Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[Crumpp]

I just can't find these arguements compelling where you compare current peacetime FAA (US) procedures and definitions to the RAF in 1940

Convention Relating to the Regulation of Aerial Navigation Signed at Paris, October 13, 1919
(Paris Convention)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, CHINA, CUBA, ECUADOR, FRANCE, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, THE HEDJAZ, HONDURAS, ITALY, JAPAN, LIBERIA, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROUMANIA, THE SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, SIAM, CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND URUGUAY,
Recognising the progress of aerial navigation, and that the establishment of regulations of universal application will be to the interest of all;

There have been other conventions since but 1919 was the first. Aviation is the same around the world for the most part.

Yes, the Air Ministry of the United Kingdom follows the same rules and concepts as the FAA. Those principles are exactly the same. Once more, the instructions found in every Air Ministry Operating Notes reflect this practice.

Crumpp says:

you will not see technical orders that are applicable to operational units that do not make it into the new edition.

"cylinder head spigot depth modification"

Do you know what a cylinder head spigot is on an engine?

routine maintainance

It is not routine maintenance; it is done at Service Inspection. Do you know the difference?

There was also the time when you offended an ex-RAAF fast jet pilot (who also flew Yak 50s) by contradicting him repeatedly on flying in the "buffet", when you stated (correctly) that flight in the buffet regime is wrong because it represents a loss of aerodynamic efficiency and hence turn efficiency.

You misrepresent this completely. The statement was not using the buffet to find maximum turn performance. He flat stated that maximum turn performance occurs in the buffet. That is not correct and once he clarified that we had no issue.

This (correct) technical detail about changes in standards does miss the point though that pilots of the time (and today) found the Spitfire a delightful aircraft to fly.

Up until the moment they died from it! What the engineer likes and what the pilot likes are not always the same thing. Why let a pilot take a plane someplace it cannot fly?

Generally you have used them to make statements that are correct within a narrow technical context or definition but then become misleading in the historical application to which they have been put.

How can it be technically correct and then wrong in some imagined historical application? Sounds like horse-puckey to me. What I have passed on is true and how it works. There is no point in arguing the same information over and over. Problem is that most aviation historians have no practical aviation experience. In fact, the vast majority of books on aviation history are written by interested amatures who don't have a background in either history or aviation.

What I have said about the Operating Notes is technically, historically, and whatever else you want to attach to the word, "CORRECT". I don't care if you believe it, hate it, or love it.

Cheers,

Crumpp