Spit Mk1 Boost? - Page 10

TomcatViP · #91 10-01-2011, 09:07 PM

Ok boys. I am fed up with both of u. I don't know why I keep replying as if the point you raise had any sense.

Seems your not there to debate but only to impose your point of view on the Spitfire trough questionable docs, wall of smokes or even insults and bad mouthing.

Lol figure what ? I did know how it ends. Not because I am that clever but because I hve alrdy seen the movie : you act always the same on this specific debate

.

So argue, raise your point of view, makes this a conversation that we can all share what it seems only you know.

Jugdriver · #92 10-01-2011, 10:44 PM

Guys please don’t feed Tomcat. He is the grand wizard of the Spitfire Haters Club and as such has no interest in an honest and good willed discussion on the boost of the Mk 1 Spitfire. His only objective is to dumb down the Spitfire FM as much as possible in this game.

Tomcat the rest of us are fed up with you.

JD
AKA_MattE

TomcatViP · #93 10-01-2011, 11:14 PM

Oh Dear..

Forget abt me .. Nobody cares. ARGUE !

btw : I am a Spit aficionados..; The real one. Not the easy mount of some lazy Sim aces

Osprey · #94 10-02-2011, 03:20 PM

I think most people are able to make up their own minds what you are.

I would like to thank the real contributors to the thread who supplied solid information on the function and specification of the Merlin of 1940 - very informative.

TomcatViP · #95 10-02-2011, 04:09 PM

calm down pls

Kwiatek · #96 10-02-2011, 08:08 PM

IvanK · #97 10-02-2011, 09:00 PM

Whats the title of this Test document Kwaitek or its AVIA Ref No ?

This does not reflect the In service Boost ratings for the Merlin III. Its unusual in that In service MERLIN III climb rating was + 6.25Lbs boost not as +9 shown here. If its genuine then I believe its a 1 off RAE trial report investigating the feasibility of rating the Merlin to +9Lbs climb in preparation for this rating in the Merlin XII. Merlin XII as fitted to Spitfire MKII had +9 Climb

MERLIN III LIMITS from Spit I Pilots notes

Kwiatek · #98 10-02-2011, 09:55 PM

I dont know IvanK - i just found these single document some time ago. But it is clearly for MErlin III testing with 100 octan fuel - data is from 28.02.1940.

Document which you posted is of course for Merlin III with 87 octan fuel only - not for 100 Octan fuel.

Here is for Merlin XII for both 87 and 100 Octan fuel used:

lane · #99 10-02-2011, 09:58 PM

IvanK: The Inspection and Test Certificate posted by Kwiatek is taken from Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment’s report on Spitfire II P.7280, Merlin XII - Rotol Constant Speed Airscrew, Comparative Performance Trials, First Part of A.&.A.E.E./692,e dated 27th September, 1940. You will note that the rated power listed matches that of a Merlin XII. I always assumed "Mark III" on the Certificate was a typographical error.

Kurfürst · #**100** 10-02-2011, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IvanK

Whats the title of this Test document Kwaitek or its AVIA Ref No ?

This does not reflect the In service Boost ratings for the Merlin III. Its unusual in that In service MERLIN III climb rating was + 6.25Lbs boost not as +9 shown here. If its genuine then I believe its a 1 off RAE trial report investigating the feasibility of rating the Merlin to +9Lbs climb in preparation for this rating in the Merlin XII. Merlin XII as fitted to Spitfire MKII had +9 Climb

My take would be that Kwiatek's paper shows an early rating, valid for the first quarter/half of 1940, with +9 lbs being the initial maximum cleared for generic flying, and +12 only for takeoff when necessary. This seems to be quite typical when introducing higher ratings for an engine.