And nobody else does either.....including you.

As for counting "stations" that are supplied with fuel I would remind everyone in this discussion that aircraft can cover considerable distances in short periods of time.

If you want to test a fuel, you need the logistical base to conduct the test. That means stations must have the fuel on hand in the areas your test aircraft are to fly. Otherwise, your maintenance personnel will be draining a lot of fuel tanks for every off station landing.

Aircraft fuel tanks have what is called "usable fuel". There is always some left in the tanks that the lines cannot reach in level flight. The Spitfire POH refers to this as the "effective capacity". That left over fuel can be a significant amount in a WWII fighter. The amount is specific to the individual aircraft and will be found with that airframes weight and balance sheet. The average is about 5 gallons a tank for a WWII fighter.

Next point is "consumed" does not mean it was put in an airplane and used up. Aircraft fuel has a specific shelf life to it. Once mixed it is distributed and considered consumed. For example, 100LL stock is refined only ONCE per year in the United States. The stock is then distributed to the holding yards. When it is dispensed to the airports, the final mix of that stock occurs and it becomes 100LL fuel. Just because the airport buys 15,000 gallons does not mean it will be sold and go into airplanes by the time the shelf life is over. That is why airport managers keep data on fuel sales!

That does not mean they mixed up a huge batches of 100 grade to be "disposed of" either. In many cases fuel can be converted back to stock and then again to a lower grade. It is still 100 grade that is consumed whether it comes back to the holding yard or not!

This is why the same reasoning that was used to "prove" the 100/150 grade extent of use was so flawed. First the strategic stocks must be maintained and once the fuel is mixed, it is "consumed". Nothing to do with it being blown out the exhaust pipe of an airplane.

And what does peacetime civil practice have to do with an air force fighting off a concerted air attack over a period of a few months? Absolutely nothing!
:rolleyes:

For one thing it was standard FC practice to top up the tanks of all of its fighters as soon as possible after every sortie, mainly to avoid condensation traps because of the fuel left in the tanks. Nor did every aircraft land with empty fuel tanks. There was no "shelf life" when it came to running intensive, frontline operations.

No - what this entire discussion comes down to is Barbi's belief that Fighter Command, which proved to be technically astute during the Battle of Britain, deliberately deprived up to half of its front -line pilots of a technical and tactical asset.

People can speculate all they like about "selected units" "certain units" etc because, in the end:

1) Was 100 octane fuel available to Fighter Command? Yes

2) Was there enough 100 octane fuel available to cover all sorties flown by Fighter Command during the battle? Yes

3) Was enough 100 Octane fuel distributed and used throughout the battle to allow Fighter Command to fly all 57,971 sorties from July to end of October? Yes, with more than enough left over to allow Blenheims of Bomber Command to operate.

Crump
I must admit I don't understand what your last posting was about.

As for counting "stations" that are supplied with fuel I would remind everyone in this discussion that aircraft can cover considerable distances in short periods of time
I don't see the connection between the distance a plane can travel and the stations issued with the fuel.

I also don't see the emphasis on testing of the fuel. Testing started in 1938 and was completed in 1939 when it was signed off for use as documented in Kurfursts paper. 1940 is about the use of the fuel in combat, not testing it.

If you wish I can show you the consumption figures, i.e. the fuel used and I can show you the issued figure, which is as you would expect is a little different. That might help clear the topic, just let me know.

Re your comment on the line I posted The problem here is that you do not know the details behind the paper and your reply And nobody else does either.....including you
You are absolutely correct, no one does know the details. No one knows which squadrons, which aircraft, which stations, how it was to be distributed and so on were for the pre war paper. The difference is that I do not pretend to know.
However I do know that this idea of 16 + 2 bomber units wsan't mentioned at all in the Oil Committee meetings who would have been instrumental in the distribution of the fuel to the 16 fighter squadrons whatever those squadrons might be, wherever they may be based.

You chaps have done your bit. The fact that a couple of sad knobheads still argue the toss even though there is overwhelming evidence is neither here nor there. I feel sorry for their own investigation and journey into history really, because with a viewpoint so precise it is not possible to speculate or deduce anything at all. Past their own lifetimes I dare say everything is debatable and by their own logic it is a large, mostly blank, canvas. I wonder if these guys believe anything at all about WW1, or the Roman Empire, or what happened at the Battle of Trafalgar, or anything where there is nothing to absolutely state in triplicate with recorded footage about that something happened in the past. Cpt. Mainwaring has the perfect response to them imo.....

I see Eugene is confused, still.

As for the testing Eugene thinks was being done at those 21 bases, 100 fuel had already been tested. Duxford, Debden, North Weald and Digby had received 8142gal a year earlier for 'testing'.

Agh but Barbi does just that, speculate, when it comes to 1.98ata boosted K-4s. Even going so far as to speculate that G-10s and K-4 units not covered by a never seen document also converted to 1.98ata boost. This despite that Eugene emphatically states that such would never be done by the Luftwaffe.

And it had been "tested" operationally during the Battle of France, both by aircraft of the BEF and home based FC squadrons.

You cannot look at fuel stocks "consumed". I explained that already. It has nothing to do with "peacetime". It has to do with the science of fuels and the shelf life of the mixed stock and how it is accounted for.

You guys keep chewing on the same information. Problem is none of the information is complete or changes what Morgan and Shacklady put out. In fact, it only supports what they wrote but we don't have all the documents that they obviously referenced.

16 squadrons sometime in September 1940 were converted to the fuel. That would require their operating bases as well as their satellite fields to be supplied. In other words, anyplace they might have to land would need a source of fuel.

Did they just suddenly poof into existence 16 squadrons converted? Maybe....maybe not. If they gradually phased in those 16 squadrons as resources became available, then looking at squadron logs is not going to tell you much.

FC maintained a high rate of rotation to keep its fighter pilots as rested as possible. So looking at squadron logs is not going to be much help again.

Agreed 100%

I highly recomend you do as so many others have learned to do.. Ignore those three.. They are clearly biased.. Everyone can see that they are biased.. So no need to prove it over and over again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v4pk...e_gdata_playerHmmm. Missing documents? Can't understand why....had my best man on it....