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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Yes it's your belief and it's supported by nothing and specifically disproven by the documents you supplied yourself. These papers discuss in great lenght and express specifically that 100 octane is not meant for all stations, and specifically dismiss the suggestion to have only 100 octane at those stations which do not require it.

You need to be careful Kurfurst. The papers go to great length to say that the 100 octane is targeted in the first instance at the 21 stations which were all the stations that had Spitfires and Hurricanes at the time and we know that the RAF units in France and Norway were added to the list. Later your complaint is that is says it was targeted at all these stations but it did not get issued. However, your problem is that to aim for 21 stations is a change in the pre war statement of intent, something you say was carried out without alteration.

'Which were checked' seem to be keyword here. You checked but a handful of reports but mislead everyone here that there's no trace. The truth is you haven't checked it in a manner that would justify such claims.

This is your one comment which is correct. In two places on the posting I made it clear that I hadn't looked at all the squadrons and I didn't here.

Which it is, all the papers you have supplied follow exactly the schedule laid down by the March 1939 plan. Absolutely no indiciation or evidence have been presented that the plan was overidden at any time.

The problem here is that you do not know the details behind the paper. For instance, which squadrons, which bases, when, how does the the fuel get distributed. You cannot reply to these questions so it isn't a plan. A plan has etails that tell you how to get there, no detail no plan..
We do know that this aim was changed if only by the number of bomber units equipped with 100 Octane.

Nope, these 21 stations you keep mentioning from the December 1939 letters by FC are merely a list of stations where RAF FC would have liked to have 100 octane fuel.

This is where you need to make up your mind. If it helps Al matched 20 of the 21 stations to 100 Octane fuel in an earlier posting and as we know, those in France and Norway were issued with it as well.

In other words, you have absolutely no information or evidence to the extent of the roll out, or that it was unlimited, and you merely keep ignoring and dismissing every paper that specifically note that it was limited as 'pre-war plans' and 'mis-types'.

Its a theory but as I have pointed out, the pre war paper says 16 squadrons and we have over 30, its a problem for you.

We have discussed this. To put it bluntly, your claims about checking the War Cabinet decisions was a lie.

You know that I went through the War Cabinet files, I gave you the link, the file numbers concerned and even said I would help you if you had a problem. You have said that you have been through them and I am confident that you didn't find what you wanted, as you would have shouted it from the rooftops.

To now say I lied about going through the papers is a new low even for you.

This is a nice strawman argument. Nobody claimed that the there was a shortage of 100 octane stocks, however there were uncertainities with consistent supplies, partly due to U-boot activity and partly due to dependence on US manufacturers, their capacity and willingness; this is clearly noted by a dozen British historians like Morgan and Shacklady or the official studies. You ignore them all.

A couple of points:-
a) If there wasn't a shortage and we had a three year stockpile, why would the roll out be limited.
b) If there were uncertanties about supply, why did we halt production at the Billingham refinery because it wasn't needed
c) Please list the dozen Historians you refer to, or the official studies

You keep repeating this obvious nonsense. On one hand you claim the War Cabinet was one single body, and then you contradict yourself that 'a lot of parties reported to it'. The nonsense Glider repeats is that the War Cabinet had no Committes, and then he names the Oil Committee of the War Cabinet.

What I said is true. You have seen the minutes on the link I gave you,The War Cabinet is chaired by the PM, it has its own members. It isn't a committee, but organisations such as the Oil Committee and Air Ministry do report to it.
You did look at those files I gave you, didn't you?
If anyone would like me to reissue the details so they can check for the decisions Pips says were made by the War Cabinet and make their own mind up, please let me know.

I am curious of the evidence of the claims made in b). So which 'training units' had Spitfire Is and from where do you take they had no 100 octane fuel? Have you seen a document about it? A paper? A list of which units have 100 octane and which didn't?

OTU's had some Spitfires and Hurricanes and as Training units didn't have 100 Octane, so they used 87 Octane and papers have been submitted stating this. You have read the papers submitted haven't you?. The Luftwaffe used early 109's in a similar training role, I am sure.
I admit to not knowing where you are coming from here. Are you saying tht the RAF would give 100 Octane to training units, but not to front line units?

Well to cut the long story short, the only definitive evidence you have provided is that 100 octane was used by about 30 Squadrons out of 60, or about 20 Stations out of 50.

And that is just that, about 1/3 to 1/2 the units, so quite simply there's no factual basis, or evidence to, that all the others were using 100 octane. It's merely a wishful assumption.

I have explained about the change in the storage of the records and it is now very expensive to look at combat records. But 30 is a lot more than 16.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

18th May 1940 7th Meeting of the Oil Co ordination Committee Summary of Conclusions
The key points here are:-
i) The Committee took note that the position of the use of this fuel in Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft had been made clear to Fighter Command.
ii) Satisfaction was expressed that the units concerned had been stocked with the 100 Octane Fuel
iii) The Minutes were to reflect the appreciation of the work of the Petroleum Board and that the Air Ministry had been impressed with the manner in which the work had been executed.

In short, the RAF recored in May 1940 that the issue of 100 octane was limited to select units.

Originally Posted by Glider

Combat Reports
We have combat reports from over 30 squadrons showing the use of 100 Octane.

Out of 60+ Squadrons.

In addition, within these over 30 Squadrons there are duplications, when several Squadrons rotate between the same stations.

We can identify about 20-25 Stations supplied with 100 octane fuel at one time or another out of 50+.

[Al Schlageter]

List of officially accredited Battle of Britain squadrons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tain_squadrons

Hurricane (36) and Spitfire (19) squadrons numbered 55

Sector Group Sector Station Satellite Airfield or airfields
A 11 Tangmere RAF Westhampnett
B 11 Kenley RAF Croydon
C 11 Biggin Hill RAF West Malling, RAF Gravesend[7]
D 11 RAF Hornchurch RAF Gravesend, RAF Rochford, RAF Manston, RAF Hawkinge
E 11 RAF North Weald RAF Stapleford Tawney, RAF Martlesham Heath
F 11 RAF Debden RAF Martlesham Heath[8]
G 12 RAF Duxford RAF Fowlmere
K 12 RAF Wittering RAF Coltishall
L 12 RAF Digby RAF Ternhill
M 12 RAF Kirton-in-Lindsey
N 12 RAF Church Fenton RAF Leconfield
O 13 RAF Usworth RAF Catterick
P 13 RAF Acklington
Q 13 RAF Turnhouse RAF Drem, RAF Grangemouth
R 13 Dyce RAF Grangemouth
S 13 RAF Wick RAF Kirkwall, RAF Sumburgh
W 10 RAF Filton RAF Boscombe Down, RAF Colerne, RAF Pembrey
Y 10 RAF Middle Wallop RAF Boscombe Down, RAF Warmwell, RAF Exeter, some control over RNAS Roborough, RAF St Eval
Z 11 RAF Northolt RAF Hendon

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

In short, the RAF recored in May 1940 that the issue of 100 octane was limited to select units.

All we have ever asked is for you to define select, which squadrons and support it so do so

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

This seem to confirm that the unamended Pilot's notes from June 1940 was already referring the Spitfire IIA and IIB types, so Glider's assumption that the mention of cannon armament refers to a later date manual is clearly wrong.

Actually it does not. Only the cover states "IIB", but within the text there is only reference to 8 Browning .303 machine guns.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4598146/Pi...lin-XII-Engine

Introduction Para 7

Eight Browning .303 in. machine guns ...

Section 1 Para 44

The eight guns ...

As this scan is from a post-war (?) reproduction (See copyright on last page) probably used a different cover that contains "IIA" and "IIB".

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

As this scan is from a post-war (?) reproduction (See copyright on last page) probably used a different cover that contains "IIA" and "IIB".

Yes its seems possible - maybe the repro or the scanning person frankensteined together a couple of manuals.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Yes its seems possible - maybe the repro or the scanning person frankensteined together a couple of manuals.

Indeed, from what I've seen it contains at least amendments 6 and 9.

I did check "Vol. I" for references to IIB and found that the "Introduction" page was changed in June, 1941 to contain the difference between IIA and IIB. The changed part in the text is marked by vertical line.

And A.L. No. 19 from December, 1941 (see header of Section 1 Introduction) contains description of the different handling of IIA and IIB (Para 34a and b).

So I think it was June, 1941 when the difference between IIA and IIB was added to the manual.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Interesting. Do you what was changed with A.L. 31?

No, I think only that part and a para about air/sea rescue dinghy equipment. It's the last A.L. incorporated in the manual. It must have been between December, 1943 (the date of A.L. 30) and June 1944 (when the amendments were incorporated into the manual).

Another interesting point that it appears that +12 lbs was banned at that time for combat use ("5 min all out level"), the maximum allowed was +9, with +12 was only cleared for take off purposes up to 1000 feet. It appears that +12 was not cleared for combat use during the Battle of Britain, and was added only later.

Indeed interesting. The Merlin XX did have exactly the same limits when introduced, as can be seen here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...s-10june40.jpg and was eventually increased to +12 boost in November, 1940, see:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...xx-15nov40.jpg
And 3,000 rpm for climb above 20,000ft in December, 1940, see:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...xx-11dec40.jpg

Also note that even the amended AP 1565 A Pilot's Notes for Spitfire I that comes with the Collector's Edition gives the "All out" limit with 3,000 R.p.m and +6 1/4 lb/sqn.in., and this is dated January 1942. The +12 boost is given under a own paragraph called "combat concessions" on the following page.

Also note that AP 1565 A Vol. I gives the +6 1/4 for "All out", however the description of the "boost cut-out" gives +12 boost. Note that A.L. No.6 is dated July, 1940.

the override control can be used for short periods only, but only when 100 octane fuel is used.

AP 1590B Vol. I Merlin II, III and V Aero-Engines A.L. No. 4 dated November 1940 also gives "maximum level flight (5 minute limit) of +6 1/2 but contains a detailed description of the +12 boost use for emergency.

It seems like there was a difference between "all out" and "emergency/combat" power (5min limit in the amended Spitfire II Pilot's Notes is called "combat" instead of "all out"). However, it would be interesting to find a reference when +12 boost and 3000 rpm for climb was actually cleared for the Merlin XII for combat/emergency. Possibly at the same time as higher limits were introduced for Merlin XX (November 1940 and December 1940).