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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Almost got it correct, but just like Mike, you seem to have missed a small detail mentioned in those "official records in the NA".

And that is all the papers talk of select fighter and bomber stations. I am sorry, I know you would like to forget that part, but that seems to be a major fly in the ointment of your whole thesis.

Nope, you know my understanding of the select fighter units. Its those that hadn't yet converted, you disagree but its nticable that you don't have a position yourself. Neither do you put anything else up to counter my view just mention the one word, on the one paper.

So to help us understand your position, How many squadrons do you believe used 100 octane in the BOB, and how do you support it?

[Kurfürst]

I have made my position perfectly clear several times. Read back in the thread. Just because you pretend I did not and keep asking the same, already answered question does not get you anywhere.

And its not one paper, its the same note of select fighter and bomber stations in each and every paper. If you choose to ignore it like my previous answers, it is not my problem I am afraid.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I have made my position perfectly clear several times. Read back in the thread. Just because you pretend I did not and keep asking the same, already answered question does not get you anywhere.

And its not one paper, its the same note of select fighter and bomber stations in each and every paper. If you choose to ignore it like my previous answers, it is not my problem I am afraid.

You and I both know that this is the question you have not given a reply too, since you said 145 aircraft in May as per Pips. Someone you haven't mentioned for a while now

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

You and I both know that this is the question you have not given a reply too, since you said 145 aircraft in May as per Pips. Someone you haven't mentioned for a while now

Speak in you own name only and do put words into my mouth. It has proven pointless to answer you 'questions', to which you do not know the answer yourself. You have shown that you ignore the answer, ask the same question a few days, month, years later, and pretend you have not seen the answer earlier. As said, I have already answer that at the beginning of the thread.

I am tired of your pointless mind games.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Speak in you own name only and do put words into my mouth. It has proven pointless to answer you 'questions', to which you do not know the answer yourself. You have shown that you ignore the answer, ask the same question a few days, month, years later, and pretend you have not seen the answer earlier. As said, I have already answer that at the beginning of the thread.

I am tired of your pointless mind games.

Priceless

[Crumpp]

we do know that the changes were already in place so a number of the 700 would already have them.

Glider, the document does not say the Merlin engine has been produced with the changes in place, it says the NEWER ENGINES will already have the modifications.

That sentence could mean:

1. That could mean all existing merlin engines from ~mid april 1940 or so would have the changes incorporated in production. Along with those production engines a maintenance stock of the new parts would have to be produced. That is a massive production undertaking and would take some time to implement.

2. It could also mean the NEWER production engines, ie the Merlin IIX would incorporate the changes in their design. That makes the most sense and is exactly what we see in the Operating Notes!!!

Production priority would go to the newer designs and older ones would be upgraded over time on a schedule that the manufacturer could meet. We do see that schedule listed as older models will be upgraded during their service maintenance.

Production resources are not infinite. The Spitfire Mk II was coming online and expected to replace the Spitfire Mk I. The Operating Notes are very clear in the fact 100 Octane was the only fuel approved for the Mk II.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider, the document does not say the Merlin engine has been produced with the changes in place, it says the NEWER ENGINES will already have the modifications.

That sentence could mean:

1. That could mean all existing merlin engines from ~mid april 1940 or so would have the changes incorporated in production. Along with those production engines a maintenance stock of the new parts would have to be produced. That is a massive production undertaking and would take some time to implement.

2. It could also mean the NEWER production engines, ie the Merlin IIX would incorporate the changes in their design. That makes the most sense and is exactly what we see in the Operating Notes!!!

Production priority would go to the newer designs and older ones would be upgraded over time on a schedule that the manufacturer could meet. We do see that schedule listed as older models will be upgraded during their service maintenance.

Production resources are not infinite. The Spitfire Mk II was coming online and expected to replace the Spitfire Mk I. The Operating Notes are very clear in the fact 100 Octane was the only fuel approved for the Mk II.

There goes your word again could. It could mean this and it could mean that.
We know from station, squadron and combat reports, backed up by a number of documents, histories, personal stories, that SPit 1 did use 100 Octane in the BOB. . How can you ignore this!!
Lets not forget the Hurricane and Defiant which had the same engine or are you saying that they didn't use 100 octane either!!!
So I believe it means what it says, that the newer production engines have the changes built into them.

Edit I also note that the paper outlining the changes says that the changes are already incorporated into the servicing. As we can safely assume that Spit II's are not in service in March 1940, if it isn't SPitfire I and Hurricane's which according to your theory didn't use 100 Octane, what do you think they are making the changes too?

[Crumpp]

How many squadrons do you believe used 100 octane in the BOB, and how do you support it?

Kurfurst would be smart to stay the hell away from that question. It is an opinion at this point and not fact. I was asked the same thing by you and offered my opinion. Go back and read the immature garbage the spouts from certain participants in this thread.

Thing about opinion is everyone has one and in the western world the idea of free speech says we all can have one too.

However when presents an opinion on such a subject as the exact number of squadrons at a specified point in time and backs up with the relevant facts, the personal assaults begin. Why? That is good tactic when your argument is based on emotion, circumstance, and assumption.

Thing about the facts on this point is we don't have all of them to make a pinpoint determination. We can only make general statements.

Crumpp says:

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

It is clear that Fighter Command was in process of adopting the fuel but it is equally clear that process was not complete in July 1940. There is no agreement on the end dates for the Battle of Britain. So, depending on the dates one chooses for the battle to end, the process was or was not completed during the battle itself.

The only document that will give us an approximate time for the completion of the transition is the operating notes. If you find an earlier edition that lists 100 Octane in Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine then you will know within a few weeks when the transition was completed.

[Crumpp]

So am I but we don't know what they say. Besides what is wrong with going by when the fuel was issued and used? That at least we do know

Why are you trying to force an answer on this issue without all the facts?

Why do you insist that you know all the facts and the only operational document that definately tells us is wrong while you are right?

We happen to be lucky enough that the Operating Notes is a legal document published by the Air Ministry and will reflect how the type was operated.

The majority of the work was already being incorporeated in new engines and in regular maintanence

The regular squadron maintenance personnel did not handle this and that is why the order specifies Service Inspection. RAF squadron did not perform that inspection. RAF squadron personnel performed daily and routine maintenance. The CRO performed major alterations.

In NEW engines but the RAF already had ~700 Hurricanes and Spitfires in the inventory during the time the instructions came out. Consider that meant some ~1400 to 2100 engines in maintenance stocks that also had to be modified.

The new production also has to cover maintenance stocks, too.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Why are you trying to force an answer on this issue without all the facts?

Why do you insist that you know all the facts and the only operational document that definately tells us is wrong while you are right?

We happen to be lucky enough that the Operating Notes is a legal document published by the Air Ministry and will reflect how the type was operated.



The regular squadron maintenance personnel did not handle this and that is why the order specifies Service Inspection. RAF squadron did not perform that inspection. RAF squadron personnel performed daily and routine maintenance. The CRO performed major alterations.

In NEW engines but the RAF already had ~700 Hurricanes and Spitfires in the inventory during the time the instructions came out. Consider that meant some ~1400 to 2100 engines in maintenance stocks that also had to be modified.

The new production also has to cover maintenance stocks, too.

We don't know when the changes were first installed on new engines, we do know that the changes were already in place so a number of the 700 would already have them. We also know that the engines in service would have already gone through service inspection, so that would account for a number more.
In the three months following the issue of the paper a high proportion of the engines would be serviced or in the case of Hurricanes, newer arcraft would have replaced the ones in the squadrons in March.

I personally consider combat reports and station/squadron records as official documents, you may not but I do on that we will have to differ