Spit1a > SpitII

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

I've seen this line on a website for Trimpel Oil refinery

By May 1940, reconnaissance Spitfires had begun flying combat missions using the 100 octane fuel. By 31 July 1940, there were 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using the 100 octane fuel.

Interesting page on Heysham, thanks for sharing.

There's no reference to where they got the 384 in 19 squadrons from.

I would say its simple guesswork that it was used in all aircraft.

The funny thing you see is, with all the years and fantatic research, the fanatics of the cause could not produce but ONE paper stating even remotely saying such.

Its funny, compared to how allegedly 'uniform' its use was, that there's no single paper of it. Instead, the propagators just get wildly excited and hysterical, as usual, trying to make up with noise for something they cannot make up with substance.

It all reminds me of the old, now debunked claims by the same bunch of people at the ex-Spitfireperformance.com website. That time it was claimed 150 grade was a de facto standard fuel for Spitfire in 1944, and every Spitfire run just on that an nothing else. They even went as far as showing cropped original documents mentioning +25 lbs boosted Griffons, for example. "Only" the part of the paper that said that the engine failed almost immidiately was cut off... its funnily analouge to the current situation, because we have again cropped documents, oddly enough just forgetting about the period (May-September) in which Lord Beaverbrook noted that the conversion of the force halted.

Probably the simplest for would be get a full copy of AVIA 10/282 from Kew, as it would put all doubts to rest I believe.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Interesting page on Heysham, thanks for sharing.



I would say its simple guesswork that it was used in all aircraft.


Probably the simplest for would be get a full copy of AVIA 10/282 from Kew, as it would put all doubts to rest I believe.

Like I said earlier, I'm not biased, I just like a good discussion and I like to come at things from a slightly different angle..

What is AVIA 10/282? I'd love to spend a day in the archives..

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

Like I said earlier, I'm not biased, I just like a good discussion and I like to come at things from a slightly different angle..

I love to hear this, and you can be sure I am interested in the same. That's why I do not bother to answer to poster who are not.. and that's why I keep responding to you. There's always something to learn IMHO!

Now, it may be me, but the thing is that I always like to get statements based on solid evidence.

Same thing with the Luftwaffe in the BoB - you won't find me saying that all of the LW was flying on 100 octane fuel, even though I could present such evidence that would make it seem as much that everything from 109s to 110s and even 88 flew on the thing... I know perfectly well that there was but a wing of 109, a couple of more wings of 110s, and the 100 octane fuel found in a Ju 88 tank was probably a matter of simplier logistics or a shared airfield with a 100 octane unit...

What is AVIA 10/282? I'd love to spend a day in the archives..

Its the archival refernce to the file held at the British National Archives in Kew, which contains the meetings relevant to the decisions behind the use of 100 octane in the Battle of Brtiain. Some (in fact: all) papers I've seen from I've already posted in the thread.

AVIA 10/282 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: meetings 1-25

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...ID=4223197&j=1

AVIA 10/283 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: fuel-oil requirements

should be also interesting.

I believe you can take copies with a digital camera for free, though you might need to pre-register. I'd believe the contents of this file pretty much settle the issue for good. All the decisions should be recorded in it, so either it says they converted all fighters and supplied fuel to them or not...

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I love to hear this, and you can be sure I am interested in the same. That's why I do not bother to answer to poster who are not.. and that's why I keep responding to you. There's always something to learn IMHO!

Now, it may be me, but the thing is that I always like to get statements based on solid evidence.

Same thing with the Luftwaffe in the BoB - you won't find me saying that all of the LW was flying on 100 octane fuel, even though I could present such evidence that would make it seem as much that everything from 109s to 110s and even 88 flew on the thing... I know perfectly well that there was but a wing of 109, a couple of more wings of 110s, and the 100 octane fuel found in a Ju 88 tank was probably a matter of simplier logistics or a shared airfield with a 100 octane unit...



Its the archival refernce to the file held at the British National Archives in Kew, which contains the meetings relevant to the decisions behind the use of 100 octane in the Battle of Brtiain. Some (in fact: all) papers I've seen from I've already posted in the thread.

AVIA 10/282 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: meetings 1-25

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...ID=4223197&j=1

AVIA 10/283 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: fuel-oil requirements

should be also interesting.

I believe you can take copies with a digital camera for free, though you might need to pre-register. I'd believe the contents of this file pretty much settle the issue for good. All the decisions should be recorded in it, so either it says they converted all fighters and supplied fuel to them or not...

Thanks for the link, I'll get in touch with Kew and see what the score is..

I'm starting to think this 100 octane issue is just one factor in the speed issues.

I suppose we'd need to know what the serial of the Rechlin MK1 was, when it was captured and what condition it was in and it's age. It could have been knackered!

I was reading an account yesterday by Pete Brothers (It might have been Tom Neil!) and he took the mirror off his Spit and fitted a car mirror inside the cockpit, he reckoned he gained 4mph, he also spent his time when on standby filing down rivet heads which he reckoned gave him another 4 or 5 mph.
I also read a guide to the groundcrew reminding them that battered bodywork and poorly fitted fairings could cost as much as 10mph.


It's a minefield really, the Brits, French, Russians and Germans all tested Mk1 spits and none of them came back with the same top speed..

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I love to hear this, and you can be sure I am interested in the same. That's why I do not bother to answer to poster who are not.. and that's why I keep responding to you. There's always something to learn IMHO!

Now, it may be me, but the thing is that I always like to get statements based on solid evidence.

Same thing with the Luftwaffe in the BoB - you won't find me saying that all of the LW was flying on 100 octane fuel, even though I could present such evidence that would make it seem as much that everything from 109s to 110s and even 88 flew on the thing... I know perfectly well that there was but a wing of 109, a couple of more wings of 110s, and the 100 octane fuel found in a Ju 88 tank was probably a matter of simplier logistics or a shared airfield with a 100 octane unit...



Its the archival refernce to the file held at the British National Archives in Kew, which contains the meetings relevant to the decisions behind the use of 100 octane in the Battle of Brtiain. Some (in fact: all) papers I've seen from I've already posted in the thread.

AVIA 10/282 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: meetings 1-25

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...ID=4223197&j=1

AVIA 10/283 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: fuel-oil requirements

should be also interesting.

I believe you can take copies with a digital camera for free, though you might need to pre-register. I'd believe the contents of this file pretty much settle the issue for good. All the decisions should be recorded in it, so either it says they converted all fighters and supplied fuel to them or not...

I get to the UK regularly and visit the archives and photograph AVIA files. I will visit the archives in a week or so and look up these files.

The archives are great. On your first visit you need to get a readers card. This requires 2 forms of photo ID a short CBT session on handling documents and then you are good to go. Just allow an extra 40minutes for this on your first visit. The readers card is valid for 3 years. Subsequent visits are a card swipe and you are in. Document retrieval is straight forward and on average takes about 20mins. Once in your hands you can photograph away to your hearts content.

You can also organise the archives to copy any of the files for you but the costs are simply astronomical.

[Biggs]

bottom line: SpitIa need CSP and 100 oct performance figures...

should be basically the same as mkII in much respects except at highest alt speed.

[Kongo-Otto]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

haha kurfurst pawned again on 100 octane fuel.

Rules for arguing with kurfurst.

You have to show absolute proof, he can interpret what he wants and it becomes fact (in his mind anyway).

Its to funny.

Qft!

[EAF331 Starfire]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

And disscussion about how many squadrons used 100 Octan fuel during BOB is pointless to me. WE know that many squadron used 100 Octan fuel during BOB expecially these most importants sectors squadrons. So both version were used during BOB.

So to be fair we should have 2 or 3 version of Spitfire MK1 and Hurricane MK1 - with 2 stage prop pitch and 6 1/2lbs (pre BOB version without pilot armour and armoured windshield), 2 stage prop pitch at 12 lbs (early BOB version) and CS propeller at 12 lbs.

+1

Hear! Hear!
That way the mission makers can make it as historic as possible

[EAF331 Starfire]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

Its a spitfire MkII with cannons. thats all i need to know..

And it should come with a probability rutine. So that the cannons should jam the correct amont of times

[EAF331 Starfire]

Originally Posted by Danelov

Yes, that´s right. Finally is only a game.

To you it might be, but some of us would not fly sim if it was not for closeness to the real thing. Just as so many other around here, I don't fly the a/c becaurse of their performance. I simply adjust my combat style to get the most of the idividual a/c.
I am not only a virtual combat pilot but also a history buff, and only by discussing in a correct scientific way will we be able to get closer to a more data and with a bit of hope, a more accurate sim.

If you don't like the such discussion you are free to avoid them and go somwere else. Please don't discurage us from getting to the scientic trueth.

This have been one of the most exiting threads I have read for a long time. The discussion have been good a true. With points and counterpoints. Semantics can be irritating, but are none the less important for the outcome.

What we want is a little interpretation as possible. Just facts.

"Assumption is the Mother of All f...ups"!

1. Question everything
2. Particularly the most important assumptions
3. Accept nothing as true
4. Unless you have drilled down to bedrock
5. Blind faith is religion