![]() |
|
|||||||
| FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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" |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
- quoted out of context (the context are time and flight condition limits, not boost limitations) - quoted comes from a later source (March 1943, thus not related to 1940) The RAF fanboys would love to see a proof that 87 octane was not required for +12 boost with Merlin engines. No one cares about the type of fuel, it's the +12 boost everyone is interested in. Last edited by 41Sqn_Banks; 05-24-2012 at 11:56 AM. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
He has to cling to this, its all he has.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|