Spit1a > SpitII

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

The units concerned are all frontline Spitfire and Hurricane units.

That's your assumption, against what the sentence means. You are welcome to prove it with evidence.

Plus, if one reads the documentation apart from the single page you supplied, it makes it clear that it names specific Bomber Stations, and that Bomber Stations have priority over specific Fighter Stations. It means something explictely different than "all frontline Spitfire and Hurricane units" which has to be stressed to be hoghwash and that it was made up, typically by the fans of the aircraft. There is no trace of anything like that in the available papers.








Hang on, you can just say something like 'I believe German 100 octane was better" without anything to support it. Double standards.

Red Herring. I can, but its not the subject. Read some of the documents on my site. As a matter of fact, one of the driving forces behind British 100 octane import was the fact that the Germans, with their large synthetic capacity, were seen to be in a good position to produce 100 octane domestically.

OK so the first Middle east (Iraq?) was 12th August, what about all the 100 Octane we got from America in '38, '39' '40?

This was already answered in the source, just read it again.

I also do not intend to answer some of your other questions again, since I've already answered them. Please read them again.

The RAF painted '100' on the engine cowling of converted Spitfires. Obviously they would only need to do this whilst there were 2 types of fuel being used at the same time to ensure the correct fuel was used. I can't find a picture any later than July 1940 where '100' is on there. If they got rid of that then that must mean the conversion was complete

Again, a wild assumption - and one that is based on merely that _you_ haven't seen something, and this MUST mean something you would like to be true.

Reminds me of this one, sorry for the pun.

http://youtu.be/30x8VTCaOws

Consumption of 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain was 58,000 tons
I ton of fuel is just over 14 barrels, 35 gallons in a barrel. 1 ton of fuel = 490 gallons. That is 28 million gallons. So by your number of 125 converted aircraft that would mean average use per Aircraft of 227,000 gallons in 12 weeks. What? Where did it all go?

Again, assumptions and oversimplifications.. I suggest you read the previous thread, where fuel requirements for non-operational flights, engine manufacturers were discussed in detail.

[TomcatViP]

Intersesting reading.

At least I found here again what I hve read for years in UK/US books and not such upside down history account. I guess I am not the only one here with such a feeling.

Regarding the merlin power, may I suggest we give enough details giving perf to determine if the it was a static test run or an in flight measure (typically corrected to 10kft with RAE formula).

Engine data in RAF at the time depict performances WITHOUT Supercharger or being corrected with pre-war formula (hence the the extra 15/30% power) - RR heritage trust / The perf of aero eng / pg 5.


This illustrate why with all the raw data that are now available on the web (but with sometime questionable sources) giving any interpretations or deductions without taking into account years of research from historians is somewhat hazardous.

Usually it ends up like this : all before me was wrong listen what I have to say... Man shld be cautious when entering such a buffer zone

I have in mind that latter analysis in war corrected the early data with the new state of the Art resulting in the normal linear improvement curves we have all in mind of teh Marlin during WWII.

Interestingly I found the related article in Wiki really good. Have a look !

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Again, a wild assumption - and one that is based on merely that _you_ haven't seen something, and this MUST mean something you would like to be true.
It's an assumption based on the fact that I can't find a picture of a '100' marked spitfire dated any later than July 1940. It's not something I would 'like' to be true, I don't operate like that. I'm coming at this from an unbiased approach.




Again, assumptions and oversimplifications.. I suggest you read the previous thread, where fuel requirements for non-operational flights, engine manufacturers were discussed in detail.

No, I suggest that you tell me how they could use 27,000,000 gallons of 100 octane fuel during BoB. Hasn't one of your arguments been that they had limited supply, now you're saying they didn't?

I noticed you made no remark about the fact that I can find combat reports from May-july 1940 that show at least 30 squadrons were using 100 octane

Is this also oversimplified or assumption? No, it's fact.

So I'll ask you again. How do you explain this?

EDIT : I've noticed that the Gallons per ton figure I quoted is wrong, Sorry..

Like I said, I'm trying to be unbiased so it's only fair that I point out my own mistakes.

I've since found a figure that 1 gallon of 100 octane weighed 7.2 lb.
2000 lb's in a ton so the usage for BoB was 161 million Gallons.
(58,000 X 2000 / 7.2 = total gallons?)

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

I noticed you made no remark about the fact that I can find combat reports from May-july 1940 that show at least 30 squadrons were using 100 octane.

Because I already answered that. Squadrons were rotating between Stations.

No, I suggest that you tell me how they could use 27,000,000 gallons of 100 octane fuel during BoB.

And I already told you to read the previous thread. You ignored that and asked the same question again.

I suggest you to back up your earlier claims with something. So far you could not.

Hasn't one of your arguments been that they had limited supply, now you're saying they didn't?

No, you have claimed that all Squadrons were using 100 octane fuel during the Battle. You pointed to a paper that said the opposite. And then you say at least least 30 squadrons were using 100 octane, because you found combat reports. You then asked me to explain me this, despite that I already did.

It is you who is changing his position all the time, not me. As far as it goes, you've made two positive claims

a, All FC Sqns were using 100 octane fuel, and nothing else
b, Rechlin trials did not use 100 octane fuel

The burden of proof is on you. You could prove neither. Therefore, they are unproven, insufficiently supported by documentation which was my point.
That of course does not mean that a considerably number of RAF fighters did not use 100 octane fuel - they did.

The fanboyism part starts where somebody starts to ask for only the best variants to be represented, and start to claim something extreme that all the sudden the 'poorer' variants was not used at all.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Because I already answered that. Squadrons were rotating between Stations.

I don't understand why them rotating would make any difference. I thought that once an engine had been converted to 100 that was what they put in it, regardless of where it was stationed? Why paint 100's onto them if it didn't matter what fuel you put in?



No, you have claimed that all Squadrons were using 100 octane fuel during the Battle. You pointed to a paper that said the opposite. And then you say at least least 30 squadrons were using 100 octane, because you found combat reports. You then asked me to explain me this, despite that I already did. OK I retract the all - I stand by the fact that I can find reference to 100 octane use in at least 30 squadrons before August 1940, happy? Didn't think so.

It is you who is changing his position all the time, not me. As far as it goes, you've made two positive claims

a, All FC Sqns were using 100 octane fuel, and nothing else OK, prove me wrong.
b, Rechlin trials did not use 100 octane fuel - OK prove me wrong

The burden of proof is on you. You could prove neither. Therefore, they are unproven, insufficiently supported by documentation which was my point.
That of course does not mean that a considerably number of RAF fighters did not use 100 octane fuel - they did.

The fanboyism part starts where somebody starts to ask for only the best variants to be represented, and start to claim something extreme that all the sudden the 'poorer' variants was not used at all. I'm not interested in fanboys, at all.

I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards. So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by winny

I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards. So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?

I think what kurfurst is trying to say is that german had both 87 and 100 fuel. So if they captured a British spittie, they WOULD tested it with the same fuel it was being used on it, not a different one. SO basicly if you say "they all had 100 gallon" then the captured one HAD to had 100 gallon. if the captured was 87 then that means not all of the spitis were 100 gallon, and there were 87.

thats what i got out if it.

jkeep up the discussion, its keeping me from studying math all day

[Kurfürst]

I don't understand why them rotating would make any difference.

I already explained. See A and B station, X and Y Squadron. In short it makes assessing the number of Squadrons using 100 oct at the same time difficult. But not impossible.

I thought that once an engine had been converted to 100 that was what they put in it, regardless of where it was stationed?

The engine mod only made it available to take advantage of higher boost. It did not cut you off from using 87 octane in the future.

To my best knowledge the 100 octane engine mod. simply changed the way how the automatic boost cutout worked. Before the mod. it was a switch for "manual override for automatic boost limit", meaning you could select whatever boost (even overboost) and after the mod it was a "+12 lbs instead of 6 1/4 automatic boost limit". It didn't make 87 octane incompatible with the engine, but of course you shouldn't use the +12 boost in this condition.

Why paint 100's onto them if it didn't matter what fuel you put in?

Because they do that in every air force. I believe you will find that they continued to paint 100 on them, just not on the side of the cowling, but on the top, with dark letters (like in the Il2 skin).

OK I retract the all - I stand by the fact that I can find reference to 100 octane use in at least 30 squadrons before August 1940, happy? Didn't think so.

Yes, happy. I have no problem acknowledging that there were a significant number of Squadrons using 100 octane and had improved performance. There's is no lack of evidence for that. I just don't believe it realistic that all of them suddenly switched overnight. There is contradictionary evidence.

It is you who is changing his position all the time, not me. As far as it goes, you've made two positive claims

a, All FC Sqns were using 100 octane fuel, and nothing else OK, prove me wrong.
b, Rechlin trials did not use 100 octane fuel - OK prove me wrong

Sorry, you made these claims... I don't have to prove them wrong. It just doesn't work that way that if you make a claim, and I can't or won't prove it wrong, you're right.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Originally Posted by winny

I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards.

So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

I said that they - at Rechlin - were perfectly capable of carrying out with 100 octane. They were. The Germans were using 100 octane fuel in their own planes (fighters, heavy fighters, bombers), both their own type and captutre, during the Battle. So what would keep them from using the same fuels in captured enemy aircraft..?

I also said that this would be logical, IF they captured the aircraft with 100 octane. If I find a Spit filled with 100 octane, and would want to try out what it is capable of so that my pilots could fight it better, why would I create conditions that give me a false view and put me into a disadvantage..? Sorry, the guys at Rechlin were not stupid, just like their collegues in Russia, Uk, US, they were amongst some of the finest engineers and pilots of the world.

This was in response to your categoric statement that the Rechlin tests were NOT carried out with 100 octane. Frankly I believe this is just said all the time because the E-Stelle Rechlin did not paint so positive picture of the aircraft, so people want to dismiss it.

[QUOTE]In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?/QUOTE]

Sure, though I think I did above. I don't believe, due to lack of any kind of positive evidence to such claims, and due to the evidence that contradicts it, that every and all FC Sqn was running solely on 100 octane fuel. I believe some stations (Sqns) were supplied with 100 octane, and some with 87 octane, as the decision makers were - rightly - concerned about the flow of supplies, and the consequences if those supplies were cut off. I also believe that as the Battle progressed, more Squadrons were using 100 octane.

It would also makes sense. I have NEVER seen in all my studies of WW2 air forces that things just changed all the sudden, that they would introduce a new type of aircraft and it would immidiately replace the old ones, or fuel, for that matter. Its unrealistic.

I also understand that this is a claim put forward typically by RAF fanboys (not meaning you) who want to fly only the best variant, so they could argue it was the *only* variant around, that's the only variant that should be present on ie. Dogfight servers. Personally, I don't have a stake in it, because I don't fly on those servers for years BTW. Nor do I care of the variant present - the way I fight, it doesn't matter what plane I dive on and attack with great speed advantage.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by pupo162

I think what kurfurst is trying to say is that german had both 87 and 100 fuel. So if they captured a British spittie, they WOULD tested it with the same fuel it was being used on it, not a different one. SO basicly if you say "they all had 100 gallon" then the captured one HAD to had 100 gallon. if the captured was 87 then that means not all of the spitis were 100 gallon, and there were 87.

thats what i got out if it.

jkeep up the discussion, its keeping me from studying math all day

Yeah I guess you just explained my position much better than I was capable of..

[lane]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Intersesting reading.

At least I found here again what I hve read for years in UK/US books and not such upside down history account. I guess I am not the only one here with such a feeling.

Regarding the merlin power, may I suggest we give enough details giving perf to determine if the it was a static test run or an in flight measure (typically corrected to 10kft with RAE formula).

Engine data in RAF at the time depict performances WITHOUT Supercharger or being corrected with pre-war formula (hence the the extra 15/30% power) - RR heritage trust / The perf of aero eng / pg 5.


This illustrate why with all the raw data that are now available on the web (but with sometime questionable sources) giving any interpretations or deductions without taking into account years of research from historians is somewhat hazardous.

Usually it ends up like this : all before me was wrong listen what I have to say... Man shld be cautious when entering such a buffer zone

I have in mind that latter analysis in war corrected the early data with the new state of the Art resulting in the normal linear improvement curves we have all in mind of teh Marlin during WWII.

Interestingly I found the related article in Wiki really good. Have a look !

Perhaps you are looking for conspiracies that aren’t there? Have a closer look at Hooker, Reed and Yarker's The Performance of a Supercharged Aero Engine, first published in March 1941. I believe you are barking up the wrong tree See attached for an example of calculated versus tested & measured engine power.

Also see Bailey's The Merlin in Perspective first published in 1983 by the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust. Bailey worked for Rolls for over 40 years and has some knowledge of the subject. See relevant pages attached.

[Ze-Jamz]

RAFfanboys and luftwiners...

Gota love em

oh wait..i started this