Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1011  
Old 04-17-2012, 08:15 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
there was never a shortage of 100 octane fuel.
What?? There was a shortage of 100/130 grade on several occasions during the war.

There are several reports on the aviation gasoline situation available at both Maxwell AFB and Dayton OH.

  #1012  
Old 04-17-2012, 08:44 PM
Osprey's Avatar
Osprey Osprey is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 1,264
Default

Redbeard Rum.
  #1013  
Old 04-17-2012, 08:51 PM
Glider Glider is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 441
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
I don't have a link Glider. These are not posted on some website but part of my collection. I scan the pages and post them.
So can you scan and show us the sections I have asked for?
  #1014  
Old 04-17-2012, 08:55 PM
JG5_Thijs JG5_Thijs is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9
Default

Hello all,

With great interested I’ve been following the discussion regarding the use of 100 octane fuel by the RAF in the Battle of Britain. I decided to look up some scientific articles, but could only find the following:

Gavin Bailey, ‘Narrow margin of criticality: The question of the supply of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain’ English Historical Review volume 123 number 501 (200 p 394-411. (This article was quoted earlier by 28_Condor on page 98 of this thread, he, however, did not quote the article fully since there are some interesting points that Bailey brings up regarding the impact of 100 fuel use.)

There are some interesting things in this article regarding the use of 100 octane fuel and the performance of the Spitfire Mk I and II. A short summary. First a quick summary of the availability of 100 octane fuel, then the operational usefulness of 100 octane fuel.

Bailey on the availability of 100 octane fuel

Bailey states that at the time the war broke out there was 153,000 tons of 100 octane fuel in stock, compared to 323, 000 tons of other aviation fuels. In February 1940 the stock of 100 octane fuel had risen to 220,000 tons. In May 1940 fighter units began converting to 100 octane fuel and there was plenty of 100 octane fuel available for the duration of the Battle of Britain.(406)

Note by me about 100 octane being used in the game in this respect: This quote above, and the other information provided by other people on this forum, makes me conclude that use of 100 octane fuel was widespread during the BoB. It would therefore be fine to program RAF planes with 100 octane, or give the option to mission builders to choose between 87 and 100 octane fuel.
This, however, is not say anything on the great improvement of 100 octane fuel gives over 87 octane fuel as claimed by many authors and people on this forum.

Bailey on what other authors write about the use of 100 octane fuel:

He says that other authors argue that the use of 100 octane fuel from America was one of the critical advantages for British fighters during the battle, he does not agree with this vision.(394-395) Bailey argues that it tends to be forgotten that the widespread use of 100 octane fuel is in the same time period as the introduction of the constant-speed, variable pitch propeller which offers a much larger performance increase than the new fuel alone. (395)

To demonstrate this Bailey uses two tables:

The following table shows a test of a Spitfire Mk Ia and Spitfire Mk II (399)


Spitfire MK I test with a fixed propeller.


Table 1: There is only a marginal improvement in the rate of climb and maximum speed comparing both planes in the first table. There is however, a dramatic increase between a Spitfire with a fixed propeller and the newer variable pitch one. See table 2 (401)

Bailey concludes that the main advantage of 100 octane fuel was at lower altitudes, but was marginal at best at higher altitudes.(401) His table demonstrate that there is actually a drop in top speed at higher altitudes.

Bailey on the boost of the Merlin engine

The author gives the following information about the boost increase that was achieved by 100 octane fuel: Normal limitation on the supercharger compression of a Rolls-Royce Merlin III with 87 octane fuel was +6.25 inch above atmospheric pressure. The introduction of 100 octane fuel increased this to +12 for short periods, not exceeding 5 minutes.(39


Take off to 1,000 ft — 3,000 rpm at +7 psi/+12.5 psi;
Maximum climb (1-hr. limit) — 2,850 rpm at +7 psi/+9 psi;
Combat (5 min. maximum) — 3,000 rpm at +7 psi/+12 psi.
(This chart is about Spitfire MK II with 100 octane boost which Baily took from the following source: Air Ministry, Air Publication 1565B, Pilots Notes, Spitfire IIA and IIB Aeroplanes, Merlin XII Engine (anonymous Air Ministry publication, London, 1940, amended 1942).)

Conclusion by Bailey:

He concludes that the dramatic performance increase because of 100 octane is overrated and that other, earlier, authors wrongly claim that there is. These other authors forgot that the variable pitch prop was the real source of the dramatic performance increase of RAF planes which they contribute solely to 100 octane fuel.

Comment by me regarding the information given above: It seems that an increase from 87 to 100 octane fuel (but with a variable pitch for both) only leads to a marginal improvement. Whether the planes in this game are modelled correctly is not within the scope of this argument.

Regards,

Thijs
  #1015  
Old 04-17-2012, 09:02 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Pilots Operating Limitations, June 1940:



All out 5 minute Emergency rating as listed in June 1940:



If by June 1940, 30 squadrons were operating 100 Octane, then almost the entire force would need the +12lbs boost instructions instead of the 87 Octane. The Operating Notes would have reflected this and the 100 Octane limits would have been included.

That is a fact and how it works.
Quote:
Glider says:
So can you scan and show us the sections I have asked for?
Already done.
  #1016  
Old 04-17-2012, 09:04 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
I don't have a link Glider. These are not posted on some website but part of my collection. I scan the pages and post them.



Exactly. Quite a large "Fly in the Ointment" for silly claims like:


Quote:
Milo Morani says:
before the BoB started, ~30 squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes are known to have been converted to 12 lb boost. These squadrons would be those that would most likely come in contact with the Luftwaffe.
Quote:
Milo Morani says:
100 octane was the predominant fuel used by Fighter Command.
And depending on the dates you pick for the battle to be over:

Quote:
Milo Morani says:
by the end of the BoB, Fighter Command had converted to 12lb boost.
You wonder why I question what you claim "is known." Facts are it is not known.
See above, Glider.

Last edited by Crumpp; 04-17-2012 at 09:06 PM.
  #1017  
Old 04-17-2012, 09:39 PM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Baloney.

Total is just that...TOTAL for the year.

In 1938 they had 100 Octane in quantity?? No they did not.

I don't think it has anything to do with the columns above it. Can you prove it does not?
Crumpp, Crumpp Crumpp, kindly explain how it is that 52,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel was consumed between July 1940 and October 1940 if, as you claim, only 16 Squadrons were using 100 Octane - so far you have made a lot of fuss regarding fuel shortages etc but you have not explained where 52,000 tons of it went.

Only 15,000 tons was needed to complete all defensive sorties flown by Merlin engined fighters - so again please explain to everyone what happened to 35,000 tons of 100 octane fuel?

I want documentation from you to prove your case, not conjecture.

Prove that there were frontline Merlin engined squadrons using 87 Octane fuel during the battle - I mean combat reports, squadron ORBs and other such documentation - evidence NOT your conjecture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
That looks like somebodies photo-shop work.
And so do your "June 1940" pilot's notes which you claim embody A.P. 1590B/J.2-W, but, conveniently, haven't shown. I want to see the front cover, inner cover and the relevant fly leaf which has the date.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
You misunderstand what I wrote. A.P. 1590B/J.2-W is incorporated into the June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes.
Then why haven't you shown the relevant pages in the first place, including A.P. 1590B/J.2-W? - better still show us the relevant pages, listed above, including the date of publication.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 100oct-consumption-bob.jpg (262.9 KB, 5 views)
File Type: jpg spit1-12lbs.jpg (286.8 KB, 5 views)

Last edited by NZtyphoon; 04-17-2012 at 10:38 PM.
  #1018  
Old 04-17-2012, 11:08 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
And depending on the dates you pick for the battle to be over:
Still haven't clued in Eugene have you?

All your talk of 87 octane fuel being the predominant fuel is for the whole of the RAF.

Bomber Command had at least 24 squadrons when war broke out. Each a/c in those squadrons carried enough fuel to fuel a squadron of fighters.
  #1019  
Old 04-17-2012, 11:15 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
What?? There was a shortage of 100/130 grade on several occasions during the war.
What the hell does 100/130 fuel, which wasn't even around during BoB, have to do with 100 octane fuel?

We still haven't seen from you the identity of the 16 squadrons that you say were the only squadrons converted to 12 lb boost.
  #1020  
Old 04-17-2012, 11:38 PM
kendo65 kendo65 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 908
Default

Great post JG5_Thijs. Thanks.
__________________
i5-2500K @3.3GHz / 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 / Asus P8P67 / GTX-260 (216) / WD 500GB
Samsung 22" 1680x1050 / Win7 64 Home Premium
CH Combat Stick / CH Pro Throttle / Simped Rudder Pedals
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.