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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Well don't hold your breath!

But seriosly.. You guys really need to stop wasting your time with these guys.. Put them on ignore and lets work togther to put togther a package for Luiter.

I agree - this thread has long run its course; if Barbi and Crumpp and co want to believe in their horse pucky let 'em - I nominate and second Ace to be organiser.

[Al Schlageter]

A little graphic I put together using info from this thread, the official RAF website and the Spit Perf website. It is from July 1 to Sept 30 1940.

[Osprey]

Nice, but can we have is in .xls?

[Al Schlageter]

xls is not a savable extension in SmartDraw.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

I nominate and second Ace to be organiser.

Well.. if no one else wants to do it I can hurd the cats!

Ill start a group PM this weekend.. We can discuss our goals and work from there. S!

[Crumpp]

By Crumpp's reasoning the RAF mixed up small batches of 100 octane fuel then let it sit around, or tested it to see if it would work, instead of using as much as possible at a time when the country was facing full scale air assault!

No...you did not read the link.

Once a fuel is blended, it is considered consumed just I told you before. I just pointed out the error in fact you are making.

My personal belief is the RAF operated 16 squadrons on the fuel as that is what our facts say. No need to build a house of cards based on crude, one-dimensional, speculation and factual error.

[Crumpp]

Here is a PPT presentation on the tax issues of gasoline production. The important take away is the Terminal does the blending from Gasoline stocks(see page 8 ). Now there are different types of gasoline stocks. You don't use car gasoline stock to produce 100LL aviation fuel. Just like 100 grade aviation fuel used during WWII, 100LL has its own blend-stock but like all gasoline products it must be blended at the terminal just before delivery to the customer to make the finished product.

http://www.api.org/meetings/topics/t...ar_Garza-2.pdf

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

No...you did not read the link.

Once a fuel is blended, it is considered consumed just I told you before. I just pointed out the error in fact you are making.

My personal belief is the RAF operated 16 squadrons on the fuel as that is what our facts say. No need to build a house of cards based on crude, one-dimensional, speculation and factual error.

Sure Eugene, that is why this paper says 'weekly issues' instead of the word 'weekly consumption'.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-100octane.jpg

Lots of gum flapping without listing those 16 squadrons.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

My personal belief is the RAF operated 16 squadrons on the fuel as that is what our facts say. No need to build a house of cards based on crude, one-dimensional, speculation and factual error.

Which is exactly what you're doing, and you will clearly stick to your core belief come hell or high water. Not a problem.

If you want to continue to believe that for some obscure reason the RAF issued 62,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel, then consumed 52,000 gallons, while only needing some 16,000 tons to fly every sortie flown between July 10 and October 6 then okay, that's your pigeon.

If you want to stick to the story that the RAF only allowed 16 squadrons to use the fuel, based on an abbreviated, pre-war transcript of what was probably a lengthy discussion - go ahead.

If you honestly believe that modern peacetime practices equate to 1940s wartime conditions when, as I will repeat - because you can't seem to grasp this tiny issue - the RAF was fighting off a full scale air assault, hey go for it!

Alec Harvey-Bailey, The Merlin in Perspective, (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Derby, 1983)


W.G. Dudek and D. R. Winans, excerpt from AIAA Paper No. 69-779, Milestones in Aviation Fuels, (Esso Research and Engineering Company, New York 1969.)


A. R. Ogston, excerpt from History of Aircraft Lubricants (Society of Automotive Enginees, Inc. Warrendale, PA USA), p. 12.


Just explain to everyone why it is that people far more qualified than you say the fuel was blended at the refineries, then shipped to Britain as 100 Octane fuel? (Not forgetting, either, that 100 octane was also blended in Britain, which is why some of the Beaconhill fuel was set aside as a sample.) And please explain why people, who are far more qualified than you, tell us that the switchover to 100 Octane for all Spitfires and Hurricanes was in March 1940?

And please explain why the same rules don't apply to other grades of aviation fuel? Why is it that you accept entirely the proposition that the RAF can issue and consume 87 Octane fuel, which is also blended, in large quantities and you have no similar objections? Hmmm? Why apply this logic ONLY to 100 Octane fuel?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

My personal belief is the RAF operated 16 squadrons on the fuel as that is what our facts say. No need to build a house of cards based on crude, one-dimensional, speculation and factual error.

You are of course free to believe what you like but you cannot claim any facts, for instance.

a) You do not know which squadrons
b) You do not know which stations
c) You do not know how it was to be distributed
d) You do know the roll out schedule,
e) You do not even know if the schedule was kept at 16 fighter squadrons as the last para states that this is subject to change.

Now if you can prove any of the above, you might have a case as without any proof you do not have any facts

Can you list the facts you do have.