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

[Crumpp]

As I've mentioned unfortunately the notes are not 'gospel'

The notes are gospel Winny. For a short period of time a technical order will override them until the next edition of the Operating Notes is published.

We have a 1939 edition and we have a June 1940 edition with no changes to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations. That fact tells you 100 Octane was not in common use. It was in use but it was not the most common operational fuel in the RAF at that time.

Morgan and shacklady say the conversion started in march

Yes.....with a total of 16 squadrons converted to 100 Octane sometime in September.

That is exactly what I said I believed happenend. Both the Operating Notes and Table II showing fuel at the airfields point to that same conclusion.

For the last 20 pages I have been called every name in the book for stating that!!

[Crumpp]

Ok fine, that's certainly debatable, but not strictly relevant to the game

No, you guys pay for your game and the developers should give you what you want to enjoy it.

Honestly, a "simulation" would not be very much fun of this stuff. Ask the survivors how much fun they had in it.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is a fact the manual was reprinted in January 1942 and it is a fact the fuel changeover to "All Operational Units" is important enough to be added to Paragraph 1, Operating Limitations.

The 100 Octane fuel changeover is important enough to make it into every Operating Notes, Paragraph 1, Operating limitations when it occurred.

For example, the Hurricane II Operating Notes dated September 1943 clearly list 100 Octane as the ONLY fuel to be used:



It will note in paragraph 1 the fuel options when 100 Octane becomes common and it will note when all operational units will use the fuel, and when it is the only choice.

It is the operational documentation and not logistical!!

Now, it might not be the exact month because there is some lag time and technical orders will cover that short time period.

you will not see technical orders that are applicable to operational units that do not make it into the new edition.

It is really simple. We have a 1939 edition and we have a June 1940 edition with no changes to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations. That fact tells you 100 Octane was not in common use. It was in use but it was not the most common operational fuel in the RAF at that time.

In between that time we have a technical order to AP1590 which is the engine series and not the airframe series. It makes a difference in aviation and there are plenty of engines that modifications are not approved in specific airframes. There will be an order approving that engine modification for the specific airframe.

For example:





http://www.autofuelstc.com/autofuels...Mogas_FAQ.html

I don't know the specific explaination in the case of 100 Octane as too why the large lag time between the engine approval and the airframe operating limitations but I do know that is a flag to anyone knowledgeable in airplane maintenance for claims of widespread general use.

I would get the editions to the Operating Notes and throw away any squadron logs that do not specifically state "100 Octane Fuel in use".

You will have good factual picture on the timeline for the fuels operational use if you do that.

FACT: The RAF issued amendment slips with the Pilot's Notes before reprinting the notes with the amendments included - just because the June 1940 Pilot's Notes do not have the required amendments does not mean the RAF wasn't using 100 octane fuel - it simply means the Pilot's Notes continued with the convention of noting limitations for the fuel for which the Merlin II/III series was designed; to wit 87 Octane. Even in January 1942 Pilot's Notes stated 100 Octane for Operational Units 87 for "Other units".

you will not see technical orders that are applicable to operational units that do not make it into the new edition.

Wrong - as long as the engine was originally designed and rated for 87 Octane fuel the Pilot's Notes did not incorporate anything else until 1943. Any amendments to the engine's ratings continued to be issued as supplementary slips. The Hurricane notes of 1943 say 100 Octane because the Merlin XX was designed to use 100 octane.

The Pilot's Notes General 2nd ed printed in April 1943 dropped the convention because most engines which were originally designed to use 87 octane fuel were well out of frontline service.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Technically it was not a quick and easy change over to convert a Merlin from running 87 Octane only to having the ability to use 100 Octane fuel at +12lbs. It involved major modifications and was service level maintenance as noted in the technical order.

We know the changes to the aircraft to enable it to be used with 100 octane and the changes are minimal. Please tell me what is so difficult in drilling two holes. The other changes were already incorporated in new engines or were being done as part of normal maintanence in March. By the time the BOB started in anger around June, you would be hard pushed to find any Spit or Hurricane that hadn't had maintanence in the previous three months.

No it is true according the Operating Notes. It is a fact. The National Archives probably has multiple copies of the various editions of the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes
You can check there to see if an early edition notes changes to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations. Otherwise, January 1942 is the first edition to note 100 Octane is in use for all operational units. If the Operating Notes only mention 100 Octane in Paragraph 7 without changes to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations, then you know the fuel is not being used for all operational aircraft! It is really that simple.

Unfortunately they don't hold any copies of Spit 1 prior to 1941 or any Hurricane I notes which are the ones we need. The only person I know who has a copy of these is you, and you have not been willing to share what you have.

I know that when I used pilots notes I didn't give a damn about when a change had been used, I just wanted to make sure that the notes and its updates matched the plane I was going to fly in.

Either way the date of the notes is clearly not a given as to accuracy of the implementation of the change. I am confident that your notes dated June 1940 are not for the varient of the Spitfire I with the updates CSP, Armour, Tank protection and so on, in service in June 1940. Your 1942 notes saying all operational units is another example, show me a Spitfire Unit operational in June 1942 flying the Spit I.

You have done nothng to prove your theory of 16 squadrons, or the bases that would have held the fuel. You have no evidence of any fighter combat using 87 octane apart from some I gave you iro OCU units who woldn't have had 100 octane. There is no evidence from any participant or historian to support your theory. You have no evidence to support your theory from the oil committee who would have been involved in the disribution of said 100 octane fuel, unless you believe that we fought the entire war with 16 squadrons on 100 octane in the UK. I say this as after May 1940 there is nothing more in the papers about increasing or extending the roll out of 100 octane at any time.

There is no suggestion from any report or status paper from any source, be it Cabinet Meetings, Oil Committee or Air Ministry to support the idea that there was a shortage of 100 Octane fuel, again apart from my finding that there was a shortage in May 1944.

Your faith that a pre war proposal was maintained despite war starting and despite everything else we have shown is almost desperate. I have asked before that you find any pre war plan, on any topic from any nation that remained unchanged when the firing started.

[Crumpp]

We know the changes to the aircraft to enable it to be used with 100 octane and the changes are minimal.

NO, changing cylinder heads is major repair.

[Crumpp]

Major repair means a repair:

(1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....0.1.1&idno=14

By Convention, improperly installing a cylinder head or misadjusted valves will effect powerplant operation and is a major repair by itself.

Glider,

I am not argue with you anymore. The facts are plain.

you will not see technical orders that are applicable to operational units that do not make it into the new edition.

[NZtyphoon]

Crumppquote: you will not see technical orders that are applicable to operational units that do not make it into the new edition.

Wrong - as long as the engine was originally designed and rated for 87 Octane fuel the Pilot's Notes did not incorporate anything else until 1943. Any amendments to the engine's ratings continued to be issued as supplementary slips.

The Pilot's Notes General 2nd ed printed in April 1943 dropped the convention because most engines which were originally designed to use 87 octane fuel were well out of frontline service.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

NO, changing cylinder heads is major repair.

Rubbish The major work is already covered in the new production engines or in routine maintanence. What is left is minor and easily done. How many front line aircraft wouldn't have been maintained in the three months from March to June?

You say you have experience in this field but I must say I seriously doubt this. I strongly urge you to show some of the engineers you have worked with the paper outlinging the changes and ask them how long it would take to drill two holes and reassemble the piece as described.
.

Glider,

I am not argue with you anymore. The facts are plain.
.

On that I totally agree with you

i.e. I agree
You have done nothng to prove your theory of 16 squadrons, or the bases that would have held the fuel. You have no evidence of any fighter combat using 87 octane apart from some I gave you iro OCU units who woldn't have had 100 octane. There is no evidence from any participant or historian to support your theory. You have no evidence to support your theory from the oil committee who would have been involved in the disribution of said 100 octane fuel, unless you believe that we fought the entire war with 16 squadrons on 100 octane in the UK. I say this as after May 1940 there is nothing more in the papers about increasing or extending the roll out of 100 octane at any time.

There is no suggestion from any report or status paper from any source, be it Cabinet Meetings, Oil Committee or Air Ministry to support the idea that there was a shortage of 100 Octane fuel, again apart from my finding that there was a shortage in May 1944.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

NO, changing cylinder heads is major repair.

Changing the Cylnder head in this case is not classed as a 'repair'. It was completed as part of the Merlin engines service maintenance.

To me this implys that the cylnder head modification would have already been performed on aircaft scheduled for that service before the change over. This would have sped up the conversion process conciderably.




Luckly the RAF had very competent and well trained mechanics and maintenance personel to perform the task.
Cheers!

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The notes are gospel Winny. For a short period of time a technical order will override them until the next edition of the Operating Notes is published.





Yes.....with a total of 16 squadrons converted to 100 Octane sometime in September.

That is exactly what I said I believed happenend. Both the Operating Notes and Table II showing fuel at the airfields point to that same conclusion.

For the last 20 pages I have been called every name in the book for stating that!!

Firstly the meeting was held before the war started at a point when nobody, not even Hitler thought the war would start until 41 at the earliest, the British were looking at '42 as the probable start. This meeting was followed by other meetings that are again documented here that superseded the original meeting due to the minor inconvienience of Hitler deciding to risk war and invade Poland.
There were meetings held in '39 that were specifically held to secure and produce 100 octane without having to rely on the USA. In 1939 the government spent the most amount of money on any single production facility for the entire war when they contracted TRIMPELL to build the Heysham iso-octane plant, who's specific purpose was to convert 87 into 100. Why would they do this if they were expecting the total consumption to be 10,000 tons per annum, as Morgan and shacklady say, when they already had 100,000 tons in stock.. 10 years supply according to that meeting. See next point.

Morgan and shacklady states that the same meeting decided that the change over would result in "consumption of 10,000 tons per annum" the reserve of 800,000 tons was, if you look at the relevant documents already posted in this thread, for the entire RAF as projected for 1943.

I noticed you gloss over the fact that Deere, Wellum, Brothers, Hillary, Lane, Viggors, Page, Malan and a few others mention in their memoirs that the changeover happened in the Spring of 1940.

At the end of the day I don't give a shit what you think. I value people who were there, and who were writing diaries at the time over your desperate clinging to a meeting that was held when Britain was in the process of re arming for a war they were expecting in 2 or 3 years. I mean.. Who exactly are you? Actually don't answer that, I don't care.