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

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You should go back and re-read the thread without your emotional involvement.

It is a fact that in July of 1940, 87 Octane fuel was Fighter Commands standard fuel. They were definitely in the process of adopting 100 Octane and had begun operating aircraft that could only use 100 Octane like the Spitfire Mk II.

The Operating Notes are the primary source for flying the aircraft.

Notes on the Merlin Engine are by the Air Ministry, RAF, and convention a legal document that defines the airworthy limitations of the aircraft.

The Operating Notes are equivalent to a Flight Information Manual and will reflect the airworthy limitations of the type certificate.

That is how it works. It is that simple and elegant. The hatred of me for pointing that out is irrational and immature. Maybe some of you should consider getting out and socializing more?

Bottom line, there is no need to construct great leaps of logic built around circumstantial evidence. Especially when that evidence is misinterpreted such as using Estabilishments as proof of quantity on hand.

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

[Seadog]

Crumpp/Kurfurst:

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Crumpp/Kurfurst:

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

I'm still waiting for proof.

[Seadog]

Crumpp/Kurfurst:

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

I'm still waiting for your proof.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider,

Why don't you state exactly what it is in your mind that you think I am claiming, first?

This is what I have said and is backed up by the facts:

In July of 1940, 100 Octane fuel was not the standard fuel of Fighter Command.

To support that you need to give some awnsers to the questions you have avoided for the following reasons

Personally I would like to see any evidence of :-
a) a shortage of fuel
If there was no shortage then there would be no need to reduce the roll out

b) of 16 squadrons
Which squadrons or if you go down the it was 16 squadrons at any one time

c) of which squadrons or bases
This brings the difficult questions
i) If 100 octane was in short supply when did Drew a small satellite station in Scotland have 100 octane when the priority stations in the South East didn't
ii) At one point in the BOB Duxford had the big wing of five squadrons. Are you really saying that almost a fifth of the RAF supply was in one 12 group station?.

d) why this isn't mentioned in any official document, book, history
Simple request, why in the most documented air battle in history has no one picked this important factor up. Support your theory with some supporting documentation, not an off the wall conspiracy theory

e) of the process in delivering the fuel
As there is no mention of a any limitation in the distribution of 100 octane fuel in the Oil Committee papers who distributed it

f) when the rest of FC were transfered to 100 octane
As (e) there is no mention of any further roll out of 100 Octane in the Oil Committee papers so when was it done?

[JtD]

I've been looking at a few individual Hurricane plane histories. It is interesting to see that there are planes that came from a unit which has been documented to use 100 octane fuel, and went to a unit where there's no dedicated record, on occasion after having been to a maintenance unit. Imho, there's no reason to assume that the new squadrons weren't using 100 octane fuel as well, unless RAF logistics were run by brain dead people. If some folks around here have detailed resources, it might be worth a little more digging.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by JtD

I've been looking at a few individual Hurricane plane histories. It is interesting to see that there are planes that came from a unit which has been documented to use 100 octane fuel, and went to a unit where there's no dedicated record, on occasion after having been to a maintenance unit. Imho, there's no reason to assume that the new squadrons weren't using 100 octane fuel as well, unless RAF logistics were run by brain dead people. If some folks around here have detailed resources, it might be worth a little more digging.

I did look at a number but not all of the squadron records of squadrons that formed after May 1940. I checked these records from formation until March (ish) 1941 and none of those records mention 100 octane, 87 octane or any issues. The assumption I was working on was that by March 1941 they would be using 100 octane in view of the instruction we have for all commands to use 100 Octane given in August 1940.
Given that, my view is that 100 Octane wasn't mentioned after May 1940 because it was standard issue.

[robtek]

Do you really believe that? Even after that a few post before it was posted that not all squadrons used 100 oct.???

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by robtek

Do you really believe that? Even after that a few post before it was posted that not all squadrons used 100 oct.???

Who posted that not all squadrons used 100 octane?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

Do you really believe that? Even after that a few post before it was posted that not all squadrons used 100 oct.???

And you really believe a statement made without any evidence whatsoever? ah yes "absence of evidence" etc etc - which can mean anything you want it to mean, including no evidence means that (supply event that can be proven because there is no evidence) must have happened because there is no evidence that it didn't happen. Conspiracy theorists discussing the assassination of JFK have long relied on a lack of evidence to prove that there is a conspiracy.

Taking that further I can claim that the Apollo astronauts found that the moon is made of cheese but on the way home the astronauts got hungry and made toasted mooncheese sandwiches out of the samples they were bringing back - the report was quietly dumped in a file, and the samples replaced by rocks, which is why there is no evidence that the moon is made out of cheese.

So far no-one has explained what happened to 52,000 tons of 100 Octane avgas consumed between July - end October 1940. Crumpp had a stab at it by saying it wasn't really consumed, just mixed, then it disappeared into an unexplained administrative hole. Really?