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

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

To KF, VIP et al:

Could you please explain in concise detail how the RAF selected the 16 squadrons, and how the RAF made sure that only 16 squadrons at a time used 100 Octane fuel, and could you provide documented evidence of the processes and logistics used by the RAF to ensure that only 16 squadrons at a time were allowed to use the fuel during the B of B?

Could you please provide some documented evidence that there was a shortage of 100 octane fuel during July, August, such that FC had to stop using the fuel?

Could you please provide documentary evidence of FC pilots (apart from Gladiators, NF Blenheims and Whirlwinds) using 87 octane fuel in combat between July and September 1940?

Pleeease???

For what I said reading the Australian archive is that there was 100oct but the use was not in line with what is put frwd by you and your afficionados. It simple as tht.
I did say tht there is the logical hypothesis that 100 octane was used as a meaning to make available the stock of old fuel (74?) due to the probably huge quantity stocked and the very high price of tht fuel.

It's seems very easy to check to see if I am right or wrong as I said : as we hve the qty of old fuel and 100oct per month and the formula for the blending, just making the math shld give an accurate awnser.

However
I don't take orders from anyone NZTyph and certainly don't think that there is any time left for discussion after being insulted.

You better take tht into account.

This debate is over for me as... there is no debate.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

For what I said reading the Australian archive is that there was 100oct but the use was not in line with what is put frwd by you and your afficionados. It simple as tht.
I did say tht there is the logical hypothesis that 100 octane was used as a meaning to make available the stock of old fuel (74?) due to the probably huge quantity stocked and the very high price of tht fuel.

It's seems very easy to check to see if I am right or wrong as I said : as we hve the qty of old fuel and 100oct per month and the formula for the blending, just making the math shld give an accurate awnser.

However
I don't take orders from anyone NZTyph and certainly don't think that there is any time left for discussion after being insulted.

You better take tht into account.

This debate is over for me as... there is no debate.

What insult?

[lane]

Robert Schlaifer, Development of Aircraft Engines, (Harvard University, Boston, 1950). pp 222 - 223

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

What insult?

probably showing evidence that he's wrong.

reading this thread, and a few peoples opinion reminds me of this,

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

For what I said reading the Australian archive is that there was 100oct but the use was not in line with what is put frwd by you and your afficionados. It simple as tht.

In 1941 RAAF didn't intend to use 100 octane fuel at that time because they didn't have a engine that required the use of 100 octane. They only had one engine type that required 90 octane fuel. The RAF instead had already engines that required the use of 100 octane fuel (e.g. Merlin XX) and engines that allowed higher operation limits when 100 octane fuel was used (e.g. Merlin III).

I did say tht there is the logical hypothesis that 100 octane was used as a meaning to make available the stock of old fuel (74?) due to the probably huge quantity stocked and the very high price of tht fuel.

It's seems very easy to check to see if I am right or wrong as I said : as we hve the qty of old fuel and 100oct per month and the formula for the blending, just making the math shld give an accurate awnser.

You obviously have missed some statements in the documents. The standard aviation fuel used by the RAAF at this time was 87 octane fuel. This 87 octane fuel aviation fuel was blended by adding additives to 73 octane base fuel. This was the standard process.

As they required 90 octane fuel the they could either blend the 87 octane fuel even more to get 90 octane fuel or they could mix 97 octane fuel with 100 octane fuel. They've chosen to use the later method. Reason: Blending 87 to 90 octane would violate the specification for 90 octane because to much additives have to be added. Therefore this was only a emergency solution.
There was no need for this as they didn't have problems to obtain 100 octane fuel.

[NZtyphoon]

So, lets have a look at the evidence presented in 50 pages that large numbers (up to 2/3rds) of frontline units of Fighter Command were using 87 octane fuel right through until at least September 1940...

A summary of a document, apparently found in the AWM (which cannot find the document) and which was part of a thread from 2004, in another forum; this can only be read by members of that forum. The document itself has not yet been seen by the one who pins 100% faith on its authenticity.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Glider already tried this line. The Forum and the thread is easily accessible, for registered AND approved members.

Pre-war documents which planned to have 16 FC and two Blenheim squadrons using 100 Octane by September 1940. There is lots of attention focused on the words "certain" and "concerned", but hardly any on the fact that these are pre-war planning documents.

Quote from Morgan and Shacklady.

Otherwise nada, zip. Lots of bluster and smokescreens and diversions, but no documentary evidence showing that 100 Octane use was restricted to "selected", "concerned" or "certain" frontline Fighter Command units during the Battle of Britain.

When directly asked to build a case, using documentary evidence, for the widespread use of 87 octane fuel by frontline units of Fighter Command during the B of B, the protagonists either go silent, or feel "insulted".

The people who should feel insulted are those who have gone to a huge amount of effort to find and present documents supporting a case for the full scale use of 100 0ctane fuel by frontline FC units, only to be confronted by the same old nonsense, which has also been thrown about on other forums, and in Wikipedia, particularly as

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I have...only a very passing interest (in) the RAF...

That's it, that's what 50 pages of wrangling boils down to.

[Al Schlageter]

Know what is so said NZt is that these same nay sayers will back at it again in the future with the same lame reasons as history has shown.

[lane]

In the interests of clarity, the following chart taken from Flight - December 2nd, 1943 is useful for comparing Schlaifer's manifold pressures, given in inches of mercury in his Development of Aircraft Engines depicted above, with the equivalent boost pressures in lbs/sq.in. as used by the British. Schlaifer wrote "Before the middle of 1940, a manifold pressure of 54.3 in. was authorized, giving a combat rating of 1,310 hp at 9,000 feet...". 54.3 in. Hg is the equivalent to +12 lbs/sq.in.. 1,310 hp at 9,000 feet operating at 54.3 in Hg. (+12 lbs /sq.in) is in agreement with the combat rating for the Merlin III given in Alec Harvey-Bailey's The Merlin in Perspective, pg 155.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I think any reasonable person would agree that 100 octane Spits and Hurries were active during BoB..

And based on this thread it is clear that no amount of proof will change the minds of the nay-sayers for what ever reason

The good news is they don't mater!

The only people that mater are the people at 1C.

With that said, I think we should stop wasting time on the nay-sayers and focus on 1C.

To do that we need to pull all this info into one document with one stated objective.

That being adding 100 octane Spits and Hurries to CoD

I think you guys should start a group PM and consider making use of some of the goggle global tools and create a document that includes all this proof in it and submit it to Luither for consideration. Also if needed I would be more than willing to post your results on my web site so when the nay-sayers bring this up again in six months we can simply point them to the link instead of wasting time going around in circles with then again.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Thanks, Lane, that's a handy chart to have on file!