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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Ok. Sry for overplaying my irony

Don't worry I was tempted to write

I am sure if I look I will find a book that says the earth is flat and Rome was built in a day, or even one that showed a shortage of 100 Octane

Damn, now look what I have done

[Seadog]

I'm still waiting for someone to post data showing that RAF FC flew even a single Hurricane or Spitfire combat sortie during the BofB using 87 octane fuel. Again, if the RAF FC was flying large numbers of sorties during the BofB using 87 octane fuel, it should be easy to find historical accounts by RAF pilots or in combat reports stating that they flew into combat with 87 octane fuel during the BofB. Yet no such reports or accounts have ever come to light...

So far no takers on my challenge.

It's time for the RAF FC BofB 87 octane myth to die; it has been thoroughly busted.

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by Seadog

I'm still waiting for someone to post data showing that RAF FC flew even a single Hurricane or Spitfire combat sortie during the BofB using 87 octane fuel. Again, if the RAF FC was flying large numbers of sorties during the BofB using 87 octane fuel, it should be easy to find historical accounts by RAF pilots or in combat reports stating that they flew into combat with 87 octane fuel during the BofB. Yet no such reports or accounts have ever come to light...

So far no takers on my challenge.

It's time for the RAF FC BofB 87 octane myth to die; it has been thoroughly busted.

+1

[TomcatViP]

You shld write comics. You will hve an huge success.

It has been alrdy explained and can be found in many documents.

I myself illustrated this meaning right her ein this thread by linking to a 1954 FLIGHT articles detailing the evolution of teh Merlin eng during the war with details of wich octane was used.

There is also a second article of FLIGHT that I linked about a respective study of a He111 engine and the Merlin where teh author explained that the Brits eng discovered that the remaining trace of fuel found inside the studied German engine showed that the LW probably was using a fuel with better octane grade than what RAF was using at the time.The article clearly says that it was 92 octane in the German bomber.

More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel.

Here is a modern example with Turbo Tech (no eng power needed to drive the compression process) : http://wn.com/octane_rating?orderby=..._time=all_time

[EDIT] :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQghB...layer_embedded

As I hve alrdy says I don't know what to write more. What 's for sure is that I am loosing my time at a ... 100% rate !

[41Sqn_Banks]

I think no one believes your interpretation because your conclusions are wrong.

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I myself illustrated this meaning right her ein this thread by linking to a 1954 FLIGHT articles detailing the evolution of teh Merlin eng during the war with details of wich octane was used.

The article is in no way complete (for example Merlin V engine is not mentioned) and only mentions take-off power and not emergency power.

More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel.

Every supercharged engine produces more boost below FTH than the engine can handle, that's why it is called FULL THROTTLE HEIGHT, it is the lowest altitude where the throttle can be fully open without damaging the engine. The engine can't handle that high boosts because of detonation. 100 octane fuel allows to run the engine with a higher boost without detonation. Higher boost means higher power.
This means every supercharged engine benefits from the use of 100 octane fuel as long a the engine control (e.g. Automatic Boost Control) allows the pilot to apply the higher boost. The Merlin engine has a Boost Control Cut-Out device to override the limit of the Boost Control, i.e. it allows the pilot to apply a higher boost than the regular +6 1/2.
Of course the higher power may cause a higher stress on other parts, however it is documented which modifications must be applied to a Merlin II/III to allow the use of higher boost.
The use and benefit of 100 octane in Merlin II/III is very well documented, it is also very well documented from which time on selected aircraft used it. What is so far not documented is when it was introduced for ALL operational aircraft.

[klem]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

.......................

More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel. ...............

<sigh>

Again....

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
Search for "Engine Power"

More... if you aren't completely averse to Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superma...e_and_armament
The evolution of high octane aviation fuels and improved supercharger designs enabled Rolls-Royce to extract increasing amounts of power from the same basic designs. For example, the Merlin II and III which powered the Spitfire I produced a maximum of 1,030 hp (770 kW) using the 87 octane aviation fuel which was generally available from 1938 through to 1941; from early 1940 increasing supplies of 100 octane fuel allowed the maximum power to be increased to 1,310 hp (977 kW) with an increased supercharger boost pressure, albeit for a maximum time limit of 5 minutes.

I'd like a 30% increase in power in my car if only for five minutes.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by klem

...from early 1940 increasing supplies of 100 octane fuel allowed the maximum power to be increased to 1,310 hp (977 kW) with an increased supercharger boost pressure, albeit for a maximum time limit of 5 minutes.

I'd like a 30% increase in power in my car if only for five minutes.

Again this makes your assertion ridiculous.

In the above article tht I mentioned, the 100 oct dedicated Merlin engine for the 1940/41 era is stated in an article dedicated to RR anniversary in a British renown publication (and not an obscure extract) to be the mkVIII at 1045hp (not sure exactly - look previous pages).

This is only an example.

To be kind I hve suggested earlier that you made the confusion of SHP and BHP. You might be making the same error here (I say it obviously overplaying my naive side )
.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

You shld write comics. You will hve an huge success.

It has been alrdy explained and can be found in many documents.

I myself illustrated this meaning right her ein this thread by linking to a 1954 FLIGHT articles detailing the evolution of teh Merlin eng during the war with details of wich octane was used.

There is also a second article of FLIGHT that I linked about a respective study of a He111 engine and the Merlin where teh author explained that the Brits eng discovered that the remaining trace of fuel found inside the studied German engine showed that the LW probably was using a fuel withe better octane grade than what RAF used at the time.The article clearly says that it was 92 octane in the German bomber.

More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel.

Here is a modern example with Turbo Tech (no power eng needed to drive the compression process) : http://wn.com/octane_rating?orderby=..._time=all_time

As I hve alrdy says I don't know what to write more. What 's for sure is that I am loosing my time at a ... 100% rate !

Yes Mr Tomcat, I'm sure you're convinced in your own mind that you're right, so there's no point in discussing the matter any further with you is there? Meantime, your Flat Earth Society friends are waiting for you to make your maiden speech to the Venerable Coven of Witches and I believe your pet ostrich has buried its head in sand - again.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by klem

<sigh>

Again....

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
Search for "Engine Power"

More... if you aren't completely averse to Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superma...e_and_armament
The evolution of high octane aviation fuels and improved supercharger designs enabled Rolls-Royce to extract increasing amounts of power from the same basic designs. For example, the Merlin II and III which powered the Spitfire I produced a maximum of 1,030 hp (770 kW) using the 87 octane aviation fuel which was generally available from 1938 through to 1941; from early 1940 increasing supplies of 100 octane fuel allowed the maximum power to be increased to 1,310 hp (977 kW) with an increased supercharger boost pressure, albeit for a maximum time limit of 5 minutes.

I'd like a 30% increase in power in my car if only for five minutes.

In Graham White's book 'Allied Piston Engines of WW2', he says 1440hp @ 3000rpm @ 5000ft for the Merlin II and III.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Yes Mr Tomcat, I'm sure you're convinced in your own mind that you're right, so there's no point in discussing the matter any further with you is there? Meantime, your Flat Earth Society friends are waiting for you to make your maiden speech to the Venerable Coven of Witches and I believe your pet ostrich has buried its head in sand - again.

Get some fresh air NZT.

Did someone at least watch the Impreza example ?