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

[Sturm_Williger]

Well, this thread is both quite interesting and yet also rather demented in its last 50 pages or so.

From all the arguments and counter-arguments posted, it seems clear that the following can be derived :
100 octane fuel was used by ( a substantial number of/a lot of/quite a few ) Fighter Squadrons.
87 octane may have been used by ( a few/some ) Squadrons as well.

Therefore the ideal solution would be for the Devs to model both and allow Mission-builders to determine airfield availability.

Isn't this what most (all ? ) of us would prefer to see ?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Sturm_Williger

Well, this thread is both quite interesting and yet also rather demented in its last 50 pages or so.

From all the arguments and counter-arguments posted, it seems clear that the following can be derived :
100 octane fuel was used by ( a substantial number of/a lot of/quite a few ) Fighter Squadrons.
87 octane may have been used by ( a few/some ) Squadrons as well.

Therefore the ideal solution would be for the Devs to model both and allow Mission-builders to determine airfield availability.

Isn't this what most (all ? ) of us would prefer to see ?

Demented? Considering that those with little or no evidence to prove their case -
ie: that the RAF only allowed 1/3rd to 1/2 of the frontline fighter squadrons (Hurricane, Spitfire, Defiant) to use 100 Octane fuel -
were hiding their lack of evidence behind a smokescreen of bluster, red-herrings and diversions "...a tale told by an Idiot, full of Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing."

while demanding 100% iron-clad proof, down to the last crossed t and dotted i, that the RAF allowed all front-line fighter units to use 100 Octane fuel throughout the B of B - things got a little...demented.

Apart from anything else the amount of 100 Octane fuel issued and consumed, versus the amount needed to accomplish all of the frontline daylight sorties carried out by Fighter Command from July through October 1940, should be enough on its own to show that the probability that all front-line Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants used 100 Octane fuel throughout the battle, is extremely high.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

Arthur Conan Doyle

[Glider]

I would agree with Sturm in that the developers will use both fuels and let the mission builders make the call. If the misson is over N Ireland then 100 octane wouldn't be needed anyway as there wouldn't be any 109's. If they insist on 87 octane in no 11 group then I can imagine what response they would get.

The reason I first joined the thread was to ensure that the misson builders were not limiting the RAF to 16 squadrons as that was patently wrong.

[Crumpp]

16 squadrons as that was patently wrong.

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

[Crumpp]

Just explain to everyone why it is that people far more qualified than you say the fuel was blended at the refineries,

It says they made the 100 grade stock. The article explains how they making regular gasoline stock using catalytic cracking produced a stock pure enough to be have alkylation it was made into 100 grade fuel stock.

Of course they blended the alkylates at the refinery. Stockyards do not have the equipment to do that kind of operation. Stockyards today do not perform alkylation either.

Fuel stock is what gets shipped from the refinery. It is not the fuel that goes into airplane tanks.

Even aircraft oil requires blending. An extreme example is for Lycoming engines that you can find oil that is already blended or you must blend it yourself. There is an mandatory service bulletin that requires certain Lycoming engines to use LW-16702. Lycoming highly recommends the additive for all of their engines.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/supp...dfs/SB471B.PDF

Here you can buy the additive and blend it yourself....

Avco Lycoming has approved oil additive LW-16702 that contains an anti-scuffing agent and can dramatically reduce engine wear. This additive is applicable to all Avco Lycoming piston aircraft engines, and factory recommends use at every oil change or every 50 hours, whichever occurs first.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...iladditive.php

Or you can buy the oil already blended:

Contains additive LW16702 which reduces engine wear and corrosion.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...shelloils3.php

Either way, if you fly a certain Lycoming engine, you must have use it.

[NZtyphoon]

As per usual Crumpp, you have not explained anything by diverting into modern peacetime practices.

Please explain why the RAF issued 62,000 tons of 100 Octane between July and end of October 1940, consumed 52,000 tons, yet just over 15,000 tons was needed to fly every defensive sortie flown between July 10 and October 6?

And, no I don't care what happens in the private aviation business now, it would be good if you could explain: what happened to some 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in 1940?

May I repeat that?

What happened to 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel?

The rest of your claims - that only 16 Squadrons ever used the stuff until sometime in September - are based on Morgan and Shacklady which, as I have explained very carefully, based their claims on a pre-war planning paper, which is a highly suspect way of explaining what happened in wartime, when Britain was facing a full scale air assault and the possibility of invasion.

In fact the entire section of the use of 100 Octane fuel in Morgan and Shacklady is a deeply flawed analysis of what happened in 1940. For example, they claim that lots of tankers carrying 100 Octane were sunk by U-Boats etc, but provide absolutely NO evidence to back the claim up. In fact something like 78 tankers (Barbi's figures) were sunk between September 1939 and November 1940 while 1,150 unloaded their cargoes in Britain during the same period. Just because Morgan and Shacklady are great at describing the technical details of Spitfires it doesn't mean that they have a complete grasp of all historical events of the times.

All Crumpp can come up with is absolutely nothing. Why he wants to believe so fervently - so religiously (evidence of things unseen) and rigidly - that the RAF used very limited amounts of 100 Octane fuel is beyond me, and I don't really care. I have far more important things to do than bother with his nonsense and blather any more.

[Al Schlageter]

I see Eugene is doing his usual song and dance routine evading answering direct questions.

He knows he is wrong about only 16 squadrons but as he is never wrong, he won't admit he is wrong. If he was so sure of only 16 squadrons, then why hasn't he given their numbers.

Which 16 squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were using 100 fuel in September Eugene?

Which squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were still using 87 fuel in September Eugene?

We won't get an answer, as like Barbi, he expects others to do his research and then won't believe the research of others when presented.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

You continually fail to name those 16 squadrons despite pilot reports saying at least 22 squadrons using 12 boost which required 100 fuel before July.

You have yet to produce that OOB you said you would. Sure they did as my graphic shows.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=772

This is only the Spitfire squadrons. Please don't make the suggestion that Hurricanes were all on 87 for god's sake.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hey Guys

Got a little busy this last weekend, was not able to put out the group PM, so don't feel left out if you didn't get the PM! I hope to get to it this week!