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

[lane]

Chart below from: A.C. Lovely, Development of the Rolls-Royce Merlin from 1939 to 1945, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Volume 18 Issue 7, July, 1946 (pp. 218 - 226)
Or alternately here.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

No Eugene. I know you have difficulties at times but the counting of stockpiles is to show that there was no shortage of 100 fuel despite what Australia, Pips and Barbi say.

Exactally

[Talisman]

So we have a 100 Octane denier here and there. To deny something against all the evidence is a human thing. It happens and we have to accept that. Someone who has committed a crime will often deny it, even though they know they are guilty. People even deny huge world events, despite the evidence, like the holocaust in WWII. I suppose that, sometimes, the denier might like the attention they can draw to themselves or they just have fun making mischief, or have a particular agenda. Anyway, I would like to leave the 100 Octane denier’s to one side for a moment, as they will not change their view even if taken back in a time machine. The point I would like to raise is why have the developers of CloD not included the Battle of Britain historically correct Spitfire and Hurricane to the 100 Octane modified specification? Was it a calculated decision and if so, why? Was it a genuine mistake? Was it just too hard to do? Do they intend not to provide a 100 Octane Hurricane in the BoM sequel so thought they would not bother with it in BoB? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Perhaps if any developers are reading this they might care to respond? Is 100 Octane to be ignored? What a shame if it is ignored. I would not like to see aviation history and any other aircraft, red or blue, treated this way in a flight sim.

[TomcatViP]

Tali,

with all my respect you might hve been too far inadvertantly.

Pls edit your post.

[lane]

Originally Posted by Talisman

So we have a 100 Octane denier here and there. To deny something against all the evidence is a human thing. It happens and we have to accept that. Someone who has committed a crime will often deny it, even though they know they are guilty. People even deny huge world events, despite the evidence, like the holocaust in WWII. I suppose that, sometimes, the denier might like the attention they can draw to themselves or they just have fun making mischief, or have a particular agenda. Anyway, I would like to leave the 100 Octane denier’s to one side for a moment, as they will not change their view even if taken back in a time machine. The point I would like to raise is why have the developers of CloD not included the Battle of Britain historically correct Spitfire and Hurricane to the 100 Octane modified specification? Was it a calculated decision and if so, why? Was it a genuine mistake? Was it just too hard to do? Do they intend not to provide a 100 Octane Hurricane in the BoM sequel so thought they would not bother with it in BoB? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Perhaps if any developers are reading this they might care to respond? Is 100 Octane to be ignored? What a shame if it is ignored. I would not like to see aviation history and any other aircraft, red or blue, treated this way in a flight sim.

Absolutely beautifully written and brilliant post Talisman! Salute!

[Crumpp]

the counting of stockpiles

Yeah the same folks with the same "evidence" and agenda also used the same method of looking at stockpiles to "prove" 100/150 grade fuel was the "standard" fuel of the RAF.

All so that people's favorite WWII computer game-shape could be altered to give them an advantage. Nothing at all to do with serious historical research, just gamers wishing.

The truth and the history of 100/150 grade use turned out to be vastly different from what was presented despite the fact England did have significant stockpiles of the fuel in anticipation of widespread use that never occurred.

Nobody has denied that 100 grade was used during the BoB. The extent is what is in question. The only direct evidence from the RAF of the extent of usage we have states quite clearly "selected" units and "those units involved".

That is the simple facts. Everything else is speculation.

I don't know and unlike some do not pretend to know the answer. I just know what the RAF documentation says on its use.

I also know I use 100 grade fuel every time I fly and that is all that matters to me!! I certainly wish it was cheaper though.

Maybe you can find some stockpiles, somewhere?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Yeah the same folks with the same "evidence" and agenda also used the same method of looking at stockpiles to "prove" 100/150 grade fuel was the "standard" fuel of the RAF.

All so that people's favorite WWII computer game-shape could be altered to give them an advantage. Nothing at all to do with serious historical research, just gamers wishing.

The truth and the history of 100/150 grade use turned out to be vastly different from what was presented despite the fact England did have significant stockpiles of the fuel in anticipation of widespread use that never occurred.

Nobody has denied that 100 grade was used during the BoB. The extent is what is in question. The only direct evidence from the RAF of the extent of usage we have states quite clearly "selected" units and "those units involved".

That is the simple facts. Everything else is speculation.

I don't know and unlike some do not pretend to know the answer. I just know what the RAF documentation says on its use.

I also know I use 100 grade fuel every time I fly and that is all that matters to me!! I certainly wish it was cheaper though.

Maybe you can find some stockpiles, somewhere?

I cannot comment on the 100/150 debate, just what's happened in this thread:

Historical research rarely comes up with 100% proof that such and such an event happened, why such and such an event happened, or how events unfolded. It is generally accepted, for example, that the Roman legions of Varus were destroyed by Arminius' German forces in 9 AD, in the so-called Teutoburg Forest, because of far more fragmentary evidence than that provided here. The big mystery for nearly 2,000 years was where was the battle site? It wasn't until 1987 that archaeologists brought up evidence that the battle site was nowhere near the forest.

The weight of evidence provided in this thread is more than enough to show that 100 octane fuel was in use by more than Barbi's ""selected" units:

Those who believe that only a select group of units used 100 octane fuel have not come up with any evidence that 87 octane fuel was still being used in combat by front-line Fighter Command units during the B of B (Blenheim nightfighter units, which were still using Mk Is, were still using 87 Octane).

The main document which lies behind most of this, the "Pips memo" has not even been seen by the main protagonist, just a summary by Pips on another forum, yet Barbi pins 100% faith on this unseen document, the discussion of which is on a locked, membership only thread on another forum. Another member of this forum who now has access, says that Pip himself had doubts about its veracity. Such "evidence" is of questionable value.

[Al Schlageter]

Selective reading, faulty memory and faulty reading comprehension, as usual, on your part Eugene. It was not just the RAF that used the 150 fuel but the USAAF's 8th AF FC.

So tell me Eugene what happened to the 77,100 tons of 100 octane fuel that was issued in 1940 til the end of Oct? The ~50,000 tons consumed must have been burned in the pilots cars and motorcycles.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-100octane.jpg

The only direct evidence from the RAF of the extent of usage we have states quite clearly "selected" units and "those units involved".

Sure Eugene. Pilot's combat reports and unit diaries don't count.

All so that people's favorite WWII computer game-shape could be altered to give them an advantage. Nothing at all to do with serious historical research, just gamers wishing.

***********************

These names below were mentioned earlier in this thread.

In the AAW thread Pips also said:

I believe that McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

Please take note of the " I believe".

[Glider]

I think I can add a little to the debate re the use of the words selected.

Kurfurst is correct in sayinig that I first posted this paper. What he hasn't done is show you all the papers in the stream which will at least give everyone the whole picture.

First some backgrouind. The conversion of FC to 100 Octane had started at the end of 1939 and was dependent on the supply of 100 octane being available at the fighter stations. However the process was that the current fuel 87 octane would be used up and replaced with 100 octane. As a result the stations and squadrons actual conversion would differ.

By February from combat records, station records we know that about 18 squadrons had converted.
At the 5th Meeting of the Oil Committee held on 24th February in item 9 of the summary of conclusions, the ACAS (Assistant to the Chief of the Air Staff) requested that Fighters and Blenheims should use 100 Octane fuel. Paper attached. Note there is no limitation or selection involved. It also recognised that this would involve the active transfer of fuel

At the 6th Meeting held on the 6th April 1940 the magic word Certain is used. (Do I wish they had used something else, you bet.). This comes up in the actions from the 5th Meeting prepared for the 6th meeting. Paper attached.
However in the Summary for the minutes of the 6th meeting it clearly states 'That the policy will be that in the very near future all aircraft in operational units will be running on 100 Octane Fuel but that there is no intention to turn this fuel over to training units.. Paper attached.

In the 7th Meeting of the Oil Committee held on 18th May in the Summary of Conclusions is states Satisfaction was expressed that the fact that the units concerned had now been stocked with the necessary 100 Octane Fuel paper attached.

It is my belief that when they say concerned they are referring to the operational units that had not in February already been converted to 100 octane and excluded the training units.

[Glider]

I should add that I have looked at most of the squadron record of units that formed after May 1940 and that I checked their records up to May 1941. In none of those records was there any mention of converting to 100 octane or CS props.

This has two impacts
1) As the papers state for the 7th meeting confirm that the units concerned had been stocked with 100 octane then it was the norm, that the units formed after May started with 100 Octane so why should they mention it.
2) If the role out had been halted as per pips and Kurfursts belief and restarted in September, then this would have shown in the squadron records.

I can only say that the case for the 100% use of 100 octane in the BOB is a strong one, not a perfect one. However there is no evidence to say that any unit went into combat in the BOB using 87 octane.

There will always be those that doubt but they cannot support their position apart from making the most of the chink of doubt left in peoples mind.

Its also worth repeating that I have been all through the Air Minestry files, the Oil Co ordination Committee file, the Chief of the Air Staffs papers both committee and private files and of course the War Cabinet file. None of these have any mention of a halting of the role out, of any shortage or any restart. If anyone believes that RAF squadrons went into combat using 87 octane then prove it.