RAF 150 octane

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Scherf
"there`s no real evidence to the widespread operational use of 150 grade, unless you count those anti-diver squadrons that I can count on one hand, and which appearantly operated on the fuel for the months the V-1 raids lasted (3 months)."

Other than the fact there were no V-1s in May '44, or in Cornwall, as Neil will no doubt have to point out again.

... other than the fact that there were no operational RAF unit running on 150 grade fuel on May 44 in Cornwall, other than 2 (two) RAF squadrons doing operation TRIALS.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Lizard.jpg

"... at the commencement of these trials..."

Operational trial is quite different that operational use. I take it a poor attempt of joking to say the boost was in operational use, then post a document that says operational trials.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Squire
Neils list of docs above shows plans in November 44, and conversion by January 45 for 2nd TAF.

Also, other than pure speculation, I have seen nothing indicating a "shortage" of 150 fuel. If you have a source please post it.

At some point this is just becoming silly.

I presume you missed one the documents Neil had posted :

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/September+44.jpg

Its dated mid-September 1944 and it says on 150 grade fuel shortage, see (iv) :

"The supply of 150 grade fuel is such that it can be only laid down on certain airfields".

I guess this pretty much means shortage, dont you think? The supply was enough for the 8th USAAF fighter command to use 20 000 tons of it (I recall some 30-35000 tons was the delivery, so they already used up 2/3s), and those selected anti-diver squadrons from the ADGB to run on it - that also costed 12 000 tons per month).

So where is the aduquate supply to support no less than 35 Squadrons of the 2nd TAF, plus Mosquitos etc.?

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Oh so anti-diver squads being counted on one hand would then be responsible for for the destruction of hundreds of those in the air - each, right Scherf?

Err, MkXIVs alone claimed 300+ V1s alone, and there were only 3 Squadrons of them operating on the task. Otoh, shooting down what is essentially a target drone isnt that difficult as long as you can catch up with it.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by milian
Does anyone realize that by the end of May 1944, there had been less that 70 Spitfire Mk XIV produced?

Total Delivered by end of month - Number delivered that month
1943 : 18 18
01-44 : 30 12
02-44 : 45 15
03-44 : 50 05
04-44 : 56 06
05-44 : 68 12
06-44 : 101 33
07-44 : 129 28
08-44 : 151 22
09-44 : 185 34
10-44 : 245 60
11-44 : 300 55
12-44 : 341 41
01-45 : 399 58
02-45 : 511 112
03-45 : 648 137
04-45 : 743 95
05-45 : 815 72
06-45 : 844 29
07-45 : 873 29
08-45 : 891 18
09-45 : 898 7
10-45 : 904 6
11-45 : 911 7

Interesting info, Milian. Can you give us the source of such excellent detailed information?

 Prod was even slower than I excepted, I think Neil was giving some info on that and it was like 800 produced until the end of 1944, but I may mix him with Hop.

But, given this was a response to K-4 production until the end of December 1944 (856 in a few months from September), I can see why the numbers went up from the real number of 341. ,)

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Operational trial is quite different that operational use. I take it a poor attempt of joking to say the boost was in operational use, then post a document that says operational trials.

That's right Kurfy. Your claim that K-4s were fully combat operational @ 1.98 with JG 11 even though it was just a trial. Love the double standard by you.

Its dated mid-September 1944 and it says on 150 grade fuel shortage, see (iv) :

"The supply of 150 grade fuel is such that it can be only laid down on certain airfields".

I guess this pretty much means shortage, dont you think? The supply was enough for the 8th USAAF fighter command to use 20 000 tons of it (I recall some 30-35000 tons was the delivery, so they already used up 2/3s), and those selected anti-diver squadrons from the ADGB to run on it - that also costed 12 000 tons per month).

As usual you have reading comprehension problems, for there was no shortage of 150 fuel.

Sep - 11,088,000Impgal - 316,800t 100/150 produced

There was almost 7 times the quantity available than the numbers you state. The document is referring to 150 fuel on the continent (Belgium and Holland).

[Kurfürst]

Funny that both Neil and Milo change the subject to 1,98ata and the 109 invariably, when the details of 150 grade usage by the 2nd TAF are inquired.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Funny that both Neil and Milo change the subject to 1,98ata and the 109 invariably, when the details of 150 grade usage by the 2nd TAF are inquired.

Not at all Kurfy, it is to illustrate the twisted double standard you have.

[Neil Stirling1]

Adam where did I mention this, in this thread.

Funny that both Neil and Milo change the subject to 1,98ata and the 109

Your not making things up are you?

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
Adam where did I mention this, in this thread.

Funny that both Neil and Milo change the subject to 1,98ata and the 109

Your not making things up are you?

Kurfy make things up? Never.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
Adam where did I mention this, in this thread.

Funny that both Neil and Milo change the subject to 1,98ata and the 109

Your not making things up are you?

Certainly not making things up Neil, neither I did state that you brought up in THIS thread, which of course you didnt. You did however bring up 1,98 invariably in the past and inquired about C3 fuel supplies instead of answering the question over butch board in a thread regarding 150 grade usage all the sudden when doubts were cast over your version that it was some kind of standard fuel and boost. Ever since I collected the evidence and addressed it directly to you at butch board, but appearantly you lost interest for evidence of C3 supplies all the sudden as you did not show up... why?
Similiar was your reaction on another account when your original claim of 150 grade widespread use in 1944 was questioned (which you refined ever since appearantly, so perhaps those questions were not in vain), and opened a thread at butch saying that "recent events made you to ask how widely MW50 - Luftwaffe equivalent of 150 - was used..".

We dont have to go back that far in time however, this seems to be a pattern with you: crumpp brought up a valid point about spark plug problems with 150 grade fuel, and coincidentaly, Neil Stirling opened a thread about how bad MW50 was on spark plugs, claiming that spark plug life was only 5 hours (later corrected and self-corrected that in fact the source said 15-30), and implied it was never fixed. Hmm.

Is not there a pattern in your behaviour in a form of a kind of counter-attack aiming to prove things were, and must have been, worse on the other side, every time your conclusions are questioned and you run out of answers ?

Naturally, if you insist I can litter this thread with saved images of your past and recent responses like that, but I guess that wouldnt be much constructive, or much use, so I instead I ask simple question to which I - and most of us here, I think - would require honest answers :

1, Do you have documentation of the required 150 grade fuel supplies to IX/XIV/XIV units of the 2nd TAF ?

2, To what extent 150 grade and high boost was used in the 2nd TAF - documentation would be nice if any, but if not, your opinion/impressions are equally interesting. How many squadrons etc.

I guess your response will tell us wheter you are interested in an honest representation of history, or just pushing an agenda with evidence-filtering. Personally, I hope its the former case, for everyones enlightement for you have dug up quite a material of the subject, regardless of anything.

[MiloMorai]

Neil Stirling opened a thread about how bad MW50 was on spark plugs, claiming that spark plug life was only 5 hours (later corrected and self-corrected that in fact the source said 15-30), and implied it was never fixed. Hmm.

This is how Kurfy twists, manipulates and makes false statements.

Neil said in his opening post:

It is my understanding that the use of MW50 drastically reduced spark plug (5 hrs?) life. Was there a fix?

A clear lack of reading comprehension on Kurfy's part. He does not know the difference between a 'question' and a 'claim/implication'.

Is not there a pattern in your behaviour in a form of a kind of counter-attack aiming to prove things were, and must have been, worse on the other side, every time your conclusions are questioned and you run out of answers ?

Yes we see this far more often and continually by you Kurfy.

[Neil Stirling1]

Adam over the 4 or 5 years that I have known you, we have had several spirited debates indeed I have watched you engage in many spirited debates with others. Unfortunately when the evidence is against you, you resort to malicious behavior, for example innuendo and insults and this often leads to your banning.
This leads me to believe that the fact of winning is most important to you, rather than the fact itself. It is with the forgoing in mind I find myself no longer able to take you seriously and consequently I find it difficult to justify the time and effort in replying to you.

Neil.

[Scherf]

Don't let 'em grind you down Neil. I for one enjoy seeing the results of your research for it's own sake, especially as regards Mosquito operations - not stuff I see much of elsewhere.

As noted (I think - I've lost track ...), I don't give a hoot about P-51s, 109s or other such silly diversions.

[Kurfürst]

Oh well, no answers from Neil Stirling then. Maybe it was naive to expect other - you always change subject when questions are asked.

I have to agree with Crumpp then, he made a perfectly logical statement when he said the documented perations were largely restricted to a few squadrons operating against V-1s in 1944. Not to say it wasnt used in the 2nd TAF, but evidence to the extent of this use is unknown so far, which was the question directed to you, and which you failed to answer and replied instead with accusations.

How ironic that you accuse me of making up things, Neil, after this last post of yours. As for winning being more important than the fact, hmm, I suggest you look up your co-authored website for examples of such. It had grown infamous for the sweated efforts in that. As for often leading to my banning, I am all ears of those 'many' cases.

Well I guess I did my part. You were given the opportunity to prove your point - you refused.

[Kurfürst]

1, Do you have documentation of the required 150 grade fuel supplies to IX/XIV/XIV units of the 2nd TAF ?

2, To what extent 150 grade and high boost was used in the 2nd TAF - documentation would be nice if any, but if not, your opinion/impressions are equally interesting. How many squadrons etc.