100-octane fuel in the RAF in 1940

Mike Williams · Sep 23, 2023

More comparison data here:

Comparisons of Spitfire I's with DH and Rotol props and bullet proof windscreen found top speeds to be similar with N.3171 obtaining 354 mph and R.6774, 355 mph. By comparison, Spitfire I K.9793 with a DH two-pitch prop and original windscreen reached 367 mph.

While costing speed, the bullet proof windscreen did prove its worth.

Clean32 · Sep 23, 2023

Mike Williams said:
More comparison data here:
View attachment 738345

Comparisons of Spitfire I's with DH and Rotol props and bullet proof windscreen found top speeds to be similar with N.3171 obtaining 354 mph and R.6774, 355 mph. By comparison, Spitfire I K.9793 with a DH two-pitch prop and original windscreen reached 367 mph.
View attachment 738346

While costing speed, the bullet proof windscreen did prove its worth.
View attachment 738348

more interesting if the different wings were noted. or do we take the assumption? would explain more of the Mk2s speed?

PAT303 · Sep 24, 2023

This graph if nothing else shows just how much an improvement the MkIII was over the MkI/II/V not excluding everything else in the air in 1940, such a missed opportunity.

Mori · Sep 26, 2023

Snowygrouch said:
I hope we can all go home now, this appears to be pretty categorical proof that "all operational fighter and bomber stations" were not only stocked with aircaft "approved" for use with 100 grade (which we already knew), but that also, the only way it could be stored was the REMOVAL of the old 87 remaining. This was it says complete by the end of June 1940. View attachment 738005

I let things calm down a little, and take that for a genuine remark. These paragraphs are pretty interesting and I don't dispute their conclusion.

But a document lacking date, from / to, and context is of little-to-no relevance.

(Having to remind history method 101 keeps puzzling me)

rochie · Sep 26, 2023

Mori said:
I let things calm down a little, and take that for a genuine remark. These paragraphs are pretty interesting and I don't dispute their conclusion.

But a document lacking date, from / to, and context is of little-to-no relevance.

(Having to remind history method 101 keeps puzzling me)

It seems there has been plenty of documentation shown with dates included.
Yet you dont seem to want to believe what they are saying ?

pbehn · Sep 26, 2023

Mori said:
I let things calm down a little, and take that for a genuine remark. These paragraphs are pretty interesting and I don't dispute their conclusion.

But a document lacking date, from / to, and context is of little-to-no relevance.

(Having to remind history method 101 keeps puzzling me)

The document specifically states that it was giving the operational situation up to the end of June 1940, which is relevant to the Battle of Britain generally stated to be from July to October. It explains in part why Park had a Hurricane as his transport, whatever he used had to run on 100Octane fuel.

rochie · Sep 26, 2023

Any more snide comments and i will delete this thread

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 26, 2023

rochie said:
Any more snide comments and i will delete this thread

Start with thread bans young padawa. Lets not punish the posters interested in learning without all the snide remarks and BS.

100-octane fuel in the RAF in 1940

More options

Mike Williams

Senior Airman

Clean32

Airman

PAT303

Tech Sergeant

Mori

Airman

rochie

Moderator

pbehn

Colonel

rochie

Moderator

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads