SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Seadog

So you admit you can't produce evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB RAF FC Hurricane and Spitfire using 87 octane.

Same as you can't PROVE that there wasn't one.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by robtek

Same as you can't PROVE that there wasn't one.

Then why is there abundant evidence showing widespread use of 100 octane, and literally dozens of memoirs and histories showing the use of 100 octane, and many individual combat reports showing the use of 100 octane? Why are there no memoirs or squadron level or individual combat reports stating the use of 87 octane fuel?

I can't prove something that didn't happen, and there is NO evidence showing 87 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties during the BofB.

There is evidence for widespread 100 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane BofB combat sorties , but no evidence of Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties using 87 octane.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Then why is there abundant evidence showing widespread use of 100 octane, and literally dozens of memoirs and histories showing the use of 100 octane, and many individual combat reports showing the use of 100 octane? Why are there no memoirs or squadron level or individual combat reports stating the use of 87 octane fuel?

I can't prove something that didn't happen, and there is NO evidence showing 87 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties during the BofB.

There is evidence for widespread 100 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane BofB combat sorties , but no evidence of Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties using 87 octane.

There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

The compromise solution might be that the overwhelming majority did use 100 oct.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by robtek

There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

The compromise solution might be that the overwhelming majority did use 100 oct.

Agreed.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by robtek

There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

The compromise solution might be that the overwhelming majority did use 100 oct.

I think people will be more than happy with this, because then the mission builders can decide, and people can vote with there feet.

So we need a hurri and a spit mk 1 with 100 octane fuel as well, as the 87 octane versions we already have.

Everybody happy?

[Blakduk]

No, not happy at all.

All the evidence indicates that 100 octane fuel was ubiquitous in Fighter command during the Battle of Britain. The only 'evidence' to the contrary is one unverified document that allegedly existed at some time in an archive in Australia, that now cannot be retrieved. There is unfortunately no copy of it anywhere and repeated requests by members of other forums to be shown evidence confirming the existence of this document have come to nought.

The British had determined to use 100 octane fuel in aeroplanes in 1938 (despite the technological hurdles confronting them in refining the stuff). Sufficient advances in techonology were achieved such that by later 1939 the decision was made to standardise Fighter Command's fuel to 100 octane. Conversion took place throughout the early part of 1940, to the extent that it was considered standard by March/April 1940. By July 1940, when the BoB was beginning, it was a done deal.
Conversion for the remainder of the RAF (bomber and coastal command) was ordered in late 1940 but not completed until early 1941.

To insist on placating a person who has a contrary belief despite the lack of supporting evidence for their view is pure folly.

As Geoffery Lloyd, the minister for 'Fuel and Power' in 1940 later said in answer to a question put to him in 1944 'Do you think 100 octane was the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain in 1940?', he replied 'I think we would not have won the battle of britain without 100 octane- but we did have 100 octane'.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by robtek

There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

The compromise solution might be that the overwhelming majority did use 100 oct.

There is a black and white dicotomy:

White: There is evidence for numerous combat sorties by BofB Hurricanes and Spitfires using 100 octane fuel.

Black: There is NO evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB Hurricane or Spitfire using 87 octane fuel.

There is NO grey zone, because if there was, there would be evidence for combat sorties with 87 octane fuel along with 100 octane fuel.

Theory: 100 octane was used exclusively by front-line RAF FC Hurricanes and Spitfires during the BofB.

Theory predicts that combat reports would be uncovered showing 100 octane use. These reports exist and have been brought to light; the theory correctly predicts the evidence.

Theory: 87 and 100 octane was used by front-line RAF FC Hurricanes and Spitfires during the BofB.

Theory predicts that combat reports would be uncovered showing 87 octane use. These reports do not exist, and none have ever been published.
The theory fails the evidence test.