Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hello try to find Gavin's article The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain by Gavin Bailey, The English Historical Review Vol. CXXIII No. 501 (Apr. 2008) pp. 394 - 411 as a starter. I was able to find it even here in Finland. It might have helped that I was and still am an alumni of a University and have a MA in World History
To make a long story short, every BoB front line Hurricane and Spitfire had converted to 100 octane by ~June 1940. I've NEVER seen a primary reference to any BoB front line Hurricane/Spitfire squadron using 87 octane fuel.Dear all,
First post, and from an EFL. Forgive mistakes.
I came across this old but very interesting discussion on roll-out of the 100-octane fuel in the RAF in 1939-1940:
Use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF during BOB
All I promised to do some digging and come up with a summary of what I found on this topic which is the following. First of all I must thank a number of you for helping me track down the relevant documentation, there are too many to name but you know who you are and the assistance is much...ww2aircraft.net The use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF pt 2
All The previous thread was closed in unfortunate circumstances but I was just finishing the additional research that I promised to undertake. I feel that what I have goes some way towards addressing the outstanding questions and for completion is worth putting it on the forum. For ease of...ww2aircraft.net
Although no one questions the use of 100-octane, the open issue was the proportion of RAF fighters actually converted to this upgraded gasoline when the Battle of Britain took place. Two people argue that most aricraft were converted while another underlines no such thing has been quantified.
The above threads are 12+ year old: has there been any aditionnal research since them?
For example, excerpts from ORB mentioning "conversion to 100-octane", with date, are attached the thread. Was someone systematic in digging into other ORB - which are all available for free download on the TNA site - to check detailed data?
(As a side note, I find it great to see all these primary sources in the threads. But it's a pity reference of the files is always lacking, making it kind of useless for anyone doing proper research).
Thanks,
Mori
He was influential.Remember the influence of Jimmy Doolittle in the '30s when separated from the AAC and employed by Royal Dutch Shell. He advocated strongly for high octane refining capability which became an often-overlooked advantage for the WWII Allies.
Do you know anything about "Sweeney's Blend?He was influential.
However in the 1930s people were still trying to figure out how to make 100 octane fuel in large quantities economically.
Highly refined using few additives with some lead?
Highly refined using few additives with more lead?
Less refined using aromatic additives? plus lead?
A different solution?
Using lead tended to foul the spark plugs and was not a good solution in high quantities.
It took a very judicious combination of the above listed approaches to get the point of late 1942/43 fuel.
Remember the influence of Jimmy Doolittle in the '30s when separated from the AAC and employed by Royal Dutch Shell. He advocated strongly for high octane refining capability which became an often-overlooked advantage for the WWII Allies.
Unfortunately the book contains less interesting information on the topic than I expected. I can post the text (or a searchable PDF file) of the the Chapter 15 "Fuel Developments in the Biplane to Monoplane Era" if it does not violate the rules and copyrights.I highly recommend Banks' book for anyone interested in the subject: Air Commodore F. R. Banks, I Kept No Diary, Airlife Publications, Shrewsbury England, 1978
As an aside, I encountered mention of Doolittle in my reading recently in Gordon Graham's book, Down For Double. Apparently, he was working again for Shell post war on fuel development, see attachments:I mention Doolittle's high octane fuel advocacy as he has to be one of the most accomplished people in aviation history. No one person deserves all the credit for major advances, but he was the keystone in so many epic changes.
Most whom we laud have one stellar accomplishment ... Doolittle had around a dozen at least! Too many recall just his Tokyo raid, while he rose from near poverty to earn one of the first Aero Engineering PhDs, planned and performed the earliest blind flight, excelled in several diverse aspects of air racing, reorganized our chaotic European bombing efforts, served on many influential post war policy and planning boards.
On top of that, he summed it all up as "just being lucky!"
Impressive, and a lot I didn't know. I'm in even more awe. Thank you,As an aside, I encountered mention of Doolittle in my reading recently in Gordon Graham's book, Down For Double. Apparently, he was working again for Shell post war on fuel development, see attachments:
View attachment 737774
View attachment 737775
View attachment 737776
By the time the Battle of Britain started the ministry files were already on to discussing the conversion of aircraft in Operational Training Units
to 100 Octane.
Blenheims actually got priority for early application in 1939 due to their already obvious performance detriment.
UK stock of 100 grade was 150,000 tons in July 1939 and was nearly 300,000 tons by the time the Battle of Britain officially "started".
The paper mentioned is very good, but in my view makes a couple of fairly difficult to support statements on the lack of efficacy of 100 grade
on performance based on one test. Other than that, its conclusions are correct.