[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The first plant to be able to produce 100 Octane fuel cheaply and quantity did not come into operation until right before the war started. There was a shortage of 100/130 grade through most of the war that is discussed in Allied Oil Committee meetings. Specifically it is mentioned in a 1944 meeting on adopting a higher octane grade as a limitation to the production of the more powerful fuel. The refineries cannot meet the current requirements and have never been able to meet them with the exception of a few short months in 1943. Therefore they do not want to devote any refinery capability to production other than the amount required for testing purposes.

There was no shortage of 100 Octane in the UK until May 1944. Find any quote to support your theory that there was a shortage of 100 Octane in the UK during the BOB.

That shortage of 100 Octane is why domestically, the United States used 91 Grade CONUS and the RAF used 87 grade for non-operational purposes for most of the war. 100 grade was in short supply and reserved for operations.

US engines were not designed for 100 octane in 1940 also the main reason for the RAF using 87 octane for non operational purposes was cost. That is a recurrent theme in a number of the papers. Bomber Command wanted all thier stations to have 100 octane 100% but they were turned down on cost. You did reead the papers didn't you?

Glider, the document you post from December 1938 very clearly states that all stations will recieve an adequet supply of 100 Octane before the first aircraft is converted. If stations were not getting fuel then that is proof the operational adoption did not occur until all stations had it. Think about it, it just makes sense. You cannot easily switch fuels back and forth. If you add a lower knock limited performance fuel to the tanks, you must use lower operating limits or you will experience detonation which can end a flight very quickly.

This is the kind of thing that undermines the credibility of the posters in this thread.

All one needs to do is look the immaturity exhibited in this thread. Do you really think the evidence has been sifted through with a mature outlook and placed in context? I certainly don't think so at all. More effort has been devoted to finding cartoons and taking opinion polls than looking objectively at the evidence.

Actually on the whole I do think the case for the use has been presented well, with a wealth of original documentation. Just look at what you have just posted. No evidence just a lot of assumptions. Everything I have posted is supported by documents, if you belive that certain = 16 squadrons then support it, its as simple as that.
I agree with that 1938 paper but why do you ignore the dec 1939 paper that said that fuel reserves were sufficient and that the roll out could commence? I believe that its this blatent dismissal of original documents that undermines any debate.

If you are going to use logistical documents, then you better have a good understanding of the logistical system and how the accounting process works. One should understand things like "Estabilishment vs Strength", how a fuel becomes specified, how does the testing process work, and what are the constraints.

I have a very good understanding as to logistics, I also know the meaning of current or actual establishment and authorised establishment they differ.

Show me any document that says 1940 is for testing, another example of a theory and nothing to support it.