109 e3b against spitfire II

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Seadog

The Merlin XX was given official approval to use 12lb boost for combat in MS gear in Nov 1940, but the engine was cleared for 12lb boost/3000rpm for TO right from the beginning, and so was available to any pilot who cared to use it during combat.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...s-10june40.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...xx-15nov40.jpg

Approval for 14 and then 16lb boost was added later, along with the appropriate boost override modifications.

T.O low speed no ram effect + Optimum Air flow in term of Mass of air to cool the supercharger (see above what two speed use is abt)

@VO101_Tom : Nice found but I am sry this argument is not valid. Any Army makes the circulation of Info a strategical issue : you are flying in a fighter -> you get all the info cleared for your security level regarding that type of fighter.

It does not mean that they all hve used the famous 100oct

But As I hve alry said : let's give them their Barracuda engines that years of stupid mods can get a justification (and spare my own free time)

@Kurf : this is a neat explanation with proof reasoning. I hve read it the first time you put it on the forum and still wait for any argumentation since

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

@VO101_Tom : Nice found but I am sry this argument is not valid. Any Army makes the circulation of Info a strategical issue : you are flying in a fighter -> you get all the info cleared for your security level regarding that type of fighter.

It does not mean that they all hve used the famous 100oct

But As I hve alry said : let's give them their Barracuda engines that years of stupid mods can get a justification (and spare my own free time)

If was used continuously the 12lbs boost, and the engine was ruined continuously, it does not interest, if COD makes the same one.
If I misunderstood it, then excuse me, but the object of the debate in the other topic, that the 12 lbs were useful without the damaging of engine - from what it follows, that let COD not take it into consideration...

[Kurfürst]

Buzzsaw, apart from your usual tirades and various lies about my person,

A, can you produce even a single primary document saying all of Fighter Command using 100 octane fuel and 100 octane fuel only?
B, can you explain, that if FC would use only 100 octane fuel, why do 87 octane issues suddenly rise at the moment Fighter Command is flying more operational sorties?

Should you be able to do so, I may be able to take you seriously.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

B, can you explain, that if FC would use only 100 octane fuel, why do 87 octane issues suddenly rise at the moment Fighter Command is flying more operational sorties?

Because 87 octane is being used by Coastal Command, Bomber Command, RN, OTU and flight training units, all of whom will increase their activities during periods of good weather, which was when the Luftwaffe also increased it's activity over Britain.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Buzzsaw, apart from your usual tirades and various lies about my person,

A, can you produce even a single primary document saying all of Fighter Command using 100 octane fuel and 100 octane fuel only?
B, can you explain, that if FC would use only 100 octane fuel, why do 87 octane issues suddenly rise at the moment Fighter Command is flying more operational sorties?

Should you be able to do so, I may be able to take you seriously.

Originally Posted by Buzzsaw

....

I guess nobody here can take you seriously, then.

[Crumpp]

the 12 lbs were useful without the damaging of engine

Geez....

You people are still debating this? Where is the common sense?

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Geez....

You people are still debating this? Where is the common sense?

There is too much things that does not match

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Salute

but as you say, only in the outside wing tanks, and only for takeoff.

Not really, what i said was indeed "only in outboard tanks" but it is far from saying "only for takeoff": unless they were planning a one-way trip they would have to burn that 100 octane on the return leg of the sortie as it was the only supply available to them after the inboard tanks had gone dry

What i previously described amounts to "on takeoff and half of the cruise portion of the flight", which is half the fuel burn for the sortie.

In other words, quite a lot of 100 octane fuel in case of long range sorties and as low as none at all in short range sorties (unless they were bending the rules and carrying a few minutes worth of it to get better WEP boost values in case of trouble, but that would be a negligible amount).

In conclusion, if the Blenheims generated enough sorties at long ranges or were routinely tasked with loitering around a certain area on patrol duty (eg, U-boats, reconnaissance, etc), they could account for quite a lot of 100 octane use. If on the other hand they were mostly flying cross-Channel hops in nuisance raids, they would mostly burn 87 octane.

Until someone can produce a relevant document that deals with the amount, type and range/duration of their sorties during the BoB the argument can swing either way

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

A, can you produce even a single primary document saying all of Fighter Command using 100 octane fuel and 100 octane fuel only?
B, can you explain, that if FC would use only 100 octane fuel, why do 87 octane issues suddenly rise at the moment Fighter Command is flying more operational sorties?

We know that the RAF was using vast amounts of 100 octane fuel. If RAFFC wasn't using it, who was? You have never produced a single document stating that some of RAFFC was still using 87 octane and the burden of proof is upon you.

Flight activity of all kinds will increase with good weather. This is such a simple concept, that it will be instantly apparent to almost everyone.



The RAFFC flew 5700 sorties and the RAF issued about 4500 tons of 100 octane fuel during the 1st week of September. 5700 sorties at 75 gallons per sortie = 427500 gallons or 1374 tons (assuming every fighter does a dead stick landing with empty tanks, it only rises to 1650 tons). This leaves more than 3000 tons for use in RAFBC and all other assorted and sundry users, more than enough for every twin engined Merlin bomber and fighter to be using 100 octane fuel and still leave lots left over for use by RAFFC.

[Kurfürst]

[QUOTE=Seadog;298133]We know that the RAF was using vast amounts of 100 octane fuel.

5-10 000 tons a month - out of 50 000 tons total per months or compared to about 90 000 tons per month consumed by the Luftwaffe is hardly 'vast amounts'.
Its a tiny amount, even compared to 1940 overall or later RAF consumption.

Originally Posted by Seadog

If RAFFC wasn't using it, who was?

Bomber Command (at least 8 Squadrons of Blenheims for example), engine manufacturers for running ins and testing, Squadrons for non-operational flying and practice. One Squadron in August 1940 for example did

Originally Posted by Seadog

You have never produced a single document stating that some of RAFFC was still using 87 octane and the burden of proof is upon you.

Of course I did. Ironically, just two posts above. Besides yo simply display the logical fellacy of the Invisible Pink Unicorn: you seem to believe that if you claim something, without being capable proving it, and if others don't prove you wrong, you are automatically right. Right? Well, its just utter nonsense. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

All Figther Command Aircraft were operating on 87 octane previously; in March 1939 a decision was made to convert sixteen fighter Squadrons to 100 octane by September 1940, and in around May 1940 it was noted that 'certain' fighter squadrons were to be supplied with 100 octane fuel.

Certain, not all. Well its not too hard figure out what the other-than-certain Fighter Squadrons were still running on, my dear Watson?

The RAFFC flew 5700 sorties and the RAF issued about 4500 tons of 100 octane fuel during the 1st week of September. 5700 sorties at 75 gallons per sortie = 427500 gallons or 1374 tons (assuming every fighter does a dead stick landing with empty tanks, it only rises to 1650 tons). This leaves more than 3000 tons for use in RAFBC and all other assorted and sundry users, more than enough for every twin engined Merlin bomber and fighter to be using 100 octane fuel and still leave lots left over for use by RAFFC.

That's an interesting claim. Can you tell me how much 100 octane was spent on operational training, engine testing, run-in, was used up by Bomber Command's Blenheims etc..? Without that, your calculation is an extremely crude and wishful example..