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

[gavinb]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Jesus tap dancing Christ, can all of you just present your evidence, nock off the character assassination crap and for the love of God grow up?
My God...just....my God!

Edit: Kurfurst, crump, nztyphoon et al, just what exactly do you all gain in this?

The problem here is the behaviour of one poster in particular.

In the case of nztyphoon at least, he is accurately posting information from a previous 'discussion' elsewhere in which Kurfurst misrepresented my reserarch and my personal views. I note Kurfurst is doing this again to further his own rather selective and ahistoric views on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain.

In my case I went to the trouble of researching the issue and then publishing an article on it in a respected peer-review publication. I've received a fair number of inquiries as a response, most of which have been genuine expressions of interest from people interested in the subject, and I've generally been happy to pass on further details from my research in response. However, since Kurfurst started up in about 2009 I've had about as many inquiries from people questioning me on the basis of what they've read about my work in online debates started by Kurfurst.

In the case of Kurfurst, nobody claiming to be him has ever attempted to contact me before repeatedly misrepresenting my views, and then accusing me of impersonating myself, and all on public forums. This has been done on ww2aircraft.net, wikipedia and now here.

This is discreditable to the point of being comic, but in my view a more serious issue for anybody who wants these internet dicussion forums to be taken seriously is the way in which more responsible contributors are forced on to an equivalent level with participants such as Kurfurst by the editorial approach on forums such as this. There is no illusiary middle-ground to be found here; Kurfurst's behaviour has clearly been (and apparently remains) ahistorical mendacity. Anybody in any doubt about this should familiarise themselves with the details of Kurfurst's behaviour as posted previously.

One minor result of this is that I don't feel any encouragement to contribute anything to sites like this or ww2aircraft.net because there is little or no value to be had from being pressured by lies to engage in 'debates' where genuine information and discussion is so consistently distorted by the activities of trolls.

I don't gain anything from this. Quite the opposite. In fact, even when I don't participate in the discussion, as a result of Kurfurst's behaviour I am forced to waste time that I would prefer to spend completing a new book in dealing with three-year old canards which have already been refuted. But the alternative is that the only exposure many will have to my work is through the wilful distortions of Kurfurst. Therefore I'm indebted to people like nztyphoon who have actually taken the trouble to challenge Kurfurst's views and accurately represent mine. The evidence posted by several people in response to Kurfurst has been genuinely informative, and I'd like to thank them for the effort.

One last point. I'm not that concerned with specific responses to Kurfurst, as he has been refuted before, and given his inability to modify his views or posting behaviour in response to evidence, continued debate with him is a waste of time and effort. However, the allegation that I hold anti-American views is a new departure, and I'd like to respond to that here.

In my view, the development of the Anglo-American alliance was both a fundamentally-important objective of British strategy, and was also critical to a successful outcome of the Second World War. However, any understanding the historical reality of how that alliance developed and how that war was fought must proceed from the historical evidence, regardless of any impact that has on post facto anti- or pro-American or British views held more than sixty years later.

If anybody wants to, they can contact me via the email address given on my departmental website -

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/

In the meantime, I suggest a more constructive approach would be to ignore Kurfurst and concentrate on the evidence other posters have already provided here and elsewhere which refutes Kurfurst's views but is also of larger historical interest.

Gavin Bailey

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by gavinb

The problem here is the behaviour of one poster in particular.

In the case of nztyphoon at least, he is accurately posting information from a previous 'discussion' elsewhere in which Kurfurst misrepresented my reserarch and my personal views. I note Kurfurst is doing this again to further his own rather selective and ahistoric views on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain.

In my case I went to the trouble of researching the issue and then publishing an article on it in a respected peer-review publication. I've received a fair number of inquiries as a response, most of which have been genuine expressions of interest from people interested in the subject, and I've generally been happy to pass on further details from my research in response. However, since Kurfurst started up in about 2009 I've had about as many inquiries from people questioning me on the basis of what they've read about my work in online debates started by Kurfurst.

In the case of Kurfurst, nobody claiming to be him has ever attempted to contact me before repeatedly misrepresenting my views, and then accusing me of impersonating myself, and all on public forums. This has been done on ww2aircraft.net, wikipedia and now here.

This is discreditable to the point of being comic, but in my view a more serious issue for anybody who wants these internet dicussion forums to be taken seriously is the way in which more responsible contributors are forced on to an equivalent level with participants such as Kurfurst by the editorial approach on forums such as this. There is no illusiary middle-ground to be found here; Kurfurst's behaviour has clearly been (and apparently remains) ahistorical mendacity. Anybody in any doubt about this should familiarise themselves with the details of Kurfurst's behaviour as posted previously.

One minor result of this is that I don't feel any encouragement to contribute anything to sites like this or ww2aircraft.net because there is little or no value to be had from being pressured by lies to engage in 'debates' where genuine information and discussion is so consistently distorted by the activities of trolls.

I don't gain anything from this. Quite the opposite. In fact, even when I don't participate in the discussion, as a result of Kurfurst's behaviour I am forced to waste time that I would prefer to spend completing a new book in dealing with three-year old canards which have already been refuted. But the alternative is that the only exposure many will have to my work is through the wilful distortions of Kurfurst. Therefore I'm indebted to people like nztyphoon who have actually taken the trouble to challenge Kurfurst's views and accurately represent mine. The evidence posted by several people in response to Kurfurst has been genuinely informative, and I'd like to thank them for the effort.

One last point. I'm not that concerned with specific responses to Kurfurst, as he has been refuted before, and given his inability to modify his views or posting behaviour in response to evidence, continued debate with him is a waste of time and effort. However, the allegation that I hold anti-American views is a new departure, and I'd like to respond to that here.

In my view, the development of the Anglo-American alliance was both a fundamentally-important objective of British strategy, and was also critical to a successful outcome of the Second World War. However, any understanding the historical reality of how that alliance developed and how that war was fought must proceed from the historical evidence, regardless of any impact that has on post facto anti- or pro-American or British views held more than sixty years later.

If anybody wants to, they can contact me via the email address given on my departmental website -

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/

In the meantime, I suggest a more constructive approach would be to ignore Kurfurst and concentrate on the evidence other posters have already provided here and elsewhere which refutes Kurfurst's views but is also of larger historical interest.

Gavin Bailey

Hello Dr Bailey. Rest assured that people who have been around many aviation and simming interest forums know all about a certain parties maliciously disruptive MO, their propensity to level scurrilous and completely unfounded allegations, and willfully mendacious behavior. He is still permanently banned from 'Warbirds' ww2aircraft.net, as well as serving a life time ban from editing wiki.

As you are well aware, there are very good and justifiable reasons for this, despite the many warnings he has had, as well as temporary bans (on other forums too) he will not adjust his behaviour. The leopard never changes its spots. Though of course it is all some elaborate 'grand conspiracy' and nothing whatsoever to do with the poster themselves actual conduct. Its just other people.

It really doesn't matter what he or Kettenhunde-Crummp 'think', as anyone with a modicum of intellect can see that their 'arguments' such as they are, hold no water. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that only 16 (or even 19) squadrons were using 100 octane in the Battle of Britain for some kind of 'test purpose' (or safety, or supply problems), it was in use and tested well before (dating back to the Battle of France, as has been conclusively shown), with primary source evidence.

To maintain that the pre war Morgan-Shacklady document, predating the BoB by some 18 months, represents what actually happened in practice, when there is an avalanche of corroborated evidence in this thread to the contrary (well done to all concerned), is simply risible. When one examines the facts, there is really no 'controversy' whatsoever regarding the widespread FC use of 100 octane fuel in the BoB. Its not unlike the deliberate types of 'Faux-controversy' manufactured by for example Creationists under the guise of 'fact' with rubbish like Intelligent design, when in fact there is no controversy in the scientific community at large at all.

Some people seem to have a problem with understanding the basic requirement to qualify a statement or assertion with actual evidence. They can 'believe' what they want of course, but its not quite good enough for the purpose of historiographical inquiry. As you of course are well aware, hehe.

People are still waiting for the mountain of combat reports detailing the allegedly predominant use of 87 octane fuel in the BoB by fighter command, which if this were true (and it most certainly is not) would of course be a relative cinch to find. They also eagerly await the infamous '16 squadrons' designated for 100 octane use, with proof and details of their supply during the battle itself. Strangely, this information is conspicuous by its absence and does not appear to be forthcoming.

I believe that the vast majority of reasonable, thinking people know why.

Anyway, don't worry Gavin. We know. Case closed.

Cheers.

[Kurfürst]

It appears that another 'gbailey' handle appeared again, strangely enough he seems to appear everywhere where NZTyphoon appears, and continues to evade to answer the questions. As usual lot of pompous and empty hot air is vented, without adressing the issue of his(?) former false and/or ill-informed claims about German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.

We have seen that this 'gbailey' login has taken an ahistorical stance and appears to have taken a complete denial on the production of German synthetic 100 octane, and its operational use by the Jagd- and Zestörerverbanden during the Battle of Britain. He advances an ahistorical, and I think its approriate to say, partisan thesis that the Luftwaffe had no access to its own produced 100 octane supplies, and had to do with captured British stocks.

Originally Posted by gbailey

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point. [/I]

To support this claim, the abovementioned document was referred to by this 'gbailey' login, which was supposed to support that the only 100 octane fuel found in crashed German aircraft during the Battle of Britain was of British origin.

An alarming result of the examination of this paper, as far as the credibility and expertise of the 'gbailey' login is concerned, is that the referred to trail of documents was positively misquoted, its contents were falsified and presented in a misleading manner.

Reviewing the document, presented below show that the British correctly identified German-produced C-3 grade 95/115 in several downed aircraft's tanks, chiefly Bf 110 destroyers, and curiously, even Ju 88 bombers. The latter case is interesting given that the bombers gained nothing from using higher grade fuels, their engines having been designed for 87 octane fuels and boost levels. There's also a wealth of sources by German and other authors, showing the details of LW HQ meetings making reference to operational use of German domestic produced synthetic 100 octane fuel, as well as photographic, oral etc. evidence.

Needless to say, this makes the whole claim and poses serious question about the true identity and credibility of the said login handle. One would believe that it is a minimum professional standard for any, even an amateur historian to report the contents of historical documents accurately and true to their full contents, and not selectively or falsified, as was the case.

I am absolutely certain that anyone with an actual degree in history would follow these basic requirements to the letter, which is why a serious doubt can be raised whether this 'gbailey' login is who he who claims himself to be. I am sure the actual Gavin Bailey has high professional standards which are evident from the article presented in the English historical review, and in which I did not find any trace of a reference of 'widespread' operational use of 100 octane fuel by the RAF. It surely mentions the use of such fuel by select fighter squadrons starting in May 1940, and the main line seems to be to downplay the importance of the fuel as far as fighter aircraft performance is concerned, and the importance of American supplies.

Therefore, a very strange strong divergence can be observed between the statements of Dr. Gavin Bailey in the article represented in the English Historical Review, and the statements of the login handle 'gbailey' who's appearance is always coincided with the appearance of NZTyphoon, who also seems to be in denial of German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.

If 'gbailey's claimed identity is true, I am afraid that would be even more concerning, as there is a proven misrepresentation of a historical source and probably worthy to the attention of the Rector of Dundee University, as well as Professor Black and Professor Dobson, for further investigation into professional standards and lack of civil conduct in the public, which may pose questions about the suitability of the candidate, who refuses to address the question directly, upon having been caught in the act.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst reply to whoever was posting under the login handle 'gbailey'

The notion and implication that the only 100 octane fuel used by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain originates to British stocks of 100 octane fuel, captured from British airfields in France after the premature leave by the British Army in June 1940 is a dangerous myth, which needs to be promptly refuted, before any credence is attributed to it. Even if I did not want to engage in continuing that discussion here, given that the title discusses the RAF use of such fuel in 1940, the above repetence of it warrants a proper refutation of the claim by poster 'gbailey'.

Some of the documents already posted from the Australian archieves already show that already in 1938 the British were concerned of German 100 octane fuel developments and the capacity to produce this fuel on an industrial scale. Please refer back to these before proceeding further.

Please also refer to the German datasheet of the DB 601N. This type of engine was developed for German 100 octane 'C-3' fuel use, and went into mass production in late 1939 (October 1939 via Manfred Griehl to be exact)



It extremely puzzling, to say the least, why would the Germans decide to mass produce an engine, specifically made for 100 octane fuel use, without having any own stock of 100 octane fuel. And then equip whole wings of fighters, bombers, and zestoerers with the said engine.

As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance.

It should be noted, however, that during the war, there were different octane ratings used for aviation gasoline. Allied states generally preferred to give octane rating at its rich mixture, while the Germans preferred the CFR method, which gave the octane rating at weak mixture.

The bottomline of the story, the green 'C-3' type fuel that the Germans were calling 96 octane fuel by the CFR method, was the equaivalent of 96/110 octane fuel as the Allies would call it. In other words, actually a bit better at rich mixture and for knock resistance than ordinary 100 octane fuel.

Also it is evident from these documents that the British were aware of the existance and use of German 100 octane - for simplicity's sake lets ignore for a moment it superior qualities and call it the same since the summer of 1940.

Examples of such fuel were found and analysed in crashed Ju 88 and Me 110 aircraft. The use in the former type is especially interesting as the types capable of taking advantage of higher octane fuel were DB 601N-powered Bf 109Es and Bf 110Cs. These latter were already in service by July 1940. By the automn, 1200 DB 601N engines were delivered, divided amongst Bf 110, Bf 109 units, Bf 109F production and reserve engines. Priority was given to Bf 110 units until the automn for these engines. The use of 100 octane C-3 thus may appear to be superflous in German bomber aircraft, nevertheless is was an existing practice.

The British report do not seem to mention 100 octane fuel found in Bf 109s, but this may be due to the limited scope of the report. See the image of Bf 109E-4/N, W.Nr. 1190, 'White 4', is being unloaded by Curtiss workers. The Emil belonged to 4. Staffel Staffel of JG 4, and was flown by Uffz. Horst Perez on, when it was shot down on the 30th September 1940 over East Dean during the Battle of Britain. Note the fuel triangle with the '100' label, pointo to 100 octane fuel and the DB 601N.



As the statements by 'gbailey' are said to be based on 'Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', please find below the original scans of the document below to these claims made.

The full document, of 76 pages, is not reproduced here due to size restriction, but it is available in its full at my website at Kurfurst - www.kurfurst.org

I believe the fact that the 'gbailey' handle consistently evades to address the question of possible misrepresentation - either willfully or out of ignorance - of historical documents and the German use of 100 octane in the Battle of Britain can be considered an answer to the question of credibility and identity as well.

[winny]

Here are some records of fuel import and consumption from the National Archive

I'm in the process of getting all of the Oil related memos and Cabinet meetings.

I had to zip them up because they are to big as PDF's

Contents: Cabinet Papers.zip

War Cabinet Oil Position December '39
War Cabinet Oil Position March '40
War Cabinet Oil Position June '40
War Cabinet Oil Position July '40
Memo on the completion of the Thornton plant - November '40

I will add anymore that I find.

[Osprey]

I will never put Kurfurst on ignore because I want to know he posted so I can give him a right slagging off.

Kurfurst, you are such a knob - perhaps you and Crump should meet up for a cock-in.

[winny]

Here are all the Oil Position reports I could find for 1940

Oil position papers 1.zip contains the 16th, 20th, 21st, 23rd, 24th and 25th weekly Oil Position War Cabinet Reports

Oil position papers 2.zip contains the 27th, 28th, 32nd and 40th

Monthly Oil Position.zip has July, September, October and November '40

100 oct plants has a couple of memos about 100 octane production in the UK

I haven't read them all yet, but some people here may find them usefull.

I'm gonna look at 1939 next.

EDIT : I didn't explain what these are.. They are all War Cabinet documents detailing the import, consumption, production etc of all types of fuel for the Air Force, Navy and Civil.

[Crumpp]

So, what's a 'standard day' in England Crump?

Pretty much the same as everywhere else for low altitude and subsonic aerodynamics.....

For a standard reference, a concept called a standard day is used. In aviation, everything is relatedto standard day conditions at sea level, which are 29.92 in-Hg (1013.2 mb) and 15°C (59°F). Inthe lower atmosphere, and thus for most aviation applications, a 1000 foot increase in altitude willresult in a pressure decrease of approximately 1 in-Hg (34 mb) and a temperature decrease of 2°C(3.5 °F). These values are the standard day pressure and temperature lapse rates.

http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-303/P-3030021.htm

There you go again confusing modern day process in the USA with that of wartime Britain in 1940.

There is thing called the Paris Convention of 1919. It is what gives British Aircraft the authority to fly in other countries, including the USA.

What it says in summary, we will all do things the same way regarding airplanes and meet the same standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Par...ention_of_1919

[gavinb]

Kurfurst,

I don't want to further encourage your behaviour by responding, but in this case I can't help myself.

If 'gbailey's claimed identity is true, I am afraid that would be even more concerning, as there is a proven misrepresentation of a historical source and probably worthy to the attention of the Rector of Dundee University, as well as Professor Black and Professor Dobson, for further investigation into professional standards and lack of civil conduct in the public, which may pose questions about the suitability of the candidate, who refuses to address the question directly, upon having been caught in the act.

I look forward to the results of your contact with Professors Dobson and Black, particularly as I share an office with Tony Black, and regularly speak to Alan Dobson who was my PhD supervisor and who remains a respected colleague. I suspect all three of us would welcome the entertainment at the moment.

Their email addresses are available on the same web page as I provided earlier, which also has my email address (in case that was presenting you with any difficulties).

Hopefully you will not experience the same difficulty contacting them as you seem to have experienced in contacting me to date. I can assure you that any complaint you make will be regarded with the merit it deserves.

In that respect, in case you want any pointers in how to research and present genuine historical inquiry, I direct you to Tony's excellent second edition of The History of Islamic Political Thought from the Prophet to the Present, and Alan's recent and commendable FDR and Civil Aviation.

Gavin Bailey

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by gavinb

Kurfurst,

I don't want to further encourage your behaviour by responding, but in this case I can't help myself.

If 'gbailey's claimed identity is true, I am afraid that would be even more concerning, as there is a proven misrepresentation of a historical source and probably worthy to the attention of the Rector of Dundee University, as well as Professor Black and Professor Dobson, for further investigation into professional standards and lack of civil conduct in the public, which may pose questions about the suitability of the candidate, who refuses to address the question directly, upon having been caught in the act.

I look forward to the results of your contact with Professors Dobson and Black, particularly as I share an office with Tony Black, and regularly speak to Alan Dobson who was my PhD supervisor and who remains a respected colleague. I suspect all three of us would welcome the entertainment at the moment.

Their email addresses are available on the same web page as I provided earlier, which also has my email address (in case that was presenting you with any difficulties).

Hopefully you will not experience the same difficulty contacting them as you seem to have experienced in contacting me to date. I can assure you that any complaint you make will be regarded with the merit it deserves.

In that respect, in case you want any pointers in how to research and present genuine historical inquiry, I direct you to Tony's excellent second edition of The History of Islamic Political Thought from the Prophet to the Present, and Alan's recent and commendable FDR and Civil Aviation.

Gavin Bailey

I see your response again is limited again to venting out bit of hot air. I hope you now feel relieved and content, and shall find engaging in academic debate less stressful on your capacity to defend your (mistaken) point of view.

Alas, I must note that you still failed to properly address your earlier attempt to misrepresent the historical truth, so I must take your deep and lasting silence on issue of misrepresenting historical sources as a sign that you have recognized your error and you have choose to revoke your earlier nonsense about the German 100 octane use in the Battle.

I hope your future 'research' in the subject of the Luftwaffe aviation fuels shall be far more successful, less amateurish than your earlier attempts showed. On my part, I have found the debate most rewarding, given the end result and your hollow but futile arrogance.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I see your response again is limited again to venting out bit of hot air........ given the end result and your hollow but futile arrogance.

writing about yourself?