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

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Where is your evidence that this material actually exists? You have not viewed the material itself - Your words, not mine.

You are quoting material from another forum the thread of which which - conveniently - is no longer accessible: http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...0&st=0&start=0

(http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=20110&page=28)

Glider already tried this line. The Forum and the thread is easily accessible, for registered AND approved members.

So, you do have a contact for Mr Pip but cannot provide the material you so strenuously defend?

You can contact him on the forum in PM if he still reads it. Not much is happening there anymore.

Have you actually searched for the papers yourself? You keep telling others to do so, but have not bothered to do some basic research of your own?

Yes I asked Pips about them and tried the Australian archieve digital site. Few things are digitalised there unfortunately - one of them is named 'Proposal of securing 100 octane...'.

You have seen that one, I gave you the link, and IIRC you also got a heart attack when a British doc mentioned that one of their driving force for getting 100 octane is that German synth plants are so suitable for producing virtually any amount. So I am puzzled about why you ask if I had searched the site.

If you are so right about them, I would have thought you would have long ago jumped at the chance to present them and prove everyone else wrong - you know, embarrass the naysayers. Why haven't you?

Because I have a life and only a very passing interest the RAF... and to be honest I've probably had plowed too many young bucks like you into the ground already to find particular excitement in it anymore.

It's easy enough to start a search, just go onto http://www.awm.gov.au/database/ go down to "Official Records" which puts you onto http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/using/search/ - The AWM and NAA use the same search engine. Type in the title, or keywords if you don't have the official archive numbers...

Alternatively you can go onto this page http://www.awm.gov.au/contact/ and directly ask a question http://awm.altarama.com/reft100.aspx?key=research

Its easy - no long trips to Australia needed, and anyone here can do it.

Now, you see, I have done that before you even got to the University - no offense, but you should get a fair idea that I am actually into this stuff for, let's see 13 years now? - I have the above mentioned proposal of 100 octane fuel since March 2007. I know the AWM site, I have searched it. There's a lot of interesting stuff up there, but very little on 100 octane, at least, in an available form.

There are two practical problems:
- only a couple of random docs are digitized. I am quite sure there's a lot more WW2 100 octane in the AWM than the four or so papers it lists... some of the paper, like 'Proposals for...' is clearly copies of British papers.

- not all papers are entered into the registry. The paper recently shown and posted in this thread about the Australian attempt to buy/mix/steal/whatever 100/95/90 octane is only open since 2009 or so, at least as I recall from its sheet.

Archives often have only minimal staff and tons of papers, which is colossal work to register. When last time I was in the HTK archives, the registry was some DOS 6.0 based database program on something that resembled a 486 or an early 586. Do you even know what these things were? It illustrates the situation nicely - the online records are far from perfect, or accessible.

So if you think that it's just a case of browsing through the online archives, you will be disappointed. Some times questions like this just solve themselves in time.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Hi Kurfürst, I have some questions about the "Australian document".

The reason why it is included amongst AWM papers is because the Australian Government at that time was protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

Is the reason why it is included specifically stated in the document or is this a interpretation?
How do you know that the listed persons quoted from the report, where can these quotes be found?

Is the following quoted text a summary/interpretation by Pips or is this a actual quote of the document?

"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.

I never heard of a initial limitation of +9 boost and you just mentioned that this was already discussed. Can you give me a link to this discussion or source?

[Glider]

Your playing your game again Kurfurst only quoting one paper from a complete stream. However you believe that certain means 25%, so prove it. All you need to do is look at the strength of FC compare it to the combat reports/squadron records and you will have your 25%.

Pips clearly states
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
We know the War Cabinet didn't make those decisions so find out who did, simple request.

The other core to the Pips position is that there was a shortage of 100 Octane which caused the decision he believes the War Cabinet made. I ask you to find any reference to any paper from any official source that states that there was a shortage of 100 Octane for FC in 1940.

[camber]

I realise this thread is a bit acrimonious but overall the content has been very interesting. The technical points have already been made but I am interested in the logic of is being argued.

Kurfurst, your argument appears to be that it cannot be proved definitively that all fighter stations during the BOB used 100 octane. On that narrow definition you are quite right, especially if you hold your own personal threshold of 'absolute proof' very high.

But based on the material presented in this thread, I still consider it likely that the BOB was fought largely if not completely with 100 octane. Almost all others in this thread, and also the previous very large thread on the same topic at another forum, seem to be of the same opinion. Perhaps someone in these threads at some point has stated that ALL RAF fighters were using 100 octane by the BOB without exception, but if you are arguing against that statement, you are presenting a variation of the straw man argument...refuting the most extreme position of your opponents instead of the typical position (and declaring victory!).

Neither using or not using 100 octane in the BOB is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, or extra onus of proof on either side. Personally I could easily believe either of them, and have no initial bias that I am aware of. An extraordinary claim would be that the RAF had a jet squadron during the BOB, for example.

Typically when deciding between such competing ordinary claims, people examine what evidence exists and make a qualified judgement on the topic to move forward with. Seeing there is an large amount of anecdotal evidence for widespread use of 100 octane as reported in this thread, also a compelling historical reason to use 100 octane, and finally documented historic availability of 100 octane, it doesn't seem surprising to me your argument is not being taken up or accepted by others.

Going against the crowd is of course not a logical problem. If you argued against the existence of witches in the 1600s, you would be widely refuted but still correct (I hope!). But for every case like witch existance/nonexistance, there are many many more cases where the person arguing against informed peer belief is just mistaken. Of course your continuing arguing from your corner has lead to a lot of interesting technical information posted, and for that I thank you.

camber

[NZtyphoon]

And still, amongst all of his blather, KF has not presented any evidence whatsoever that the Pips memo actually exists, nor has he seen it himself except as a summary on a thread. Yet everyone who argues against KF has to provide solid, documentary evidence to back up their claim, otherwise it is dismissed out of hand.

[MoGas]

even in the current german http://www.flugzeugclassic.de/zeitsc...ft=704&nav=621 issue, the talk about 100 octan for the RAF fighters in the BoB campaign. It seems everyone is rong lol....

[lane]

There is plenty of documentation of 100 octane fuel use before and during the Battle of Britain. For starters:





602 Sqdn. Operations Record Book


611 Sqdn. Operations Record Book


151 Sqdn. Operations Record Book


74 Sqdn. Operations Record Book


111 Sqdn. Operations Record Book


David Ross, The Greatest Squadron of Them All, The Definitive History of 603 Squadron, RAauxAF, (Grub Street, London, 2003)


Alec Harvey-Bailey, The Merlin in Perspective, (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Derby, 1983)


Alfred Price, The Spitfire Story, (Arms and Armour Press Ltd., London, 1986)


Leo McKinstry, Hurricane, Victor of the Battle of Britain, (John Murrey Publishers, London, 2010)


Leo McKinstry, Hurricane, Victor of the Battle of Britain, (John Murrey Publishers, London, 2010)


W.G. Dudek and D. R. Winans, excerpt from AIAA Paper No. 69-779, Milestones in Aviation Fuels, (Esso Research and Engineering Company, New York 1969.)


A. R. Ogston, excerpt from History of Aircraft Lubricants (Society of Automotive Enginees, Inc. Warrendale, PA USA), p. 12.


RAF History


602 Sqdn. Spitfire I


609 Sqdn. Spitfire I


610 Sqdn. - Hawkinge, July 1940

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

In the series of " What archives tells us" here is the FLIGHT archives that I cited two days ago :

- There was no 100 octane fuel usage during BoB in the FC. Here I am putting my money on British pride that would hve pushed forward any of its usage (ok Brits are not French but never the less )

- in 1941 increased power Merlin's had 9lb boost level

- 100 oct fuel was used by some aircraft in the RN (Fulmar) fitted with special engines such as the Merlin VIII (presumably to compensate for the extra weight of the 2nd crew member and low alt missions)

- In 1941 planes were still using 87 octane such as was the Hurricane with Merlin XX

Sources : (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%201286.html)

Hi TomcatVIP, interesting claim given the overwhelming evidence for widespread use of 100 Octane fuel during the Battle of Britain. Perhaps there is new counter evidence in this document? EDIT: I found you post on page 39 (post 383 of this thread) that has a working link. I don’t see anywhere in that document the statement that 100 Octane fuel was not used in the Battle of Britain, or on the contrary, that 87 Octane was used by Spitfires or Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain. Nor I could not find any mention that “In 1941 planes were still using 87 octane such as was the Hurricane with Merlin XX”.

In response to your claim in point 3 of your post (434) on page 44, and I quote you said "the petrol normally used at that time was 87 Octane" I find this slightly misleading as the time in question is 1937, which you did not state nor was there an attempt to put the quote in context. Whilst it does say on Page 557 of the original text (link) that “the petrol normally used at that time was 87 Octane” it is referring a to pre-war flight endurance test in 1937 where the Spitfire in question used “fuel of a higher Octane” (than 87 Octane). Note, this is stating that in 1937 the petrol normally used was 87 Octane – it does not mention the normal Octane used during the Battle of Britain 3 years later in 1940. I fail to see the significance of this quote regarding Octane usage during the Battle of Britain when we examine the whole quote.

If I have missed any quotes in the document regarding 87 or 100 Octane fuel usage during the Battle of Britain, and I may well have done considering it's a huge document, could you please quote them directly and list the page in the document that they appear so we may examine them in full. For example as I have done above by stating the quote and it’s appearance on page 557 with a working link to the page. Thanks.

Originally Posted by MoGas

even in the current german http://www.flugzeugclassic.de/zeitsc...ft=704&nav=621 issue, the talk about 100 octan for the RAF fighters in the BoB campaign. It seems everyone is rong lol....

MoGas, could you post a summary or even better images of the article you are referring to in english since it seems the magazine you are referring to requires a subscription.

Thanks, Bounder

[NZtyphoon]

Through all his palaver KF is admitting he has not seen the Pips document himself, nor has anyone who has access to the all about warfare forum, so the preamble should read:

"This is from a researcher, researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives, from a purported document, allegedly copied to the so-called "Australian Military Commission" in England in February 1941, allegedly by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook, allegedly outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance. It was purported to be a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report allegedly titled "Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War;" although this has not yet been found in any of the Australian archives contacted.

The reason why it is allegedly included amongst AWM papers is because the Australian Government at that time was supposedly protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF; although no corroberating evidence to support this has been found. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all allegedly quoted parts from the report."

All the rest is smoke and mirrors by KF; plain fact is he pins 100% faith on a set of documents he has not seen or read, based on a short summary found on a forum, and Pips, who posted the material, has doubts about its veracity. Interesting

[TomcatViP]