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

[Glider]

All

Can anyone supply any information (apart from a pre war planning paper) that indicates that 100 Octane wasn't available to all of fighter Command.

The only one that I can think of is the posting from Pips which I have commented on in some detail and I cannot believe that anyone will nail their flags to that mast.

In the WW2aircraft forum Kurfurst did just that until awkward questions were asked such as:-
a) How do 30+ different squadrons share 125 aircraft
b) What happens about replacements
c) Why would a nation fighting for its life leave 350-400, 000 tons of high octane fuel sitting around unused when the changes to the aircraft were small and the impact in performance huge.

What evidence do they have remembering that every book both tactical and technical by every historian and every memoir supports the fact that it was supplied.

You can agree or disagree with what I and others have posted, lets see what evidence you can supply for us to agree or disagree.

[Kurfürst]

I note you have again evaded my question.

Do you have the complete file of these meetings, Glider?

Answer the question if you want your questions to be answered.

Originally Posted by Glider

All

Can anyone supply any information (apart from a pre war planning paper) that indicates that 100 Octane wasn't available to all of fighter Command.

So its up to others to disprove the claim you've made but could not prove? Sorry it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is upon you, otherwise we would be in a nonsensical case of Russel's teapot:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

But since you need evidence, I direct you to the papers you posted, which say that only certain Fighter Stations concerned will receive the fuel. Since all Fighter Stations previously held 87 octane, it follows that certain other Fighter Stations that were not 'concerned' kept operating at 87 octane, and not 100 octane.

It's clear-cut, we have document that says only select Fighter Sqns were supplied with 100 octane, we have fuel deliveries showing that 2/3s to 4/5 of the concumption was 87 octane, we have Spitfire II pilots notes which show rating for both 87 and 100 octane, and we have the papers which show that conversion of stations to 100 octane did not re-commence until late September. By coincidence, fuel issues papers also show that 100 octane did not begin to replace 87 octane as the main fuel consumed until late September..

The only one that I can think of is the posting from Pips which I have commented on in some detail and I cannot believe that anyone will nail their flags to that mast.

In contrast I cannot remember any paper that would say all fighter stations are supplied with 100 octane fuel. You have actually admitted yourself earlier this thread, that you have not seen one either.

In the WW2aircraft forum Kurfurst did just that until awkward questions were asked such as:-
a) How do 30+ different squadrons share 125 aircraft
b) What happens about replacements
c) Why would a nation fighting for its life leave 350-400, 000 tons of high octane fuel sitting around unused when the changes to the aircraft were small and the impact in performance huge.

The only awkward thing was your stubborn defiance to accept the facts. Several other posters in WW2aircraft forum told you that your 'evidence' is simply not sufficient to make the claims you were making. If you wish to believe your own fairy tale, that's your problem.

Now to answer your questions.

a, This was answered WW2aircraft forums and here earlier in this thread. Your dishonesty represents itself in that
aa, You make a nonsensical strawmen arguement. Pips noted that apprx. 25% of FC converted to 100 octane in May, which, in May, represneted about 125 aircraft. And here you say turn this inside out by comparing that May 1940 apprxtion of 125 to combat reports by ca. 30 Squadrons between May 1940 and November 1940 in a seven month period. Who do you think you're fooling - yourself?

b, They are cut in small pieces, gently fried, salted and peppered according to taste, and served after chilled. I hope you do not find this answer any more awkwardd than your question was.

c, Because they simply did not have 400 tons of fuel. They had but half of that when the decision was made.
ca, The Germans were sinking British tankers at an increasing rate, and all 100 octane fuel was coming in those tankers
cb, Because they consider pre-war (see March 1939 paper, 16+2 Sqns w. 100 octane by September 1940) that reserves of 800 000 tons were needed to be built up. By the end of 1939 they had accumalated only 200 000 tons. Five months later, their reserves of 100 octane were still just 220 000 tons. They expected another 436 000 tons to arrive, but this was increasingly uncertain as Uboot took their toll on the tankers, and, during May and June, until the French capitulation, with 25% of their fighters and some of their bombers running on 100 octane the British consumed 12 000 tons of 100 octane and 42 000 tons of other (87) grades, or 54 000 ton of avgas at total - and there was no tanker running in with 100 octane until August 1940. Thus, as the situation looked in May-June and July, replacing other grades with 100 octane was thus simply out of the question, as they could run out of 100 octane in that case in roughly 5 months time.

What evidence do they have remembering that every book both tactical and technical by every historian and every memoir supports the fact that it was supplied.

Your claim that "every historian and every memoir supports" your claim that 100 octane was supplied to all Fighter Command stations is simply hogwash. You managed to present one such book, that concentrates on engines and not on operations (and thus likely in error as it was not the authors field) that says that. In contast a far more respected source, Spitfire the History who's authors went into extreme depths in research such as listing the detailed fate of every single Spitfire ever built clearly state that the original plan was 16 Fighter Squadrons to be supplied, but there were problems with supply due to the Uboot threat, though this was eased later. This is exactly what Pip's papers say, and in fact, the same thing your papers say, too.

You can agree or disagree with what I and others have posted, lets see what evidence you can supply for us to agree or disagree.

Glider,

Your paper of the 7th meeting in May 1940 says that only select Fighter Stations are supplied with 100 octane fuel.

Deal with that.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Glider

If I can address the question of the number of Blenheim squadrons which were stocked with 100 octane.

Kurfurst had until the last few days said that there were only two squadrons and asked me to supply my evidence.

The following papers which he has seen before and quoted on recently make it clear that the four stations are the only stations to be fully fuelled with 100 octane. The paper makes it clear that these are the exception and that the norm must be to retain one tank of 87 octane for aircraft that are passing through.

Note 1 - all Blenheim units are to be equipped with 100 octane
Note 2 - only the four specified bases are to be only equipped with 100 octane
Note 3 - the 87 octane is for aircraft passing through not non operational flying

If anyone wants any additional information please let me know

Those two images you attached speak pretty clearly to me, and say that the DTD230 (which I assume is 87 octane?) is not simply "for aircraft passing through" but rather the station must include aircraft passing through when calculating its total consumption requirements for DTD230. In other words, the station must take into account not only its own consumption of 87 octane but also the consumption of any aircraft that might be passing through.

In fact the first scan states quite clearly that the decision to eliminate their holdings of DTD230 should not be taken as a precedent, so to me this is in fact quite compelling evidence that the RAF had not converted all its aircraft to 100 octane (at least in April of 1940 when the document is dated).

[Seadog]

There are several errors in the above excerpt. The Merlin X had a two stage SC and was not a Merlin III modified to run on 100 octane.

British Tanker losses in the first year of the war were quite low.

OTOH, it shows clearly that the Merlin III could be run for long periods of time at 12lb/3000rpm. 10 hours in 1938 engines and 20 hours in later engines.

[Seadog]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...00octane_1.jpg

and this is a prewar planning document, and we all know that RAFFC made a wholesale conversion to CS props and 100octane fuel in the spring of 1940 in response to wartime events, especially the improved performance of the Me109. Conversion to 100 octane without changing over to CS props was almost pointless, but a March 1939 planning meeting could not have envisaged the largescale changes that would be required by Spring 1940.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Those two images you attached speak pretty clearly to me, and say that the DTD230 (which I assume is 87 octane?) is not simply "for aircraft passing through" but rather the station must include aircraft passing through when calculating its total consumption requirements for DTD230. In other words, the station must take into account not only its own consumption of 87 octane but also the consumption of any aircraft that might be passing through.

In fact the first scan states quite clearly that the decision to eliminate their holdings of DTD230 should not be taken as a precedent, so to me this is in fact quite compelling evidence that the RAF had not converted all its aircraft to 100 octane (at least in April of 1940 when the document is dated).

This might clarify the position. The first paper you have seen before and is the Summary of the Conclusion of the 5th Meeting of the Oil Committee. You have seen this before its where the Chief of the Air Staff has requested that fighters and Blenheim units be equipped with 100 Octane.

The second paper is the actions from the 5th meeting of the Oil Committee for the 6th Meeting. Here the statment is quite clear that Blenheim units in No 2 Group were to switch to 100 Octane.

The previous two papers I posted highlighted that four stations were to be totally equipped with 100 Octane and the others were to keep one tank of 87 Octane. I should add that these were from the 6th meeting of the Committee. I should also add another paper from the 7th Meeting of the Oil Committee where they confirm that the fighter units concerned had been stocked with the 100 Octane Fuel and that the Air Minestry had been impressed with the way that the task had been handled.

You can of course read those previous papers how you wish, but to me when it says to keep one sixth of the fuel as 87 Octane and five sixths 100 Octane and we know that some of that 87 Octane is for visiting aircraft then operations are going to be on 100 Octane. Put all the papers together they tell me that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group are going to use 100 Octane on operations. I emphasise all, not two squadrons.

You may well consider me to be childish but I have produced original documentation to support my case.

[Crumpp]

You may well consider me to be childish but I have produced original documentation to support my case.

The meeting notes you posted seem to confirm that Bomber command was using 100 Octane in the Blenheim's.

However it clearly states that Fighter Command was still not clear whether or not 100 Octane could even be used in Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft.

OTOH, it shows clearly that the Merlin III could be run for long periods of time at 12lb/3000rpm. 10 hours in 1938 engines and 20 hours in later engines.

Yeah...that is the times from the endurance trials, Seadog. It was 10 hours total time. That 10 hours at +12lbs was 5 minutes at a time with a 20 minute rest period in-between. It was not 10 hours straight at +12lbs....

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The meeting notes you posted seem to confirm that Bomber command was using 100 Octane in the Blenheim's.

However it clearly states that Fighter Command was still not clear whether or not 100 Octane could even be used in Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft.

Re Fighter Command you are correct and from the papers it was clear that this was totally unexpected, after all the engines had been tested and aircraft equipped with them for performance testing. It was the last thing they expected and was dealt with as the following paper trail explains.

In the Summary of Conclusions of the 6th Meeting the following action was given to RDE 1 who was a Mr Tweedie, the action being to clarify the position with Fighter Command. In the 7th Meeting it was noted that the use of this fuel had been made clear to Fighter Command and that the Units had been equipped with the 100 Octane Fuel.

[Viper2000]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Yeah...that is the times from the endurance trials, Seadog. It was 10 hours total time. That 10 hours at +12lbs was 5 minutes at a time with a 20 minute rest period in-between. It was not 10 hours straight at +12lbs....

I don't think any aeroplane of the period had enough fuel to run for 10 hours straight at +12, so I don't think you have to worry too much about the engine not getting rest between bouts of torture...

[Crumpp]

I don't think any aeroplane of the period had enough fuel to run for 10 hours straight at +12, so I don't think you have to worry too much about the engine not getting rest between bouts of torture..

The endurance trials were conducted over the course of many flights. It was not done on a test stand but on a Hurricane IIRC. The airplane flew multiple flights to accumulate time and the test ended when the engine failed ~10 hours of operation at +12lbs.