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

[Crumpp]

16 squadrons as that was patently wrong.

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

[Crumpp]

Just explain to everyone why it is that people far more qualified than you say the fuel was blended at the refineries,

It says they made the 100 grade stock. The article explains how they making regular gasoline stock using catalytic cracking produced a stock pure enough to be have alkylation it was made into 100 grade fuel stock.

Of course they blended the alkylates at the refinery. Stockyards do not have the equipment to do that kind of operation. Stockyards today do not perform alkylation either.

Fuel stock is what gets shipped from the refinery. It is not the fuel that goes into airplane tanks.

Even aircraft oil requires blending. An extreme example is for Lycoming engines that you can find oil that is already blended or you must blend it yourself. There is an mandatory service bulletin that requires certain Lycoming engines to use LW-16702. Lycoming highly recommends the additive for all of their engines.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/supp...dfs/SB471B.PDF

Here you can buy the additive and blend it yourself....

Avco Lycoming has approved oil additive LW-16702 that contains an anti-scuffing agent and can dramatically reduce engine wear. This additive is applicable to all Avco Lycoming piston aircraft engines, and factory recommends use at every oil change or every 50 hours, whichever occurs first.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...iladditive.php

Or you can buy the oil already blended:

Contains additive LW16702 which reduces engine wear and corrosion.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...shelloils3.php

Either way, if you fly a certain Lycoming engine, you must have use it.

[NZtyphoon]

As per usual Crumpp, you have not explained anything by diverting into modern peacetime practices.

Please explain why the RAF issued 62,000 tons of 100 Octane between July and end of October 1940, consumed 52,000 tons, yet just over 15,000 tons was needed to fly every defensive sortie flown between July 10 and October 6?

And, no I don't care what happens in the private aviation business now, it would be good if you could explain: what happened to some 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in 1940?

May I repeat that?

What happened to 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel?

The rest of your claims - that only 16 Squadrons ever used the stuff until sometime in September - are based on Morgan and Shacklady which, as I have explained very carefully, based their claims on a pre-war planning paper, which is a highly suspect way of explaining what happened in wartime, when Britain was facing a full scale air assault and the possibility of invasion.

In fact the entire section of the use of 100 Octane fuel in Morgan and Shacklady is a deeply flawed analysis of what happened in 1940. For example, they claim that lots of tankers carrying 100 Octane were sunk by U-Boats etc, but provide absolutely NO evidence to back the claim up. In fact something like 78 tankers (Barbi's figures) were sunk between September 1939 and November 1940 while 1,150 unloaded their cargoes in Britain during the same period. Just because Morgan and Shacklady are great at describing the technical details of Spitfires it doesn't mean that they have a complete grasp of all historical events of the times.

All Crumpp can come up with is absolutely nothing. Why he wants to believe so fervently - so religiously (evidence of things unseen) and rigidly - that the RAF used very limited amounts of 100 Octane fuel is beyond me, and I don't really care. I have far more important things to do than bother with his nonsense and blather any more.

[Al Schlageter]

I see Eugene is doing his usual song and dance routine evading answering direct questions.

He knows he is wrong about only 16 squadrons but as he is never wrong, he won't admit he is wrong. If he was so sure of only 16 squadrons, then why hasn't he given their numbers.

Which 16 squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were using 100 fuel in September Eugene?

Which squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were still using 87 fuel in September Eugene?

We won't get an answer, as like Barbi, he expects others to do his research and then won't believe the research of others when presented.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

You continually fail to name those 16 squadrons despite pilot reports saying at least 22 squadrons using 12 boost which required 100 fuel before July.

You have yet to produce that OOB you said you would. Sure they did as my graphic shows.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=772

This is only the Spitfire squadrons. Please don't make the suggestion that Hurricanes were all on 87 for god's sake.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hey Guys

Got a little busy this last weekend, was not able to put out the group PM, so don't feel left out if you didn't get the PM! I hope to get to it this week!

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by .

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

I would like you to read your source, If you look at it you will find they are one and the same and there isn't one that says 16 squadrons were using 100 octane in September.

If there is I would be glad to see it but I am certain that you don't have one that says, sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel to quote your words.
If you cannot supply such a source, I would like an explanation as to why you are saying that you have such a paper and don't.

[Crumpp]

Glider you have seen the sources. They are already posted in this thread.

I am not interested in wasting my time hunting them down to be re-posted. Read the thread, please.

I will scan the OOB's but on my time not yours.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider you have seen the sources. They are already posted in this thread.

I am not interested in wasting my time hunting them down to be re-posted. Read the thread, please.

I will scan the OOB's but on my time not yours.

Your right, I have seen the sources and they don't say what you claim. Please note item 8.

So just to sum up the outstanding questions which are outstanding with you

1) Have you any evidence to support the 16 squadron idea
2) If you believe that it was a rotational issue so only 16 squadrons were using 100 octane at any one time, is there anything to support your theory
3) I am not that interested in your OOB as I posted one from the official archives which clearly showed more than 16 squadrons in the front line 10, 11, 12 Group at any one time. I am confident that if your supported your views then you would have posted them in double quick time

So I must repeat you may have your belief but you do not have any facts, none at all.

I believe the following to be the source that you are using, if you have more than that then please let us know because they are not in this thread:-