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

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Keep in mind which aircraft types were operated by the RAAF in Australia in 1941. Was there even any fighter available? I mean they even didn't receive Brewsters or P-40s before 1942.

Ok fair enough for the fighters. But with so many RAAF personnel flying Hurries and SPits in ENgland, any 100 oct probable requirement would hve been listed.

What import most in the doc is that 100 OCT was a safety measure to prevent any lack of required grade fuel during the forseen switch in engine fuel with increased "technologies" (and even more lowered safety level )

I pointed out (or I shld hve - lol ) a paper listing the composition of all grade of blended fuel (11.5% for 87 for exemple).

This shld be put in perspective with the average quantities of 100 oct consumption in england (the Kurves Kurfust traced).


ANd plse for the sake of the reader don't over quote each other with hundreds of lines of citations only to add a single sentence.

Over 400 post in this thread and I am sure that less than 20% are original meanings

[TomcatViP]

s

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Ok fair enough for the fighters. But with so many RAAF personnel flying Hurries and SPits in ENgland, any 100 oct probable requirement would hve been listed.

What import most in the doc is that 100 OCT was a safety measure to prevent any lack of required grade fuel during the forseen switch in engine fuel with increased "technologies" (and even more lowered safety level )

I pointed out (or I shld hve - lol ) a paper listing the composition of all grade of blended fuel (11.5% for 87 for exemple).

This shld be put in perspective with the average quantities of 100 oct consumption in england (the Kurves Kurfust traced).


ANd plse for the sake of the reader don't over quote each other with hundreds of lines of citations only to add a single sentence.

Just like that

[Osprey]

Firstly, I want to thank Glider, NZTyphoon, Banks and Lane for coming in here to lance this historical boil. I have no problem with Kurfurst having an opinion but what alarms me is when it may affect other's opinions on history due to his agenda driven bias. It's all very well being on this forum but it actually disgusts me that this man sees fit to edit Wikipedia with his theories which are at odds with the painstakingly researched work of proper historians who seek the real answers, agenda free. I found it annoying enough that he wishes to pad his online stats by trying to negatively influence the flight model of his online enemy, that affects the hobby I enjoy enough - but to deliberately doctor popular information websites to suit his agenda is a disgrace.

@Tomcat, regarding your fighter question. The RAAF didn't operate in the Battle of Britain, only some Australian pilots did along with Kiwi pilots such as Al Deere. They made their own way to the UK and joined the RAF flying the same aircraft in British squadrons. The point being made here though is nothing to do with what the RAAF used, but the fact that the Australian government did not deal with the UK government in order to obtain their fuel and that this is contrary to Kurfursts long standing opinion which he will not move from and tells everybody that he can that it's the truth.

What you are seeing from Kurfurst is very bad science who clearly has an agenda which is contrary to finding out the truth. He can draw you as many graphs as he likes but the bottom line is that he's having strong evidence shoved in front of him and is still arguing about it. Did you know that 99% of people in prison are not guilty? It's the same mentality.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

+1

[NZtyphoon]

Okay, for Tomcat's convenience, let's break it down.

1)Since about 2004, Kurfurst has held up the "Pips" memo as being an exemplar of accurate information regarding the supply of 100 Octane fuel to the RAF.

2) Whenever asked to show the original document, or at least provide solid evidence that it exists, on this and in other forums, KF has fobbed people off, and told them to find the document themselves, or contact Pip and ask him, or travel to Australia, often with insults and sneers.

3) When people like Glider have contacted the Australian War Memorial Archives to find the document, and have been told it cannot be found, KF has almost invariably resorted to calling the inquirer a liar.

Enough of history:

(KF #400, p. 40) So disprove the statement of Pips. Since you like to misrepresent other's position, I put it forward to you in its originality:

This is from a researcher, researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives, from a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance. It was a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report titled Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War.

The reason why it is included amongst AWM papers is because the Australian Government at that time was protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

1) The reason for the "Pips" memo supposedly being in the AWM Archives is because it was copied to "the Australian Military Commission". No such Commission existed. On that basis alone, this Pips memo is a fabrication.

2) Beaverbrook apparently used the memo, supposedly from Rolls-Royce, to explain to the "Australian Military Commission" the reasons why Australia was still being supplied with 87 Octane fuel, rather than the 100 Octane it wanted: "The Australian Government was protesting vigoriously..."

3) At no time was the Australian Government accountable to the British regarding supplies of aviation fuel of any grade. The Australian Government got its fuel supplies directly from the oil companies, after negotiating directly with the oil companies. Beaverbrook had absolutely no say in the matter, nor could he influence the process in any way. There is an Official Australian War History and, far more importantly, a whole swag of documents discovered by 41Sqn_Banks, which proves this.


4) It doesn't matter what grades of fuel were being requested by the Australians - fact was they were getting all that was needed, and their requirements changed according to the types of engines being mooted for the Catalinas, Hudsons and other types ordered from the Americans.

Nuff said? It is pathetic that KF who has a deal of intelligence (?), has wasted so much of other people's time and energy on such a sham. If you want to continue to defend KF, be my guest.

[Al Schlageter]

Well said Osprey and NZtyphoon.

[Bounder!]

Simply put, as I understand it from reading the various threads on this forum plus the threads on ww2aircraft.net linked by Klem on page 9 of the Spit MK I/II thread, RAF fighter command's Spitfires and Hurricanes flew combat sorties using 100 Octane fuel during the Battle of Britain - there is ample and overwhelming evidence for this backed up by references linked; there has been no evidence provided backed up by a reference for the use of 87 Octane fuel by Spitfires or Hurricanes during BoB. So simply put, in a combat flight sim of BoB, Spitfire and Hurricanes should be modeled using 100 Octane fuel.

[Crumpp]

There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

That is really the best summation of this whole argument.

There is not enough evidence for it to be decided with facts, only on opinion.

Reminds me of the 100/150 grade fiasco.....how many "tons" of that horse pucky was thrown around as proof of widespread adoption in gamer world.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is really the best summation of this whole argument.

There is not enough evidence for it to be decided with facts, only on opinion.

Reminds me of the 100/150 grade fiasco.....how many "tons" of that horse pucky was thrown around as proof of widespread adoption in gamer world.

If you have any evidence that 87 octane was used in combat I would be very interested to see it. Kurfurst whole approach is to never supply any evidence to support his view but to nitpick at any evidence that is offerred the other way, magnify it and blow it up out of proportion.

So it would be nice to see someone prove that 87 octane was used in combat. Hundreds of books and pieces have been written on the battle. Many personal accounts have been published. It would be nice to find one, just one that says 87 octane was used, or even frustration at not having 100 octane available.

I have stated many times that the case for the use of 100 octane is a strong one but not a perfect one. However there is no evidence of any kind that says 87 octane was used in combat.

Instead of shouting from the sidelines it would be nice to see someone who supports the belief that 87 was octane was used in combat, to back up those shouts.

For instance, did Kurfurst ever get capt doggles included onto the thread that was supposed to support his case. If not did he even copy the details of the exchange and make them available to him. Penny to a pound says he didn't.

I have put up with a number of insults from Kurfurst and Captdoggles (who has gone very quiet) but just supplied documents to support my case being honest and admitting the case wasn't perfect. Now its time for Kurfurst and others who believe 87 octane was used to support their belief with something substantial

To put it another way, its time they put up or shut up

[JG52Uther]

Enough with the personal attacks. Discuss, disagree etc, but personal attacks are unacceptable.