Questions about WWII 87 octane aviation fuels

[Kurfürst]

Hi Kurfurst. Read point 8 in that report.
Do you honestly believe that in light of the imminent invasion of Britain by Germany that they would still be flying only 16 squadrons with 100 octane nearly a year after those notes were made?

In other words you essentially agree that its a matter of faith, in view that there's lack of evidence for more.

How many Squadrons used it then, in your opinion? 30? 40? All of them?

The onus here is not on Hop or anyone else to prove that 100 octane was in general use, the onus is on the revisionists to prove that it was not. It has been accepted for almost 70 years that 100 octane tipped the scales during the Battle. If anyone believes otherwise, then they must offer conclusive proof.

You are not serious, are you?

Yes, I would agree this would be an especially comfortable position, as neither Hop nor or anyone else seems to be able to prove their claims.

Are you familiar with Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

From the Mk II pilots notes (Air Publication 1555B) concerning fuel and oil to be used:

... and from the Mk Pilot's notes from Mike's site:

I guess no explantion shall come as to why specify both 87 and 100 octane limitations in both Mk I and Mk II manuals during the Battle, eh?

 

[Glider]

You didn't support anything else than this, so please stop claiming there was 'context' - unless that 'context' is that you claimed that it - that there were only sixteen plus two squadrons - was 'revised' later, but when asked about when, and to what extent was it revised, and wheter you can supply a copy of that alleged 'revisement', you went dead silent.

The context I am complaining about is that this paper was produced after a meeting in March 1939 well before war broke out.
My first two postings give a timeline and all of those statements are supported by original documentation. They show how the situation developed
14th September 1939 a paper commenting on the tests,
7th December 1939a paper going into the nuts and bolts of the admin needed for a change in fuel and listing 21 stations (incl 3 added later). Interesting that you still believe that the no of squadrons is less than 21.
12 December 1939 a paper confirming that 100 Octane fuel is to be used on Spitfire, Defiant and Hurricane aircraft dependant on the fuel being issued. Note that this is clearly a change from the March 1939.

As for your comment about the Australian paper
Nope, we have the notes of an Australian, who BTW gave the title of the paper, and where it could be found for anyone else to check,



I have lost track of the times you were told the reference to the paper, the thread, and who was that it originally supplied it, so why don't you just stop to pretend not getting the fact that it was found by somebody else?

At least I looked for it and you haven't.

IIRC actually you said they told you that they need a precise reference to find it, and ever since it appears you came up with a whole different story about never having heard of it etc.

This was the reply to Wikipedia from the AWA
Thank you for your inquiry. Yes this appears to be a mysterious item! The reference should have included a series and item number if the report came from our official records. I cannot find any publication in our books database with this title. Wikipedia should be contacted to request the writer provide a more precise reference
This was their reply to me
Our response is:
Dear David,

Thank you for your enquiry to the Research Centre of the Australian War Memorial.

I have searched our books database (which includes journals), RecordSearch (which is the National Archives of Australia's search engine for our Official Records) and our general search field in the hope that your text may be picked up as a reference in an online article without success.

Do you have any more information about the record? Is it a journal article or a monograph? If you can think of any other identifying markers, please email our Publishing and Digitised team at pub&[email protected] A curator will search again for you.

I'm sorry I couldn't help you.

Kind regards,

Please stop lying.

Thats good, very good.

The only person who has to support his claims is the one who has made positive claims, and that being you, claiming that each and every fighter squadron of Fighter Command was running on 100 octane fuel, and for which you so far failed to support any documentation.

The only person who has not submitted anything, is you.

My position is that given the several papers pointing out the contrary - the Spitfire II notes,

Disproven

the findings in the Australian Archieves, in the National Archieves,

Which no one can find even the archives themselves. All we are asking you to do, is supply a copy.

and most ironically, the paper mentioning 16+2 Squadrons (out of ca60) you supplied and now object to be posted - makes it quite clear that it was much more limited than what some here, including you, are wishful for; and that the evidence is certainly lacking to make such positive statements, with which - do I need to brush your memory a bit - even you did agree on this very thread...

The paper is valid for March 1939, what I object to is you posting it as if it was a WW2 paper without the other papers describing how the change developed.

Well, it is you who claim all fighter squadrons were operating on 100 octane fuel, so kindly support it with the same evidence you ask for, and stop that odd and silly attitude that it is others who have to prove your claims wrong, otherwise its correct.

I can supply you the findings of Pips, however, as much as you hate them:

Interesting statement. All my statements are supported by original documents and yours by nothing, not a thing. You have never seen a copy of the Australian paper and everything you say depends on it. Yet you have never tried to find it or even get a copy. It isn't the Australian who is making these claims on this site, its you.

 

[Kurfürst]

The context I am complaining about is that this paper was produced after a meeting in March 1939 well before war broke out.
My first two postings give a timeline and all of those statements are supported by original documentation. They show how the situation developed
14th September 1939 a paper commenting on the tests,

Interesting but it does not give any answer as to the number of Squadrons operationally employing the fuel, which is the question here.

7th December 1939a paper going into the nuts and bolts of the admin needed for a change in fuel and listing 21 stations (incl 3 added later). Interesting that you still believe that the no of squadrons is less than 21.

... and this paper being an enquiry from a mid-ranking RAF officer, clearly in no position to decide the matter which Sqns/Stations are being supplied or not.

12 December 1939 a paper confirming that 100 Octane fuel is to be used on Spitfire, Defiant and Hurricane aircraft dependant on the fuel being issued. Note that this is clearly a change from the March 1939.

A change - in what way? I would like to see that paper.

The March 1939 paper says that it will be used in 16 fighter (ie. Spit/Hurri/Def) and two bomber (ie. Blenheim) Squadrons.

In any case you seem to be forgetful of the May 1940 paper that says that 'Squadrons concerned' were supplied with the fuel, clearly indicating that 100 octane fuel was issued to selected units, but not all.

Take note that on 18 May 1940 the Oil Committee 'made clear its position to Fighter Command' and that 'the Units concerned' has been supplied with 100 octane fuek.

Compare with the "Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War" from the AWM, found much earlier, but are in good agreement:

"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)"

My position is that given the several papers pointing out the contrary - the Spitfire II notes,

Disproven

Disproven, no, dismissed by you - maybe.
But is your dismissal of every evidence produced against you relevant?
I think not.

Which no one can find even the archives themselves. All we are asking you to do, is supply a copy.

Well, if you would kindly tell me how am I supposed to supply a copy of a document on the far side of the globe, I would be happy to.

The paper is valid for March 1939, what I object to is you posting it as if it was a WW2 paper without the other papers describing how the change developed.

Problem is, you supplied nothing that would have shown that there was a change in the policy. You simply assume that there *must have been* a change, and the evidence is... out there... somewhere... and you certainly can't support it.

Interesting statement. All my statements are supported by original documents and yours by nothing, not a thing.

You can repeat this silliness as many times as you want, I don't bloody care, but you see it would a lot more constructive if you would actually post something that would actually prove your position.

You have never seen a copy of the Australian paper and everything you say depends on it. Yet you have never tried to find it or even get a copy. It isn't the Australian who is making these claims on this site, its you.

Frankly, you can be very odd sometimes.

Lets just get one fact straight.

You believe that all Fighter Command Stations and Squadrons were supplied with 100 octane fuel.

You can't say when this happened, how this happened, but you are absolutely certain that it happened. A matter of blind faith, isn't it?

You certainly said so earlier. Then what are your arguements about now, I wonder...

 

[claidemore]

Kurfurst:
Russels Teapot is an amusing analogy, the difference would be that there is no body of evidence to support the existence of the teapot, but there is direct evidence, (both anecdotal and documentary) in the case of 100 octane use during the battle.
Another analogy would be Darwins Theory of Evolution. Commonly held to be absolute truth and taught in schools across the globe. Yet it is still a 'theory'. Those who don't agree with Darwins Theory are always thrust into the position of having to supply the burden of proof to support their position.
This is the situation here, Russels philosophical meanderings notwithstanding.

 

[merlin]

Significant - in that if Britain was so short of 100 Octane, why is it going to Norwary in April!? Seems, if it was available then to be loaded on ships in Scotland, it would be available a few months later for Spitfires Hurricanes.

I thought after all the above - reiterating the above comment from my earlier post. The fuel is colour coded, seems unlikely that it could have been accidentally shipped to Scotland - so if intentional why if Britain had so little of it!??

 

[Waynos]

Sorry to stick my oar in but I don't see how the phrase 'the units concerned' clearly indicates that it means a select few squadrons?

At that time the RAF operated many many types, Fighter Command itself was not only equipped with these three types but also the Blenheim and Gladiator. Therefore 'the units concerned' could also easily mean, those units of Fighter Command which are equipped with the Spitfire, Hurricane and Defiant, could it not?

After all, if not every Spit or Hurri had the fuel, why would it be issued to Defiant squadrons, an aircraft which Dowding loathed and kept out of the fight as much as he could?

 

[claidemore]

Waynos:

EXACTLY!

 

[Glider]

Another thought is that given the differences in performance between 100 and 87 octane you would ahve thought that at least one of the hundreds of books written about the BOB would have mentioned it.