Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Seadog

and here's the RAE data for a Spitfire I with various boost levels:


A RAF memo from 1939 confirms all the above:

I've always wondered who had really drawn that graph.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

Kurfurst will hate it but the stock figures are from Gavin Bailey's paper..

Actually I like Gavin Bailey's paper.

It says 100 octane was introduced to 'select' Squadrons in May 1940, and I cannot find any statement or reference in it or anything that would support the every-last-Hurricane-even-in-Northern-Scotland-was-running 100 octane theory.

Though as others has noted the paper is more concentrating on dispelling the 'myth' of dependency of US 100 octane fuel supplies, argues to downplay the significance of extra performance of 'US 100 octane' versus the extra performance by the addition of 'pure British' CSP units, and has overall quite a bit of anti-american tone, perhaps due to nationalistic grievance about the UK becoming a sort of a US satellite state after the war.

Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.

[Glider]

Crumpp
I think I can truly say that I have never seen such rubbish posted from someone who pretends and likes to believe that they know about aircraft.

The first document supports the contention that operational units had 100 octrane and non operational units had 87 octane. Something that has been said from the start.

The Alterations and Precautions Paper
This has three main sections:-
a) Modified Boost Control
The modifications as outlined in the paper are very straightforward and can easily be undertaken. Basically you drill two holes and reassemble the cut out valve, to pretend this is a major task shows a massive disrespect to the ground crew and support teams.
b) Modified Cylinder Top Joint
This change is already incorporated in new engines and is already being addressed in normal mainantence, so nothing to be done there
c) You need 100 Octane fuel

Which is what we have been saying from the start.

Your Pilots Notes dated June 1940
I do not believe for a moment that these are from June 1940. Reason is simple, it doesn't mention any fuel type. In June 1940 we know for certain from combat reports and station/squadrons records that 100 Octane was in use in a number of squadrons. If the type of fuel isn't mentioned then it can only be because only one type of fuel exists and that puts the pilots notes in 1938/9. Crumpp has been asked many times to supply other parts of the Pilots Notes to help us tie this issue down. His refusal to do so I believe speaks volumes.

Consumption Chart
The figures up to May are combined 87/100 octane figures which is why they are in the centre, a junior school student could work that one out.

These figures are for the RAF not Fighter command and I draw your attention to the figure for August 1940 36,000 tons of fuel were used by the RAF. In September 37,000 tons almost the same but the proportion of 100 Octane had gone up, In October 35,000 tons again a figure in the same ball park and 100 octane proportion again went up.

The question is, What changed between August and October? The reply is again very simple All operational Commands were Authorised to use 100 Octane in August. As the units in Bomber Command and Coastal Command switched over, so the proportion of 100 Octane increased.

Its also worth noting that in April 1941 when we all (I think) agree that 100 Octane was in use in Operational Commands the split between 87 Octane and 100 Octane was still 50/50. Training, Transport, BOAC, manufacturers and other non operational flights, use a lot of fuel.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

The question is, What changed between August and October? The reply is again very simple All operational Commands were Authorised to use 100 Octane in August. As the units in Bomber Command and Coastal Command switched over, so the proportion of 100 Octane increased.

Funny but the the August 1940 document you posted does not say this at all, that the authorization only effects Bomber Command and Coastal Command.

It says all operational aircraft. That includes Fighter Command, too. This whole 'other commands' is entirely your brainchild David, the paper simply does not use such term as 'other'.

I guess is rather plain and simple, in May 1940 select fighter units of Fighter Command which were 'concered' by the decision switched over to 100 octane, and in early August all operational aircraft of Fighter (etc.) Command(s) were authorized to follow their example.

I guess the newborn optimism was fueled (getit?) by the fact that compared to the rather low stocks of reserves in the spring of 1940, the avgas stocks significantly increased by the summer as a result of shipments from the Middle East.

The fuel issue papers show that the process did not actually start until late September, by which time the great day fighter battles were over.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Actually I like Gavin Bailey's paper.


Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.

Re the Above I think its worth noting Gavins responce and I leave the reader to decide. For those who wish to check up I am confident that Gavin will respond to anyone contacting him at the University where he works using the details on his paper.

Dear 'Kurfurst'. In response to your claims that I am impersonating myself, I would like to point out that my contact details (including an email and postal address) have been publicly-available since the publication of the relevant article, e.g. on the EHR website, here -

The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain -- Bailey CXXIII (501): 394 -- The English Historical Review

I note that, to this point, I have received no communication from you or anybody claiming to be you in regard to confirming my identity, despite having received several emails and letters from others in regard to my EHR article.

I also note that you post under a pseudonym without revealing your full identity.

It is clear that you disagree with the content and conclusions of my research, but I am afraid if you want to refute them, you will be required to engage with the sources which have been cited. Until you do so, and based on the evidence you have posted so far in this thread, your disagreement has no merit.

You go on to state the following -

I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Actually I like Gavin Bailey's paper.

It says 100 octane was introduced to 'select' Squadrons in May 1940, and I cannot find any statement or reference in it or anything that would support the every-last-Hurricane-even-in-Northern-Scotland-was-running 100 octane theory.

Though as others has noted the paper is more concentrating on dispelling the 'myth' of dependency of US 100 octane fuel supplies, argues to downplay the significance of extra performance of 'US 100 octane' versus the extra performance by the addition of 'pure British' CSP units, and has overall quite a bit of anti-american tone, perhaps due to nationalistic grievance about the UK becoming a sort of a US satellite state after the war.

Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.

You can email Dr Bailey here and repeat these allegations to him: he still wants to discuss a little matter of you repeatedly misrepresenting his copyrighted paper, despite being asked not to several times. As for your sick, cowardly little comments about "anti American bias" - totally expected from a low-life like you.

Better still, because you have made such public allegations in this forum, how about a Forum administrator email Dr Bailey just to confirm that your allegations are true, and clear this up for all time?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Funny but the the August 1940 document you posted does not say this at all, that the authorization only effects Bomber Command and Coastal Command.

It says all operational aircraft. That includes Fighter Command, too. This whole 'other commands' is entirely your brainchild David, the paper simply does not use such term as 'other'.

I guess is rather plain and simple, in May 1940 select fighter units of Fighter Command which were 'concered' by the decision switched over to 100 octane, and in early August all operational aircraft of Fighter (etc.) Command(s) were authorized to follow their example.

I guess the newborn optimism was fueled (getit?) by the fact that compared to the rather low stocks of reserves in the spring of 1940, the avgas stocks significantly increased by the summer as a result of shipments from the Middle East.

The fuel issue papers show that the process did not actually start until late September, by which time the great day fighter battles were over.

As so often your reply leaves more questions. If as is believed by Crumpp that 16 squadrons used 10,000 tons of 100 octane, then when 60 squadrons used 100 Octane the figure should be what, 30-40,000 tons of 100 Octane, PLUS Bomber and Coastal Command. But the figure never went to anything like that figure. So explain that and support it and you have a case.

PS I never said Bomber and COastal Command I used the correct quote.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point. [/I]

Since I have already responded to that on the other board (in a new thread - the moderators were forced to close the first one because of this 'gbailey' login's hysterics), I can copy-paste that here too.

But the short story: whoever the guy was posting under the gbailey handle had absolutely no idea of German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain, simply lied about the documents, or was wishful.

I have tracked down the document the guy was referencing (he refused to post it or anything) and found the following:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst reply to whoever was posting under the login handle 'gbailey'

This opinion was posted already in the other discussion, but unfortunately it was not possible due to refute it because the premature closing of that thread due to the behaviour of the poster.

However, the notion and implication that the only 100 octane fuel used by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain originates to British stocks of 100 octane fuel, captured from British airfields in France after the premature leave by the British Army in June 1940 is a dangerous myth, which needs to be promptly refuted, before any credence is attributed to it. Even if I did not want to engage in continuing that discussion here, given that the title discusses the RAF use of such fuel in 1940, the above repetence of it warrants a proper refutation of the claim by poster 'gbailey'.

Some of the documents already posted from the Australian archieves already show that already in 1938 the British were concerned of German 100 octane fuel developments and the capacity to produce this fuel on an industrial scale. Please refer back to these before proceeding further.

Please also refer to the German datasheet of the DB 601N. This type of engine was developed for German 100 octane 'C-3' fuel use, and went into mass production in late 1939 (October 1939 via Manfred Griehl to be exact)



It extremely puzzling, to say the least, why would the Germans decide to mass produce an engine, specifically made for 100 octane fuel use, without having any own stock of 100 octane fuel. And then equip whole wings of fighters, bombers, and zestoerers with the said engine.

As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance.

It should be noted, however, that during the war, there were different octane ratings used for aviation gasoline. Allied states generally preferred to give octane rating at its rich mixture, while the Germans preferred the CFR method, which gave the octane rating at weak mixture.

The bottomline of the story, the green 'C-3' type fuel that the Germans were calling 96 octane fuel by the CFR method, was the equaivalent of 96/110 octane fuel as the Allies would call it. In other words, actually a bit better at rich mixture and for knock resistance than ordinary 100 octane fuel.

Also it is evident from these documents that the British were aware of the existance and use of German 100 octane - for simplicity's sake lets ignore for a moment it superior qualities and call it the same since the summer of 1940.

Examples of such fuel were found and analysed in crashed Ju 88 and Me 110 aircraft. The use in the former type is especially interesting as the types capable of taking advantage of higher octane fuel were DB 601N-powered Bf 109Es and Bf 110Cs. These latter were already in service by July 1940. By the automn, 1200 DB 601N engines were delivered, divided amongst Bf 110, Bf 109 units, Bf 109F production and reserve engines. Priority was given to Bf 110 units until the automn for these engines. The use of 100 octane C-3 thus may appear to be superflous in German bomber aircraft, nevertheless is was an existing practice.

The British report do not seem to mention 100 octane fuel found in Bf 109s, but this may be due to the limited scope of the report. See the image of Bf 109E-4/N, W.Nr. 1190, 'White 4', is being unloaded by Curtiss workers. The Emil belonged to 4. Staffel Staffel of JG 4, and was flown by Uffz. Horst Perez on, when it was shot down on the 30th September 1940 over East Dean during the Battle of Britain. Note the fuel triangle with the '100' label, pointo to 100 octane fuel and the DB 601N.



As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - www.kurfurst.org

Needless to say, 'gbailey' did not respond to this and disappeared from the board forever.

I found it interesting that a 'gbailey' login appeared very shortly on that board after NZTyphoon registered to that board.

Even more curiously, one of the most important things in NZTyphoon's life is deleting content from wikipedia that refers to 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. It's an interesting parallel to note that the 'gbailey' handle also denied 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe.

I guess everybody can put two and two together.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Since I have already responded to that on the other board (in a new thread - the moderators were forced to close the first one because of this 'gbailey' login's hysterics), I can copy-paste that here too.

But the short story: whoever the guy was posting under the gbailey handle had absolutely no idea of what he was talking about or simply lied about the documents.

I have tracked down the document the guy was referencing (he refused to post it or anything) and found the following:



Needless to say, 'gbailey' did not respond to this and disappeared from the board forever.

I found it interesting that a 'gbailey' login appeared very shortly on that board after NZTyphoon registered to that board.

Even more curiously, one of the most important things in NZTyphoon's life is deleting content from wikipedia that refers to 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. It's an interesting parallel to note that the 'gbailey' handle also denied 100 octane usage by the Luftwaffe.

I guess everybody can put two and two together.

You really have to become a comedian Barbi - which thread are you referring to? WW2 Aircraft forum ,from which you have been banned? - if so post the link to this new thread, and to your specific posting, so we can all see.

As for Wikipedia? I didn't take anything out, just tidied up the mess you left behind

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

You can email Dr Bailey here and repeat these allegations to him: he still wants to discuss a little matter of you repeatedly misrepresenting his copyrighted paper, despite being asked not to several times.

Well if Dr. Bailey wants to discuss the contents with Dr. Kurfurst he is welcome to do so at kurfurst.org@gmail.com.

As for your sick, cowardly little comments about "anti American bias" - totally expected from a low-life like you.

Well that's MA., Dr. iur 'low-life' for you. What are your scientific creditentials, long-time student in a not-so-well known NZ educational establishment, Mr. NZTyphoon?