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

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

David, I think I told you about 8 times by know where did I learn about these papers, I gave you the refernce, the link to thread. The papers were found by Pips, in Australia. I know I really have to repeat this to you to sink in, but I am not Pips, nor do I live in Australia. So either ask Pips - who you can easily connect, I gave you his contact, for some reason you choose not to.. hmmm - or travel to Australia yourself.

So, may I ask why are you pretending to all these fine people there that you do not know all of the above?

Personally, I have no reason to believe that Pips summary of the documents are honest and accurate.

People have contacted the Australian Archives about the Pips papers and the AA have had no success in producing these papers for viewing.

So, if you have no reason to believe that Pips summary of these Australian papers are honest and accurate, then why do you continue to use them?

Winny, Barbi is only hard to please when the subject of discussion is the British and the Spitfire. Unfortunately, when it comes to Nazi Germany and the 109, any thing will do to become an absolute factual truth.

And I do not mean how you interpret them, because it takes quite a bit of imaginatory power to fill in the gaps, and these gaps can be filled both ways.

That is hilarious Barbi. You definitely have quite a bit of imaginary power when it comes to the K-4 and 1.98ata boost. You should give up being a lawyer and become a comedian.

[Kurfürst]

What is your purpose in life?

Because if this is it, I guess its a most severe form of punishment in itself, and I don't have to lift a finger, just leave you be as you are.

[Seadog]

We're still waiting for proof that even one RAFFC Merlin engined fighter squadron used 87 octane operationally during the BofB.

[winny]

Don't get me wrong, I get annoyed by Kurfurst, sometimes very annoyed.

Deflection is an art form, Kurfurst's a master.

There are forums all over the place with threads about this subject and Kurfurst is present in all of them.

The subject gets bogged down in the supply issue, it's a red herring.

The whole argument seems to hinge on the 'select or certain stations'
There is no definite definition of certain stations so again it's a red herring.

If the question is 'Were the RAF using 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain' the answer is a definite yes. It's just how many.

To go back to the 1938 doccument, written at a time when Britain were in the process of rearmament, not war, is another deflection.

To say that that doccument is relevant to a battle that took place 2 years later, under a different government is wrong. Unless a doccument is post the invasion of Poland then its frankly irrelevant.

Nobody expected the war to start in 39. Most were gearing up for 42.

I can prove to anyone that up to 30 squadrons used 100 octane during The battle.
At the very least 4 at dunkirk
At the very least another 6 in June. That's 30% of the total number of FC sqns at the time (around 330 operational Hurricanes and Spitfires).

Kurfurst has never quantified his argument. No numbers for squadrons.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by winny

I can prove to anyone that up to 30 squadrons used 100 octane during The battle.
At the very least 4 at dunkirk
At the very least another 6 in June. That's 30% of the total number of FC sqns at the time (around 330 operational Hurricanes and Spitfires).

Kurfurst has never quantified his argument. No numbers for squadrons.

RAFFC had 34 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on July 08 with 6 Blenheim and 2 Defiant squadrons, and 61 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on Nov 03, with 6 Blenheim and 3 Defiant squadrons. So 30 (I assume you mean Hurricane/Spitfire) represents from ~90 to ~50% of all operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Seadog

RAFFC had 34 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on July 08 with 6 Blenheim and 2 Defiant squadrons, and 61 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on Nov 03, with 6 Blenheim and 3 Defiant squadrons. So 30 (I assume you mean Hurricane/Spitfire) represents from ~90 to ~50% of all operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons.

I did mean Hurri/Spit and I was using the 4 + 6 = 10 Squadrons by June.
Or a third of the Hurri/Spit squadrons at the time.

I'm starting with a low number. It's a definite which is more than I've seen for the other side of the argument.

I've found combat reports that back this up, and as Pilots had to record use of 12lb I think there must be more.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

I did mean Hurri/Spit and I was using the 4 + 6 = 10 Squadrons by June.
Or a third of the Hurri/Spit squadrons at the time.

I'm starting with a low number. It's a definite which is more than I've seen for the other side of the argument.

I've found combat reports that back this up, and as Pilots had to record use of 12lb I think there must be more.

Its interesting that Pips and Kurfurst believe that the number was 25% of FC and 125 aircraft in May

I have 10 Hurricane squadrons and 3 Spitfire squadrons with combat reports in May alone.

Hurricane 85, 1, 73, 79, 87, 151, 56, 17, 229 and 245 squadrons
Spitfire, 74, 54 and 19 squadrons

Links
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

The subject gets bogged down in the supply issue, it's a red herring.

.

Its interesting as I see the supply as being the key issue. If the RAF had a shortage of supply then there is logic in limiting the roll out and concentrating the supplies where you need them most say 11 and 12 group. However if there isn't a shortage, then there is no logic in limiting the numbers.

The changes to the engine were small and could easily been doe on the stations, yet the performance gain was very significant. So it isn't a technical or manufacture issue, its down to supply.

Without a shortage of fuel there is no logic to holding the supplies back. Indeed this is probably the one thing that I agree with re Pips posting, its centred on supply. I just disagree with his assumption that there was a shortage.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Glider

Its interesting as I see the supply as being the key issue. If the RAF had a shortage of supply then there is logic in limiting the roll out and concentrating the supplies where you need them most say 11 and 12 group. However if there isn't a shortage, then there is no logic in limiting the numbers.

The changes to the engine were small and could easily been doe on the stations, yet the performance gain was very significant. So it isn't a technical or manufacture issue, its down to supply.

Without a shortage of fuel there is no logic to holding the supplies back. Indeed this is probably the one thing that I agree with re Pips posting, its centred on supply. I just disagree with his assumption that there was a shortage.

I agree that it was a crucial point at the time.
I just think it's being used to hide behind. The records are vague and it's the point Kur keeps coming back to.

All the other forums threads seem to get stuck at the supply issue.

So, let's by-pass it and go to evidence of 100 octane use in battle. Easier to prove.

Unless someone finds the 'holy grail' doccument regarding supply/conversion this supply debate is just going to keep looping around.


It's interesting to note that all of the early doccuments say that the conversion would not happen till they had enough supplies.
There is no doubt the conversion started before The BoB, so logically someone must have decided that there was enough 100 octane or they wouldn't have done it.

I still think Squadron operations log books and combat reports are the key to this one.

We don't need to prove that the conversion happened, because it did.
We don't need to prove that the stocks of 100 octane were adequate, because someone made the decision at the time that there was enough, or the conversion wouldn't have happened.

We just need to prove widespread use in combat. That's what it's all about.