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..

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

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

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.

Thank you for that, both of you. I guess most of us would be greatly interested in your findings, as you seem to be honestly curious about the truth behind the matter, just like I am. Frankly people so far only seem to have been interested in putting forward snippets, and curiously their story just 'cuts' after May 1940, which I find somewhat suspicious because of the findings of that Australian reasearcher I already quoted, and the tanker situation that appears to be recorded by most authors (Blair, Morgand and Shacklady etc.).

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!

One can try his luck with Morgan and Shacklady's serial number listings, perhaps somthing turns up. However I was checking into my files, and found a German document of a captured Spitfire II and tests done with it - albeit with a Merlin III which would pretty much make it a Spit I.. though I'd believe that they coulnd't capture this example earlier than 1941. What is interesting though that they make a comparison between the Spit I and II, and list the Spit I with 87 octane and 2 bladed wooden (fixed) propeller, which is indeed true for the initial few dozen, and the Spit II with CSP and 100 octane. I don't think much should be read into it though, given the uncertainities. Whatever its worth, they measured the Spit II/Merlin II to be good for 547 km/h, and then 557 km/h in a later test run, at 5km. Speed at 0 m alt. was 460, which would indicate +6 1/4 lbs.sq.inch boost.

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.

Indeed its true, I have a UK report of Spitfire drag changes during the war, and the effect of serial production on performance. The mirror looks just about right, and its often the most unlikely items that cause the most surprising amunt of drag - cannon stubs, external arm. windcreen and even the internal one for example.

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..

Yes, that's why I don't like to draw guesswork form relative test reports. For example Kwiateks observation about the relative speed difference of 109 and Spit are entirely reasonable, and I tend to believe myself that they probably captured and tested the said Spit with 87 octane in Rechlin. It probably neither had the fuel nor the mods at that time when captured yet.. also when you consider differences in invidual airframes, engines, day temperatures.. the margin of error just becomes too great. For example, manufacturers gave some + or - 5% tolerance on speed. That means we already have an anout 50 km/h margin of error. You can never know if it was a poorly made Spit (109) compared to a exceptionally well made 109 (Spit), how many hours were logged into the motor and so on..

BTW I did a bit of a comparison table of FC's sorties vs. the amount of 100 octane and 'other' (ie. 87 octane) aviation fuel issued during the month. Its interesting.



A few of my own observations:

a, It seems clear that 100 octane has begun replacing 87 octane towards the end of September / start of October. Until then, 87 octane is by far the major fuel consumed.
b, This corresponds with what the Lord Beaverbook memo noted about re-starting the conversion
c, Its also very appearant that issues have a bit of 'delay' built into them. Obviously supply's nature is that they re-supply after the fuel at the airfields has been used and there's reported need for new issues. This takes time.
d, 100 octane issue curves are clearly responding to FC sorties number increase/decrease. Though that's not news, FC used that fuel. But it should be kept in mind that number of Blenheim Sqns also used and were issued 100 octane fuel, and a Blenheim sortie would consume 4-6 times the fuel a fighter sortie would.
e, On the other hand, 87 octane issues ALSO clearly reacts to FC sorties number increase/decrease. It shouldn't, if all frontline Sqns would be using only 100 octane.
f, Obviously the 87 octane curve reaction is less pronounced, as
fa, A good percentage of FC used 100 octane, so they don't their needs 'do not exists' from the 87 octane issues POV
fb, A large number of other aircraft also uses 87 octane, and many of them - bombers, patrol craft etc. - consume much more fuel than small fighters.

In my opinion, the most conclusive evidence that even towards the end of October a number of fighter squadrons were flying on 87 octane is evident by the sudden and perfectly parallel rise of both 87 octane issues and FC sorties curves at the time.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

One can try his luck with Morgan and Shacklady's serial number listings, perhaps somthing turns up.

Just a quick note, I have Shacklady and Morgans Spitfire the History.

The only ref to a captured Mk 1 is N3277

234 sqn
Reported shot down over Isle of White 15th April 1940
(Actually forced landing in Cherbourg)
Later had DB engine fitted.

So it probably had The Rotol CS as the De Hav wasn't introduced till July.
Definitley a Merlin III. If it was 100 octane it would have been one of the early conversions.

Poking around the web a bit it would seem that this is the Rechlin MK1.

Just need to find out what it's service history was now!

EDIT: I got the dates wrong! See below.

[Ze-Jamz]

Cool..

Very interesting..

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by winny

Just a quick note, I have Shacklady and Morgans Spitfire the History.

The only ref to a captured Mk 1 is N3277

234 sqn
Reported shot down over Isle of White 15th April 1940
(Actually forced landing in Cherbourg)
Later had DB engine fitted.

So it probably had The Rotol CS as the De Hav wasn't introduced till July.
Definitley a Merlin III. If it was 100 octane it would have been one of the early conversions.

Poking around the web a bit it would seem that this is the Rechlin MK1.

Just need to find out what it's service history was now!

Just a heads up, the dates are wrong, the 15th April 1940 is the date it was delivered to 234 squadron. According to these links N3277 was shot down on 15th August 1940, this would put this particular Spitfire MkI as an almost definate BoB era 100 Octane variant.

An Image is available here. If you look at the cowling you can see some white stenciling, it should read DTD 100 OCT. It was painted here to remind ground crew what fuel to use.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/4871667320/

Production details for N3277.

http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/p003.htm

N3277 listed as lost on 15th August 1940.

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co....Aug-losses.htm

Info on the Pilot, PO Richard Hardy

http://www.thesoutheastecho.co.uk/Pilots/Hardy_R.htm

[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.