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

[Osprey]

All those qualifications but no common sense.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by winny

I simply wouldn't even entertain the idea of arguing with you about [..] engineering because I don't doubt your credentials.

According to him, sin 45° = 0.85, and he'll defend that statement. No engineer would. You better doubt his credentials.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

First the principles are all the same by convention just as how the Operating Notes are updated.

Second, the AIAA 81-2375 is the history of flight test development!!

If you could access the AIAA library, you could get your own copy.

Maybe on some standard day they might let you in!! Ha ha ha

You have to graduate from an accredited Aeronautical Sciences curriculum for membership.

https://www.aiaa.org/

Oh... Zzzzzzz...

I don't care. It's irrelevant. You are sidestepping my question. What is your main argument regarding Fighter Commands use of 100 octane in spitfires during the battle of Britain. I've dealt with fuel reserves, I've dealt with operational numbers, I've dealt with the fact that there were no operational Spitfire Mk I s in 1942. I've dealt with the fact that they were bench testing a merlin with 100 octane in 1938, then We've had the pilot's notes discussion. Now you're posting some document I can't even be arsed to read from 1981.
I'm an expert on idiots. My professional opinion is that you are one.
Next...

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by winny

Oh... Zzzzzzz...

I'm an expert on idiots. My professional opinion is that you are one.
Next...

Thus gentlemen; The Crumpp Effect.

[Crumpp]

Typical Flight test regiment during World War II for "expediant" testing:

Phase I - Concept development - done by the contractors. Answers questions basic question of concept feasibililty. Rolls Royce/Supermarine/Hawker Sydney will conduct this testing

Phase II - Proof of concept by the accepting authority. The Air Ministry and the RAF will conduct this testing

Phase III - All issues uncovered during Phase II testing are addressed by contractors. In this case, Rolls Royce/Supermarine/Hawker Sydney will test and develop solutions to issues uncovered by the RAF during Phase II.

Phase IV -thorough evaluation of all the aircraft's operating characteristics. All publications are developed and operational testing commences.

Lets examine the documents Glider posted and put them in context of how testing development works to see if they fit.

Phase I testing results:




Phase II testing request for fuel:



Phase II results:



Logistical constraints...Fuel must be at all the airfields before any engine is approved operationally. In otherwords, Phase IV testing cannot begin until there is fuel at the airfields:





While the Air Ministry gets the fuel supplies ready for Phase IV testing, Rolls Royce must complete Phase III testing and address all of the issues uncovered during the Air Ministry Phase II testing.

Here we see the Results of Rolls Royce/Supermarine/Hawker Sydney completion of Phase III:



Logistical constraints restrict conversion to aircraft undergoing cyclic Service Inspection.

The picture becomes much clearer as to why 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.

[Crumpp]

Guys,

This is all pretty conventional stuff. You claimed that Operating Notes were not updated consistantly to reflect operational reality. That has claim is disproven and we see the Air Ministry followed convention.

The background story also fits perfectly into normal convention for adopting a new concept.

The Spitfire Mk II has already gone through this test convention and from the begining the power plant was designed for 100 Octane fuel.

When the December 1939 the logistical constraints were met in June of 1940 and we see fuel at the airfields (see Table II), the Spitfire Mk II comes into Operational service using 100 Octane fuel.

That has nothing to do with Spitfire Mk I's and Hurricanes operational conversion.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Lets examine the documents Glider posted and put them in context of how testing development works to see if they fit.

Nah, let's not.

I'd rather hear your argument on why FC were not using 100 octane in frontline spitfires during the battle of britain. You know, the argument that makes you so sure...
That one, that's what I'd like to examine. The one piece (or more) of evidence that makes an educated gentleman, like yourself so convinced. It must be pretty compelling.

In a nutshell.

Can't wait.

EDIT - when I mentioned logistics you came back with "you can't use logistics to work out operational" (I'm paraphrasing) or some other nonsense, now you're using logistics.
That makes you a hypocrite.

EDIT EDIT - While I'm waiting here's a picture of chuck norris - which is as relevant to this thread as a document printed in 1981
enjoy

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The picture becomes much clearer as to why 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 are wrong in 2 ways.

1. There was no Section 2 Paragraph 1 "Operating Notes" in June 1940. This was changed later, probably in late 1941. Section 2 Paragraph 1 looked like this:



2. 100 octane fuel was cleared for operational and non-operational flying by A.L.2 for Section 1 (which is dated May 1940 and way before June 1940):

[Crumpp]

100 octane fuel was cleared for operational and non-operational flying by A.L.2 for Section 1 (which is dated May 1940 and way before June 1940):

It does not say that Banks.

It says if the aircraft is suitably modified, it may be used.

That is not the question. There is no doubt, the RAF began the process of operational conversion by June 1940 even in the Spitfire Mk I's.

The language is very specific when something is adopted.

If the Spitfire Mk I's were to use only 100 Octane fuel or all Operational Units, even in July 1940 it would state that under Notes Concerning the Merlin Engine:

Spitfire Mk II Notes, July 1940:



Spitfire Mk I Notes June 1940:



There is no evidence the conversion was complete until January 1942 when the Spitfire Mk I's Operating Notes are amended to reflect ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS:

May 1940 and way before June 1940

That is the June 1940 Operating Notes. A.L No.2 was incorporated into Volume I Section 2 the June 1940 republication of the Operating Notes.

Volume I Section II is from May 1940 but as noted, incorporates all the updates available at the time of June 1940 republication.

There was no Section 2 Paragraph 1 "Operating Notes" in June 1940.

Looks like they did rearrange the format. That happens and finally by convention we all have the exact same format today. That does not change the fact the principles are all the same by convention.

You can see in the July 1940 Spitfire Mk II notes, the format is the same as the June 1940 Spitfire Mk I notes. If 100 Octane was the fuel for all operational Spitfire Mk I's, Notes Concerning the Merlin Engine would clearly state that fact.

It does not and you can conclude for a fact, 100 Octane was not being used by all operational Spitfire Mk I's at that time.

Don't you think it is a bit far-fetched to use this kind of manuals as a proof for the spread of use of 100 octane fuel? I am pretty sure that no manual was ever issued for all the different field modifications used by either side.

For practical reasons there will have been information notes been delivered to the stations and mechanics as the 100 octane capable spit 1s were phased in - instead of manuals.