Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Other than it is the specified fuel and listed in all the Operating Notes besides the Spitfire Mk II as the required fuel for the type?

Or the fact it is the largest portion of aviation fuel in the Air Ministry and 100 Octane does not make a significant portion of fuel at the airfields until after October 1940?

Seems a pretty lock tight case that 87 Octane fuel was used in considerable amounts....at least according to the Air Ministry.

So what RAF FC squadrons were using 87 octane fuel.

Well of course 87 octane fuel was used in considerable amounts as the a/c in other RAF Commands require the fuel.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Other than it is the specified fuel and listed in all the Operating Notes besides the Spitfire Mk II as the required fuel for the type?

Ignoring the evidence re 12 lb boost being linked to 100 octane

Or the fact it is the largest portion of aviation fuel in the Air Ministry and 100 Octane does not make a significant portion of fuel at the airfields until after October 1940?

After it had been released to All operational Commands so not unexpected.

Seems a pretty lock tight case that 87 Octane fuel was used in considerable amounts....at least according to the Air Ministry.

Correct, by Bomber Command, Training Command, Coastal Command, Manufaturing plants of engines and aircraft, BOAC and of course other Non operational units but not operational Fighter Command units.

You are the one that seems to stick to the 16 + 2 pre war proposal, but have no papers to support it. All we ( you can include me in that we) are waiting for is anything that supports your contention.
Anything at all, a reference to which squadrons, or which stations, or any decision as to timing or reporting path, a book that complains about being moved to an 87 otane unit/station or indeed one that rejoices as the move to a 100 octane unit/station. Absolutely anything at all, note not everything that supports your view, just anything that supports your view

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Correct, by Bomber Command, Training Command, Coastal Command, Manufaturing plants of engines and aircraft, BOAC and of course other Non operational units but not operational Fighter Command units.

Source please for 87 octane not being issued operational Fighter Command units.

I say you just made that up.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Source please for 87 octane not being issued operational Fighter Command units.

I say you just made that up.

I will rephrase it, 87 octane was used in fighter command for operational missions until the switchover to 100 Octane. However there is no evidence that 87 octane was used for combat missions after the switchover during the BOB from July onwards.

Now if you or Crumpp can supply any evidence that says 87 octane was used in operational missions in or after July 1940 a lot of people would be very interested.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Source please for 87 octane not being issued operational Fighter Command units.

I say you just made that up.

You show us your evidence for 87 octane use, for even one combat sortie by an operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadron during the BofB.

We're getting a bit tired of your reliance on 1938 documents.

You won't because they used 100 octane, exclusively, throughout the battle.

My thesis is this:

RAF FC used 100 octane exclusively during the BofB.

There is abundant evidence for 100 octane use, and that its' use was critical to victory. There are no references (and I mean NO, none, zilch, nada, etc etc...) to 87 octane use during the battle.

The available data supports my thesis. It does not support your thesis of mixed 87 and 100 octane use. In the absence of evidence your thesis fails, but the absence of evidence for 87 octane is what my theory predicts; my theory, therefore, fits the facts, while yours doesn't.

Crumpp and Kurfurst go to college...
and present their history prof with a thesis:

"RAF FC used 87 octane and 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain"

"An excellent thesis" says the prof, at the start of the term, "if you can prove it you will have altered our understanding of one of the most crucial battles in modern history."

A few months later they are called into the prof's office: "How are you two getting along with your paper? I expected something from you by now...but I'll let you have a few more days. By the way, what proof have you got? Remember, the term is almost over, and I expected a finished paper by now."

Crumpp and Kurfurst pull out a 1/2 dozen pages and place them on the prof's desk: "Well we have some papers dating from 1938 and we think that some aircraft manuals state that 87 octane was required."

"Hmmm..." says the prof, staring at the meagre number of pages: "You mean to say that's all you've got? I think you need to go the library, the archives, and the even the web, and dig up some solid evidence for 87 octane use during the actual battle...after all there's numerous sources that state that 100 octane fuel was used during the battle. You are now making an 'extraordinary claim' which is all well and good but as you well know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I'm sorry gentleman, but I don't see any such proof in the rather sparse data that you've presented.

Crumpp and Kurfurst look downcast and stare at their feet: "We have looked high and low and this is all we can come up with."

"Oh my" says the prof... he pauses for a few moments, moves back to marking papers and then glances up and states: "No problem gentlemen; you have a few more days...just make sure that your paper states that you conclude that your thesis is false, based upon the lack of any direct evidence for 87 octane fuel use, and the mass of contradictory evidence stating that 100 octane fuel was in universal use. Good day"

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Robtek, I find the argue with fanatics is a waste of time. You can't fix their head.

I think this is my new sig.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Source please for 87 octane not being issued operational Fighter Command units.

You'll find it in the same place as the source for tomato ketchup not being issued as ammunition.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I will rephrase it, 87 octane was used in fighter command for operational missions until the switchover to 100 Octane.

Thank you. When did this alleged switch over to 100 octane happened, dear David? With documentary evidence if possible.

However there is no evidence that 87 octane was used for combat missions after the switchover during the BOB from July onwards.

Of course, since it was standard fuel in the RAF. Similarly, there's no evidence that 100 octane fuel was used in more than a a couple of dozen cases out of thousands of fighter sorties, right David?


Let's get back to that allaged switchover, now you have seem to have changed your position and now state that this was supposed to have happened in July 1940. What documentary evidence can you offer to this so-called switchover, David?

Now if you or Crumpp can supply any evidence that says 87 octane was used in operational missions in or after July 1940 a lot of people would be very interested.

Again, we need to specify the type of evidence required. Should combat reports that do not mention the use of emergency boost or +12 lbs/sq.inch constitute such an evidence, David?

[Osprey]

Notice that Kurfurst has deliberately avoided the fact that guns in the BoB were armed with common sauces.

The Luftwaffe had access to British HP brown sauce after over-running British bases in France 1940 and decided that it was suitably spicy to load their MG's with it before moving to their own brand. The RAF tried it but stocks were low so switched to tomato ketchup just before the BOB. This was issued to all airfield NAAFI wagons and armourers would just take all the sachets direct from there. If you correlate the growth of Heinz and HP companies from pre to post war, looking at use of sauces, and the fact that there is no mention of this in any flight report anywhere ever, then we can conclude that it was in full use by both sides. I think the British experimented with Indian curry sauce on the Spitfire Ib model but it was a bit lumpy and the guns would jam. That squadron asked for their ketchup back immediately.

Since there is no evidence of this it can't be ruled out.

[robtek]

Still both sides have evidence but no proof.

The issue seems very similar to the "schroeders cat" problem.

Everybody and his uncle "knows" the cat is dead, but it can't be proven until the box is opened.

So, everybody, and his uncle, "knows" there was only 100 oct. used by the active part of the FC, but as in "Schroeders cat" all possibilities are equal true until there is proof (box opened).