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

[Crumpp]

Crumpp if the British government did break the "law" by not following some peacetime convention.

This is where you need the guy with the party hat icon.

Funny I can't find anything in the Mustang notes about 25lbs of boost either. It did happen however.

Yes it did and it was not the standard for the Mustang either. It was an special condition so it is not found in the Flight Information Manual.

In this case, the claim is 100 Octane fuel was the standard fuel of the RAF in July 1940 and throughout the Battle of Britain.

That is just not true. DtD 230, otherwise known as 87 Octane was the standard fuel of Fighter Command in July 1940 and 100 Octane was in the process of introduction on a limited basis.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is just not true. DtD 230, otherwise known as 87 Octane was the standard fuel of Fighter Command in July 1940 and 100 Octane was in the process of introduction on a limited basis.

You have the fuel consumption numbers for 87 fuel and 100 fuel for FC to back up your statement?

What is limited basis? I wouldn't say 20+ squadrons out of 55 squadrons is limited basis.

Yes it did and it was not the standard for the Mustang either. It was an special condition so it is not found in the Flight Information Manual.

So this could apply to 100 fuel use then?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

In this case, the claim is 100 Octane fuel was the standard fuel of the RAF in July 1940 and throughout the Battle of Britain.
.

The claim is that 100 octane was the standard fuel for FC in July 1940, not the RAF. The rest of the RAF were using 87 octane hence the consumption figures

[Crumpp]

The claim is that 100 octane was the standard fuel for FC in July 1940, not the RAF.

You are right, I meant FC.

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.

It is that simple and elegant, guys. No need to construct elaborate arguments based on circumstance and assumption.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You are right, I meant FC.

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.

It is that simple and elegant, guys. No need to construct elaborate arguments based on circumstance and assumption.

No you cannot. You calculate the dates from when the fuel was delivered and used using official documents. That isn't an assumption, its a fact, its simple and foolproof.

Trying to calculate when it was used based on a 1942 copy of a pilots notes for a plane that isn't in use in operational squadrons, isn't just an assumption, its a pipedream.

PS using your Logistic hat you might want to comment on :-

Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

For the 16 FC squadrons + 2 Bomber squadrons
a) We don't know who made the decision to continue with this program once war started
b) We don't know that phase IV testing was on going in 1940
c) We don't know which squadrons or which stations were supposed to have the 100 Octane
d) We don't know how it was to be rolled out
e) If this theory is correct, We don't know when the rest of FC had 100 Octane issued
f) We do know that the limit of 2 squadrons of Bombers mentioned in this paper was disregarded, which must question why the fighter limit is supposed to be maintained

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

Almost got it correct, but just like Mike, you seem to have missed a small detail mentioned in those "official records in the NA".

And that is all the papers talk of select fighter and bomber stations. I am sorry, I know you would like to forget that part, but that seems to be a major fly in the ointment of your whole thesis.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Almost got it correct, but just like Mike, you seem to have missed a small detail mentioned in those "official records in the NA".

And that is all the papers talk of select fighter and bomber stations. I am sorry, I know you would like to forget that part, but that seems to be a major fly in the ointment of your whole thesis.

Nope, you know my understanding of the select fighter units. Its those that hadn't yet converted, you disagree but its nticable that you don't have a position yourself. Neither do you put anything else up to counter my view just mention the one word, on the one paper.

So to help us understand your position, How many squadrons do you believe used 100 octane in the BOB, and how do you support it?

[Kurfürst]

I have made my position perfectly clear several times. Read back in the thread. Just because you pretend I did not and keep asking the same, already answered question does not get you anywhere.

And its not one paper, its the same note of select fighter and bomber stations in each and every paper. If you choose to ignore it like my previous answers, it is not my problem I am afraid.

[Crumpp]

How many squadrons do you believe used 100 octane in the BOB, and how do you support it?

Kurfurst would be smart to stay the hell away from that question. It is an opinion at this point and not fact. I was asked the same thing by you and offered my opinion. Go back and read the immature garbage the spouts from certain participants in this thread.

Thing about opinion is everyone has one and in the western world the idea of free speech says we all can have one too.

However when presents an opinion on such a subject as the exact number of squadrons at a specified point in time and backs up with the relevant facts, the personal assaults begin. Why? That is good tactic when your argument is based on emotion, circumstance, and assumption.

Thing about the facts on this point is we don't have all of them to make a pinpoint determination. We can only make general statements.

Crumpp says:

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

It is clear that Fighter Command was in process of adopting the fuel but it is equally clear that process was not complete in July 1940. There is no agreement on the end dates for the Battle of Britain. So, depending on the dates one chooses for the battle to end, the process was or was not completed during the battle itself.

The only document that will give us an approximate time for the completion of the transition is the operating notes. If you find an earlier edition that lists 100 Octane in Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine then you will know within a few weeks when the transition was completed.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Almost got it correct, but just like Mike, you seem to have missed a small detail mentioned in those "official records in the NA".

And that is all the papers talk of select fighter and bomber stations. I am sorry, I know you would like to forget that part, but that seems to be a major fly in the ointment of your whole thesis.

What Kurfurst and Crumpp have both conveniently missed is that the March 1939 plan for 16 Fighter Squadrons and 2 bomber was provisional: right down the page para 8 says:

"A.M.D.P asked that D.D.C(3) should keep him informed of the rate of output of 100 octane fuel in order that the rate of change-over of squadrons to this fuel could be kept under review in the light of any [I]diminution or acceleration in supplies.[/U]" (attachment 1) Should the rate of fuel supply increase, the rate and numbers of squadrons changing over to its use could increase as well.

Supplies of 100 octane fuel continued to increase from 202,000 tons in December 1939, which was the time specified for the change over.

By November 1939 it was considered that there were "adequate reserves" of 100 octane fuel to go ahead with the modification of all Hurricane and Spitfire Merlin engines to use 12 lb boost.



Squadrons did not, and could not hold their own fuel supplies, to require them to do so would be an operational and logistical nightmare: it was airbases that were supplied with fuel, not individual squadrons. In the 6 May 1940 paper (Item 9 7th Meeting Summary...) "Units concerned" cannot be talking about individual squadrons, it is referring to bases which, depending on their importance, (eg; Sector Station) hosted up to three squadrons. 18 squadrons = 8-10 airbases.

The December 7 1939 letter, which sets out a process for supplying 100 Octane fuel starts:

"I have the honour to refer to my letter...dated 27 October 1939, regarding the issue of 100 Octane Fuel for use in Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft in this Command." (attachment 2)

25 Fighter Stations were listed as requiring 100 octane fuel "in the first instance", including non-operational Kenley, Usworth and Hendon, with a further 17 non-operational bases which required supplies for visiting aircraft, but "which have no Hurricane or Spitfire aircraft at the moment."

Squadrons that were to use 100 octane fuel were not selected by Squadron number but by the type of aircraft used. Bases that hosted these aircraft types were accordingly supplied with 100 octane fuel. Same for the Bomber squadrons, namely Blenheims. The only Blenheim capable of using 100 octane fuel was the Mk IV the first of which emerged in March 1939. The Defiant was not listed in December because it was not yet operational.

All of the 11 Group Sector stations were listed, plus Filton which, in June 1940, became part of the new 10 Group; 4 out of 5 12 Group sector stations, 2 out of 5 13 Group sector stations, and 11 other airfields, including 6 of 11 Group were listed.

The May 18 1940 memo expresses satisfaction that the units concerned - viz Hurricane and Spitfire Squadrons - had "NOW been stocked with the neccesary 100 octane fuel."

In May 1940 stocks of 100 Octane fuel were 294,000 tons, while stocks of "other grades" were 298,000 tons (attachment 3). Far from there being a crisis in the supply, of 100 Octane preventing a continued change over of units (according to the famous Pips document) for the next two months, 100 Octane fuel was becoming the dominant fuel type being stocked; by August 404,000 tons was being held, cf 230,000 tons of "other grades". Between December 1939 and December 1940 the overall increase in 100 Octane stocks was 297,000 tons, in spite of the fact that some 93,000 tons had been consumed between June and December 1940.

Fact is Luftwaffe fuel stocks were lower or almost the same in 1940 as those of the RAF

It would also seem that the Luftwaffe had provisional pre-war plans for fuel stocks which changed once war had been declared:

Even as late as October, 1938, the Germans apparently had not expected to need reserves of oil until much later. A captured plan dated 30 January 1939 shows that the Luftwaffe then foresaw a relatively small increase (between 270,000 and 420,000 tons per year) in its consumption of aviation gasoline in the autumn, presumably to cover the Polish campaign. A tremendous increase, to 2,600,000 or even 5,200,000 tons per year, was not scheduled to occur until 1 October 1940, when the real war presumably was to have begun.

Kurfurst can stick to the phrase "selected" as much as he likes - it is a purely provisional phrase in a pre-war plan, and the 16 + 2 squadrons was conditional based on fuel supply. This was all explained long ago but completely ignored by Kurfurst and Crumpp.