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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Both are from June 1940 IIRC so any later amendments can be ruled out. In addition, Spitfire I pilot notes note 87 octane limits as well. I am haven't seen but its probably true for Hurricanes as well.

The Pilots notes that Kurfurst quotes from isn't from the BOB. Unless he agrees that Spit II in the BOB had 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG which we know didn't happen

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

The Pilots notes that Kurfurst quotes from isn't from the BOB. Unless he agrees that Spit II in the BOB had 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG which we know didn't happen

... and now you are making things up again.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

... and now you are making things up again.

We have been throught this before on another Forum and again on this forum

The Zeno pilots notes you quote are here
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf

Please note item 35 gun controls where it has a) and b) and B has 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG. Section 2 has the bit you keep quoting 100 Octane and 87 Octane.

The posting where you identified these as being the ones you quote is here
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...a-20108-8.html

The Pilots Note I refer to are here
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...uals-9050.html

Please note item 44 Gun Controls where only the 8 mgs are mentioned, and item 55 where it clearly states only 100 Octane

The question I ask is this:-
When you know with an absolute certainty, that the quote you are making is wrong and misleading, why do you keep mentioning it as part of your evidence?
Unless of course you believe it to be true and that the RAF had Mk II spits in July 1940 with 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG which is what your pilots notes say

People are free to look at these links, and if you do not reply with an explanation may well make their own mind up as to why.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

The question I ask is this:-
When you know with an absolute certainty, that the quote you are making is wrong and misleading, why do you keep mentioning it as part of your evidence?

What I know with an absolute certainty is that there is a Spitfire I manual and a Spitfire II manual, both from June-July 1940 and both specify both 87 octane and 100 octane limits.

I also know for certainty that you have an idiotic thesis why to dismiss yet another source which is clearly dated June 1940 and notes what limits apply 'when 100 octane fuel is used' and not 87.

Guess what, I just do not give credit to neither this idiotic thesis of yours, neither the other which says that when British papers say select fighter squadrons, it's 'a typo', nor the one which says its not a typo but it was reveresed later, nor the one which says the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had was from captured British stock, nor the one which says that no Spitfire or Hurricane had two pitch propeller in the Battle of Britain and so on.

Guess what, you simply have no credibility left in my eye.

Unless of course you believe it to be true and that the RAF had Mk II spits in July 1940 with 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG which is what your pilots notes say.

Of course they had. Look up Spitfire the history, on page 60 in my edition :

"P9504... still had four of the original Browning MG mountings in the wings. It was used to test a trial installation of two Hispano cannon and four Browning guns... within days a second Spitfire, X4257 had a wing built from scratch, with the new armament and service trials begun on 20 August. Five days later R6761, 6770,6889,6904 and 6919 were withdrawn from No.19 and modified to the same standards. etc.."

P9504 was a Mark I, the first produced a/c with 4 x 7.7 + 2 x 20mm, first flight 30 April 1940.

People are free to look at these links, and if you do not reply with an explanation may well make their own mind up as to why.

Boooh, more childish threats reminding me of dire consequences. Had it crossed your mind that I usually do not reply to your posts because I find them a waste of time, being illogical, wishful and of no consequence, clinging fanatically to an idea you cannot prove at all?

How about just taking Crumpp's advice which seem to be the majority view here anyway - admitting that we (you) simply do not know the exact details (yet) and have really no solid idea how many Squadrons were employing 100 octane fuel?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Had it crossed your mind that I usually do not reply to your posts because I find them a waste of time, being illogical, wishful and of no consequence, clinging fanatically to an idea you cannot prove at all?

I admit to thinking that as all I normally ask you to do, is supply some evidence to support your case, that your lack of reply is because you don't have any evidence to give.

Re the layout of the pilots notes, people are free to look at a selection and make their own mind as to which has the correct format.

They may also wonder how you have pilots notes for the Spit IIb with 20mm (including photos of the cockpit) in July 1940, for an aircraft that wasn't built until 1941 and believe that to be solid proof.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Glider

Re the layout of the pilots notes, people are free to look at a selection and make their own mind as to which has the correct format.

I did check "AP 1565B Vol. I" ("Vol. I" is the full manual; the "Pilot's Notes" are only Section 1 and 2 of this manual).

Section 2 starts with Para 1 "Handling and Flying Notes for Pilots" on page "F.S/3". This is the one posted by Kurfürst, that contains engine limits for 100 and 87 octane fuel. This page is amended by Amendment List 31, I don't have a date for this list but A.L. 30 was issued December, 1943.

At the end in Para 55 of Section 2 there is the unamended page "F.S./16" that contains only limits for 100 octane fuel.

The "List of Contents" (dated June, 1940) confirms that Para 55 contains the "Notes concerning the Merlin XII engine", however Para 1 should actually contain an "Introduction" and not "Handling and Flying Notes for Pilots", which obviously was added later. The unamended Para 1 can be seen in this copy here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4598146/Pi...lin-XII-Engine

[41Sqn_Banks]

Section 4 "Instructions and Notes for Ground Personnel" mentions in Para 4

The fuel ... to be used with the Merlin XII engine are as follows:-
Fuel .............. 100 Octane

Section 8 "Engine Installation" was issued August, 1940 with A.L. No. 3 in Para 14 "Fuel System"

The fuel system ... uses 100 octane fuel ...

The use of 87 Octane fuel is not mentioned in these sections.

It's obvious that the guidelines for the use of 87 Octane fuel were not contained in the initial issue of June 1940 and were added later.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

I did check "AP 1565B Vol. I" ("Vol. I" is the full manual; the "Pilot's Notes" are only Section 1 and 2 of this manual).

Section 2 starts with Para 1 "Handling and Flying Notes for Pilots" on page "F.S/3". This is the one posted by Kurfürst, that contains engine limits for 100 and 87 octane fuel. This page is amended by Amendment List 31, I don't have a date for this list but A.L. 30 was issued December, 1943.

Interesting. Do you what was changed with A.L. 31?

At the end in Para 55 of Section 2 there is the unamended page "F.S./16" that contains only limits for 100 octane fuel.

Another interesting point that it appears that +12 lbs was banned at that time for combat use ("5 min all out level"), the maximum allowed was +9, with +12 was only cleared for take off purposes up to 1000 feet. It appears that +12 was not cleared for combat use during the Battle of Britain, and was added only later.

If that's correct, our Spitfire II is running well above (having +12 performance) the established limits applicable (+9 lbs boost) and having a performance not representative for the Battle of Britain period.

With it's historical +9 lbs limitation the Spitfire II was capable of about 290 mph at SL. Ours do well over 300 mph. If Bank's findings are correct, this should be corrected to historical levels.

One does wonder though about what was the point about the Spitfire II, given that at it's historical limit of +9 lbs and 100 octane it was only equal in speed to the Spitfire Mk I on 87 octane fuel and inferior to the Bf 109E on 87 octane fuel (not to mention 96 octane C-3 fuelled variants).

The "List of Contents" (dated June, 1940) confirms that Para 55 contains the "Notes concerning the Merlin XII engine", however Para 1 should actually contain an "Introduction" and not "Handling and Flying Notes for Pilots", which obviously was added later. The unamended Para 1 can be seen in this copy here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4598146/Pi...lin-XII-Engine

This seem to confirm that the unamended Pilot's notes from June 1940 was already referring the Spitfire IIA and IIB types, so Glider's assumption that the mention of cannon armament refers to a later date manual is clearly wrong.