Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Agree. In addition the papers David showed specifically mention that ca. 3-4 Bomber Command stations were only to be supplied with 100 octane fuel.

So I guess the million dollar question is who (BC Stations, FC Stations, manufacturers etc.) used and what amount of the fuel, and in what role (operational/non-operational flights, test trials).

Show us evidence for at least one operational 87 octane RAF FC combat sortie during the BofB or admit that you have no evidence to contradict the multiple sources that state 100% 100 octane use by RAF FC during the BofB, such as:

...I do not believe that it is generally recognised how much this
superiority would have been affected had not the decision been
taken to base aircraft engine design on the use of 100-octane
fuel instead of the pre-war standard grade of 87-octane rating.
In fact, it was only a few months before the Battle of Britain
that all fighters were changed over from 87- to 100-octane
fuel, a change which enabled the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine
of that period to be operated at an increased supercharger
pressure which immediately gave an extra 200 h.p. or more.
Subsequent engine developments made possible by the use of
100-octane instead of 87-octane fuel have since permitted a
truly phenomenal increase in the power of the original engine
without any change in its basic size or capacity.
It is very interesting to refer back to the records of serious
discussions which took place only a year or two before the war
when certain authorities expressed the very gravest misgivings
at the proposal to design engines to require a '' theoretical type
of fuel" (i.e., 100 octane), which they feared would not be
available in adequate quantity in time of war, since we were
mainly dependent on America for its supply. Fortunately for
Britain, the majority of those directly concerned took a different
view, and I might quote a rather prophetic statement made by
an Air Ministry official at a Royal Aeronautical Society meeting
in February, 1937, who, in referring to the advent of
100 octane, said: " Let there be no doubt, however, that
petroleum technologists and fuel research workers now have
the opportunity to provide by their efforts an advance in aircraft
engine development, with its effect on air power, which
the engine designer by himself cannot hope to offer by any
other means."
May I conclude by also quoting a reply reported to have
been made recently in the U.S.A. by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, M.P.,
Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and
Power, in answer to the question: " Do you think 100 octane
was the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain in 1940 ? "
To which Mr. Lloyd replied: " I think we would not have won
the Battle of Britain without 100 octane—but we DID have
the 100 octane."
Nevertheless, let us not forget that between the fuel and the
airscrew there are also many other links in the chain, any one
of which, had it failed, could have vitally affected the issue,
while all the technical superiority in the world would, of course,
have been of no avail at all without the efficient training, skill,
and courage in combat of the Battle of Britain pilots.

Flight Magazine, Jan 06 1944
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200044.html

[Kurfürst]

Seadog, do I take it right that your most serious evidence for 100% 100 octane fuel use is a wartime British article from a aviation magazine?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

All aircraft fuel must be specified.

100 Octane was always called 100 Octane in RAF service, right throughout the war; the relevant designation was B.A.M (British Air Ministry) 100, but it was seldom referred to as such, being referred to in Pilot's Notes right through the war as 100 Octane with no D.T.D = Directorate of Technical Development, which dealt with developing equipment, aircraft and stores for the RAF. Because 100 Octane fuel was developed outside of the RAF and Air Ministry's direct control as a private venture by oil companies it was never allocated a DTD number.

Originally Posted by Glider

I do like the way that the big questions get ignored while attention is diverted down side streets.
However there is no doubting that on average 10,000 tons of the stuff was consumed each month from April - July 1940. We have combat reports that say that it was used and station reports that say that they had been equipped with 100 octane. We also know that Bomber Command, Transport Command, Coastal Command, Non Operational units didn't use it until post August 1940
So if the nay sayers say that FC didn't use it, who did?

Its worth remembering that the whole of the UK only used 36,000 tons of fuel a month so 10,000 tons is just under 30% of the fuel used in the UK. Now if Crumpp can give a reply to that question with some evidence instead of just another theory then its worth paying attention to it.

Note also that the only engines cleared to use 100 Octane fuel in 1940 were Merlin II & III, XII and XX and the Bristol Mercury XV - which is a very good indicator as to what aircraft types used 100 Octane fuel.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Seadog, do I take it right that your most serious evidence for 100% 100 octane fuel use is a wartime British article from a aviation magazine?

That article excerpt was at hand; but it states unequivocally that 100 octane was in universal use. The evidence for 100% 100 octane use by RAF FC during the BofB is extensive and overwhelming. There are multiple other sources that state 100% 100 octane use during the BofB, and more that infer 100% use, but no sources have ever been produced or presented by you to challenge these sources. You talk about "serious evidence" and then present us with absolutely laughable material that long predates the BofB. You use the methods of a holocaust denier and then expect us to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

You can't produce evidence for a even single operational 87 octane RAF FC sortie during the BofB.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Agree. In addition the papers David showed specifically mention that ca. 3-4 Bomber Command stations were only to be supplied with 100 octane fuel.

So I guess the million dollar question is who (BC Stations, FC Stations, manufacturers etc.) used and what amount of the fuel, and in what role (operational/non-operational flights, test trials).

Why do you always ignore the other papers that show the rule of thumb was to have 5/6th of the fuel to be 100 octane and 1/6th 87 octane. You know that only 4 No 2 Grp stations were 100% equipped with 100 Octane.

[Crumpp]

I guess if you look a little bit more, you can find a dozen others, at least half of which could be used with the Merlin.

If you look JtD, it is in every airplane's published material.

Just like the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes clearly states DtD 230 is the specified fuel.

It is not always in the same location or format, though. Unfortunately they did not think to standardize Operating Instruction formats by convention until much later.

The convention's in place during WWII only agreed the information must be published and followed.

[Crumpp]

The evidence for 100% 100 octane use by RAF FC during the BofB is extensive and overwhelming.

Keep repeating it and might come true!!

It worked for Dorathy.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Why do you always ignore the other papers that show the rule of thumb was to have 5/6th of the fuel to be 100 octane and 1/6th 87 octane.

Because AFAIK there are no such papers. The one you refer to merely makes a practical example for fuel storage with ad hoc numbers, as you are well aware.

You know that only 4 No 2 Grp stations were 100% equipped with 100 Octane.

Apparantly you are aware of that too - Bomber Command was using 100 octane as of May 1940. Of course other Blenheim stations must have had some, too, for the some of their fuel tanks to help with takeoff at great loads, given the Blenheims modest capabilities as a bomber, it was important to get any sort of range (the other alternative to overboost was lightening the aircraft, ie. carrying less fuel).

Yet you have claimed:

We also know that Bomber Command, Transport Command, Coastal Command, Non Operational units didn't use it until post August 1940

You see David, one of the reasons only a priviliged few is buying your story is that you have continously misrepresent these papers.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Keep repeating it and might come true!!

It worked for Dorathy.

You have documentation showing how much 87 octane was consumed by RAF Fighter Command.

[NZtyphoon]

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.

Actually the proportion of 100 Octane use cf "Other Grades"* rises well before October and stocks of 100 Octane were far healthier than "Other Grades" well before October.





Once again, the only engines cleared to use 100 Octane at the time were Merlin IIs (in reality no Merlin IIs were in frontline use by June 1940) IIIs, XIIs and XXs and Bristol Mercury XV. 52,000 tons of 100 Octane was used July-end October and only a few aircraft types were able to use the stuff.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Just the fact it is the specified fuel and the FC consumed millions of gallons of it.

Not that Crumpp has actually proven this by providing one single piece of documentation specifying that only a few frontline FC units were allowed to use 100 octane while the rest had to make do with 87. Payton-Smith specifies that 87 octane was required for non-operational purposes.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Keep repeating it and might come true!!

It worked for Dorathy.

*Crumpp and Kurfurst continually refer only to 87 Octane when other grades of fuel, such as D.T.D 224 (78 Octane, used for de H Gypsy engines etc) were also lumped in with 87 Octane, so the actual amounts of 87 Octane in stock and consumed are lower than the charts would suggest.