It is 10,000 tons at the airfields and not in the strategic reserves. It is not 10,000 tons in airplanes.

It represents 3.74% of the aviation fuel from the stock yards, to the railheads, to the airfields for the first year of the war.

Spend some time on an airfield....

That is why placarding is not a choice or option. Any alternative fuels will be specifically listed by specification.

That is by convention and still followed today.

http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/shared/me...100111-038.pdf

The graphic is titled : TABLE II - CONSUMPTION
It is 10K tons consumed by airplanes.

If I consume a glass of beer, the beer is in my stomach, not still in the glass.

That straw is getting awfully short Crumpp

LoL, I've pressed you to supply details of even a single 87 octane RAF FC sortie, during the BofB and you can't do it.

Your credibility has been destroyed.

Why not go away and come back when you find evidence for 87 octane use, or are when you ready to man up and admit that you are wrong.

100% 100 octane use = no evidence for 87 octane because it wasn't used.

And the next month's consumption?


:-P

10,000 tons = 3,150,000 imperial gallons consumed per month June-August

Here are the documents which show the cumulative fuel stocks from which the figures in red are taken:

17th Weekly Oil Position Report Dec 31 1939:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...9-page-004.jpg

24th WOPR
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-006.jpg

25th WOPR 28 Feb 1940

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...9-page-008.jpg

28th WOPR 17 Mar 1940
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-008.jpg

33rd WOPR 23 April 1940
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-006.jpg

Note also how much 100 Octane fuel is being stocked outside of Britain ie; West of Suez - the only other active war theatre was France and, later Norway.

And the reasons why Crumpp's reasoning that stocks of 800,000 tons was required, based on pre-war plans, is so erroneous (Oil HMSO Payton-Smith)

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...9100Octane.jpg

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

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

The pre-war plans were based on an assumption that American supplies would be withheld and that losses due to air attack would be heavy. Using pre-war plans to decide what happened in wartime is a waste of time; as is obvious here, those plans for stocks of 800,000 tons were not realised even two years into the war:

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

Also note that stocks of 100 Octane v Other Grades reached near parity in May 1940 294,000 tons v 298,000 tons, and by August, when permission was given to use 100 Octane in all commands, it was the dominant fuel.

Prove it by providing one single WW2 RAF or Air Ministry document which says that the fuel was merely kept at airfields and not consumed. By the same reasoning it could be argued that the RAF didn't consume "Other Grades" of fuel either, which makes one wonder what was used instead of aviation fuel?

And you think that all military airfields stock 5 different types of fuel? You would be full of ****. Your base is stocked with what is required for the A/C that you operate. Not, repeat, not what might land there. If someone needs Jet A instead of JP they stop and a civilian airport and fuel there.

NZtyphoon, great post:!:

As has been mentioned the form is titled CONSUMPTION.

If we follow your logic the 26,000 tons of 87 octane consumed wasn't consumed either, it was also at the airfields. So the next question would be, what were the RAF consuming ( sorry, would you prefer burning up, using, please tell us what term you would prefer)
I would love to see you support that view. Following up this logic each month over this period a further 10,000 tons of 100 Octane and 26,000 tons of 87 octane weere also piling up at the airfields. Where did they put it all and more intrestingly what did they use in the aircraft?

I have spent a lot of time on airfields and the longer this goes on, I suspect that I have spent a lot more time than you on an airfield.

What exactly have this got to do with a chart showing the fuel consumed per month in the UK?

PS still waiting for you to say where you got the information re the full transfer of FC to 100 octane completing in May 1941.
If you do not support that statement can you give one good reason as to why we shouldn't ignore every other statement that you have made without support.

In the strategic reserve but that says nothing about operational use. Looking at supply side evidience does not answer operational question.

Once again, I have not seen a thing that overrides the operational doucmentation or what the Notes on a Merlin Engine say for the specified fuel. When 100 Octane becomes the norm, Notes on a Merlin engine relects it.

You guys are all in a frenzy and foaming at the mouth to disprove the fact the Battle of Britain was transitional time period and we need to have more information.