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

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

It it patently obvious that many squadrons used 100 octane fuel. How many? Were they confined to 11 group or were they throughout fighter command? We haven't been able to determine that exactly, yet. But to deny it was used at all is to deny documented historical fact

Quote:
"The spitfire were not so succesfull against the 109s in other theaters. At mediterranean and Afrika the allied resources are bigger. And the RAF suffered heavy loses in Afrika and Malta. The failure of the Luftwaffe in this scenarios was mainly because they were outnumbered and low of fuel. And they performed very well. And the spitfire was there."

As an aside, Spitfires (and Hurricanes) initially used in the middle east suffered a considerable performance penalty due to the enormous "Volkes" filter that was attached to keep sand out of the intakes. The "Aboukir" filter that was developed later caused less of a performance issue.

[lane]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

There is a DVD including "The Daily Inspection of the Spitfire", and 3 other IWM Spitfire films: http://www.iwmshop.org.uk/product/15...ntline_Fighter

Thanks for the tip NZtyphoon! I purchased the DVD from the Imperial War Museum and found it quite interesting. The images are rather better than what I had too.

The first two screen captures are from Re-arming filmed around June 1940. 609 Squadron Spitfire I's are shown being re-fueled and re-armed. One of the aircraft still has a black & white underside paint scheme, whereas the others have all duck egg blue undersides. Note the 100 stenciled in black paint on the fuselage at the location of the fuel tanks. This is in contrast to the 100 stenciled in white paint at the fuel tanks location of the Spitfire I shown in the instructional film The Daily Inspection of a Spitfire. The location of the 100 octane fuel stencil also varies slightly from aircraft to aircraft.





From The Daily Inspection of a Spitfire June 1940.

[Crumpp]

NZTyphoon says:
If you believe that the RAF only used 16 squadrons of fighters with 100 Octane until Sept 1940, then you need to explain why we have over 30 squadrons mentioning it in combat reports.

You are invested in your point of view. There is no real reason to discuss anything.

FYI, a very good explanation was offered shortly after my last post.

41Sqn_Banks says:
I absolutely agree with you that the case is in no way clear. However IIRC there is proof by combat reports and official squadron diaries (ORBs) that more than 16 squadrons used 100 octane before September 1940. Of course this doesn't mean that all squadrons used it. And this could also be caused by rotating the squadrons between the different groups.
__________________

Re-arming filmed around June 1940.

The RAF certainly did not suddenly convert 16 squadrons in September without first conducting an operational trial of at least one or possibly several squadrons to ensure the fuel was viable in service. If an unforeseen issue suddenly reared its head, that would mean 1/3 of the FC would be out of the action.

Look up the O2 system on the F22 raptor........ALL of the USAF F22 were grounded.
It does happen and there is a reason the process to adopt new technology on aircraft is so laborious. The United States is just lucky it did not occur in the middle of a major conflict between first world nations.

What if the RAF adopted 100 grade en-mass and it caused the aircraft to be grounded, unavailable to defend the country in time of war???

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You are invested in your point of view. There is no real reason to discuss anything.

The RAF certainly did not suddenly convert 16 squadrons in September without first conducting an operational trial of at least one or possibly several squadrons to ensure the fuel was viable in service. If an unforeseen issue suddenly reared its head, that would mean 1/3 of the FC would be out of the action.

Look up the O2 system on the F22 raptor........ALL of the USAF F22 were grounded.
It does happen and there is a reason the process to adopt new technology on aircraft is so laborious. The United States is just lucky it did not occur in the middle of a major conflict between first world nations.

What if the RAF adopted 100 grade en-mass and it caused the aircraft to be grounded, unavailable to defend the country in time of war???

100 Octane fuel was being used by the fighter squadrons of the BEF during the Battle of France, as well as home based fighter squadrons and several Blenheim bomber units, more than enough to prove the use of the fuel operationally; as for the rest of your posting:

I don't remember anyone saying 16 Squadrons were "suddenly converted" to 100 octane fuel in September 1940 - just another example of pure speculation on your part.

You still have not provided any documentary, or secondary evidence for the rest of your wishful thinking.

The rest is nothing but pure hypothesis; what happens to F-22s in 21st Century peacetime conditions has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened in Britain in 1940.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You are invested in your point of view. There is no real reason to discuss anything.

In other wards you have nothing to back up your words. Typical.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The RAF certainly did not suddenly convert 16 squadrons in September without first conducting an operational trial of at least one or possibly several squadrons to ensure the fuel was viable in service. If an unforeseen issue suddenly reared its head, that would mean 1/3 of the FC would be out of the action.

What if the RAF adopted 100 grade en-mass and it caused the aircraft to be grounded, unavailable to defend the country in time of war???

They had, at the minimum, converted over 20 squadrons before July:

No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 92 (East India) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940 H
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron pre BoB S

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 3 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 17 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 19 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 54 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 73 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940 H
No. 41 Squadron June 1940 S
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940 S
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron June 1940 S

One third of FC would not be out of action as 87 fuel could still be used.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

100 Octane fuel was being used by the fighter squadrons of the BEF during the Battle of France, as well as home based fighter squadrons and several Blenheim bomber units, more than enough to prove the use of the fuel operationally; as for the rest of your posting:

I don't remember anyone saying 16 Squadrons were "suddenly converted" to 100 octane fuel in September 1940 - just another example of pure speculation on your part.

No it is a lack of reading comprehension.

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

You still have not provided any documentary, or secondary evidence for the rest of your wishful thinking.

Never will.

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

The rest is nothing but pure hypothesis; what happens to F-22s in 21st Century peacetime conditions has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened in Britain in 1940.

More like useless gum flapping.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

FYI, a very good explanation was offered shortly after my last post.

41Sqn_Banks says:
I absolutely agree with you that the case is in no way clear. However IIRC there is proof by combat reports and official squadron diaries (ORBs) that more than 16 squadrons used 100 octane before September 1940. Of course this doesn't mean that all squadrons used it. And this could also be caused by rotating the squadrons between the different groups.

Clearly you do believe that this is a good explanation, so what exactly is your evidence? Without it this is just a fantasy.

My previous questions are still waiting a reply.

1) If you believe that the RAF only used 16 squadrons of fighters with 100 Octane until Sept 1940, then you need to explain why we have over 30 squadrons mentioning it in combat reports.
2) If you believe that this was achieved by only 16 squadrons using it at any one time then you need to prove it.
3) If you beleive that a pre war plan stayed in force for 12 months without any change then ask yourself this question. Can you find any pre war plan, on any topic, in relation to any combat arm, of any nation that continued without alteration once the fighting started. Find one, this isn't it because we know that Blenhiem units were equipped with 100 octane in France and that alone was more than 2 squadrons.
4) There was no shortage of fuel at any time in the BOB. If you think there was a shortage, prove it. The only shortage I found was in May 1944 before the invasion.
5) All the facts that I have posted on this have come from the official records in the National Archives. If that isn't good enough for you then tell me what is?

[41Sqn_Banks]

To check the "only-16-squadrons-at-one-time-by-rotating" theory I did count the squadrons that were at one time in No. 11 Group.

July 10th 1940
Hurricane 13
Spitfire 5
Blenheim 3
Defiant 1
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-22.html

August 8th 1940
Hurricane 14.5 (No. 85 Squadron is listed twice as the two Flights were at different stations, No. 1 RCAF is operational on August 17th when No. 41 Squadron was already transferred back to No. 13 Group)
Spitfire 5.5 (No. 41 Squadron returned to No. 13 Group on August 9th)
Blenheim 2
Defiant 0
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-28.html

September 7th 1940
Hurricane 14
Spitfire 7
Blenheim 2
Defiant 0
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-44.html


If we assume that 16 squadrons operated on 100 octane at one time, by summing up the Spitfire, Hurricane and Defiant* squadrons in No. 11 Group we get:
July 10th: 19 Squadrons (84% on 100 octane)
August 8th: 20 Squadrons (80% on 100 octane)
September 7th: 21 Squadrons (76% on 100 octane)

*Blenheim only used 100 octane fuel for better take-off performance when heavy loaded, which was not required in Fighter Command as they didn't carry bombs.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by lane

The first two screen captures are from Re-arming filmed around June 1940. 609 Squadron Spitfire I's are shown being re-fueled and re-armed. One of the aircraft still has a black & white underside paint scheme, whereas the others have all duck egg blue undersides. Note the 100 stenciled in black paint on the fuselage at the location of the fuel tanks. This is in contrast to the 100 stenciled in white paint at the fuel tanks location of the Spitfire I shown in the instructional film The Daily Inspection of a Spitfire. The location of the 100 octane fuel stencil also varies slightly from aircraft to aircraft.





From The Daily Inspection of a Spitfire June 1940.

According to Ted Hooton Spitfire Camouflage 1938-1940 Scale Aircraft Modelling Vol 5 No. 2, November 1982, the transition from Black/White under-surfaces to what was meant to be Sky (Type S) - there were some unit applied colours that were non standard - took place between 6 -17 June 1940 (p. 56).

R6692 - the Spitfire in the hanger, and the subject of the maintenance film, first flew June 3 was delivered to 6MU 5 June, then 609 Sqn. 7 June http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/p009.htm : in the film the aircraft code letter had yet to be applied, so the film was shot early-mid June, while it was still working into 609 Sqn. service. The 2nd photo of 609 Sqn Spitfires shows two of them still had black wheels, meaning they originally were painted black under the port wing, yet the undersurfaces of the wing were painted Sky, meaning the unit was in the middle of repainting its operational aircraft - again early - mid June 1940.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

5) All the facts that I have posted on this have come from the official records in the National Archives. If that isn't good enough for you then tell me what is?

And all the facts from the National Archives say

- that the RAF decided in March 1939 to equip 16 fighter + 2 bomber Squadrons with 100 octane

- that in May 1940 they acknowledged that the fuel was delivered to select fighter and bomber squadrons

- that in August 1940 they decided that other Commands may use 100 fuel as well (which does not mean they did, they were authorized to do so)

- 100 octane vs 87 octane issues figures for 1940 all show that 87 octane was the primary fuel issued during the Battle, and 100 octane issues did not increase or took prominence until the day battle was pretty much over

Everything else is merely your speculation and wishful thinking about 'all' and 'every' unit using 100 octane, supported by no evidence as many has already told you. You can only offer mere rhetoric and nothing more.

Nobody else need to offer counter-evidence to your speculation, as you were not able to offer evidence to start with. The burden is proof is on you. You can't - I see you'd like to - escape from that fact I am afraid.