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

[Crumpp]

So why do historical military pilots and aerobatic pilots (not talking FBW here) seem to think flying at the onset of just detectable buffet a good idea? Are they all misguided and should be told the truth?

Couple of reasons....

1. If you don't have a stall warning device or AoA indicator then flying to the nibble and backing off is the correct technique. Read my last post in that thread and you will see once IvanK clarified his statement, we agreed.


2. See point #1 for most aerobatic aircraft.

Another technique would be to continuously detect flow separation, back off then redetect, but this doesn't seem very practical to me. But unfortunately I feel sick for hours after doing just an (approx) 2G turn for 360' so I don't know

That is exactly what you do.

You can read the Spitfire Mk I notes and see that it is in fact....correct.



Notice in paragraph 38 turning circle it instructs to not buffet the aircraft for a minimum radius turn and relax the stick pressure (move the stick forward)!!

The point being that new printed manuals including the latest revisions ARE NOT CONSTANTLY CHURNED OUT LIKE SAUSAGES just because something has changed.

The RAF republished sections as needed. That is a fact. The incorporated Amendment List was noted at the top of the reprinted section so that the operator could confirm he had the latest updates.

For example, the Hurricane II Volume I shown here incorporates Amendment List Number 42:



The amendment list's that are published but not incorporated are the responsibility of the operator to add to the Operating Notes.

Those amendments are to be logged in the space provided at the front of the Operating Notes:



To complete the update, the operator is instructed to paste in and replace the old text with the changes noted in the Amendment.

Here you can see that an amendment was properly added to the Operating Notes by the Operator:

Crumpp says:

It is a fact that conversion of all operational Spitfire Mk I's was important enough to warrant a warning in paragraph 1, operating limitations of the Pilots Operating Notes in January, 1942.

We can definitely say that full conversion did not take place in June 1940 or earlier as no such warning exists in the Operating Notes.

The only operational evidence of full conversion to 100 Octane presented in the thread is the January, 1942 Operating Notes for the Spitfire Mk I.

That being said, I can also tell you for a fact ALL Spitfire Mk II's were using 100 Octane in June of 1940.

[Crumpp]

BTW, the RAF does the same with their Operating Notes that the FAA requires of any certified General Aviation Aircraft in use today.

It is what was agreed upon by convention!!

[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

An example would be also the Curtiss representative that went to study the Helldiver planes having strange losses due control failures. Reason was a pulley/linkage in the wing and in the end he ended up machining these things of better materials on a CV! All this during war time and in the field. So info came out fairly fast don't you think. So would it feasible to think that the pilot/technical literature was updated fairly quickly and urgent information was passed to troops in form of a bulletin or other means before the amendment could be added to the official literature? Just a thought.

[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.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Those amendments are to be logged in the space provided at the front of the Operating Notes:



To complete the update, the operator is instructed to paste in and replace the old text with the changes noted in the Amendment.

Here you can see that an amendment was properly added to the Operating Notes by the Operator:

Actually it's good example. You describe how it should be in theory. And this is how it was in reality for this particular manual:

The incorporated amendments were not logged by the operator in the A.L. overview in the front of the manual.
Some amended paragraphs were cut out of the amendment list and placed (not always taped or pasted, some only slipped in) above or below the old paragraphs. Some amendments were written into old paragraphs by a pencil.
About 4-5 pages of the amendment list were slipped in the front of the book and the old paragraphs didn't even contain a note that there are amendments in the front for it.

Also you will find some instances where a subject was amended in one section of the manual but the same subject is not amended in another section.

You are simply putting to much weight into the single sentences of the manual, you must look at the context.
Do you think the ground crew always read a manual before the fueled up the aircraft? They simply painted a small "100" next to the fuel tank cap and everyone knew what to do.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That being said, I can also tell you for a fact ALL Spitfire Mk II's were using 100 Octane in June of 1940.

Oh good, now we're getting somewhere.

So, if I sit down with my copy of Spitfire the history, I'll be able to work out where all the mkII's went from the factory, therefore I'll be able to tell which stations had 100 octane. Cool. I'll get back to you.