Use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF during BOB (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
So is it fair to say that whereas the allies were using 100 Octane ona very widespread basis , from an early date, the Germans were later in their adoption of the fuel, and then only introduced it on a limited scale.....
 
I did ask Kurfurst about the use of 100 Octane in the Luftwaffe and IIRC it was about 100 Me110's had this during the BOB, but I am not aware of what the improvement was in performance terms.
 
Ref my post 57:-

Thanks 'glider' for the webpage - very interesting - curiously I'd thought the max speed for the Hurricane 1 was 324 mph (with rotol), what a 'drag' that thick wing must have been!

Thanks 'gavinb' for the Spitfire stats - though with the two - is there an extra 'mph' figure to be added via the five seconds boost!? Or am I misinterpreting?

And 'gavinb' I do know the difference between primary secondary information. Though, as often as I re-read it - I am still puzzled why you felt the need to go on about it!
I thought my post gave a little interesting background information - e.g. that the RAF believed the Luftwaffe had access to 100 Octane. And likewise with the German reaction to the apparent improvement in RAF fighter performance. If you intepreted it differently - that's up to you.

On a lighter note (pun intended) I asked my Father for his recollections, but at nearly ninety they may not be as good as there could be. nevertheless - he mentioned that apart from the 'blue' and 'green' there was also a 'clear' - 'just for gipsy moth type engines' though sometimes it did find its way into cars! Yet he also mentioned that his cigarette lighter ran on 100 octane!
 
Merlin,

Re: the Spitfire stats: 100-octane gave no benefit in performance above the full-throttle height of the engine, hence the maximum speed figures at 20,000 ft (about 1,000 - 2,000 ft above the FTH of the Merlin III engines used by Spitfire I and Hurricane I's in the BoB). It did provide a benefit to take-off and maximum continuous climbing power, which is reflected in the time to height figures.

I'm glad you know the difference between primary and secondary information; my point is that both my article and several posts here reference the primary sources of Freeman's own AMDP papers. I think the reason for emphasising this should become clear if you read Kurfurst's posts in this thread, and the sources he bases his opinion on. This distinction is relevant, as I can say that the primary sources involve indicate that 100-octane *was* supplied to the RAF in France before the BoB. I can also state from my own research in the BP archives that the only 100-octane the British recovered from the fuel tanks of downed German aircraft during the BoB came from captured British stocks. For more on the same subject, I've detailed how Hough Richard's account of the use of 100-octane can be challenged in my article. But I think that's enough from me on this issue for now.
 
GavinB
I would like to thank you for your input in this thread, I have appreciated your comments and even at this late stage your information on the 100 octane recovered from German aircraft are very interesting.
Thanks Again
 
I have another quote!! Though I'm sure gavinb win't mind me using as it bears out his thesis.

Anyway the source is 'Wings of War', Edited by Laddie Lucas, where
"Airmen of all nations tell their stories 1939-1945"
P.56 'Death strikes the Arctic' relating to 263 Squadron, led by Squadron Leader J. W. Donaldson - 'Baldy', and its Gladiators on the frozen waters of lake Lesjaskog in Central Norway. The story was set down by Group Captain Stuart Mills - then flight commander in the squadron.
P.57
"The crew of Glorious, which had been hurriedly recalled from a long spell in the Mediterranean, was in poor, even mutinous mood. They had had no shore leave with their families after a protracted absence abroad.
D'Oyly-Hughes, the ship's captain, wanted the squadron to take off on 24 April at a point about 300-350 miles off the Norwegian coast and fly in from there to Lake Lesjaskog. He knew we had no maps of the landing area.
We felt this to be quite unreasonable. Baldy therefore asked the captain if we could be put off much closer in - 150 mile off Norway. Because we had no maps, he also asked that two navy Skua aircraft be put up to lead us to the frozen lake.

Having got down on Lake Lesjaskog, the squadron found there were no refuelling tankers, only 4-gallon fuel cans and these were full of 100 instead of 87 octane spirit. This meant the engines would overheat and in due course seize up.
 
My thesis, if this requires further clarification after my original posting on this forum, is that 100-octane fuel was supplied from a diversity of sources within and outside the US (in contrast to the received wisdom), but also was in widespread use during the Battle of Britain, as a mass of incontravertable primary source evidence demonstrates (in conformity with the received wisdom).

Dear 'gavinb'
(if you wouldd kindly permit, I am having some doubts about your identity),

Would you kindly support us something a bit more substantial, than you repeated, but hollow referrals to 'a a diversity of sources' and 'a mass of incontravertable primary source evidence', to your thesis that 100 octane fuel was in 'widespread use during the Battle of Britain'.

It would be also very kind of you if you'd define with more accuracy, what do you mean under the term 'widespread'.

Would my understanding be correct in that when you use this term, you use it because you have no solid idea of the extent of use, and perhaps being a bit wishful?

Yes, you have quoted one decision mentioned in my article about the planned use of 100-octane fuel in selected squadrons in 1939. However you then ignore the text and references which then indicate that this decision was overtaken by others.

I have re-read the article by Gavin Bailey (and here again I must stress my doubt your identity), and have found no such 'context'.

Considering the article by Mr. Bailey has only limited availability, and that others cannot possible verify that this would claim that this decision was 'overtaken by others', would you kindly quote the part of the article that says so ?

Highlighting that first decision without exploring the subsequent changes to it is either mistaken or dishonest.

Again I must stress the doubts about your alleged identity, and that Mr. Bailey's article would contain any such reference to 'subsequent changes' in the nature you seem to find there.

If you cite my work again, I would ask you to make it clear that I have explictly and publically disagreed with your revisionist appreciaton of the use of 100-octane in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain.

Dear Sir, for you to make such demands, we have to first make sure about your identity, and as I have noted, I have some severe doubts on this front, largely fuelled by the habit of some on this board to use alternate logins, the striking similarity of your style and arguments with them, which you display in the rest of your post - ie. willfully ignoring the fuel consumption documents already posted in this thread.

I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.
These are easily verifiable from British reports about the analysis of the captured fuel samples, which identified the German C-3 'green' fuel very early on. The use of 100 octane fuel by the Luftwaffe from July 1940 the latest is also well documented. Considering the fact 100-octane DB 601N engine was in production since late 1939, and that by mid-1940 over 1200 of these engines had been produced, coupled with the fact that the pre-war British decision to invest into fuel facilities capable of producing 100 octane fuel were partially fuelled :) by the knowledge that Germany already had such capacity, your implication that the Luftwaffe would have to rely of captured stocks from France for its 100 octane fighters seems to be somewhat reaching.
 
Dear 'Kurfurst'. In response to your claims that I am impersonating myself, I would like to point out that my contact details (including an email and postal address) have been publicly-available since the publication of the relevant article, e.g. on the EHR website, here -

The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain -- Bailey CXXIII (501): 394 -- The English Historical Review

I note that, to this point, I have received no communication from you or anybody claiming to be you in regard to confirming my identity, despite having received several emails and letters from others in regard to my EHR article.

I also note that you post under a pseudonym without revealing your full identity.

It is clear that you disagree with the content and conclusions of my research, but I am afraid if you want to refute them, you will be required to engage with the sources which have been cited. Until you do so, and based on the evidence you have posted so far in this thread, your disagreement has no merit.

You go on to state the following -

I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point.
 
Micdrow,

In threads on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain hosted on this site, the poster known as Kurfurst has, aside from accusing me of making false claims;

1. Misrepresented and selectively distorted the results of my published work (in 'Hurricane vs.Bf-110' thread, on 1 January 2009 and repeated subsequently).

2. Ignored citations from original Air Ministry documents which disprove his belief (my post as 'gavinb' in 'Use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF during BOB' on 31 January 2009).

3. Been unwilling or unable to supply proof of his assertions when challenged (e.g. my post on 7 February 2009).

4. Accused me of lying about my identity without, apparently, having taken the most elementary steps to confirm it (his post of 5 June 2009). He has subsequently repeated this accusation elsewhere.

I suggest my responses have been entirely reasonable attempts to prevent somebody misrepresenting my work during which I have had to deal with accusations that I have impersonated myself. This would be comic if it wasn't for the issues of integrity which are involved. Having re-read my posts on this forum, I believe they have been a) entirely on-topic and b) remarkably civil in tone in the circumstances.
 
Micdrow,

In threads on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain hosted on this site, the poster known as Kurfurst has, aside from accusing me of making false claims;

1. Misrepresented and selectively distorted the results of my published work (in 'Hurricane vs.Bf-110' thread, on 1 January 2009 and repeated subsequently).

2. Ignored citations from original Air Ministry documents which disprove his belief (my post as 'gavinb' in 'Use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF during BOB' on 31 January 2009).

3. Been unwilling or unable to supply proof of his assertions when challenged (e.g. my post on 7 February 2009).

4. Accused me of lying about my identity without, apparently, having taken the most elementary steps to confirm it (his post of 5 June 2009). He has subsequently repeated this accusation elsewhere.

I suggest my responses have been entirely reasonable attempts to prevent somebody misrepresenting my work during which I have had to deal with accusations that I have impersonated myself. This would be comic if it wasn't for the issues of integrity which are involved. Having re-read my posts on this forum, I believe they have been a) entirely on-topic and b) remarkably civil in tone in the circumstances.


Then if you felt insulted by it you should have reported it to a moderator through a pm or there is also a report link that goes to all moderators and we will look into it. Same goes for Kurfurst.

Bottom line is bickering distracts from the whole thread and then the whole subject gets lost. Bottom line is the insults will now stop on both sides or infractions will happen to whom ever fails to follow the rules.

Now lets get back on subject for this topic. If you want to talk more on this subject then you can PM me or one of the other moderators but for the most part I'm done with the subject and this will move on or the thread will be locked if the bickering continues.
 
That's loud and clear from my end. Pay heed to Micdrow's words. Otherwise all parties may find themselves arguing somewhere else.
 
Micdrow,

Please re-read my posts, and particularly the last one. I am surprised and disappointed to see exactly when and where the prospect of censorship by moderators in this thread has actually appeared.

This has nothing to do with 'insults' or ad-hominems, at least from my end; absent Kurfurst's public accusation of impersonation I would not have responded in this forum again. If your moderation policy is being engaged to deny an author the facility to challenge erroneous statements about their work posted on your forum, or to respond to erroneous challenges to their identity also posted on your forum, then I believe - to say the least - that policy requires examination. As for arguing somewhere else, I have already been compelled to respond to Kurfurst's allegations of impersonation elsewhere. As they appeared to originate on this forum, I believe a public response here was appropriate.

I don't intend to waste any more of my time on this, but I do reserve the right to respond to further misrepresentations of my work or false allegations made about me in your forum or elsewhere, as I believe you or anybody else would.
 
Micdrow,

Please re-read my posts, and particularly the last one. I am surprised and disappointed to see exactly when and where the prospect of censorship by moderators in this thread has actually appeared.

This has nothing to do with 'insults' or ad-hominems, at least from my end; absent Kurfurst's public accusation of impersonation I would not have responded in this forum again. If your moderation policy is being engaged to deny an author the facility to challenge erroneous statements about their work posted on your forum, or to respond to erroneous challenges to their identity also posted on your forum, then I believe - to say the least - that policy requires examination. As for arguing somewhere else, I have already been compelled to respond to Kurfurst's allegations of impersonation elsewhere. As they appeared to originate on this forum, I believe a public response here was appropriate.

I don't intend to waste any more of my time on this, but I do reserve the right to respond to further misrepresentations of my work or false allegations made about me in your forum or elsewhere, as I believe you or anybody else would.

I'm sorry to hear that Gavin but as you keep saying that this has happened in multiple locations on the forum and does not appear to be stopping any time soon including on another forum some where else. You said it your self moderation is not easy nor always popular and this one is one of those times.

This topic has gone off in a none to civil tone and causing grief with both sides its seems. The easiest way to fix the problem which as an author and something that you don't like is censor ship. Both sides where warned wheither one is in the right or not. This should have been handled with PM's.

Well to keep the peace its some times necessary for the good of all to lock the thread. In this case if you are worried that some one will misinterpret your work then I can delete the whole thread so you dont have to worry about your work being misinterpeted or coming back. I will email Glider and ask him to start a new one for those that wish to talk about it and you wont have to worry about some one misinterpreting your work.

Frankly I would rather have you stick around but from what Ive read you mind is probably made up.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back