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

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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

Do you wonder who wrote the memo stating a 28/38 mph increase in speed under 10,000ft?

It will be noted from the service reports that an approximate increase in speed due to the use of emergency 12lb boost of 28/34mph is obtained depending upon the altitude flown up to 10,000ft.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg.

Do you wonder who wrote this graph:




and do you wonder why these numbers are all so consistent? Are you trying to imply that 12lb boost will not result in an increase in speed over 6.25lb boost?

It also seems that you are trying to imply that the RAE Spitfire I data for 12 and 16 lbs boost was falsified? I really hope that this is not the case.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.

I have repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence of even a single Spitfire/Hurricane 87 octane operational squadron combat sortie during the BofB. This should be an easy task if, as you contend, the majority of RAF FC Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons were using 87 Octane fuel.

So I'll issue the challenge again and again, until you answer it or admit that your contention is unsupported by the historical record.

[Glider]

As for the use of 100 Octane in the BOB by the Luftwaffe I don't have an interest, it was your personal attacks that were totally unfounded and are still well out of order.

What does interest me is your refusal to adress any questions put to you, the most recent being in my last reply in 1077.

PS I thought you were a lawyer

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

As for the use of 100 Octane in the BOB by the Luftwaffe I don't have an interest, it was your personal attacks that were totally unfounded and are still well out of order.

Can you specify these so called 'personal attacks'?

What does interest me is your refusal to adress any questions put to you, the most recent being in my last reply in 1077.

Well if you are interested in realistic fuel consumption requirements, for example the British estimated that 15 000 tons / month of 150 grade fuel was to be neccessary for the 25 Sqns of Spitfires in the 2nd TAF that converted to the fuel in 1945. 1000 tons/month was required by engine manufacturers, 20 000 tons / month by the 8th AAF, and a just couple of Squadrons in Fighter Command in England required 2000 tons/month.

Your opinion that a mere 10 000 tons would be enough for 60 s-e Sqns at a very high operational activity PLUS several Blenheim Squadrons is ill-founded IMHO, given the above.

[NZtyphoon]

Waiting for you to post that link to the thread in which you claim to have sent Dr Bailey packing.

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by 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.

All operational Commands were Authorised to use 100 Octane in August.

Please just post the Spitfire Pilot Operating Notes from August. They will match the January 1942 and specify ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS if you claim is true. I highly doubt you can post them. Yes, changing fuel type is a big deal in aircraft. You can bet they published a new edition to the Pilot Operating Notes.

Post that August 1940 Operating Notes and it is Argument over, end of discussion.

[Crumpp]

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.

Just like the 1938 figure is combined. Really? I highly doubt it.

If 100 Octane was on the airfields in significant amounts, it would reflect on that document.

It does not and you can read the Operating Notes to see that 87 Octane is the most common fuel in June 1940.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Just like the 1938 figure is combined. Really? I highly doubt it.

If 100 Octane was on the airfields in significant amounts, it would reflect on that document.

It does not and you can read the Operating Notes to see that 87 Octane is the most common fuel in June 1940.

What 1938 figure? You can doubt all you like, provide some evidence that this meant there was no 100 Octane fuel available.

It is quite clear that in May 1940 Hurricanes of the BEF in France were using 100 Octane fuel. Starting 7 May 1940 we have 660,056 gallons, 2111 tons of 100 octane in France: this was before the balloon went up:
















Note too that there is another grade of fuel mentioned in the second to last document D.T.D.224 (77 Octane) which was used in light aircraft "Trinidad Leaseholds Limited" the documents on fuel consumption say "Other Grades" meaning 87 Octane fuel wasn't the only other type of fuel being used.

You continue to fail to mention that 87 Octane was being used by heavy bombers and flying boats in June 1940.

You have not yet accounted for 52,000 tons of 100 Octane being used by 16 squadrons between July and October, in spite of being asked several times.

You have not provided any documentation showing proof of the logistical arrangements the RAF used to ensure only 16 squadrons ran on 100 Octane for "intensive operational trials".

While you're asking others to post the August 1940 Pilot's Notes how about you post the relevant information requested for your "June 1940" notes, viz: front cover, inner front cover, fly leaves showing date and the A.P1590B you insist is inserted? You can still scan and you don't need a PC to post them.

[camber]

Dear Kurfurst,

I can't agree with your characterisation of your interaction with Gavin Bailey, (author of The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain; the English Historical Review) and reading through it seems very unlikely that there was a mischevious impersonator in the mix.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.

The thread in question is only a click away
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...b-16305-5.html

I will quote the most relevant parts. The original thread is above in case you wish to check whether Gavin Bailey dropped his approach of professionalism and became rude or inappropriate at any point.

To me this is not going ape in a childish fashion:

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.

The mods note that the discussion is heated and (rather lazily) ask both parties to desist. Gavin Bailey quite reasonably points out he is the wronged party.

Micdrow,

In threads on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain hosted on this site, the poster known as Kurfurst has, aside from accusing me of making false claims;

1. Misrepresented and selectively distorted the results of my published work (in 'Hurricane vs.Bf-110' thread, on 1 January 2009 and repeated subsequently).

2. Ignored citations from original Air Ministry documents which disprove his belief (my post as 'gavinb' in 'Use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF during BOB' on 31 January 2009).

3. Been unwilling or unable to supply proof of his assertions when challenged (e.g. my post on 7 February 2009).

4. Accused me of lying about my identity without, apparently, having taken the most elementary steps to confirm it (his post of 5 June 2009). He has subsequently repeated this accusation elsewhere.

I suggest my responses have been entirely reasonable attempts to prevent somebody misrepresenting my work during which I have had to deal with accusations that I have impersonated myself. This would be comic if it wasn't for the issues of integrity which are involved. Having re-read my posts on this forum, I believe they have been a) entirely on-topic and b) remarkably civil in tone in the circumstances.

In the end the mods rather apologetically (to Gavin) lock the thread so not to have to deal with it.

Sadly, camber

[CWMV]

Jesus tap dancing Christ, can all of you just present your evidence, nock off the character assassination crap and for the love of God grow up?
My God...just....my God!

Edit: Kurfurst, crump, nztyphoon et al, just what exactly do you all gain in this?