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

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by Glider

I know this is going to sound very obvious but I have always believed that pilots notes were there to help the pilot avoid crashing the aircraft, not an historical document showing the roll out of things like fuel.

Now I know why most of my flying experience was in Gliders, none of the smelly stuff that can catch fire.

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1942. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

This is total bull, I would love to see you prove it, why not March 1942, or even have a punt at 1943. Why not 1944 as I know there was a shortage of 100 Octane just before the Invasion, maybe they converted some squadrons back to 87 Octane, they didn't, but what the heck, there is more logic for such a move as there was a shortage then.

Its worth remembering that you still haven't shown us the pilots notes for the Spit I you were quoting as being June 1940. So why on earth should we believe that it was as late as 1942

Glider,

Of course the Operating Notes provide a chronological order to technical changes. We know that technical updates are first published they become supplements to the Operating Notes. It is the operators responsibility to keep the Operating Notes up to date with the latest changes. However, the problem is in dissemination of technical updates. Somebody always does not get the word when updates are published. That is why for major changes like changing fuel a new edition with updates to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations would be published.

Look at all the issues with trying to find a replacement for 100LL in todays fleet!

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.

This is total bull, I would love to see you prove it, why not March 1942,

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.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Crumpp your theory require that in January 1942 at least one operational squadron used at least one Spitfire I aircraft.
Otherwise the restriction for operational units to 100 octane noted in the Pilot's Notes would be obsolete and by your theory would have been instantly removed and changed to "all units 87 octane fuel".
Please name at least one operational Squadron that used at least a one Spitfire I aircraft at that time.

[pstyle]

Hi all, does anybody here have membership to oxford journals?

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...en007.full.pdf
Might help....

[winny]

Originally Posted by pstyle

Hi all, does anybody here have membership to oxford journals?

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...en007.full.pdf
Might help....

The guy who wrote that has already been on here..

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider,

Of course the Operating Notes provide a chronological order to technical changes. We know that technical updates are first published they become supplements to the Operating Notes. It is the operators responsibility to keep the Operating Notes up to date with the latest changes. However, the problem is in dissemination of technical updates. Somebody always does not get the word when updates are published. That is why for major changes like changing fuel a new edition with updates to paragraph 1, Operating Limitations would be published.

Look at all the issues with trying to find a replacement for 100LL in todays fleet!

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.



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.

Unless you can provide a print run history for the manual it's all guess work.

What we really need is a list of all the vol.II leaflets issued as these over rode the manual it's self.

Anyone live near kew?

[fruitbat]

Well, i don't, but i am planning to go quite soon, because i want to get 92 squadrons operational reports for 1941 for a online il2 1946 campaign i'm going to do for my squad (can only find 1940 on the web).

Could have a look at this as well, won't be for a month or so though.

[pstyle]

For the purposes of CloD, does it matter if ALL operational RAF units were using 100?

Does it not only matter if units operating from the airfields in the south east, as mapped in game were using it?

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by pstyle

For the purposes of CloD, does it matter if ALL operational RAF units were using 100?

No.

Originally Posted by pstyle

Does it not only matter if units operating from the airfields in the south east, as mapped in game were using it?

Yes. And you'd have to be mad to think they weren't, after reading this thread.

From the point of view of CloD.....

[pstyle]

Fruitbat, agreed on both accounts.

[Crumpp]

Unless you can provide a print run history for the manual it's all guess work.

Winny, it is not guesswork. It is what the Operating Notes say for every edition until we get to January 1942.

Could have a look at this as well, won't be for a month or so though.

That would be nice if you could do that and let us know what you find.

Crumpp your theory require that in January 1942 at least one operational squadron used at least one Spitfire I aircraft.
Otherwise the restriction for operational units to 100 octane noted in the Pilot's Notes would be obsolete and by your theory would have been instantly removed and changed to "all units 87 octane fuel".
Please name at least one operational Squadron that used at least a one Spitfire I aircraft at that time.

Why does that matter?

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:

Why isn't the Mooney M-20-C (or Piper Comanche) approved?


A. The Mooney and Comanche both experienced vapor lock problems when they were tested. We solved the vapor lock problem, but could not overcome pneumatic lock. Pneumatic lock takes place when the fuel boils as it enters the carb. The engine then dies due to an overrich mixture. This is just the opposite of a vapor lock where the engine quits or runs poorly due to a lean mixture. The better an airplane performs, the more difficult it is to get it through the flight test program.

Q.If the Apache with 150 or 160 hp engines is approved, then why isn't the Apache with the 0-540 235 hp "B" model engines approved? These engines are listed as approved in your website.


A. The 235 Apache was flight tested and failed the flight test due to vapor lock. At that time if an airframe failed the flight test it was washed out and we went on to the next airplane. There are numerous examples of airframe/engine combinations which would appear to be approved since they have STC's individually, but may not be approved in conjunction with each other either because they failed the flight test or were not tested at all.

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.