These are your posts in this thread: #157: #205; #206: #245: #294: #296: #301:#303: #315: #322: #365:#381: #383: #387: #392: #408: #411:#412; #427; #434, #437,#457,#461, #467, #484, #496, #501, #515, #523, #525, #526, #529, #534, #537, #540, #542, #544, #549, #553, #555, #558, #580

Nowhere, until this last one, is there any mention by you in this thread, or any other I can find, that R-R tested engines without superchargers, nor have you presented any evidence:

So, where is your evidence that R-R routinely tested engines without superchargers?

The Meteor Tank engine was basically a Merlin without a supercharger. It worked well and was used for many years post war on the Centurion and shows how robust the basic Merlin was.

However that clearly came after the aero engine merlin.

post #205 give you a tip ;)

Vip2000 also did use teh same book (in fact bought it after reading his post)

Impressive work btw but now I guess that you are some kind of antic cyclopes to get a so selective sense of reading.
:rolleyes

@Glider : I am not talking abt a production engine. For what I understand those were for test and performances check only.

end of post #593

I know, but I also know that you didn't provide any documentation, papers, test reports, anything in fact, to support your statement.
I looked for what I could find and supplied it, all we ask is that you do the same or is that not fair?.

A fair point I admit. However when discussing the losses the RAF had in 1941 its an equal point how many were lost due to running out of fuel? I do know that a whole squadron of the early Mk IX's were lost due to lack of fuel , no doubt others were as well.
There is a difference here. I am not trying to put the blame on the lack of fuel.


There is no doubt that the 109 performed well over Africa but, when the Spits arrived even in small numbers the change in the air war was palbable. To pretend that the 109 was outnumbered by Spitfires over Malta is pushing it more than a little.

Taking todays date in 1942.
Combat 1 3 x Ju88 approached with fighter escort, 4 x Spits and 7 x Hurricane intercepted. No details of the numbers in the escort but 12 x Me109 mentioned in one combat report
Combat 2 3 x Ju88 and 7 x Me109 intercepted by 4 Spits
Combat 3 3 x Ju88 with 6 x Me109 and a cover of 19 x Me109, 6 x Spit and 8 x Hurricane intercepted

Fair enough I missed #205; here's #205
This is a post about the Merlin XX, which is a completely different engine from the III, using a two-speed supercharger which drew more power than the single-stage single speed unit of the III:
otherwise there is No evidence provided that R-R routinely tested its engines without superchargers, No documentation, No mention of a History of Rolls-Royce.

If you believe that the RAF only used 16 squadrons of fighters with 100 Octane until Sept 1940, then you need to explain why we have over 30 squadrons mentioning it in combat reports.
If you believe that this was achieved by only 16 squadrons using it at any one time then you need to prove it.
If you beleive that a pre war plan stayed in force for 12 months without any change then ask yourself this question. Can you find any pre war plan, on any topic, in relation to any combat arm, of any nation that continued without alteration once the fighting started. Find one, this isn't it because we know that Blenhiem units were equipped with 100 octane in France alone and that was more than 2 squadrons. I cetainly agree that a reserve is needed and the RAF had a three and a half year reserve of 100 Octane. There was no shortage of fuel at any time in the BOB. If you think there was a shortage, prove it. The only shortage I found was in May 1944 before the invasion.
Its also worth remembering that if there had been a shortage the UK had the ability to produce its own and decided not to because of cost and that it wasn't needed.

I repeat that all the facts that I have posted on this have come from the official records in the National Archives. If that isn't good enough for you then tell me what is.

All I am asking is for you or someone else to supply any evidence to support your theory, just one on any point, not every point, just one of your choosing.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg
But Kf has supplied evidence that RAF plans changed; note the comment on reserves of 100 octane fuel being adequate.

I know that and thats the beauty of the situation. To prove his case he will have to disprove the one piece of evidence that he supplied

I quoted the exact title of the book elsewhere (sry not with me as for now). It's one of the RR heritage trust. It's a study extracted from RR sources and internal documentation.

As I said, this small book written in 1941 explain why RR had to create new methods to predict the perf of a S/C Engine at alt due to the divergences of predicted perf and the real ones achieved during flight test. The authors were the very same guys conducting the work at the time.

It is also explained how the US was slightly in advance in that way. But also why RR conducted that work as improvement were still on demands.

The base engine to conduct this work was the NEW MerlinXX flight tested in a Hurricane II.

There is a lot of interesting curves that I hve re-used in my post (but no scan). Most notably no perf test was seen using the 12lb boost when top performance was the very base of that work ;)

The book itself is cheap (10 to 20$ ?) and can be ordered simply via amazon if I do remind well. I had to wait 1 or 2 month to get a new print out of the roll. You may read (or ask ?) Viper2000 posts with whom I heard first abt that book.

~S