Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
Frankly this was discussed a zillion times, but despite years of research, there's still no positive evidence that 'all operational fighters' were running on 100 octane. It simply appears to be wishful thinking from a few fanatic fans of the aircraft. WWII aircraft performance.com does list a large number of papers, unfortunately none of them state that all fighters are to or currently using 100 octane fuel. There's no doubt that a signficant number of Spitfires and Hurricanes were running on this fuel, this has been known since the 1960s, so nothing new here, but as to how many, or what percentage, nobody so far can tell for a fact.
The issue is further clouded by the fact that fighter stations (around 50 or so were used during the Battle), and not fighter units were supplied physically with fuel drums.. and the fighter units tended to change their bases every now and then, to be replaced by an another unit. If say, Squadron A, flying from Station X (which had 100 octane present), transferred to Station Z (which did not have 100 octane present but regular 87 octane) and its place was taken by Squadron B in mid-August which until then was flying from Station Z, then you would have Combat Reports from both Squadron A and B using 100 octane, but the reality was that one of them used it in the first half of the month, and the other during the second half of the month..
The closest evidence is a 18th May meeting record, which is still far off from that, as it states farily clearly that the changeover effected select units.
The paper - Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee, 7th meeting memo - says (direct quote):
"... satisfaction was expressed at the fact that the Units concerned had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel"
There's a reason why the articles you refer to tend to be dismissed - there seem to be always a case of subtle manipulation of the original papers. Take example the reference to this same meeting mentioned above at the wwiiaircraftperformance.org site, which interprets it as the following:
The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel".
Note how this reference to "the Units concerned" suddenly becomes "Spitfire and Hurricane units" in the text of the article; the original suggest that an unknown number (perhaps few, perhaps many), but definietely not all (otherwise why the distinction, if ALL units would be concerned?)
Unfortunately, the wwiiaircraftperformance.org article suddenly goes silent after what has happened after 18 May 1940. That's is unfortunate, because I saw the authors of said article discussing the same subject with an Australian researcher, who has informed them of the following at butch2k's board:
|
This has all been dealt with on another board in great detail with published authors weighing in with their facts, and you Kurfurst were banned on those boards for putting forward false information and refusing to back up your claims with actual documents and data.
You have no credibility in any kind of educated community, your opinions on this issue have been discredited completely.
All the original documents and accounts clearly point to the fact the RAF Fighter force during the Battle of Britain were converted to use of 100 octane fuel in all Fighter Stations in Groups 10, 11 and 12.
Your attempts to claim 100 Octane was not available was competely proven false in the two threads on the WWII aircraft forums.
The main poster in the threads who deals with every point at the beginning of the two threads, 'Glider' is the nickname of Gavin Bailey, a published author, who has written in detail on the subject, an article of his was published in the THE ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW, a well respected journal which only accepts papers and articles from those with impeccable credentials. Article is here:
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...1/394.abstract
Mike Williams, who manages the WWII Aircraft site, was also a participant in the thread.
Here are the links to the two threads, if members of this board take the time to read through them the conclusion is obvious.
#1
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...bob-16305.html
#2
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html
Why you Kurfurst, continue to put forward your clearly false claims is a mystery to those who have studied this issue in depth.