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

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It does not say that Banks.

You said:

in June of 1940, the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes, paragraph 1 were not updated to reflect the ability to use 100 Octane fuel operationally.

You claim that that the June 1940 manual does not reflect the ability to use 100 octane fuel operationally. Which is clearly wrong as the June 1940 manual clearly says "it may be used, if the engine has been suitable modified". It doesn't restrict the fuel for operational or non-operational use so it may be used for both.

[bongodriver]

Is it possible that unders certain 'pressing' needs...like lets say for example 'a war'.....the use of 100 octane could have been pushed into service ahead of beaurocratic schedules?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by lane

The first Spitfire into service was delivered to No. 19 Squadron at Duxford on 4 August 1938. The use of 100 octane fuel was approved for Spitfire Squadrons by 24 September 1938.32 Fighter Command noted on 6 December 1938 that Duxford, Debden, Northholt and Digby had received 100 octane fuel.32b As of December 1938 Nos. 19 and 66 were based at Duxford and were the only RAF units then equipped with Spitfires. The Air Ministry noted in a memo dated 12 December 1939 that "100 octane fuel is approved for use in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft, and state that issue will be made as soon as the fuel is available in bulk at the distribution depots serving the Fighter Stations concerned."

Thanks for this. What I note of course is the rider at the bottom of the last paper that said that the fuel stocks were probably sufficient. The papers also cover the way fuel is to be distributed i.e by using up what is already issued and replacing it with 100 octane

When you then add the papers in December we have idnetifying the first 23 stations to be issued with the fuel in the first instance. The first combat reports in Feb using 100 octane. This is then followed by:-

1) The note for the 5th meeting of the Oil Committee held in February in the Summary of Conclusions from the ACAS saying that fighter and Blenhiem units are to be equipped with 100 Octane.

2) The papers from the 6th Meeting actioning the request and speed up the process by actively restocking the fuel, not waiting for it to be used up

3) The papers from the 7th Meeting noting that thanks had been expresseed for the completion of the task

I would say its a pretty comprehensive set of papers that support each other.

I also note that none of those papers say testing, or trials as Crumpp would have us believe

Edit - I also forgot the 9th meeting of the Oil committee held on 7th August 1940 when they were told that all operational aircraft in all commands were to use 100 octane

[Crumpp]

Thanks Crumpp, 16 years of active service in military behind with fighters and their systems/armament/maintenance I think it gives something to this flying hobby, but I think knowledge just increases the pain in both good and bad

Thanks for your service, Flanker.

I retired 20 years from active US Army and then entered aviation as a full time career.

Associate members don't need a degree only an interest in aerodynamics, and from what you have posted I suspect I am afraid that you are at best an associate member.

I don't think associates get library access, not sure though. I have only had student membership and then full after graduation.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Thanks for your service, Flanker.

I retired 20 years from active US Army and then entered aviation as a full time career.



I don't think associates get library access, not sure though. I have only had student membership and then full after graduation.

Then I withdraw my previous comment.

[Crumpp]

beaurocratic schedules

It is not a bureaucratic schedule.

I know it seems like a bunch of overkill. The convention is really all based on lots of experience, most of it very bad experiences.

Airplanes are not like cars, the engineering safety margins are so much lower just to achieve flight.

[Crumpp]

You claim that that the June 1940 manual does not reflect the ability to use 100 octane fuel operationally.

NO, I said if it was in use in all operational units, Notes on the Merlin Engine would reflect that.

It does not in June 1940.

[Crumpp]

I found this page from the Spitfire Mk II Operating Notes.



mmmmmm

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is not a bureaucratic schedule.

I know it seems like a bunch of overkill. The convention is really all based on lots of experience, most of it very bad experiences.

Airplanes are not like cars, the engineering safety margins are so much lower just to achieve flight.

They just about managed to get that through to me at flight school and the 17 years spent as a commercial pilot and flight instructor, but I maintain it is a beaurocratic schedule and most probably the inconvenience of war forced some corners to be cut, one can assume they already knew the aircraft could fly, we're only talking about implementation of simple modifications in order to use a fuel that increases performance, my guess is at least one genius manged to figure out it might be quite handy in a fight.

[fruitbat]

To add to that, i believe it has been known to take risks in war, like every time you took off in the case of BoB.

People also apparently die.

People also try to do everything they possibly can to help stop that happening to them.

but i digress......