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

[CWMV]

Well lane, you win.
I didn't think much of it, considering the partisan nature of the debate.
Your post though seems definitive.
Good job. Heres hoping its implemented.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Well lane, you win.
I didn't think much of it, considering the partisan nature of the debate.
Your post though seems definitive.
Good job. Heres hoping its implemented.

The "partisan nature of the debate" comes entirely from the fact that people such as lane and Glider have gone to considerable time, effort and expense to provide evidence that the RAF used 100 octane fuel for its frontline fighters throughout the Battle of Britain, while the naysayers, chiefly Kurfurst and Crumpp, have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever for their argument that the RAF used the fuel for a small, select portion.

In the meantime Crumpp in particular has driven the thread with lots of bluster and smokescreens while evading evidence and awkward direct questions asking him to provide documentation to prove his "case" - whatever the hell it is, because his story keeps changing - or disprove the case for 100 octane.

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by lane

Context, timeline...lol, sure no problem, we'll start with these:










Emergency +12 lbs./sq. in. Boost Operation: Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.



These documents relating to fuel requirments of the the Advanced Air Stiking Force and the Air Component, both in France during May 1940, give some idea of consumption, stocks, and how fuel requirements were calculated. As can be seen the Hurricanes used 100 octane, the Blenheim used a mix, while the Battle and Lysander used 87 octane, as did any transport, liason, visiting types etc.















To underscore the above documentation of Hurricanes using 100 octane fuel in France please note the following:

S/L J. O. W. Oliver, 85 Squadron, 10 May 1940


P/O John Bushell, 151 Squadron, 18 May 1940


S/L E. M. Donaldon, 151 Sqdn., 18 May 1940

F/O Paul Richey, 1 Squadron, 11 May 1940


F/O E. J. Kain, 73 Squadron, 14 May 1940


P/O D. W. A. Stones, 79 Squadron, 14 May 1940


Sgt. R. C. Wilkinson, 3 Squadron, 14 may 1940


P/O R. P. Beamont, 87 Squadron, 15 May 1940


P/O F. B. Sutton, 56 Squadron, 18 May 1940


F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 18 May 1940


F/O C. F. G. Adye, 17 Squadron, 18 May 1940

F/O C. F. G. Adye, 17 Squadron, 19 May 1940

F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 19 May 1940


Sgt. L. H. B. Pearce, 79 Squadron, 20 May 1940


Sgt. J. C. Harrison, 229 Squadron, 28 May 1940


P/O C. M. Simpson, 229 Squadron, 29 May 1940


P/O K. B. McGlashan, 245 Squadron, 28 May 1940

Lane,

Even if we took every shred of evidence you have as gospel, it is not all operational units. That is the claim being made. The RAF had not converted to 100 Octane even in July 1940. There is not any 100 Octane in any quantity at the airfields until that then. That is the big logistical constraint noted in the very first memo you post.

You have a handful of Hurricane squadrons, most of them taken from sources that belong alongside "First and the Last" by Adolf Galland. I have no doubts in May of 1940, the RAF was heavily into Phase IV testing.

You have an order to convert with a huge logisitical constraint placed upon it. Fuel has to be at every airfield in quantity to support operations before any aircraft are converted.

You also are using a projected calculation of fuel needs required to fight a future war that did not occur. Estabilishment is a logisitical term for quantity authorized. It has nothing to do with supplies on hand or available fuel.

Here is estabilishment vs strength for RAF personnel:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...03-10c.54882.h

When I get my computer back and get off this laptop, I can post the Estabilishment vs Strength for the RAF in the Battle of Britain.

Lastly, the Operating Notes is definative. It is part of the aircraft airworthiness and is followed as instructed. The Notes on the Merlin Engine clearly documents when all operational units converted to 100 Octane.

You can call me every name in the book, post whatever cartoon's you like but it does not change that fact.

[Crumpp]

Emergency +12 lbs./sq. in. Boost Operation: Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.

Which pilot notes?

FYI, The engine manual is not the aircraft installation. Just because an engine is approved does not mean an aircraft is approved. Each installation is unique.

That is why the RAF throughly tested all of the airframes using the Merlin engine when they made the conversion.

The instructions for boost cut out would have been published as part of Phase IV testing. In fact, that is one of the main purposes of Phase IV testing to publish instructions, manuals, and conduct operations.

A good example of that is auto fuel STC's. Just because the engine can run autofuel does not mean an airframe that mounts that engine can use autofuel.

[Crumpp]

Operating Notes are definative. They carry the weight of law.

This pilot might face criminal charges. Why? In the Operating Handbook for the AH-64 Apache, it notes all the precautions for high altitude operation. He violated those precautions. If they do get charged after the investigation, that will be the legal basis used to bring UCMJ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcTDwJcO_os

[CWMV]

But really, where are your facts?

I have to say they have done a great job of presenting a lot of evidence, circumstantial though much of it may be, in support of their case.

For me the final straw was the pilots themselves writing about using 12lbs and "pulling the tit."
I highly doubt that these men are liars, though most of veterans are prone to exaggeration.

With the lack of definitive evidence, such as a list of which units used how much of what type of fuel each week in the BoB, I think it is fair to say that these aircraft should be modeled for 12lbs given the circumstantial evidence here and the pilots accounts.
Hell we even had one in IL2 for Pete's sake!

EDIT: Come on! Your really reaching with that last post! Lol!
Ive seen people court marshaled/UCMJ'd, and violation of a tech manual was never one of the serious charges. Ancillary at best.

[Crumpp]

By international convention estabilished in 1919 of which the United Kingdom's Air Ministry is a signatory the Operating Limitations are definitive and Notes on the Merlin Engine will state exactly what is authorized, including the fuel.

If it does not, then the aircraft is operating under a special issuance condition.

[Crumpp]

But really, where are your facts?

See above post....

It is a fact that 100 Octane will be included in the Notes on the Merlin Engine section of the Operating Notes when it becomes the standard. Until then, any aircraft using the fuel will be operating under a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine for that specific aircraft.

That is how it worked then and how it works today.

By convention, all flight manuals include a single page reference to the engine operating limits.

Keep in mind, we are looking at what is called an Information Manual on these aircraft. Every aircraft has a set of Operating Notes issued with it by serial number that covers that specific aircraft. They stay with that aircraft throughout its lifespan. It is the pilots and maintenance personnel's job to keep that serial numbered Operating Notes updated for that specific airframe.

The information manual is republished periodically to incorporate all updates for the type but is not specific to an airframe.

When the information manual reflects 100 Octane, then all operational aircraft of the type can use it.

[CWMV]

Yes, it sounds like its basically the -10 for the aircraft, correct?
Pilots must abide by the placards/warnings in the cockpit.
Ok, sounds like all the warnings inside Army vehicles with the "Crew required to wear double hearing protection during operation" Ill give you three guesses as to how often that happens.
Fact is that many times the manuals are rewritten based on what the troops in the field have invented in order to accomplish the mission at hand, and that many times the official manuals and their additions simply cant keep up with the operational realities of the equipment.

Now what we have here is a "They are supposed to operate this way".
That's all well and good, but anyone who has had their ass in the grass knows that isn't the way things happen much of the time. Mission needs trump the manuals objections.

If they had it available, at all, they would have used it. If it needed to be refit for use then crews would have been dispatched to make it happen in the field.
That's how it is now, and I have to assume that the realities of combat haven't changed.
What you have there in bold print has absolutely nothing to do with how those aircraft operated in combat. It was written 20 years before the aircraft in question even flew.

So can you post anything substantive, relating to the aircraft/time in question?
I understand that you are away from home?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

See above post....

It is a fact that 100 Octane will be included in the Notes on the Merlin Engine section of the Operating Notes when it becomes the standard. Until then, any aircraft using the fuel will be operating under a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine for that specific aircraft.

That is how it worked then and how it works today.

By convention, all flight manuals include a single page reference to the engine operating limits.

Keep in mind, we are looking at what is called an Information Manual on these aircraft. Every aircraft has a set of Operating Notes issued with it by serial number that covers that specific aircraft. They stay with that aircraft throughout its lifespan. It is the pilots and maintenance personnel's job to keep that serial numbered Operating Notes updated for that specific airframe.

The information manual is republished periodically to incorporate all updates for the type but is not specific to an airframe.

When the information manual reflects 100 Octane, then all operational aircraft of the type can use it.

Once again Crumpp is talking absolute nonsense - It has been very carefully explained and finally acknowledged by Crumpp, that the Pilot's Notes were issued with supplementary slips which the pilot's then pasted into the relevant sections of the Notes.

The PILOT'S NOTES GENERAL first edition (issued to each pilot along with the Pilot's Notes for each aircraft type) is very specific - Section 8 says that the operating limits for engines relate to the fuel type that engine was designed for ie; for Merlin II and III series, because they were designed to use 87 Octane fuel those were the operating limits printed in the Pilot's Notes. This complies with Crumpp's "Section II" - any changes made to the operating limits were made by the supplementary slips issued to the pilot with the Pilot's Notes. If the Pilot's Notes do not have the new operating limits pasted into them it is because;

A: The Pilot's Notes were never issued and were left in storage - or

B: The Pilot's Notes were not issued to an operational frontline unit - this is acknowledged by the Spitfire I Pilot's Notes from January 1942 which state that aircraft of "other units" used 87 octane fuel. (The Pilot's Notes General second ed was printed in 1943 and dropped this provision because no frontline aircraft were using 87 octane fuel.)

Do we believe Crumpp or the Pilot's Notes General? Your choice...

Crumpp knows this is true: it has been explained to him several times but still he persists with this crap. Crumpp also knows that Rolls-Royce had already tested Merlin IIs on 100 Octane fuel in 1938, and had at least 18 months to redesign and tool-up for the increased power rating needed.

The timeline of the Merlin's adaptation for using 100 Octane fuel:

1937 Merlin II developed 1,536 hp at +18 lbs on special blend of fuel;

1938 Figures for Merlin II and III using 100 Octane fuel presented at Paris airshow, albeit no mention of +12 lbs boost; clearly whatever redesign of the cylinder heads was needed Rolls-Royce would have had the job well in hand.

1939 Merlin II & III tested and approved for +12 Lbs boost; September 1939; Blenheim IVs of BC cleared to use 100 Octane fuel in outer wing tanks. November decision that reserves of 100 octane fuel adequate to allow all Merlins to be modified to use the fuel.

1940 February - first squadrons converted to use 100 octane; March A.P1590B/J.2-W specifically states conversions well underway; May - 100 Octane used by Hurricanes and Blenheims based in France during combat ops....etc etc etc.

So who do we believe? Someone who claims to be all sorts of things, but has provided no documentary evidence to back up any of his statements about 100 octane fuel, or someone who has recorded the history of one of the oil refineries which produced 100 Octane fuel, having examined the records? (Attach 3)

Do we believe an historian who has studied Squadron records and interviewed pilots, or do we believe someone who has provided no evidence to support his case? Your choice...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/603-ross-pg125.jpg

Do we believe someone who says that there is no evidence that 100 octane fuel was used because a set of Pilot's Notes don't show the relevant operating limits, or do we believe the pilots who used 100 Octane in combat. Your choice...

BTW: The forms issued for each aircraft were form 700s which were used by the ground crews during the daily maintenance checks conducted on each aircraft by the ground crews - these forms were signed by the various ground crew specialists, then countersigned by whatever pilot next flew the aircraft. Form 700