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

[Crumpp]

Thanks Crumpp, 16 years of active service in military behind with fighters and their systems/armament/maintenance I think it gives something to this flying hobby, but I think knowledge just increases the pain in both good and bad

Thanks for your service, Flanker.

I retired 20 years from active US Army and then entered aviation as a full time career.

Associate members don't need a degree only an interest in aerodynamics, and from what you have posted I suspect I am afraid that you are at best an associate member.

I don't think associates get library access, not sure though. I have only had student membership and then full after graduation.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Thanks for your service, Flanker.

I retired 20 years from active US Army and then entered aviation as a full time career.



I don't think associates get library access, not sure though. I have only had student membership and then full after graduation.

Then I withdraw my previous comment.

[Crumpp]

beaurocratic schedules

It is not a bureaucratic schedule.

I know it seems like a bunch of overkill. The convention is really all based on lots of experience, most of it very bad experiences.

Airplanes are not like cars, the engineering safety margins are so much lower just to achieve flight.

[Crumpp]

You claim that that the June 1940 manual does not reflect the ability to use 100 octane fuel operationally.

NO, I said if it was in use in all operational units, Notes on the Merlin Engine would reflect that.

It does not in June 1940.

[Crumpp]

I found this page from the Spitfire Mk II Operating Notes.



mmmmmm

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I found this page from the Spitfire Mk II Operating Notes.



mmmmmm

Ok here's my MkII from June 1940



And I'm still waiting for your answer, and an apology would be nice for the operational/logistical thing that you said made me look bad.

[Crumpp]

we're only talking about implementation of simple modifications in order to use a fuel that increases performance,

It is not a simple modification though.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

Ok here's my MkII from June 1940



And I'm still waiting for your answer, and an apology would be nice for the operational/logistical thing that you said made me look bad.

A couple of observations on both those pilots notes.

Crumpp
If you look at the pilots notes that you put forward you will see that they also include the instructions of how to fire 2 x 20mm cannon and 4 x 303 which I think we can agree isn't viable in June 1940.

The second set. Note that it doesn't allow 12 lb boost in the air it only says 9lb. However it doesn't say that you can or cannot use the boost overide, or have a combat rating. However, in the cockpit diagram the boost overide control is clearly present. An example I think of an early set of pilots notes which were clearly amended as shown by the ones that Crumpp mentioned.

Reason for both fuels being mentioned in the set Crumpp put forward is simple. Clearly these are not BOB notes as shown by the guns on board and these were printed later in the war wehn they were in use for training. Training units were not equipped with 100 Octane

[ramstein]

In the spitfire my squad serviced at an airshow , we put 110 octane in the Spitfire (that was the highest grade we could find in 1980 for the airshow),, but I can't tell you how original the engine parts are or how it was tuned.. I can tell you it was fun to be very close to it, push it around the parking spot, and be inches from it as it taxied out and taxied back in after the flying...

It was a very smooth engine,,, no spitting, popping, or no cutting out in rolls...
It wasn't terribly bad on the ears,,, the only time I saw fire out the exhaust was when it first started... I can't say how the exhaust looks in flight because I never flew one..

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is not a bureaucratic schedule.

I know it seems like a bunch of overkill. The convention is really all based on lots of experience, most of it very bad experiences.

Airplanes are not like cars, the engineering safety margins are so much lower just to achieve flight.

They just about managed to get that through to me at flight school and the 17 years spent as a commercial pilot and flight instructor, but I maintain it is a beaurocratic schedule and most probably the inconvenience of war forced some corners to be cut, one can assume they already knew the aircraft could fly, we're only talking about implementation of simple modifications in order to use a fuel that increases performance, my guess is at least one genius manged to figure out it might be quite handy in a fight.