It seems you are applying for membership in ROLC, Kwiatek.

You have seen it, we disagree on it but you have seen it.

.Many thanks, that wasn't too painful was it

Well i think i have not such skill and time for these :)

Maby beacuse over these i definitly prefer to do these:

http://i45.tinypic.com/10n4wns.jpg

or these

http://i48.tinypic.com/2cieedf.jpg


:rolleyes:

I agree with this Robtek. I do not see any definitive proof by both sides. Outstanding claims requires outstanding proof. And both failed to provide.

hmmmm, i see lots of evidence from one side, but i quite readily concede not absolute conclusive proof beyond all doubt, and no evidence at all on the other side that has any bearing, from the church of the luftwhiners.

but i await to be dazzled by some evidence from Kurfurst/Crummp, and there disciples of the church of luftwhiners, Ernst Robtek and Doggles, at some point.

Beginning to call the other side names is not the most subtle avowal of defeat.

so where's your evidence:rolleyes:

by the way, Kurfurst and Crummp have been insulting people for pages now, lol!

Both may have failed to provide definitive proof but only the advocates of RAF 100 octane use have come up with 'any' evidence, give the debate has now turned to wether the RAF's use of 100 extensive or not the distinct lack of any evidence of 87 octane use works in it's favour.

definitive proof may ultimately prove to be unobtainable, so common sense would dictate the acceptance of exclusive use of 100 octane based on the 'only' evidence provided.

What he said.

But all said and done, from the games point of view, as i have said before along with others, this argument is largely irrelevant, as everyone agrees that there should be 100 octane spits and hurris. Frequency is what is being argued about, mission builders can decide that in there own missions, and people can vote with there feet, based on what they believe.

My post to Black Six last February 10th re 100 octane shows we're no further along; in fact we were pushed backward in flight modelling since then with the recent alpha patch + Hotfix.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...1&postcount=84

I am not optimistic about any further FM "improvements", especially in how any specifics are being withheld.

I don't think that they will model 100 octane fuel.

I've pretty much given up on this game having any historical relevance to the BoB.

In fact, I've pretty much given up on the game being fixed full stop.

I hope you're wrong, but I understand how you feel.

It's pretty incredible that the RAF fighters are so poorly modelled.

to be fair its not even just the RAF fighters.

This one...

So tell me if you, and Robtec, with your absolutely unbiased minds, if the game makes it far enough and the developers model late war a/c, would you support the inclusion of the 1.98ata boost Bf109K-4 in the game?

Feel free to point that out fruitbat.

I, for my part, am for the inclusion of ANY variant of EVERY model of airplane from any nation which flew between 1935 and 1947.

It is up to the server operator/mission builder to create his version of the most accurate picture of the intended scenario.

To have a unlimited fundus to create this scenario from would really help.

But you miss the question here, it is not about having the 100 oct. versions included in game, that is what we all want.

It seems it is about to get the 87 oct. versions excluded, as the claim is that only 100 oct. was used by the FC.

I am against ANY exclusion of a plane, or a version of a plane, that did fly between 1935 and 1947.

I appreciate what you're saying, it would be really great to have all variants. I am all for 1938 Spitfire with early canopy, manual gear control, Woodbridge propeller, 87 octane fuel and early antenna mast, although this variant has been never used in a combat (except for Battle of Barking Creek lol). But for what this simulator is - Battle of Britain, summer of 1940, we should have upgraded version of the fighter and that includes 100 octane spirit. There is no question that this is what they had in the fueltanks since Dunkirque. Yes, 87 octane fuel has been used but is irellevant to what we have in the game - 11th group, summer 1940, frontline fighters facing Luftwaffe. No 87 octane fuel in this case. 100%-ly.

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

And it's never been disproved that the Luftwaffe weren't using HP brown sauce sachets in their MG's either. You are using the exact argument that religious people use about god - "Prove he doesn't exist". The thing is you cannot provide evidence for something that is not there, you can only say it is not there because there is no evidence.

Imagine if our courts worked like this - "We have no evidence that you were at the murder scene so we cannot rule out that you weren't there - Guilty". It's nonsense Robtek i'm afraid.

it's not about wether 87 octane use can be disproved, it's about only evidence for 100 octane exists and common sense.

Do you guys actually believe yourselves when you say stuff like this??

:rolleyes:

We are not talking some abstract concept.

An airplane must use a specified fuel. Dtd 230 was 87 Octane.

What was the service specification for 100 Octane? You know, the non-provisional one?

Precisely.......so when they filled Blenheims with 87 'and' 100 octane the fuel was specified.....besides wasn't 100 octane DTD 224?

It would take a little common sense to understand the logic I demonstrated. I'm not interested in your red tape based argument, it's complete nonsense.

Yes, the provisional specification that does not appear anywhere else.


On the otherhand, DTD 230 is commonly referenced both in the Operating Notes and Air Ministry.

Common sense dictates.....


;)

It is no not nearly as nonsensical as the argument that Fighter Command was not using the specified fuel listed in the Operating Notes as well as the fuel that was the major type on the airfields.

Your argument is based on the disbelief that convention does not exist in aircraft so they are not strictly regulated and everything is implicit in their operation.

To be honest 100 octane never seemed to get an official DTD number (unless you can lay your hands on a source)

But considering 100 octane was in use by civil operators in Britain before 1939...even found an article from 1937 discussing the use of diesel engines to replace 100 octane burning petrol engines, and by 1940 there were already plans on making fuels of more than 100 octane widely available then yes common sense would dictate that by the outbreak of war 87 octane was already relegated to secondary use while being phased out.

heres some stuff I found while researching, just thought some was interesting reading.

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...1/394.abstract

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg00226.html

Couple more..

p.s. ignore the second image, it has no relevance, I attached it by mistake.

Yes it was....

It actually was available pretty early. Problem was there was not way to make it in quantity or economically.

It was about 2 dollars a gallon in 1939 while 87 Octane was ~.15 cents a gallon.

Yeah.....I eventually saw that, question is still can anyone find the oficial DTD number for 100 octane?

Irrelevant, there is pretty much no upper price limit in times of war...hence why Britain was 'broke' by the end of war.

I am sure you can find all kinds of references to 100 Octane fuel in the 1930's.

Here is the Popular Science archives to help you out!

http://www.popsci.com/archives

It was quite a leap forward in fuel technology and was greatly anticipated.

Help me how?.....I wasn't highlighting surprise at reference to 100 octane prior to 1939, it's practically common knowlege.

No the real surprise is that you 'still' insist 87 octane was the main fuel in use......has anyone asked you to produce a shred of 'evidence' yet?

Britain was 'broke' by 1941, that's why L-L came into existence in the first place. The British could no longer pay the US supplies.

Fuel costs were a factor, reading the papers show that the British were quite aware and sensitive of the costs. Bomber Command's request for uniform supply of stations with 100 octane was turned down, even at the cost of a rather awkward system with both 87 and 100 octane stocks at these stations.

The British got their fuel supplies from the market, and had limited amount of cash. Try doing some shopping without money.. things don't come free, even in war.

Not issued. Initially using a provisional specification R.D.E./F/100, later manuals refer to 87 octane, 100 octane or 150 octane fuels as such.

Again,

Read the Operating Notes.....Spitfire Mk I, July 1940:

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/5...pecificati.png

I respect your opinion, of course. But with this logic, you can not disaprove anything, really. Somebody mentioned orange crows in here already... ;)

With all due respect - there is lots of literature written about this era. It's one of the most researched in all aspects. I've never heard of pilot account mentioning something like ''Oh blimey I've been just transferred to this new squadron and they still fly on low octane fuel and gosh is it difficult now to fight the Jerry''. I hope you agree that the difference was big enough to be mentioned. Somewhere. I've just spent last year reading all these books and articles again while I am involved in this sim. Fascinating stuff on both sides. No mention of 87 octanes whatsoever.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence (direct and indirect) about 100 octane spirit since the French campaign. Please don't get yourself confused with certain claims some people here are trying to make, these theories are rather ridiculous. :grin:

Although I agree we never know if all the RAF fighters got only 100 octane fuel, it is the most relevant for what this sim represents. Unless you want to fly some OTU Spitfire in Scotland. Yet, we haven't got it modelled. :(

All aircraft fuel must be specified.

Just the fact it is the specified fuel and the FC consumed millions of gallons of it.

Not referenced in aircraft and engine manuals, though. Because there was a variety of 100 octane fuels which could be used. Asking for THE specification of "100 octane" is like asking for THE flavour of "ice cream". There are plenty.

No it is not.

From the January 20, 1943 Edition of the P-47B, C, and D Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions:

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1...cification.png

All fuel is specified by convention and by convention is part of the airworthiness instructions for the design. The aircraft's publications will list the fuel by specification that is authorized.

Yes, but not in front line fighters. ;)

Edit - ah, just noticed Crumpp is saying FC. No, not millions of gallons then. :D

There is data on 100 octane consumption by RAF FC but I don't see anything on consumption from those claiming 87 octane.

How much 87 octane fuel did RAF FC consume during the BoB?

Congrats, you just found one. I guess if you look a little bit more, you can find a dozen others, at least half of which could be used with the Merlin.

I do like the way that the big questions get ignored while attention is diverted down side streets.

The arguement seems to be the RAF couldn't use 100 octane because a manual that may or may not have an accurate date, may or may not have all the updates posted in it, didn't mention 100 Octane in one section. Maybe its being simplistic but if I have a combat report from a Spitfire Unit saying that it was used in combat then the engine had been modified to use it and it was used.

However there is no doubting that on average 10,000 tons of the stuff was consumed each month from April - July 1940. We have combat reports that say that it was used and station reports that say that they had been equipped with 100 octane. We also know that Bomber Command, Transport Command, Coastal Command, Non Operational units didn't use it until post August 1940
So if the nay sayers say that FC didn't use it, who did?

Its worth remembering that the whole of the UK only used 36,000 tons of fuel a month so 10,000 tons is just under 30% of the fuel used in the UK. Now if Crumpp can give a reply to that question with some evidence instead of just another theory then its worth paying attention to it.

Blenheim IV manual amendment 3 issued no later than January 1940 says 100 octane in the outer fuel tanks. I'd therefore disagree that BC did not use 100 octane until August 1940.

Source please.

Spitfire 1 entered service in 1938 and the reference to the Merlin II, an engine no longer in production by July 1940, indicates that this manual refers to a pre-1940 variant:








ii

Agree. In addition the papers David showed specifically mention that ca. 3-4 Bomber Command stations were only to be supplied with 100 octane fuel.

So I guess the million dollar question is who (BC Stations, FC Stations, manufacturers etc.) used and what amount of the fuel, and in what role (operational/non-operational flights, test trials).

Show us evidence for at least one operational 87 octane RAF FC combat sortie during the BofB or admit that you have no evidence to contradict the multiple sources that state 100% 100 octane use by RAF FC during the BofB, such as:

Seadog, do I take it right that your most serious evidence for 100% 100 octane fuel use is a wartime British article from a aviation magazine?

100 Octane was always called 100 Octane in RAF service, right throughout the war; the relevant designation was B.A.M (British Air Ministry) 100, but it was seldom referred to as such, being referred to in Pilot's Notes right through the war as 100 Octane with no D.T.D = Directorate of Technical Development, which dealt with developing equipment, aircraft and stores for the RAF. Because 100 Octane fuel was developed outside of the RAF and Air Ministry's direct control as a private venture by oil companies it was never allocated a DTD number.
Note also that the only engines cleared to use 100 Octane fuel in 1940 were Merlin II & III, XII and XX and the Bristol Mercury XV - which is a very good indicator as to what aircraft types used 100 Octane fuel.

That article excerpt was at hand; but it states unequivocally that 100 octane was in universal use. The evidence for 100% 100 octane use by RAF FC during the BofB is extensive and overwhelming. There are multiple other sources that state 100% 100 octane use during the BofB, and more that infer 100% use, but no sources have ever been produced or presented by you to challenge these sources. You talk about "serious evidence" and then present us with absolutely laughable material that long predates the BofB. You use the methods of a holocaust denier and then expect us to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

You can't produce evidence for a even single operational 87 octane RAF FC sortie during the BofB.

Why do you always ignore the other papers that show the rule of thumb was to have 5/6th of the fuel to be 100 octane and 1/6th 87 octane. You know that only 4 No 2 Grp stations were 100% equipped with 100 Octane.

If you look JtD, it is in every airplane's published material.

Just like the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes clearly states DtD 230 is the specified fuel.

It is not always in the same location or format, though. Unfortunately they did not think to standardize Operating Instruction formats by convention until much later.

The convention's in place during WWII only agreed the information must be published and followed.

Keep repeating it and might come true!!

It worked for Dorathy.

Because AFAIK there are no such papers. The one you refer to merely makes a practical example for fuel storage with ad hoc numbers, as you are well aware.

Apparantly you are aware of that too - Bomber Command was using 100 octane as of May 1940. Of course other Blenheim stations must have had some, too, for the some of their fuel tanks to help with takeoff at great loads, given the Blenheims modest capabilities as a bomber, it was important to get any sort of range (the other alternative to overboost was lightening the aircraft, ie. carrying less fuel).

Yet you have claimed:

You see David, one of the reasons only a priviliged few is buying your story is that you have continously misrepresent these papers.

You have documentation showing how much 87 octane was consumed by RAF Fighter Command.

Actually the proportion of 100 Octane use cf "Other Grades"* rises well before October and stocks of 100 Octane were far healthier than "Other Grades" well before October.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...mption-bob.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...1-page-006.jpg

Once again, the only engines cleared to use 100 Octane at the time were Merlin IIs (in reality no Merlin IIs were in frontline use by June 1940) IIIs, XIIs and XXs and Bristol Mercury XV. 52,000 tons of 100 Octane was used July-end October and only a few aircraft types were able to use the stuff.

Not that Crumpp has actually proven this by providing one single piece of documentation specifying that only a few frontline FC units were allowed to use 100 octane while the rest had to make do with 87. Payton-Smith specifies that 87 octane was required for non-operational purposes.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...anerevised.jpg

*Crumpp and Kurfurst continually refer only to 87 Octane when other grades of fuel, such as D.T.D 224 (78 Octane, used for de H Gypsy engines etc) were also lumped in with 87 Octane, so the actual amounts of 87 Octane in stock and consumed are lower than the charts would suggest.

No 2 Group was using 100 Octane from May that we both know. We both know that the rest of Bomber Command didn't use it until August. We both know that is the position and we both know that you haven't given any evidence for the use of 87 octane after June in FC.

If I confused anyone by referring to Bomber Cammand and no 2 Group I apologise completely.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-100oct.jpg
and
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no74-100oct.jpg
and:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/6...-100octane.jpg

Apparently not.

You are quoting from a pre 1940 manual.

As it stands neither Crumpp nor Kurfurst have added anything useful to this thread, including any documentation showing that FC required the majority of its squadrons to continue to use 87 Octane while only a small proportion are to use 100; all they are doing is regurgitating everything they've previously pushed in the 170 plus page thread on 100 Octane, ignoring everything that's been posted there. I cannot see any future in responding to either of them as long as they have nothing new to present which comprehensively refutes everything that has been posted here and elsewhere.

You have been using a reference to an article in a 1950's copy of 'Flight' to say that it wasn't used. You even posted the article in Bug 174 but I had it removed because it wasn't actual evidence.

Such hypocracy........:rolleyes:

more sources
 

Yet another RAF force multiplier was high-octane fuel. When the war began, both the Luftwaffe and the RAF were using 87 octane aviation fuel. Beginning in May 1940, the RAF obtained 100 octane fuel from the United States and used it throughout the battle. It boosted the performance of the Merlin engines in the Hurricanes and Spitfires from 1,000 to about 1,300 horsepower.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...808battle.aspx


By the summer of 1940,
modiications had improved the
performance of the Spitire and
Hurricane. The Spitire’s original
two-blade wooden propeller was
replaced, irst by variable pitch
three-blade units, and then by a
constant-speed unit. This signiicantly
improved take-of performance and the
vital rate of climb. From May 1940 the
use of 100-octane fuel, as used in the
1931 Schneider Trophy races, increased
the Merlin’s performance from 1,000 to
some 1,300hp.p77
70th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain
Published in association with Royal Air Force Media and
Communications, Headquarters Air Command
www.raf.mod.uk


The most dramatic benefit of the earliest Houdry units was in the production of 100-octane aviation gasoline, just before the outbreak of World War II. The Houdry plants provided a better gasoline for blending with scarce high-octane components, as well as by-products that could be converted by other processes to make more high-octane fractions. The increased performance meant that Allied planes were better than Axis planes by a factor of 15 percent to 30 percent in engine power for take-off and climbing; 25 percent in payload; 10 percent in maximum speed; and 12 percent in operational altitude. In the first six months of 1940, at the time of the Battle of Britain, 1.1 million barrels per month of 100-octane aviation gasoline was shipped to the Allies. Houdry plants produced 90 percent of this catalytically cracked gasoline during the first two years of the war.
http://www.nacatsoc.org/history.asp?HistoryID=30



That process would make a crucial difference in mid-1940, when the Royal Air Force started filling its Spitfires and Hurricanes with 100-octane gasoline imported from the United States instead of the 87 octane it had formerly used. Luftwaffe pilots couldn't believe they were facing the same planes they had fought successfully over France a few months before. The planes were the same, but the fuel wasn't. In his 1943 book The Amazing Petroleum Industry, V. A. Kalichevsky of the Socony-Vacuum Oil Company explained what high-octane gasoline meant to Britain: "It is an established fact that a difference of only 13 points in octane number made possible the defeat of the Luftwaffe by the R.A.F. in the fall of 1940. This difference, slight as it seems, is sufficient to give a plane the vital `edge' in altitude, rate of climb and maneuverability that spells the difference between defeat and victory."
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/...tane1oct04.htm

The second was the lack of suitable
engines to power a heavy bomber. The
"difficulties experienced by German engine
manufacturers in producing engines that met
comparable performance standards of
American and British industry," limited the
design and performance of their aircraft.38
This was partly due to the late start German
engineers had in designing high-performance
engine types and partly due to the low octane
fuels on hand to operate them. The Germans
entered the war using 87–89 octane fuels.
This octane rating, however, could only be
achieved "by adding 15–18 percent aromatics
with tetraethyl lead to the synthetic fuel."39
In contrast, during the Battle of Britain the
British used 100 octane fuels supplied by the
United States.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ww2/batlbrit.pdf

The plant at Heysham, together with those at Stanlow and Billingham produced iso-octane additives required to raise 87 octane fuel to 100 octane rating. Initially, the limited size of the 100 octane fuel stockpile required strict rationing until supplies could be increased to meet requirements and the 100 octane fuel was dyed green to distinguish it from the 87 octane fuel which was blue.
Bulk supply contracts for higher octane fuel were placed by the Air Ministry and it was put into widespread use in the RAF in March 1940 when Spitfires' Rolls Royce Merlin engines were converted to use the 100 octane fuel.

By May 1940, reconnaissance Spitfires had begun flying combat missions using the 100 octane fuel. By 31 July 1940, there were 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using the 100 octane fuel.
http://www.heyshamheritage.org.uk/html/trimpell.html

February 16
All the Squadron aircraft [Hurricane 151 squadron] had been modified to enable them to operate on 100 Octane fuel. This gave the capability of operation at +12 boost to meet operational emergencies without damage to the engines.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kelsey.family/1940.htm

The Allies have an important advan-
tage over Germany because of their un-
limited access to the highest-grade
aviation fuels.
"Petroleum Press Service," official Journal
of the British oil industry, states that, until
recently, the fuel most widely used, both by
civil and military aircraft, had an octane (or
measure of anti-knock value) rating of around
87, but that there Is now a rapidly growing
tendency to use 100 octane spirit. This enables
the compression ratio of an engine to be
Increased, and, therefore, raises the power.
Spirit of an octane rating of 87 generally
is obtained by the addition of small quantities
of tetra-ethyl lead to good-quality "straight
run" petrol. Germany, it is thought, Is un-
likely to suffer from a shortage of this grade
of fuel.
But if, as Is probable, the Allies eventually
resort to the almost exclusive use of 100
octane fuel, Germany's problem will be more
difficult, for there are definite technical limits
to the use of lead 'c'opa," the only practicable
way of producing 100 octane spirit being to
employ high-qualitv blending agente, such as
"mixed octanes."
Seven or eight plants for the manufacture ol
this vital blending material, with an aggregate
capacity of about 100,000 tons a year, are now in
operation or under construction In Germany.
This quantity would be sufficient for the pro-
duction of about 220,000 tons of 100 octane
aviation petrol-a total which might possibly
be raised to 400,000 tons by the end of 1941
if adequate quantities of other high-octane
blending agents could be spared for the
purpose.
In view of the heavy military consumption
of aircraft fuel by Germanv, however, and
because the total supply of petrol is limited
and big hydrogénation plants are vulnerable
to air attack, her prospects would not appear
to be enviable on the basis of existing
knowledge
The Sydney Morning Herald, April 3 1940

Secrets of the Heinkel
(By Air Mail)
LONDON.
ALTHOUGH the Heinkel III,

which had a "happy landing" to the west of the Maginot Line, after its personnel had found safety in parachutes, revealed no secrets of German aircraft-most of the apparatus had been thrown out by the parachutes-a similar plane shot down later in Scotland proved a veritable mine for the R.A.F. experts.

It is revealed that the Germans use a feed pump regulating the flow through injectors of tiny particles of gasoline direct into each cylinder. The gas ls injected in a fanwise spray and comes into contact with supercharged air heated under pressure.

One advantage is the elimination of freezing which is prolific of air accidents. This is especially important in the operation of air- craft in Arctic zones and at great altitudes.The fuel taken from the Heinkel's tanks proved to be "87 octane," and it is believed that one of Germany's main reasons in employing direct in- jection has been the possibility of using low-grade fuel. Nowadays, for high-performance aircraft, fuel of , "100 octane" is used.
APPEARANCE
The limits to which gasoline injection pump components have to be manufactured are very fine, and it is estimated that the Heinkel's outfit cost not less than £400 to produce. Against this may be set the fact that periods between overhaul are lengthened, al- though surfacing work can be carried out only by specially trained mechanics.

lt is stated that the internal finish or the engine in the shot-down plane is of high order, but the external appearance and detail work do not ap- proach the standard of British planes.
Sunday Times (Perth, WA) Sunday 7 July 1940.

Where Hurricanes Score!
...When Hurricanes return from a patrol special refuelling lorries attend to several machines simultaneously.
These pump in petrol of 100-octane capacity...
Sunday Times (Perth, WA) Sunday 1 September 1940

SPITFIRES FASTEST FIGHTERS.
...It is now possible to reveal one step which has been taken to increase the efficiency of British fighters, namely, the employment of
"100 octane fuel." which, with specially built engines, is able to increase speeds up to 30 miles an hour. Spitfires, using this fuel, are unquestionably still the fastest fighters actually serving un any air force...
The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW) 2 April 1940

Sir Hugh Tett
Sir Hugh Tett, former chairman and managing director of Esso Petroleum, was born on December 28, 1906. He died on January 2 aged 94.
Oil executive who pioneered leaded petrol and concocted the high-octane fuel that made the Spitfire outperform the Messerschmitt
Research by Hugh Tett at the beginning of the Second World War helped the RAF to win the Battle of Britain. Taking over from a colleague who had been called up, he developed a 100-octane fuel for fighter aircraft such as the Hurricane and Spitfire which helped them to outperform the Messerschmitt. He then had the job of persuading the Americans to produce it for beleaguered Britain, as the RAF braced itself to face the Luftwaffe...
The Times (London) January 31, 2001


Higher Performance by Fighters
Change in Fuel
From our aeronautical correspondent

It is now permissible to describe some of the steps that have been taken since the outbreak of war to increase the efficiency of British interceptor fighting aeroplanes.
One measure of importance is the increased aircraft performance secured by the employment of 100 octane fuell. This has long been known to those in touch with the Service, but up to now it has been thought inadvisable that it should be publicly discussed.
The use of 100 octane fuel was always visualized in peace. It allows higher boost pressures to be used with out damage to the engine. Although to obtain the full benefit th engine must be built to use it, it does in practice give an improved performance in speed and climb when used for engines normally taking 87 octane fuel. The speed increase may be anything from five to 20 miles an hour.

It will be recalled that Sir Kingsley Wood, in his speech on the Air Estimates in the House of Commons, said that the Spitfire had undergone a "further"speed increase of 10 per cent. Its previous official speed figures was 367. miles an hour, though whether the Minister meant a 10 per cent increase on that is not quite clear. At any rate, it is positive that the Spitfire, with the aid of 100 octane and some minor improvements, Is still holding its position as the fastest standard fighting aeroplane in any air service
The Times (London, England), Monday, Apr 01, 1940; pg. 5; Issue 48578.

It seems that even in April 1940 every schoolboy from Britain to Australia knew that RAF FC was using 100 octane fuel...it was no secret and was widely reported in the press.

That says that the Spitfire conversion was done at 31st july,

The start of the BoB was at the 10th of July (Channel Battles) with the preparations for Seeloewe by decimating the fighter force.

British historians see a different beginning date in august with the beginning of large day bombing raids.

No, it says on July 31st there were 384 Spitfires in 19 squadrons (every Spitfire squadron in RAF FC) flying with 100 octane fuel. These aircraft were converted to 100 octane well before that date, unless you somehow believe that they were all converted on the same day! The article quoted states:

Bulk supply contracts for higher octane fuel were placed by the Air Ministry and it was put into widespread use in the RAF in March 1940 when Spitfires' Rolls Royce Merlin engines were converted to use the 100 octane fuel.

Despite the different perception of what was BofB, the RAF was ready in March 1940.

robtek did you manage to find any claim of 87 Octane fuel used in a combat sortie of a RAF fighter aircraft after June 1940?

Game set and match. Well done Seadog.

Robtek, swallow your pride and take it on the chin. Unless you can prove these articles false any persistence in your argument is just going to make you look foolish.

Great! Good job Seadog!

Now we have to wait for the developers... :)

In my opinion there is too much emotional stuff inbetween the lines.

If you guys could keep it to arguments only and leave out all the rest this could be an interesting thread.

It isn't my fight and i have nothing to loose here, but having only the 100oct. versions represented is a loss for all.

But who is asking specifically for the removal of 87 octane? this is all about the acceptance that 100 octane was the main fuel used as evidence shows.

We should have both, I agree. It looks like we'll only have one though. And with that being the case, it should be 100 octane.

Or do you believe that there were any 87 octane fighters flying combat sorties in summer of 1940? ;)

I think what it boils down to, as other have said is this:

The game needs 87 and 100 octane version to allow for pre-BoB scenarios and mission makers discretion.

However, if the devs are only going to implement a single variant of the aircraft with only one performance and boost model the decision has to be made as to whether it is 87 or 100 octane. This is not the optimum solution but failing to have both variants we need to have the one that was used for the most of BoB. In this case the evidence suggests that it is 100 octane that made up most of the fighter fuel.

Therefore if possible, everyone would want both variants modelled. If it is only possible to have one, then there has to be 100 octane represented.

You've been arguing against 100 octane use across FC in 11 group during the BoB, please don't pretend that you were arguing for multiple fuels in game now this evidence has refuted that claim. Now that you know the truth please go to bug 174 and add your support :) Thanks.

You wont find a post from me arguing against 100 octane fuel for the FC, only not to exclude 87 octane!

Oh, i'll vote, as soon as i see you've voted for bug #200 :D

If there was the likelyhood that the devs would implement sub-types of fuel then I would vote for #200 immediately, the whole point of this is that the 'main' fuel for RAF FC is not modelled and we have to settle for FM's so bad they underperform even for 87 octane sub type.

So you see the point now?.....there is a massive error in the fuel modelled for the RAF, it's in the interest of accuracy to have 100 octane, the LW sub types would just be a bonus if the sub types feature were likely to be implemented.

Hmmm, I might take up that challenge because you've certainly implied that it wasn't in full use. Nobody has argued to exclude 87 here though, we've been arguing that for BoB that 100 needs to be modelled, because it isn't.

I've said before, I only vote for things I know about.

It wasn't in full use until very late in the Battle depending on the dates you end it.

If you use 15 September it was never in full use.

If you use December 1940, it might have been in full use and if you use the German dates of May 1941, it was definately in full use.

We are all still waiting for you to name those FC squadrons that were still using 87 octane fuel before the end of September. Can't, then they must have been using 100 octane fuel.

Its no good saying that without something substantial to back it up.

So much has evidence from a myriad of sources has been posted that disagrees with your contention.

Oh god.......and now the inevitable excuse from Crumpp.........

[whiny nasal jobsworth desk jockey voice on]

'But aircraft can only use a specified fuel....it says so in books and manuals'

[stupid voice thing off]

PLaying devils advocate, your evidence for the full use in May 1941 is what?

should really be asking for evidence of it 'not' being in full use before may 1941.

You have been presented with an ENORMOUS amount of evidence to the contrary yet you STILL go on and on and on and on and on and on and on like you are right, even though you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support what you are talking about.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_EfW9znJYjw/0.jpg

Nice Seadog. Here's another reference in agreement with the ones you listed:

Fuels and Lubricants Handbook: Technology, Properties, Performance, and Testing edited by George E. Totten, Steven R. Westbrook, Rajesh J. Shah, (ASTM International, 2003)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ndbook_p89.jpg

If just because it gets repeated means it was reality.

The Operationing Notes and consumption reports is much more definative that any post war magazine article written by an amatuer historian.

Operating notes? You mean the ones you claim that state that the Spitfire I had to use 87 octane because that's in the manual you claim dates from July 1940; even though it also mentions the Merlin II which had long been out of production? We have proof that numerous Spitfire squadrons were using 100 octane months before July 1940. The consumption data is also completely consistent with RAF FC, and select BC squadrons using 100 octane.

There is an overwhelming mass of data that all points to RAF FC exclusively using 100 octane fuel during the BofB and absolutely none that contradicts the exclusive use of 100 octane.

I disagree. Crumpp has made a definate statement that 100 Octane was in full use in May 1941, all I want is his evidence that says it was May 1941.

Crumpp is very keen on us supporting anything we say and I want to know what his evidence is for May 1941.

Consumption reports that say that 61,000 tons, 315 imp gallons per ton, 192,151,000 imp gallons of 100 Octane was consumed between June and end October 1940

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...mption-bob.jpg

So, where did 192,151,000 gallons of 100 Octane go if it was only consumed by a small number of RAF fighters and some Blenheims?

Interestingly stocks of 100 Octane had already become greater than "Other Grades" by June - NOT October, as Crumpp has surmised:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...8revised-1.jpg

Crumpp obviously believes that he knows better than all those "amateur" aviation historians who have written about 100 Octane so how about Crumpp takes some time out to write a best seller on 100 Octane, based on his professional expertise, and leave all of us confounded by his brilliance? :cool:

'So, where did 192,151,000 gallons of 100 Octane go if it was only consumed by a small number of RAF fighters and some Blenheims?'

Perhaps all the aircrew were putting it in their MG sports cars and BSA motorcycles? Thats one helluva lot of trips to the pub. ;)

That's a question you, and not Crumpp need to answer, Jeff.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

Our view is that it was used by FC and No 2 Group, that you know.

If you and Crumpp believe that the use of 100 Octane was restricted to the number of squadrons/bases that you believe then the onus is on you to say where it went.

I think you misunderstand. Crumpp asserts that a fraction of the force were using 100 octane, yet a lot of fuel was used. What used this fuel? Wither he is wrong in that only a small amount used it, or he has an explanation for the use of the fuel, though he hasn't come up with anything yet.

That's a good one NZtyphoon and shows that 100 octane was the predominant aviation fuel in stock in the UK throughout the Battle of Britain.

Here's my answer. It was burned in Merlin engines on the front line providing the edge needed to knock down the Hun. Prove it wasn't.

No, That's a question you, and Crumpp need to answer, Kurfurst.

And since you can't aswer it, you offer us only petty personal remarks and hollow arrogance.

Great post, thanks for sharing.

100 octane fuel the main fuel stocked during the BoB, slam dunk.