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

[winny]

Here are all the Oil Position reports I could find for 1940

Oil position papers 1.zip contains the 16th, 20th, 21st, 23rd, 24th and 25th weekly Oil Position War Cabinet Reports

Oil position papers 2.zip contains the 27th, 28th, 32nd and 40th

Monthly Oil Position.zip has July, September, October and November '40

100 oct plants has a couple of memos about 100 octane production in the UK

I haven't read them all yet, but some people here may find them usefull.

I'm gonna look at 1939 next.

EDIT : I didn't explain what these are.. They are all War Cabinet documents detailing the import, consumption, production etc of all types of fuel for the Air Force, Navy and Civil.

[Crumpp]

So, what's a 'standard day' in England Crump?

Pretty much the same as everywhere else for low altitude and subsonic aerodynamics.....

For a standard reference, a concept called a standard day is used. In aviation, everything is relatedto standard day conditions at sea level, which are 29.92 in-Hg (1013.2 mb) and 15°C (59°F). Inthe lower atmosphere, and thus for most aviation applications, a 1000 foot increase in altitude willresult in a pressure decrease of approximately 1 in-Hg (34 mb) and a temperature decrease of 2°C(3.5 °F). These values are the standard day pressure and temperature lapse rates.

http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-303/P-3030021.htm

There you go again confusing modern day process in the USA with that of wartime Britain in 1940.

There is thing called the Paris Convention of 1919. It is what gives British Aircraft the authority to fly in other countries, including the USA.

What it says in summary, we will all do things the same way regarding airplanes and meet the same standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Par...ention_of_1919

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 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.

They are not different papers. They are subsequent reports in the same trail of papers, prepared by the same men, working for the Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee.

The report quoted by 'gbailey' deals only with German 87 octane fuel samples, and the subsequent papers deal with German 100 octane fuel samples. But they are prepared by the same people - D. A. Howes of Anglo American Oil for example is listed just the same in samples I have posted - in the same format, and follow each other in the files, and reference to the other reports, so its very hard to miss the fact that you are not looking at the whole paper.

Of course if you are set out to prove that the American contribution of high octane aviation fuel was not significant, and the Brits could do it all by themselves, you might also want to 'prove', by omitting otherwise available information that those poor Germans had to do with whatever British 100 octane stock they could find.

Of course such views become very comical, when you know that Germany was producing domestically all its 100 octane needs, while Britain was importing it or later given by Lend-Lease, and in fact that British desire in 1938 for 100 octane was fueled by fear that German synthetic plans could essentially produce as much 100 octane as they wanted, and Britain did not want to be left behind in the technology race.

Either its quite simply intellectually dishonest to say the Germans had nothing else but 87 octane fuel, and relied on captured British 100 octane stock, because a report on German 87 octane fuel samples - surprise surprise! - lists only 87 octane fuel samples and one British 100 octane sample. Especially when the next report in the pile of papers says that German 100 octane fuel samples were found in 110s, 88s etc. in the same period.

That may even be a honest mistake, but in that case the 'research' was very superficial and amateurish.

Either case, whoever he is, his opinion is sadly mistaken and instead of addressing it and admitting the mistakes, he resorts to incivility and thin verbal diarrhea.

I would also like to know your version. Do you believe the Germans did not use 100 octane in the Battle of Britain? Do you believe that the only 100 octane they had access to was captured British stocks?

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.

Well, again 25 (was it 30 with XIVs..?) Squadrons of Spitfires in 1945 required 15 000 tons of avgas per month. Their tanks were the same size, their sortie times were again pretty much the same lenght as those of 1940.

But let's forget about the 2nd TAF. I've just found a rather interesting table which shows the ratio of combat hours and non-operational hours flown by a plane sorties/time for planes on hand with combat units (i.e. the ones in OTU, storage, manufacturer's flight testing is not included) in mid-1943.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom%2...0Item%201A.pdf

For Spitfires in NW Africa, an average of 13.2 combat sorties were flown per plane per month, the average combat hours flown per month per plane was 18.5 hours, the non-operational hours flown per month per plane was 19.7 hours. Hourly consumption was 49.7 gallons/hour.

The ratio for P-47s in the UK was very similar, it was 16.3 hours per month for combat sorties and 17.3 for non-operational flights.

So combat sorties amounted quite typically to about just 40% of the total consumption. The remaining 60% is non-operational flights in combat units, which none of your calculations take into account, nor the requirements of bomber command's Blenheim Sqns.

[gavinb]

Kurfurst,

I don't want to further encourage your behaviour by responding, but in this case I can't help myself.

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.

I look forward to the results of your contact with Professors Dobson and Black, particularly as I share an office with Tony Black, and regularly speak to Alan Dobson who was my PhD supervisor and who remains a respected colleague. I suspect all three of us would welcome the entertainment at the moment.

Their email addresses are available on the same web page as I provided earlier, which also has my email address (in case that was presenting you with any difficulties).

Hopefully you will not experience the same difficulty contacting them as you seem to have experienced in contacting me to date. I can assure you that any complaint you make will be regarded with the merit it deserves.

In that respect, in case you want any pointers in how to research and present genuine historical inquiry, I direct you to Tony's excellent second edition of The History of Islamic Political Thought from the Prophet to the Present, and Alan's recent and commendable FDR and Civil Aviation.

Gavin Bailey

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Pretty much the same as everywhere else for low altitude and subsonic aerodynamics.....



http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-303/P-3030021.htm




There is thing called the Paris Convention of 1919. It is what gives British Aircraft the authority to fly in other countries, including the USA.

What it says in summary, we will all do things the same way regarding airplanes and meet the same standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Par...ention_of_1919

Osprey,

It is a fact the January 1942 Pilots Operating Notes for the Spitfire Mk Ia stating 100 Octane is for ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS. That fact is a very damning piece of evidence for any argument all operational units converted at any date before January 1940.

It is a huge "fly in the oinment" to the crowd claiming Fighter Command converted in the Spring 1940. People in this thread have bought into a position based on logistical documentation and not on operational documentation.

The Operating Notes are operational documentation and the logistical documentation showing the fuel supply at the airfields confirms Morgan and Shacklady's research of around 16 squadrons sometime in September 1940.

The argument the document combines fuel at the airfields from 1938 until June 1940 does not hold up to scrutiney. Why?

The process for manufacturing 100 Octane gasoline cheaply and in quantity only existed for one year in 1938.

The first full-scale commercial catalytic cracker for the selective conversion of crude petroleum to gasoline went on stream at the Marcus Hook Refinery in 1937.

http://www.nacatsoc.org/history.asp?HistoryID=30

Before catalytic cracking, making 100 Octane fuel was possible only in small quantities and it was very expensive to manufacture.

In 1936 the United States decided to adopt 100 Octane. The Aeronautics Branch of the Department of Commerce, NACA, and Department of Defense laid out a ten year plan to convert all aviation to 100 Octane fuels. The first to convert would be the USAAF and their experience would be used to convert all Civil Aviation. Before any of that could begin, the first priority was finding a way to make 100 Octane cheaply and in quantity. That was not a possibility until 1937.

I highly doubt the Air Ministry had 100 Octane fuels in any substantial quantity in 1938.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is a huge "fly in the oinment" to the crowd claiming Fighter Command converted in the Spring 1940.

As is all the operational squadron records posted that say otherwise to your position that you keep ignoring.

I trust them not you, someone who can't even distinguish modern day peace time rules and regs with that of a war in 1940.

[Crumpp]

I don't want to further encourage your behaviour by responding

Please both of you drop the attacks on each other and just discuss the facts. Acting immaturely does not add credibility to anyone.

[Crumpp]

As is all the operational squadron records posted that say otherwise to your position that you keep ignoring.

Fruitbat,

I have not ignored any evidence at all. Re-read those squadron logs, please. The technical order specifies aircraft will be converted on their schedules Service Inspections. When that conversion is complete, by convention it will be a logbook entry. Most importantly, if they are actually using the fuel that will also be a specific logbook entry by convention. It will plainly state they are using 100 Octane. Not only will their aircraft be logged as converted, it will be logged they are actually using the fuel.

A single entry of aircraft being converted does not mean they are running around using 100 Octane fuel, only that the aircraft is capable of using it if available and authorized. When my aircraft was converted to use auto fuel, it too got a logbook entry noting it was Supplemental Type Certificated for auto fuel. The aircraft was properly placarded too. That does not mean autofuel is in my fuel tanks!!

It just means the airplane has the capability to use it.

It is the exact same thing with the conversion to 100 Octane. You just can't put the fuel in the tanks and fly off. The airplane has to be placarded, major changes done to the engine, and the proper knowledge given to the pilots as well those that maintain the aircraft. Why, because it is the law and that law conforms to international aviation convention that has been in place since 1919.

The conversion was done on a schedule at the annual Service Inspection. That is what gave the manufacturer time to make the cylinder heads and logistics to distribute them. Once the Operational conversion was ready to adopt 100 Octane fuel, new Operating Notes would be published reflecting that change as we see in January 1941. There is some lag time. I would bet the RAF began conversion in June 1940 and fully converted sometime in December or November, 1940 before the wartime British end dates for the Battle of Britian. That is why you find references to the RAF converting during the battle.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Fruitbat,

I have not ignored any evidence at all. Re-read those squadron logs, please. The technical order specifies aircraft will be converted on their schedules Service Inspections. When that conversion is complete, by law it will be a logbook entry.

That does not mean they are running around using 100 Octane fuel, only that the aircraft is capable of using it if available. When my aircraft was converted to use auto fuel, it too got a logbook entry noting it was Supplemental Type Certificated for auto fuel. The aircraft was properly placarded too. That does not mean autofuel is in my fuel tanks!!

It just means the airplane has the capability to use it.

It is the exact same thing with the conversion to 100 Octane. You just can't put the fuel in the tanks and fly off. The airplane has to be placarded, major changes done to the engine, and the proper knowledge given to the pilots as well those that maintain the aircraft.

That was done on a schedule at the annual Service Inspection. That is what gave the manufacturer time to make the cylinder heads and logistics to distribute them. Once the conversion was ready, new Operating Notes would be published reflecting that change as we see in January 1941. There is some lag time. I would bet the RAF converted sometime in December or November, 1940 before the wartime British end dates for the Battle of Britian. That is why you find references to the RAF converting during the battle.

So what about the combat reports that show the use of +12 boost, which was only allowed in when 100 octane fuel was used?

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

So what about the combat reports that show the use of +12 boost, which was only allowed in when 100 octane fuel was used?

exactly.