Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Two Historians in Technology and War, Howard and Guilmartin:

The importance of oil to the conduct and outcome of the Second World War extended well beyond quantitative, macro-economic considerations. High octane aviation gasoline gave British and American aircraft, particularly fighters, a critical performance boost not enjoyed by their Axis equivalents; indeed, some have gone so far as to attribute British victory in the Battle of Britain to 100 octane gasoline.

Evidently the authors are wrong. Germans were using 92/110 grade (later 96/145 grade) fuel through the war for their fighters, from the start of the Battle of Britain.

Originally Posted by Seadog

Axis engineers were well aware of the performance advantages conferred by high octane, but the refining process was highly inefficient, many more barrels of crude being required per barrel of refined gasoline as octane increased. So long as their sea lanes stayed open, Britain and America could afford the inefficiency; the Germans, Japanese and Italians could not, and their fighter pilots entered combat at a significant handicap. p11.

Evidently the authors are wrong in this as well. The Germans did not rely on crude oil to produce their high own high octane aviation fuel, but on the synthetic oil produced from coal. Both their high and normal octane aviation fuels had the same composition, expect for additional aromatics in their high octane fuel, which was produced by getting the normal grade fuel through an extra chemical process.






Air Warfare: an International Encyclopaedia: A-L, Walter J. Boyne

Both British fighters benefited from 100-octane fuel. German aircraft used synthetic gasoline of 87-89 octane.

Evidently Boyne's research was sloppy too. The Germans were using synthethic 92/110 octane fuel for their Me 109s, Me 110s and Ju 88 during the Battle of Britain. In early 1941, practically all of the Luftwaffe se fighters converted to 100 octane (109E-7/N, F-1, F-2).



Sydney Camm and the Hurricane, Fozard, Foreword by Sir Peter G. Masefield:

Why would Masefield say that "...without... "100 octane fuel" - there would have been no prospect of success"?

Because he overstates technical aspects over operational aspects. BTW loss rates of RAF fighters to German fighters is sobering - it ran around 2:1 in the German's favour during the Battle. RAF Fighter Command lost over 100% of the force it started the Battle within four months.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Evidently the authors are wrong. Germans were using 92/110 grade (later 96/145 grade) fuel through the war for their fighters, from the start of the Battle of Britain.

Because he overstates technical aspects over operational aspects. BTW loss rates of RAF fighters to German fighters is sobering - it ran around 2:1 in the German's favour during the Battle. RAF Fighter Command lost over 100% of the force it started the Battle within four months.

Again, with the 1938 documents, which have no bearing on the BofB... Contemporary 1940 documents clearly establish that more than adequate supplies of 100 octane fuel were in stock and under production during the battle. If you have no evidence of RAF FC use of 87 octane, why don't you simply state that?

German use or not, as the case may be, of hundred octane fuel, has no bearing on RAF FC use of said fuel during the BofB. Again, you have no evidence for RAF FC use of 87 octane fuel, yet there is abundant sources and direct evidence for the production, and use of 100 octane fuel by the entire RAF FC from July 10 1940 onward, while no evidence for even a single RAF FC frontline Hurricane/Spitfire combat sortie during the BofB, has ever been produced, despite the logistical nightmare that this would have created for RAF FC, not to mention the morale effect of having only select units using 100 octane fuel, when every fighter in RAF FC was capable of using it.

RAF FC was tasked with destroying Luftwaffe bombers, and it did this in large enough numbers to win the battle, and achieve an overall kill ratio superiority during the BofB. The Luftwaffe lost the battle and it's Commander in chief, went on to accuse his own fighter pilots of cowardice; why?

BTW, how many French Channel based Me109s were using 100 octane on July 10 1940? On Aug 1 1940? On Sept 1 1940? On Oct 1 1940? How are 1944 documents relevant to this discussion?

[robtek]

When i read this, or one of the countless other, 100-octane threads i see two sides:

a) FC used only 100 octane through the BoB

b) FC was in the conversion from 87 octane to 100 octane and used both fuels

where

a) has lots of evidence that 100 octane was used but no proof that 87 octane was not used

b) has evidence that 87 octane was used in the RAF and possibly in the FC but can not prove the use by the FC

my resume would be

a) tends to see the world in black or white, which never works this way in real life

b) says that there is always a grey area, which should be taken in account, a practical approach, imo.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by robtek

a) has lots of evidence that 100 octane was used but no proof that 87 octane was not used

Evidence for 100 octane fuel use and no evidence for 87 octane fuel use = proof of 100% 100 octane fuel use by RAF FC

If no 87 octane was used then we expect to see no evidence for its use, and indeed there is no such evidence.

British Piston Aeroengines and their aircraft:
"...As a result of satisfactory trials in March 1940, it was decided to switch Fighter Command to 100 Octane fuel, followed by Bombed Command about year later..." p313

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

a) has lots of evidence that 100 octane was used but no proof that 87 octane was not used

b) has evidence that 87 octane was used in the RAF and possibly in the FC but can not prove the use by the FC

The fact that Dowding felt the need to send out a memo to all squadrons in FC during the early stages of the battle reminding all pilots not to use +12 lbs boost for trivial reasons is proof enough that all squadrons were using 100 octane fuel.

By your analogy (one side lots of evidence, the other side not so much - but a more practical approach) anything can be proven - which is precisely how the various conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, or whether or not Apollo reached the moon work. Just produce enough "evidence" to leave a little doubt, and throw lots of smoke and noise around to provide distraction and make the few facts thrown in seem far more important than they really are. I guess it works because people are taken in by this ahistorical approach to historical research all the time.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

The fact that Dowding felt the need to send out a memo to all squadrons in FC during the early stages of the battle reminding all pilots not to use +12 lbs boost for trivial reasons is proof enough that all squadrons were using 100 octane fuel.

By your analogy (one side lots of evidence, the other side not so much - but a more practical approach) anything can be proven - which is precisely how the various conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, or whether or not Apollo reached the moon work. Just produce enough "evidence" to leave a little doubt, and throw lots of smoke and noise around to provide distraction and make the few facts thrown in seem far more important than they really are. I guess it works because people are taken in by this ahistorical approach to historical research all the time.

The facts are:

1. evidence is no proof

2. to preclude a possibility, however remote, without proof is unscientific

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

The facts are:

1. evidence is no proof

2. to preclude a possibility, however remote, without proof is unscientific

Evidence is no proof? That means any evidence can be dismissed out of hand, regardless of how solid it is. How do you work that one out?

If that's true, I can prove the moon is made out of cheese; the evidence is lacking because when the Apollo astronauts landed with samples of moon cheese they were immediately turned into toasted cheese sandwiches and eaten by hungry NASA staff, and the reports were then fudged and rocks were substituted.

Now, you can provide evidence in the form of moon rocks and scientific reports and I can dismiss the evidence because I didn't actually travel to the moon with the astronauts and watch them pick up the rocks, nor did I see the scientific reports being processed. So the fact is the moon is made out of cheese and my belief in that is scientific because I am not precluding the possibility, however remote it may seem; in fact there's even a web page showing that the moon is made of cheese and that's evidence in itself. It's a brilliant concept because I can prove anything I like!

[robtek]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Evidence is no proof? That means any evidence can be dismissed out of hand, regardless of how solid it is. How do you work that one out?

If that's true, I can prove the moon is made out of cheese; the evidence is lacking because when the Apollo astronauts landed with samples of moon cheese they were immediately turned into toasted cheese sandwiches and eaten by hungry NASA staff, and the reports were then fudged and rocks were substituted.

Now, you can provide evidence in the form of moon rocks and scientific reports and I can dismiss the evidence because I didn't actually travel to the moon with the astronauts and watch them pick up the rocks, nor did I see the scientific reports being processed. So the fact is the moon is made out of cheese and my belief in that is scientific because I am not precluding the possibility, however remote it may seem; in fact there's even a web page showing that the moon is made of cheese and that's evidence in itself. It's a brilliant concept because I can prove anything I like!

The problem is only seeing black and white, believe me.

Black and white scenarios are so rare in real life, i really doubt anybody here has experienced one.

To think in black and white makes only shure you are NOT 100% right.

Evidence is only proof if it removes any doubt.