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

[Crumpp]

NZTyphoon, Once again.....

In the pursuit of gamers proving 100/150 grade was the standard fuel of the RAF, documents were produced that showed hundreds of thousand of tons of the fuel being moved around various stations and brought into the RAF logistical system in anticipation of the fuel being adopted.

The operational use turned out to be extremely limited and for a very short period of time before it was withdrawn from service.

You cannot look at fuel stocks to determine the extent of operational use. Logistics is there to answer the question, "Do we have enough to use?"

They do not answer the question, "Can we use this fuel?"....that is the operational side of the house!

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

NZTyphoon, Once again.....

In the pursuit of gamers proving 100/150 grade was the standard fuel of the RAF, documents were produced that showed hundreds of thousand of tons of the fuel being moved around various stations and brought into the RAF logistical system in anticipation of the fuel being adopted.

The operational use turned out to be extremely limited and for a very short period of time before it was withdrawn from service.

You cannot look at fuel stocks to determine the extent of operational use. Logistics is there to answer the question, "Do we have enough to use?"

They do not answer the question, "Can we use this fuel?"....that is the operational side of the house!

This is just too ridiculous to be true!!!

So, genius, explain exactly what happened to 51,000 tons of 100 octane fuel and provide some evidence for your claims. E-v-i-d-e-n-c-e! Is that so hard?

[lane]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

... explain exactly what happened to 51,000 tons of 100 octane fuel and provide some evidence for your claims. E-v-i-d-e-n-c-e! Is that so hard?

<Sarcasm>The pilots fueled their cars with 100 octane petrol and drove into London to hit the pubs. Those that didn't have a car would drive the 100 octane petrol bowsers into town for a drink or to visit their girl friends! I'll leave it to others to do the math as to how many car trips to London the pilots would have to make to "consume" 51,000 tons of 100 octane fuel. </Sarcasm>

David Ross, Stapme, The Biography of Squadron Leader Basi Gerald Stapleton DFC, (Grub Street, London, 2002), pp. 22-23




Tony Bartley DFC, Smoke Trails in the Sky, (Crecy Publishing Limited, Wilmslow, Cheshire, 1997), p. 35.


Tim Vigors DFC, Life’s Too Short to Cry, (Grub Street, London, 2006), p. 137.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

NZTyphoon, Once again.....

In the pursuit of gamers proving 100/150 grade was the standard fuel of the RAF, documents were produced that showed hundreds of thousand of tons of the fuel being moved around various stations and brought into the RAF logistical system in anticipation of the fuel being adopted.

The operational use turned out to be extremely limited and for a very short period of time before it was withdrawn from service.

You cannot look at fuel stocks to determine the extent of operational use. Logistics is there to answer the question, "Do we have enough to use?"

They do not answer the question, "Can we use this fuel?"....that is the operational side of the house!

I agree with you that "fuel stocks quantity" and "extend of operational use" can be two different things. However, there is evidence that
a) there was more than enough fuel for every operational sortie "in stock", "issued", "consumed" (or however you want to call it that the fuel is circulating)
b) it was in operational use by at least 30 squadrons

And your theory is that only 16+2 squadrons only used it at one time because they didn't want to change a pre-war plan ... and the other squadrons didn't use it because of ... uhh?

I mean these squadrons had been modified to use it (and even if not modified it wouldn't have harmed the engine) and the fuel was been tested in regular squadrons since 1938.

[Crumpp]

And your theory is that only 16+2 squadrons only used it at one time because they didn't want to change a pre-war plan

It is not my theory. I don't know. It comes from what is considered the bible on the Spitfire's development, Morgan and Shacklady.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spitfire-His.../dp/0946219486

I just know nothing in this thread is convincing otherwise to make their conclusion invalid.

If you have a copy, look it up. If you don't and are interested in the Spitfire, get one.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is not my theory. I don't know. It comes from what is considered the bible on the Spitfire's development, Morgan and Shacklady.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spitfire-His.../dp/0946219486

I just know nothing in this thread is convincing otherwise to make their conclusion invalid.

If you have a copy, look it up. If you don't and are interested in the Spitfire, get one.

I have a copy of course. I read the section a week ago and my understanding is that the authors didn't make any conclusion, they only cite the pre-war plan. Some doubt that this plan was changed, some believe it has changed ... but really we don't even have evidence that the plan was accomplished, just as we don't have evidence that all units had converted.

What we have is evidence that Fighter Command wanted to change to 100 octane fuel and we have a large amount of squadrons that used 100 octane in May/June 1940 compared to a the few squadrons prior that time which used it on trial. Common sense tells me that it's not very likely that all squadrons changed from 87 octane to 100 octane in 6 weeks. Maybe someone can proof that I'm wrong with that assumption

My believe is that the widespread (meaning not limited to certain squadrons) use started in May/June 1940, however I don't believe that all squadrons used it exclusively from that time on but that the amount of squadrons that used it increased steadily and maybe it took the whole summer for some isolated squadrons.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is not my theory. I don't know. It comes from what is considered the bible on the Spitfire's development, Morgan and Shacklady.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spitfire-His.../dp/0946219486

I just know nothing in this thread is convincing otherwise to make their conclusion invalid.

If you have a copy, look it up. If you don't and are interested in the Spitfire, get one.

Can I ask where in the book it says this as I cannot find it.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Glider

Can I ask where in the book it says this as I cannot find it.

Pg 55 under the heading 100 OCTANE FUEL

This is the 1st edition.

[Crumpp]

Would be interesting to see those OOBs. There are some circulating in the internet, would be nice to compare them with other sources.

The source is the RAF's official History of the Battle of Britain by TCG James. I will scan them and post them when I get the chance.

my understanding is that the authors didn't make any conclusion

No they just state the facts as they know them. That is one of things that makes their book so good and so far, everything in it has been correct. Their research into the technical development of the Spitfire is profound.

I remember when people loved to post the Mach .98 dives of the recon Spitfire that lost a propeller available on that website "Spitfire Performance" as representative of the diving ability of the aircraft. Anybody with some knowledge of aerodynamics who reads Morgan and Shacklady can immediately spot the issue with that. Not only does the A&AEE officially retract those measurements but it is very easy to spot the fact the A&AEE had their static ports in the wrong location to get any kind of accurate speed measurement from their rake in the original report.

Not their fault, we just did not know as much about transonic flight and the difficulty in obtaining accurate airspeed measurements.

I agree the 800,000 ton strategic reserve requirement be built up before any squadrons convert probably comes from a pre-war estimate.

If it is correct, then there is absolutely no chance a single operational squadron flew with the fuel during the Battle of Britain. England simply did not have enough 100 Octane fuel on hand to come close to that reserve requirement.

Again, that is just speculation on my part. Morgan and Shacklady just listed the two facts we know but they were not writing a book on the history of the Oil Committee and strategic reserves.

1. An 800,000 ton Strategic Reserve was required to be on hand before a single aircraft flew operationally.

2. 16 Squadrons converted in September 1940.

They were doing the technical development of the Spitfire. The 16 squadrons is a very important part of that technical development and inline with the subject they were research. One can look at the 87 Octane consumption on the documents in this thread and easily tell that it was not until after September that 100 Octane became the predominate fuel used by the RAF.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

If it is correct, then there is absolutely no chance a single operational squadron flew with the fuel during the Battle of Britain. England simply did not have enough 100 Octane fuel on hand to come close to that reserve requirement.

They were doing the technical development of the Spitfire. The 16 squadrons is a very important part of that technical development and inline with the subject they were research. One can look at the 87 Octane consumption on the documents in this thread and easily tell that it was not until after September that 100 Octane became the predominate fuel used by the RAF.

So tell me Eugene why is there so many fighter squadrons using 12lb boost which can only be done when using 100 fuel?

This is just what I have even before the BoB started:

By Month

No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 92 (East India) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB H
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940 H
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB S
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron pre BoB S

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 3 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 17 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 19 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 54 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 73 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940 H
No. 41 Squadron June 1940 S
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940 S
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron June 1940 S

Well quite naturally 87 fuel was predominate as the other RAF Commands (Bomber, Coastal, Training etc) used 87 fuel.