- Thread starter
- #41
Glider
Captain
I thought that there was areasonable body of evidence already presented.
Does anyone know what these references to "other threads" is about. There is obviously a deeper argument going on here......
If you wish I could repost the summary with links to all the papers that supported it.
Then we can wait for the papers that support the other side of the argument?
A bit of background. Originally this Australian made the claims on another forum in July 2004. He quoted the Australian paper which was dated February 1941 that basically said that due to a lack of supplies the change over from 87 Octane to 100 Octane was stopped after approx 125 Spitfires and Hurricanes had been converted.
A meeting of the 9th May was quoted when this was confirmed by the Government. This was very different from the other sources of information and he was asked to supply a copy of the paper. Interestingly Kurfurst also asked him where a copy could be obtained.
As far as I can see, no one on thread did get a copy, a link was given which went to the Australian Archives but this does not work. As you can see I tried to get a copy from the AWA myself but failed.
A number of the facts quoted from this paper are well out of kilter with the facts around the stocks and reserves. The quotes from this thread that the UK only recieved its first bulk shipments from the Middle East on 12th August whilst accurate, are extrapolated to imply that the fate of the use of 100 Octane in the BOB depended on these shipments is wrong. We had hundreds of thousands of tons of reserves in stock from a variety of refineries around the world. To think that a tanker of about 10,000 tons (I don't know the exact size but this was a good size for the 30's.) made a huge difference is clearly in error.
Moving on the July 2008, Kurfurst tried to get some changes made to the Wikipedia entry on a couple of areas that I have found. Namely these were on his view of the Structural weaknesses of the Spitfire and the lack of use of 100 Octane by the RAF in the BOB based on the Australian paper. This is to do with the 100 octane, the Wikipedia editor asked Kurfurst for a copy with no success and also approached the AWA directly for a copy with the same result as myself.
What I find interesting is that I am beginning to doubt that Kurfurst has access to this paper. I say this as the only quotes that makes on the paper are the same word for word that the Australian made back in 2004, no differences at all.