A.P. 129 RAF Flying Training Manual, Part I - Landplanes

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

So why don't you just say:

YES, you are right.

It would be so much less tiresome to type for you.

Because you also claim in the other thread that combat reports that mention the use of boost control cut-out are not a proof for 100 octane fuel. And this claim is incorrect when applied to Merlin II/III aero-engines. Only the combat reports that describe a failure of the boost control are no proof for 87 or 100 octane fuel, all others are a definitive proof for 100 octane.

[Crumpp]

combat reports that mention the use of boost control cut-out are not a proof for 100 octane fuel.

That is correct.

According to the RAF, the pilot could use boost cut out to achieve more power under any circumstances he felt balanced his risk.

Therefore, you will see it's use and it not surprising at all that running the engine at such an overloaded condition got attention from Dowding.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is correct.

According to the RAF, the pilot could use boost cut out to achieve more power under any circumstances he felt balanced his risk.

Therefore, you will see it's use and it not surprising at all that running the engine at such an overloaded condition got attention from Dowding.

What a load of nonsense! Dowding referred specifically to +12 lbs boost which could only be attained with 100 Octane fuel - his memo had absolutely nothing to do with the rubbish you are trying to peddle;

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

According to the RAF, the pilot could use boost cut out to achieve more power under any circumstances he felt balanced his risk.

"According to RAF" ... no words. Please quote a primary source that says that.

In case your opinion is based on Pilot's Notes General, 2nd Edition Part I Note A "Flying Limitations", Section 1 "Introduction", Paragraph (IV) it is not correct. This Paragraph IV does only apply to "Flying Limitations", which are handled in Part I Note A of the manual and are the following:
- Limiting Speeds
- Limiting Weights
- Manoeuvres not Permitted
- Normal Acceleration or g
- Flying in Bumpy Air
- C.G. Limits

This regulation does not apply to Part II Note A "Engine Limitations", which has it's own regulations.

Anyone can check this here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/40498672/A...dition-UK-1943

Anyway this is a manual from 1943. Pilot's Notes General 1st Edition from 1941 does not contain this regulation, in the contrary the 1st Edition clearly states 100 octane as requirements for use of cut-out (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1334727256, http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1334727263). We are talking about combat reports from 1940.

But this has already been discusses. Why don't you just provide a primary source that really supports your claim and is not quoted out of context? Would be much less tiresome for everyone.

[camber]

Thanks for posting Banks (plus NZtyphoon and others), really enjoyed going through these.

***Quasi Digression******
It sounds a bit kinky but the thing I miss with scans is the smell of old documents when you actually have them...I don't have flight test reports but collect period aviation books and love opening them and getting the full experience. I especially love the books from during or before the war, which usually get things totally wrong (109s are useless, 110s are superplanes, Jerry uses cannon as he is too scared to get close etc. )

Just got the 1957 edition of "Night Fighter" written about the night fighter war by the operators who worked with John "cats eye" Cunningham...fantastic read.

I also have the 1941 edition of "Fighter Squadrons" by Noel Monks, about the French campaign. He seemed to be under the impression that Hurricanes did everything at "350mph" and the 109s were scared stiff of them

camber

[Crumpp]

This regulation does not apply

Sure it applies and there is nothing in the wording of the engine limitations that negates part I, introduction.

Nothing at all. "should" is not "must" or "will"....

Aircraft Operating Notes are very specific and part of the airworthiness of the design.

The RAF gave their pilots license to violate those requirements at their own risk.

[GraveyardJimmy]

If i read correctly, the general notes are not aircraft specific? They also seem to be regarding the airframe rather than the engine, talking about flight handling and g pressure rather than aircraft specific engine limits. Part i) of the introduction looks at the airframe and structural failure, not engine failure. The entirety of part 1, other than flying methods to increase range, is discussing general flying techniques not engine management. The introduction to which this balancing of risk refers is to part 1- 'flying limitations' which discusses g force, trimming the aircraft etc. It is not in reference to part 2, look at the contents and you can see this!

It is in the regards of flying limitations, not engine limitations which is in a different section of the document!

[Crumpp]

general notes are not aircraft specific?

It specifically says in engine limitations, Paragraph 3(ii):

"These figure provide a general guideline to the reasonable use of the engine. In combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in disregarding these limitations"

You cannot look at a combat report that used an overboost condition as proof of 100 Octane fuel use.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It specifically says in engine limitations, Paragraph 3(ii):

"These figure provide a general guideline to the reasonable use of the engine. In combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in disregarding these limitations"

You cannot look at a combat report that used an overboost condition as proof of 100 Octane fuel use.

Give it up Crumpp, all of your painfully nonsensical assumptions about 16 squadrons, based on pre war documents blah blah blah are a nonsense, as the Official War History Oil proves:









"The pre-war activity had been based on the assumption that United States supplies would be denied Britain in the event of war....there was no anxiety in these early months about the prospects of supply."

Protest all you like Crumpp, make all the unproven assertions you want - just give up and stop wasting everyone's time, including your own.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is correct.

According to the RAF, the pilot could use boost cut out to achieve more power under any circumstances he felt balanced his risk.

Therefore, you will see it's use and it not surprising at all that running the engine at such an overloaded condition got attention from Dowding.

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

What a load of nonsense! Dowding referred specifically to +12 lbs boost which could only be attained with 100 Octane fuel - his memo had absolutely nothing to do with the rubbish you are trying to peddle;

I have to admit that I'm surprised that Crump expresses such faith in RAF and UK technological superiority, especially his belief that the RR Merlin could run at 12lb boost for 5 minutes with 87 octane fuel... As much as Crump might wish for this to be modelled in CloD, I should like to agree with NZtyphoon that the Merlin III required 100 octane fuel when pulling greater than 7lb boost.

However, if one reads the memo carefully, Dowding is referring to running the engine beyond it's oil and coolant limits during climbs and to oil starvation during inverted flight, and running the engine beyond 5 minutes as the major culprits in causing engine damage.