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

[Kurfürst]

I have made my position perfectly clear several times. Read back in the thread. Just because you pretend I did not and keep asking the same, already answered question does not get you anywhere.

And its not one paper, its the same note of select fighter and bomber stations in each and every paper. If you choose to ignore it like my previous answers, it is not my problem I am afraid.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Sure you can...



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

So am I but we don't know what they say. Besides what is wrong with going by when the fuel was issued and used? That at least we do know

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.

And they went through convsersion training

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.

We have been through this a number of times. The majority of the work was already being incorporeated in new engines and in regular maintanence. What was left wasn't a major job and only involved drilling two holes.

With your degree in aviation and experience why do you find this so hard to understand?

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.

I have posted my position and the documents to support it, post yours.

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.

Show me any evidence any at all that says the RAF didn't have the roll out complete by July 1940. I remind you that there is nothing in the Oil Committee after May so the question again, is if they didn't distribute it, then who did?

I notice that you have avoided (again) the logistic questions that I put to you. Can we take it that you have dropped the 16 squadron theory, a yes or no would suffice.

However if No, then I expect you to give some evidence to those questions, if Yes than can I ask you like Hurfurst, how many stations do you believe had 100 octane and how do you support that position

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I have made my position perfectly clear several times. Read back in the thread. Just because you pretend I did not and keep asking the same, already answered question does not get you anywhere.

And its not one paper, its the same note of select fighter and bomber stations in each and every paper. If you choose to ignore it like my previous answers, it is not my problem I am afraid.

You and I both know that this is the question you have not given a reply too, since you said 145 aircraft in May as per Pips. Someone you haven't mentioned for a while now

[Crumpp]

How many squadrons do you believe used 100 octane in the BOB, and how do you support it?

Kurfurst would be smart to stay the hell away from that question. It is an opinion at this point and not fact. I was asked the same thing by you and offered my opinion. Go back and read the immature garbage the spouts from certain participants in this thread.

Thing about opinion is everyone has one and in the western world the idea of free speech says we all can have one too.

However when presents an opinion on such a subject as the exact number of squadrons at a specified point in time and backs up with the relevant facts, the personal assaults begin. Why? That is good tactic when your argument is based on emotion, circumstance, and assumption.

Thing about the facts on this point is we don't have all of them to make a pinpoint determination. We can only make general statements.

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.

The only document that will give us an approximate time for the completion of the transition is the operating notes. If you find an earlier edition that lists 100 Octane in Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine then you will know within a few weeks when the transition was completed.

[Crumpp]

So am I but we don't know what they say. Besides what is wrong with going by when the fuel was issued and used? That at least we do know

Why are you trying to force an answer on this issue without all the facts?

Why do you insist that you know all the facts and the only operational document that definately tells us is wrong while you are right?

We happen to be lucky enough that the Operating Notes is a legal document published by the Air Ministry and will reflect how the type was operated.

The majority of the work was already being incorporeated in new engines and in regular maintanence

The regular squadron maintenance personnel did not handle this and that is why the order specifies Service Inspection. RAF squadron did not perform that inspection. RAF squadron personnel performed daily and routine maintenance. The CRO performed major alterations.

In NEW engines but the RAF already had ~700 Hurricanes and Spitfires in the inventory during the time the instructions came out. Consider that meant some ~1400 to 2100 engines in maintenance stocks that also had to be modified.

The new production also has to cover maintenance stocks, too.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Kurfurst would be smart to stay the hell away from that question. It is an opinion at this point and not fact. I was asked the same thing by you and offered my opinion. Go back and read the immature garbage the spouts from certain participants in this thread.

Thing about opinion is everyone has one and in the western world the idea of free speech says we all can have one too.

However when presents an opinion on such a subject as the exact number of squadrons at a specified point in time and backs up with the relevant facts, the personal assaults begin. Why? That is good tactic when your argument is based on emotion, circumstance, and assumption.

Thing about the facts on this point is we don't have all of them to make a pinpoint determination. We can only make general statements.



The only document that will give us an approximate time for the completion of the transition is the operating notes. If you find an earlier edition that lists 100 Octane in Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine then you will know within a few weeks when the transition was completed.

You would be hard pressed to find an insult from me on this thread despite being on the receiving end of a number of barbs from others including you.

The operating notes are useless for what you intend, what counts is when it was issued and used.

Can I take it that you have dropped the 16 squadron theory?

Personally I am happy to leave the situation as being that FC was effectively equipped with 100 Octane during the BOB. I cannot prove that every station was equipped, I do believe it but know that I cannot prove it without a huge amount of time.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

You and I both know that this is the question you have not given a reply too, since you said 145 aircraft in May as per Pips. Someone you haven't mentioned for a while now

Speak in you own name only and do put words into my mouth. It has proven pointless to answer you 'questions', to which you do not know the answer yourself. You have shown that you ignore the answer, ask the same question a few days, month, years later, and pretend you have not seen the answer earlier. As said, I have already answer that at the beginning of the thread.

I am tired of your pointless mind games.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Why are you trying to force an answer on this issue without all the facts?

Why do you insist that you know all the facts and the only operational document that definately tells us is wrong while you are right?

We happen to be lucky enough that the Operating Notes is a legal document published by the Air Ministry and will reflect how the type was operated.



The regular squadron maintenance personnel did not handle this and that is why the order specifies Service Inspection. RAF squadron did not perform that inspection. RAF squadron personnel performed daily and routine maintenance. The CRO performed major alterations.

In NEW engines but the RAF already had ~700 Hurricanes and Spitfires in the inventory during the time the instructions came out. Consider that meant some ~1400 to 2100 engines in maintenance stocks that also had to be modified.

The new production also has to cover maintenance stocks, too.

We don't know when the changes were first installed on new engines, we do know that the changes were already in place so a number of the 700 would already have them. We also know that the engines in service would have already gone through service inspection, so that would account for a number more.
In the three months following the issue of the paper a high proportion of the engines would be serviced or in the case of Hurricanes, newer arcraft would have replaced the ones in the squadrons in March.

I personally consider combat reports and station/squadron records as official documents, you may not but I do on that we will have to differ

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Speak in you own name only and do put words into my mouth. It has proven pointless to answer you 'questions', to which you do not know the answer yourself. You have shown that you ignore the answer, ask the same question a few days, month, years later, and pretend you have not seen the answer earlier. As said, I have already answer that at the beginning of the thread.

I am tired of your pointless mind games.

Priceless

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Crumpp/Kurfurst:

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

I'm still waiting for proof.