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

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Just to say about update intervals on technical literature. We do get some that are dated some time ago and have gone thru the whole process or whatever before being published. But also get urgent ones that are released very quickly and have to be done or added to the literature so safety is not compromised. So I would guess that especially during wartime if something critical came up then info would be passed to the troops fast in a way or another to prevent losses because of lack in information. I do not think RAF or any other air force waited a year before publishing stuff, even during war

The clearance of 100 octane fuel for Spitfire I, which definitely is something urgent and important, was added by A.L. 2 to the May 1940 section of the manual.
The additional restriction of 100 octane fuel to operational units is definitely nothing urgent. And this restriction was simply ruled out by Pilot's Notes General that allowed the use of lower octane fuel if really necessary (of course lower operational limits applied in this case).

[Osprey]

Biff just keeps on digging that hole for the stupid doesn't he? lol

[Flanker35M]

S!

Banks, good points. I know from experience too that things are done outside books as they are a routine. But this can cause a danger too as you can miss things an addition or change can bring so I am sure ground crews were informed on important changes and schooled for a professional and safe working procedure.

I've done heaps of changes to literature when they come. It is realy interesting and rewarding to compare these changes to the older version and see the reasons behind it. At the same time you learn more from the plane you work on. I think this applies to every AF today, now and in the past. Thanks for great discussion

[winny]

Tsk.. Those damn RAF pilot's, never filling in their bloody paperwork, dunno why. Maybe all that getting killed nonsense had something to do with it.
I dunno, any excuse.

From what I've read, the last thing they wanted to do having just seen their mates explode 20 feet off the port wing was effin paperwork.

To apply modern standards to a life or death situation in 1940 is ridiculous.

By modern standards none of them would be able to fly because most of them were still drunk from the night before. What's the FAA got to say about that? Or 4 hours sleep, clinically exhausted are you son.. Tough, get up there and fight for your life.

[NZtyphoon]

An interesting doco here:
Oops - it says the RAF used 100 octane fuel - although the Fw 190 didn't appear during the battle.

[NZtyphoon]

And an interesting one here

[Flanker35M]

S!

Winny..war or not the technical staff did work by the a certain order and did use literature. Claiming these guys just did it without any supervision or literature is just thick. The base how an unit work is doing things, how professional it is performing it's tasks..all those are trained and done before the war. RAF or any other AF did not switch mode because of war..sure they had to improvise in the field but it was based on something. And belive me even in war superiors ask for paperwork because it is essential for the big picture if you get the drift.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Winny..war or not the technical staff did work by the a certain order and did use literature. Claiming these guys just did it without any supervision or literature is just thick. The base how an unit work is doing things, how professional it is performing it's tasks..all those are trained and done before the war. RAF or any other AF did not switch mode because of war..sure they had to improvise in the field but it was based on something. And belive me even in war superiors ask for paperwork because it is essential for the big picture if you get the drift.

Fair enuff, I was being sarcastic. And I'm not thick. But my point was kind of that it's hard to tell if a set of pilot's notes were maintained correctly without knowing their history.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Point taken Winny

[Crumpp]

Banks, good points. I know from experience too that things are done outside books as they are a routine. But this can cause a danger too as you can miss things an addition or change can bring so I am sure ground crews were informed on important changes and schooled for a professional and safe working procedure.

Flanker,

Good points and your experience is obvious. The Curtiss Helldiver is a great example of the measures taken to keep aircraft from falling out of the sky and in safe operation.

It does not make any sense to rush an airplane to destruction and kill people.