Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Crumpp]

So who was using the 10,000 tons a month, just under 30% of the fuel being consumed by the UK Crumpp?

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.

I just can't see two sets of fuel bowsers crisscrossing each other in the dispersal area

Spend some time on an airfield....

That is why placarding is not a choice or option. Any alternative fuels will be specifically listed by specification.

That is by convention and still followed today.

Primary, alternate, and emergency fuel for all
turbojet and turboprop engines installed in Air
Force aircraft will be listed in the aircraft -1 flight
manual.

In order of decreasing precedence, fuel
use for Air Force aviation applications (excepting
the U-2) is as follows.
1. JP-8/JP-5
2. Jet A/Jet A-1 (with SDA, FSII, and CI)
3. TS-1 (with SDA, FSII, and CT)
4. Jet A/Jet A-1 (neat)
5. TS-1 (neat)
TS-1 must meet the Russian GOST 10227-
86 specification if used on US military aircraft.

http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/shared/me...100111-038.pdf

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.

The graphic is titled : TABLE II - CONSUMPTION
It is 10K tons consumed by airplanes.

If I consume a glass of beer, the beer is in my stomach, not still in the glass.

[bongodriver]

That straw is getting awfully short Crumpp

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

And the next month's consumption?

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.



Spend some time on an airfield....

That is why placarding is not a choice or option. Any alternative fuels will be specifically listed by specification.

That is by convention and still followed today.





http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/shared/me...100111-038.pdf

And you think that all military airfields stock 5 different types of fuel? You would be full of ****. Your base is stocked with what is required for the A/C that you operate. Not, repeat, not what might land there. If someone needs Jet A instead of JP they stop and a civilian airport and fuel there.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

As has been mentioned the form is titled CONSUMPTION.

If we follow your logic the 26,000 tons of 87 octane consumed wasn't consumed either, it was also at the airfields. So the next question would be, what were the RAF consuming ( sorry, would you prefer burning up, using, please tell us what term you would prefer)

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.

I would love to see you support that view. Following up this logic each month over this period a further 10,000 tons of 100 Octane and 26,000 tons of 87 octane weere also piling up at the airfields. Where did they put it all and more intrestingly what did they use in the aircraft?

Spend some time on an airfield....

I have spent a lot of time on airfields and the longer this goes on, I suspect that I have spent a lot more time than you on an airfield.

That is why placarding is not a choice or option. Any alternative fuels will be specifically listed by specification.

What exactly have this got to do with a chart showing the fuel consumed per month in the UK?

PS still waiting for you to say where you got the information re the full transfer of FC to 100 octane completing in May 1941.
If you do not support that statement can you give one good reason as to why we shouldn't ignore every other statement that you have made without support.