Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thank you. I assume this is maintenance level 3 stuff? Sounds like it anyways. Were they modified at the airfields or returned to repair center/assembling factories for these mods?
MikeBasically a modified boost control cut-out and new spark plugs.
This work was done on station at the time units were converting in March 1940
Mike
wasn't this the work more in line with Rolls-Royce's work on water injection than the implementation of 100 octane fuel? The two ventures were roughly concurrent in the pursuit of combat engine performance.
It's a first-class reference although I know for a fact that my copy is out of date; the Mk IX in the Belgian Air Museum is no longer extant, it burned (along with the rest of the museum, if I recall).Hi Colin: I see you have Spitfire the History
The only instance, that presently comes to mind, when water injection was used on Merlin engines, outside of testing
Just one point, three RAF squadrons were using 100 octane in 1937, what aircraft types would be likely to be using it that early?
I don't think your view is borne out of ignorancePardon my ignorance in this, but isnt the difference between 87 and 100 Octane the difference between "standard" and "super" grade petrol. If so, it would simply be a matter of adjusting the ignition timing and possibly the intake and fuel mixture for the engines. Backyard mechanics were doing that to Morris, Zephyr, VW and all manner of car engines throughout the '50s and '60s
For a start you need to research the decisions made on the 7th, 8th and 9th Meetings of the Air Ministry's Oil Co-ordinating Policy Committee on 18th May, 29th June and 10th August 1940, respectively. These can be found in AVIA 10/282 at the Public Records Office, Kew. I believe this source is cited in my original article, which you should not selectively quote to support a thesis which it explictly contradicts.
In any case, the relevant file for that letter (PRO AIR 2/2434) should contain the rather interesting observation for some readers, made on 25 August 1938, that the RAF planned to supply 100 octane to all Spitfire and Hurricane bases.
Now in return I'd like to know what evidence you have which demonstrates that operational squadrons in Fighter Command (and particularly 11 Group) after May 1940 were not using 100 octane fuel routinely. I am particularly interested in learning the source of your statement that -
... it seems that there is evidence in May 1940 decision was made to stop existing conversion on the basis of the uncertainity of the supplies, and that around 1/4 of the Squadrons were supplied with this kind of fuel during most of the Battle.
- as this is appears to be contradicted by the decisions in the sources I have just cited.
Regarding 100 octane consumption during the Battle of Britain see the following:
This paper seems to be at odds regarding the amount of 100 octane fuel issued between July and 10th October, noted as being 22 000 tons by Wood and Dempster, which is also referenced on your site.
GavinB
You should be aware that this is the paper Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War that Kurfurst has been asked to supply a number of times which he has failed to do so.
You should also be aware that the Australain War Archives when asked for a copy of this paper could not find it, and neither had they heard of it.
In Kurfursts defence he has given me the links which he insists work for him, but didn't work for me but when I asked him to send me a copy he went silent.
Re my summaries of Kurfursts position they are dead accurate.
A good example being his insistance that the March 1939 plan only allowed for the 18 squadrons which he maintains. The March 1939 paper did mention 18 squadrons but also allowed for the number to be varied depending on the availability of the fuel.
It will also be noticed that according to Kurfurst it was a lack of supply 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 his emphasis. However as we know there was no lack of supply.
Clearly this paper is a dead end at this stage and without it, you have no case.
I am sure you agree that it is incumbant on the person making the claim to support that claim.
... Fighter Command was effectively fully converted to 100 Octane by May 1940.
I would say that there is every reason to doubt the person as the mystery Australian was asked to supply a copy of the paper in the original thread and guess what he didn't.Clearly somebody already found it and made notes of it. There is no doubt about the credibility of the person either, neither does he have an unhealthy interest in proving it either way.
Your the one who claims to have a working link, if you will not give the paper then give me the reference.That you have not given exact reference to the paper and they cannot find it is no particular wonder. You need to have the exact reference to the paper in order to find it, or do the research yourself.
As you can see, no I didn't,I also note that you are particularly quiet about your earlier claim:
'The March 1939 paper did mention 18 squadrons but also allowed for the number to be varied depending on the availability of the fuel.'
So I must ask: did you made that up?
So until you support your statement with something substantial the matter is closed.