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

[Crumpp]

we do know that the changes were already in place so a number of the 700 would already have them.

Glider, the document does not say the Merlin engine has been produced with the changes in place, it says the NEWER ENGINES will already have the modifications.

That sentence could mean:

1. That could mean all existing merlin engines from ~mid april 1940 or so would have the changes incorporated in production. Along with those production engines a maintenance stock of the new parts would have to be produced. That is a massive production undertaking and would take some time to implement.

2. It could also mean the NEWER production engines, ie the Merlin IIX would incorporate the changes in their design. That makes the most sense and is exactly what we see in the Operating Notes!!!

Production priority would go to the newer designs and older ones would be upgraded over time on a schedule that the manufacturer could meet. We do see that schedule listed as older models will be upgraded during their service maintenance.

Production resources are not infinite. The Spitfire Mk II was coming online and expected to replace the Spitfire Mk I. The Operating Notes are very clear in the fact 100 Octane was the only fuel approved for the Mk II.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider, the document does not say the Merlin engine has been produced with the changes in place, it says the NEWER ENGINES will already have the modifications.

That sentence could mean:

1. That could mean all existing merlin engines from ~mid april 1940 or so would have the changes incorporated in production. Along with those production engines a maintenance stock of the new parts would have to be produced. That is a massive production undertaking and would take some time to implement.

2. It could also mean the NEWER production engines, ie the Merlin IIX would incorporate the changes in their design. That makes the most sense and is exactly what we see in the Operating Notes!!!

Production priority would go to the newer designs and older ones would be upgraded over time on a schedule that the manufacturer could meet. We do see that schedule listed as older models will be upgraded during their service maintenance.

Production resources are not infinite. The Spitfire Mk II was coming online and expected to replace the Spitfire Mk I. The Operating Notes are very clear in the fact 100 Octane was the only fuel approved for the Mk II.

There goes your word again could. It could mean this and it could mean that.
We know from station, squadron and combat reports, backed up by a number of documents, histories, personal stories, that SPit 1 did use 100 Octane in the BOB. . How can you ignore this!!
Lets not forget the Hurricane and Defiant which had the same engine or are you saying that they didn't use 100 octane either!!!
So I believe it means what it says, that the newer production engines have the changes built into them.

Edit I also note that the paper outlining the changes says that the changes are already incorporated into the servicing. As we can safely assume that Spit II's are not in service in March 1940, if it isn't SPitfire I and Hurricane's which according to your theory didn't use 100 Octane, what do you think they are making the changes too?

[Crumpp]

SPitfire I and Hurricane's which according to your theory didn't use 100 Octane

Glider,

Where in the world do you think I am claiming that Spitfire Mk I and eventually Hurricanes not use 100 Octane? They did not have 16 squadrons worth of Spitfire Mk II's by September.

It is in the Operating Notes that they were capable if equipped.

Crumpp says:
The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

It is clear that Fighter Command was in process of adopting the fuel but it is equally clear that process was not complete in July 1940. There is no agreement on the end dates for the Battle of Britain. So, depending on the dates one chooses for the battle to end, the process was or was not completed during the battle itself.

Crumpp says:
Production priority would go to the newer designs and older ones would be upgraded over time on a schedule that the manufacturer could meet. We do see that schedule listed as older models will be upgraded during their service maintenance.

Production resources are not infinite.

The above explains the process, it does not eliminate the Spitfire Mk I from using 100 Octane.

Edit I also note that the paper outlining the changes says that the changes are already incorporated into the servicing.

It says they are being done AS service maintenance. It is not a modification that is done by the squadron maintenance personnel. That is telling you the modification will happen the next time the aircraft goes for Service Inspection.

There are three modifications that add .020 inches to the spigot depth of the cylinder head top joint. The Service level maintenance personnel can choose which method of compliance meets their needs based on the parts on hand.

1. Modification Number Merlin/64 (requires no new piston rings)

2. Modification Number Merlin/77 (requires NEWLY designed piston rings to be installed)

3. Modification Number Merlin/138 - This is the one being done by the factory on NEWER engines.

Crumpp says:
It could also mean the NEWER production engines, ie the Merlin IIX would incorporate the changes in their design.

Refers to Modification Number Merlin/138. The other two modifications ARE NOT being done by Rolls Royce production. They or their subcontractors are only producing the parts to accomplish the modification No. Merlin/64 and Merlin/77 to the aircraft in service as well as the maintence stock required. The work is being done as service level maintenance.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider,

Where in the world do you think I am claiming that Spitfire Mk I and eventually Hurricanes not use 100 Octane? They did not have 16 squadrons worth of Spitfire Mk II's by September.

Now it is Spitfire IIs.

Spitfire IIs did not appear til around July, so it had to be Spitfire Is and Hurricanes. You spent pages and pages worth of posts deniging the use of 12lb boost and 100 fuel. Is this your way of admitting you were wrong?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by pstyle

I have made a list, of all the references I can find to the use of 100 in COMBAT from freburary 1940 to September 1940, by squadron.

The list is not exhasutive and simply indicates the first date at which I can find various references. I have grouped these by the type of reference, from explicit mentions of particular boost or octanes (in photos or reports), down to mentions of "gate" or "emergency power/ boost cut out" which are almost as persuasive as direct references to the use of the 100 fuels. I am going to continue researching this to see if I can find further evidence/ data that indicates at a minimum the "in-use-by" date for the various squadrons.

Here is the results:

referecnes to +12 Lb and/or 100 octance
602 squadron: February 1940 - photo of squadron aircraft in in pre-BoB paint with 100 written on the fuseage + squad operations book entry on 16/2
54 Squadron: May 1940 - combat report from colin gray on 24/5 & AL Deere Combat report 26/5
19 Squadron: May 1950 - combat report from flt Lt Lane 26/5
610 Squadron: July 1940 - photo of 100 fuel bowser refuelling A/C
41 Squadron: June 1940 - combat report Flt Lt Webster 19/6
64 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from P/O Donahue
72 Squadron: September 1940 - Combat report from P/O Elliot 9/9

References to Boost Cut out/ emergency boost/ "gate"
74 Squadron: May 1940 - combat report from P/O Freeborn 24/5
611 squadron: June 1940 - combat report from P/O Brown 2/6
610 Squadron: June 1940 - combat report order to "gate" 12/6
616 Squadron: August 1940 - combat report from F/O Dundas 15/8
603 SQuadron: August 1940 - combat report from P/O Morton 28/6
152 Squadron: September 1940 - combat report from P/O Hall on 4/9
66 Squadron: September 1940 - combat report from F/O Oxsrping 6/9
234 Squadron: August OR September 1940 - recollections from P/O Doe
92 Squadron: September 1940 - recollections from Goeffrey Wellum

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

plus add 11 Hurricane squadrons
17, 56, 73, 79, 87, 85, 151, 229, 245 Sqns May,

145 Sqn, July,

1 Sqn. August,

43 Sqn June

That makes 18 squadrons Feb-July another 6 in August...oops! that equals 24 in August plus another eight September = 32 squadrons. Why that's exactly twice as many squadrons as the 16 stated by Morgan and Shacklady tssk tssk tssk.
Breakdown = 15 Spitfire, 17 Hurricane.

Which ever way Crumpp tries to argue, fact is there are twice as many squadrons known to be using 100 Octane fuel by September 1940 than both he and Morgan and Shacklady say...

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Almost got it correct, but just like Mike, you seem to have missed a small detail mentioned in those "official records in the NA".

And that is all the papers talk of select fighter and bomber stations. I am sorry, I know you would like to forget that part, but that seems to be a major fly in the ointment of your whole thesis.

What Kurfurst and Crumpp have both conveniently missed is that the March 1939 plan for 16 Fighter Squadrons and 2 bomber was provisional: right down the page para 8 says:

"A.M.D.P asked that D.D.C(3) should keep him informed of the rate of output of 100 octane fuel in order that the rate of change-over of squadrons to this fuel could be kept under review in the light of any [I]diminution or acceleration in supplies.[/U]" (attachment 1) Should the rate of fuel supply increase, the rate and numbers of squadrons changing over to its use could increase as well.

Supplies of 100 octane fuel continued to increase from 202,000 tons in December 1939, which was the time specified for the change over.

By November 1939 it was considered that there were "adequate reserves" of 100 octane fuel to go ahead with the modification of all Hurricane and Spitfire Merlin engines to use 12 lb boost.



Squadrons did not, and could not hold their own fuel supplies, to require them to do so would be an operational and logistical nightmare: it was airbases that were supplied with fuel, not individual squadrons. In the 6 May 1940 paper (Item 9 7th Meeting Summary...) "Units concerned" cannot be talking about individual squadrons, it is referring to bases which, depending on their importance, (eg; Sector Station) hosted up to three squadrons. 18 squadrons = 8-10 airbases.

The December 7 1939 letter, which sets out a process for supplying 100 Octane fuel starts:

"I have the honour to refer to my letter...dated 27 October 1939, regarding the issue of 100 Octane Fuel for use in Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft in this Command." (attachment 2)

25 Fighter Stations were listed as requiring 100 octane fuel "in the first instance", including non-operational Kenley, Usworth and Hendon, with a further 17 non-operational bases which required supplies for visiting aircraft, but "which have no Hurricane or Spitfire aircraft at the moment."

Squadrons that were to use 100 octane fuel were not selected by Squadron number but by the type of aircraft used. Bases that hosted these aircraft types were accordingly supplied with 100 octane fuel. Same for the Bomber squadrons, namely Blenheims. The only Blenheim capable of using 100 octane fuel was the Mk IV the first of which emerged in March 1939. The Defiant was not listed in December because it was not yet operational.

All of the 11 Group Sector stations were listed, plus Filton which, in June 1940, became part of the new 10 Group; 4 out of 5 12 Group sector stations, 2 out of 5 13 Group sector stations, and 11 other airfields, including 6 of 11 Group were listed.

The May 18 1940 memo expresses satisfaction that the units concerned - viz Hurricane and Spitfire Squadrons - had "NOW been stocked with the neccesary 100 octane fuel."

In May 1940 stocks of 100 Octane fuel were 294,000 tons, while stocks of "other grades" were 298,000 tons (attachment 3). Far from there being a crisis in the supply, of 100 Octane preventing a continued change over of units (according to the famous Pips document) for the next two months, 100 Octane fuel was becoming the dominant fuel type being stocked; by August 404,000 tons was being held, cf 230,000 tons of "other grades". Between December 1939 and December 1940 the overall increase in 100 Octane stocks was 297,000 tons, in spite of the fact that some 93,000 tons had been consumed between June and December 1940.

Fact is Luftwaffe fuel stocks were lower or almost the same in 1940 as those of the RAF

It would also seem that the Luftwaffe had provisional pre-war plans for fuel stocks which changed once war had been declared:

Even as late as October, 1938, the Germans apparently had not expected to need reserves of oil until much later. A captured plan dated 30 January 1939 shows that the Luftwaffe then foresaw a relatively small increase (between 270,000 and 420,000 tons per year) in its consumption of aviation gasoline in the autumn, presumably to cover the Polish campaign. A tremendous increase, to 2,600,000 or even 5,200,000 tons per year, was not scheduled to occur until 1 October 1940, when the real war presumably was to have begun.

Kurfurst can stick to the phrase "selected" as much as he likes - it is a purely provisional phrase in a pre-war plan, and the 16 + 2 squadrons was conditional based on fuel supply. This was all explained long ago but completely ignored by Kurfurst and Crumpp.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Kurfurst can stick to the phrase "selected" as much as he likes - it is a purely provisional phrase in a pre-war plan, and the 16 + 2 squadrons was conditional based on fuel supply. This was all explained long ago but completely ignored by Kurfurst and Crumpp.

Nice lie. The very document you have just posted mentions select Spitfire and Hurricane units having been stocked with 100 octane. This document is from May 1940, it is not a pre-war plan, and there is no word of 16+2 Squadrons noted in March 1939, though it's quite clear that the same was carried through, as only a 2 or 3 Blenheim units were 'concerned', in the May 1940 document, same as the March 1939 document.

I guess that puts back your 'credibility' to the shelf it belongs. You were known for manipulating sources long ago on Wikipedia (if anyone doubts it see Minor's latest falsifying attempts on 109 related articles on Wiki), and you have carried this over to this board.

You have also lied when you have stated that the LW fuel reserves were lower than those of the RAF; again, according to the very sources you have posted, the LW aviation fuel reserves stood at around 680,000 tons, compared to about the 600,000 tons contained in Britain. The interesting part is how much more aviation fuel the Germans consumed compared to the British in the period - 80 to 100 000 tons per month.



BTW, you were claiming before and swore to the heavens that you will ignore me. Not a man of your word, are you?

[Glider]

If this is true then someone needs to explain how 2 squadrons of Blenhiems were split between 4 stations of No 2 Group that were 100% stocked with 100 octane.
That same person needs to explain why if the basic premise was that 5/6ths of the fuel at the other No 2 Group bases was 100 Octane, why should they only use the 1/6th that was 87 octane for operations.
Finally that same person may want to explain to everyone why when he knows about these documents doesn't he ever, ever mention them.

And as an aside, that same person might want to let us know what his version of Select is and how he supports it?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Nice lie. The very document you have just posted mentions select Spitfire and Hurricane units having been stocked with 100 octane. This document is from May 1940, it is not a pre-war plan

Read the 18 May paper again Barbi; not a mention of "select" units it says the "...fact that Units concerned -ie; Hurricane & Spitfire units - had been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel".

Paragraph 8 on the March 1939 paper (your favourite) makes the 16 + 2 squadrons by September 1940 conditional, based on supply. You can call people "liar" all you like - the only one lying is your good self.

[Osprey]

Not withstanding that the Blenheim squadrons shared bases with fighter squadrons. Brian Kingcombe talks of his friendship and rapport 92 had with the Blenheim crews (610?) they shared with, how they helped turn the fighters around between sorties etc.