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

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is an ambiguity...period.

What else needs to be said?

The rest of the argument is built on speculation. What is the difference on the sides?

What sides are there anyway outside of gamer context?? There is only the facts and a mystery to be solved.

If you have consumption documents, why try to plot FC operations vs consumption of 100 grade.

If you see a the curves correspond, they it is probable the fuel was used by FC.

The level of hypocrisy being put out by the Luftwaffles on this board is astounding.

On one hand they demand forms in triplicate showing every single British fighter aircraft and every single fighter field was provided with unlimited supplies of 100 octane. On the other hand, they put forward claims for the German use of high octane and DB601N engines with a complete lack of documentation.

In the this thread, and the threads from other boards we have had clear and comprehensive documentation for the use of 100 octane presented. This can be summarized as follows: (documentation for all these stages has been provided in this thread or the other threads from other boards which have been linked)

1) As far back as 1937, the RAF and British scientists recognize higher octane fuel provides the opportunity for higher power output and better performance for their fighter and bomber aircraft.

2) The RAF and British government begin planning for the accumulation of stocks of fuel, this begins with the importation of higher octane fuel from the US, but also involves the conversion of British refineries to allow domestic production if the US sources are jeapordized.

3) Testing of 100 octane fuel in the Hurricane, Spitfire and Blenheim aircraft types begins pre-war in March of 1939. Entire Squadrons are converted and standardized to the use of the fuel.

4) As a result of these tests providing successful results in the use of 100 octane, and the accumulation of several 100 thousand gallons of fuel, (more than two years supply) the RAF is given the go ahead to convert the entirety of Fighter Command and selected Blenheim Squadrons to the use of 100 octane. This process is directed to be initiated in March of 1940. The gravity of the strategic situation demands every step be taken. With plentiful supply, there is every reason to move ahead.

5) Reports from both the organizational bodies of the RAF, as well as plentiful Squadron and Pilot reports, during the period May-September 1940, mention the stocking and/or use of +12 boost and 100 octane in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft at all of the sector fields and most of the secondary fields in 10, 11 and 12 Groups, the three RAF Fighter Groups which were most heavily engaged in the Battle. Other Squadron and pilot reports note the use of 100 octane earlier during the Battle of France.

6) Mid battle, a memo is directed to ALL RAF Squadrons from Air Chief Marshal Dowding, the officer in command of Fighter Command, cautioning all pilots not to over use +12 boost, (only used with 100 octane fuel) in situations which are not emergencies.

7) Consumption of 100 octane fuel rises heavily from the period June to September 1940. Despite this, RAF stocks of the fuel remain plentiful thanks to deliveries from the US.

8 ) All newly manufactured RAF aircraft during the period July-September 1940 are standardized with new equipment which allows them to accept and run 100 octane fuel and higher boost.

With all this documentation, the weight of proof clearly indicates 100 octane fuel was in standardized use by Fighter Command in the 10, 11 and 12 Group areas during the Battle. These Group areas encompass the entire section of Britain represented in the COD map.

Only those who have closed minds and a fixed agenda can continue to against the inclusion of 100 octane fueled aircraft.

Meanwhile these self same naysayers make their claims for the use of high octane German fuel, and DB601N engines, with an infinitely smaller scale of proof.

[Bobb4]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

The level of hypocrisy being put out by the Luftwaffles on this board is astounding.

On one hand they demand forms in triplicate showing every single British fighter aircraft and every single fighter field was provided with unlimited supplies of 100 octane. On the other hand, they put forward claims for the German use of 100 octane and DB601N engines with a complete lack of documentation.

In the this thread, and the threads from other boards we have had clear and comprehensive documentation for the use of 100 octane presented. This can be summarized as follows: (documentation for all these stages has been provided in this thread or the other threads from other boards which have been linked)

1) As far back as 1937, the RAF and British scientists recognize higher octane fuel provides the opportunity for higher power output and better performance for their fighter and bomber aircraft.

2) The RAF and British government begin planning for the accumulation of stocks of fuel, this begins with the importation of higher octane fuel from the US, but also involves the conversion of British refineries to allow domestic production if the US sources are jeapordized.

3) Testing of 100 octane fuel in the Hurricane, Spitfire and Blenheim aircraft types begins pre-war in March of 1939. Entire Squadrons are converted and standardized to the use of the fuel.

4) As a result of these tests providing successful results in the use of 100 octane, and the accumulation of several 100 thousand gallons of fuel, (more than two years supply) the RAF is given the go ahead to convert the entirety of Fighter Command and selected Blenheim Squadrons to the use of 100 octane. This process is directed to be initiated in March of 1940. The gravity of the strategic situation demands every step be taken. With plentiful supply, there is every reason to move ahead.

5) Reports from both the organizational bodies of the RAF, as well as plentiful Squadron and Pilot reports, during the period May-September 1940, mention the stocking and/or use of +12 boost and 100 octane in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft at all of the sector fields and most of the secondary fields in 10, 11 and 12 Groups, the three RAF Fighter Groups which were most heavily engaged in the Battle. Other Squadron and pilot reports note the use of 100 octane earlier during the Battle of France.

6) Mid battle, a memo is directed to ALL RAF Squadrons from Air Chief Marshal Dowding, the officer in command of Fighter Command, cautioning all pilots not to over use +12 boost, (only used with 100 octane fuel) in situations which are not emergencies.

7) Consumption of 100 octane fuel rises heavily from the period June to September 1940. Despite this, RAF stocks of the fuel remain plentiful thanks to deliveries from the US.

8 ) All newly manufactured RAF aircraft during the period July-September 1940 are standardized with new equipment which allows them to accept and run 100 octane fuel and higher boost.

With all this documentation, the weight of proof clearly indicates 100 octane fuel was in standardized use by Fighter Command during the Battle.

Only those who have closed minds and a fixed agenda can continue to argue otherwise.

Meanwhile these self same naysayers make their claims for the use of high octane German fuel, and DB610N engines, with an infinitely smaller scale of proof.

+1

[Blackdog_kt]

In regards to the Blenheim, the pilot's notes for the Mk.IV specify use of BOTH 87 and 100 octane fuel.

They wanted extra range so they added two extra fuel tanks (the outboard ones) along with a jettison valve for each one.

This made the aircraft heavier when fully fueled and they needed extra boost to maintain a safe takeoff distance. So they modified the engines to run +9 lbs and installed a boost cut-out.

The extra boost caused detonation so they needed 100 octane, but fighter boys needed it too.

The solution? When loaded for long range, Blenheims used 87 octane fuel in the inboard tanks and 100 octane fuel in the outboard tanks.

Take off was done on 100 octane and +9 lbs, climb was done on 87 octane and +5 lbs (ie, they throttled back and switched tanks right after takeoff), cruise was still on 87 octane with a limit of +3.5 lbs for auto-rich mixture and +1.5 lbs for auto-lean.

The standard operating procedure called for depleting the inboard tanks first because they lacked a jettison valve and their fuel contents couldn't be dumped to lighten up the aircraft in an emergency.

Once the inboard tanks were exhausted they were to fly the rest of the mission on 100 octane from the outboard tanks.

For short range missions they would only load the inboard tanks with 87 octane, because +5 lbs boost was deemed sufficient to takeoff with the reduced fuel load.

At least that's what the Mk.IV pilot's operating handbook states.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

5) Reports from both the organizational bodies of the RAF, as well as plentiful Squadron and Pilot reports, during the period May-September 1940, mention the stocking and/or use of +12 boost and 100 octane in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft at all of the sector fields and most of the secondary fields in 10, 11 and 12 Groups, the three RAF Fighter Groups which were most heavily engaged in the Battle.

Simple blatant lie. See:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...9&postcount=42
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...9&postcount=43

6) Mid battle, a memo is directed to ALL RAF Squadrons from Air Chief Marshal Dowding, the officer in command of Fighter Command, cautioning all pilots not to over use +12 boost, (only used with 100 octane fuel) in situations which are not emergencies.

And another. The memo is a circular that was of course generally to be circulated to all Groups.

8 ) All newly manufactured RAF aircraft during the period July-September 1940 are standardized with new equipment which allows them to accept and run 100 octane fuel and higher boost.

Source please.

Meanwhile these self same naysayers make their claims for the use of high octane German fuel, and DB610N engines, with an infinitely smaller scale of proof.

Actually, evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel is far more decisive and reliable than in the case of the RAF.

For example, we do not know how many RAF Fighter Stations were issued 100 octane fuel, apart from the 'certain' number 'concerned'. We do not know how many Merlins were converted and were in service use for 100 octane. We do not know how many RAF Fighter Stations were issued 100 octane fuel, apart from the 'certain' number 'concerned'. We do not know even how many FC Squads were using the fuel at the same time.

All we have is a handful of RAF fans who keep screaming hysterically, and showing childish innuendo waving around the same 3 worn pages over and over again, and try to read into them something they wish for but the papers do not say.

All the specifics they managed to dig up that the RAF decided in March 1939 to equip 16 Fighter Squadrons for 100 octane by September 1940, and that the 'certain' Squadrons 'concerned' were equipped so by mid-May 1940. Oh wait - we knew that already from books, just see the Spitfire the History scan...

In contrast, we know all this for the German side and have a much clearer picture without any need of dubious 'interpretation' by biased fanatics. The facts are plainly on the table. We know when, where, and how many planes were flying with DB 601N and in what units. Which is why there's so much less hysteria about it - well apart the aforementioned fanatics. Solid research does that.

[Sven]

Bravo!

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Simple blatant lie. See:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...9&postcount=42
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...9&postcount=43

Actually the lie is yours, you lie by omission. Your links are an incomplete listing of combat reports, there are more than these available if you bother to look through the previously mentioned threads, needless to say, you have a vested interest in not doing so. AND in addition to the combat reports there are the administrative reports and photographs, listing deliveries or showing 100 octane being present at fields in fuelers.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

And another. The memo is a circular that was of course generally to be circulated to all Groups.

You keep throwing these 'lie' words about, yet the facts show you are the one who is misleading people...

Dowding's memo is a normal chain of command directive to all Group Commanders which was in turn to be communicated to all Squadron commanders and thence pilots. The Memo specifically says the memo is to be copied "...to all Squadrons and fighter stations". The content is worded and directed "Handling of Merlin in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant Aircraft", ie. instructions directed to the pilots who flew the aircraft.

Pdf here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

Why send a memo the contents of which are for the instruction of ALL fighter pilots unless those pilots are all using 100 octane?

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Source please.

Such demands... You already have seen the relevant memo many times over and unless your memory is as poor as your reasoning, you should be quite aware of the directive changing specifications for newer aircraft.

Memo dated March 20th 1940, noting the changes required to allow use of +12 boost notes modifications for aircraft already in field service. These are for engines manufactured prior to the approval for use of 100 octane and +12 boost.

As you know, once an engine modification has been officially tested and approved, Rolls Royce gave that mod a number and it was implemented on the factory floor for new engine manufactures.

The modification for the boost cutout valve is listed in the memo as 'Mod Number Merlin/154', ie. it is officially approved and now part of the engine production regime. It is a very simple case of drilling a couple of holes, shown in the official instructional drawing released with the modification. (Drg. No. A.P. 1590B/J.2/40) This drawing and the instruction would have been incorporated into the Merlin III assembly handbook used by factory mechanics, and all new Merlins would have this incorporated.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Actually, evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel is far more decisive and reliable than in the case of the RAF.

For example, we do not know how many RAF Fighter Stations were issued 100 octane fuel, apart from the 'certain' number 'concerned'. We do not know how many Merlins were converted and were in service use for 100 octane. We do not know how many RAF Fighter Stations were issued 100 octane fuel, apart from the 'certain' number 'concerned'. We do not know even how many FC Squads were using the fuel at the same time.

All we have is a handful of RAF fans who keep screaming hysterically, and showing childish innuendo waving around the same 3 worn pages over and over again, and try to read into them something they wish for but the papers do not say.

Again, your memory seems to be failing you. In fact, rather than 3 pages, we have presented dozens, close to hundreds of pages of documentation, they can be found in the threads linked earlier. Holding your breath and pretending not to be aware of them will not make them disappear.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

In contrast, we know all this for the German side and have a much clearer picture without any need of dubious 'interpretation' by biased fanatics. The facts are plainly on the table. We know when, where, and how many planes were flying with DB 601N and in what units. Which is why there's so much less hysteria about it - well apart the aforementioned fanatics. Solid research does that.

You are very strict about demanding proof from the British side, strange how there doesn't seem to be a quid pro quo as far as the standard of proof on your side. Perhaps you'd like to present your clear documentation comprehensively in a thread? I have yet to see examples of this 'solid research' in a thread entitled 'Use of high octane and the DB601N engine during the BoB'.

So how about it?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Actually the lie is yours, you lie by omission. Your links are an incomplete listing of combat reports, there are more than these available if you bother to look through the previously mentioned threads, needless to say, you have a vested interest in not doing so. AND in addition to the combat reports there are the administrative reports and photographs, listing deliveries or showing 100 octane being present at fields in fuelers.

Yada yada yada....

You claim that all stations received the fuel and there documentation to.
It was shown to you which stations are indicated by this documentation, combat reports etc.
You now claim that certain stations/combat reports are omissioned.

You change the subject whenever it gets hot, and it threatens you with doing some actual research and providing evidence for your claims. Fine.The listing was compliled by the Grinch, and I trust he has done an honest job at it.

If you believe some stations were left out, list them. II expect that you will change the subject again and remain silent about this, probably resorting to another ad hominem attack or making another stupid claim you can't back up.

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

You keep throwing these 'lie' words about, yet the facts show you are the one who is misleading people...

You keep throwing about ad hominem insults all the time, attack posters but that only shows how childish you are and how utterly incapable of showing anything that would support your point. You are a waste of time for everyone here.

Why send a memo the contents of which are for the instruction of ALL fighter pilots unless those pilots are all using 100 octane?

For the same reason they sent out 150 grade instructions in the Spitfire IX to all Groups in ADGB in 1944, even when only two IX Squadrons (Nos 1 and 165) were actually operating on the fuel on an operational trials. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif

Its simply common good sense and practice to circulate such letters to everyone. It was done everywhere.

Memo dated March 20th 1940, noting the changes required to allow use of +12 boost notes modifications for aircraft already in field service. These are for engines manufactured prior to the approval for use of 100 octane and +12 boost.

As you know, once an engine modification has been officially tested and approved, Rolls Royce gave that mod a number and it was implemented on the factory floor for new engine manufactures.

The modification for the boost cutout valve is listed in the memo as 'Mod Number Merlin/154', ie. it is officially approved and now part of the engine production regime. It is a very simple case of drilling a couple of holes, shown in the official instructional drawing released with the modification. (Drg. No. A.P. 1590B/J.2/40) This drawing and the instruction would have been incorporated into the Merlin III assembly handbook used by factory mechanics, and all new Merlins would have this incorporated.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg[/QUOTE]

Well there you go! You were right on this one doubt. Now how about supporting your other claims the same way?

Again, your memory seems to be failing you. In fact, rather than 3 pages, we have presented dozens, close to hundreds of pages of documentation, they can be found in the threads linked earlier.

"Close to hundreds" -

Actually what Glider does is posting the same three pages hundreds of times for the lack of evidence, perhaps that the thing that confused you. They say that certain fighter stations/squadrons concerned will receive 100 octane fuel.

Regardless that its pretty obvious that this means selected units, as was pointed out to him here by at least 3 other posters and numerous others at ww2aircraft.net, disproving his thesis, he continously misrepresents that and mirepresents what the papers say. Its funny, because I remember he used to say the same about them, but then argued that these papers were 'revised' later. When asked to tell when this supposedly happened, he kept shooting random dates, but every time asked to present the papers, he went silent.

And now he claims that 'certain' Fighter Stations 'concerned' actually reads 'all'.

Note - I have been asking Glider if he has the complete file, and every time he remains silent. Truth is that he has never been in the National Archives at all and never seen the files.

Holding your breath and pretending not to be aware of them will not make them disappear.

I don't want them to be disappear at all. The documents posted say that as of May 1940, only selected Fighter command stations were supplied with 100 octane fuel.
That's my point all the way through and pretty much everybody elses in both this thread and ww2aircraft.net boards.

You are very strict about demanding proof from the British side, strange how there doesn't seem to be a quid pro quo as far as the standard of proof on your side. Perhaps you'd like to present your clear documentation comprehensively in a thread? I have yet to see examples of this 'solid research' in a thread entitled 'Use of high octane and the DB601N engine during the BoB'.

So how about it?

I already did that on this board, ww2aircraft.net boards and on my website as well.

That you or Glider wish to make up your own fantasies about that Germans didn't operationally employ 100 octane fuel is entirely your problem. Fact is that British pre-war desires to get 100 octane in their fighters was fueled by fears that the Germans were developing their engines for 100 octane fuel, and they were in a much better position to obtain 100 octane fuel, as they produced it themselves, and were not dependend on foreign availabilty or could be denied from it by blocking sea imports.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Actually what Glider does is posting the same three pages hundreds of times for the lack of evidence, perhaps that the thing that confused you. They say that certain fighter stations/squadrons concerned will receive 100 octane fuel.

I notice a lack of evidence on your part here Kurfurst. I gave you two linking documents and admit I don't know why the person who received the paper said certain when the request was clear, but I didn't make any assumption. You have now made an assumption that it was limiting in some way, but in what way you don't know and don't supply anything to suggest what 'certain' meant interms of squadrons, bases, groups anything in fact.

Regardless that its pretty obvious that this means selected units, as was pointed out to him here by at least 3 other posters and numerous others at ww2aircraft.net, disproving his thesis

If I recall the debate went my way Kurfurst and no one disproved anything that I said.

, he continously misrepresents that and mirepresents what the papers say. Its funny, because I remember he used to say the same about them, but then argued that these papers were 'revised' later. When asked to tell when this supposedly happened, he kept shooting random dates, but every time asked to present the papers, he went silent.

Priceless

And now he claims that 'certain' Fighter Stations 'concerned' actually reads 'all'.

And where did I say that?

Note - I have been asking Glider if he has the complete file, and every time he remains silent. Truth is that he has never been in the National Archives at all and never seen the files.

I don'y have the complete file its huge, but I certainly went as a number of the documents were not in the public domain before I posted them

I don't want them to be disappear at all. The documents posted say that as of May 1940, only selected Fighter command stations were supplied with 100 octane fuel.
That's my point all the way through and pretty much everybody elses in both this thread and ww2aircraft.net boards.

Whch of us was banned from the WW2aircraft thread? and the Wikipedia editing thread? Me or you

That you or Glider wish to make up your own fantasies about that Germans didn't operationally employ 100 octane fuel is entirely your problem. Fact is that British pre-war desires to get 100 octane in their fighters was fueled by fears that the Germans were developing their engines for 100 octane fuel, and they were in a much better position to obtain 100 octane fuel, as they produced it themselves, and were not dependend on foreign availabilty or could be denied from it by blocking sea imports.

This is as you know total rubbish as documented in some detail by Gavin Bailey (a published historian from Dundee University) in his papers on fuel. You will remember him, the person you accused of coming from Pennsylvania, using another identity, purporting to be Gavin Bailey and grossly misrepresented his findings to the degree that he made formal complaints to the Wiki editing team.
Here is the link if you have difficulty remembering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ai...tle_of_Britain

What is missing from your tirade is any evidence to support your theory that the RAF wasn't effectively fully equipped with 100 Octane. All you have tried to do is distort other peolpes document supporting that theory.

PS do you still stick by Pips postins as the basis of your argument. If you don't then what is the basis of your argument?

[robtek]

Could you two fight this out via PM????
That would be a relief for this topic as your post are OT!
Talk about performance and not the reasons why or why not it was reached.

[TomcatViP]

Frankly I don't understand what are those ppl hijacking a game forum - that shld be dedicated mostly to young players - to rage a war that seems to count countless uneventful battles.

Now as I am not that much hypocrite I will tell you what I am thinking abt this debate that as lasted too long :

Firstly : Historically in none of the book that I hve read so far (and I hve read nearly a thousand on aviation field) have mentioned the fact that BoB RAF's Spitfire fleet did use 100oct
Secondly : none of you 10Other care much abt the Hurri despite that we know pretty well what Dowding fear most and the fact that Hurri were at that time accounting for two third of the RAF order of battle
Thirdly : your arguments (boost for HP and speed) regarding the use of 100oct does not fit any mechanical logic regarding the subsequent dev of the Merlin
Fourthly ; your over aggressive comments in such a sensitive time of history does not honor the fighting spirit of those "few" hundreds of men that didn't hesitate to make the ultimate sacrifice without loudly putting their case to the public(at least when all the pint of beer and bottle of whiskey stand at bay)
Fifth : The arguments you provided against does not convince us as much as those advocating the other thesis. If you can't prove that something does exist you can't say that it's a truth. Only believer can agree in certain case but I am sry to say that your lack of poetry and chivalry deserve your meaning.

Let's resume :
1st. We can say that some Spit and Hurri did rely to 100oct latte in BoB in frontline units.
2nd We can assume that 100oct was used on low alt raider bombers - perhaps "the some of the spits" were low alt escorting fighters. This makes more sense that 100oct being used at alt high fight (were BoB did occur : Bob was an anti-bomber campaign for the RaF !)
3rd The value for the HP provided are grossly overestimated and only focused on the Spit witch does not makes any sense as Spit and 109 were much close match and it seems to be well known for years
4th the Spit FM in CoD is so ridiculously CFS friendly that your lack of any ref to this fact makes your thesis very suspicious. If realism, impartiality and accuracy were your credo you sincerely miss there a strong opportunity to lift your case.
5th Average reader here (and I am one of us) does not know what are your anger against Kurf (with who I hve not particular preference but who did provide us better analysis in term of logics IMHO) but let me say that many of us does not approve any public hanging. In Eu these are( or must stay) facts of the past as are Nationalism, racism and revisionism...Thx so much to the very "Few" (and sadly millions of others)

I hope this sterile debate wld be close on this forum for now.


If you hve read all this text so far, thx for the time spent. Pls be assured that I don't want to hurt anyone based on quickly typed arguments on a public game forum. We are not historians.

~S!