PDA

View Full Version : BoB: the RAF and 100 octane fuel



yuuppers
08-21-2009, 07:35 AM
In the not to distant future Oleg Maddox will release his BoB game. This will result in a mass of threads on airplane performance and related subjects. One of the <span class="ev_code_RED">ho</span><span class="ev_code_PINK">tte</span> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">st</span> topics no doubt will be the RAF use of 100 octane fuel. The fanatical fanboiz of the Nazi German Third Reich will do their damnedest to castrate the British Spitfire and Hurricane fighters but will all be for naught, for there is proof that 100 octane fuel was in widespread use.

These two threads document the RAFs history and use of 100 octane fuel preceding and during BoB:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/for...uring-bob-16305.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-during-bob-16305.html)
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/for...af-pt-2-a-20108.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108.html)

Save the links for future reference when the topic appears.

Monty_Thrud
08-21-2009, 07:46 AM
WHHOOA! there old timer, just let me nip out and get a mother big bag of pop-corn wont ya...eek! 7 posts and fishing soooo soon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Bremspropeller
08-21-2009, 07:47 AM
The easiest way of recognizing one of tagert's countless alter-egos is his preferrence for flamboyant colours... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Toten_Waffe
08-21-2009, 08:01 AM
Has anyone been claiming they were not using 100 octane fuel early on in the war.....just a quick google search returns lots of references.

megalopsuche
08-21-2009, 08:14 AM
Goodness! Have some coffee before you post. I always thought that what made the BoB fun, playing from either side, was the importance of pilot quality and not the machine.

Fwiw, in every computer sim incarnation of the Spit/109 I've seen, the Spit mk I is faster than the 109E. It would seem that there's no reason for you to worry about the nerfing of the RAF.

Bremspropeller
08-21-2009, 08:53 AM
The fanatical fanboiz of the Nazi German Third Reich will do their damnedest to castrate the British Spitfire and Hurricane fighters but will all be for naught, for there is proof that 100 octane fuel was in widespread use.

They actually wouldn't need to, as it would be evident that RAF-fighters sucked anyway, as they needed the help of 100 octane-fuel in order to equal the Luftwaffe-fighters' performance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Kurfurst__
08-21-2009, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The easiest way of recognizing one of tagert's countless alter-egos is his preferrence for flamboyant colours... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its Milo's umphteent account actually. He tried to the same flamebait already in Freiwillige's thread a while ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

megalopsuche
08-21-2009, 10:03 AM
I just checked the link. If this whole debate is centered around propaganda minister Kurfurst, then it is equivalent to arguing with a member of the flat earth society.

Reading the wikipedia talk article on the 109 is quite humorous, where he gets chastised for trying to edit the article with nonsense about gondola cannon not degrading performance. Then there was the business over at the AH forums about him taking charts off another website, and digitally watermarking them as his own. We haven't seen him there since.

For your reading pleasure:

The reason for the deletion of these entries:

which, contrary to popular belief, did not induce any greater drag or weight penalty than a wing-housed armament,...

Is that no evidence has been shown to back this information up. Adding new information "contrary to popular belief" without citing a source comes under Wikipedia:No original research. It may well be that there was no added weight imposed, that has not been proven by any cited source. That the addition of the cannon gondolas "accentuated the fighter's tendency to swing pendulum fashion" and reduced manoeuvrability indicates that there was an aerodynamic penalty.

In a serial production Bf 109G-1/R2 with GM-1 injection, R. Klein had achieved 680 km/h at 12,000 m and a ceiling of 13,800 m. Hermann Graf with another serial Bf 109G achieved 14,300 meter altitude.

Again this in new, un-sourced information which comes under Wikipedia:No original research. The other records described have cited sources, and there should be no reason for this additional material to be added as fact without some confirmation.Minorhistorian (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: wing armament: Again, it has not been claimed it did not add weight or drag. It did. The claim is that it did not give any greater weight or drag. I think I have noted that once already. You should read the sentence. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: altitude achievements: This one comes from one of the Schiffer volumes IIRC. I will try to find the exact source, and make you happy. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no practical way for an added weapon pod housed in the wing to NOT have extra drag. Just sayin'... Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It has. It just do not have any more than wing installations. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

From the adverse effects the weapons pods had on the flight qualities of the Bf 109 there might not have been added drag, but there must have been some interesting changes to the airflow.
Also, the records section, from my read, deals with records set and recognised as records by the FAI, so any unofficial records, set while testing aircraft, for example, don't really belong here. One another thing; a lot of material in this article is based on information from:

self-published sources whose reliability has not been established (spitfireperformance.com and aboutwarfare.com)websites: if contributors to these articles can find reliable, secondary sources...

As I have explained elsewhere, I have deleted citations based on Spitfire Performance and have replaced it with reliable, secondary sources. Material from aboutwarefare.com is also considered as unacceptable on Wikipedia and should also, in all fairness, be removed. And would you Kurfürst please NOT interleave your comments with other people's? You've been asked to stop several times.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, I've taken Kurfürst's additions and pulled them from out of the inside of other editor's talk page entries. This is getting very tiresome! One last time, Kurfürst, I am asking you to place every single portion of your response below the signature of the editor whose talk entry you are replying to. Further violations of established Talk page flow will be considered purposeful disruption and will be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurfürst you are still using material which is self-published sources and, as you well know is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Gammelpreusse
08-21-2009, 10:37 AM
wtf?

Viper2005_
08-21-2009, 10:48 AM
Since the performance improvement is obtained at low to medium altitude, whilst much of the combat was at higher altitude during this phase of the War, the main importance of 100 octane fuel was the improvement in climb rate which allowed the RAF to operate with reduced warning time.

However, in a game scenario where we perhaps don't have to worry too much about the logistics of getting fighters into position for combat (because the fighter-controller's job will presumably be done extremely well by the AI to avoid inconclusive results), but are more concerned about aircraft performance once battle is joined, 100 octane fuel may be somewhat less significant than many expect when fighting at 20,000 feet:

http://www.spitfireperformance...fire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg)

OTOH, in a dogfight server, especially at the "air quake" end of things, the extra deck speed will be just as significant as that offered by the +25 Spitfire IX.

It would be extremely interesting if aircraft performance degraded over time (like the paint scheme degradation already demonstrated in screenshots) as a function of how aggressively the aeroplane is flown. Obviously this would affect all the aeroplanes.

It would also be interesting to see individual performance variation (which could be quite significant) modelled. The vintages of whine which could be produced thereby would be legendary.

ElAurens
08-21-2009, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
wtf?

In short they are saying Kurfurst is making up his "facts".

If you've been around long enough you would know that there is nothing new about this.

Kurfurst__
08-21-2009, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
wtf?

A frustrated member venting off his frustration and adding some lies to it in a flamethread launched by another frustrated member who can't even count his alternate logins anymore, so many having been banned. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyway, currently the heat level is still pretty low, so I will add a bit to the 'discussion' so the usual people can really start frothing in the mouth. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



A couple of years ago an Australian researcher shared his findings about the matter with some of us during a related discussion.

He came across a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance, when he was researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives. It was a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report titled Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War. He noted that the reason why it was included amongst AWM papers is because the Australian Government at that time was protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

He summarized the contents of the addendum as the follows (salient points highlighted by me):


"Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.

Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.

The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940."

na85
08-21-2009, 11:48 AM
Could you provide a link to this document?

Gammelpreusse
08-21-2009, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
wtf?

In short they are saying Kurfurst is making up his "facts".

If you've been around long enough you would know that there is nothing new about this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously, but so out of the blue is like wow. Some kind of obsessive vendetta going on?

yuuppers
08-21-2009, 12:24 PM
You are hilarious Barbi. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

From the 2cd link which disputes in no uncertain terms your only source which no one can find in Australian War Memorial Archives except for one person who never came back and posted the original document.

Consumption of Aviation Spirit
The following figures are for the Air Minsitry and are the Average Monthly Consumption

September – November 1939 16,000 tons
Dec 1939 – February 1940 14,000 tons
March 1940 – May 1940 23,000 tons
June 1940 – August 1940 <span class="ev_code_RED">10,000 tons (100 Oct)</span> 26,000 tons (87 Oct)
Sept 1940 – November 1940 <span class="ev_code_RED">15,000 tons (100 Oct)</span> 18,000 tons (87 Oct)

Stocks of 100 Octane

30th September - 1939 153,000 tons(b)
27th February - 1940 220,000 tons(b)
31st May 1940 - 294,000 tons(a)
11th July 1940 - 343,000 tons(b)
31st August 1940 - 404,000 tons(a)
10th October 1940 - 424,000 tons(c)
30th November 1940 - 440,000 tons(a)

Please note that the stock of 100 octane went from 294,000tons (end of May) to 440,000tons (end of Nov), yet only 25,000 tons had been consumed.


McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

Care to back this statement up?

Bremspropeller
08-21-2009, 12:27 PM
Get a life.

na85
08-21-2009, 12:31 PM
http://xkcd.com/386/

Xiolablu3
08-21-2009, 01:16 PM
ANd Kurfurst wins again. Not necesarily cos his info is more correct....

Just because of his well worded and mature posting style...

stalkervision
08-21-2009, 01:18 PM
But Kurfurst is our "propaganda minister" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

"I just checked the link. If this whole debate is centered around propaganda minister Kurfurst, then it is equivalent to arguing with a member of the flat earth society."


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

but now I think I want to be the new Minister of propaganda.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsR/41436-26598.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
08-21-2009, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
But Kurfurst is our "propaganda minister" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

"I just checked the link. If this whole debate is centered around propaganda minister Kurfurst, then it is equivalent to arguing with a member of the flat earth society."


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

but now I think I want to be the new Minister of propaganda.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsR/41436-26598.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
08-21-2009, 01:45 PM
maybe...maybe?

http://stage.nick.com/shows/penguins-of-madagascar/images/lightbox/mort-flipbook-05.jpg

what is this minister of propaganda? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I love mort. They can get him to do everything and anything and he doesn't mind. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

btw "I like computers!"

Mort.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...UJ4M&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGwy8DsUJ4M&feature=related)

Muddy17
08-21-2009, 04:49 PM
In the not to distant future Oleg Maddox will release his BoB game. This will result in a mass of threads on airplane performance and related subjects. One of the hotte st topics no doubt will be the RAF use of 100 octane fuel. The fanatical fanboiz of the Nazi German Third Reich will do their damnedest to castrate the British Spitfire and Hurricane fighters but will all be for naught, for there is proof that 100 octane fuel was in widespread use.

In the end if Hitler himself had not fooled around with things we all know that 100 octane fuel would not have saved the RAF,, Only Geman high command saved them. and let the naysayers say but it had it not been for the shift in tacktics at the end the Geamans would have gained the upper hand.

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-21-2009, 07:32 PM
No sign of Max yet? It dont even get good till he shows up. Although Kurfy is here so its a start! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gumtree
08-21-2009, 08:26 PM
I wish they would just release the game so I can play the dam thing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
I want to fool around in a FIGHT SIMULATOR! I have no interest in how pretty a farmers tractor or grass looks.

Just give us the friggen game already.