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

[Glider]

All
The link that is most important is the following
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html
To save time I will often refer to postings in this thread but I am afraid that Kurfurst has misled you from the start. His posting 24 is little more than a fantasy.

For example
The paper that is supposed to be from the Australian Researcher doesn’t as far I am aware exist. It is supposed to be held at the Australian records, who when I asked for a copy could not find it, they could not find it when the Wikipedia people asked for it and this was most interesting we discovered that Kurfurst hadn’t even tried to look for it. See his posting 92 and my reply 96
Even if it does exist it is riddled with errors to be worthless for instance
1) It talks about a great strain on the 100 octane fuel reserves. Posting 2 shows a stockpile of 400,000 tons in August 1940 which consumption in the period of July to August averaged 10,000 tons a month, making it a three and a half year stockpile. I don’t call that a shortage or a strain.
2) It talks about the Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. These meetings didn’t mention 100 octane at all, there were no decisions made and 87 octane was not deemed to be the primary fuel. See my posting 174
3) It says that large quantities of fuel were not available until August which is clearly wrong. Posting 2

In Kurfursts posting on this thread no 24 he says things that he knows to be untrue such as
1) He clearly accuses me of ‘subtle manipulation of the original papers’. This is a lie.
2) He says that I was in communication with the Australian researcher. That's is unfortunate, because I saw the authors of said article discussing the same subject with an Australian researcher. Again this is a lie indeed I was keen to have such communication. See my posting 96 where I ask Kurfurst to get him to contact us. This never happened.

Another tactic the Kurfurst uses is not divulging all the information that he has if its not convenient and there is a good example re the number of Blenheim units that were equipped with 100 octane. He seems to have led you to believe that only two squadrons were so equipped. Lets look at this
1) Posting 2 is a letter from the ACAS on behalf of the Chief of the Air Staff asking for squadrons equipped with fighters and Blenheim to be equipped with 100 Octane
2) Posting 3 covers the arrangements for the transfer
3) Posting 4 is an update showing that Bomber command is going well but there is a misunderstanding re fighter command
4) Posting 6 is a note of thanks for the job done.
In other words all Blenheim bomber units had the fuel. Kurfurst was well aware of this detail.

I have accused Kurfurst of serious things and I have done this with care but he has a track record. I suggest you review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ai...tle_of_Britain
It’s the discussion section on the Aircraft of the Battle of Britain. Here you will see the sort of accusation that Kurfurst has not hesitated to use.

I should add that I am not Gavin Bailey my name is David Slack.

[CaptainDoggles]

Glider, why aren't you posting proof that all RAF units were supplied with 100 octane?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Glider, why aren't you posting proof that all RAF units were supplied with 100 octane?

Its very straightforward there is a limit to what I can and cannot prove and that is something that I have always been open about. I do not make assumptions, neither do I post part of the information available to me. So going back to the thread that I put a link in to earlier.

Posting 2
Shows the instruction from the Chief of the Air Staff for fighters and Blenheim units to be equipped with 100 octane. The ACAS has made the request but its safe to assume he wouldn't do this without the authority from the top. Its a clear request without any limits, it doesn't say certain, or limit the issue by Group or any other qualification.

Posting 3
Contains two papers the one that Kurfurst quotes saying Certain squadrons and the second paper that gives the actual status in both Bomber and Fighter commands.
Its worth noting that I didn't have to post the first paper, I knew at the time that the word 'certain' could be used to discredit the position and had I not posted it no one would have known, but for completeness I did include it.
If you look at my posting 12 it includes the line
I could see one line which I knew Kurfurst would almost certainly leap on and could have left it out, but that would have broken the train so I kept it in.
I can only assume that he didn't dare use that word then but has now decided to do so. Anyway back to your question.

Posting 4
Here you can see that as a cost saving measure the Authorities wanted to keep one tank of 87 octane for visiting aircraft passing through. Bomber Command were against this and permission was given in some cases for all the fuel to be 100 Octane.

Note the terminology - the 87 Octane wasn't for non operational flights, but for aircraft passing through.
Note also the reference to the four bomber bases - these four bases were the only ones allowed to be 100% 100 Octane, the other bases had to keep one tank for the aircraft passing through. It certainly wasn't only these four bases were to have 100 octane.

Posting 5
is an update report

Posting 6
Is the paper confirming the completion of the switch from 87 to 100 octane. I do make the observation that
What is interesting is what isn't in the file and its a big file. At no stage is any concern expressed about any shortage of 100 Octane Fuel the level of stocks or any lack of supply. There was never any mention of capping distribution or shipping stocks from one station to another or sector

Posting 12
This is interesting for a different reason. It refers to the experimental production of 100 Octane fuel at a UK Refinery which produced 35,000 tons over four months, at a time when average useage was 10,000 tons a month. In other words had there been a shortage then the UK could easily have been self sufficient. The experiment did take place but due to cost grounds it was switched back to normal production when complete

I was asked if I had a list of when each station was equipped with 100 octane but there wasn't a schedule in the NA files.

It should also be noted that Kurfursts position was that only 18 fighter squadrons were equipped with 100 Octane which is one reason why I was asking him to state what number of aircraft or squadrons was he talking about in this forum being equipped with the better fuel.
It should be noted that we identified well over 30 squadrons which reported the use of the extra boost and additional stations which had 100 octane over and above the ones listed in the records. 100 octane was used in France and Norway so it was widely used and a standard issue

Posting 63
Kurfurst was getting a little desperate at this stage and I was totally open about my position saying
I think one thing has to be made clear. Can I give a 100% Cast Iron, Gold Plated guarantee that every station in fighter command had 100 Octane fuel. No I cannot, as that would involve checking vast amounts of data and I have a life to lead, so in short there could be one station in the back end of nowhere which didn't get the fuel. As Kurfurst rightly pointed out I used the phrase , "sources links that exist and support the view that Fighter Command was effectively fully converted to 100 Octane by May 1940. Note the word effectively.
That said I do believe and there is no evidence in my mind to contridict the view that all stations did have the 100 Octane Fuel.

This remains my position. There is no evidence anywhere that Fighter Command was anything but 100% fully equipped with 100 Octane. Hundreds of books have been written about the battle, probably more than on any other conflict and scores or personal memories and no one ever has mentioned this theory. No one has mentioned the obvious logistical or practical problems that having mixed fuel would mean.

We have a document trail from the instruction from the Chief of the Air Staff asking for fighters to be equipped with 100 Octane and the other papers that follow the implementation until completion. Why did someone type in certain on one paper I have no idea and am not making any assumptions.

We have other papers that were issued by Dowling about the dangers of using the extra boost and not telling the ground crews, papers that were issued to all of fighter command not just some units or stations.

Against this we have a paper that is supposed to exist in Australia which they have never heard of, which Kurfurst has never seen and had never asked for and finally if it does exist, is riddled with errors.

I am very aware that I have made serious accusations about Kurfurst but I have supported my comments and before anyone deletes these postings I suggest you check them out.

If you incorporate his theories into any code then you do stand a chance of being made to look very foolish..

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Glider

Its very straightforward there is a limit to what I can and cannot prove and that is something that I have always been open about. I do not make assumptions, neither do I post part of the information available to me. So going back to the thread that I put a link in to earlier.

Posting 2
Shows the instruction from the Chief of the Air Staff for fighters and Blenheim units to be equipped with 100 octane. The ACAS has made the request but its safe to assume he wouldn't do this without the authority from the top. Its a clear request without any limits, it doesn't say certain, or limit the issue by Group or any other qualification.

Posting 3
Contains two papers the one that Kurfurst quotes saying Certain squadrons and the second paper that gives the actual status in both Bomber and Fighter commands.
Its worth noting that I didn't have to post the first paper, I knew at the time that the word 'certain' could be used to discredit the position and had I not posted it no one would have known, but for completeness I did include it.
If you look at my posting 12 it includes the line
I could see one line which I knew Kurfurst would almost certainly leap on and could have left it out, but that would have broken the train so I kept it in.
I can only assume that he didn't dare use that word then but has now decided to do so. Anyway back to your question.

Posting 4
Here you can see that as a cost saving measure the Authorities wanted to keep one tank of 87 octane for visiting aircraft passing through. Bomber Command were against this and permission was given in some cases for all the fuel to be 100 Octane.
Note the terminology, the 87 Octane wasn't for non operational flights, but for aircraft passing through.

Posting 5
is an update report

Posting 6
Is the paper confirming the completion of the switch from 87 to 100 octane. I do make the observation that
What is interesting is what isn't in the file and its a big file. At no stage is any concern expressed about any shortage of 100 Octane Fuel the level of stocks or any lack of supply. There was never any mention of capping distribution or shipping stocks from one station to another or sector

Posting 12
This is interesting for a different reason. It refers to the experimental production of 100 Octane fuel at a UK Refinery which produced 35,000 tons over four months, at a time when average useage was 10,000 tons a month. In other words had there been a shortage then the UK could easily have been self sufficient. The experiment did take place but due to cost grounds it was switched back to normal production when complete

I was asked if I had a list of when each station was equipped with 100 octane but there wasn't a schedule in the NA files.

It should also be noted that Kurfursts position was that only 18 fighter squadrons were equipped with 100 Octane which is one reason why I was asking him to state what number of aircraft or squadrons was he talking about in this forum being equipped with the better fuel.
It should be noted that we identified well over 30 squadrons which reported the use of the extra boost and additional stations which had 100 octane over and above the ones listed in the records. 100 octane was used in France and Norway so it was widely used and a standard issue

Posting 63
Kurfurst was getting a little desperate at this stage and I was totally open about my position saying
I think one thing has to be made clear. Can I give a 100% Cast Iron, Gold Plated guarantee that every station in fighter command had 100 Octane fuel. No I cannot, as that would involve checking vast amounts of data and I have a life to lead, so in short there could be one station in the back end of nowhere which didn't get the fuel. As Kurfurst rightly pointed out I used the phrase , "sources links that exist and support the view that Fighter Command was effectively fully converted to 100 Octane by May 1940. Note the word effectively.
That said I do believe and there is no evidence in my mind to contridict the view that all stations did have the 100 Octane Fuel.

This remains my position. There is no evidence anywhere that Fighter Command was anything but 100% fully equipped with 100 Octane. Hundreds of books have been written about the battle, probably more than on any other conflict and scores or personal memories and no one ever has mentioned this theory. No one has mentioned the obvious logistical or practical problems that having mixed fuel would mean.

We have a document trail from the instruction from the Chief of the Air Staff asking for fighters to be equipped with 100 Octane and the other papers that follow the implementation until completion. Why did someone type in certain on one paper I have no idea and am not making any assumptions.

We have other papers that were issued by Dowling about the dangers of using the extra boost and not telling the ground crews, papers that were issued to all of fighter command not just some units or stations.

Against this we have a paper that is supposed to exist in Australia which they have never heard of, which Kurfurst has never seen and had never asked for and finally if it does exist, is riddled with errors.

I am very aware that I have made serious accusations about Kurfurst but I have supported my comments and before anyone deletes these postings I suggest you check them out.

If you incorporate his theories into any code then you do stand a chance of being made to look very foolish..

I'm in the process of reading this thread and I can tell you that almost everyone involved "looks foolish", yourself included.

Stop editorializing what you think Kurfurst is doing (Kurfurst is desperate, etc) it only serves to make you look petty, petulant, and juvenile. Indeed from reading your postings at ww2aircraft.net that is the conclusion to which I have come about your character.

In any case, I'm still reading the two threads and have yet to come across any definitive proof that RAF aircraft were 100% equipped with 100 octane at all times. I'm willing to be persuaded but that has not yet occurred.

[CaptainDoggles]

Kurfurst,

Could you kindly post a link to this article written by the australian author directly? I have been waiting almost 2 weeks for my account at allaboutwarfare.com to be activated but it hasn't happened yet.

[Danelov]

Data of the Fiat G.50 Freccia.

Weight(MTOW): 2402 kg
Empty weight: 1963 kg
Max speed: 472 kph/5000m
Cruise speed: 415 kph
Range: 670km
Ceiling: 10,700m
Climb rate: 6000m in 7'30'' ,5000m in 6'3''
Weapons: 2x Breda SAFAT with 150 rounds p/gun
Gunsight Type S.Giorgio at riflesione
Ammo: Counter included in panel
Fire system: Warning light, extintor at biossido di carbonio.
Radio: ARC 1
Fuel: 260 l(provision for 52 l of aux fuel in a fuselage tank)
Power: Engine Fiat A.74 RC, radial, 14 cylinders
740 HP in take off.
840 HP with 2400rpm at 4000m
879 HP with "+100"(WEP)
Propeller: Hamilton Standard 3D-41-1, constant speed, passo variabile
Misc: In panel/cockpit: Carburator heat switch, gear indicators, fire warning light, compressed air indicators, ammo counter, engine instruments, compass, cowling flaps selector, Flaps lever, parking brake lever.
Other: The G.50 turn well to the right but less satisfactory to the left . Stall with 125 to 130 kph. Exit of stall with turn to the right.

Dates from: "Fiat G.50 Le Macchine e la Storia, Stem Mucchi, Modena-Italia"

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Kurfurst,

Could you kindly post a link to this article written by the australian author directly? I have been waiting almost 2 weeks for my account at allaboutwarfare.com to be activated but it hasn't happened yet.

I can re-post for you the original post(s) from July 2004. Needless to say, Neil Stirling got a heart attack when he saw it. Neil, like some other here were pushing for a pet theory about 100% 100 octane use in FC for some years, but have found no evidence during 10 years of research. It must have been very sobering to him.

Originally Posted by PipsPriller on Jul 12 2004 at [url

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=230&st=0&start=0][/url]
The first bulk shipment of 100 octane fuel had arrived in Britain in June 1939 from the Esso refinery in Aruba. This and subsequent tanker shipments from Aruba, Curacao and the USA were stockpiled while the RAF continued to operate on 87 octane petrol. Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.

Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.

The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940.

Given that large quantities were not available until late August, the volume of usage/week of 87 Octane must be far higher than that quoted for 100 Octane.

I came across it when I was in fact researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives.

It's from a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance.

It was quite an interesting paper actually, even though i found it to be a very dry subject.

The most interesting part is that "Pips" found this well before, in 2004 or earlier, and it agrees with every single document Neil managed to dig up afterwards, though Neil and now Glider tries to discredit this research with whatever means, basically calling Pips a liar behind his back at every opportunity, but never to his face.. The problem is, if Pip would have made it up, he was extremely talented, because Pips information from 2004 - for example that the large scale fighter conversion begun in late September 1940 - agrees perfectly with what Neil found in British archives in 2009 about 87 vs 100 octane consumption rates (and then waited two years before publishing it, as it was obviously not very helpful to his own thesis).

Note that as per the consumption figures, 100 octane did not become the main fuel until late September 1940, just like Pips stated, 7 years ago.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by PipsPriller on Jul 12 2004 at [url
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=230&st=0&start=0][/url]
The first bulk shipment of 100 octane fuel had arrived in Britain in June 1939 from the Esso refinery in Aruba. This and subsequent tanker shipments from Aruba, Curacao and the USA were stockpiled while the RAF continued to operate on 87 octane petrol. Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.

As mentioned before the first units started using 100 Octane in February not March. Document Attached.

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use.

The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.

As before this section I do fundamentally disagree with. In December 1939 stocks of 100 Octane were 202,000 tons, by May 1940 stocks were 294,000 tons and by August 1940 stocks were at 404,000 tons (documents are attached). We know that in June – August the average consumption was 10,000 tons a month (document attached).
The question I suggest we need to ask is If you have what is in effect a two and a half year stockpile, is this a strain, let alone a great strain on the stockpile. In my opinion it isn’t a strain at all, it’s barely noticeable

Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.

The British War Cabinet didn’t discuss 100 Octane at all in May and as a result no decisions were made. I spent a day in the NA going through all the papers for the meetings, the meeting notes and the actions resulting, and Fuel of any kind was not discussed. I should add that in May 1940 the War Cabinet met almost daily and it was a huge amount of paper, literally hundreds of sheets making it impossible to copy and post. Clearly as this wasn't discussed there were no actons or decisions made along this line.

The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels.

The first part is correct, the first shipment from the middle East did arrive in August, however the rest is misleading. Numerous other tankers arrived from others parts of the world between May and August and stocks continued to increase . On July 11th stocks of 100 Octane were 343,000 tons as specified in the Narrow Margin page 87 (document attached).

With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940.

This is clearly wrong In August 1940 permission was given for all commands to use 100 Octane in Operational aircraft. (Document attached)

Given that large quantities were not available until late August, the volume of usage/week of 87 Octane must be far higher than that quoted for 100 Octane.

Given that FC were using 100 Octane and the bombers plus the rest of the RAF were using 87 Octane I would expect 87 Octane use to be higher.

It's from a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance.

It was quite an interesting paper actually, even though i found it to be a very dry subject.

Now if someone could produce this and its supporting inforation then we would be in a good position.

I should point out that all my comments are supported by original documentation. The posting isn't supported by anything.

If the people working on the code base there scenario's on Pips posting as above, they have only themselves to blame if the adverse comments arrive.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Stop editorializing what you think Kurfurst is doing (Kurfurst is desperate, etc) it only serves to make you look petty, petulant, and juvenile. Indeed from reading your postings at ww2aircraft.net that is the conclusion to which I have come about your character.

In any case, I'm still reading the two threads and have yet to come across any definitive proof that RAF aircraft were 100% equipped with 100 octane at all times. I'm willing to be persuaded but that has not yet occurred.

At least I am a petty, petulant and juvenile person who post sources, links and original documentation.
Being serious for a moment, if you have any questions or explanations don't hesitate to ask either on the forum or by PM. That offer is obviously open to anyone.

[Bobb4]

Maybe i missed something but why the debate on 100 octane at all, is there a quotable source that says it was not available?
Again all the sources I have found indicate it was, and ironically even during the Battle for France 12 lb boost was used an indication 100 Octane was available then?