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

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

20 000 tons / month by the 8th AAF,

So 8th AAF required 20,000 tons/month? How many squadrons and aircraft in 8th AAF?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I am sure that will be the next argument.

There is no argument whatsoever There is just you having this ridiculous claims (like a child covering its own eyes thinking ''if I can't see them, then they can't see me yay'').

You're wrong on so many levels (100 octane fuel stock and usage, early Merlin operational ratings)yet you keep on going stubbornly. Why are you doing this? Are you actually interested in fixing the FM in the sim? Do you actually fly Cliffs of Dover?

[gavinb]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Jesus tap dancing Christ, can all of you just present your evidence, nock off the character assassination crap and for the love of God grow up?
My God...just....my God!

Edit: Kurfurst, crump, nztyphoon et al, just what exactly do you all gain in this?

The problem here is the behaviour of one poster in particular.

In the case of nztyphoon at least, he is accurately posting information from a previous 'discussion' elsewhere in which Kurfurst misrepresented my reserarch and my personal views. I note Kurfurst is doing this again to further his own rather selective and ahistoric views on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain.

In my case I went to the trouble of researching the issue and then publishing an article on it in a respected peer-review publication. I've received a fair number of inquiries as a response, most of which have been genuine expressions of interest from people interested in the subject, and I've generally been happy to pass on further details from my research in response. However, since Kurfurst started up in about 2009 I've had about as many inquiries from people questioning me on the basis of what they've read about my work in online debates started by Kurfurst.

In the case of Kurfurst, nobody claiming to be him has ever attempted to contact me before repeatedly misrepresenting my views, and then accusing me of impersonating myself, and all on public forums. This has been done on ww2aircraft.net, wikipedia and now here.

This is discreditable to the point of being comic, but in my view a more serious issue for anybody who wants these internet dicussion forums to be taken seriously is the way in which more responsible contributors are forced on to an equivalent level with participants such as Kurfurst by the editorial approach on forums such as this. There is no illusiary middle-ground to be found here; Kurfurst's behaviour has clearly been (and apparently remains) ahistorical mendacity. Anybody in any doubt about this should familiarise themselves with the details of Kurfurst's behaviour as posted previously.

One minor result of this is that I don't feel any encouragement to contribute anything to sites like this or ww2aircraft.net because there is little or no value to be had from being pressured by lies to engage in 'debates' where genuine information and discussion is so consistently distorted by the activities of trolls.

I don't gain anything from this. Quite the opposite. In fact, even when I don't participate in the discussion, as a result of Kurfurst's behaviour I am forced to waste time that I would prefer to spend completing a new book in dealing with three-year old canards which have already been refuted. But the alternative is that the only exposure many will have to my work is through the wilful distortions of Kurfurst. Therefore I'm indebted to people like nztyphoon who have actually taken the trouble to challenge Kurfurst's views and accurately represent mine. The evidence posted by several people in response to Kurfurst has been genuinely informative, and I'd like to thank them for the effort.

One last point. I'm not that concerned with specific responses to Kurfurst, as he has been refuted before, and given his inability to modify his views or posting behaviour in response to evidence, continued debate with him is a waste of time and effort. However, the allegation that I hold anti-American views is a new departure, and I'd like to respond to that here.

In my view, the development of the Anglo-American alliance was both a fundamentally-important objective of British strategy, and was also critical to a successful outcome of the Second World War. However, any understanding the historical reality of how that alliance developed and how that war was fought must proceed from the historical evidence, regardless of any impact that has on post facto anti- or pro-American or British views held more than sixty years later.

If anybody wants to, they can contact me via the email address given on my departmental website -

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/

In the meantime, I suggest a more constructive approach would be to ignore Kurfurst and concentrate on the evidence other posters have already provided here and elsewhere which refutes Kurfurst's views but is also of larger historical interest.

Gavin Bailey

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by gavinb

The problem here is the behaviour of one poster in particular.

In the case of nztyphoon at least, he is accurately posting information from a previous 'discussion' elsewhere in which Kurfurst misrepresented my reserarch and my personal views. I note Kurfurst is doing this again to further his own rather selective and ahistoric views on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain.

In my case I went to the trouble of researching the issue and then publishing an article on it in a respected peer-review publication. I've received a fair number of inquiries as a response, most of which have been genuine expressions of interest from people interested in the subject, and I've generally been happy to pass on further details from my research in response. However, since Kurfurst started up in about 2009 I've had about as many inquiries from people questioning me on the basis of what they've read about my work in online debates started by Kurfurst.

In the case of Kurfurst, nobody claiming to be him has ever attempted to contact me before repeatedly misrepresenting my views, and then accusing me of impersonating myself, and all on public forums. This has been done on ww2aircraft.net, wikipedia and now here.

This is discreditable to the point of being comic, but in my view a more serious issue for anybody who wants these internet dicussion forums to be taken seriously is the way in which more responsible contributors are forced on to an equivalent level with participants such as Kurfurst by the editorial approach on forums such as this. There is no illusiary middle-ground to be found here; Kurfurst's behaviour has clearly been (and apparently remains) ahistorical mendacity. Anybody in any doubt about this should familiarise themselves with the details of Kurfurst's behaviour as posted previously.

One minor result of this is that I don't feel any encouragement to contribute anything to sites like this or ww2aircraft.net because there is little or no value to be had from being pressured by lies to engage in 'debates' where genuine information and discussion is so consistently distorted by the activities of trolls.

I don't gain anything from this. Quite the opposite. In fact, even when I don't participate in the discussion, as a result of Kurfurst's behaviour I am forced to waste time that I would prefer to spend completing a new book in dealing with three-year old canards which have already been refuted. But the alternative is that the only exposure many will have to my work is through the wilful distortions of Kurfurst. Therefore I'm indebted to people like nztyphoon who have actually taken the trouble to challenge Kurfurst's views and accurately represent mine. The evidence posted by several people in response to Kurfurst has been genuinely informative, and I'd like to thank them for the effort.

One last point. I'm not that concerned with specific responses to Kurfurst, as he has been refuted before, and given his inability to modify his views or posting behaviour in response to evidence, continued debate with him is a waste of time and effort. However, the allegation that I hold anti-American views is a new departure, and I'd like to respond to that here.

In my view, the development of the Anglo-American alliance was both a fundamentally-important objective of British strategy, and was also critical to a successful outcome of the Second World War. However, any understanding the historical reality of how that alliance developed and how that war was fought must proceed from the historical evidence, regardless of any impact that has on post facto anti- or pro-American or British views held more than sixty years later.

If anybody wants to, they can contact me via the email address given on my departmental website -

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/

In the meantime, I suggest a more constructive approach would be to ignore Kurfurst and concentrate on the evidence other posters have already provided here and elsewhere which refutes Kurfurst's views but is also of larger historical interest.

Gavin Bailey

Hello Dr Bailey. Rest assured that people who have been around many aviation and simming interest forums know all about a certain parties maliciously disruptive MO, their propensity to level scurrilous and completely unfounded allegations, and willfully mendacious behavior. He is still permanently banned from 'Warbirds' ww2aircraft.net, as well as serving a life time ban from editing wiki.

As you are well aware, there are very good and justifiable reasons for this, despite the many warnings he has had, as well as temporary bans (on other forums too) he will not adjust his behaviour. The leopard never changes its spots. Though of course it is all some elaborate 'grand conspiracy' and nothing whatsoever to do with the poster themselves actual conduct. Its just other people.

It really doesn't matter what he or Kettenhunde-Crummp 'think', as anyone with a modicum of intellect can see that their 'arguments' such as they are, hold no water. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that only 16 (or even 19) squadrons were using 100 octane in the Battle of Britain for some kind of 'test purpose' (or safety, or supply problems), it was in use and tested well before (dating back to the Battle of France, as has been conclusively shown), with primary source evidence.

To maintain that the pre war Morgan-Shacklady document, predating the BoB by some 18 months, represents what actually happened in practice, when there is an avalanche of corroborated evidence in this thread to the contrary (well done to all concerned), is simply risible. When one examines the facts, there is really no 'controversy' whatsoever regarding the widespread FC use of 100 octane fuel in the BoB. Its not unlike the deliberate types of 'Faux-controversy' manufactured by for example Creationists under the guise of 'fact' with rubbish like Intelligent design, when in fact there is no controversy in the scientific community at large at all.

Some people seem to have a problem with understanding the basic requirement to qualify a statement or assertion with actual evidence. They can 'believe' what they want of course, but its not quite good enough for the purpose of historiographical inquiry. As you of course are well aware, hehe.

People are still waiting for the mountain of combat reports detailing the allegedly predominant use of 87 octane fuel in the BoB by fighter command, which if this were true (and it most certainly is not) would of course be a relative cinch to find. They also eagerly await the infamous '16 squadrons' designated for 100 octane use, with proof and details of their supply during the battle itself. Strangely, this information is conspicuous by its absence and does not appear to be forthcoming.

I believe that the vast majority of reasonable, thinking people know why.

Anyway, don't worry Gavin. We know. Case closed.

Cheers.

[Kurfürst]

It appears that another 'gbailey' handle appeared again, strangely enough he seems to appear everywhere where NZTyphoon appears, and continues to evade to answer the questions. As usual lot of pompous and empty hot air is vented, without adressing the issue of his(?) former false and/or ill-informed claims about German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.

We have seen that this 'gbailey' login has taken an ahistorical stance and appears to have taken a complete denial on the production of German synthetic 100 octane, and its operational use by the Jagd- and Zestörerverbanden during the Battle of Britain. He advances an ahistorical, and I think its approriate to say, partisan thesis that the Luftwaffe had no access to its own produced 100 octane supplies, and had to do with captured British stocks.

Originally Posted by gbailey

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point. [/I]

To support this claim, the abovementioned document was referred to by this 'gbailey' login, which was supposed to support that the only 100 octane fuel found in crashed German aircraft during the Battle of Britain was of British origin.

An alarming result of the examination of this paper, as far as the credibility and expertise of the 'gbailey' login is concerned, is that the referred to trail of documents was positively misquoted, its contents were falsified and presented in a misleading manner.

Reviewing the document, presented below show that the British correctly identified German-produced C-3 grade 95/115 in several downed aircraft's tanks, chiefly Bf 110 destroyers, and curiously, even Ju 88 bombers. The latter case is interesting given that the bombers gained nothing from using higher grade fuels, their engines having been designed for 87 octane fuels and boost levels. There's also a wealth of sources by German and other authors, showing the details of LW HQ meetings making reference to operational use of German domestic produced synthetic 100 octane fuel, as well as photographic, oral etc. evidence.

Needless to say, this makes the whole claim and poses serious question about the true identity and credibility of the said login handle. One would believe that it is a minimum professional standard for any, even an amateur historian to report the contents of historical documents accurately and true to their full contents, and not selectively or falsified, as was the case.

I am absolutely certain that anyone with an actual degree in history would follow these basic requirements to the letter, which is why a serious doubt can be raised whether this 'gbailey' login is who he who claims himself to be. I am sure the actual Gavin Bailey has high professional standards which are evident from the article presented in the English historical review, and in which I did not find any trace of a reference of 'widespread' operational use of 100 octane fuel by the RAF. It surely mentions the use of such fuel by select fighter squadrons starting in May 1940, and the main line seems to be to downplay the importance of the fuel as far as fighter aircraft performance is concerned, and the importance of American supplies.

Therefore, a very strange strong divergence can be observed between the statements of Dr. Gavin Bailey in the article represented in the English Historical Review, and the statements of the login handle 'gbailey' who's appearance is always coincided with the appearance of NZTyphoon, who also seems to be in denial of German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.

If 'gbailey's claimed identity is true, I am afraid that would be even more concerning, as there is a proven misrepresentation of a historical source and probably worthy to the attention of the Rector of Dundee University, as well as Professor Black and Professor Dobson, for further investigation into professional standards and lack of civil conduct in the public, which may pose questions about the suitability of the candidate, who refuses to address the question directly, upon having been caught in the act.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst reply to whoever was posting under the login handle 'gbailey'

The notion and implication that the only 100 octane fuel used by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain originates to British stocks of 100 octane fuel, captured from British airfields in France after the premature leave by the British Army in June 1940 is a dangerous myth, which needs to be promptly refuted, before any credence is attributed to it. Even if I did not want to engage in continuing that discussion here, given that the title discusses the RAF use of such fuel in 1940, the above repetence of it warrants a proper refutation of the claim by poster 'gbailey'.

Some of the documents already posted from the Australian archieves already show that already in 1938 the British were concerned of German 100 octane fuel developments and the capacity to produce this fuel on an industrial scale. Please refer back to these before proceeding further.

Please also refer to the German datasheet of the DB 601N. This type of engine was developed for German 100 octane 'C-3' fuel use, and went into mass production in late 1939 (October 1939 via Manfred Griehl to be exact)



It extremely puzzling, to say the least, why would the Germans decide to mass produce an engine, specifically made for 100 octane fuel use, without having any own stock of 100 octane fuel. And then equip whole wings of fighters, bombers, and zestoerers with the said engine.

As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance.

It should be noted, however, that during the war, there were different octane ratings used for aviation gasoline. Allied states generally preferred to give octane rating at its rich mixture, while the Germans preferred the CFR method, which gave the octane rating at weak mixture.

The bottomline of the story, the green 'C-3' type fuel that the Germans were calling 96 octane fuel by the CFR method, was the equaivalent of 96/110 octane fuel as the Allies would call it. In other words, actually a bit better at rich mixture and for knock resistance than ordinary 100 octane fuel.

Also it is evident from these documents that the British were aware of the existance and use of German 100 octane - for simplicity's sake lets ignore for a moment it superior qualities and call it the same since the summer of 1940.

Examples of such fuel were found and analysed in crashed Ju 88 and Me 110 aircraft. The use in the former type is especially interesting as the types capable of taking advantage of higher octane fuel were DB 601N-powered Bf 109Es and Bf 110Cs. These latter were already in service by July 1940. By the automn, 1200 DB 601N engines were delivered, divided amongst Bf 110, Bf 109 units, Bf 109F production and reserve engines. Priority was given to Bf 110 units until the automn for these engines. The use of 100 octane C-3 thus may appear to be superflous in German bomber aircraft, nevertheless is was an existing practice.

The British report do not seem to mention 100 octane fuel found in Bf 109s, but this may be due to the limited scope of the report. See the image of Bf 109E-4/N, W.Nr. 1190, 'White 4', is being unloaded by Curtiss workers. The Emil belonged to 4. Staffel Staffel of JG 4, and was flown by Uffz. Horst Perez on, when it was shot down on the 30th September 1940 over East Dean during the Battle of Britain. Note the fuel triangle with the '100' label, pointo to 100 octane fuel and the DB 601N.



As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - www.kurfurst.org

I believe the fact that the 'gbailey' handle consistently evades to address the question of possible misrepresentation - either willfully or out of ignorance - of historical documents and the German use of 100 octane in the Battle of Britain can be considered an answer to the question of credibility and identity as well.

[NZtyphoon]

For my part I am deeply angry that Dr Bailey has had to field the effects of Kurfurst's constant abuse of his research, even though he is not a part of this or any other forum. I could not care less what Kurfurst says let alone thinks about me, because it has long been a part of his MO to abuse those who oppose him on this and on other forums, from which he has been mostly banned; what I will not tolerate is his cowardly and behind-the-back abuse of people, such as Dr Bailey, who carry out genuine work, and who have a balanced and scholarly approach to historical research. I lost my temper earlier because of this and I apologise to CWMV and others on this forum, for allowing myself to sink to that level.

Kurfurst is on my ignore list permanently, and I suggest that everyone else in this forum do likewise. It is simply a waste of time attempting to "debate" any issues with him without the risk of ending up being entangled in prolonged and usually circular and fruitless argument - witness the 110 pages to this thread - and I begrudge the hours I have wasted responding to his nonsense.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Osprey,

This is the kind of baloney that adds nothing to the credibility of participants in this thread.

It concretely demonstrates you have no idea how aircraft work.

Standard Day exists everywhere in aviation and is very important. It is the atmospheric conditions that most of the data you see is converted too. Aircraft performance varies greatly based on density altitude, including your engines power development.

And yes, conditions do change but not based on any countries borders. Why do you think the very first thing Air Traffic Control will relay to you as a pilot, is the altimeter setting?



http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...c/atc0207.html

You keep referring to your PPL as a licence for you to be a know-it-all. There you go again confusing modern day process in the USA with that of wartime Britain in 1940. That's what 'balony' really is.

So, what's a 'standard day' in England Crump? And what evidence do you have that this information was relayed to aircrew as they scrambled? According to your own logic, if you cannot provide this as proof then it didn't happen.

[Glider]

Kurfurst
Can I point out one rather large significant problem in the paper that you quote the the use of Captured Fuel in the Luftwaffe during the BOB

The Paper Gavin quotes is :-
direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

Gavins reference Paper covers November 1939 to September 1940 and was produced in Nov 1940

Your paper covers the period Summer 1940 to Autumn 1943

They are different Papers. If you are going to comment on someones work, at least get the right paper.

To try and compare fuel consumption i n the BOB to the situation in 1944 is comparing Pears and Bananas, the planes were different, they had bigger tanks, drop tanks were used. But you know this its a tactic you have tried before. We are talking about the BOB so stick with it.

[winny]

Here are some records of fuel import and consumption from the National Archive

I'm in the process of getting all of the Oil related memos and Cabinet meetings.

I had to zip them up because they are to big as PDF's

Contents: Cabinet Papers.zip

War Cabinet Oil Position December '39
War Cabinet Oil Position March '40
War Cabinet Oil Position June '40
War Cabinet Oil Position July '40
Memo on the completion of the Thornton plant - November '40

I will add anymore that I find.

[Osprey]

I will never put Kurfurst on ignore because I want to know he posted so I can give him a right slagging off.

Kurfurst, you are such a knob - perhaps you and Crump should meet up for a cock-in.