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

[Crumpp]

1) Was 100 octane fuel available to Fighter Command? Yes

Was 100/150 grade available to FC? Yes

2) Was there enough 100 octane fuel available to cover all sorties flown by Fighter Command during the battle? Yes

Was there enough 100/150 grade to cover all sorties flown? Yes

(It is called strategic reserves...)

We all know what happened when the same group of people started using the logic on that one.

Can anyone explain what happened to all that fuel if only half of FCs frontline fighters were allowed to use it?

Sure, some of consumed fuel was used in aircraft and all of it issued to the fields operating those aircraft. It appears that we have 16 squadrons on 31 July 1940 and we still have 16 squadrons by September.

You take a very very simplistic view. You do realize that in December 1944, the USAAF in Europe, had 4 billion barrels of aviation gasoline issued out and some 12 billion in reserve.

The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

Until then, it appears the RAF is simply building up the logistical base required to support the eventual change to 100 grade.

I will scan those Order of Battle charts from the RAF today.

[Crumpp]

Can we see the rest of that document Glider?

[Glider]

You can have anything that I have but which document in particular are you looking for, I posted a number of different ones. If its the Order of Battle I have posted this on posting 746

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Was 100/150 grade available to FC? Yes
The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

And you refuse to to understand that 87 fuel was used by other RAF Commands besides FC.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Was there enough 100/150 grade to cover all sorties flown? Yes

1)We all know what happened when the same group of people started using the logic on that one.

2)The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

1)Prove the first statement ie: I want to see the thread that you keep trumpeting as proof that 100/150 grade was not used.

2) If you're too obtuse to understand that "Other Grades" (not just 87 Octane) were used by Bomber Command, Coastal Command, etc which used big aircraft with large fuel tanks - eg Wellington 750 gallons - that's your pigeon. It is a lame argument, but then all of your arguments are lame.

[Glider]

The heat is rising again and I believe that people need to calm down and the best way is for some simple questions to be asked and to get some replies.

The latest focus of conversation is the fuel that was used.

We know that Bomber Command did approx 10,600 combat sorties during the BOB (data from Bomber Command Diary page 91, period 26 June to 13 October) plus a lot of training flights number unknown. I don't pretend to know the size of the tanks on Bomber Command aircraft but can safely assume that they are a lot bigger than a SE fighter.

Crump
The question I have is simple, do you agree that they would have used 87 octane until late August / September when they were allowed to use 100 Octane as per the paper I posted?

Edit
For the period 10 May to 25th June BC undertook approx 5,100 sorties

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Glider

The heat is rising again

The latest focus of conversation is the fuel that was used.

We know that Bomber Command did approx 10,600 combat sorties during the BOB (data from Bomber Command Diary page 91, period 26 June to 13 October) plus a lot of training flights number unknown. I don't pretend to know the size of the tanks on Bomber Command aircraft but can safely assume that they are a lot bigger than a SE fighter.

Crump
The question I have is simple, do you agree that they would have used 87 octane until late August / September when they were allowed to use 100 Octane as per the paper I posted?

Edit
For the period 10 May to 25th June BC undertook approx 5,100 sorties

The heat is rising again because we have had exactly this same "conversation" before. Crumpp has had people take the time to explain very carefully where his reasoning is flawed, yet he is parroting exactly the same stuff again as though he hasn't bothered absorbing anything that's been presented. Why should any of us waste any more time on this inanity?

Anyway the only info I can find on the fuel capacity of British bombers/Coastal Command aircraft is:
Vickers-Armstrong Wellington = 750 imp gallons Whitley, probably similar; Hampden about the same as Blenheim?

Short Sunderland = 2,550 imp gal

And I still want the the url for the thread on 100/150 grade fuel, and not just Crumpp/Barbi's interpretation.

[Crumpp]

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...=1#post3217673

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...=1#post3358320

Senior Intelligence Officer of 126 (RCAF) Spitfire Wing, 2 TAF, noted in his daily operational summary on 20 April 1945 after the crashes of two Spitfires; "The incidents followed a number of engine problems that were attributed to the introduction of 150-grade fuel in early February. Pilots mistrusted it, and were no doubt relieved when the AF brass decided to revert to 130-grade. The vast majority of pilots, I'm sure, were beginning to wonder if the additional seven pounds of boost they got from 150-grade fuel were worth the price being paid."[11]

-Berger, Monty and Street, Brian Jeffrey.Invasion Without Tears. Toronto, Canada: Random House, 1994 (1st ed) ISBN 0-394-22277-6

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...=1#post3217673

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...=1#post3358320



-Berger, Monty and Street, Brian Jeffrey.Invasion Without Tears. Toronto, Canada: Random House, 1994 (1st ed) ISBN 0-394-22277-6

And that's all? That's all Crumpp can put forward to somehow "prove" that the RAF didn't use 100 Octane fuel in 1940? What have either of these two replies got to do with fuel stockpiles or any of the other nonsense Crumpp has been spouting?

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.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

As noted, the whole story ever increasingly reminds old participants of the 150 grade-fiasco of lane and co. The agenda of 'all the RAF fighter Command was using 150 grade' was pressed with the same fortitude, documents were manipulated and doctored for support the same, until documentary evidence become clear and it turned out that 'all +25 lbs Mark IXs using 150 grade' were in fact but two Sqns on operational trials, the '+25 lbs Mk XIVs' lane was pushing for never existed due to technical troubles, those '+25 RAF Mustang IIIs of the RAF in 1944' were again just two Sqns who have seen the enemy about twice, once over France and once over the North Sea, were and proposed use of 150 grade in the 2nd TAF's IX units was recalled after a month of operation in 1945 - a fact that lane still omits from his website articles.

The 100 octane story/agenda is the same, with the same old origins, methods and smokescreen - though I am sure its can be presented as better case than what turned out to be the truth about 150 grade (giggles).

Reading the whole thread presented by Crumpp shows nothing like the story Barbi tells; in fact far from proving Mike Williams aka lane wrong, or showing any evidence of "manipulated or doctored documents" Crumpp congratulated Mike on his research - which is about all Crumpp got right. Just another example of how Barbi is prepared to stretch and manipulate the truth in an effort to discredit other members of this forum.

Sorry, if Crumpp thinks the thread he has presented as "evidence" proves his case, that the RAF built up reserves of 100 octane without using it, he is dreaming. All it proves is that that Barbi and co have lost the debate and have nothing practical to say.

[Glider]

CRUMPP/NZ
I admit to not giving a damn about 150 octane, this thread is about 100 Octane in the BOB.

Crumpp, can I ask you to confirm that your belief is that Bomber Command used 87 Octane during the BOB period until 100 octane was released for general use in all front line commands in August.