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

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

In the series of " What archives tells us" here is the FLIGHT archives that I cited two days ago :

- There was no 100 octane fuel usage during BoB in the FC. Here I am putting my money on British pride that would hve pushed forward any of its usage (ok Brits are not French but never the less )

- in 1941 increased power Merlin's had 9lb boost level

- 100 oct fuel was used by some aircraft in the RN (Fulmar) fitted with special engines such as the Merlin VIII (presumably to compensate for the extra weight of the 2nd crew member and low alt missions)

- In 1941 planes were still using 87 octane such as was the Hurricane with Merlin XX

Sources : (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%201286.html)

Hi TomcatVIP, interesting claim given the overwhelming evidence for widespread use of 100 Octane fuel during the Battle of Britain. Perhaps there is new counter evidence in this document? EDIT: I found you post on page 39 (post 383 of this thread) that has a working link. I don’t see anywhere in that document the statement that 100 Octane fuel was not used in the Battle of Britain, or on the contrary, that 87 Octane was used by Spitfires or Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain. Nor I could not find any mention that “In 1941 planes were still using 87 octane such as was the Hurricane with Merlin XX”.

In response to your claim in point 3 of your post (434) on page 44, and I quote you said "the petrol normally used at that time was 87 Octane" I find this slightly misleading as the time in question is 1937, which you did not state nor was there an attempt to put the quote in context. Whilst it does say on Page 557 of the original text (link) that “the petrol normally used at that time was 87 Octane” it is referring a to pre-war flight endurance test in 1937 where the Spitfire in question used “fuel of a higher Octane” (than 87 Octane). Note, this is stating that in 1937 the petrol normally used was 87 Octane – it does not mention the normal Octane used during the Battle of Britain 3 years later in 1940. I fail to see the significance of this quote regarding Octane usage during the Battle of Britain when we examine the whole quote.

If I have missed any quotes in the document regarding 87 or 100 Octane fuel usage during the Battle of Britain, and I may well have done considering it's a huge document, could you please quote them directly and list the page in the document that they appear so we may examine them in full. For example as I have done above by stating the quote and it’s appearance on page 557 with a working link to the page. Thanks.

Originally Posted by MoGas

even in the current german http://www.flugzeugclassic.de/zeitsc...ft=704&nav=621 issue, the talk about 100 octan for the RAF fighters in the BoB campaign. It seems everyone is rong lol....

MoGas, could you post a summary or even better images of the article you are referring to in english since it seems the magazine you are referring to requires a subscription.

Thanks, Bounder

[Al Schlageter]

This is what Pips said about what he found when asked: "were the British deceiving to the Australians?"

I wouldn't be surprised. The British did quite a bit of that during both World Wars.

So even Pips has his doubts about the factual truth of what he found.

(It seems that the one accusing others of being selective is himself being selective.) tut tut

There is certainly evidence that this was a deception for British stocks of 100 octane fuel was:

30th September 1939 - 153,000 tons
27th February 1940 - 220,000 tons
31st May 1940 - 294,000 tons
11th July 1940 - 343,000 tons
31st August 1940 - 404,000 tons
10th October 1940 - 424,000 tons
30th November 1940 - 440,000 tons

[Al Schlageter]

This graph is garbage as it includes 87 fuel issued to all RAF Commands. It is also unreferenced as to the source of the data plotted.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

This is what Pips said about what he found when asked: "were the British deceiving to the Australians?"


So even Pips has his doubts about the factual truth of what he found.

Hi, was this a recent post was made by Pips, i.e. are you in contact with Pips? Could you provide the complete post or a link to the post (I assume it was made in the not public allaboutwarfare forum).

Thanks in advance

[Al Schlageter]

Yes Banks that was in the thread Barbi so loves to quote from. Pips, afaik, has not been from in years.

Sign up on the board. Lots of interesting info has been posted, though the board is rather dead now.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

This is what Pips said about what he found when asked: "were the British deceiving to the Australians?"



So even Pips has his doubts about the factual truth of what he found.

(It seems that the one accusing others of being selective is himself being selective.) tut tut

There is certainly evidence that this was a deception for British stocks of 100 octane fuel was:

30th September 1939 - 153,000 tons
27th February 1940 - 220,000 tons
31st May 1940 - 294,000 tons
11th July 1940 - 343,000 tons
31st August 1940 - 404,000 tons
10th October 1940 - 424,000 tons
30th November 1940 - 440,000 tons

I think its worth remembering that consumption in May-July averaged 10,000 tons a month. So imports between 1 June and 31 August must have been approx 140,000 tons (stocks plus consumption) and consumption was about 21.5% of imports.

By the same token on the 11th July pretty much the peak of the fightng the UK had a stockpile of just under 3 years.

Pips and Kurfurst may believe this is a shortage, if it is, I wish my bank balance had this kind of shortage.

[NZtyphoon]

Looking at the weekly issues of 100 Octane. There seemed to be a lull in FC operations in the week prior to the invasion of France, and then the fuel issued jumps to 3,600 tons, starting May 23, as BEF and home-based fighter units, and Blenheim units were intensifying operations. Because these amounts of 100 Octane fuel was being issued it can be safely assumed that there was no drastic need to go back to 87 Octane fuel, as the Pips memo alleges. Naturally 87 Octane issues increased as all of the RAF Commands intensified their operations.

ie: Bomber Command
Coastal Command
Army Co-Operation Command

[lane]

Originally Posted by Glider

I think its worth remembering that consumption in May-July averaged 10,000 tons a month. So imports between 1 June and 31 August must have been approx 140,000 tons (stocks plus consumption) and consumption was about 21.5% of imports. By the same token on the 11th July pretty much the peak of the fightng the UK had a stockpile of just under 3 years.

That's very interesting. Thank you Glider for taking the time to sort through the numbers and put them in perspective.

[Crumpp]

We still disputing the words for "selected units" to convert by counting fuel stockpiles??

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

We still disputing the words for "selected units" to convert by counting fuel stockpiles??

No Eugene. I know you have difficulties at times but the counting of stockpiles is to show that there was no shortage of 100 fuel despite what Australia, Pips and Barbi say.