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

[Glider]

Crumpp
You might be interested to know that in December 1938 the Air Ministry were planning to ensure that there were adaquate supplies of 100 Octane should war break out. There were two main factors, The Hartley Committee which recommended the size of the RAF in war and once you know the proposed size of the RAF, you can start estmating the demand for fuel.

The PLans were put forward

Plan F 124 squadrons with 1,736 front Line Aircraft
Plan L (intermediate) 161 squadrons with 2,541 front line aircraft
Plan L (Unltimate) 163 squadrons with 2,549 front line aircraft

It was estimated that it would take two years to get to Plan L which was the reccomendation put forward. so you are talking about the end of 1940.

It was estimated that this would need between 670,000 - 735,000 tons of 100 Octane a year and plans were put in place to deliver this capacity by the end of 1940.

What is interesting is that in Dec 1938 plans were in place for the support of 2,500 front line aircraft with 100 octane by the end of 1940. When you remember that in Aug 1940 all RAF front line commands were authorised to use 100 Octane, you can see that these plans although modified as circumstances unfolded, were basically kept to. The modification was of course, mainly that the war started before anyone expected it to

Its also worth remembering that we have a summary paper from Nov 1940 saying that the UK were well ahead of their plans iro fuel stocks

I should acknowledge that I believe Kurfurst was the first person to post the paper outlining the RAF 1938 plans on a different forum.

[Crumpp]

Glider,

Operating Note instructions are pretty definative. If it does not appear in the Notes on Operating the Merlin Engine, it was not common at the time of Note Publication.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider,

Operating Note instructions are pretty definative. If it does not appear in the Notes on Operating the Merlin Engine, it was not common at the time of Note Publication.

An obvious question I admit, but if these Instructions were so limiting, how do you explain the combat reports and other documentation confirming the use of the fuel in these engines? You have a theory that the engines couldn't be used with the fuel, but we have firm evidence that it was, not a thoretical point which is all you have. There is a clear difference.

I take this chance to remind you of a simple clarification that I am unsure of Crumpp. We are still waiting for you to try to support your belief about 16 squadrons.

All I have seen is a pre war statement of intent to have 16 squadrons of fighters and two of bombers.

Or am I right in thinking that this is now something in the past, like your belief that 1940 was about operational testing and you now simply believe it was less than 100% of fighter command.

I only ask this of you as I do not know what your current view is.

[Crumpp]

An obvious question I admit, but if these Instructions were so limiting, how do you explain the combat reports and other documentation confirming the use of the fuel in these engines?

Glider,

Documentation like that is useful but one can hardly make the conclusion all operational units were using the fuel. You are making a leap of logic that just is not there. If someone presented Combat reports from November 1945, would you make the conclusion the entire Luftwaffe was using the FW-190D9? Of course not, the report would have to be placed in context in order to be understood.

All the combat report tells you is that on that day and time, that single airplane was using the fuel.

The combat reports must be put in a timeline and in context just like the squadron log books.

Once more, period magazine articles the fuel was "in use" is not all operational units and niether is logistical documentation.

For example:

Sorry, but the Hurricanes were using 100 octane by then

Making the conclusion Hurricanes were using 100 Octane in the Battle of France based off some logistical projections for future war is amatuerish and clumsey. It is a paper tiger. That document is a calculation of projected needs written on 7 May 1940. The British Expeditionary Force was on the Beaches of Dunkirk 18 days later.

How much of those calculation and projections for future war do you really think became ground reality in 18 days?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider,

Documentation like that is useful but one can hardly make the conclusion all operational units were using the fuel. You are making a leap of logic that just is not there. If someone presented Combat reports from November 1945, would you make the conclusion the entire Luftwaffe was using the FW-190D9? Of course not, the report would have to be placed in context in order to be understood.

All the combat report tells you is that on that day and time, that single airplane was using the fuel.

The combat reports must be put in a timeline and in context just like the squadron log books.

Once more, period magazine articles the fuel was "in use" is not all operational units and niether is logistical documentation.

For example:



Making the conclusion Hurricanes were using 100 Octane in the Battle of France based off some logistical projections for future war is amatuerish and clumsey. It is a paper tiger. That document is a calculation of projected needs written on 7 May 1940. The British Expeditionary Force was on the Beaches of Dunkirk 18 days later.

How much of those calculation and projections for future war do you really think became ground reality in 18 days?

*Naturally Crumpp cannot or will not explain in straight terms exactly what did happen to over 60,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel consumed between February 1940 and the end of October 1940, except to spout some totally nonsensical rubbish about it not actually being consumed, but disappearing into some administrative oblivion based on his huge experience as a modern civilian pilot in the US of A.

*"That document is a calculation of projected needs written on 7 May 1940" Utter Rubbish Crumpp - READ IT PROPERLY; Paragraph 3 "Present Establishment of Aviation Fuels are..."

It states how much 100 Octane fuel was actually in various locations in France on that date!

*Naturally Crumpp cannot, or will not explain why it is those pesky pilots like Paul Richey, Edgar Kain, John Gleed, Roland Beamont, John Bushell and lots of other noted using +12lbs boost in combat while flying in France in early May 1940. Tsssk tsssk it's jolly inconvenient and they obviously didn't know that an expert like Crumpp would one day be micro-analysing the issue and proving they were all wrong. Time: Early May 1940 context: Several squadrons in Combat in France.

*Naturally Crumpp seems to think that because one aircraft just happened to be using the fuel on that day it doesn't mean the entire squadron was using it. Crumpp has not provided one single solitary piece of documented evidence to explain how the RAF did this.

So tell us Crumpp, how did the RAF ensure that individual or just a few aircraft per squadron used 100 Octane, while the rest went without? How was this allocated? How were the pilots briefed "Sorry chaps X Y and Z get the 100 Octane today, the rest of you stick with 87"? Have you ever heard of "scrambles" Crumpp, where the entire squadron takes off? Happened a lot during the battle, for some reason. How about you provide some documentary evidence Crumpp, showing that frontline fighter squadrons were using 87 octane fuel on a consistent basis throughout the battle - you are such an expert it should be easy.

Crumpp assumes that everyone, apart from his good self, and maybe a couple of others who agree with his POV, are idiots because only Crumpp has the knowledge and technical training to explain how things worked in the RAF in 1940. All of those aviation historians who have written about 100 Octane are amateurs who have no idea of how to research such deep topics properly, and ALL need Crumpp's guidance and enlightenment to show the true way to aviation history.

Using Crumpp logic the ancient Romans didn't exist, the Battle of Waterloo didn't happen and American soldiers of the South didn't actually win Bull Run because Jackson was a figment of someone's imagination. Honestly, why bother arguing with Mr Right? He should be busy rewriting history instead of arguing with us ignorant dweebs.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider,

Documentation like that is useful but one can hardly make the conclusion all operational units were using the fuel. You are making a leap of logic that just is not there. If someone presented Combat reports from November 1945, would you make the conclusion the entire Luftwaffe was using the FW-190D9? Of course not, the report would have to be placed in context in order to be understood.

But it is documentation, documentation that shows it was in use. You as have been pointed out have no documentation. NOthing that says that 87 octane was in use in front line units.

All the combat report tells you is that on that day and time, that single airplane was using the fuel.

Which gives us over 34 squadrons using the fuel as we have reports for that. However we have none that show 87 octane in use.

Once more, period magazine articles the fuel was "in use" is not all operational units and niether is logistical documentation.

For example:



Making the conclusion Hurricanes were using 100 Octane in the Battle of France based off some logistical projections for future war is amatuerish and clumsey. It is a paper tiger. That document is a calculation of projected needs written on 7 May 1940. The British Expeditionary Force was on the Beaches of Dunkirk 18 days later.

Again you forget that we have the logistical background for the use of 100 octane in France, the combat reports that show it in use in France, plus as a final kicker, the evidence from at least one crashed German fighter that the Germans were using captured RAF 100 octane fuel stocks. Finally you need to read the papers before you quote them. The &th May gives a present establishment of 100 Octane i.e. it was already in place in serious quantaties

Now if that is amaturish then I plead guilty.
Now how does that compare to a theory based on a 1942 Pilots Notes of an aircraft that wasn't in the front line in 1942 from which you decide that the aircraft wasn't using 100 Octane two years before. Does that strike you as detailed research, double checking and of course you do have documentation to support it don't you?.

How much of those calculation and projections for future war do you really think became ground reality in 18 days?

Clearly more than you think.

Finally can I remind you that you still havn't said how many RAF fighter squadrons you believe were using 100 Octane in the BOB or how many Blenhiem squadrons were using it.
You also believed that the period of 1940 was operational testing, with unfortunately nothing to support. This trend of having wild theories and no support is my definition of an Amaturish.

PS After your claim of 20 years in special forces I have serious doubts as to your experience iro aviation.