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

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I see your response again is limited again to venting out bit of hot air.

[NZtyphoon]

For my part I am deeply angry that Dr Bailey has had to field the effects of Kurfurst's constant abuse of his research, even though he is not a part of this or any other forum. I could not care less what Kurfurst says let alone thinks about me, because it has long been a part of his MO to abuse those who oppose him on this and on other forums, from which he has been mostly banned; what I will not tolerate is his cowardly and behind-the-back abuse of people, such as Dr Bailey, who carry out genuine work, and who have a balanced and scholarly approach to historical research. I lost my temper earlier because of this and I apologise to CWMV and others on this forum, for allowing myself to sink to that level.

Kurfurst is on my ignore list permanently, and I suggest that everyone else in this forum do likewise. It is simply a waste of time attempting to "debate" any issues with him without the risk of ending up being entangled in prolonged and usually circular and fruitless argument - witness the 110 pages to this thread - and I begrudge the hours I have wasted responding to his nonsense.

[Glider]

Kurfurst
Can I point out one rather large significant problem in the paper that you quote the the use of Captured Fuel in the Luftwaffe during the BOB

The Paper Gavin quotes is :-
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.'

Gavins reference Paper covers November 1939 to September 1940 and was produced in Nov 1940

Your paper covers the period Summer 1940 to Autumn 1943

They are different Papers. If you are going to comment on someones work, at least get the right paper.

To try and compare fuel consumption i n the BOB to the situation in 1944 is comparing Pears and Bananas, the planes were different, they had bigger tanks, drop tanks were used. But you know this its a tactic you have tried before. We are talking about the BOB so stick with it.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Kurfurst
Can I point out one rather large significant problem in the paper that you quote the the use of Captured Fuel in the Luftwaffe during the BOB

The Paper Gavin quotes is :-
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.'

Gavins reference Paper covers November 1939 to September 1940 and was produced in Nov 1940

Your paper covers the period Summer 1940 to Autumn 1943

They are different Papers. If you are going to comment on someones work, at least get the right paper.

They are not different papers. They are subsequent reports in the same trail of papers, prepared by the same men, working for the Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee.

The report quoted by 'gbailey' deals only with German 87 octane fuel samples, and the subsequent papers deal with German 100 octane fuel samples. But they are prepared by the same people - D. A. Howes of Anglo American Oil for example is listed just the same in samples I have posted - in the same format, and follow each other in the files, and reference to the other reports, so its very hard to miss the fact that you are not looking at the whole paper.

Of course if you are set out to prove that the American contribution of high octane aviation fuel was not significant, and the Brits could do it all by themselves, you might also want to 'prove', by omitting otherwise available information that those poor Germans had to do with whatever British 100 octane stock they could find.

Of course such views become very comical, when you know that Germany was producing domestically all its 100 octane needs, while Britain was importing it or later given by Lend-Lease, and in fact that British desire in 1938 for 100 octane was fueled by fear that German synthetic plans could essentially produce as much 100 octane as they wanted, and Britain did not want to be left behind in the technology race.

Either its quite simply intellectually dishonest to say the Germans had nothing else but 87 octane fuel, and relied on captured British 100 octane stock, because a report on German 87 octane fuel samples - surprise surprise! - lists only 87 octane fuel samples and one British 100 octane sample. Especially when the next report in the pile of papers says that German 100 octane fuel samples were found in 110s, 88s etc. in the same period.

That may even be a honest mistake, but in that case the 'research' was very superficial and amateurish.

Either case, whoever he is, his opinion is sadly mistaken and instead of addressing it and admitting the mistakes, he resorts to incivility and thin verbal diarrhea.

I would also like to know your version. Do you believe the Germans did not use 100 octane in the Battle of Britain? Do you believe that the only 100 octane they had access to was captured British stocks?

To try and compare fuel consumption i n the BOB to the situation in 1944 is comparing Pears and Bananas, the planes were different, they had bigger tanks, drop tanks were used. But you know this its a tactic you have tried before. We are talking about the BOB so stick with it.

Well, again 25 (was it 30 with XIVs..?) Squadrons of Spitfires in 1945 required 15 000 tons of avgas per month. Their tanks were the same size, their sortie times were again pretty much the same lenght as those of 1940.

But let's forget about the 2nd TAF. I've just found a rather interesting table which shows the ratio of combat hours and non-operational hours flown by a plane sorties/time for planes on hand with combat units (i.e. the ones in OTU, storage, manufacturer's flight testing is not included) in mid-1943.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom%2...0Item%201A.pdf

For Spitfires in NW Africa, an average of 13.2 combat sorties were flown per plane per month, the average combat hours flown per month per plane was 18.5 hours, the non-operational hours flown per month per plane was 19.7 hours. Hourly consumption was 49.7 gallons/hour.

The ratio for P-47s in the UK was very similar, it was 16.3 hours per month for combat sorties and 17.3 for non-operational flights.

So combat sorties amounted quite typically to about just 40% of the total consumption. The remaining 60% is non-operational flights in combat units, which none of your calculations take into account, nor the requirements of bomber command's Blenheim Sqns.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

They are not different papers. They are subsequent reports in the same trail of papers, prepared by the same men, working for the Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee.

They are different papers. We are looking at the BOB and its that period that is of interest. Obviously things changed latere but in the BOB period it looks as if the Luftwaffe used captured stocks for at least some of their aircraft.

I haven't read the paper but trust official documents

I do not doubt that the same people prepared later papers but we are looking at the BB period

Of course if you are set out to prove that the American contribution of high octane aviation fuel was not significant, and the Brits could do it all by themselves, you might also want to 'prove', by omitting otherwise available information that those poor Germans had to do with whatever British 100 octane stock they could find.

It does look like that in the BOB period doesn't it.

Of course such views become very comical, when you know that Germany was producing domestically all its 100 octane needs, while Britain was importing it or later given by Lend-Lease, and in fact that British desire in 1938 for 100 octane was fueled by fear that German synthetic plans could essentially produce as much 100 octane as they wanted, and Britain did not want to be left behind in the technology race.

Unfortunately Germany never did produce sufficient for its needs

Either its quite simply intellectually dishonest to say the Germans had nothing else but 87 octane fuel, and relied on captured British 100 octane stock, because a report on German 87 octane fuel samples - surprise surprise! - lists only 87 octane fuel samples and one British 100 octane sample. Especially when the next report in the pile of papers says that German 100 octane fuel samples were found in 110s, 88s etc. in the same period.

Not the same period a later period, your own paper proves it.

That may even be a honest mistake, but in that case the 'research' was very superficial and amateurish.

This from the man who never even tried to get a copy of the Pips posting is pretty good.

Either case, whoever he is, his opinion is sadly mistaken and instead of addressing it and admitting the mistakes, he resorts to incivility and thin verbal diarrhea.

Important note, we know who he is, we know where he works, we know that he is open to being contacted, we know know who he works with, we know nothing about you. As for resorting to incivility, do you really want me to go through this thread and list the jibs and worse that you have aimed at everyone? More importantly do you want me to list the questions you have refused to reply to?

I would also like to know your version. Do you believe the Germans did not use 100 octane in the Battle of Britain? Do you believe that the only 100 octane they had access to was captured British stocks?

I don't know and am not guessing, but it makes sense that the Luftwaffe would use RAF stocks probably in addition to some of their own. Its valuble fuel and there is no point pouring it away. There is no doubt that the report was very specific in saying that the only example was RAF stock, that you can rubbish or deny but doesn't alter that fact that is what the report says..

So combat sorties amounted quite typically to about just 40% of the total consumption. The remaining 60% is non-operational flights in combat units, which none of your calculations take into account, nor the requirements of bomber command's Blenheim Sqns.

I go from evidence which can be measured not made up calculations, there is the old phrase that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. However I did point out that operational vs non operational consumption in May 1941 was approx 50%.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

They are different papers. We are looking at the BOB and its that period that is of interest. Obviously things changed latere but in the BOB period it looks as if the Luftwaffe used captured stocks for at least some of their aircraft.

I haven't read the paper but trust official documents

Certainly. The papers quite clearly state the British first captured samples of German synthetic, 'Green' C-3 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain. That is to say, the claim that the Germans were relying completely on captured British 100 octane stocks is demonstrated to be false and unfounded, and against what is said in the very series of reports.

I do not doubt that the same people prepared later papers but we are looking at the BB period

Yes, we should look at the BoB period.

The papers say the British obtained four samples of German produced synthethic C-3 in the BoB period:

Sample GF 28 from a Ju 88, in 'Summer of 1940'.
Sample 40/41 from a Bf 110, on '27 September 1940'.
Sample GF 31 from a Bf 110, in 'Automn 1940'.
Sample GF 32 from a Bf 110, in 'Automn 1940'.

All of these were samples of German produced 100 octane fuel. Summer of 1940, 27 September 1940, Automn of 1940 does sound like BoB period to me.

They list one sample of what is believed captured British 100 octane.

Denial in the face of this evidence is beyond comic.

It does look like that in the BOB period doesn't it.

Again, four samples of German 100 octane, one sample of British 100 octane was found in the BOB period and listed in these papers. To claim the only sample was found and it was from British source is simply false and ill-informed.

Unfortunately Germany never did produce sufficient for its needs

That's a curious statement. It does seem to me that in the first half of 1941, practically all of the German first line fighters (Bf 109E/N, Bf 109F-1, F-2) were running on 100 octane fuel.

Not the same period a later period, your own paper proves it.

Again my own paper lists samples of German produced 100 octane fuel, from Summer of 1940, 27 September 1940, Automn of 1940, which does sound like the same BoB period.

This from the man who never even tried to get a copy of the Pips posting is pretty good.

Claimed by the man who repeatedly lies that I did not try to get a copy of Pips posting despite I have made clear several times that I did contact pips and searched the online archives. Cute.

Important note, we know who he is, we know where he works, we know that he is open to being contacted, we know know who he works with, we know nothing about you.

Well I know he appears everywhere NZTyphoon appears, he has misrepresented a piece of historical evidence, made a revisionist claim about the German use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle, refuses to post his papers, and does not answers any questions.

That's more than enough for me to assert his level of credibility, whoever he is.

As for resorting to incivility, do you really want me to go through this thread and list the jibs and worse that you have aimed at everyone? More importantly do you want me to list the questions you have refused to reply to?

Please do. Go ahead an entertain me. I can go an list how many times I have answer the same questions you keep asking, and how many times you have refused to post the full contents of the papers you are referring to, despite repeatedly asked.

I don't know and am not guessing, but it makes sense that the Luftwaffe would use RAF stocks probably in addition to some of their own. Its valuble fuel and there is no point pouring it away. There is no doubt that the report was very specific in saying that the only example was RAF stock, that you can rubbish or deny but doesn't alter that fact that is what the report says..

Well again the report is indeed very specific about that the British found several samples of C-3, and readily acknowledged its use during the Battle of Britain. You seem to be in denial of German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.

Its interesting though. You claim all British fighter squadrons were using 100 octane during the Battle and deny that the Germans were using their own 100 octane at the same time. A not so well hidden agenda perhaps..?

I go from evidence which can be measured not made up calculations, there is the old phrase that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. However I did point out that operational vs non operational consumption in May 1941 was approx 50%.

Well its hard evidence, but we seem to agree to dismiss NZTyphoon's calculations on the ground of it's unreliability and gross simplicity.