel by frontline FC units, only to be confronted by the same old nonsense, which has also been thrown about on other forums, and in Wikipedia, particularly as Quote:
|
Know what is so said NZt is that these same nay sayers will back at it again in the future with the same lame reasons as history has shown.
|
In the interests of clarity, the following chart taken from Flight - December 2nd, 1943 is useful for comparing Schlaifer's manifold pressures, given in inches of mercury in his Development of Aircraft Engines depicted above, with the equivalent boost pressures in lbs/sq.in. as used by the British. Schlaifer wrote "Before the middle of 1940, a manifold pressure of 54.3 in. was authorized, giving a combat rating of 1,310 hp at 9,000 feet...". 54.3 in. Hg is the equivalent to +12 lbs/sq.in.. 1,310 hp at 9,000 feet operating at 54.3 in Hg. (+12 lbs /sq.in) is in agreement with the combat rating for the Merlin III given in Alec Harvey-Bailey's The Merlin in Perspective, pg 155.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-inches-hg.jpg |
I think any reasonable person would agree that 100 octane Spits and Hurries were active during BoB..
And based on this thread it is clear that no amount of proof will change the minds of the nay-sayers for what ever reason The good news is they don't mater! The only people that mater are the people at 1C. With that said, I think we should stop wasting time on the nay-sayers and focus on 1C. To do that we need to pull all this info into one document with one stated objective. That being adding 100 octane Spits and Hurries to CoD I think you guys should start a group PM and consider making use of some of the goggle global tools and create a document that includes all this proof in it and submit it to Luither for consideration. Also if needed I would be more than willing to post your results on my web site so when the nay-sayers bring this up again in six months we can simply point them to the link instead of wasting time going around in circles with then again. |
Thanks, Lane, that's a handy chart to have on file!
|
Quote:
Looking at A. R. Ogston's excerpt from History of Aircraft Lubricants (Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Warrendale, PA USA), p. 12. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...cants-pg12.jpg Of particular interest to us is the passage: "The Royal Air Force had used 87 octane fuel until March 1940 when Fighter Command converted all its Spitfire and Hurricane Rolls-Royce Merlin powered fighters to 100 octane (i.e., Grade 100/130). This permitted the maximum manifold pressure of the Merlin II and III engines of the Spitfire, Hurricane and Defiant fighters to be raised from 42 ins. Hg to 54 ins. Hg which gave a 30% power increase, that is from 1,000 to 1,310 h.p. We can see in the table Equivalent Boost Pressures in Different Units above that 42 ins Hg is equivalent to +6 lbs/sq.in boost and 54 ins. Hg is equivalent to +12 lbs./sq.in. Therefore we can see of course that Ogston is in agreement with Schlaifer's Development of Aircraft Engines and Harvey-Bailey's, The Merlin in Perspective posted earlier. |
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...#Power_ratings |
Quote:
Quote:
No more useful information relating to the topic at hand is produced, and sadly you can see that the links are broken after 7 years (a long time on the internet, be sure). |
The only trolls in that thread are the same two trolls that are in this thread.
parsifal summed up the ww11 discussion and this discussion wonderfully: It has a lot to do with revisionist history. The "pro-allied" camp in this debate are saying that 100 Octane was in widespread use in the RAF from an early stage, and that this made a huge difference to the performance arcs of the spits and hurricanes that used it. It is pretty well known that the Luftwaffe only used higher rated fuels on a very limited scale, and that this only chnged relatively slowly as the wasr progressed. The allies on the other hand embraced the widespread use of high octane fuel from an early stage. Whilst german fuels were comparable in their octane ratings, they were never fully adopted on a widespread scale, or at least on not a wide a scale as the allies did. By arguing that 100 octane rated fuel was not widespread, the pro-german revisionists can argue with even greater conviction the superiority of german technology over the allied tech development, and that the allies only won because of brute strength. A variation to the "we were stabbed in the back" argument that gained so much favour in weimar germany after wwi, and assisted the Nazis in their rise to power. |
You can keep the insults coming but it won't make yourself grown.
Calling me Troll when most of you hide them selfs behind multiple accounts (server/forum) ? Wew! That's so funny. As much as the ridicule FM some of you use that is rivaled only by your Spartan's use of the "PrintScreen" key when I've got you in my visor. As I hve said on the other troll post, I can't help you in your catatonic way of posting in a gentlemen discussion. I know teenager here that I've a more mature attitude trying to raise the debate with improved tactical behavior, true situational awareness (not your map wide sound radar) and E management. That's in what we are all interested. I guarantee that with a bit of efforts you'll succeed easily without having to commit you in such hair raising interpretation of history betraying the "few" heritage - eg your own despicable personal way of thinking that to win beyond all odds they might hve had some secret aces cards. Frankly none of us here won't let you turn CoD/BoM in the same manner RoF had turns itself influenced by a certain point of view of history and very relaxed interpretation of physics (30% more grade = 30% more HP. Damn you are true magicians !!!) Unlike some of the cheat mode the gaming world is sadly accustomed with, they simply didn't hve secret cards. Most of the vics were hardly gained flying hurries. A non negligible proportion of them still having a 2 speed prop what the devs did take rightfully into account. Baahh enough of reasonable arguments lost in death hears. I'll better go continuing to spank your 6 on the server as usual :mrgreen: |
Quote:
|
All this fuel debate is fine and dandy, now who can produce papers showing the installation of sonar systems on RAF fighters?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
As I recall from earlier postings...
Quote:
Quote:
From the NA: cab68/6/11 "War Cabinet Oil Position: Thirty-third Weekly Report: 23 April 1940" (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/r...-1939-1945.htm Scroll down to 4.Cabinet Papers or Memoranda, click on cab68; enter reference no. "cab68/6/11" in this format in top l/h corner of new page, click on "Go to reference"; click on "View digital image" then "+Add to shopping"; it is free and downloadable) "The process of bringing Norwegian tankers under Allied control has advanced during the week, and of a total fleet of 212 Norwegian tankers 119 are now under Allied control, while 18 are proceeding to Allied ports; 93 are in neutral ports or reported to be proceeding to neutral ports..." Meaning in April 1940 Britain had already gained the use of 119 Norwegian tankers, 41 more than were sunk between Sept 1939 and November 1940, and more were expected. cab68/7/31 "War Cabinet Oil Position Monthly Report: November 1940" (issued 20 December) (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/r...-1939-1945.htm) Table I: "Imports Into the United Kingdom (Services and Civil)" Shows the total number of tankers arriving in UK ports in the year between September 1939 and August 1940 = 947: (Total shown in table = 1,079 minus 132, June to August 1939.) March to May 1940 = 109 tankers; 1,112,300 tons imported; June to August = 100 tankers; 1,058,900 tons total tonnage of oil products imported = 9,986,900. (11,126,900 minus 1,140,000 tons, imported June to August 1939.): an average of 10,546 tons per tanker. September and October 1940: 124 tankers (62 per month) arrived and in November 80: September = 640,500 tons of imports; October = 651,600; November = 890,300 tons Grand Total of Tankers arriving in UK Sept 1939 to November 1940 = 1,151 Grand Total of Oil Products Imported = 12,169,300 tons: 10,573 tons of oil product per tanker Total number sunk Sept 1939 - Nov 1940 = 78(!!); 385,957 tons of oil product = roughly 6.8% tankers; roughly 3.2% of tons imported to Britain. The amount of oil product per tanker destroyed was 4,948 tons, meaning on average the tankers sunk were carrying less than half the weight of cargo each tanker that arrived in port was discharging; the tankers being sunk were either smaller than average, or, more likely, at least half of them were sunk in ballast. Losses were serious - particularly for the crews - but hardly crippling, and how many were carrying 100 Octane avgas? Explains why fuel stocks continued to rise right throughout the B of B, and shows that Morgan and Shacklady were right in that tankers were sunk; problem is that the numbers were paltry compared with the numbers arriving in Britain and unloading their cargo. Nor is there any cross referencing used by M & S providing sources for their claim that large numbers of tankers carrying 100 octane were sunk. http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...00octane_2.jpg |
Good stuff NZt. Nothing like the facts over sensationalism. :)
|
calm down little jedi
|
Quote:
|
Well it seems like you had a decomplexed way to speak about other untill now. Don't tell me you'd feel embarrassed today :shock:
|
Quote:
May I suggest reading Badder story or an old cheap book right on the subject (I might hve got it at somthing like 9£ in the 90's at London Foyle's) : Hurricane versus Bf109 the Osprey series is also not tht bad. But I am sry : books they are! |
Quote:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%202891.html "De Havillands then had 400 Hurricane conversion sets in hand and expected to convert a total of 700, after which constant speed airscrews would be embodied in the new aircraft. The worst of the rush was over, six days before the Luftwaffe's mass attacks began, and a chance diary entry records that the company was already busy on another urgent job, of fitting airscrews to 24 Hurricanes to be sent at once to the Middle East!" Or Morgan and Shacklady, which says almost exactly the same thing. |
Quote:
In general offical records are better. I am sure if I look I will find a book that says the earth is flat and Rome was built in a day. PS all the sheets extracted from a certain website as you put it, I checked in the NA for context and completeness before quoting them. Where possible I try to check everything I quote or at least find two sources. However I do agree with you, it would be nice if others did the same. |
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
I am sure if I look I will find a book that says the earth is flat and Rome was built in a day, or even one that showed a shortage of 100 Octane Damn, now look what I have done |
I'm still waiting for someone to post data showing that RAF FC flew even a single Hurricane or Spitfire combat sortie during the BofB using 87 octane fuel. Again, if the RAF FC was flying large numbers of sorties during the BofB using 87 octane fuel, it should be easy to find historical accounts by RAF pilots or in combat reports stating that they flew into combat with 87 octane fuel during the BofB. Yet no such reports or accounts have ever come to light...
So far no takers on my challenge. It's time for the RAF FC BofB 87 octane myth to die; it has been thoroughly busted. |
Quote:
|
You shld write comics. You will hve an huge success.
It has been alrdy explained and can be found in many documents. I myself illustrated this meaning right her ein this thread by linking to a 1954 FLIGHT articles detailing the evolution of teh Merlin eng during the war with details of wich octane was used. :rolleyes: There is also a second article of FLIGHT that I linked about a respective study of a He111 engine and the Merlin where teh author explained that the Brits eng discovered that the remaining trace of fuel found inside the studied German engine showed that the LW probably was using a fuel with better octane grade than what RAF was using at the time.The article clearly says that it was 92 octane in the German bomber. More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel. Here is a modern example with Turbo Tech (no eng power needed to drive the compression process) : http://wn.com/octane_rating?orderby=..._time=all_time [EDIT] : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQghB...layer_embedded As I hve alrdy says I don't know what to write more. What 's for sure is that I am loosing my time at a ... 100% rate ! |
I think no one believes your interpretation because your conclusions are wrong.
Quote:
Quote:
This means every supercharged engine benefits from the use of 100 octane fuel as long a the engine control (e.g. Automatic Boost Control) allows the pilot to apply the higher boost. The Merlin engine has a Boost Control Cut-Out device to override the limit of the Boost Control, i.e. it allows the pilot to apply a higher boost than the regular +6 1/2. Of course the higher power may cause a higher stress on other parts, however it is documented which modifications must be applied to a Merlin II/III to allow the use of higher boost. The use and benefit of 100 octane in Merlin II/III is very well documented, it is also very well documented from which time on selected aircraft used it. What is so far not documented is when it was introduced for ALL operational aircraft. |
Quote:
Again.... :rolleyes: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html Search for "Engine Power" More... if you aren't completely averse to Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superma...e_and_armament The evolution of high octane aviation fuels and improved supercharger designs enabled Rolls-Royce to extract increasing amounts of power from the same basic designs. For example, the Merlin II and III which powered the Spitfire I produced a maximum of 1,030 hp (770 kW) using the 87 octane aviation fuel which was generally available from 1938 through to 1941; from early 1940 increasing supplies of 100 octane fuel allowed the maximum power to be increased to 1,310 hp (977 kW) with an increased supercharger boost pressure, albeit for a maximum time limit of 5 minutes. I'd like a 30% increase in power in my car if only for five minutes. |
Quote:
Again this makes your assertion ridiculous. In the above article tht I mentioned, the 100 oct dedicated Merlin engine for the 1940/41 era is stated in an article dedicated to RR anniversary in a British renown publication (and not an obscure extract) to be the mkVIII at 1045hp (not sure exactly - look previous pages). This is only an example. To be kind I hve suggested earlier that you made the confusion of SHP and BHP. You might be making the same error here (I say it obviously overplaying my naive side ) . |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Did someone at least watch the Impreza example ? |
Quote:
|
updated (see above)
|
Quote:
Even you gospel, FLIGHT, says the early Merlin was ran at 22lb boost. |
Quote:
If they didn't mention that beefing up the eng was necessary, isn't it more logical to think that it's due to the fact that no 100 oct was actually used as a prime source of fuel ? ;) |
Alec Harvey-Bailey, The Merlin in Perspective, (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Derby, 1983)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/r...yce-100oct.jpg W.G. Dudek and D. R. Winans, excerpt from AIAA Paper No. 69-779, Milestones in Aviation Fuels, (Esso Research and Engineering Company, New York 1969.) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-42363-319.jpg A. R. Ogston, excerpt from History of Aircraft Lubricants (Society of Automotive Enginees, Inc. Warrendale, PA USA), p. 12. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...cants-pg12.jpg 1)The authors of these articles are respected engineers and fuel technicians who are properly qualified to know how much power the Merlin III could generate on 100 octane fuel. 2)Rolls-Royce were already building Merlins that could run on 100 octane fuel in 1938. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%203453.html RM 2M "The normal output at 7,870ft. is 1,265 h.p. and the maximum at 9,500ft., 1,285 h.p. with 1,320 h.p. available for take-off....The maximum potential output of the Merlin II is 1,800 h.p..." 3) Not forgetting either that on August 7 1937 Rolls Royce had a "more-or-less standard Merlin II, running at 18 pounds boost on a special mixture of straight-run gasoline, benzol and methanol with a dash of tetraethyl lead, achieved an output of 1,536 hp at 2,850 rpm over a four minute run." (this was used for the Speed Spitfire). Price The Spitfire Story 2010 p. 107. Ergo the engine was already strong enough to take the extra power. |
Quote:
Except their is much proof that 100 octane was used.:) |
Mr Tomcat. Don't you think it a bit unfair that others need to provide 100% conclusive proof that their arguments are to be believed, yet all you need to provide is a 13 years after the event magazine article to be believed yourself?
It's not only unreasonable and arrogant, but also frustrating and insulting to those that spend their time on here trying to explain their findings to you. If you are not prepared to listen anyway, because to be honest that is the way it looks to the observer, then just say so now and save everybody the effort. You are being impolite, one would think somebody in the teaching profession would realise that. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You'd need to really read it actually @Osp : for a bunch of guys tht are drawing disgusting parallel lines btw arguing abt the real use of that fuel with neo-nazi activism I think you shld drop out that virgin attitude. Does not fit. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=483 I am only interested by the truth. The only think I believed in is that RAF proved actually itself superior to the LW strategically and by employing better tactics. I am not harri potter, I don't believe in charms and incantatory self convincing sentences. |
I'm amazed at the resistance to 100 octane usage from some members on here.
The circumstancial evidence is overwhelming. I have loads of pilots memoirs from the BoB era and at lots of them mention putting 100 octane fuel in their cars, before, during and after the BoB. It doesn't sound like they were very carefull about saving 100 octane because it was in short supply. All RAF pilots who mention 100 octane say it was introduced just before the main battle, without exception. They have no reason to lie about this. They don't need to rewrite history, everyone knows what happened. There would be plenty of references to 'if we had 100 octane fuel we could have...' (much like all the references to cannons.. ie 'If we had cannons we would have..'). I have never seen a single reference made by an RAF pilot about the lack of 100 octane during the BoB. (I have at least 250 seperate accounts from the period.). Or how about a dated photograph? Whilst the conversion was taking place, as someone here has already mentioned, the ground crew painted '100' onto the cowling of the converted aircraft. Find me a photograph from June 1940 onwards where this marking is visable. I can't find one. The reason? Because the conversion process had finished and there was no need to differentiate between the 2 types of fuel. So like the others on here, I'd like to see a single account from somebody who was there that mentions a shortage/restriction re 100 oct during the battle. |
I think afer 55 pages this thread has run its course. Time to lock it down so we don't waste any more time on it.
|
Quote:
There is a quote in that paper, which you used before, that states that "the petrol normally used at that time was 87 Octane" however the time it is referring to is 1937. |
Quote:
The mot ridiculous at this game were arguabily the french with their twin engined single cranckshaft 2000hp marvel that history has shown how irealistic this formula was (the very 1st french act of sabotage of the German war machine ?) Quote:
Quote:
You are also citing the 1300+HP nbr when the line bellow teh journalist explicitely said that "a fully supercharged" merlins does 1030hp. This in line with what I hve alrdy pointed out (from RR doc sources) that your hve repeateadly mixed SHP (power on the shaft without supercharger plugged) and BHP. I don't know really on what base we can discuss anymore you and me. @Bounder : I made an abstract of the article last week. Pls (re)read it there : http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=457 |
Quote:
"More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel." The posts that followed show that tremendous increase in power was possible - read the posts and references - and NZt's posts and references show that the engine was demonstrated to be strong enough to deliver the increased power. We have arrived at Trolling and I've had enough of this thread. |
Quote:
The major problem with you is that you are seeing others here with the narrow pencil of your "open minded" attitude. It's not a matter of wining or loosing. I am not here arguing with you to be part of history. I am not an historian. I just don't trust your hair raising theory and I am still waiting to be convinced out from what I hve read so far. Simple like that. |
Quote:
So what do we need to provide to convince you? - A combat report from a pilot that use +12 boost on a Merlin II/III? - A flight test? - A quote from a manual? |
If only we were insulting Tomcat, but we're not. Perhaps we should.
|
Better on an internet forum than face to face ... obviously. Did I get it right ? :roll:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
He claims to know better than A C Lovesey, chief engineer of Rolls-Royce, or W.G. Dudek and D. R. Winans (excerpt from AIAA Paper No. 69-779, Milestones in Aviation Fuels, Esso Research and Engineering Company, New York 1969.) who are respected authorities on the properties of aviation and other types of fuel, or simply ridicules any information he finds uncomfortable, and pushes the same circular arguments, posting very little evidence to back them up. I have better things to do than waste time trying to convince Mr Tomcat - this "ignore" setting is a handy device which I will now use...ahhh, bliss! :cool: |
Dr. Alfred Price, Spitfire Mark I/II Aces 1939-41, (Osprey Publishing, 1996), p. 19.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ane_Petrol.jpg |
Quote:
All RAF aircraft were armed in case this happened including OCU units but OCU units didn't have 100 Octane fuel, so there was one combat using 87 octane. |
Quote:
|
It is possible that 245 (Northern Rhodesia) Squadron sent to Northern Ireland in July 1940 might have been still using 87 fuel as this was a backwater base well away from any combat.
I concur that Tomcat is most certainly trolling. |
Quote:
5 OTU, Ashton Down and 6 OTU, Sutton Bridge both had Hurricanes while 7 OTU, Hawarden, seemed to have them for a short time http://www.rafweb.org/OTU_1.htm On 14 August there was another He 111, this one from 8./KG27, shot down by a combination of 213 Sqn Hurricanes and 7 OTU Spitfires (The Blitz Then and Now Vol 1, p. 194). |
Your right, it was OTU my mistake, looks like there were two combats with 87 octane.
|
Pips on the AHF has confirmed that he is the Pips from AAW.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...?f=69&t=187113 |
Quote:
1. "International power of the Merlin I and II was 950/990 h.p. at 2,600 r.p.m. at 12,250ft, and the maximum take-off output was 890 h.p. at 2,850 r.p.m." The 1938 Flight article http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%203453.html states that "Figures are being quoted on the Rolls-Royce stand for the Merlin R.M. 2M rated on 100 octane fuel....Merlin II, III and IV gave 1,015 h.p for take off on the same (100 octane) fuel". This was before the modifications made allowing the boost to be raised to +12. 2. (NB:This paragraph refers to June 1937) "The power output of the standard engine," writes Harold Nockolds, "was 1,030 b.h.p. at 3,000 r.p.m. at 10,250ft with plus 6 1/4 lb boost. (The following was left out) Solely by opening the throttle, raising the supercharger pressure, and using fuel of higher octane," he goes on [the petrol normally used at the time was 87 octane] "the engine was made to develop no less than 2,160 b.h.p at 3,200 r.p.m with the supercharger giving 27 lb/sq in boost (albeit this was over a short period of about four minutes - my added comment)....But Elliot and Hives were perhaps even more satisfied with a 15-hr endurance run at 1,800 b.h.p., 3,200 r.p.m. and 22 lb boost..." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
KF's entire "case" is a busted flush and there's absolutely no point in pursuing it any further. People like Glider, and Lane and others have been chasing their tails for years over this chimera, and his wishful thinking. There is nothing wrong with a free flow of information and discussion, and people are entitled to their opinions, no matter how flawed. But something is wrong when so much time and energy is expended having to counter an extremely weak case, because the person putting that case has a genius for using smoke and mirrors, and constant bluster, to camouflage the fact that he has no real evidence to back up his claims. Over 50 pages on this thread alone? I didn't come here for this - but I guess I let myself in for it. :wink: In future I'm not going to bother with KF; he can think and say what he likes - he isn't worth wasting so much time over.
|
Found in a book on the Dewoitine D.520 (Docavia)...On the 21st April (1940), D.520 No. 2, using 100 octane rated fuel, and with a CEMA pilot at the controls...p.303.
Table of Characteristics of Hispano-Suiza 12Y series engines 12Y-45 Series production D.520 No.s 1-350 Rated for 92 or 100 Octane fuel 12Y-49 Late series D.520 No.s 351- also rated for 92 or 100 Octane fuel p.245. Also Mushroom Yellow series No 6113 p.38 |
Quote:
There is quite a bit of raw speculation that attempts to bedazzle folks into thinking a specific way. For example, you speculate all over the map about FC, BC, Invasion of France, and everything else under the sun like it is a fact in the post below: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=476 It is not, it is YOUR interpretation. Morgan and Shacklady say something completely different which also fits the information in the document you posted on weekly issues. That is the RAF built up a strategic reserve and it was not until September 1940 that 16 squadrons from Fighter Command converted to 100 octane. Not only do I think Morgan and Shacklady's research was more through and grounded than yours, it is a fact that every military required such a reserve. Heck, BMW built over two thousand BMW801S series motors before the first one was put on a production aircraft. Why??? They used a three to one strategic reserve for engines. Three engines were in the inventory for every one being used operationally. That way losses could be replaced and the operational aircraft maintained. With the simple logic in this thread some revisionist would be screaming the Germans were sending thousands of BMW801S engines into battle starting in 1943!! :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
From the NA: cab68/6/11 "War Cabinet Oil Position: Thirty-third Weekly Report: 23 April 1940" (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/r...-1939-1945.htm Scroll down to 4.Cabinet Papers or Memoranda, click on cab68; enter reference no. "cab68/6/11" in this format in top l/h corner of new page, click on "Go to reference"; click on "View digital image" then "+Add to shopping"; it is free and downloadable) "The process of bringing Norwegian tankers under Allied control has advanced during the week, and of a total fleet of 212 Norwegian tankers 119 are now under Allied control, while 18 are proceeding to Allied ports; 93 are in neutral ports or reported to be proceeding to neutral ports..." Meaning in April 1940 Britain had already gained the use of 119 Norwegian tankers, 41 more than were sunk between Sept 1939 and November 1940, and more were expected. cab68/7/31 "War Cabinet Oil Position Monthly Report: November 1940" (issued 20 December) (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/r...-1939-1945.htm) Table I: "Imports Into the United Kingdom (Services and Civil)" Shows the total number of tankers arriving in UK ports in the year between September 1939 and August 1940 = 947: (Total shown in table = 1,079 minus 132, June to August 1939.) March to May 1940 = 109 tankers; 1,112,300 tons imported; June to August = 100 tankers; 1,058,900 tons total tonnage of oil products imported = 9,986,900. (11,126,900 minus 1,140,000 tons, imported June to August 1939.): an average of 10,546 tons per tanker. September and October 1940: 124 tankers (62 per month) arrived and in November 80: September = 640,500 tons of imports; October = 651,600; November = 890,300 tons Grand Total of Tankers arriving in UK Sept 1939 to November 1940 = 1,151 Grand Total of Oil Products Imported = 12,169,300 tons: 10,573 tons of oil product per tanker Total number sunk Sept 1939 - Nov 1940 = 78(!!); 385,957 tons of oil product = roughly 6.8% tankers; roughly 3.2% of tons imported to Britain. The amount of oil product per tanker destroyed was 4,948 tons, meaning on average the tankers sunk were carrying less than half the weight of cargo each tanker that arrived in port was discharging; the tankers being sunk were either smaller than average, or, more likely, at least half of them were sunk in ballast. Explains why fuel stocks continued to rise right throughout the B of B, and shows that Morgan and Shacklady were right in that tankers were sunk; problem is that the numbers were paltry compared with the numbers arriving in Britain and unloading their cargo. Nor is there any cross referencing used by M & S providing sources for their claim that large numbers of tankers carrying 100 octane were sunk. http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...00octane_2.jpg Cabinet papers, which can be downloaded and examined for free as opposed to unreferenced speculation by Morgan et al. No Crumpp, you provide some documentary evidence that frontline fighter units of FC were using 87 octane fuel during combat operations during the B of B Crumpp; You provide some documentary evidence that the RAF stuck to its pre-war plans to have 800,000 tons of 100 octane fuel before releasing it to FC. Crumpp; You provide documentary evidence that the RAF considered that stocks of 100 octane fuel were too low to supply more than the 16 front line fighter squadrons of FC and two Blenheim units that you and others allege. Crumpp; You provide documentary evidence that so many tankers carrying 100 octane fuel were sunk that somehow there was never enough to go round. Quote:
Quote:
|
Banks and NZt, I see selective reading by the nay sayers. They stop reading when they come across something that supports their nay saying.
Quote:
"6.10.1940: Until the end of October, 1100 - 1200 DB601N engines were delivered. They are installed in the four existing Me 110 groups and the single existing Me 109 group, some reconnaissance aircraft of the Aufklärungsgruppe Ob. d. L., plus 130 reserve engine pool. The rest of the engines went into Me 109F and Me 110 production. The production of DB601N-engined Me 110s is to be channelled into night fighters, for which a constant strength of 120 is demanded." |
Quote:
How many Squadrons were effected is somewhat uncertain, but as you have noted the combat reports, orbs. etc. do give some insight. We do have accounts for some 30 Sqns (out of ca. 60..) or so using 100 octane at one time or another, though as you noted Sqn rotation between stations makes it quite difficult to find out how many Sqns (stations) were using it simultaneously. There's of course this paper of 7 August that supposed to 'authorize' all Commands for using 100 octane, but the 100 octane consumption figures quite clearly refute that this happened or even started in August. There's clearly no increase in consumption of 100 octane or fall in consumption of 87 octane until the end of September 1940. As Crumpp said, the above are the ascertainable facts from which a learned man would draw factual and logical conclusions. Some good research would clear up the situation, but none is forthcoming, and the thread can be pretty much summarized as the speculation and wishful thinking of three fanatics against the weight of documentary evidence; the arguments are hollow or even absurd (lately it appears that its becoming focused on Russel's teapot analouge, i.e. since they could offer no evidence to their thesis, its up to everyone else to disprove a yet unproven thesis), ad hominem and straw man arguments, or limited to spamming the thread over and over with unrelated papers of no value evidence. These three people do not even play the simulation and are alien to this community and its spirit, having been 'imported' from other discussion boards, with their credibility well worn and resulting in the use of multiple accounts, and apparently interested in nothing else but to push an old agenda and/or vent off their frustration at the developer (see lane's posts in the update threads) or posters. As noted, the whole story ever increasingly reminds old participants of the 150 grade-fiasco of lane and co. The agenda of 'all the RAF fighter Command was using 150 grade' was pressed with the same fortitude, documents were manipulated and doctored for support the same, until documentary evidence become clear and it turned out that 'all +25 lbs Mark IXs using 150 grade' were in fact but two Sqns on operational trials, the '+25 lbs Mk XIVs' lane was pushing for never existed due to technical troubles, those '+25 RAF Mustang IIIs of the RAF in 1944' were again just two Sqns who have seen the enemy about twice, once over France and once over the North Sea, were and proposed use of 150 grade in the 2nd TAF's IX units was recalled after a month of operation in 1945 - a fact that lane still omits from his website articles. ;) The 100 octane story/agenda is the same, with the same old origins, methods and smokescreen - though I am sure its can be presented as better case than what turned out to be the truth about 150 grade (giggles). Its curious though that the reaction was the same when it become clear that the 150 grade agenda was lost - back then lane and co. was casting doubts about the use of MW 50 by the German side. Now they cast 'doubts' about the use of German 100 octane 'C-3' in 1940, even going as far as claiming that all the 100 octane fuel the Germans were using was in fact from captured British stocks! :D |
Quote:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...00octane_2.jpg In fact Merlins still failed type tests at much lower ratings in around November 1939: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg and continued to have an increased failure rate even in August 1940: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf Bottomline, NZTyphoon seems to like to boast about the development of Merlin outputs on single engines and on limited runs on tests stands, ie. 'more or less standard' :D Merlins. In connection to the 1536 HP achieved on the Merlin in August 1937 with a curious mix of gasoline, benzol and methanol, perhaps equivalent DB developments should be noted to cool of any undue excitement. [b]11 November 1937. Messerschmitt Bf 109 V13 sets world record with DB 601 Re/III - 1660 PS 8. Juni 1938 8 Juni 1938. Junkers Ju 89 V 2 sets altitude record with 4 × DB 601 Re/IV - 2060 PS each 30 March 1939. Heinkel He 100 V8 sets world speed record with DB 601 Re/V - 2770 PS. The above also explains why the 'Speed Spitfire' was never attempted. There was no 2700-HP Merlin... |
The much modified SpeedFire did run operational reconnaissance missions on a couple of occasion. She was used for high speed low deck run on the French coast fitted with cameras (620/50 kph if I do remind well)
The consumption of her engine prevent her to be flown much deeper. The pilot (a test pilot if I do remind correctly) had to care about the level of water left in the specific rads (vapor blown away) with great attention (well planned missions). Despite some concerns at the beginning he did not have any serious problem during his attempts. Le Fana de l'aviation published the story in France some years ago. It might hve been a translated article extracted from US/UK sources. Regarding the HP of the Merlin as of NZT sources it : He is confusing SHP and BHP. It was a standard use in RR to give the power of an engine without the charger fitted as the methods used to calculate the true corresponding power at alt from a bench test ran on the ground were not reliable (source RR - already mentioned by myself somewhere in the thread). |
1 Attachment(s)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg
The Merlin tested in the Hurricane ran for 8 1/2 hours on 100 Octane fuel at 12 pounds boost, but the test was terminated after 49.5 hours by a glycol leak into one cylinder. The document goes on to note that this problem was rectified by modifying the cylinder head joints, a modification which was retrofitted to earlier Merlins and would have been incorporated into later Merlins. ( paras 4 & 6) "It will be noted from the Service reports that an approximate increase in speed, due to the use of emergency 12 lbs. boost, of 28/34 m.p.h. is obtained depending on the altitude flown up to 10,000 feet." (para 8.) This most likely applys to both the Hurricane and Spitfire. Gleed, below, 19 May 1940, notes an increase of 30 mph for his Hurricane. "The modifications to the boost control cut out to limit the maximum boost to 12 lbs. sq. in are simple and in hand (otherwise full throttle would give about 17 lbs. sq. in.)" para 9. |
I thought Kurfurst had "only a passing interest" in the RAF?
|
Quote:
As Barbi and Eugene are so positive that 87 octane fuel was still in widespread use by RAF FC, they should have no trouble listing the squadrons, and the bases they flew from, that were still using 87 octane fuel late in the BoB. As for Barbi's comment of fuel consumption, he is no doubt referring to the useless garbage graph (no source for the data points ever given) he posted earlier in this thread. Useless garbage because the consumption of 87 octane fuel includes that other RAF Commands (Coastal, Bomber, Training et al). Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am most sure than this number is far from insignificant. I ll be not surprise if a large number of German fighter simply did not come home because fuel and not because they were shot down. The spitfire were not so succesfull against the 109s in other theaters. At mediterranean and Afrika the allied resources are bigger. And the RAF suffered heavy loses in Afrika and Malta. The failure of the Luftwaffe in this scenarios was mainly because they were outnumbered and low of fuel. And they performed very well. And the spitfire was there. |
Quote:
Quote:
(July-October 1940) Data from “The Narrow Margin”, cleaned up by Robert Herrick http://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/See..._LW_Losses.htm |
What is considered inside "operational" and "non-operational" loses?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Browse back the thread. I hve alrdy discussed this point and listed the source (RR history book).
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, where is your evidence that R-R routinely tested engines without superchargers? |
The Meteor Tank engine was basically a Merlin without a supercharger. It worked well and was used for many years post war on the Centurion and shows how robust the basic Merlin was.
However that clearly came after the aero engine merlin. |
post #205 give you a tip ;)
Vip2000 also did use teh same book (in fact bought it after reading his post) Impressive work btw but now I guess that you are some kind of antic cyclopes to get a so selective sense of reading. :rolleyes @Glider : I am not talking abt a production engine. For what I understand those were for test and performances check only. end of post #593 |
Quote:
I looked for what I could find and supplied it, all we ask is that you do the same or is that not fair?. |
Quote:
There is a difference here. I am not trying to put the blame on the lack of fuel. Quote:
Taking todays date in 1942. Combat 1 3 x Ju88 approached with fighter escort, 4 x Spits and 7 x Hurricane intercepted. No details of the numbers in the escort but 12 x Me109 mentioned in one combat report Combat 2 3 x Ju88 and 7 x Me109 intercepted by 4 Spits Combat 3 3 x Ju88 with 6 x Me109 and a cover of 19 x Me109, 6 x Spit and 8 x Hurricane intercepted |
Fair enough I missed #205; here's #205
Quote:
otherwise there is No evidence provided that R-R routinely tested its engines without superchargers, No documentation, No mention of a History of Rolls-Royce. |
Quote:
If you believe that this was achieved by only 16 squadrons using it at any one time then you need to prove it. If you beleive that a pre war plan stayed in force for 12 months without any change then ask yourself this question. Can you find any pre war plan, on any topic, in relation to any combat arm, of any nation that continued without alteration once the fighting started. Find one, this isn't it because we know that Blenhiem units were equipped with 100 octane in France alone and that was more than 2 squadrons. Quote:
Its also worth remembering that if there had been a shortage the UK had the ability to produce its own and decided not to because of cost and that it wasn't needed. I repeat that all the facts that I have posted on this have come from the official records in the National Archives. If that isn't good enough for you then tell me what is. All I am asking is for you or someone else to supply any evidence to support your theory, just one on any point, not every point, just one of your choosing. |
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg
But Kf has supplied evidence that RAF plans changed; note the comment on reserves of 100 octane fuel being adequate. |
I know that and thats the beauty of the situation. To prove his case he will have to disprove the one piece of evidence that he supplied
|
Quote:
As I said, this small book written in 1941 explain why RR had to create new methods to predict the perf of a S/C Engine at alt due to the divergences of predicted perf and the real ones achieved during flight test. The authors were the very same guys conducting the work at the time. It is also explained how the US was slightly in advance in that way. But also why RR conducted that work as improvement were still on demands. The base engine to conduct this work was the NEW MerlinXX flight tested in a Hurricane II. There is a lot of interesting curves that I hve re-used in my post (but no scan). Most notably no perf test was seen using the 12lb boost when top performance was the very base of that work ;) The book itself is cheap (10 to 20$ ?) and can be ordered simply via amazon if I do remind well. I had to wait 1 or 2 month to get a new print out of the roll. You may read (or ask ?) Viper2000 posts with whom I heard first abt that book. ~S |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.