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

[Crumpp]

NZTyphoon says:
If you believe that the RAF only used 16 squadrons of fighters with 100 Octane until Sept 1940, then you need to explain why we have over 30 squadrons mentioning it in combat reports.

You are invested in your point of view. There is no real reason to discuss anything.

FYI, a very good explanation was offered shortly after my last post.

41Sqn_Banks says:
I absolutely agree with you that the case is in no way clear. However IIRC there is proof by combat reports and official squadron diaries (ORBs) that more than 16 squadrons used 100 octane before September 1940. Of course this doesn't mean that all squadrons used it. And this could also be caused by rotating the squadrons between the different groups.
__________________

Re-arming filmed around June 1940.

The RAF certainly did not suddenly convert 16 squadrons in September without first conducting an operational trial of at least one or possibly several squadrons to ensure the fuel was viable in service. If an unforeseen issue suddenly reared its head, that would mean 1/3 of the FC would be out of the action.

Look up the O2 system on the F22 raptor........ALL of the USAF F22 were grounded.
It does happen and there is a reason the process to adopt new technology on aircraft is so laborious. The United States is just lucky it did not occur in the middle of a major conflict between first world nations.

What if the RAF adopted 100 grade en-mass and it caused the aircraft to be grounded, unavailable to defend the country in time of war???

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You are invested in your point of view. There is no real reason to discuss anything.

The RAF certainly did not suddenly convert 16 squadrons in September without first conducting an operational trial of at least one or possibly several squadrons to ensure the fuel was viable in service. If an unforeseen issue suddenly reared its head, that would mean 1/3 of the FC would be out of the action.

Look up the O2 system on the F22 raptor........ALL of the USAF F22 were grounded.
It does happen and there is a reason the process to adopt new technology on aircraft is so laborious. The United States is just lucky it did not occur in the middle of a major conflict between first world nations.

What if the RAF adopted 100 grade en-mass and it caused the aircraft to be grounded, unavailable to defend the country in time of war???

100 Octane fuel was being used by the fighter squadrons of the BEF during the Battle of France, as well as home based fighter squadrons and several Blenheim bomber units, more than enough to prove the use of the fuel operationally; as for the rest of your posting:

I don't remember anyone saying 16 Squadrons were "suddenly converted" to 100 octane fuel in September 1940 - just another example of pure speculation on your part.

You still have not provided any documentary, or secondary evidence for the rest of your wishful thinking.

The rest is nothing but pure hypothesis; what happens to F-22s in 21st Century peacetime conditions has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened in Britain in 1940.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

100 Octane fuel was being used by the fighter squadrons of the BEF during the Battle of France, as well as home based fighter squadrons and several Blenheim bomber units, more than enough to prove the use of the fuel operationally; as for the rest of your posting:

I don't remember anyone saying 16 Squadrons were "suddenly converted" to 100 octane fuel in September 1940 - just another example of pure speculation on your part.

No it is a lack of reading comprehension.

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

You still have not provided any documentary, or secondary evidence for the rest of your wishful thinking.

Never will.

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

The rest is nothing but pure hypothesis; what happens to F-22s in 21st Century peacetime conditions has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened in Britain in 1940.

More like useless gum flapping.

[lane]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

100 Octane fuel was being used by the fighter squadrons of the BEF during the Battle of France, as well as home based fighter squadrons and several Blenheim bomber units, more than enough to prove the use of the fuel operationally;...

Yes, that's right, however, its interesting to note that stations were supplied with 100 octane fuel and squadrons were consuming 100 octane back in 1937 and 1938. The following document lists six stations and three squadrons that received 100 octane fuel during 1937 - 1938. 90 Squadron flying Blenheims, 98 Squadron flying Hawker Hinds, and 201 squadron flying Saro Londons were using 100 octane fuel during trials in 1937 and 1938. Also worthy of note is the listing of Hucknall, which is where Rolls-Royce had their Experimental Flight Test Establishment.



We also know that the following units were supplied with 100 octane during 1938.

Duxford: No. 19 in Spitfire I, No. 66 in Gloster Gauntlet II
Debden: No. 85 & No. 87 in Hawker Hurricane
Northholt: No. 111 in Hawker Hurricane
Digby: No. 46 in Gaunlet II & No. 73 in Hurricane




It bears repeating that the use of 100 octane fuel for Hurricanes and Spitfires was approved by 24 September 1938.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You are invested in your point of view. There is no real reason to discuss anything.

In other wards you have nothing to back up your words. Typical.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The RAF certainly did not suddenly convert 16 squadrons in September without first conducting an operational trial of at least one or possibly several squadrons to ensure the fuel was viable in service. If an unforeseen issue suddenly reared its head, that would mean 1/3 of the FC would be out of the action.

What if the RAF adopted 100 grade en-mass and it caused the aircraft to be grounded, unavailable to defend the country in time of war???

They had, at the minimum, converted over 20 squadrons before July:

No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 92 (East India) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940 H
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron pre BoB S

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 3 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 17 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 19 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 54 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 73 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940 H
No. 41 Squadron June 1940 S
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940 S
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron June 1940 S

One third of FC would not be out of action as 87 fuel could still be used.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

FYI, a very good explanation was offered shortly after my last post.

41Sqn_Banks says:
I absolutely agree with you that the case is in no way clear. However IIRC there is proof by combat reports and official squadron diaries (ORBs) that more than 16 squadrons used 100 octane before September 1940. Of course this doesn't mean that all squadrons used it. And this could also be caused by rotating the squadrons between the different groups.

Clearly you do believe that this is a good explanation, so what exactly is your evidence? Without it this is just a fantasy.

My previous questions are still waiting a reply.

1) If you believe that the RAF only used 16 squadrons of fighters with 100 Octane until Sept 1940, then you need to explain why we have over 30 squadrons mentioning it in combat reports.
2) If you believe that this was achieved by only 16 squadrons using it at any one time then you need to prove it.
3) If you beleive that a pre war plan stayed in force for 12 months without any change then ask yourself this question. Can you find any pre war plan, on any topic, in relation to any combat arm, of any nation that continued without alteration once the fighting started. Find one, this isn't it because we know that Blenhiem units were equipped with 100 octane in France and that alone was more than 2 squadrons.
4) There was no shortage of fuel at any time in the BOB. If you think there was a shortage, prove it. The only shortage I found was in May 1944 before the invasion.
5) All the facts that I have posted on this have come from the official records in the National Archives. If that isn't good enough for you then tell me what is?

[41Sqn_Banks]

To check the "only-16-squadrons-at-one-time-by-rotating" theory I did count the squadrons that were at one time in No. 11 Group.

July 10th 1940
Hurricane 13
Spitfire 5
Blenheim 3
Defiant 1
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-22.html

August 8th 1940
Hurricane 14.5 (No. 85 Squadron is listed twice as the two Flights were at different stations, No. 1 RCAF is operational on August 17th when No. 41 Squadron was already transferred back to No. 13 Group)
Spitfire 5.5 (No. 41 Squadron returned to No. 13 Group on August 9th)
Blenheim 2
Defiant 0
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-28.html

September 7th 1940
Hurricane 14
Spitfire 7
Blenheim 2
Defiant 0
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-44.html


If we assume that 16 squadrons operated on 100 octane at one time, by summing up the Spitfire, Hurricane and Defiant* squadrons in No. 11 Group we get:
July 10th: 19 Squadrons (84% on 100 octane)
August 8th: 20 Squadrons (80% on 100 octane)
September 7th: 21 Squadrons (76% on 100 octane)

*Blenheim only used 100 octane fuel for better take-off performance when heavy loaded, which was not required in Fighter Command as they didn't carry bombs.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

5) All the facts that I have posted on this have come from the official records in the National Archives. If that isn't good enough for you then tell me what is?

And all the facts from the National Archives say

- that the RAF decided in March 1939 to equip 16 fighter + 2 bomber Squadrons with 100 octane

- that in May 1940 they acknowledged that the fuel was delivered to select fighter and bomber squadrons

- that in August 1940 they decided that other Commands may use 100 fuel as well (which does not mean they did, they were authorized to do so)

- 100 octane vs 87 octane issues figures for 1940 all show that 87 octane was the primary fuel issued during the Battle, and 100 octane issues did not increase or took prominence until the day battle was pretty much over

Everything else is merely your speculation and wishful thinking about 'all' and 'every' unit using 100 octane, supported by no evidence as many has already told you. You can only offer mere rhetoric and nothing more.

Nobody else need to offer counter-evidence to your speculation, as you were not able to offer evidence to start with. The burden is proof is on you. You can't - I see you'd like to - escape from that fact I am afraid.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Nobody else need to offer counter-evidence to your speculation, as you were not able to offer evidence to start with. The burden is proof is on you. You can't - I see you'd like to - escape from that fact I am afraid.

In other words what ever pitiful evidence Barbi thought he had, and has spent hours arguing over, even though he confessed to having only a very passing interest in the RAF

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

....Because I have only a very passing interest the RAF... Some times questions like this just solve themselves in time.

has been totally busted.

No Pips memo, which he has never seen in the first place;

Morgan and Shacklady busted; (pity I still like the book but some of their research lacks depth)

and his mere conjecture and wishful thinking over the words "certain" or "selected", written in memos that are 70 years old.

Not forgetting that Kf very recently did provide a document stating that the RAF actually considered it had adequate reserves of 100 octane fuel in November 1939.


All he can do is squeak "the burden of proof is on you" - and nobody but Kf has set that 'rule'. If that was really true everything Kf has posted, all of his bluster, all of his attempts to justify his position, has been, in the words of the bard "a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (MacBeth)

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

If you are engaged in a battle for survival, do you not think you would utilize every possible advantage you have whether or not there are "adequate" reserves on hand or not?