100-octane fuel in the RAF in 1940

Mori · Sep 18, 2023

Juha3 said:
Hello Mori
now Gavin's article is a scientific article published in a well-established scientific journal and so it has notes, so you have the notes and so you can check from where the info has come, so you can check it and dig deeper if you want e.g. Search results: CAB 77/3 | The National Archives for CAB 77/3.

Juha3 said:
Scientific papers are not God's words but you can check the claims and use notes for deeper study if you want.

I did my homework and read Gavin's article (as well as 10+ more articles). Gavin's is a very solid piece of research and I see little to nothing to criticize. Footnotes also give plenty of ideas where to dig further.
(The only thing I noticed is the author ignores CAB 50 Oil Board series - which is full of documents on high-octane aviation gasoline - but rather uses isolated items found under AIR 2. )

However, this article is not interested in when the 100-octane was rolled out to fighter squadrons of the RAF. This was the question starting this thread.

But since Gavin also points that the benefits from this improved fuel were "marginal, and perhaps even insignificant", the matter is moot. I just wonder why heated discussions started over that point 10 years ago.

Deleted member 68059 · Sep 18, 2023

Mori said:
I did my homework and read Gavin's article (as well as 10+ more articles). Gavin's is a very solid piece of research and I see little to nothing to criticize. Footnotes also give plenty of ideas where to dig further.
(The only thing I noticed is the author ignores CAB 50 Oil Board series - which is full of documents on high-octane aviation gasoline - but rather uses isolated items found under AIR 2. )

However, this article is not interested in when the 100-octane was rolled out to fighter squadrons of the RAF. This was the question starting this thread.

But since Gavin also points that the benefits from this improved fuel were "marginal, and perhaps even insignificant", the matter is moot. I just wonder why heated discussions started over that point 10 years ago.

Gavin is not correct in saying the fuel difference was "marginal and perhaps even insignificant", which is a fairly large error of interpretation and judgement. However that's the only major error in the paper.

Before even looking at data, the idea that Britain and America invested (adjusted) figures amounting to billions of dollars in a technology to make "marginal" gains in aircraft performance is frankly rather bizarre, on the basis that VP props were also important. Why he assumes that VP pitch props being under appreciated can
be conflated with believing that 100 octane isn't very useful - is odd.

There is a whole sheaf of verifiable archive data here which downs the efficacy of the fuel >

Spitfire Mk I Performance Testing

Spitfire Performance Testing, wartime flight trials and reports of Spitfire aircraft. Spitfire Mk I data.

www.spitfireperformance.com

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

Mori · Sep 18, 2023

Snowygrouch said:
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.

Can you specify the TNA boxes where these 3 excellent excerpts come from...? This would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

Mori · Sep 18, 2023

Snowygrouch said:
Gavin is not correct in saying the fuel difference was "marginal and perhaps even insignificant", which is a fairly large error of interpretation and judgement. However that's the only major error in the paper.

Care to develop this point, since it's key to the whole discussion...?

Deleted member 68059 · Sep 18, 2023

Mori said:
Care to develop this point, since it's key to the whole discussion...?

I think its extremely clear from the Spitfire speed graph presented in my post, and is expanded upon in great depth in the weblink I provided.

Deleted member 68059 · Sep 18, 2023

Mori said:
Can you specify the TNA boxes where these 3 excellent excerpts come from...? This would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

I could, but why is that important to your question ?

RCAFson · Sep 18, 2023

Mori said:
I did my homework and read Gavin's article (as well as 10+ more articles). Gavin's is a very solid piece of research and I see little to nothing to criticize. Footnotes also give plenty of ideas where to dig further.
(The only thing I noticed is the author ignores CAB 50 Oil Board series - which is full of documents on high-octane aviation gasoline - but rather uses isolated items found under AIR 2. )

However, this article is not interested in when the 100-octane was rolled out to fighter squadrons of the RAF. This was the question starting this thread.

But since Gavin also points that the benefits from this improved fuel were "marginal, and perhaps even insignificant", the matter is moot. I just wonder why heated discussions started over that point 10 years ago.

You cannot answer the question of complete conversion of Fighter Command to 100 octane fuel by looking at 100 octane fuel production and/or related topics. You can only answer it by looking for 87 octane fuel use by RAF FC squadrons during the BofB.

Again, you need to turn the question of 87 and 100 octane fuel use in Fighter Command, during the BofB on it's head and instead of looking for 100 octane use during the BofB, you need to look for evidence of 87 octane fuel use.

There's no evidence that I can find that front line Spitfire and Hurricane fighter squadrons used 87 octane fuel during the BofB, but this is where you need to look.

Mori · Sep 19, 2023

Snowygrouch said:
I could, but why is that important to your question ?

As I'm new here, I don't realize whether (kindly) asking for the exact reference of a document is an acceptable behavior. If that breaks the usual politeness of this forum, please ignore the request.

As for why it is important: simply because this would allow me (and others) to explore said boxes to learn more. That's the rationale for citing archives in any scientific publications. Actually, a document whose origin is deliberately withheld is suspicious...

Mori · Sep 19, 2023

Snowygrouch said:
Before even looking at data, the idea that Britain and America invested (adjusted) figures amounting to billions of dollars in a technology to make "marginal" gains in aircraft performance is frankly rather bizarre, on the basis that VP props were also important. Why he assumes that VP pitch props being under appreciated can be conflated with believing that 100 octane isn't very useful - is odd.

Unfortunately, there are so many examples of just such behavior one could say it's nothing special. It does happen to spend crazy sums of money in things that do not work - think Concorde. History of oil is full of such ventures, and we are stay on the WW2 era, take oil-from-coal as an example, especially the countless projects outside Germany (UK, France, Italy, Japan).

Snowygrouch said:
View attachment 737902

Thanks for posting the chart. I admit that I am not familiar with such curve, so that conclusions don't jump to my face as "extremely clear" without a few words of explanation. For example, I am not sure what curve relates to 100-octane ; it is not clear why it takes 304 seconds (is that seconds?) to climb to 20 000 feet but only 265s to go even higher at 30 000 feet. Obviously, I can't read the chat properly. Would you be kind enough to explain ?

(The excellent site you refer to, WWII Aircraft Performance, is full of remarquable data. However, exact reference of documents taken from TNA and other archives are never specified. It's weird, actually, given the depth of details, that these data were forgotten/withheld. Bottom line is one cannot leverage this site in one's own publications).

Mori · Sep 19, 2023

RCAFson said:
You cannot answer the question of complete conversion of Fighter Command to 100 octane fuel by looking at 100 octane fuel production and/or related topics. You can only answer it by looking for 87 octane fuel use by RAF FC squadrons during the BofB.

Again, you need to turn the question of 87 and 100 octane fuel use in Fighter Command, during the BofB on it's head and instead of looking for 100 octane use during the BofB, you need to look for evidence of 87 octane fuel use.

There's no evidence that I can find that front line Spitfire and Hurricane fighter squadrons used 87 octane fuel during the BofB, but this is where you need to look.

By the way, 100 octane requires a few twists in the engine, like changing the spark plugs. Once done, is there any issue fueling 87 octane? I believe not, but just asking.

Deleted member 68059 · Sep 19, 2023

Mori said:
As I'm new here, I don't realize whether (kindly) asking for the exact reference of a document is an acceptable behavior. If that breaks the usual politeness of this forum, please ignore the request.

As for why it is important: simply because this would allow me (and others) to explore said boxes to learn more. That's the rationale for citing archives in any scientific publications. Actually, a document whose origin is deliberately withheld is suspicious...

"Suspicious ?"

In what way, the original pages are posted, not quotes I`ve typed in. Do you imagine I drew all those in photoshop to mislead you ?

You are welcome to ask for citations, but I think you ought to be a little careful about wording when asking things from people who have already spent
time searching out files for you.

As for which curve is a Spitfire on 100 Octane its of course the one saying +12lbs, which is mentioned several times in Gavin`s article (all over page 398 and 399)

Mori · Sep 19, 2023

Snowygrouch said:
That is often true when quotes are given in text format (i.e. not photos of the original pages) then people refuse to cite sources, but what some older members here have got experience of here is new people with extremely specific questions turning up after just registering, and absorbing lots of members time and then asking for lots of very specific document references, and we later find out it was someone writing a magazine article, here under some other name getting all their research done for them for free, and then of course never citing anyone who actually did all the work.

So yes, some of us do like to ask questions about what the information is going to be used for. So you`ll have to forgive me for wanting to know what I`m spending my time helping with.

Let me readily admit that I *am* doing research and I *am* writing a book. If you are (really) interested - and enjoy reading French - check the acknowledgements of my previous books and see by yourself that I cite all contributors who helped and agreed to have their name printed. This included quite some people from forums similar to this one.

Besides, refusing to cite sources is a behavior from people outside the research community. I agree with your remark; it is mostly seen in "older" people rather than researchers who entered active life in the 21st century and understand at a deeper level the value in sharing freely. There wouldn't be any wikipedia otherwise. Oftentimes, refusing-to-cite-sources people imagine they sit on a goldmine, fail to publish much, but enjoy throwing a page to win an argument in a forum on a FB group. And/or argue that since they spent some time in Kew, then others should also waste the same time doing the same research, even though it would be much smarter for others to check new boxes, then share.

I have been through these discussions many times before. Conclusion is there is no way to convince a guy who refuses to cite source to change mentality.

Good news is hundreds or reseachers don't mind sharing. Other the years, I have been freely sharing not only references but also actual documents by millions of pages. My drives hold ca. 20,000 full files from TNA/NARA/BAMA/SHD and I am always happy to share with anyone interested. And I don't even care if I'm not in the acknowledgements of whatever ends up published

Deleted member 68059 · Sep 19, 2023

Mori said:
Let me readily admit that I *am* doing research and I *am* writing a book. If you are (really) interested - and enjoy reading French - check the acknowledgements of my previous books and see by yourself that I cite all contributors who helped and agreed to have their name printed. This included quite some people from forums similar to this one.

Besides, refusing to cite sources is a behavior from people outside the research community. I agree with your remark; it is mostly seen in "older" people rather than researchers who entered active life in the 21st century and understand at a deeper level the value in sharing freely. There wouldn't be any wikipedia otherwise. Oftentimes, refusing-to-cite-sources people imagine they sit on a goldmine, fail to publish much, but enjoy throwing a page to win an argument in a forum on a FB group. And/or argue that since they spent some time in Kew, then others should also waste the same time doing the same research, even though it would be much smarter for others to check new boxes, then share.

I have been through these discussions many times before. Conclusion is there is no way to convince a guy who refuses to cite source to change mentality.

Good news is hundreds or reseachers don't mind sharing. Other the years, I have been freely sharing not only references but also actual documents by millions of pages. My drives hold ca. 20,000 full files from TNA/NARA/BAMA/SHD and I am always happy to share with anyone interested. And I don't even care if I'm not in the acknowledgements of whatever ends up published

There is only one person on this thread who has witheld important information about their motives from others (until they were caught out).

I see you`ve also taken the opportunity to insult older researchers whist you are here too.

If you have been through discussions "like this many times before", maybe... its you? I`ve never met anyone who likes helping people make money
from their work without citing them, ever.

I`m afraid that your points about "free and open research for all" only apply when you turn up and talk "freely and openly" about
what you are doing from the start, without being caught getting free research for your books. Its bizzarre that you think
you can turn up, conceal your project (until you`re caught), THEN complain about not being given everything you want for free.

Mori · Sep 19, 2023

Snowygrouch said:
There is only one person on this thread who has witheld important information about their motives from others (until they were caught out)

Not sure I get it, like I was "caught" because I freely explained that I was doing research...?

But as said before, those who ask why citing sources matters are the same who never ever agree to do so. They just reveal they are outside the research community, whatever expertise/ knowledge they accumulated otherwise.

"Information not shared is lost", to quote another forum.

Deleted member 68059 · Sep 19, 2023

Mori said:
Not sure I get it, like I was "caught" because I freely explained who I was?

But as said before, those who ask why citing sources matters are the same who never ever agree to do so. They just reveal they are outside the research community, whatever expertise/ knowledge they accumulated otherwise.

"Information not shared is lost", to quote another forum.

No you admitted it when it became obvious you were here getting free research done for a project, because you wanted such specific things answered and cited without having the basic background of the topic at all, which is exactly what happens when magazine people turn up here getting their stuff for free.

You would never have volunteered that until someone pulled your cloak off.

In future when posting questions be honest at the very start, about what you are doing, and offer commeasurate rewards for helpers for published works, like offering to add names to your "Acknowledgements" page, otherwise people tend to get as you like to say "suspicious"

Mori · Sep 19, 2023

What a Sherlock Holmes!

Anyway, this is just a smoke cloud not to comment on you not-citing-sources.

PS: Is contempt for newcomers (lacking "the basic background" etc.) the standard welcome here?

Deleted member 68059 · Sep 19, 2023

Mori said:
What a Sherlock Holmes!

Anyway, this is just a smoke cloud not to comment on you not-citing-sources.

PS: Is contempt for newcomers (lacking "the basic background" etc.) the standard welcome here?

Nope, freeloaders showing contempt for people giving up their own time - to make them money, results in getting found out.

It doesnt take Piorot to find out that someone wanting to know all about 100 octane in the Battle of Britain and claims to have read
the material forum members took their time to provide you (like Gavins article), then doesnt know which fuel +12lbs boost is
on a speed graph is just someone here getting a free magazine article/book chapter.

Nobody gets punishe for not knowing, but people who withold the nature of their project, then insult everyone who wont help for free,
do get help witheld.

It sounds like this happens to you a lot, whats the common factor would you say?

pbehn · Sep 19, 2023

I think there was more work needed in the mundane subjects infrastructure and training than in the technical aspects of swapping a squadron of Spitfires over to running on 100 Octane.

pbehn · Sep 19, 2023

Mori said:
Let me readily admit that I *am* doing research and I *am* writing a book. If you are (really) interested - and enjoy reading French - check the acknowledgements of my previous books and see by yourself that I cite all contributors who helped and agreed to have their name printed. This included quite some people from forums similar to this one.

Besides, refusing to cite sources is a behavior from people outside the research community. I agree with your remark; it is mostly seen in "older" people rather than researchers who entered active life in the 21st century and understand at a deeper level the value in sharing freely. There wouldn't be any wikipedia otherwise. Oftentimes, refusing-to-cite-sources people imagine they sit on a goldmine, fail to publish much, but enjoy throwing a page to win an argument in a forum on a FB group. And/or argue that since they spent some time in Kew, then others should also waste the same time doing the same research, even though it would be much smarter for others to check new boxes, then share.

I have been through these discussions many times before. Conclusion is there is no way to convince a guy who refuses to cite source to change mentality.

Good news is hundreds or reseachers don't mind sharing. Other the years, I have been freely sharing not only references but also actual documents by millions of pages. My drives hold ca. 20,000 full files from TNA/NARA/BAMA/SHD and I am always happy to share with anyone interested. And I don't even care if I'm not in the acknowledgements of whatever ends up published

You cannot refer to Mr Douglas as "outside the research community" without some risk of terminological inexactitude.

Mori · Sep 19, 2023

pbehn said:
You cannot refer to Mr Douglas as "outside the research community" without some risk of terminological inexactitude.

If such is the case, let me correct the wording. "Not abiding by the commonly accepted rules of research in hard or social sciences" may be more accurate, doesn't it?

100-octane fuel in the RAF in 1940

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Airman

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Airman

Airman

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Colonel

Colonel

Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads