Yes, I suspect that's his agenda...

"Oi.. You.. Where do you think you're going with that bayonet? You could have someone's eye out with that!"

Which inevitably leads to..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5gqI...e_gdata_player

Unlike your car, dvd player, or your standard military manual.....

Pilot Operating Notes are part of the airworthiness of the aircraft and a legal document. They carry the weight of law by convention.

Don't confuse the articles discussion of the GAMA changes in 1975 that put all convention signers on the same format. Manufacturers of light civil aircraft tried to save a few dollars during one of the darkest periods in General Aviation by cutting corners on the POH's. The result was the GAMA changes which standardized POH for all convention signers and everyone adopted the same format.


http://ezinearticles.com/?Pilots-Ope...101&id=6521261

It has been that way since 1919!!

As for for the "engine parts" conforming during operation, that is normal for all engines. In fact it is called the "break in"!! :grin:

No engineer looked at a part on the assembly line that would destroy the engine and said "keep churning em out boys!! We can win the war with our airplanes that won't fly".

That is really stupid. He looked at it and said, "Yes it is bent but it is still within tolerenances and won't effect anything, keep working"

Happens all the time in aviation and does not violate any convention.

The Military is a good career. I did all of my time in Special Operations. Started out in Rangers and then went to Special Forces.

I agree with your interpretation on the Spitfire Mk II Notes.

It is a fact the Spitfire Mk II was using 100 Octane in June 1940 because the Notes On the Merlin engine specify that as the only option. The emotional investment in this issue so high that many participants confuse In use with all operational units.

The Operating Notes are a followed and the proceduresYou cannot say "all operational" Spitfire Mk I's or Hurricanes were using 100 Octane in June of 1940.

The USAAF did the same thing when they converted to 100 Octane (100/130 grade). They published instructions to use 91 Octane for training and OCONUS and 100 Octane for operations. The Pilots Operating Handbooks reflect the fuel changeover after that Technical Order was published.

You don't see the Notes on the Merlin Engine being updated until January 1942.

Again, where's the evidence for combat sorties flown with 87 octane fuel? We have numerous sources that state full conversion to 100 octane and a complete lack of documentary evidence of 87 octane fuel use by Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons during the BofB.

Crumpp
This is all very interesting but everyone I am sure is still waiting for you to try to support your belief about 16 squadrons.

All I have seen is a pre war statement of intent to have 16 squadrons of fighters and two of bombers.

Or am I right in thinking that this is now something in the past, like your belief that 1940 was about operational testing and you now simply believe it was less than 100% of fighter command.

I've checked a few manuals and some lag behind in terms of amendments by up to half a year.

What they actually said was "we don't know what is causing the engines to break appart mid air, until we find the problem you're just going to have to deal with it.. Test pilots lost thier lives because of this, testing factory fresh Spitfires.

Alex Henshaw said about the "Skew Gear problem" that you strangley ignored
"In any other situation this problem would have grounded the fleet, but because of the circumstances they couldn't. It was war and we just got on with it" He knew that at any moment he was testing Spitfires there was a chance it would happen to him. It did on 11 occasions. What happened happened.

Now you're telling me you know more about it than he does.

That sums you up.

Anyway it's irrelevant, the 87 octane reference is there because they used it for OTU's, so they had to put it in the notes, apparently it's the law.

So what's your main argument about the non use of 100 oct in frontline squadrons during the BoB?

EDIT: Sorry to those who thought this thread had died... I'm not going away. Go and read one of raaaids threads instead :)

This just proves your ignorance. Please go and google the Packard-Merlin seizure problem on Spitfires. You'll find out that what you said didn't happen, did, exactly, they kept churning them out. Or google the sudden loss of Magnetos problem, same thing, kept building them with the fault until they located the fault, seems like it was almost Standard Operating Procedure..

The piston problem resulted in a full engine failiure, not some 'bent within acceptable amounts" push rods.

Jeez there's even a painting of it happening showing Henshaw bailing out of a Spitfire... A painting..

You apply modern standards to WW2 situations, without even bothering to look to see what actually happened.