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

[Glider]

I would agree with Sturm in that the developers will use both fuels and let the mission builders make the call. If the misson is over N Ireland then 100 octane wouldn't be needed anyway as there wouldn't be any 109's. If they insist on 87 octane in no 11 group then I can imagine what response they would get.

The reason I first joined the thread was to ensure that the misson builders were not limiting the RAF to 16 squadrons as that was patently wrong.

[Crumpp]

16 squadrons as that was patently wrong.

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

[Crumpp]

Just explain to everyone why it is that people far more qualified than you say the fuel was blended at the refineries,

It says they made the 100 grade stock. The article explains how they making regular gasoline stock using catalytic cracking produced a stock pure enough to be have alkylation it was made into 100 grade fuel stock.

Of course they blended the alkylates at the refinery. Stockyards do not have the equipment to do that kind of operation. Stockyards today do not perform alkylation either.

Fuel stock is what gets shipped from the refinery. It is not the fuel that goes into airplane tanks.

Even aircraft oil requires blending. An extreme example is for Lycoming engines that you can find oil that is already blended or you must blend it yourself. There is an mandatory service bulletin that requires certain Lycoming engines to use LW-16702. Lycoming highly recommends the additive for all of their engines.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/supp...dfs/SB471B.PDF

Here you can buy the additive and blend it yourself....

Avco Lycoming has approved oil additive LW-16702 that contains an anti-scuffing agent and can dramatically reduce engine wear. This additive is applicable to all Avco Lycoming piston aircraft engines, and factory recommends use at every oil change or every 50 hours, whichever occurs first.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...iladditive.php

Or you can buy the oil already blended:

Contains additive LW16702 which reduces engine wear and corrosion.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...shelloils3.php

Either way, if you fly a certain Lycoming engine, you must have use it.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

You continually fail to name those 16 squadrons despite pilot reports saying at least 22 squadrons using 12 boost which required 100 fuel before July.

You have yet to produce that OOB you said you would. Sure they did as my graphic shows.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Sturm_Williger

From all the arguments and counter-arguments posted, it seems clear that the following can be derived :

87 octane may have been used by ( a few/some ) Squadrons as well.

Actually this is the part that hasn't been proved, because there is no evidence of it whatsoever aside from a couple of training flights becoming embroiled on the odd occasion (listed by Glider). The problem is that one or two people have taken this lack of any evidence as reason enough that it was so widespread as not to be worth mentioning, anywhere, ever.


Aside from that I agree, modelling both would be best for very early war scenarios.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=772

This is only the Spitfire squadrons. Please don't make the suggestion that Hurricanes were all on 87 for god's sake.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hey Guys

Got a little busy this last weekend, was not able to put out the group PM, so don't feel left out if you didn't get the PM! I hope to get to it this week!

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by .

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

I would like you to read your source, If you look at it you will find they are one and the same and there isn't one that says 16 squadrons were using 100 octane in September.

If there is I would be glad to see it but I am certain that you don't have one that says, sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel to quote your words.
If you cannot supply such a source, I would like an explanation as to why you are saying that you have such a paper and don't.

[Crumpp]

Glider you have seen the sources. They are already posted in this thread.

I am not interested in wasting my time hunting them down to be re-posted. Read the thread, please.

I will scan the OOB's but on my time not yours.

[NZtyphoon]

As per usual Crumpp, you have not explained anything by diverting into modern peacetime practices.

Please explain why the RAF issued 62,000 tons of 100 Octane between July and end of October 1940, consumed 52,000 tons, yet just over 15,000 tons was needed to fly every defensive sortie flown between July 10 and October 6?

And, no I don't care what happens in the private aviation business now, it would be good if you could explain: what happened to some 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in 1940?

May I repeat that?

What happened to 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel?

The rest of your claims - that only 16 Squadrons ever used the stuff until sometime in September - are based on Morgan and Shacklady which, as I have explained very carefully, based their claims on a pre-war planning paper, which is a highly suspect way of explaining what happened in wartime, when Britain was facing a full scale air assault and the possibility of invasion.

In fact the entire section of the use of 100 Octane fuel in Morgan and Shacklady is a deeply flawed analysis of what happened in 1940. For example, they claim that lots of tankers carrying 100 Octane were sunk by U-Boats etc, but provide absolutely NO evidence to back the claim up. In fact something like 78 tankers (Barbi's figures) were sunk between September 1939 and November 1940 while 1,150 unloaded their cargoes in Britain during the same period. Just because Morgan and Shacklady are great at describing the technical details of Spitfires it doesn't mean that they have a complete grasp of all historical events of the times.

All Crumpp can come up with is absolutely nothing. Why he wants to believe so fervently - so religiously (evidence of things unseen) and rigidly - that the RAF used very limited amounts of 100 Octane fuel is beyond me, and I don't really care. I have far more important things to do than bother with his nonsense and blather any more.