Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Crumpp]

So much has evidence from a myriad of sources

If just because it gets repeated means it was reality.

The Operationing Notes and consumption reports is much more definative that any post war magazine article written by an amatuer historian.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

If just because it gets repeated means it was reality.

The Operationing Notes and consumption reports is much more definative that any post war magazine article written by an amatuer historian.

Operating notes? You mean the ones you claim that state that the Spitfire I had to use 87 octane because that's in the manual you claim dates from July 1940; even though it also mentions the Merlin II which had long been out of production? We have proof that numerous Spitfire squadrons were using 100 octane months before July 1940. The consumption data is also completely consistent with RAF FC, and select BC squadrons using 100 octane.

There is an overwhelming mass of data that all points to RAF FC exclusively using 100 octane fuel during the BofB and absolutely none that contradicts the exclusive use of 100 octane.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

If just because it gets repeated means it was reality.

The Operationing Notes and consumption reports is much more definative that any post war magazine article written by an amatuer historian.

Consumption reports that say that 61,000 tons, 315 imp gallons per ton, 192,151,000 imp gallons of 100 Octane was consumed between June and end October 1940



So, where did 192,151,000 gallons of 100 Octane go if it was only consumed by a small number of RAF fighters and some Blenheims?

Interestingly stocks of 100 Octane had already become greater than "Other Grades" by June - NOT October, as Crumpp has surmised:



Crumpp obviously believes that he knows better than all those "amateur" aviation historians who have written about 100 Octane so how about Crumpp takes some time out to write a best seller on 100 Octane, based on his professional expertise, and leave all of us confounded by his brilliance?

[Old-Banger]

'So, where did 192,151,000 gallons of 100 Octane go if it was only consumed by a small number of RAF fighters and some Blenheims?'

Perhaps all the aircrew were putting it in their MG sports cars and BSA motorcycles? Thats one helluva lot of trips to the pub.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

So, where did 192,151,000 gallons of 100 Octane go if it was only consumed by a small number of RAF fighters and some Blenheims?

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

Our view is that it was used by FC and No 2 Group, that you know.

If you and Crumpp believe that the use of 100 Octane was restricted to the number of squadrons/bases that you believe then the onus is on you to say where it went.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

I think you misunderstand. Crumpp asserts that a fraction of the force were using 100 octane, yet a lot of fuel was used. What used this fuel? Wither he is wrong in that only a small amount used it, or he has an explanation for the use of the fuel, though he hasn't come up with anything yet.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

Here's my answer. It was burned in Merlin engines on the front line providing the edge needed to knock down the Hun. Prove it wasn't.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

No, That's a question you, and Crumpp need to answer, Kurfurst.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

LoL, I've pressed you to supply details of even a single 87 octane RAF FC sortie, during the BofB and you can't do it.

Your credibility has been destroyed.

Why not go away and come back when you find evidence for 87 octane use, or are when you ready to man up and admit that you are wrong.

100% 100 octane use = no evidence for 87 octane because it wasn't used.