If it was not used no one will tell that it has not seen any use... C'mon ! DO you see flying car in the street ? What would you think if someone will tell you 70 years latter that car were flying as there is no proof of the contrary and that no one at the time as wrote that cars were not flying (for the future generations : I AM WRITING THIS IN THE EARLY 2012 AND CAN TESTIFY THAT NO CARS ARE FLYING AT THIS STAGE !) ?

humm remind me a movie with some monkeys, Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt ;)


I didn't say that - I said that the article write that once used with 100oct MkXX had a boost level of 9lb (what is confirmed by some source alrdy posted). Pls re-read the article

If it was the case, RR would have asked this to be included in that article and FLIGHT would have been proud to put that fact in their story.

That's an adventurous conclusion !

If they didn't make any mention of such "conversions" it's not because they wanted to hide it to the future WWII simmer of the early 21st century but perhaps because there was no such usage.

In the Au archive we have alrdy seen that 100 octane fuel was used to be blended with old stock of 74 octane fuel to produce 87, 90 or even 95 octane fuel.

Last but not least, when used in the MkVIII engine, the 100 octane fuel was not producing tremendous amount of extra power (1010 vs 1080).

Most certainly not. If it was there then I want it. I think I speak for all RAF types when I say that they want accuracy and let the chips fall where they may. I fly Hurricanes, I am already expecting the 109 to have a big advantage on me, but I shall fight on because I want it how it was.

Alec Harvey-Bailey, The Merlin in Perspective, (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Derby, 1983)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...in3-rating.jpg

"Alec Harvey-Bailey was in charge of Merlin engine defect investigation during WWII. In addition to examination of damaged engines, his role also involved development of engineering improvements and repairs. Harvey-Bailey made numerous visits to active squadrons and even flew aircraft when it was necessary to become familiar with particular problems."



Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...erlin3-pg6.jpg

Tomcat please note the engines

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ap1590b.jpg

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/imag...et-by-2012.jpg

;)

Through all his palaver KF is admitting he has not seen the Pips document himself, nor has anyone who has access to the all about warfare forum, so the preamble should read:

"This is from a researcher, researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives, from a purported document, allegedly copied to the so-called "Australian Military Commission" in England in February 1941, allegedly by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook, allegedly outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance. It was purported to be a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report allegedly titled "Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War;" although this has not yet been found in any of the Australian archives contacted.

The reason why it is allegedly included amongst AWM papers is because the Australian Government at that time was supposedly protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF; although no corroberating evidence to support this has been found. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all allegedly quoted parts from the report."

All the rest is smoke and mirrors by KF; plain fact is he pins 100% faith on a set of documents he has not seen or read, based on a short summary found on a forum, and Pips, who posted the material, has doubts about its veracity. Interesting

;)

1. The emergency use of the higher boost pressures up to 12 lbs./sq.in is now permitted for short periods by operation of the modified control cut-out.

12. The use, in an emergency, of this boost pressure is a definitive overload condition ...

Will the sim implement the bonus and the onus of such feature obligating pilots to use it wisely?

I am sure that the Spitfire was little better than 109 in some aspects. But they were very well matched. The luftwaffe failure was not by the spitfire superiority as a fighter or tactics. But for many reasons.

Of the total of the 109s lost how many were lost simply because they did not come home due lack of fuel and not by being shot down? I will not be surprise if something more than 20% or 30% were lost this way.

And note the dates: March 1940 and April 1940, respectively for the A.P.1590B
notes on the Merlin II & III and the Pilot's Notes.

And will sim pilots have to note the use of overboost in the engine's log book?