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

[winny]

Crumpp, why not present your full argument instead of the ridiculous nit picking of every minor detail, including just making stuff up without checking?

Go on, do it. Next post.

You're now clinging on to the pilot's notes.. is that it?

So hit me with the one bit of evidence thats so compelling that you still think FC were not using 100 oct during BoB

Or are we still doing this because you think that because your're an expert in flying/engineering, that just makes whatever you say right...?

I can go back through this thread and prove that there are lots of things that you've said that are simply wrong.

You show me your argument and then I (or one of the others) will show you ours.

I get the feeling you long since stopped arguing the point and are just arguing the man.. Why? What's your motivation?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Estabilishment is not strength, it is only what is presently authorized or projected.

You are confusing a projection with what is one hand.

Prove it with documentary evidence; show us ignoramus' that this meant that there was no 100 octane fuel in France in May 1940.

- in fact provide documentation that proves anything you say:

Provide documentation that the RAF used hardly any 100 Octane fuel throughout 1940.

Provide documentation proving that 56,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel consumed between July and October 1940 was not "consumed" but was in fact put back into reserves without being consumed.

Provide documentation that the RAF authorised 16 squadrons only to use 100 octane fuel and provide documentation to prove when this happened, apart from using a pre-war planning paper as a crutch for your lame theories.

Provide documentation showing how the RAF ensured that only individual aircraft within squadrons were allowed to use 100 Octane fuel, and provide documentation showing how this was done.

Provide documentation showing that the RAF did not use 100 Octane fuel during the Battle of France.

Provide documentation showing that the RAF used 87 Octane fuel for its frontline Merlin engined fighters during the Battle of Britain.

Provide documentation that the RAF stuck to its pre-war target of reserves of 800,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel no matter what.

Provide documentation proving that it took 2 1/2 years from the start of WW2 for the Rolls-Royce Merlin II & III series to be approved and modified for 100 Octane and +12 lbs boost.

Provide documentation proving that Rolls-Royce had not already modified and tested Merlin engines to use 100 Octane fuel between 1938 and 1939.

Provide documentation that historians such as A A Rubbra, who helped design the Merlin and Alec Harvey-Bailey who had access to Rolls-Royce records were wrong when they wrote that the Merlin II and III were using 100 octane fuel in early 1940. I presume you categorise them as enthusiastic amateurs?

Because you know that you're right and everybody else is wrong you should have all of the evidence you need at hand and ready to post asap.

[lane]

Context, timeline...lol, sure no problem, we'll start with these:










Emergency +12 lbs./sq. in. Boost Operation: Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.



These documents relating to fuel requirments of the the Advanced Air Stiking Force and the Air Component, both in France during May 1940, give some idea of consumption, stocks, and how fuel requirements were calculated. As can be seen the Hurricanes used 100 octane, the Blenheim used a mix, while the Battle and Lysander used 87 octane, as did any transport, liason, visiting types etc.















To underscore the above documentation of Hurricanes using 100 octane fuel in France please note the following:

S/L J. O. W. Oliver, 85 Squadron, 10 May 1940


P/O John Bushell, 151 Squadron, 18 May 1940


S/L E. M. Donaldon, 151 Sqdn., 18 May 1940

F/O Paul Richey, 1 Squadron, 11 May 1940


F/O E. J. Kain, 73 Squadron, 14 May 1940


P/O D. W. A. Stones, 79 Squadron, 14 May 1940


Sgt. R. C. Wilkinson, 3 Squadron, 14 may 1940


P/O R. P. Beamont, 87 Squadron, 15 May 1940


P/O F. B. Sutton, 56 Squadron, 18 May 1940


F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 18 May 1940


F/O C. F. G. Adye, 17 Squadron, 18 May 1940

F/O C. F. G. Adye, 17 Squadron, 19 May 1940

F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 19 May 1940


Sgt. L. H. B. Pearce, 79 Squadron, 20 May 1940


Sgt. J. C. Harrison, 229 Squadron, 28 May 1940


P/O C. M. Simpson, 229 Squadron, 29 May 1940


P/O K. B. McGlashan, 245 Squadron, 28 May 1940

[fruitbat]

Great post lane

[bongodriver]

Yeah, section 3 subparagraph B that in your pipe and smoke it....

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Yeah, section 3 subparagraph B that in your pipe and smoke it....

I did all of my time in Special Operations. Started out in Rangers and then went to Special Forces.

"Special *bleepin* Needs" more like, on the evidence of this thread. *falls off chair laughing*

You'll find out in time that there is scarcely a subject matter on earth that Crumpp is not a World Authority upon (in his head). One would have thought that a Special Forces Soldier of the caliber of Crumpp would be cognizant of the fact that no plan survives contact (especially 18 month old provisional ones) and its well known that a modicum of common sense and ability to improvise and adapt to rapidly changing circumstances (IE BoB) are usually prerequisites for selection. Crumpp does not understand that red tape and SOP's are often overlooked or neglected in times where it is efficacious, necessary, and prudent to do so.

Crumpp is also a renowned expert on explosives, Air Combat Manoeuvres, Modern history, Physics, Engineering, Aerodynamics and Mathematics. Wunderkind. Nietzsches 'Overman'. He even finds the time in his hectic schedule to obsessively stalk computer game forums of games he apparently doesn't even play, to put all of us simpletons to rights with the irrepressible power of his ferocious intellect. Fear him!

Great post Lane. I think that's what we in the trade call a "definitive, catastrophic smackdown". Not that this thread has not been full of them. Not that this will stop Crumpp. Think "T-1000". He cannot be stopped!

Still waiting for all the reams of 87 octane combat reports circa the battle of Britain, a list of the 16 squadrons, and details of their supply. Still waiting for a certain party to understand the basic requirement of qualifying a statement with actual evidence. Should be an absolute cinch, given the alleged predominance of 87 octane! Where are they? Why can't they be found? Hmmmm, its a tough one.

Carry on, out.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville

I did all of my time in Special Operations. Started out in Rangers and then went to Special Forces.

"Special *bleepin* Needs" more like, on the evidence of this thread. *falls of chair laughing*

You'll find out in time that there is scarcely a subject matter on earth that Crumpp is not a World Authority upon (in his head). One would have thought that a Special Forces Soldier of the caliber of Crumpp would be cognizant of the fact that no plan survives contact (especially 18 month old provisional ones) and its well known that a modicum of common sense and ability to improvise and adapt to rapidly changing circumstances (IE BoB) are usually prerequisites for selection. Crumpp does not understand that red tape and SOP's are often overlooked or neglected in times where it is efficacious, necessary, and prudent to do so.

Crumpp is also a renowned expert on explosives, Air Combat Maneouvres, Modern history, Physics, Engineering, Aerodynamics and Mathematics. Wunderkind. Nietzsches 'Overman'. He even finds the time in his hectic schedule to obsessively stalk computer game forums of games he apparently doesn't even play, to put all of us simpletons to rights with the irrepressible power of his ferocious intellect. Fear him!

Great post Lane. I think that's what we in the trade call a "definitive, catastrophic smackdown". Not that this thread has not been full of them. Not that this will stop Crumpp. Think "T-1000". He cannot be stopped!

Still waiting for all the reams of 87 octane combat reports circa the battle of Britain, a list of the 16 squadrons, and details of their supply. Still waiting for a certain party to understand the basic requirement of qualifying a statement with actual evidence. Should be an absolute cinch, given the alleged predominance of 87 octane! Where are they? Why can't they be found? Hmmmm, its a tough one.

Carry on, out.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider,

Documentation like that is useful but one can hardly make the conclusion all operational units were using the fuel. You are making a leap of logic that just is not there. If someone presented Combat reports from November 1945, would you make the conclusion the entire Luftwaffe was using the FW-190D9? Of course not, the report would have to be placed in context in order to be understood.

But it is documentation, documentation that shows it was in use. You as have been pointed out have no documentation. NOthing that says that 87 octane was in use in front line units.

All the combat report tells you is that on that day and time, that single airplane was using the fuel.

Which gives us over 34 squadrons using the fuel as we have reports for that. However we have none that show 87 octane in use.

Once more, period magazine articles the fuel was "in use" is not all operational units and niether is logistical documentation.

For example:



Making the conclusion Hurricanes were using 100 Octane in the Battle of France based off some logistical projections for future war is amatuerish and clumsey. It is a paper tiger. That document is a calculation of projected needs written on 7 May 1940. The British Expeditionary Force was on the Beaches of Dunkirk 18 days later.

Again you forget that we have the logistical background for the use of 100 octane in France, the combat reports that show it in use in France, plus as a final kicker, the evidence from at least one crashed German fighter that the Germans were using captured RAF 100 octane fuel stocks. Finally you need to read the papers before you quote them. The &th May gives a present establishment of 100 Octane i.e. it was already in place in serious quantaties

Now if that is amaturish then I plead guilty.
Now how does that compare to a theory based on a 1942 Pilots Notes of an aircraft that wasn't in the front line in 1942 from which you decide that the aircraft wasn't using 100 Octane two years before. Does that strike you as detailed research, double checking and of course you do have documentation to support it don't you?.

How much of those calculation and projections for future war do you really think became ground reality in 18 days?

Clearly more than you think.

Finally can I remind you that you still havn't said how many RAF fighter squadrons you believe were using 100 Octane in the BOB or how many Blenhiem squadrons were using it.
You also believed that the period of 1940 was operational testing, with unfortunately nothing to support. This trend of having wild theories and no support is my definition of an Amaturish.

PS After your claim of 20 years in special forces I have serious doubts as to your experience iro aviation.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Estabilishment is not strength, it is only what is presently authorized or projected.

You are confusing a projection with what is one hand.

Wrong
A present establishment of X is what you currently have.
An Authorised establishment of X, is what you theoretically should have or are authorised to have.

[Al Schlageter]

Well I am glad to see you guys are finally coming around to seeing Eugene's 'song and dance' routine (get 'busted' on a subject and change the subject).

He will NEVER admit he is wrong.

As for him being a Green Beret (ie SF), they need pencil pushers as well.