Talk:Aircraft of the Battle of Britain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contestable POVs and misuse of source material

Unresolved

 – The medcab case was nothing but a request for page protection and has been rejected. Mww113 (Talk) (Review me!) 19:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Battle of Britain)

Comparison of the opposing armies are rather standard in description of historical Battles; the Battle of Britain was an air battle, and as such, mainly fought by fighters, at least this seems to be the general focus amongst historians writing on the Battle of Britain. So comparison of the opposing fighters is relevant, at least it is done by every major book dealing with the subject, at least to some extent.

In any case, I think that the German evaluation of the opposing fighters is just as relevant as the British one, already quoted, from two organisations, for the sake of objectivity and letting the reader get the whole picture. Presenting the dismissive British opinion of the time (and, as I am being personally familiar with the original reports, selectively) does not serve the objectivity of this article.

Please restore the comments as they were.

Kurfürst (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking your points; So comparison of the opposing fighters is relevant, at least it is done by every major book dealing with the subject, at least to some extent.

Which is exactly what has been done here. There is also another article Battle of Britain Aircraft which covers similar ground, so the comparison of the opposing armies and aircraft is well covered.

In any case, I think that the German evaluation of the opposing fighters is just as relevant as the British one, already quoted, from two organisations, for the sake of objectivity and letting the reader get the whole picture.

The only report cited comes from an RAE evaluation of the Bf 109. A comment has been added that the condition of the airframe and engine of the 109, and a lack of oxygen gear during some tests, could skew the test results unfavourably cf a new operational 109. What more needs to be added?

The German view of the RAF fighters is discussed by Mölders; again, the fighters flown by the Luftwaffe lacked equipment that was standard for B of B period aircraft. Ergo: the reader does get a reasonably objective picture.

Presenting the dismissive British opinion of the time (and, as I am being personally familiar with the original reports, selectively)...

I too am familiar with the original reports from both sides; to categorise the British opinion of the time as "dismissive" presumably means that the objectivity of the German opinion of the time is impeccable? Where's the evidence for that? Using such an argument it can be shown that each report is as "dismissive" as the other and that all such reports are coloured by a certain degree of propaganda. How much of the report needs to be cited before it can be regarded as non-selective? (The reports can be found http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html and http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html) This section is already getting overloaded; it would be better to work on the main Battle of Britain Aircraft article, which needs proper references, notes and citations as it is.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then the whole question of opposing aircraft in the Battle of Britain would be needed to be moved the Battle of Britain Aircraft article. Until then, however, I do not see the need for quoting reports from one side only. Certainly the section can bear 4 or so additional lines of text.

Kurfürst (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Until then, however, I do not see the need for quoting reports from one side only.

Kurfürst, this is dishonest - quoting a section of a flight report written by Mŏlders is hardly "quoting reports from one side only".Minorhistorian (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Minor' and Trek' on this one. Dapi89 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Kurfürst, with the best of intentions, is always wanting the 109 and Luftwaffe fighters to have the "last word". Supermarine Spitfire has also been "modified" to suit. Here we have situations where unverifiable or hard to access references are being cited because, Kurfürst calls them (for example) ...more reliable and referenced information (Revised section on 100 octane fuel).

Well, hang on here, how does anyone else know that the information cited is any more reliable and better sourced than that which has already been cited? There is no indication as to when the cited report was written, and by whom or by what organisation. The information supplied, it seems, cannot be verified without accessing the Australian War Memorial archives. I've tried and failed to find this document. It's probably available, but it may take a bit to find a copy. Kurfürst has also attempted to quietly edit information which comes from a (in his view) revisionist website. What the heck does that mean? How did Kurfürst reach this dismissive conclusion?

He is also using German flight reports as the basis for his analysis of the control characteristics of the RAF fighters, whilst ignoring RAE and A&AEE and RAF pilot reports which, in his view, are dismissive or revisionist; again, I ask, where is the evidence for this? Kurfürst hasn't yet responded to the first time I asked this question. Incidentally, I note that several phrases (longitudinally unstable and bad rudder and elevator stability on the target approach) from the German flight test reports have been added in comments on the Spitfire, without actually citing where these remarks originated. These are clearly contestable opinions. It could equally be argued that the Germans during WW 2 were as dismissive in their flight reports on captured enemy aircraft as the British apparently were. To regard one source of material as dismissive and revisionist (sic) without demonstrating concrete evidence of this, while being prepared to use contestable material from another source without citation is, IMHO, hypocritical, and serves to create needless friction without possibility of resolving the conflict

Personally, I couldn't care less about the Spitfire V 109 schtick, but I strongly protest at the way in which source material is being misused.Minorhistorian (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rating

This article is more than "Stub" class, IMHO. Dapi89 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft that really don't count

There are several aircraft listed in the 'full list' that really shouldn't count. The Italian ones, for example - what part precisely did they play? If they did play a part it should be sourced. Likewise the naval aircraft (Swordfish) and Army (Lysander) didn't really take part in the battle even if they flew combat missions at the time - again unless we have a source to show this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

DJ, right now, the whole article is in need of revisions as it just recently had a huge textdump from the Battle of Britain main article. Stay tuned. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

Yeah *groan*, I'm partly responsible for this and hoping I haven't opened a can of editing worms in the process! Lots of TLC will be needed, and the 'Full List' is only a small part of this.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Even so the Italian types should still be mentioned, even after this TLC. Dapi89 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should the Italian types be mentioned? As far as I know they didn't take part in the battle. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, if I may say so, your knowledge is limited. The R.A did indeed fly combat missions over the UK during the BoB. Dapi89 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have included Italian missions in the rewrite. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC).

First an apology, because I did not know that the Italians flew bombing missions in the BoB. However I would like to take the opportunity to say: this is why we insist on references and sources. If we say "the Italians flew in the BoB" then we need to be able to back this up, or people will assume it's a mistake or vandalism. So please (everyone) make sure you add references for everything that isn't obvious. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology withdrawn (temporarily) since the article says that the Italians did not fly raids again Britain until Novermber 1940, after the Battle of Britain was over. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

References to 100 octane fuel

Again, this material cannot be verified; the report cited may well exist but it is hard to find and no description is provided as to its authors, or the organisation that wrote it: read the guidelines from Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.[2]

Another source of information, which has been cited and can be checked online; http://books.google.com/books?id=QhEaoGYT4FIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=aviation+fuel+britain+1940&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0#PPA12,M1 contradicts the statement about fuel availability being limited to supplies from the Middle East; ie: the American supplies of fuel in 1939 and 1940 have been ignored, from five named refineries;

The above source does note any detail about the extent of shipments, and its use. Your claims and conclusions go far further than stated in the source. Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12 August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels.

If the report cited was Australian in origin (from it's location in the AWM) chances are the report was focused on fuel supply from the Middle East and from nowhere else. It is also likely that the report, written in February 1941 doesn't describe American supplies for reasons of secrecy.

This is entirely just speculation. What occures here that you dismiss a referenced primary source simply becase you do not like its contents. Curiously, as far as it goes into describing the fact that Fighter Command begun conversion to 100 octane in March it is all fine. The only parts you are editing out is where it notes the lack of sufficient supply, and that most of the fuel shipments arrived in the automn, and it was not until November all the RAF fighters could convert to 100 octane.

In contrast, you continue to claim, without any source that the 'majority' of RAF fighters were runinig on 100 octane fuel - where is the source for that? You have claimed before that 100 octane fuel was ONLY available to the RAF - this has been proved wrong. You claim the Spitfire in Rechlin was in poor shape, it did not have 100 octane fuel, and was badly loaded - where are the sources for these? Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also likely that the report, written in February 1941 doesn't describe American supplies for reasons of secrecy.

The document which relealed the details of 100 octane use in the BoB by the RAF was a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance. Its a British-made document, prepeared for the highest circles. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report. Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Other reasons for doubting the accuracy of the information:

• It is quite clear from a myriad of combat reports that RAF fighter pilots who flew during the Battle of Britain knew that when they hit the throttle for Emergency Boost that boost would be available. If supplies of 100 octane fuel were only available for 1/4 of the fighters as stated, this would not be possible.

Wishful speculation again. Firstly, what is this nonsense about the fighter pilots who flew during the Battle of Britain knew that when they hit the throttle for Emergency Boost that boost would be available. - your source for that exactly? Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is known that a revisionist site on the internet collected about 20 or so pilot reports describing the use of boost in their Spitfire during combat, at various times and from various Squadrons. No Hurricane Squadron quote is present, though some probably exist, too. Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But, when one closely examines the date of these reports, one finds that there is never more than 3 or four Squadrons reporting the use of boost (ie. indicating 100 octane being filled) in a single month, out of the 16 Spitfire Squadrons. Despite the great depths went into finding such oral evidence, why is that that some Squadrons only reported in August, and then no longer, and some not until late September? Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And why it is that, despite the unsupported, wishful claims by some that 100 octane was the sole fuel used in the Battle by the RAF fighters, the RAF fighter pilot manuals issued in the summer 1940 note two set of limiations for the engine - one for 87 octane fuel, and one for 100 octane fuel? Surely there would be no reason for that, *IF* 100 octane would be the only fuel used! Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the supply situation of 100 octane fuel was as "iffy" as Kürfurst seems to think, how then would this be dealt with? "Er, sorry lads, just remember for today you've only got 87 octane petrol in your tanks, so don't bother going through the gate - don't worry, we might have some of the 100 octane juice tomorrow." Hardly a way to run a battle. RAF pilots who used the emergency boost were instructed to make a note in their log books, and in the aircraft flight logs so that the ground crew could reset the throttles.

This is pretty much irrelevant speculation. Simple fact, noted by Squadron logs and the primary source found in the Australian archives, is that some Fighter stations were provided with 100 octane fuel, others were not. Some Squadrons, depending on where they were stationed, would use 100 octane fuel, others would not. Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• By July 1940 All RAF fighters had the following stencilled near their fuel filler points "FUEL 100 OCTANE" or "DTD 100 OCTANE" - no mention of 87 octane. Luftwaffe aircraft had a fuel rating triangle near their fuel filler points which could be labled "87" or "C2" or "C3" - the last two for the DB 601 N.

'All RAF fighters..?' This is an extremely dubious claim. You have made that up didn't you? Care to post the evidence? Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for going on at length on such a technical issue but it is an illustration of how relying on a single 1941 vintage report to support a theory when it is contradicted by other, verifiable sources is misleading.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually its quite clear that you are on an agenda, and wish for more than what was out there. You dismiss, edit out, or change the meaning of the reports and sourced that get in the way of that. Thats why you are busy editing out referenced material that was sourced, edit out parts that you do not like from it and leave in the part you like only; make up various, unsourced excuses and claims (ie. see attempts to dismiss Rechlin trials of Spitfire, Hurricane, after attempting several times to remove the summary of those trials as well) to dismiss the facts noted in primary sources which you cannot suffer.

You do not seem wish to contribute constructively to this article in an objective manner. Please refrain in future from adding unsourced, wishful claims or to censore referenced material. Attempts which clearly show this intention only will be reverted. Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now requested a copy of the report cited Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And Its Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War... from the Australian War Memorial. If Found and made available I will undertake to post the entire text onto http://www.aeroscale.co.uk/ as a downloadable pdf file (if possible).Minorhistorian (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Let us know when you do. Perhaps it will change your mind. Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting a moratorium on this section until content issues are resolved. There is very obviously a difference in the statements that each editor has proposed and that other editors may need to "weigh in." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Problem being Minorhistorian continously rewriting the article, deleting parts from referenced sources, and replacing it with his own unreferenced, wishful thinking. Presenting multiple points is not a problem, however he cannot seem to accept referenced sources. This is a re-occuring problem. See deletion of parts referenced from referenced Australian paper, repeated deletion of referenced Rechlin`s test, adding his own wishful claims about the Spitfire being tested. So far he has not presented any evidence that about the negative test conditions he claimed. In no case he attempted to present these along with other sources, it was always a case of presenting this revisionist attide in the place of other referenced sources.

Kurfürst is a liar. He reverted edits based on "uncited" grounds. All of the edits were cited. He is a liar. Dapi89 (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dapi89 is another matter, he is is simply immature, and a vandal. Kurfürst (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Another lie. Anyone who wants to can just look for themselves on the edit history. You are a compulsive liar. I have restored cited material. You have reverted it. Your the vandal, and I'm not tolerating your moronic slurs. Dapi89 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What Dapi89 calls 'restored cited material' was actually a deletion of referenced source from primary material, written to Lord Beaverbrook on the subject. It simply replaced referenced primary material with wishful claims the claimants had not supported ever since. Instead, they keep deleting it. Its much simpler than to do research.

The hysterics is a sign of immaturity. Kurfürst (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That emphasizes my point. Dapi89 (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---

It is quite simply to see what the recent aggressive editing efforts are all about. One only has to watch what is being edited out by Minorhistorian and dapi89.

The referenced material from the Australian archives, originally written by Rollce Royce to Lord Beaverbrook about Merlin power boosting, noted:

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).

This was DELETED alltogether (revisism takes offence that 87 octane was deemed as primary fuel and was replaced with :

One source of supply immediately available was the United States, which had already supplied 100 Octane fuel; starting in 1939 oil refineries had formulated a blend of fuel which was suitable for use in British aircraft engines, including the Merlin and Bristol Mercury.

However, the referenced source does not claim the American source of supply was 'immediately available' - this is entirely the wishful claim by the revisionist editor.

The second part from the referenced British/Australian primary material removed was :

Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the new-found supply, RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of its fighter force by the end of November 1940.

Also very revealing for the true motives. Again, revisionist taking offence at that 100 octane was really used from late September onwards.

The referenced primary material was replaced this:

The combination of Middle East and American supplies were sufficient to ensure that the majority of RAF fighters operational during the battle were able to rely on this emergency boost

The reference for the above is a website article from a Spitfire enthusiast. The claim that 100 octane fuel was the standard and only fuel used by RAF fihters in the Battle originates from this site. However, the claim on the site has no references or sources whatsoever; it does not cite any as proof, and its entirely just a wishful claim by the website author, who has controversial reputation for objectivity.

Furthermore it is claimed:

None of the RAF fighters tested had the constant speed propeller units, nor would they have used the special blend of 100 octane fuel needed for their Merlin engines.

Despite several times asked, no evidence was supported as to that the Rechlin test with Spitfire did not use 100 octane fuel. Careful examination of the revisionist website article reveals that it is again the source of the claim; however, as above, the claim that 100 octane fuel was not available to Rechlin (strange in view LW fighters were actively using it the same time...) again originates to mentioned Spitfire website; and again, it is unreferenced, clearly wishful claim to dismiss German results. The fact that no CSPs were used at Rechlin is noted in the report, but again, CSPs were not begun to be fitted to British fighters for some time, either.

Furthermore, there a generic quote from Quill noting that change in loading of aircraft has negative effects on stability; however, it is a very reaching to claim the Spitfire at Rechlin was badly loaded (no source provided for that again); there can be a lot of other reasons, one being that the German test pilots simply did not like the control characteristics of the Spitfire (the 1940 Spitfire manual itself notes the lack of stability in pitch BTW). Curiously enough, the RAF testers of 109E complained about too much stability; Luftwaffe testers of the Spit complained of lack of stability. It was probably a simple case of different preferences.

Recent vandalism and cherry picking of the sources however point to that some people simply cannot come to terms with the contents referenced material, and would rather burn the book if they do not like it. They do not attempt to present the facts from multiple positions and source. Instead, they delete them. Kurfürst See also here - removal of material for no other purpuse started by Minorhistorian: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain&diff=226668589&oldid=226668461

See here as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain&diff=225918988&oldid=225909600 Recent troubles are the product of some being unwilling to tolerate other then their own opinion, which was that the poor LW guys lacked 100 octane fuel, while the RAF guys bathed in it. When they are challanged with referenced sources, they delete the referenced sources. Or just keep reverting it. (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough; I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong. I will do better in future, guv'ner...

You do not seem wish to contribute constructively to this article in an objective manner. Please refrain in future from adding unsourced, wishful claims or to censore referenced material. Attempts which clearly show this intention only will be reverted. Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurfüst Your record in this is hardly squeaky clean on 13 July you started this whole thing with:

(Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (64,312 bytes) (→Elliptical wing design: Comments from revisionist site removed; results of testing by Royal Aircraft Esteblishment from September 1940 quoted instead.)

Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (62,944 bytes) (Removed claims based on revisionist website; added comments of Supermarine test pilots on Spitfire development) (undo)

from Supermarine Spitfire What's this? censoring referenced material? Tsk tsk! DON'T lecture other editors without cleaning up your own attitude first! You might actually find that people respect your edits.

Just because in your opinion a website is "Revisionist" you have no right to remove such cited material without at least consulting with other editors and explaining your reasoning. Your opinions about the Spitfire Performance website are your own business. (NB:Because I'm a poor, ign'rant pleb I looked up "Revisionist" From the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: Revisionist...1865 1. One who advocates revision. 2. The revisors of the bible 1881...)

I could equally claim that http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/ is also a "revisionist website", that information used from the site should not be regarded as reliable, and remove such cited material from Wikipedia articles. Do you want people to follow your example and remove anything coming from this site because it's "revisionist"? The same could be said about http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/. Strangely enough I have posted information from both sites in this and other articles in support of the Bf 109 and the poor LW; take a look a Messerschmitt Bf 109 and see how much work I have put into this article - something you have conveniently overlooked in your personal attacks on my integrity.Minorhistorian (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See: [1] report filed for disruptive editing and warring. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Emphasis

This article is not being written in a encyclopedic way as there is a considerable amount of information that falls into issues of WP:WEIGHT. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC), be careful not to engage in a revert war. Start looking at the discussion wherein other editors have already commented. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Too late. The moron has already started. Dapi89 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurfürst

This "editor" should be blocked. He is reverting sourced material and claiming it as vandalism. Dapi89 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

See here, here and here [2]...and here [3] ...another one [4]

See: [5] report filed for disruptive editing and warring. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

"Glamorous" image of the Spitfire

This seems to be a very minor issue that has been debated back and forth, but it is widely regarded that the Spitfire's distinctive profile and beautiful lines, including the elliptical wing design led to public perception that the aircraft was more "glamorous" than its more prosaic wingmate, the Hawker Hurricane. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

As an attributed statement I see no problem with it. SDY (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There's another view that the Spitfire's "glamorous" elevation only happened in the '60s, as a result of films and popular media, and wasn't as current in its day. As a perception that this article (quite reasonably, and verifiably) deflates, I see no need for any additional citation. I would note though that Haynes publish manuals for the Spitfire and Lancaster, but not the Hurricane or the Halifax. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the Spitfire had been the object of some fascination even in the 1940s; witness the film "The FIrst of the Few" also released in North America as "Spitfire" (1942). A number of contemporary popular press articles and even children's books featured the Spitfire. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Famous, even legendary, neither would raise an eyebrow. "Glamorous" has a certain "style over substance" meaning that rarely applies to military hardware. SDY (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It does in this case, IMHO, Bzuk (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

Sources

In an article that is subject to such absurd edit warring, it is important that all the sources are watertight - I have flagged all the sources which do not appear to be WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

View from canopies

There is extensive discussion of the relative views from the Spitfire's and Bf109's cockpits in this article. Ignoring the matter of whether undue weight is placed on the issue (which in my opinion is), the discussion refers to Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment testing at Boscome Down stating that "The view from the "blown" clear cockpit hood of the Spitfire was considered fair, while upwards good; view to the rear was considered fair for a covered canopy. The windscreen panels however gave great distortion, and flat panels would have been preferred." Alfred Price's "Spitfire: A Documentary History" presents the report of the A&AEE testing of the Spitfire Prototype in September 1936. It states

"View forwards and upwards is good. View to the rear is fair for a covered cockpit. The Present windscreen gives great distortion. If a curved windscreen of this shape cannot be made in either moulded glass or in suitable material to give no distortion, it is considered that it should be replaced by a flat sided type, even though this might involve a slight reduction in performance."

It should be noted that this represents the first prototype in 1936 - it did not have a blown canopy - this did not appear until after production started and did not have the thick bulletproof windscreen which was fitted by the time of the battle - indeed initially the Spitfire had a completely curved windscreen with no flat panel at all. It may not therefore be entirely appropriate to use this to describe the view from the noticably different cockpit in Summer 1940 - certainly the tests did not have a blown canopy as currently suggested, and the windscreen was also different than that used in the Battle.

This stresses the need to properly source statements from proper WP:RS sources that can be checked, as it is otherwise very easy to be accidently misleading.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of misleading information

I have removed the following;

Indeed several Spitfires were lost in this way when they broke up in the air during pull-outs, due to this control characteristic.

because it is a statement which has nothing to do with Spitfires at the time of the battle; this relates to problems which developed in 1942, when several Spitfire Vs crashed or nearly crashed through being badly loaded at the Squadron level (their cg had moved back to a point where they were seriously unstable). Jeffrey Quill describes these events in his book "Spitfire" pp. 232-238:

...we had to produce a large number of (elevator) bob weights in a hurry to respond to a nasty situation which developed in 1942. The Mk V aircraft was by this time in full service and, since the Mks I and II had been phased out of front-line service, a fair amount of additional operational equipment had gradually crept into the aircraft, most of it stowed within the fuselage. The aftmost acceptable position for the aircraft's centre of gravity had been fixed in the normal course of flight testing by the firm and by the A&AEE...Any rearward movement of the centre of gravity...would begin to destabilise the aircraft... In February 1942...I asked if I could fly his aeroplane. Sure enough it was dangerously unstable...Clearly the centre of gravity of that aeroplane was well outside the limits and yet it was on the flight line of an operational squadron. I asked if I could test some other aeroplanes in the Squadron. I picked two or three at random and found that they were all in much the same condition...

The implication that Spitfires were routinely breaking up in 1940 due to elevator control problems or because of some flawed control characteristic is entirely misleading. Had the A&AEE report cited related to B of B era Spitfires it would have stayed in. If more detail can be provided showing that the cited report was relevant to 1940 that information should be included.Minorhistorian (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The particular A&AEE report cited also tested Mark I Spitfires for this fault in 1942. So perhaps it is related. In any case, perhaps it is sufficient to mention that the Pilot notes warn to pilot for the dangers coming from the light elevator.

Also, perhaps less use of rhetorics would be welcome in the future. Kurfürst (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrator's comments on use of material in articles

While investigating the situation, I've noted some fundamental problems that both "sides" in this dispute need to take a look at. I'll simply repeat something I just said to Kurfürst:

"As it stands, this group of articles has a couple of major problems with sourcing: both "sides" of this dispute have liberally made use of self-published sources whose reliability has not been established (spitfireperformance.com and aboutwarfare.com) and both "sides" are relying on primary sources to support their claims, which is (perhaps counterintuitively) regarded as unacceptable on Wikipedia.

I strongly urge you to work together with others to resolve the sourcing issues before expanding these articles any further."

For whatever it's worth, I believe that this situation is illustrative of the pitfalls when Wikipedia strays away from description and explanation (encyclopedic) and into evaluation and interpretation (unencyclopedic). --Rlandmann (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

if contributors to these articles can find reliable, secondary sources (for example) that discuss the effect that availability (or not) of 100 Octane to the British had on how the Battle of Britain was fought, then it might be worthy of inclusion. But piecing together facts from disparate sources in order to support a conclusion (no matter how well sourced those facts may be) is indeed Original Research and has no place here.

The idea of standing back and letting a neutral third party or parties comb over the article is a good one, but obviously would need the support of all parties involved. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So, the rules are the rules; no primary research and the use of self-published sources is shakey indeed. Fair enough, I've start sifting through material and references I've used and, where possible, provide published information. Question on websites; is it okay to cite them if the reference is to a photo or illustration? eg, for the P-51 I've included links to photos of gunsights which were used by the different Mustang variants.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest proceeding along the lines of tagging the statements that require WP:RS and then bringing these point sup for discussion in the talk pages. At first blush, there does seem to be an incongruous section that fits more into a comparison article, and is quite close to being supposition or WP:OR. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Italian aircraft again

Looking more closely at the article, it says that the "Falco" was first used on November 11th 1940. This is after the date we give for the end of the BoB, so unless someone has more information we should remove it. The article contains no information on the use of the Cicogna, so again unless more info is forthcoming it should go. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just added referenced dates for the first use of the BR.20 (25 October) and CR.42 (29 October} all within the so called dates for the battle. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Allied Bombers

Should we have a section on Allied Bombers? Most authorities (including the RAF and Wikipedia) limit the Battle to include the fighter war only. The bombing of Germany and occupied countries was considered a separate battle. If that's the case then the Allied bombers are irrelevant to this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably half right the Blenheim and Beaufighter were considered to be part of the Battle[6] but certainly the bit about Wellington, Whitley and Hampden are not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about Blenheim and Beaufighter; their fighter role is in fact already described in the fighter section. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a reference for the Breguet 521 being used in the battle? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to be contrary, but didn't the RAF mount bomber operations during the Battle of Britain? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

The RAF BC lost something like 600 bombers during the course of the Battle. They were quite active during the nights, and had some - though not decisive - direct effect on the course of the Battle; its enough to think of bombing of barges in French ports and the occasional - and less known - bombing by Blenheims of LW air bases in France. Indeed most historians tend to concentrate on the fighter vs fighter engagements, and neglect bomber operations too much. Kurfürst (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the RAF did mount bomber operations during the Battle of Britain, but they are not considered part of the Battle. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of dubious citations and non-citations

I have recently reverted some "info" on this page. The first citation is from allaboutwarfae.com which is not reliabe or acceptable. The second "citation" is not verifiable. It is not in a published work and cannot be seem by anyone. Anybody can claim to have "notes" or primary sources, but taking their word for it is not an option. Dapi89 (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

References to Green do not provide any bibliographic details. Bendel boy (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here it is:

• Green, William. Messerschmitt Bf 109: The Augsburg Eagle; A Documentary History. London: Macdonald and Jane's Publishing Group Ltd., 1980. ISBN 0-7106-0005-4.(Added to article bibliography.)

Removal of legitimate scource

Kurfurst is removing a legitimate link to the National Archives which it was agreed could be used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive545#Possible_Legal_threat_on_Talk:Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history in lieu of direct linking to a third party website.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Who are you kidding Minor - nobody agreed to that. What was agreed (by several administrators) that this consitutes original research. You only have to scroll up a couple of section where the same edits of yours have been discussed.

"As it stands, this group of articles has a couple of major problems with sourcing: both "sides" of this dispute have liberally made use of self-published sources whose reliability has not been established spitfireperformance.com and aboutwarfare.com) and both "sides" are relying on primary sources to support their claims, which is (perhaps counterintuitively) regarded as unacceptable on Wikipedia. I strongly urge you to work together with others to resolve the sourcing issues before expanding these articles any further." For whatever it's worth, I believe that this situation is illustrative of the pitfalls when Wikipedia strays away from description and explanation (encyclopedic) and into evaluation and interpretation (unencyclopedic). if contributors to these articles can find reliable, secondary sources (for example) that discuss the effect that availability (or not) of 100 Octane to the British had on how the Battle of Britain was fought, then it might be worthy of inclusion. But piecing together facts from disparate sources in order to support a conclusion (no matter how well sourced those facts may be) is indeed Original Research and has no place here.

--Rlandmann (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The problems with your edits are obvious, they are rely on tidbits of scans of primary sources you have published on your own site, which nobody can confirm or verify. First you added your own conclusions - ie. original research - then pieces from the unverifiable source which you think would support your own opinion. You try to make the same edits from time to time again.

Also of note that you have removed the Shacklady cite from a reliable secondary source since it directly contradicted your own claims (S noted that there were 16 fighter squadrons to be fuelled with 100 octane fuel by September, as opposed to what Minorhistorian wants us to believe), and that your own website you have published material which again contradicts your own claims, but you do not mention that in the article.

Anybody can claim to have "notes" or primary sources, but taking their word for it is not an option. You are using a material which consists of dozens of pages on the subject, but you select two. Noteworthy that several people who appear to have the same source commented that there was other decision made in May 1940, that designated 87 octane fuel as a primary fuel. But 'tis being all irrelevant, since as at least three administrators explained to you already, its original research.

Nevertheless, if wiki policy changes on primary sources, I am all for it, I have a lot of primary source material which I can easily reference to an archieve and then add the contents into the article. But I don't, since I am aware and accept the policy on these sources.

I suggest you try to work out a consensus version first here before trying to push it through again. For example I don't have a problem with noting that they begun supplying some Squadrons with 100 octane in March, since that is also recorded by several secondary sources - but you have accompanied it with the deletion of Shacklady noting about 16Sqns/by Sept, changing the sections meaning entirely and it is unacceptable. Shacklady is by far the most reliable source on the aircraft.

Moreover you have added the claim about all RAF commands being 'authorized' for 100 octane fuel, misleading and selective quoting again, since the papers you have published on your site show that even many months later most of the fuel consumed was still 87 octane. So why mention an order that wasn't carried out? What else is there you are not showing I wonder. That is exactly why there is such policy on primary sources/OR. Kurfürst (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst is in error; using Primary source material from The National Archives is acceptable, as long as the following conditions are met;

"Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Wikipedia: No original research

I simply quoted from the relevant documents without further commentary or analysis.

Kurfurst also makes the assumption that I am using material published on your own site. First, this is rich and rather humourous coming from a website owner who assiduously promoted and used material from his own site whenever possible; much of this has since been removed. In fact I have nothing to do with the ownership or running of any website to which he refers. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you do. You are pressing the same sources as the website, you have admitted yourself being in contact with the website owner, and you are simply promoting the same claims, from sources nobody can check in their full - I take note that people who saw the same documents draw very different, or lets say, more complete conclusions than you did: they note that in May 1940 87 octane fuel was deemd the primary fuel, but it is certainly possible to cherry pick a few pages from a large body of documents in the AIR file out of context to show it in a more 'optimistic' light. In any case, several admins told you already that the way you promote these sources is simply not kosher for wiki. There is a reason why wiki guideline notes that Primary sources are 'easy to misuse'. Given that others have noted that there are more in those papers (and contradict the snippets you quote from) I don't think it can be supported unless the whole set of paper can be examined. Even then, it would be still a very much borderline case with lots of OR, Primary sources. Wiki is based on reliable primary sources - if you want to make your own theories on the subject, do it on your own website, where you can reach whatever conclusions you wish... Kurfürst (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Answer the questions directed at you Kurfurst, rather than dodging them and throwing false accussations back. You have complained incessantly about "No OR", yet you continue to add sources from a webisite you either run or are associated with. It is a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cease and desist. Dapi89 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about, but I would be surprise if you would know either. Enough of the lame show, Dapi. Kurfürst (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your childish backchat is all I'd expect from you Kurfurst, and your screeching doesn't help, and neither doesn stealing other people mannerisms or phrases who do you think you are kidding Minor - pft. Its like a child repeating what others say. I say again:

Answer the questions directed at you Kurfurst, rather than dodging them and throwing false accussations back. You have complained incessantly about "No OR", yet you continue to add sources from a webisite you either run or are associated with. It is a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cease and desist.

Not to mention they are Original sources and they are probably falsified anyway, knowing you. Dapi89 (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have actually anything meritful to say, or you just drag this silly feud of yours over this article as well? Repeating yourself, and asking questions that make no sense at all, but you do nothing constructive over here. Kurfürst (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats the most ironic thing you've said yet. Read the posts again, and put two and two together Kurfurst - I am sure even you can manage that. Dapi89 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as I would help a struggling child: here's a clue:

See also: Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:No original research § Citing oneself

. Dapi89 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, by Kurfurst's analogy "You are pressing the same sources as the website, you have admitted yourself being in contact with the website owner, and you are simply promoting the same claims..." anyone who is in contact with a website owner and using similar sources must therefore be, in effect, the owner of that site? Well now, I've been in contact with Kurfurst a couple of times through his site (I'm no longer visiting it); in my ignorance I have used his website as a source of material to cite in Wikipedia articles...That means that by Kurfurst's standards I own the Kurfurst 109 site! Brilliant! What next? By extending Kurfursts analogy, anyone on Wikipedia who is in contact with an author and uses information from that author's book as source material must, in effect, have written the book. In effect I've written some books I didn't even know about. Looking forward to those royalties. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, BTW why do papers "show that even many months later most of the fuel consumed was still 87 octane?" Combat operations were vital, but they weren't the only operations flown by RAF aircraft. Delivery flights, test flights, communications flights, training flights, transfer flights from one airfield to another were just some of the second line but vital duties undertaken by the RAF. How many delivery flights of Spitfires and Hurricanes from factory to MU or from MU to airfield were made in 1940 alone, for example? Using 100 octane fuel in these circumstances would have been a waste of a frontline assett when the Merlin was still capable of using 87 octane. Secondly, Although most frontline aircraft were capable of using 100 octane fuel in 1940 there were still plenty of RAF aircraft which didn't eg; Fairey Battles (Merlin I), Tiger Moths, Miles Magisters, etc etc were still using 87 octane fuel. Those secondary duties would have consumed a lot of 87 octane fuel. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DB 601N and primary source quotes

Dear Minorhistorian,

I have reviewed your latest edits. You seem to be adding the primary source material again to support 'consistent supplies' of 100 octane fuel from the US. This seem to be contradicted by Morgan and Shacklady, who note that many tankers were sunk by U-boats and the fuel situation was somewhat uncertain. Could please provide a direct quote from the primary source document for your latest change?

Also of interest, there seem to be a claim made on "The DB 601N was considered to be "brittle" and prone to an increased failure rate in service and C-2 especially and C-3 was always in short supply." - could you please support direct cites from Starr for this? It seems to contradict the works I have read on German 100 octane supply, especially the 'always' part. It also seem to contradict [7] this paper stating:

The relative volumes of production of the two grades cannot be accurately given, but in the last war years the major volume, perhaps two-thirds (2/3) of this total has the C-3 grade. Every effort was being made toward the end of the war to increase isoparaffin production so that C-3 volume could be increased for fighter plane use. The isoparaffin usage in that grade had already been cut to a minimum.

So while there may be a shortage of high grade fuels early in the war, when everyone started to introduce it (and it would only seem natural), your indication that there was a sort of shortage of C-3 fuel seems to be contradicted by reliable sources. I have only seen such fanciful claims on the website which's views you seem to be trying to propagate in this article from time to time. Kurfürst (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So, there are no direct quotes...? Kurfürst (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when do I have to answer to Kurfurst? I'll leave it to nuetral editors to comment. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to, so I have removed the dubious 'cite' you put forward. Kurfürst (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No you don't; this editor, who has a reputation for disruptive editing [User block log] and has been blocked several times will not remove material on his own choice; the last time I used direct quotes from these documents they too were removed by this sam editor; this will go elsewhere to be sorted. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your personal attacks has been noted. Cease and desist. As for the added material, the wiki principle is clear. You added the material, the Burden of Evidence is upon you. Kurfürst (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"

Aeroplane magazine is a reliable published source. The citation follows Wikipedia guidelines. Once again Kurfurst is bending the rules to suit himself and engaging in disruptive editing. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion has moved from discussing the article and its formation and development to individual styles of editing and research, there is only one recourse left and that is to ask for a body of other editors to examine the article through a RFC. Given if that fails, the ultimate resolution may have to come through WP:MEDIATION (if what is occurring is that the kids can't play nice?!). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

The case is simple. One editor added a statement, and referenced it with a material. He was asked to provide a direct cite to confirm if the material supports his statements. He could not provide the cite, and this circumstance brings up some very serious doubts whether his sources support him at all. If he cannot support them, the edit will be simply removed. Kurfürst (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Although that line of argument may seem simple and "decisive", finding supporting references may take time, and providing verbatim quotes is not necessary unless demanded. There is still a question of WP:AGF unless it is clear that others are contravening standards of good contributers. Can you assume there is good faith involved or has the contretemps reached such an impasse that both parties are unable to reconcile differences? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked the Aeroplane article in question. It seems to broadly support the cited statements if anyone can be bothered to assume good faith - p. 42 "coupled with the use of 96-octane (C3) fuel, the DB601N gave 1,175 PS but was 'brittle' in service use..." p.45 -"Germany's wartime supply of aviation spirt was, however, severely limited in quantity and quality....But it was impossible, in 1943, to sanction widespread use of high-octane C3 for the Bf-109, simply because of its non-availability." p.47 "Such was the demand for increased performance that the first breed of methanol '605s all used precious 96 octane C-3. However, the realities of fuel supply in germany meant that extreme pressure was applied to Daimler-Benz to devlop further engines capable of using regular 87-octane B4..."

So - the source clearly states that the 601N was fragile, and that there was a shortage of C3 fuel in 43 and 44. What isn't explicitly stated is what the situation was in 1940 - while production of C3 would have been less, presumably demand would be as well. As we are talking about the BoB, this is what we need to be sure of. The US-Navy report linked to by Kufurst (which may not have been accurately transcribed - it refers to production in 1963) talks about the "last war years" - hardly 1940. Nigel Ish (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The case is simple. One editor added a statement, and referenced it with a material. He was asked to provide a direct cite to confirm if the material supports his statements. He could not provide the cite, and this circumstance brings up some very serious doubts whether his sources support him at all. If he cannot support them, the edit will be simply removed - Kurfurst.

In that case Kurfurst, we want the same from you in every single edit you make. Why? Because you have been caught out adding citations to wording it doesn't support. Dapi89 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to Nigel Ish for clarifying matters. Of course the material was added in good faith; the only one acting beyond a presumption of good faith is Kurfurst, who demands proof where none is needed. To help I will modify the statement. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have found a letter from Udet to Willy Messerschmitt in April 1941, which deals some of the problems with the early 109F. Regarding the engines, it notes: Due to leaking valves there is a relatively high wear of N-engines (which have a life of about 40 hours). This leads to an increased demand for spare engines. So, the 601N had a lifespan of 40 hours on 100 octane fuel, the Merlin III according to Shacklady, 10 hours (20 hours with reinforcements). This should be clarified in the article to put it into context, if engine lifespan is such a great concern to some editors. As for the alleged C-3 shortage, I believe Starr was simply mistaken on this. The USN paper makes it clear C-3 was a major volume of production. As for 1940, no absolute figures exist, but its worth noting that some 1200 601N engines were delivered up to October, as well as that a large number of Emils and 110Cs were retrofitted with the 601N engine (that used 100 octane C-3 only) during and before the Battle; in addition to the new generation of 109F-1s and F-2s that were just entering production during 1940 were all powered by the DB 601N. Such widespread use of an engine that could use 100 octane fuel only do not indicate a shortage of the fuel. As for German fuel reserves, as per the USSBS, the German reserves of avgas in July 1940 were 690 000 tons. Monthly consumption was between 60-90 000 tons, with production matching consumption on avarage. In comparison, according to Wood and Dempster, the 22 000 tons of British 100 octane fuel were issued during the whole Battle. As for later in the war, the BMW 801 of the FW 190A (the other major type of German fighter from 1942) as well as some other types could use only C-3 fuel. The DB 605A powered Bf 109G could not take advantage of it, since the 605A engine used 87 octane fuel, and could not even make full use of it because of mechanical troubles with its bearings during 1943. Some evidence of the extent of C-3 fuel use late in the war can be read on my website, for those interested in the subject. Kurfürst (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, a letter from Udet to Willi Messerschmitt that an editor has found is probably unusable unless it is quoted in a reliable source. The "evidence of extensive use" of C-3 fuel is for 1945, which is not relevant for the Battle of Britain and and is not from a reliable source anyway. Please can everybody remind themselves that this article is about Aircraft of the Battle of Britain and this talk page is about discussing this article, not what happened later in the war.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Plus Wood and Dempster do not say that 22,000 gallons was issued during the whole battle (another convenient misquote):

By July 11 1940...stocks of 100 Octane aviation fuel stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10, 21 days before the battle closed, andafter 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. (W & D p. 87)

This says nothing about the entire battle. All it says is 22,000 tons had been issued, which could mean anything. It is an unfortunate ambiguity which proves nothing. Apart from anything else however, this paragraph clearly shows that during the battle the supply situation of 100 octane fuel had improved by 81,000 tons between July 11 and October 10, proving that there was a consistent resupply of fuel during the battle, despite expenditure. Minorhistorian (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Further research: The Fourth service;Merchantmen at War 1939-45 (John Slader 1994) lists "United Kingdom Petroleum Exports: 1940-45 (000 tons)" Aviation spirit 1940 = 632(000) tons (Appendix XIII p.313) "United Kingdom Petroleum Consumption: 1940-45 (000 tons)" Aviation spirit 1940 = 404 (000) tons (Appendix XIV p.314) net gain = 232,000 tons. I can see no problem with quoting this as a reliable secondary published source. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to see to what end would this information improve the article. It makes no mention of 100 octane fuel at all. What purpose it would serve to list the aviation fuel consumption in the UK in 1940 I cannot see. It seems to me some sort of purposeless peacockery that adds nothing to the article. I have similar feelings about the mention of a Merlin prototype being exhibated in a Paris show - what is the relevance to the Battle?

As to Demster, he noted 22 000 tons of 100 octane fuel have been issued, and its obvious then that less could be consumed. Given the consumption figure of 400 000 tons of all aviation spirit, less than 22 000 tons of 100 octane during the Battle appears to be an insignificant, penny pocket amount. Kurfürst (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See Kurfurst is getting uncomfortable because his favourite theories about the purported lack of 100 octane fuel being used by the RAF during the B of B is being shot down in flames. Some basic maths:

Take one Spitfire petrol capacity = 85 imp gallons. Hurricane = 90 gall Weight of fuel: 1 gallon of 100 Octane = roughly 7.3 lbs so 87.5 gall (splitting the difference between Spitfire/Hurricane fuel capacities ) x 7.3 = 638.75 lbs

1 imp ton of fuel = 2,240 lbs 2,240 lbs divided by 638.75 = 3.5 so 1 ton of 100 octane fuel = 3.5 Spitcane sorties.

220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel (31 March 1940) x 3.5 = 770,000 Spitcane sorties

343,000 " " (11 July 1940) x 3.5 = 1,200,500 Spitcane sorties

424,000 (10 October) = 1,484,000 Spitcane sorties

Even at Kurfurst's low estimate of 22,000 tons being issued - which, as explained isn't what Wood/Dempster said, as noted - 22,000 x 3.5 = 77,000 combat sorties. This also assumes that all aircraft returned from combat with dry tanks. How many combat sorties were flown by single seat RAf fighters during the entire battle? Plus there is nothing wrong with background information to illustrate that the RAF was using 100 octane fuel in 1938. It's up to other editors to decide, not Kurfurst. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Purely for interest I came across this ;Discussion forum on 100 Octane

while searching; it makes for some interesting reading on occasion. Interestingly a forum member with the name of Kurfürst made the following observation:

As for the 10th August meeting, it does note that they intended to use 100 octane fuel for all operational aircraft of all Commands; from the actual rate of fuel consumption by type of fuel, it is also clear that this remained a plan and did not materialize.

Ie. In June - August, a monthly avarage of 10 000 tons of 100 octane is used against 26 000 tons of other grades; in September 1940, 14 000 tons of 100 octane is used against 23 000 tons of other grades. In October, its 17 000 tons vs 18 000 tons. In November, its still 15 000 vs 13 000 tons.

before he then changed his tune:

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.

and reverted to the worst case, that 22,000 tons issued throughout the entire battle, was the only believable figure to use. The argument that he presents both in that forum and here is identical: we all have to accept the Kurfürst worst case scenario, that only 22,000 tons ("penny pocket") of 100 octane fuel was issued all the way through the battle, in spite of the fact that the RAF poured every other resource into defeating the Luftwaffe. The alternative figures he quotes (10,000 tons monthly between June - August, 14,000 tons in September and 17,000 tons in October; 61,000 tons total) come from official papers which are held in the National Archives AVIA 10/282.

Lastly: In further research on the situation regarding tanker traffic I have examined some records for the BHX, and HX series of convoys HX Convoys which ran between Halifax and Liverpool, concentrating on January 1940 through to the end of October. Of the 29 ships listed as carrying "Avgas" 29 reached port safely - so much for "Initially all 100 octane aviation spirit had to be shipped from America and large numbers of tankers carrying the fuel were sunk by German submarines..." Tankers were sunk but, for the Atlantic convoys at least, none of those carrying aviation fuel. The convoys are HX 11, 13, 31, 33-35, 404, 43, 49, 55, 57-59, 64-68, 70, 73, 76 plus associated BHX convoys, which followed the same sequence. I will be searching secondary, published information to confirm these figures. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your 'research' as you somewhat optimistically call it, is both irrevelant and unreliable. It is irrelevant because wikipedia does not build on the claims and O.R. of editors such as yourself, but reliable secondary sources. The reliable secondary sources, such as Morgan and Shacklady, states that tankers carrying avgas were sunk. Your 'research', which's credibility and reliabilty is open to question, examined the convoys between Halifax and Liverpool - then what? What about the other convoys you did not 'research'?

Regardless of the dramatic tone you use here, you have so far presented no reliable secondary source supporting to the claim. All we have seen are your own speculations. The reliable secondary sources are all at odds with your claim. Even the primary sources you have started to wave about only show that you have misused the primary sources before when stating a 'complete' changeover to 100 octane fuel in August; a notion that you now disprove yourself... Oops! In addition, what simplistic calculations you make with sortie rates - ignoring transfer flights, training flights, requirements of the engine industry etc. - are irrevelant as well. Besides their obvious flaws, they are original research. Its worth mentioning though the paper you wave around now shows the majority of fuel used during the Battle was 87 octane. Why, if 100 octane fuel was so abundant..?

Overall your editing practice here is like if you'd be a Spitfire fanatic seeking to prove that your favourite aircraft never did receive anything worse than the best fuel available. You do have that kind of rosy sunglasses over when it comes to this plane. But all this is irrelevant - you can write a smaller book here on the talk page, and make David Irving ashamed when it comes to radically new ideas, when the article already has been referenced by reliable secondary sources, such as Morgan and Shacklady's 'Spitfire Bible'. No-one in their right mind would rate the reliability of Morgan and Shacklady definitive work inferior to that of the speculation by a Spitfire enthusiast wiki editor or an amateur Spitfire fansite this editor draws his ideas from. Essentially your edits repeat the fringe theories displayed on that website which have no place in the article. Kurfürst (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also: 'Plus there is nothing wrong with background information to illustrate that the RAF was using 100 octane fuel in 1938.' - oh, I love your strawmen arguements, but the subject was 'a Merlin prototype being exhibated in a Paris show' - probably as a technoligical demonstrator, and far from the RAF using 100 octane fuel in 1938, though I believe there were some early trials with the fuels. Speaking of which, there is a wonderful archival source mentioning that the British interest in 100 octane fuel was motivated by their fears of Germany producing it domestically, and they did not want to lag behind. This should be added. Kurfürst (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What Kurfurst thinks I couldn't care less about - I don't intend putting any of this information in the article. That he resorts to abuse and reacts so badly to an alternative point of view, shows that he has a fixed agenda such that no amount of evidence, in whatever form, will make him change his mind. This Discussion forum on 100 Octane is clear proof that he will use whatever means possible to deny all evidence and abuse the people who make the argument. Page 5 is really illuminating. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you are still concentrating on other editors, and not on their edits. This is especially odd that you do that despite your claims of 'overwhelming evidence' to your the POV you are pushing into the article since long time, you fail to come up with the evidence.

Now to the discussion thread you have linked in.. since you made this (clearly in bad faith and again, ad hominem) a part of the discussion, its worth noting that during this discussion on that discussion board, someone registered a new login handle with the name of 'gavinb' after a known British historian Gavin Bailey, who had written an article on 100 octane fuel use by the RAF during BoB (for those not familiar with Bailey's work, Bailey questions the importance of American import, and also questions the tactical importance generally attributed to 100 octane fuel). This 'gavinb' login several times contradicted Bailey's own work, and conducted himself in a very unprofessional manner, which lead some of us question his identity, considering also the circumstances of he appearance. An IP check revealed, that, oddly for an alleged British historian, 'gavinb' resideded in Pennsylvania, oddly the same place as the site owner who's views on 100 octane fuel Minorhistorian has been pressing into this article for some time. Just thought I would mention this for context. Kurfürst (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And what does this prove? Someone called gavinb logged into a website and it turns out he's from Pennsylvania? Wow. I presume Kurfurst is next going to claim that I'm from Pennsylvania. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you should answer your own question, since you brought the subject up. Someone called gavinb logged into a website, pretends he is British historian Gavin Bailey, and then oddly repeats the same views and style as a certain website owner, but doesn't seem to be able to quote his own work - and also happens to be of from the same location as the website owner who's views you are pressing into the article.

I would say it proves rather lot about reliability of the source you are using, though this was discussed a long time ago already. Still, you brought it up. Kurfürst (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On reflection the accusation that someone is impersonating Gavin Bailey needs closer examination; the burden of proof is on Kurfurst to come up with some evidence; take a look at gavinb's profile and tell me why this indicates that gavinb resides in the UK. Then could Kurfurst please explain how he was able to access gavinb's IP address? Next he can explain who carried out this IP check? So far we only have an accusation without evidence, which is not good enough.

Kurfurst can also explain why it is that this gavinb says nothing different from what "The Narrow Margin of Criticality" actually says: I now have a copy and I can confirm this (interestingly Gavin Bailey uses information from Payton-Smith's Oil - in fact his report is concluded with a quote from p. 57, the same that I have used in another posting below). Minorhistorian (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Bailey's responses to continued abuse of his work are posted below. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A question on the use of primary sources

Recently an editor again added a primary source reference to a claim: 'National Archives AVIA 10/282 Minutes of Oil Policy Committee meetings'. I wonder if the policy on the use of primary source - laid down by Rlandmann and other admins - changed in the meantime and whether such sources could be used to support statements? Kurfürst (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed as Kurfurst well knows

Discussion

• There's no legal threat here at all. The use of references such as the one removed here is not appropriate; the reference should point to the original document in the archive, not to a photograph of unclear provenence on some random amateur website. CIreland (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, whilst CI's opinion is not definitive and his admin status irrelevant, the point he makes the reference should point to the original document in the archive, not to a photograph of unclear provenence on some random amateur website is a good one. The reference is (should be) to the memo in the archives. The photo is merely proof that the reference exists and of what it says. That would in turn appear to imply that removal of the reference in its entirety is wrong: I think it should be replaced with "Air Ministry minutes on supply of 100 Octane fuel, 18 May 1940. and presumably some note as to the current location of those minutes" William M. Connolley (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It was Kurfurst who protested about the use of photographic reproductions of documents on an amateur website, something to note when he still uses such sources as reference material in the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess you have no objections of adding new material using PRO/NA files as reference? I have lots of interesting material on the Spitfire and other aircraft from this and other archives. Kurfürst (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As Kurfurst well knows simply quoting small sections of a primary source document without a secondary, published source of information is interpretation of the document. Using a 1938 document to interpret events in 1940 is - interesting? Minorhistorian (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, in this edit of his, in which he protests against 'interpretation, Minorhistorian was replacing a direct cite from the primary source with his own interpretation of the source. So, I am kinda confused. Is direct citing an interpretation then, and interpretation is not interpretation..? Kurfürst (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst used a single paragraph from a 10 page planning document, written in 1938, to explain events in 1940. If that isn't interpretation what is? This...

A memorandum by the Air Ministry, 'Proposals for securing adequate supplies of 100 octane fuel to meet war requirements', 23 December 1938, noted that there was a need to increase supplies of 100 octane fuel and discussed ways in which this could be achieved.

...is a very short, concise summary of the document, not an interpretation. Minorhistorian (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)