A.P. 129 RAF Flying Training Manual, Part I - Landplanes

[fruitbat]

Crumpp, Banks has weighed, measured and found you wanting.

You have nothing of any substance or fact in your argument.

What are you going to quote out of context next?

I wait with anticipation.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Crumpp, Banks has weighed, measured and found you wanting.

You have nothing of any substance or fact in your argument.

What are you going to quote out of context next?

I wait with anticipation.

Crumpp, How about confining your arguments to the thread on 100 octane? Captain Doggles has a legitimate point - I posted pages from the Beaumont book to show that another historical document from the 1940s reflected what was printed in Banks' manual.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Here is another one from AP 1564A, Vol. I Section 8, July 1940:
"only when 100 octane fuel is used"

[Crumpp]

But nevertheless your statement is correct, it was generally allowed to use the override and the cut-out and sure there were engines that allowed the use with 87 octane fuel.

So why don't you just say:

YES, you are right.

It would be so much less tiresome to type for you.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

So why don't you just say:

YES, you are right.

It would be so much less tiresome to type for you.

Because you also claim in the other thread that combat reports that mention the use of boost control cut-out are not a proof for 100 octane fuel. And this claim is incorrect when applied to Merlin II/III aero-engines. Only the combat reports that describe a failure of the boost control are no proof for 87 or 100 octane fuel, all others are a definitive proof for 100 octane.

[Crumpp]

combat reports that mention the use of boost control cut-out are not a proof for 100 octane fuel.

That is correct.

According to the RAF, the pilot could use boost cut out to achieve more power under any circumstances he felt balanced his risk.

Therefore, you will see it's use and it not surprising at all that running the engine at such an overloaded condition got attention from Dowding.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is correct.

According to the RAF, the pilot could use boost cut out to achieve more power under any circumstances he felt balanced his risk.

Therefore, you will see it's use and it not surprising at all that running the engine at such an overloaded condition got attention from Dowding.

What a load of nonsense! Dowding referred specifically to +12 lbs boost which could only be attained with 100 Octane fuel - his memo had absolutely nothing to do with the rubbish you are trying to peddle;

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

According to the RAF, the pilot could use boost cut out to achieve more power under any circumstances he felt balanced his risk.

"According to RAF" ... no words. Please quote a primary source that says that.

In case your opinion is based on Pilot's Notes General, 2nd Edition Part I Note A "Flying Limitations", Section 1 "Introduction", Paragraph (IV) it is not correct. This Paragraph IV does only apply to "Flying Limitations", which are handled in Part I Note A of the manual and are the following:
- Limiting Speeds
- Limiting Weights
- Manoeuvres not Permitted
- Normal Acceleration or g
- Flying in Bumpy Air
- C.G. Limits

This regulation does not apply to Part II Note A "Engine Limitations", which has it's own regulations.

Anyone can check this here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/40498672/A...dition-UK-1943

Anyway this is a manual from 1943. Pilot's Notes General 1st Edition from 1941 does not contain this regulation, in the contrary the 1st Edition clearly states 100 octane as requirements for use of cut-out (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1334727256, http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1334727263). We are talking about combat reports from 1940.

But this has already been discusses. Why don't you just provide a primary source that really supports your claim and is not quoted out of context? Would be much less tiresome for everyone.