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

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Now, there is no doubt that 100 Octane fuel was available to Fighter Command before and during the Battle of Britain.

really ?

20000 post of the same "piece of evidence" does not makes it a demonstrated fact. We are still waiting for some cross references.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

really ?

20000 post of the same "piece of evidence" does not makes it a demonstrated fact. We are still waiting for some cross references.

One combat report that shows the use of +12 boost (which requires 100 octane) is enough to proof that 100 octane was available. Of course it doesn't proof that it is available to all units, that's why NZtyphoon did the calculation.

[lane]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

One combat report that shows the use of +12 boost (which requires 100 octane) is enough to proof that 100 octane was available.

Here's one!

[lane]

June - Aug 1940 = 10,000 tons consumed
Sept - = 14,000 tons consumed
Oct = 17,000 tons consumed

Hi NZtyphoon:

Please note that the 10,000 tons of 100 octane, shown in Table II - Consumption consumed for the period June - Aug 1940, is the monthly average of those 3 months, therefore for the period June - Aug 1940 30,000 tons were actually consumed.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by lane

Here's one!
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lane-26-5-40.jpg

IIRC no one contested this (availabe or not), only the quantity.
Interesting report. When he used the 12 lbs boost on deck, he was able to fly with only 300 mph...

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

IIRC no one contested this (availabe or not), only the quantity.

Indeed. I don't think anybody has doubts that 100 octane was used in a number of FC's - and also BC's Squadrons., as a number of Blenheim Squadrons (3 or 4 I believe), were also issued with the fuel. Which is why NYTyphoons 'calculations' are flawed and be considered at best for their entertainment value, as he ignores all bombers with many times the consumption and requirement of a fighter squadron, as well as training, moving flights and engine manufacturer demands, which are are simply ignored.

But the evidence to somewhat sensational claim that 100 octane was the only fuel issued is still sorely lacking and is directly contradicted by a number of primary and secondary sources. As another poster said, its a bit boring to see the same piece of non-evidence posted the 20000th time, it only seems to reinforce the sense that some people are perhaps a bit fanatical about enforcing their views on the others.

The trend shown in the consumption of 87 octane and 100 octane fuel is, however intererting. It is clear that about 2/3s of the fuel consumed during the Battle was 87 octane (by all Commands) and 1/3 consumed was 100 octane (by Fighter and Bomber Commands).

Checking the trend lines of operational (combat) Fighter sorties and 87 octane consumption during the Battle is interesting. When Fighter Command flew a lot of sorties, 87 octane issues also increased, when Fighter Command flew less of sorties, 87 octane demands decreased, with some delay of course. I think the conclusion is quite obvious.

Another interesting trend is that 87 octane issues suddenly plummeted during early october, while 100 octane issues increased. This is in line with Pips summary of the Australian paper, which notes that Fighter Command only switched completely over to 100 octane in the late automn 1940.

Its also completely in line with what an unquestionably reputable secondary source, Morgan nad Shacklady's ultimate Spitfire book, 'Spitfire: The History' notes about the initial uncertainity of 100 octane shipments (as all 100 octane had to be imported from overseas).

It also refers to the fact that RAF was intending to initially equip 16 fighter Squadrons and 2 bomber Squadrons with 100 octane, which is again underlined by the memo of the Fuel Commitee's meeting, noting that the selected fighter Squadrons and Blenheim Squadrons have been converted, the memo of which was summarized in a 'doctored' textus on Mike William's site to further the site's agenda.

Also of interest that the RAF wished to build up a reserve of 800 000 tons for precaution, which couldn't be met in 1940.

[Osprey]

What exactly would make you happy Kurfurst?

[TomcatViP]

A 100° British lager ?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

What exactly would make you happy Kurfurst?

How about even a decision or plan after the spring of 1940 (when this paper states that select squadrons are to be issued with 100 octane, so we can know for quite certain that at this point, it was meant for some and not all) that all Fighter Squadrons are to switch over to 100 octane? Even a plan, a draft..? Apparently, people who have been quite desperate to find such evidence for years could find none, even though I am quite sure they looked under every rock and grow rather frustrated in the process.

I am quite certain that if the British took such pain to note and discuss at such high levels that some Squadrons will use 100 octane from - was it March? - there should be ample discussion and record about extending the avgas issues to other Squadrons.

The lack of such evidence makes it quite likely that such sudden, overnight changeover simply didn't happen until after the Battle.

[Al Schlageter]

This is in line with Pips summary of the Australian paper, which notes that Fighter Command only switched completely over to 100 octane in the late automn 1940.

LOL, this mysterious paper that only one person has ever seen.

So tell me Barbi, which fighter squadrons that were based on airfields on the CloD map were only using 87 octane fuel.