![]() |
|
|||||||
| FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is interesting in that document is the HP at 4.2lb > 822. Hardly the 1/3 that was mentioned sometime before.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
You clearly had no idea of what the boost cut out is for so I explained...
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
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It all depends and it is just as likely to end your trip that flight as the next if the motor is damaged. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Pure speculation on your part. Last edited by NZtyphoon; 05-16-2012 at 03:48 AM. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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".
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|