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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

I think some forgot about these:

Pilot's Notes. Spitfire I Aircraft. AP 1565.

Merlin III Engine limitation:

If I read things rightly this is where we came in...about 94 pages ago! Really, this thread has run its course - if Crumpp wants to continue with his evidence avoidance, fact evasion, all round inability to respond to direct questions and general time wasting he can do so alone. I have far more important things to do with my life.

28_Condor; lane, aka Mike Williams has an excellent site here Well worth the time to go through.

[28_Condor]

Thanks again, Typhoon

I do not advocate the balance of planeset, because to me it makes no sense ...

But as they say in my language, "we need to put all cards on the table" (hope that makes sense in English )

If 100-octane fuel was used it had to be represented in the CLOD, no doubt

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

If I read things rightly this is where we came in...about 94 pages ago! Really, this thread has run its course - if Crumpp wants to continue with his evidence avoidance, fact evasion, all round inability to respond to direct questions and general time wasting he can do so alone. I have far more important things to do with my life.

Actually, you don't have more important things to do with your life. It's sad.

You are insecure and frustated, and anyone with some brain matter sees that you are just trying to get some reassurance and attention. Confident people do not get a heart attack over every issue or different opinion, nor they seem to be hell bent on to follow people to various discussion boards just to bark at them all day like you do.

You quite simply do not have a life, and it shows. You seem to think its important to follow up your discussion partners to various forums and continue your pathethic little feud there as well, and you probably think you are a smart and extremely cunning person if you constantly scheme and try organize a lynch gang via PM. To me it just proves you have no priorities for life.

Maybe you even like to entertain yourself you are some sort of expert of the subject or a historian - you try so hard to portray yourself as such at wiki - where you spend the rest of your day. Maybe this has something to do that you can't even seem to be able to finish your studies for long-long years now. Too much time on forums and scheming on wikipedia to always have the last word, eh? But, I am sure you find it satisfying enough.

Others have noted as well that the thread had become increasingly demented. That's a curious observation, since all I can see is your posts: big words thrown about by a child. Myself, I haven't even bothered to make a post a single post in the last 200 posts or so. But you seem to be enjoying talking to yourself very much, and hoping for some response, so there you go, this is the only one you'll get to disabuse you of any illusions.

You cannot seem to get why others attidude towards you have become, as you put it, an 'all round inability to respond to direct questions'. Let me clarify that for you. I think I can speak in Gene's name, too when I say that we are not responding to you because you are well past of taken seriously. You don't have anything to say anyway, so we do not waste any time on you. Capiche?

[28_Condor]

Thanks for the info, NZtyphoon!

The author probably meant the largest supplier. The book is well written, but not detailed. I think the author wanted to emphasize the drama of the fuel transported by sea in wartime

[28_Condor]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

For Crumpp's benefit: the Trimpell article states that by 31 July 1940 there were 384 Spitfires in 19 Squadrons using the fuel, as well as PR Spitfires -

* On 13 July the OOB's show 19 Spitfire squadrons; in addition there are 31 Hurricane squadrons and 2 Defiant.

Interesting! That would mean a mission built historically at least 4/5 of the available fighters should have the option of 100 octane! And almost all squads spits...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tain_squadrons

Very good research, NZtyphoon!

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 28_Condor

Interesting! That would mean a mission built historically at least 4/5 of the available fighters should have the option of 100 octane! And almost all squads spits...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tain_squadrons

Very good research, NZtyphoon!

Not my research - thank Glider and lane in particular, who have spent hours delving into archives - note that it can cost about £3.50 to copy each of the files (?), so it adds up - and who have presented these, and many other papers, time and again in this thread, only to have them sneered at, dismissed as being "scraps of paper used out of context", or a "misuse of information" or "propaganda" by the likes of Barbi and Crumpp, who have not presented a shred of real evidence showing that the majority of frontline RAF fighters were still using 87 Octane fuel during the battle.

As for misusing and misrepresenting material? Not so long ago Crumpp, in post #921 for example, quoting A.P.1590B of March 1940 (attachment), tried to make out that the modifications needed on Merlin IIs and IIIs to use 100 Octane fuel were so extensive that very few of them could be modified in time for the battle...

What he conveniently left out is that the necessary modifications had already been introduced on the production lines, and the document was discussing modifying older engines to the required standards.

Starting way back in post #376 Crumpp, quoting from a pre-war paper said:

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is the RAF built up a strategic reserve and it was not until September 1940 that 16 squadrons from Fighter Command converted to 100 octane.

Crumpp has been asked time and again to present documentary evidence that only 16 squadrons of RAF fighters used 100 Octane fuel, and that the RAF went ahead with its pre-war plans, regardless of the fact that a full scale air assault was underway, but of course he has not come up with anything.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Sure, some of consumed fuel was used in aircraft and all of it issued to the fields operating those aircraft. It appears that we have 16 squadrons on 31 July 1940 and we still have 16 squadrons by September.


The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

Until then, it appears the RAF is simply building up the logistical base required to support the eventual change to 100 grade.

He has not explained how the RAF managed to issue 61,000 tons or 19,245,500 imperial gallons of 100 Octane fuel July - October 1940, consumed 52,000 tons (16,406,000 gal), while needing only 15,184 tons (4,790,552 gal) to fly all defensive sorties, day and night, flown between 10 July - 6 October 1940 post #784. And all the while the reserves of 100 Octane fuel continued to increase.

He has not explained how only 16 squadrons of single-engined fighters managed to consume all that fuel. Instead we get blather about "strategic reserves".

Nor has Crumpp explained, and it has not yet registered with him, that heavy bombers, flying boats etc were all still using 87 Octane fuel, which might explain why it was "predominate".

Crumpp has had all of this explained very carefully, time and time again, but has continued to insist, and will continue to insist that he alone is right. If nothing else it's entertaining.

[28_Condor]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Not my research - thank Glider and lane in particular, who have spent hours delving into archives - note that it can cost about £3.50 to copy each of the files (?), so it adds up - and who have presented these, and many other papers, time and again in this thread, only to have them sneered at, dismissed as being "scraps of paper used out of context", or denied as "propaganda" by the likes of Barbi and Crumpp, who have not presented a shred of real evidence showing that the majority of frontline RAF fighters were still using 87 Octane fuel during the battle.

My congratulations then also for Glider and Lane

As a university researcher I know and recognize good research

I think this whole collection of documents should be taken seriously by Luthier!