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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You are right, I meant FC.

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.

It is that simple and elegant, guys. No need to construct elaborate arguments based on circumstance and assumption.

No you cannot. You calculate the dates from when the fuel was delivered and used using official documents. That isn't an assumption, its a fact, its simple and foolproof.

Trying to calculate when it was used based on a 1942 copy of a pilots notes for a plane that isn't in use in operational squadrons, isn't just an assumption, its a pipedream.

PS using your Logistic hat you might want to comment on :-

Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

For the 16 FC squadrons + 2 Bomber squadrons
a) We don't know who made the decision to continue with this program once war started
b) We don't know that phase IV testing was on going in 1940
c) We don't know which squadrons or which stations were supposed to have the 100 Octane
d) We don't know how it was to be rolled out
e) If this theory is correct, We don't know when the rest of FC had 100 Octane issued
f) We do know that the limit of 2 squadrons of Bombers mentioned in this paper was disregarded, which must question why the fighter limit is supposed to be maintained

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

Almost got it correct, but just like Mike, you seem to have missed a small detail mentioned in those "official records in the NA".

And that is all the papers talk of select fighter and bomber stations. I am sorry, I know you would like to forget that part, but that seems to be a major fly in the ointment of your whole thesis.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Almost got it correct, but just like Mike, you seem to have missed a small detail mentioned in those "official records in the NA".

And that is all the papers talk of select fighter and bomber stations. I am sorry, I know you would like to forget that part, but that seems to be a major fly in the ointment of your whole thesis.

Nope, you know my understanding of the select fighter units. Its those that hadn't yet converted, you disagree but its nticable that you don't have a position yourself. Neither do you put anything else up to counter my view just mention the one word, on the one paper.

So to help us understand your position, How many squadrons do you believe used 100 octane in the BOB, and how do you support it?

[Kurfürst]

I have made my position perfectly clear several times. Read back in the thread. Just because you pretend I did not and keep asking the same, already answered question does not get you anywhere.

And its not one paper, its the same note of select fighter and bomber stations in each and every paper. If you choose to ignore it like my previous answers, it is not my problem I am afraid.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I have made my position perfectly clear several times. Read back in the thread. Just because you pretend I did not and keep asking the same, already answered question does not get you anywhere.

And its not one paper, its the same note of select fighter and bomber stations in each and every paper. If you choose to ignore it like my previous answers, it is not my problem I am afraid.

You and I both know that this is the question you have not given a reply too, since you said 145 aircraft in May as per Pips. Someone you haven't mentioned for a while now

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

You and I both know that this is the question you have not given a reply too, since you said 145 aircraft in May as per Pips. Someone you haven't mentioned for a while now

Speak in you own name only and do put words into my mouth. It has proven pointless to answer you 'questions', to which you do not know the answer yourself. You have shown that you ignore the answer, ask the same question a few days, month, years later, and pretend you have not seen the answer earlier. As said, I have already answer that at the beginning of the thread.

I am tired of your pointless mind games.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Speak in you own name only and do put words into my mouth. It has proven pointless to answer you 'questions', to which you do not know the answer yourself. You have shown that you ignore the answer, ask the same question a few days, month, years later, and pretend you have not seen the answer earlier. As said, I have already answer that at the beginning of the thread.

I am tired of your pointless mind games.

Priceless

[Crumpp]

How many squadrons do you believe used 100 octane in the BOB, and how do you support it?

Kurfurst would be smart to stay the hell away from that question. It is an opinion at this point and not fact. I was asked the same thing by you and offered my opinion. Go back and read the immature garbage the spouts from certain participants in this thread.

Thing about opinion is everyone has one and in the western world the idea of free speech says we all can have one too.

However when presents an opinion on such a subject as the exact number of squadrons at a specified point in time and backs up with the relevant facts, the personal assaults begin. Why? That is good tactic when your argument is based on emotion, circumstance, and assumption.

Thing about the facts on this point is we don't have all of them to make a pinpoint determination. We can only make general statements.

Crumpp says:

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

It is clear that Fighter Command was in process of adopting the fuel but it is equally clear that process was not complete in July 1940. There is no agreement on the end dates for the Battle of Britain. So, depending on the dates one chooses for the battle to end, the process was or was not completed during the battle itself.

The only document that will give us an approximate time for the completion of the transition is the operating notes. If you find an earlier edition that lists 100 Octane in Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine then you will know within a few weeks when the transition was completed.

[Crumpp]

So am I but we don't know what they say. Besides what is wrong with going by when the fuel was issued and used? That at least we do know

Why are you trying to force an answer on this issue without all the facts?

Why do you insist that you know all the facts and the only operational document that definately tells us is wrong while you are right?

We happen to be lucky enough that the Operating Notes is a legal document published by the Air Ministry and will reflect how the type was operated.

The majority of the work was already being incorporeated in new engines and in regular maintanence

The regular squadron maintenance personnel did not handle this and that is why the order specifies Service Inspection. RAF squadron did not perform that inspection. RAF squadron personnel performed daily and routine maintenance. The CRO performed major alterations.

In NEW engines but the RAF already had ~700 Hurricanes and Spitfires in the inventory during the time the instructions came out. Consider that meant some ~1400 to 2100 engines in maintenance stocks that also had to be modified.

The new production also has to cover maintenance stocks, too.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Why are you trying to force an answer on this issue without all the facts?

Why do you insist that you know all the facts and the only operational document that definately tells us is wrong while you are right?

We happen to be lucky enough that the Operating Notes is a legal document published by the Air Ministry and will reflect how the type was operated.



The regular squadron maintenance personnel did not handle this and that is why the order specifies Service Inspection. RAF squadron did not perform that inspection. RAF squadron personnel performed daily and routine maintenance. The CRO performed major alterations.

In NEW engines but the RAF already had ~700 Hurricanes and Spitfires in the inventory during the time the instructions came out. Consider that meant some ~1400 to 2100 engines in maintenance stocks that also had to be modified.

The new production also has to cover maintenance stocks, too.

We don't know when the changes were first installed on new engines, we do know that the changes were already in place so a number of the 700 would already have them. We also know that the engines in service would have already gone through service inspection, so that would account for a number more.
In the three months following the issue of the paper a high proportion of the engines would be serviced or in the case of Hurricanes, newer arcraft would have replaced the ones in the squadrons in March.

I personally consider combat reports and station/squadron records as official documents, you may not but I do on that we will have to differ