Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Correct, by Bomber Command, Training Command, Coastal Command, Manufaturing plants of engines and aircraft, BOAC and of course other Non operational units but not operational Fighter Command units.

Source please for 87 octane not being issued operational Fighter Command units.

I say you just made that up.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Source please for 87 octane not being issued operational Fighter Command units.

I say you just made that up.

I will rephrase it, 87 octane was used in fighter command for operational missions until the switchover to 100 Octane. However there is no evidence that 87 octane was used for combat missions after the switchover during the BOB from July onwards.

Now if you or Crumpp can supply any evidence that says 87 octane was used in operational missions in or after July 1940 a lot of people would be very interested.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I will rephrase it, 87 octane was used in fighter command for operational missions until the switchover to 100 Octane.

Thank you. When did this alleged switch over to 100 octane happened, dear David? With documentary evidence if possible.

However there is no evidence that 87 octane was used for combat missions after the switchover during the BOB from July onwards.

Of course, since it was standard fuel in the RAF. Similarly, there's no evidence that 100 octane fuel was used in more than a a couple of dozen cases out of thousands of fighter sorties, right David?


Let's get back to that allaged switchover, now you have seem to have changed your position and now state that this was supposed to have happened in July 1940. What documentary evidence can you offer to this so-called switchover, David?

Now if you or Crumpp can supply any evidence that says 87 octane was used in operational missions in or after July 1940 a lot of people would be very interested.

Again, we need to specify the type of evidence required. Should combat reports that do not mention the use of emergency boost or +12 lbs/sq.inch constitute such an evidence, David?

[Osprey]

Notice that Kurfurst has deliberately avoided the fact that guns in the BoB were armed with common sauces.

The Luftwaffe had access to British HP brown sauce after over-running British bases in France 1940 and decided that it was suitably spicy to load their MG's with it before moving to their own brand. The RAF tried it but stocks were low so switched to tomato ketchup just before the BOB. This was issued to all airfield NAAFI wagons and armourers would just take all the sachets direct from there. If you correlate the growth of Heinz and HP companies from pre to post war, looking at use of sauces, and the fact that there is no mention of this in any flight report anywhere ever, then we can conclude that it was in full use by both sides. I think the British experimented with Indian curry sauce on the Spitfire Ib model but it was a bit lumpy and the guns would jam. That squadron asked for their ketchup back immediately.

Since there is no evidence of this it can't be ruled out.

[robtek]

Still both sides have evidence but no proof.

The issue seems very similar to the "schroeders cat" problem.

Everybody and his uncle "knows" the cat is dead, but it can't be proven until the box is opened.

So, everybody, and his uncle, "knows" there was only 100 oct. used by the active part of the FC, but as in "Schroeders cat" all possibilities are equal true until there is proof (box opened).

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by robtek

Still both sides have evidence but no proof.

Show me the evidence for 87 octane fuel use by RAF FC during the BofB.

100 octane - lots of evidence.
87 octane - no evidence.

What's the difference between evidence and proof?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by robtek

Still both sides have evidence but no proof.

The issue seems very similar to the "schroeders cat" problem.

Everybody and his uncle "knows" the cat is dead, but it can't be proven until the box is opened.

So, everybody, and his uncle, "knows" there was only 100 oct. used by the active part of the FC, but as in "Schroeders cat" all possibilities are equal true until there is proof (box opened).

One side has evidence of widespread use if only the use of on average approx 10,000 tons a month until 100 Octane was issued to all operational commands. We know that Bomber Command, Coastal Command plus non operational units didn't use 100 Octane until August/September. So its worth trying to work out who was using 10,000 tons a month if it wasn't fighter command and no 2 Group.

I am very confident that Kurfursts couple of dozen sorties will not account for 10,000 tons.
That also ignores the other papers that I am not going to mention as they have been raised before

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

One side has evidence of widespread use if only the use of on average approx 10,000 tons a month until 100 Octane was issued to all operational commands. We know that Bomber Command, Coastal Command plus non operational units didn't use 100 Octane until August/September. So its worth trying to work out who was using 10,000 tons a month if it wasn't fighter command and no 2 Group.

I am very confident that Kurfursts couple of dozen sorties will not account for 10,000 tons.
That also ignores the other papers that I am not going to mention as they have been raised before

Glider evades to give a straight answer.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by robtek

Still both sides have evidence but no proof.

The issue seems very similar to the "schroeders cat" problem.

Everybody and his uncle "knows" the cat is dead, but it can't be proven until the box is opened.

So, everybody, and his uncle, "knows" there was only 100 oct. used by the active part of the FC, but as in "Schroeders cat" all possibilities are equal true until there is proof (box opened).

Well summarized and logical assessement robtek, though I assume the words of reason will fail to have an effect on blindfolded minds.