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

[DC338]

Crumpp if the British government did break the "law" by not following some peacetime convention. Who would prosecute them? Themselves, ridiculous.

Funny I can't find anything in the Mustang notes about 25lbs of boost either. It did happen however.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp if the British government did break the "law" by not following some peacetime convention.

This is where you need the guy with the party hat icon.

Funny I can't find anything in the Mustang notes about 25lbs of boost either. It did happen however.

Yes it did and it was not the standard for the Mustang either. It was an special condition so it is not found in the Flight Information Manual.

In this case, the claim is 100 Octane fuel was the standard fuel of the RAF in July 1940 and throughout the Battle of Britain.

That is just not true. DtD 230, otherwise known as 87 Octane was the standard fuel of Fighter Command in July 1940 and 100 Octane was in the process of introduction on a limited basis.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is just not true. DtD 230, otherwise known as 87 Octane was the standard fuel of Fighter Command in July 1940 and 100 Octane was in the process of introduction on a limited basis.

You have the fuel consumption numbers for 87 fuel and 100 fuel for FC to back up your statement?

What is limited basis? I wouldn't say 20+ squadrons out of 55 squadrons is limited basis.

Yes it did and it was not the standard for the Mustang either. It was an special condition so it is not found in the Flight Information Manual.

So this could apply to 100 fuel use then?

[Glider]

Personally I am still waiting for a common sense reply to my previous quite simple and obvious questions. Crumpp responce (as they were not replies) can be summed up as follows :-

a) a shortage of fuel
If there was no shortage then there would be no need to reduce the roll out
There was apparantly a shortage in 1944 and was mentioned by the Allied Oil Committee meetigs Unfortunately we are talking about 1940 not 1944 and the Allied Oil Committee had nothing to do with the BOB. So I am still waiting for any sign of a shortage in the BOB

b) of 16 squadrons
Which squadrons or if you go down the it was 16 squadrons at any one time
All I got was a ticking off for lowering the credibility of the thread and a comment about a pre war paper. Crumpp puts himself forward as an expert on Logistics and would presumably agree that if you have a target to supply 16 FC squadrons, you need to decide where to send the fuel. All I and others have asked him is, Which 16 squadrons

c) of which squadrons or bases
This brings the difficult questions
i) If 100 octane was in short supply when did Drem a small satellite station in Scotland have 100 octane when the priority stations in the South East didn't
ii) At one point in the BOB Duxford had the big wing of five squadrons. Are you really saying that almost a fifth of the RAF supply was in one 12 group station?.
These are I think logical questions. If there was a shortage then did these decisions make sense?. Putting his Logistical hat on again if the theory is that only 16 squadrons used 100 octane at any one time then someone had to decide which stations had the fuel, all I am asking is which stations? also who made the decision?

d) why this isn't mentioned in any official document, book, history
Simple request, why in the most documented air battle in history has no one picked this important factor up. Support your theory with some supporting documentation, not an off the wall conspiracy theory
Again no attempt to adress the question which was quite clear. The best he came up with was establishment vs strength where his definiton is wrong, and a lecture that adaquate supplies had to be at a station before they can use it, something I agree with. The problem is that he ignores later papers saying supplies are adaquate and the roll out can commence.

e) of the process in delivering the fuel
As there is no mention of a any limitation in the distribution of 100 octane fuel in the Oil Committee papers who distributed it

Again a complete failure to reply to the question. As a logistic expert I am sure Crumpp will agree that having decided to issue the fuel you need to agree how to deploy it.The Oil COpmmittee were responsible for the purchase, storage and distribution of fuel. There is no mention of any distribution to FC after May 1940, anywhere. As they didn't do any further distirbution of fuel after May 1940, then as a Logistic expert he must be interested in who did?
I did get a lecture about Units concerned. Its my belief that units concerned means the units that hadn't already been converted. I admit the evidence isn't 100% airtight but
We have the authority to proceed in Dec 1939,
We have papers from Dec 1939 saying which stations should be issued with the fuel In the First Instance,
We know that at the time (Dec 1939) this was for all stations equipped and going to be equipped with Hurricanes and Spitfires.
We know that delivery is prioritised as being operational units and that training units will not get 100 Octane
We know how the fuel was to be distributed, ie as 87 Octane was used up it would be replaced by 100 octane.
We know that in addition to those stations identified in December as being first instance it was used in France and Norway.
We know it started to be used in combat in February.
We know that there was a request in March for Blenhiems and fighters to use 100 Octane.
We know that All No 2 Group were issued with 100 Octane and we know that the process for delivery to FC changed to actively removing it from FC stations speeding up the roll out for those stations.
We know that in May 1940 the Oil Committee considered that change of FC to 100 octane to be complete.


Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

For the 16 FC squadrons + 2 Bomber squadrons
a) We don't know who made the decision to continue with this program once war started
b) We don't know that phase IV testing was on going in 1940
c) We don't know which squadrons or which stations were supposed to have the 100 Octane
d) We don't know how it was to be rolled out
e) If this theory is correct, We don't know when the rest of FC had 100 Octane issued
f) We do know that the limit of 2 squadrons of Bombers mentioned in this paper was disregarded, which must question why the fighter limit is supposed to be maintained
None of these is supported by original papers. The best that can be said is that they depend on wild interpretations of some documents while ignoring others

As I said at the start the case for 100% roll out isn't perfect, but its a lot stronger than the case for 16 Fighter squadrons and 2 bomber squadrons

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

In this case, the claim is 100 Octane fuel was the standard fuel of the RAF in July 1940 and throughout the Battle of Britain.
.

The claim is that 100 octane was the standard fuel for FC in July 1940, not the RAF. The rest of the RAF were using 87 octane hence the consumption figures

[Crumpp]

The claim is that 100 octane was the standard fuel for FC in July 1940, not the RAF.

You are right, I meant FC.

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.

It is that simple and elegant, guys. No need to construct elaborate arguments based on circumstance and assumption.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You are right, I meant FC.

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.

It is that simple and elegant, guys. No need to construct elaborate arguments based on circumstance and assumption.

No you cannot. You calculate the dates from when the fuel was delivered and used using official documents. That isn't an assumption, its a fact, its simple and foolproof.

Trying to calculate when it was used based on a 1942 copy of a pilots notes for a plane that isn't in use in operational squadrons, isn't just an assumption, its a pipedream.

PS using your Logistic hat you might want to comment on :-

Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

For the 16 FC squadrons + 2 Bomber squadrons
a) We don't know who made the decision to continue with this program once war started
b) We don't know that phase IV testing was on going in 1940
c) We don't know which squadrons or which stations were supposed to have the 100 Octane
d) We don't know how it was to be rolled out
e) If this theory is correct, We don't know when the rest of FC had 100 Octane issued
f) We do know that the limit of 2 squadrons of Bombers mentioned in this paper was disregarded, which must question why the fighter limit is supposed to be maintained

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

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.

[Crumpp]

No you cannot.

Sure you can...

based on a 1942 copy of a pilots notes

I am sure there are other editions out there besides the January 1942 Operating Notes.

Remember, FC was accepting pilots from any branch of service to fill its shortages. Transitioning pilots would have started their journey studying the Flight Information Manual version of the Operating Notes.

You calculate the dates from when the fuel was delivered

No you can't....

You can only answer the question, "When did the RAF get fuel to all of its stations?"

The aircraft have to be modified. That modification is a major alteration that was scheduled to be done at Service Inspection. It is not something performed by the squadron maintenance personnel.

The parts have to be made to do the modification and parts have to be made to support current production as well as sustainment spares.

The only way to answer an operational question is with operational documentation. In this case, the document which details the operation of the aircraft is the Operating Notes. The portion that is a legal document connected to the airworthiness of the aircraft will reflect the latest authorization for the type.

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.

[Glider]

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.

Nope, you know my understanding of the select fighter units. Its those that hadn't yet converted, you disagree but its nticable that you don't have a position yourself. Neither do you put anything else up to counter my view just mention the one word, on the one paper.

So to help us understand your position, How many squadrons do you believe used 100 octane in the BOB, and how do you support it?