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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.

In other words what ever pitiful evidence Barbi thought he had, and has spent hours arguing over, even though he confessed to having only a very passing interest in the RAF

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

....Because I have only a very passing interest the RAF... Some times questions like this just solve themselves in time.

has been totally busted.

No Pips memo, which he has never seen in the first place;

Morgan and Shacklady busted; (pity I still like the book but some of their research lacks depth)

and his mere conjecture and wishful thinking over the words "certain" or "selected", written in memos that are 70 years old.

Not forgetting that Kf very recently did provide a document stating that the RAF actually considered it had adequate reserves of 100 octane fuel in November 1939.


All he can do is squeak "the burden of proof is on you" - and nobody but Kf has set that 'rule'. If that was really true everything Kf has posted, all of his bluster, all of his attempts to justify his position, has been, in the words of the bard "a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (MacBeth)

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

If you are engaged in a battle for survival, do you not think you would utilize every possible advantage you have whether or not there are "adequate" reserves on hand or not?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.

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. I think that counts as counter evidence

[Korn]

Sorry to intervene in the middle of your sword fighting, but if the 100 Octane fuel use was generalized, why is it even mentioned in the combat reports? I really doubt the use of your regular-every-day-normal fuel warrants mentioning.

Just asking. Was any air force during the WW2 in the habbit of specifying what fuel they flew with unless it was something, i don't know, unusual?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Korn

Sorry to intervene in the middle of your sword fighting, but if the 100 Octane fuel use was generalized, why is it even mentioned in the combat reports? I really doubt the use of your regular-every-day-normal fuel warrants mentioning.

Just asking. Was any air force during the WW2 in the habbit of specifying what fuel they flew with unless it was something, i don't know, unusual?

The reason 100 octane fuel is mentioned in combat reports in 1940 is because pilots using the +12 boost generally had to describe the circumstances under which it was used - the fuel did not have to be mentioned specifically, but there was often an expression like "squeezed the tit" used, meaning the pilot had pushed the throttle lever forward through a wire placed across the gate, engaging the overboost which could only be used with 100 octane fuel. The pilot also had to report use of the boost to the squadron's mechanics who entered it into the engine log of the aircraft. Later versions of the Merlin were able to routinely use +12 boost without the five minute time limit set on its use with the Merlin II/III series.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Korn

Sorry to intervene in the middle of your sword fighting, but if the 100 Octane fuel use was generalized, why is it even mentioned in the combat reports? I really doubt the use of your regular-every-day-normal fuel warrants mentioning.

Just asking. Was any air force during the WW2 in the habbit of specifying what fuel they flew with unless it was something, i don't know, unusual?

The pilots didn't mention the use of 100 octane fuel, they only mentioned the use of "emergency power" (+12 boost) which was only allowed if the aircraft was fueled up with 100 octane fuel. They did mention the use of "emergency power" because they had to report any use of it; so the ground crew knew that the engine should be inspected with special care.

However I don't think they were strictly required to mention the use in "Intelligence Form F" (Combat Report) as the ground crew wouldn't read them. However it was a useful information for the intelligence officer, for example if the pilot was able to catch up with a Bf 109 using +12 boost.

[Korn]

Ok that i understand, thanks for explaining it to me. It really made no sense before .

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

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. I think that counts as counter evidence

I suggest you cease putting words into my mouth; nowhere I had suggested that the use of 100 octane was limited to 16 Squadrons, this may or may not have been revised, but given that there is an absolute lack of evidence that happening, any such thesis remains in the realm of wishful thinking. However the trail of evidence is clear, in 1939 the RAF clearly intended to issue the fuel to select Squadrons. In May 1940 the archive papers have noted that this policy of limited use was followed, as the papers still note that only select units/stations are supplied.

You have not produced anything that would suggest this policy was revised. Fuel issue/consumption records show that the 87 octane remained the main type issued and consumed.

So instead of dancing on the words and expecting others to disprove the unsupported thesis you are speculating about, how about producing a single paper saying that all Squadrons are/are to be supplied, hmm? So far your record with that is dismay failure.

Moreover, as you said you have combat reports from pilots from about 30 Squadrons (rotating between Stations that selected to be supplied with 100 octane as others have also correctly pointed out, so alone it gives very little idea of how many units were using the fuel at one time) so one just wonders on really what basis you are claiming that not 30 but 60+ Squadrons were all using 100 octane fuel, when you have only evidence for half of them. After years of rather barren research.

[41Sqn_Banks]

I found this document http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...tane-issue.pdf rather interesting.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

I found this document http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...tane-issue.pdf rather interesting.

Indeed that fits into the story nicely.

"serving the fighter stations concerned"

"certain units of Bomber Command"

".. 100 octane fuel will come into use in all the approved stations"

"bulk storage could be made available at the relevant stations"

Quite clear isn't it. Just don't make the mistake that Glider is not aware of all that, he is, for a long time, he just ignores the evidence.