109 e3b against spitfire II

Kurfürst · #1 06-17-2011, 04:43 PM

[QUOTE=Seadog;298133]We know that the RAF was using vast amounts of 100 octane fuel.

5-10 000 tons a month - out of 50 000 tons total per months or compared to about 90 000 tons per month consumed by the Luftwaffe is hardly 'vast amounts'.
Its a tiny amount, even compared to 1940 overall or later RAF consumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog

If RAFFC wasn't using it, who was?

Bomber Command (at least 8 Squadrons of Blenheims for example), engine manufacturers for running ins and testing, Squadrons for non-operational flying and practice. One Squadron in August 1940 for example did

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog

You have never produced a single document stating that some of RAFFC was still using 87 octane and the burden of proof is upon you.

Of course I did. Ironically, just two posts above. Besides yo simply display the logical fellacy of the Invisible Pink Unicorn: you seem to believe that if you claim something, without being capable proving it, and if others don't prove you wrong, you are automatically right. Right? Well, its just utter nonsense. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

All Figther Command Aircraft were operating on 87 octane previously; in March 1939 a decision was made to convert sixteen fighter Squadrons to 100 octane by September 1940, and in around May 1940 it was noted that 'certain' fighter squadrons were to be supplied with 100 octane fuel.

Certain, not all. Well its not too hard figure out what the other-than-certain Fighter Squadrons were still running on, my dear Watson?

Quote:

The RAFFC flew 5700 sorties and the RAF issued about 4500 tons of 100 octane fuel during the 1st week of September. 5700 sorties at 75 gallons per sortie = 427500 gallons or 1374 tons (assuming every fighter does a dead stick landing with empty tanks, it only rises to 1650 tons). This leaves more than 3000 tons for use in RAFBC and all other assorted and sundry users, more than enough for every twin engined Merlin bomber and fighter to be using 100 octane fuel and still leave lots left over for use by RAFFC.

That's an interesting claim. Can you tell me how much 100 octane was spent on operational training, engine testing, run-in, was used up by Bomber Command's Blenheims etc..? Without that, your calculation is an extremely crude and wishful example..

Seadog · #2 06-17-2011, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

All Figther Command Aircraft were operating on 87 octane previously; in March 1939 a decision was made to convert sixteen fighter Squadrons to 100 octane by September 1940, and in around May 1940 it was noted that 'certain' fighter squadrons were to be supplied with 100 octane fuel.

That's an interesting claim. Can you tell me how much 100 octane was spent on operational training, engine testing, run-in, was used up by Bomber Command's Blenheims etc..? Without that, your calculation is an extremely crude and wishful example..

RAFFC had about 45 Merlin engined fighter squadrons and 5 Blenheim Squadrons operational under RAFFC command on July 08. About 10 - 12 Hurricane, non operational squadrons were forming up.

so lets say that RAFFC had 57 operational squadrons during the 1st week of Sept. 57 squadrons into 5700 sorties = 100 sorties week/squadron. Lets assume 15 Blenheim squadrons (5 x RAFFC and 10 X RAFBC) = 1500 sorties at 230 gallons/sortie = 1108 tons of 100 octane. So our 5 Blenheim squadrons flew 500 of RAFFC's sorties leaving 5200 to be flown by Merlin engined fighters @ 75 gallons/sortie = 1254 tons, so total RAFFC and RAFBC 100 octane use = 2362 tons. This is only about 1/2 the total consumption of 100 octane and it accounts for 5200 SE fighter and 1500 hundred twin engined Blenheim sorties. There simply isn't enough 100 octane fuel users left over to consume the ~4400 tons if RAFFC isn't using 100% 100 octane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

5-10 000 tons a month - out of 50 000 tons total per months or compared to about 90 000 tons per month consumed by the Luftwaffe is hardly 'vast amounts'.
Its a tiny amount, even compared to 1940 overall or later RAF consumption.

According to the graph you supplied, the RAF used about 15000 tons of 100octane and ~ 24000 tons of other grade during Sept 1940. How much 100 octane did the Luftwaffe use?

Can you present evidence stating that even one RAFFC Merlin engined squadron was using 87 Octane from July to Oct 1940? If I was an RAFFC pilot and my Hurricane/Spitfire was using 87 octane, when the squadron down the road was using 100 octane, you can be sure that I would have mentioned it my memoirs or complained about it while writing up a combat report: "The Ju-88 got away because I couldn't use overboost..." Yet there isn't a single statement anywhere about RAFFC pilots complaining about the lack of 100 octane engines or fuel, during the Battle.

TomcatViP · #3 06-20-2011, 03:41 PM

Did they complain abt the lack of reheat on their Jet engines ?

Kurfürst · #4 06-20-2011, 07:08 PM

I wonder, is there a single statement anywhere about Luftwaffe pilots complaining about the lack of 100 octane engines or fuel, during the Battle..? Or the Italians..?

Seadog · #5 06-20-2011, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I wonder, is there a single statement anywhere about Luftwaffe pilots complaining about the lack of 100 octane engines or fuel, during the Battle..? Or the Italians..?

Yes...

Quote:

"...Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group..."'
Galland, The First and the Last.

VO101_Tom · #6 06-20-2011, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog

Yes...

"...Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group..."'
Galland, The First and the Last.

Does the history work so? Did you read this book? You would quote it what wrote in the next sentences?

ICDP · #7 06-20-2011, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog

Yes...

What a tool, and you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

Here is a quote directly from the book as made by Galland (you obviously haven't read it).

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

So Galland even in his own book states he preferred the 109 over the Spitfire and that his quote was made purely to get at Goering. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you twist words and meanings to suit your own agenda?

VO101_Tom · #8 06-20-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICDP

What a tool, and you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

...

So Galland even in his own book states he preferred the 109 over the Spitfire and that his quote was made purely to get at Goering. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you twist words and meanings to suit your own agenda?

+1