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

[klem]

I think afer 55 pages this thread has run its course. Time to lock it down so we don't waste any more time on it.

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

You'd need to really read it actually

I have read the article, maybe I’m being especially thick (and that may very well be the case ), I cannot see the statement that 87 octane fuel was the fuel normally used by the Spitfire or Hurricane during combat in the Battle of Britain.

There is a quote in that paper, which you used before, that states that "the petrol normally used at that time was 87 Octane" however the time it is referring to is 1937.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

....

2)Rolls-Royce were already building Merlins that could run on 100 octane fuel in 1938.

It's an exposition for the Paris airshow. RR put on show the must advanced items they had with war in perspective - e.g look at my bad looking Merlin that will eat your sausage's 109.

The mot ridiculous at this game were arguabily the french with their twin engined single cranckshaft 2000hp marvel that history has shown how irealistic this formula was (the very 1st french act of sabotage of the German war machine ?)

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%203453.html RM 2M "The normal output at 7,870ft. is 1,265 h.p. and the maximum at
9,500ft., 1,285 h.p. with 1,320 h.p. available for take-off....The maximum potential output of the Merlin II is 1,800 h.p..."

they also explain the line just bellow that Maximum means maximum theoritical power !!!

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

3) Not forgetting either that on August 7 1937 Rolls Royce had a "more-or-less standard Merlin II, running at 18 pounds boost on a special mixture of straight-run gasoline, benzol and methanol with a dash of tetraethyl lead, achieved an output of 1,536 hp at 2,850 rpm over a four minute run." (this was used for the Speed Spitfire). Price The Spitfire Story 2010 p. 107. Ergo the engine was already strong enough to take the extra power.

It's a record breaker plane ! No reception flight, training, long formation flight etc... You can't draw a comparaison... C'mon tell me you are jocking !

You are also citing the 1300+HP nbr when the line bellow teh journalist explicitely said that "a fully supercharged" merlins does 1030hp. This in line with what I hve alrdy pointed out (from RR doc sources) that your hve repeateadly mixed SHP (power on the shaft without supercharger plugged) and BHP.

I don't know really on what base we can discuss anymore you and me.

@Bounder :

I made an abstract of the article last week. Pls (re)read it there : http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=457

[klem]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

It's an exposition for the Paris airshow. RR put on show the must advanced items they had with war in perspective - e.g look at my bad looking Merlin that will eat your saucage's 109.

The mot ridiculous at this game were arguabily the french with their twin engined single cranckshaft 2000hp marvel that history has shown how irealistic this formula was (the very 1st french act of sabotage of the German war machine ?)

they also explain the line after that Maximum means maximum theoritical power !!!



It's a record breaker plane ! No reception flight, training, long formation flight etc... You can't draw a comparaison... C'mon tell me you are jocking !

This is just another example of TC trying to side track answers to his own question because he can't win. It doesn't matter what the purpose of the engine/aircraft demonstrations were, we were answering TCs statement:-
"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."

The posts that followed show that tremendous increase in power was possible - read the posts and references - and NZt's posts and references show that the engine was demonstrated to be strong enough to deliver the increased power.

We have arrived at Trolling and I've had enough of this thread.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by klem

This is just another example of TC trying to side track answers to his own question because he can't win. It doesn't matter what the purpose of the engine/aircraft demonstrations were, we were answering TCs statement:-
"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."

The posts that followed show that tremendous increase in power was possible - read the posts and references - and NZt's posts and references show that the engine was demonstrated to be strong enough to deliver the increased power.

We have arrived at Trolling and I've had enough of this thread.

Insulting contents once again.

The major problem with you is that you are seeing others here with the narrow pencil of your "open minded" attitude.

It's not a matter of wining or loosing. I am not here arguing with you to be part of history. I am not an historian. I just don't trust your hair raising theory and I am still waiting to be convinced out from what I hve read so far. Simple like that.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I just don't trust your hair raising theory and I am still waiting to be convinced out from what I hve read so far. Simple like that.

So what do we need to provide to convince you?
- A combat report from a pilot that use +12 boost on a Merlin II/III?
- A flight test?
- A quote from a manual?

[Osprey]

If only we were insulting Tomcat, but we're not. Perhaps we should.

[TomcatViP]

Better on an internet forum than face to face ... obviously. Did I get it right ?

[Seadog]

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.

I'm still waiting for someone to post something proving that at least one Spitfire/Hurricane BofB combat sortie was flown with 87 octane fuel...

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

So what do we need to provide to convince you?
- A combat report from a pilot that use +12 boost on a Merlin II/III?
- A flight test?
- A quote from a manual?

We don't need to provide any evidence to Mr Tomcat because Mr Tomcat has no interest in being convinced - Klem is right, this is just trolling and arguing for the sake of it, otherwise why post inane comments like:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

calm down little jedi

If not to inflame a response?

He claims to know better than A C Lovesey, chief engineer of Rolls-Royce, or W.G. Dudek and D. R. Winans (excerpt from AIAA Paper No. 69-779, Milestones in Aviation Fuels, Esso Research and Engineering Company, New York 1969.) who are respected authorities on the properties of aviation and other types of fuel, or simply ridicules any information he finds uncomfortable, and pushes the same circular arguments, posting very little evidence to back them up. I have better things to do than waste time trying to convince Mr Tomcat - this "ignore" setting is a handy device which I will now use...ahhh, bliss!