How foolish of me. I know that the Rolls Royce Eagle in WW1 was producing 300 hp, do you think that he is mixing up Eagle and Merlin?

The British were manufacturing the iso-octane needed to produce 100 Octane fuel at Heysham, Billingham and Stanlow in Britain, while there were other sources of 100 Octane fuel from the Dutch East Indies, Trinidad etc, mostly from the British Shell Company and Anglo-American Oil Co, so it's not correct to say that all 100 Octane fuel came from the United States. (see attachments)

For Crumpp's benefit: the Trimpell article states that by 31 July 1940 there were 384 Spitfires in 19 Squadrons using the fuel, as well as PR Spitfires -

* On 13 July the OOB's show 19 Spitfire squadrons; in addition there are 31 Hurricane squadrons and 2 Defiant.

Crumpp can sneer all he likes, but this alone scuppers his blind addiction to 16 fighter squadrons.

NZt, there is that river in Egypt called the da nile.;)

I think some forgot about these:

Pilot's Notes. Spitfire I Aircraft. AP 1565.

Merlin III Engine limitation:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1pn2-a.jpg

Thanks for the info, NZtyphoon!

The author probably meant the largest supplier. The book is well written, but not detailed. I think the author wanted to emphasize the drama of the fuel transported by sea in wartime ;)

Interesting! That would mean a mission built historically at least 4/5 of the available fighters should have the option of 100 octane! And almost all squads spits...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tain_squadrons

Very good research, NZtyphoon!

Not my research - thank Glider and lane in particular, who have spent hours delving into archives - note that it can cost about £3.50 to copy each of the files (?), so it adds up - and who have presented these, and many other papers, time and again in this thread, only to have them sneered at, dismissed as being "scraps of paper used out of context", or a "misuse of information" or "propaganda" by the likes of Barbi and Crumpp, who have not presented a shred of real evidence showing that the majority of frontline RAF fighters were still using 87 Octane fuel during the battle.

As for misusing and misrepresenting material? Not so long ago Crumpp, in post #921 for example, quoting A.P.1590B of March 1940 (attachment), tried to make out that the modifications needed on Merlin IIs and IIIs to use 100 Octane fuel were so extensive that very few of them could be modified in time for the battle...

What he conveniently left out is that the necessary modifications had already been introduced on the production lines, and the document was discussing modifying older engines to the required standards.

Starting way back in post #376 Crumpp, quoting from a pre-war paper said:Crumpp has been asked time and again to present documentary evidence that only 16 squadrons of RAF fighters used 100 Octane fuel, and that the RAF went ahead with its pre-war plans, regardless of the fact that a full scale air assault was underway, but of course he has not come up with anything.

He has not explained how the RAF managed to issue 61,000 tons or 19,245,500 imperial gallons of 100 Octane fuel July - October 1940, consumed 52,000 tons (16,406,000 gal), while needing only 15,184 tons (4,790,552 gal) to fly all defensive sorties, day and night, flown between 10 July - 6 October 1940 post #784. And all the while the reserves of 100 Octane fuel continued to increase.

He has not explained how only 16 squadrons of single-engined fighters managed to consume all that fuel. Instead we get blather about "strategic reserves".

Nor has Crumpp explained, and it has not yet registered with him, that heavy bombers, flying boats etc were all still using 87 Octane fuel, which might explain why it was "predominate".

Crumpp has had all of this explained very carefully, time and time again, but has continued to insist, and will continue to insist that he alone is right. If nothing else it's entertaining. :grin:

My congratulations then also for Glider and Lane ;)

As a university researcher I know and recognize good research ;)

I think this whole collection of documents should be taken seriously by Luthier!

If I read things rightly this is where we came in...about 94 pages ago! :grin::grin::grin: Really, this thread has run its course - if Crumpp wants to continue with his evidence avoidance, fact evasion, all round inability to respond to direct questions and general time wasting he can do so alone. I have far more important things to do with my life.

28_Condor; lane, aka Mike Williams has an excellent site here Well worth the time to go through.

Thanks again, Typhoon

I do not advocate the balance of planeset, because to me it makes no sense ...

But as they say in my language, "we need to put all cards on the table" (hope that makes sense in English :grin: )

If 100-octane fuel was used it had to be represented in the CLOD, no doubt :!: