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

[Crumpp]

100 octane fuel was cleared for operational and non-operational flying by A.L.2 for Section 1 (which is dated May 1940 and way before June 1940):

It does not say that Banks.

It says if the aircraft is suitably modified, it may be used.

That is not the question. There is no doubt, the RAF began the process of operational conversion by June 1940 even in the Spitfire Mk I's.

The language is very specific when something is adopted.

If the Spitfire Mk I's were to use only 100 Octane fuel or all Operational Units, even in July 1940 it would state that under Notes Concerning the Merlin Engine:

Spitfire Mk II Notes, July 1940:



Spitfire Mk I Notes June 1940:



There is no evidence the conversion was complete until January 1942 when the Spitfire Mk I's Operating Notes are amended to reflect ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS:

May 1940 and way before June 1940

That is the June 1940 Operating Notes. A.L No.2 was incorporated into Volume I Section 2 the June 1940 republication of the Operating Notes.

Volume I Section II is from May 1940 but as noted, incorporates all the updates available at the time of June 1940 republication.

There was no Section 2 Paragraph 1 "Operating Notes" in June 1940.

Looks like they did rearrange the format. That happens and finally by convention we all have the exact same format today. That does not change the fact the principles are all the same by convention.

You can see in the July 1940 Spitfire Mk II notes, the format is the same as the June 1940 Spitfire Mk I notes. If 100 Octane was the fuel for all operational Spitfire Mk I's, Notes Concerning the Merlin Engine would clearly state that fact.

It does not and you can conclude for a fact, 100 Octane was not being used by all operational Spitfire Mk I's at that time.

Don't you think it is a bit far-fetched to use this kind of manuals as a proof for the spread of use of 100 octane fuel? I am pretty sure that no manual was ever issued for all the different field modifications used by either side.

For practical reasons there will have been information notes been delivered to the stations and mechanics as the 100 octane capable spit 1s were phased in - instead of manuals.

[Crumpp]

EDIT - when I mentioned logistics you came back with "you can't use logistics to work out operational" (I'm paraphrasing) or some other nonsense, now you're using logistics.

You should just read the post because this does not make you look very good to anyone who did read it.

The logistical documents are used to answer logistical questions, "When can will we have the fuel to convert the first operational aircraft?"

Answer - When we have the fuel distributed to all the airfields.

[Crumpp]

Don't you think it is a bit far-fetched to use this kind of manuals as a proof for the spread of use of 100 octane fuel? I am pretty sure that no manual was ever issued for all the different field modifications used by either side.

It is not a field modification, it is operational adoption.

Those generally follow convention and the evidence presented aligns with that.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Seadog

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.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

Still waiting...

[Crumpp]

Still waiting...

Stop waiting and read!!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1315

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1279

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Seadog

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.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Stop waiting and read!!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1315

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1279

Neither of these posts demonstrates that RAF FC flew a even single Hurricane/Spitfire combat sortie using 87 octane fuel.

Where are the reports detailing fuelling difficulties because a 100/87 octane aircraft had to land at an 87/100 octane airfield? Where are the Airfield/Squadron commander/pilot reports complaining that their Airfield/squadron/aircraft was one of the unlucky ones not to be converted to 100 octane? Where are the pilot reports or memoirs noting 87 octane fuel use during the battle? Why do numerous sources state 100% conversion to 100 octane prior to the battle? Why did Moelders and Galland beg Goering for higher performing aircraft?

You still haven't shown that even a single Hurricane/Spitfire combat sortie was flown using 87 octane fuel during the battle, yet you contend that the majority of RAF FC was using 87 octane fuel!!!

[NZtyphoon]

Crumpp's condition:

Everbody's Wrong

Crumpp is just arguing for the sake of argument because it makes him feel important. It has nothing to do with 100 Octane and a great deal more to do with ego.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is not a field modification, it is operational adoption.

Those generally follow convention and the evidence presented aligns with that.

I know quite well. My point is that the manual that you presented was obviously! issued well after the moment when 100 octane became operational. It says nothing about when it became operational. It basically is just the proof that at the moment of its publication 100 octane was already in use.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You should just read the post because this does not make you look very good to anyone who did read it.

The logistical documents are used to answer logistical questions, "When can will we have the fuel to convert the first operational aircraft?"

Answer - When we have the fuel distributed to all the airfields.

I don't care what anyone else on here thinks about me. I'm not here to look good.

Like I said earlier, I'm working out what stations had 100 based on deliveries of Mk II's, but it's a very time consuming process.

So in the meantime, why don't you answer the question I keep having to ask.

What is you argument regarding the non use of 100 octane fuel in frontline spitfires during the battle of Britain?

EDIT: and I was actually referring to this post, the one after I'd posted all of the Oil Production meeting docs..

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Interesting but you cannot answer operational questions with logistical answers..

Anyway, it is interesting but not applicable because it is logistical documentation and not operational.

Who looks bad?
Like I said you're a hypocrite.

EDIT : Help required, I remember someone posted a chart showing the FC squadron movements from the period, I can't find it. It would speed things up a lot. Thanks.