Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Crumpp]

So who was using the 10,000 tons a month, just under 30% of the fuel being consumed by the UK Crumpp?

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.

I just can't see two sets of fuel bowsers crisscrossing each other in the dispersal area

Spend some time on an airfield....

That is why placarding is not a choice or option. Any alternative fuels will be specifically listed by specification.

That is by convention and still followed today.

Primary, alternate, and emergency fuel for all
turbojet and turboprop engines installed in Air
Force aircraft will be listed in the aircraft -1 flight
manual.

In order of decreasing precedence, fuel
use for Air Force aviation applications (excepting
the U-2) is as follows.
1. JP-8/JP-5
2. Jet A/Jet A-1 (with SDA, FSII, and CI)
3. TS-1 (with SDA, FSII, and CT)
4. Jet A/Jet A-1 (neat)
5. TS-1 (neat)
TS-1 must meet the Russian GOST 10227-
86 specification if used on US military aircraft.

http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/shared/me...100111-038.pdf

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.

The graphic is titled : TABLE II - CONSUMPTION
It is 10K tons consumed by airplanes.

If I consume a glass of beer, the beer is in my stomach, not still in the glass.

[bongodriver]

That straw is getting awfully short Crumpp

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

LoL, I've pressed you to supply details of even a single 87 octane RAF FC sortie, during the BofB and you can't do it.

Your credibility has been destroyed.

Why not go away and come back when you find evidence for 87 octane use, or are when you ready to man up and admit that you are wrong.

100% 100 octane use = no evidence for 87 octane because it wasn't used.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

And the next month's consumption?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That document does not look altered one bit...not at all, lol.

Of course you can save a fuel you are not consuming at a high rate. They wanted 800,0000 tons on hand before the first operational aircraft used it, remember??

Look at the fuel at the airfields in your first document. 100 Octane is less than 38% of the fuel on hand in June-August.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...mption-bob.jpg

10,000 tons = 3,150,000 imperial gallons consumed per month June-August

Here are the documents which show the cumulative fuel stocks from which the figures in red are taken:

17th Weekly Oil Position Report Dec 31 1939:



24th WOPR


25th WOPR 28 Feb 1940



28th WOPR 17 Mar 1940


33rd WOPR 23 April 1940


Note also how much 100 Octane fuel is being stocked outside of Britain ie; West of Suez - the only other active war theatre was France and, later Norway.

And the reasons why Crumpp's reasoning that stocks of 800,000 tons was required, based on pre-war plans, is so erroneous (Oil HMSO Payton-Smith)







The pre-war plans were based on an assumption that American supplies would be withheld and that losses due to air attack would be heavy. Using pre-war plans to decide what happened in wartime is a waste of time; as is obvious here, those plans for stocks of 800,000 tons were not realised even two years into the war:



Also note that stocks of 100 Octane v Other Grades reached near parity in May 1940 294,000 tons v 298,000 tons, and by August, when permission was given to use 100 Octane in all commands, it was the dominant fuel.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

Prove it by providing one single WW2 RAF or Air Ministry document which says that the fuel was merely kept at airfields and not consumed. By the same reasoning it could be argued that the RAF didn't consume "Other Grades" of fuel either, which makes one wonder what was used instead of aviation fuel?

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.



Spend some time on an airfield....

That is why placarding is not a choice or option. Any alternative fuels will be specifically listed by specification.

That is by convention and still followed today.





http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/shared/me...100111-038.pdf

And you think that all military airfields stock 5 different types of fuel? You would be full of ****. Your base is stocked with what is required for the A/C that you operate. Not, repeat, not what might land there. If someone needs Jet A instead of JP they stop and a civilian airport and fuel there.

[Seadog]

NZtyphoon, great post

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

As has been mentioned the form is titled CONSUMPTION.

If we follow your logic the 26,000 tons of 87 octane consumed wasn't consumed either, it was also at the airfields. So the next question would be, what were the RAF consuming ( sorry, would you prefer burning up, using, please tell us what term you would prefer)

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.

I would love to see you support that view. Following up this logic each month over this period a further 10,000 tons of 100 Octane and 26,000 tons of 87 octane weere also piling up at the airfields. Where did they put it all and more intrestingly what did they use in the aircraft?

Spend some time on an airfield....

I have spent a lot of time on airfields and the longer this goes on, I suspect that I have spent a lot more time than you on an airfield.

That is why placarding is not a choice or option. Any alternative fuels will be specifically listed by specification.

What exactly have this got to do with a chart showing the fuel consumed per month in the UK?

PS still waiting for you to say where you got the information re the full transfer of FC to 100 octane completing in May 1941.
If you do not support that statement can you give one good reason as to why we shouldn't ignore every other statement that you have made without support.

[Crumpp]

it was the dominant fuel.

In the strategic reserve but that says nothing about operational use. Looking at supply side evidience does not answer operational question.

Once again, I have not seen a thing that overrides the operational doucmentation or what the Notes on a Merlin Engine say for the specified fuel. When 100 Octane becomes the norm, Notes on a Merlin engine relects it.

You guys are all in a frenzy and foaming at the mouth to disprove the fact the Battle of Britain was transitional time period and we need to have more information.