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

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Whoops the correct manual

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf

Thanks. It says July 1940, Spitfire IIA and IIB manual, and

"Fuel: 100 octane (the reduced limitations for use with 87 octane are shown in the brackets)"

Also this, for Spitfire I from same timeframe I believe:

"When using 100 octane.." And above it limiations we know for being for 87 octane.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Thanks. It says July 1940, Spitfire IIA and IIB manual, and

"Fuel: 100 octane (the reduced limitations for use with 87 octane are shown in the brackets)"

I know it does, it also says 20mm cannon

[Seadog]

Pilot's Notes were issued but then revised constantly, so an issue date of July 1940 does not mean that all the info therein dates to July 1940, but in any event, even if it does, publishing the 87 octane limits are still prudent, since an aircraft may land at a training field, or even a civil airport and be forced to fuel up with 87 octane. Additionally, OTU aircraft may have run on 87 Octane and hence the info would still be needed, and overseas 100 octane was still scarce, and the writers could not know where an aircraft might be operating.

The fact remains that there are no published reports stating that Hurricane/Spitfires used anything but 100 octane during the BofB.

My friend has a car with a HO engine, and it requires 100 octane fuel, but the owners manual contains info regarding lower octane fuel use and prudent operating cautions.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Seadog

The fact remains that there are no published reports stating that Hurricane/Spitfires used anything but 100 octane during the BofB.

.

On the contrary there are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the RAF was equipped with 100 Octane for the BOB.

However There is nothing published anywhere that says that there was a fuel shortage, that they were forced to use 87 octane on operaions. All Kurfurst has posted is a pre war paper that said 18 squadrons of fighters and 2 squadrons of twin engined bombers. Plus an unsubstantiated posting from an Australian which
a) is riddled with errors.
b) is not supported by anything
c) that no one (not even Kurfurst) has seen
d) whee the archives that are supposed to hold it do not recognise.


Now the point of this was to ensure the people who are involved in the coding of the flight simulation were aware that if they followed the ideas put forward by Kurfurst were leaving themselves wide open for adverse comments.

I believe the case put foward for the use of 100 Octane in FC by all the units is a strong case, not perfect but strong.

We have
a) the pre war intention, of 18 + 2 squadrons
b) the preparation in Dec 1939 for the issues to the FC command stations in two stages initially the First Instance (covering all the Operational Bases and those that were identified at that time that would become operational) and the second tranch (The Non Operational bases). This paper outlines the conditions to be met (stocks to be in place) before it can be used.
c) the request from the Chief of the Air Staff simple and without limitation for fighter units and Blenheim units to start using the 100 Octane. The Chief of the Air Staff doesn't ask permission from the Oil Committee which is headed up by a senior but junior to him Air Force Officer. In the the British Armed Forces orders from senior officers were and are still today, requests.
d) The Oil Committee getting this underway. The Magic 'Certain' word comes up at this stage. Do I wish he hadn't written certain, of course, but I believe that it will refer to the first instance i.e. the operational stations not all the stations in Fighter Command. But Please note, I knew that information would casue confusion and I could have left it out, but I didn't I gave all the information that I had to the forum.
d) A very clear path that shows without any ambiguity that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group had 100 Octane
e) Confusion in Fighter Command about the changes needed and the sorting out of those questions (Mr Tweedie)
f) The completion of the task by the oil committee and the note of thanks on the job done.

Note that was all done by May. Even if there was a slight delay the BOB didn't start in anger until a few months later so time was on their side.

g) Finally we have in August permission given to use 100 Octane in all the commands.

All the above supported by consumption details, stock supplies, a good cross section of squadron notes, station notes and other documentation.

As I said earlier, is it a perfect case no, but its a strong one with a lot of documentation to support it.

What documentation have you got to say that 87 Octane was used in Operational missions during the BOB. None.

Some people doubt that all units didn't have 100 octane, so prove it, find any book, any article, any pilots story or other station record that says that.

I will review Pps posting again with supporting docs as that seems to be key to the anti 100 Octane Brigade and then leave you to it. I can add nothing more.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Glider

On the contrary there are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the RAF was equipped with 100 Octane for the BOB.

However There is nothing published anywhere that says that there was a fuel shortage, that they were forced to use 87 octane on operaions. All Kurfurst has posted is a pre war paper that said 18 squadrons of fighters and 2 squadrons of twin engined bombers. Plus an unsubstantiated posting from an Australian which
a) is riddled with errors.
b) is not supported by anything
c) that no one (not even Kurfurst) has seen
d) whee the archives that are supposed to hold it do not recognise.


Now the point of this was to ensure the people who are involved in the coding of the flight simulation were aware that if they followed the ideas put forward by Kurfurst were leaving themselves wide open for adverse comments.

I believe the case put foward for the use of 100 Octane in FC by all the units is a strong case, not perfect but strong.

We have
a) the pre war intention, of 18 + 2 squadrons
b) the preparation in Dec 1939 for the issues to the FC command stations in two stages initially the First Instance (covering all the Operational Bases and those that were identified at that time that would become operational) and the second tranch (The Non Operational bases). This paper outlines the conditions to be met (stocks to be in place) before it can be used.
c) the request from the Chief of the Air Staff simple and without limitation for fighter units and Blenheim units to start using the 100 Octane. The Chief of the Air Staff doesn't ask permission from the Oil Committee which is headed up by a senior but junior to him Air Force Officer. In the the British Armed Forces orders from senior officers were and are still today, requests.
d) The Oil Committee getting this underway. The Magic 'Certain' word comes up at this stage. Do I wish he hadn't written certain, of course, but I believe that it will refer to the first instance i.e. the operational stations not all the stations in Fighter Command. But Please note, I knew that information would casue confusion and I could have left it out, but I didn't I gave all the information that I had to the forum.
d) A very clear path that shows without any ambiguity that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group had 100 Octane
e) Confusion in Fighter Command about the changes needed and the sorting out of those questions (Mr Tweedie)
f) The completion of the task by the oil committee and the note of thanks on the job done.

Note that was all done by May. Even if there was a slight delay the BOB didn't start in anger until a few months later so time was on their side.

g) Finally we have in August permission given to use 100 Octane in all the commands.

All the above supported by consumption details, stock supplies, a good cross section of squadron notes, station notes and other documentation.

As I said earlier, is it a perfect case no, but its a strong one with a lot of documentation to support it.

What documentation have you got to say that 87 Octane was used in Operational missions during the BOB. None.

Some people doubt that all units didn't have 100 octane, so prove it, find any book, any article, any pilots notes or other station record that says that.

I will review Pps posting again with supporting docs as that seems to be key to the anti 100 Octane Brigade and then leave you to it. I can add nothing more.

I completely agree with you.

[winny]

I think there's a way to prove the majority of bases were converted, but it'll be time consuming.

Cross reference the combat reports from the battle mentioning 12lb boost, with the squadron involved, to the movements of that squadron for that date. ie. where were they, a: stationed? and b: where they scrambled from? (not always the same station).

In the past I counted at least 30 squadrons refering to 12lb boost in combat reports between May - July 1940.. That's nearly half of all FC's squadrons.
Add that to the fact that there were only around 30-32 'operational' stations being used at the time, and the rotation system, it would suggest widespread use of 100 octane.


Also does anyone know if you could actually run a converted Merlin on 87 oct?

If it was a case of just swithcing fuels then why the modification to the engine?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

I think there's a way to prove the majority of bases were converted, but it'll be time consuming.

Cross reference the combat reports from the battle mentioning 12lb boost, with the squadron involved, to the movements of that squadron for that date. ie. where were they, a: stationed? and b: where they scrambled from? (not always the same station).

In the past I counted at least 30 squadrons refering to 12lb boost in combat reports between May - July 1940.. That's nearly half of all FC's squadrons.
Add that to the fact that there were only around 30-32 'operational' stations being used at the time, and the rotation system, it would suggest widespread use of 100 octane.


Also does anyone know if you could actually run a converted Merlin on 87 oct?

If it was a case of just swithcing fuels then why the modification to the engine?

Only a selection of squadrons were looked into so before you do this you would have to check every squadrons papers. You would also have to check every station for the fuel, a huge operation.
This is why I call the case a strong case but not a perfect case. The case for the limited use of 87 octane isn't supported by anything, making it a very weak case. They only have Pips posting which I have challenged with supporting documentation.
I would suggest that those who believe in the limited use of 100 octane should be asked to support that view. If they believe that Pips posting is the correct version of events then they need to support it and disprove the original documents that have been posted.

A converted Merlin could run on 87 octane but the performance would obviously be less. In a similar manner, a non converted merlin would run on 100 octane, but to get the performance gain, you need the fuel and the conversion

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

On the contrary there are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the RAF was equipped with 100 Octane for the BOB.

Indeed. There are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the Spitfire I was equipped with only four machine guns. I think we should 'correct' the current error in the sim that it has eight.

Originally Posted by Glider

However There is nothing published anywhere that says that there was a fuel shortage, that they were forced to use 87 octane on operaions. All Kurfurst has posted is a pre war paper that said 18 squadrons of fighters and 2 squadrons of twin engined bombers.

That is a lie. Excerpts from Spitfire the History, by far the most reliable Spitfire source was posted and it says that there were supply problems due to tanker sinkings by U boots.

Originally Posted by Glider

Plus an unsubstantiated posting from an Australian which
a) is riddled with errors.
b) is not supported by anything
c) that no one (not even Kurfurst) has seen
d) whee the archives that are supposed to hold it do not recognise.

Again, lies.

The paper is not riddled with errors.
It is supported by your own documentation
- 18 May 1940 paper showing only select units using 100 octane,
- fuel consumption papers showing large scale conversion did not start until late September,
- early operating Limits of Merlin III XII (+9 except for take off)
Pips seen it and gave reference to it.
The archieves recognise the paper, they have told you loud and clear that you have not asked for the paper with proper description.

So stop lying. Its showing desperation and dishonesty.

Originally Posted by Glider

Now the point of this was to ensure the people who are involved in the coding of the flight simulation were aware that if they followed the ideas put forward by Kurfurst were leaving themselves wide open for adverse comments.

The comments are not wide. Its you and another fanatic partisan arguing everyone else.

I believe the case put foward for the use of 100 Octane in FC by all the units is a strong case, not perfect but strong.

You said it rightly - it is your belief.

We have
a) the pre war intention, of 18 + 2 squadrons
b) the preparation in Dec 1939 for the issues to the FC command stations in two stages initially the First Instance (covering all the Operational Bases and those that were identified at that time that would become operational) and the second tranch (The Non Operational bases). This paper outlines the conditions to be met (stocks to be in place) before it can be used.
c) the request from the Chief of the Air Staff simple and without limitation for fighter units and Blenheim units to start using the 100 Octane. The Chief of the Air Staff doesn't ask permission from the Oil Committee which is headed up by a senior but junior to him Air Force Officer. In the the British Armed Forces orders from senior officers were and are still today, requests.
d) The Oil Committee getting this underway. The Magic 'Certain' word comes up at this stage. Do I wish he hadn't written certain, of course, but I believe that it will refer to the first instance i.e. the operational stations not all the stations in Fighter Command. But Please note, I knew that information would casue confusion and I could have left it out, but I didn't I gave all the information that I had to the forum.
d) A very clear path that shows without any ambiguity that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group had 100 Octane
e) Confusion in Fighter Command about the changes needed and the sorting out of those questions (Mr Tweedie)
f) The completion of the task by the oil committee and the note of thanks on the job done.ote that was all done by May. Even if there was a slight delay the BOB didn't start in anger until a few months later so time was on their side.
g) Finally we have in August permission given to use 100 Octane in all the commands.

re:

a, It actually say 18 + 2 Squadrons, until September 1940. Also that 800 000 tons of reserves need to be accumulated. In spring 1940 there were but 220 000 tons accumulated. Target was not met, period.
b, The document you speak of is a simply assessement of requirement. It mentions 21 Stations (out of ca. 60 operational in BoB).
Can you explain how these 21 Stations of December 1939 magically got 60 by July 1940? You have absolutely no evidence to that, in fact, you haven't find anything to prove your thesis.
c, It doesn't mention anywhere 'without limitation'. This is simply made up by you.
d, Given the lenght of discussion attached to it, you simply lie that the word certain only appeared in early 1940. It was present in all documents dealing with the subject. I've dealt with this in my earlier post, you've seen it, so stop lying.
e, You've got that right. Question arises though - if FC command did not even get the basics yet in spring of 1940, how would they plan for complete changeover - of which there's no sign yet in the papers..
f, All that was done by May is noting that select units were cleared for 100 octane used. You have admitted that nothing changed afterwards, it remained in use with select units.
g, Fuel consumption papers show the actual conversion process did not start until late September 1940.

All the above supported by consumption details, stock supplies, a good cross section of squadron notes, station notes and other documentation.

You have misquoted several papers as shown above and left out conviniently parts that did not fit your thesis.

As I said earlier, is it a perfect case no, but its a strong one with a lot of documentation to support it.

There is a case for select units being equipped in May 1940 with 100 octane fuel. There is no evidence for anything more.

YOU CANNOT DANCE AROUND THAT FACT, I am sorry.

What documentation have you got to say that 87 Octane was used in Operational missions during the BOB. None.

You keep asking that question, you keep answer, then you keep asking again. Who are you trying to bull here? Do you think if you ask the same question, all the uneasy evidence that were posted will just go away? Do you think that if you resort to Goebbels like tactics, repeating the same falsehood again and again, people will believe what you say? Is that the idea, David?

Can we say the complete file of these meetings, David? Why are you holding them back so fiercely? I think this is the best question in thread.

Some people doubt that all units didn't have 100 octane, so prove it, find any book, any article, any pilots story or other station record that says that.

It was already done. You own papers prove that 100 octane was issued to select units/stations. So what are you keeping arguing?

I will review Pps posting again with supporting docs as that seems to be key to the anti 100 Octane Brigade and then leave you to it. I can add nothing more.

Let me summarize what you have posted so far.

That as of May 18 1940, select Fighter and Bomber stations were supplied with 100 octane.
Despite numerous request, you have refused to show what has happened after May 1940, when Pips showed that the conversion stopped.
That in early August 1940 100 octane use was authorized for all aircraft.
That this wasn't even started to be implemented until late September 1940.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

That as of May 18 1940, select Fighter and Bomber stations were supplied with 100 octane.
Despite numerous request, you have refused to show what has happened after May 1940, when Pips showed that the conversion stopped.
That in early August 1940 100 octane use was authorized for all aircraft.
That this wasn't even started to be implemented until late September 1940.

Why are you so "this is a lie" ? Surley you mean it's incorrect. Your bias shines through when you start accusing people of lying.

Combat reports mentioning 12lb and home station (therefore 100 octane must be present at station)

74 Squadron 24th May 1940 - Hornchurch & Manston - 100 octane
54 Squadron 25th May 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane
19 Squadron 26th May 1940 - Duxford - 100 octane
611 Squadron 2nd June 1940 - ? (Catterick?) or Duxford
610 Squadron 12th June 1940 - Biggin Hill - 100 octane
41 Squadron 19th June 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane

Looks like 4 stations must have had 100 octane in May/June (Keep in mind that these are just the combat reports I've found, need more)

No new squadrons appear till August when first new references to 12lb start to appear..
for 64, 603, 602 and 234 squadrons
In September more appear
152, 66, 72, 609, 222.

I haven't checked the stations for August / September, yet

Anyone know of any good BoB combat report sites?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

Why are you so "this is a lie" ? Surley you mean it's incorrect.

I do not mean his position. He has an opinion, which is may be inccorect, but he has the right to be believe it.

However if someone pretends he hadn't seen the posts in this (and other) threads and pretend they do not exist, and keep posting that has not seen anything, it is something different. He knows they exists, he is aware of the points taken in them.

To say that nothing was put forward when it was done is a lie intend to mislead those who did not read the thread, pure and simple. There's no reason to call this incorrect. To say for example that nothing proves that Pips was right about the late September 1940 conversion, when I have shown David the fuel deliveries at least three times now, showing exactly what Pips notes, and he quickly jumps over it and fails to comment, I will not say he is incorrect when he again starts saying the same thing again a few pages later like if nothing happened.

It would be a different matter if he would say he does not agree with my conclusions, but he keeps making these foggy references to "hundreds books" etc. David is in pure denial and now he is becoming desperate and starting to use underhand tactics instead of putting forward a good arguement, and good sources.

To put it blunt, all he does in the 20 or so pages is to threaten to developers that they will be considered donkeys if they do not follow his opinion, and post the same two papers in which he reads something that goes to directly against the meaning of the words on the paper. Apparantly that just about nobody agrees with his interpretation of the May 18 and previous papers, which clearly say select squadrons, this does not stop him from keeping saying he has seen nothing, and keep telling everyone nobody has managed to prove him wrong, imply to everyone that the Australian paper is a lie. At the same time he simply does not asnwer the questions put to him. That's desperate.

Originally Posted by winny

Combat reports mentioning 12lb and home station (therefore 100 octane must be present at station)

74 Squadron 24th May 1940 - Hornchurch & Manston - 100 octane
54 Squadron 25th May 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane
19 Squadron 26th May 1940 - Duxford - 100 octane
611 Squadron 2nd June 1940 - ? (Catterick?) or Duxford
610 Squadron 12th June 1940 - Biggin Hill - 100 octane
41 Squadron 19th June 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane

Looks like 4 stations must have had 100 octane in May/June (Keep in mind that these are just the combat reports I've found, need more)

No new squadrons appear till August when first new references to 12lb start to appear..
for 64, 603, 602 and 234 squadrons
In September more appear
152, 66, 72, 609, 222.

I haven't checked the stations for August / September, yet

Anyone know of any good BoB combat report sites?

Now this is GOOD analytical work! Check out the Grunch's post earlier, I think he did the same. Actually if you manage to finish this work, would you be as kind as sharing this collection in the same format? Ie. Sqn - date - base. I can look up the base if you give me the two other particulars.

I think this approach is the most useful, as this gives the best idea to identify 100 octane Stations. Ie. 74, 54 and 41 Sqns all reported 100 octane use, and all of them were at the time based in Hornchurch.