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

[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;

[Seadog]

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.

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

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;

I have to admit that I'm surprised that Crump expresses such faith in RAF and UK technological superiority, especially his belief that the RR Merlin could run at 12lb boost for 5 minutes with 87 octane fuel... As much as Crump might wish for this to be modelled in CloD, I should like to agree with NZtyphoon that the Merlin III required 100 octane fuel when pulling greater than 7lb boost.

However, if one reads the memo carefully, Dowding is referring to running the engine beyond it's oil and coolant limits during climbs and to oil starvation during inverted flight, and running the engine beyond 5 minutes as the major culprits in causing engine damage.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Seadog

I have to admit that I'm surprised that Crump expresses such faith in RAF and UK technological superiority, especially his belief that the RR Merlin could run at 12lb boost for 5 minutes with 87 octane fuel... As much as Crump might wish for this to be modelled in CloD, I should like to agree with NZtyphoon that the Merlin III required 100 octane fuel when pulling greater than 7lb boost.

However, if one reads the memo carefully, Dowding is referring to running the engine beyond it's oil and coolant limits during climbs and to oil starvation during inverted flight, and running the engine beyond 5 minutes as the major culprits in causing engine damage.

Too right, nor did Dowding waste his time by writing to all frontline fighter pilots telling them to refrain from using boost override or exceeding boost limits for 87 octane fuel - why? - because he knew they were all using 100 Octane and was warning them against overuse of +12 lbs boost, as well as the other limits described by Seadog.

[Crumpp]

"In combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in disregarding these limitations"

The Air Ministry gave license to violate the airworthiness of the aircraft. It is no wonder Dowding was concerned.

And yes, any pilot reading that would understand they do what they must to survive even if it means "disregarding these limitations" published in the Operating Notes.

There is no doubt that RAF pilots used whatever system was available to increase the limitations irregardless of fuel type.

[Crumpp]

Crump expresses such faith in RAF and UK technological superiority

No I think they tore up a lot of engines. In fact, I think it was to the point the Operations and Maintenance Chiefs expressed enough concern for Dowding to do something about it.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

No I think they tore up a lot of engines. In fact, I think it was to the point the Operations and Maintenance Chiefs expressed enough concern for Dowding to do something about it.

Speculation, not fact.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

No I think they tore up a lot of engines. In fact, I think it was to the point the Operations and Maintenance Chiefs expressed enough concern for Dowding to do something about it.

Dowding states that the the EBCO allows for 12lb boost for 5mins. I know you love the RR Merlin but would you really have us believe that this could be done with 87 octane fuel?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

"In combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in disregarding these limitations"

The Air Ministry gave license to violate the airworthiness of the aircraft. It is no wonder Dowding was concerned.

And yes, any pilot reading that would understand they do what they must to survive even if it means "disregarding these limitations" published in the Operating Notes.

There is no doubt that RAF pilots used whatever system was available to increase the limitations irregardless of fuel type.

Absolute nonsense - once again for your benefit Crumpp, because you clearly have trouble reading beyond your preconceptions - Dowding specifically mentions +12 lbs boost and nothing else.

All of your suppositions about what the pilots will do is just that - pure conjecture without a single shred of evidence from you showing that pilots were so used to using 87 octane that in the heat of combat they pulled emergency boost expecting to do what exactly? Boost override was not available with 87 Octane fuel - period.

You have led the same song and dance routine over this "issue' over several threads now, and it is clear you are totally obsessed with your own interpretation of things, regardless of whatever evidence is placed in front of you. Go away and waste time elsewhere - this thread was not intended to be yet another argument over what Crumpp believes about 100 octane fuel.

[Crumpp]

Boost override was not available with 87 Octane fuel - period.

Nonsense, boost override was and was even tested at service inspection. It was not authorized for use except at take off.

However the Air Ministry clearly states:

"In combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in disregarding these limitations"

You just don't like that fact.

I was the one who told you that Operating Notes are mandatory to follow, linked to the airworthiness of the design, and done by convention.

They are very specific in what can and cannot be done. To include the specific passage the Air Ministry thought to include:

"In combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in disregarding these limitations"