Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-15-2012, 10:16 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

What is interesting in that document is the HP at 4.2lb > 822. Hardly the 1/3 that was mentioned sometime before.
  #2  
Old 05-16-2012, 12:38 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Do you know what Boost Cut Out means Crumpp?
Really guy?

Quote:
The certificate also clearly says emergency 5 minutes maximum meaning that the engine had to have boost cut out.
The aircraft is only approved for 87 Octane fuel.
  #3  
Old 05-16-2012, 02:04 AM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Really guy?
You clearly had no idea of what the boost cut out is for so I explained...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
The aircraft is only approved for 87 Octane fuel.
So? For ages you have been swearing black and blue that because the Pilot's Notes stipulated certain engine limitations and certain types of fuels those were the limits observed no matter what, in spite of it being explained to you several times, very carefully, that supplementary slips were issued to the pilots with the Pilot's Notes revising such information when it was relevant.

Now, on the basis of this one test certificate you are saying what? That the engine limitations were not observed? I haven't noticed any pilot's notes stipulating 10.55 lbs boost maximum using 87 octane fuel, so I guess you want to withdraw all of your previous comments regarding the legal limits etc set by the pilot's notes?

You now want to claim that when pilots refer to pulling the plug it meant they went to 10.55 lbs boost on 87 octane fuel, right? Then present some documentary evidence showing that pilots were authorised to use 10.55 lbs boost on 87 Octane.

Then explain why Dowding found it necessary on 1 August 1940 to send a memo to All Groups, ALL Fighter Stations and ALL fighter squadrons stating that +12 lbs boost was only to be used in emergencies? Why not state +10.55 lbs boost, and send a separate memo to the supposedly small number of squadrons authorised to use 100 octane fuel?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

Note he also uses the expression "Pulling the Plug" referring specifically to +12 lbs boost.

Last edited by NZtyphoon; 05-16-2012 at 02:27 AM.
  #4  
Old 05-16-2012, 02:35 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Now, on the basis of this one test certificate you are saying what?
I will explain this ONE time and then I will probably ignore you as I don't think you have much to add. It is according to the training manual and fits with everything I have already told you about Operating Notes.

The 1937 RAF Training Manual explains the use of boost cut out. In 1937, 100 Octane was not an issue.

The certificate limitations appear to back up the use of the system.

That is completely independent of 100 Octane.

It means most of the reports you claim prove the use of 100 Octane fuel really have nothing to do with it at all.
  #5  
Old 05-16-2012, 02:42 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Then explain why Dowding found it necessary on 1 August 1940 to send a memo to All Groups, ALL Fighter Stations and ALL fighter squadrons stating that +12 lbs boost
Well one day, all those units will be equipped with 100 Octane. It is not proof that all of the operational units were using it. Why put the word out on something like the information in that memo piecemeal?

What is proof that that 100% of the operational units were NOT using is the Notes on a Merlin Engine found in the Operating Notes.

That is a fact.
  #6  
Old 05-16-2012, 02:46 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
the damage being done is generally not instantainous and will not result in immediate loss of the engin
Sometimes it will and sometimes it will not.....

It all depends and it is just as likely to end your trip that flight as the next if the motor is damaged.
  #7  
Old 05-16-2012, 02:54 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
You now want to claim that when pilots refer to pulling the plug it meant they went to 10.55 lbs boost on 87 octane fuel, right?
I am not claiming anything outside of known facts, NzTyphoon. I will leave the speculation to you.

The known facts are that system was in place before 100 Octane fuel was around as evidenced in the 1937 RAF training manual.

The Operating Notes will specify the authorized fuel for the aircraft. The type Operating Notes clearly state that "ALL Operational Units - 100 Octane" after the fuel is adopted for all operational units.

We don't see that in any of the Operating Notes during the BoB. Only the Spitfire Mk II carried the 100 Octane specification. The rest require replacing the heads and in some cases, rings as well as the required modifications to the fuel metering system. This work was performed at Service Inspection intervals. Do you know what that means?
  #8  
Old 05-16-2012, 08:34 AM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Sometimes it will and sometimes it will not.....

It all depends and it is just as likely to end your trip that flight as the next if the motor is damaged.

I doubt it would be just as likely. If you read the memorandum point one and two,

"A recent increase in the number of engine failures, due to the failure of bearings, is an inication that some pilots are over-stepping the engine limitations laid down in the Pilot's handbook.

2. The use of the automatic boot cut out control enables the pilot to get an emergency boost of +12lbs per sq in. from the engine for 5 minutes when circumstances demand it. Some Pilots "pull the plug" with little excuse on every occasion."

The wording of this memo suggest that the practice of exceeding the limits was quite widespread. Now if it was as you suggest a 50-50 chance of engine failure when the limits were exceeded then the culprits responsible for abusing their engines would be quickly identified and I expect grounded. The practice of exceeding the limits would only become common place if the pilots thought they could get away with it. Maybe thats why they put the wire seal on the boost control to make it obvious to the maintenance staff that it had been used. Then the pilot would have had to justify their use of boost after the mission.

As long as they didn't overheat their engines and the correct fuel was used the boost control still limits the boost available to stop destructive pre-ignition and detonation as a cause of engine damage. (ie if you run the 12lb boost on 87 octane fuel you could get servere and possibly imediate damage from detonation, but not with 100 octane fuel.) So what was left was damage caused by accellerated wear on the engine that was "liable to manifest themselves on some subsequent occasion"


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf
  #9  
Old 05-16-2012, 03:42 AM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Well one day, all those units will be equipped with 100 Octane. It is not proof that all of the operational units were using it. Why put the word out on something like the information in that memo piecemeal?

That is a fact.
Absolute nonsense! The memo says nothing about "In Future, once 100 Octane fuel becomes available..." it was written in the present tense stating unambiguously that too many pilots were using +12 lbs boost for situations other than emergency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Why put the word out on something like the information in that memo piecemeal?
Pure speculation on your part.

Last edited by NZtyphoon; 05-16-2012 at 03:48 AM.
  #10  
Old 05-16-2012, 03:46 AM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
I will explain this ONE time and then I will probably ignore you as I don't think you have much to add. It is according to the training manual and fits with everything I have already told you about Operating Notes.
Nonsense - it has been explained to you several times that the operating limits posted in the Pilot's Notes were relevant to the fuel the engines were designed for, as explained long ago to you in the Pilot's Notes General 1st ed. Any alterations to those operating limits were issued to the pilots as supplementary slips which were then pasted into the Pilot's Notes. You continue to ignore this because it does not suit your "argument".
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.