![]() |
|
|||||||
| FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
As they required 90 octane fuel the they could either blend the 87 octane fuel even more to get 90 octane fuel or they could mix 97 octane fuel with 100 octane fuel. They've chosen to use the later method. Reason: Blending 87 to 90 octane would violate the specification for 90 octane because to much additives have to be added. Therefore this was only a emergency solution. There was no need for this as they didn't have problems to obtain 100 octane fuel. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
So, lets have a look at the evidence presented in 50 pages that large numbers (up to 2/3rds) of frontline units of Fighter Command were using 87 octane fuel right through until at least September 1940...
A summary of a document, apparently found in the AWM (which cannot find the document) and which was part of a thread from 2004, in another forum; this can only be read by members of that forum. The document itself has not yet been seen by the one who pins 100% faith on its authenticity. Quote:
Quote from Morgan and Shacklady. Otherwise nada, zip. Lots of bluster and smokescreens and diversions, but no documentary evidence showing that 100 Octane use was restricted to "selected", "concerned" or "certain" frontline Fighter Command units during the Battle of Britain. When directly asked to build a case, using documentary evidence, for the widespread use of 87 octane fuel by frontline units of Fighter Command during the B of B, the protagonists either go silent, or feel "insulted". The people who should feel insulted are those who have gone to a huge amount of effort to find and present documents supporting a case for the full scale use of 100 0ctane fuel by frontline FC units, only to be confronted by the same old nonsense, which has also been thrown about on other forums, and in Wikipedia, particularly as That's it, that's what 50 pages of wrangling boils down to. Last edited by NZtyphoon; 03-05-2012 at 09:36 AM. Reason: Grammatical |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Know what is so said NZt is that these same nay sayers will back at it again in the future with the same lame reasons as history has shown.
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
In the interests of clarity, the following chart taken from Flight - December 2nd, 1943 is useful for comparing Schlaifer's manifold pressures, given in inches of mercury in his Development of Aircraft Engines depicted above, with the equivalent boost pressures in lbs/sq.in. as used by the British. Schlaifer wrote "Before the middle of 1940, a manifold pressure of 54.3 in. was authorized, giving a combat rating of 1,310 hp at 9,000 feet...". 54.3 in. Hg is the equivalent to +12 lbs/sq.in.. 1,310 hp at 9,000 feet operating at 54.3 in Hg. (+12 lbs /sq.in) is in agreement with the combat rating for the Merlin III given in Alec Harvey-Bailey's The Merlin in Perspective, pg 155.
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think any reasonable person would agree that 100 octane Spits and Hurries were active during BoB..
And based on this thread it is clear that no amount of proof will change the minds of the nay-sayers for what ever reason The good news is they don't mater! The only people that mater are the people at 1C. With that said, I think we should stop wasting time on the nay-sayers and focus on 1C. To do that we need to pull all this info into one document with one stated objective. That being adding 100 octane Spits and Hurries to CoD I think you guys should start a group PM and consider making use of some of the goggle global tools and create a document that includes all this proof in it and submit it to Luither for consideration. Also if needed I would be more than willing to post your results on my web site so when the nay-sayers bring this up again in six months we can simply point them to the link instead of wasting time going around in circles with then again.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks, Lane, that's a handy chart to have on file!
__________________
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Your welcome ATAG Snapper, I'm glad you too found that chart handy.
Looking at A. R. Ogston's excerpt from History of Aircraft Lubricants (Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Warrendale, PA USA), p. 12. ![]() Of particular interest to us is the passage: "The Royal Air Force had used 87 octane fuel until March 1940 when Fighter Command converted all its Spitfire and Hurricane Rolls-Royce Merlin powered fighters to 100 octane (i.e., Grade 100/130). This permitted the maximum manifold pressure of the Merlin II and III engines of the Spitfire, Hurricane and Defiant fighters to be raised from 42 ins. Hg to 54 ins. Hg which gave a 30% power increase, that is from 1,000 to 1,310 h.p. We can see in the table Equivalent Boost Pressures in Different Units above that 42 ins Hg is equivalent to +6 lbs/sq.in boost and 54 ins. Hg is equivalent to +12 lbs./sq.in. Therefore we can see of course that Ogston is in agreement with Schlaifer's Development of Aircraft Engines and Harvey-Bailey's, The Merlin in Perspective posted earlier. Last edited by lane; 03-05-2012 at 10:33 PM. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ditto, the article itself is interesting as well, and has been used to update a couple of wikipedia articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superma...e_measurements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...#Power_ratings |
|
#9
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
No more useful information relating to the topic at hand is produced, and sadly you can see that the links are broken after 7 years (a long time on the internet, be sure). Last edited by CaptainDoggles; 03-06-2012 at 01:09 AM. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
The only trolls in that thread are the same two trolls that are in this thread.
parsifal summed up the ww11 discussion and this discussion wonderfully: It has a lot to do with revisionist history. The "pro-allied" camp in this debate are saying that 100 Octane was in widespread use in the RAF from an early stage, and that this made a huge difference to the performance arcs of the spits and hurricanes that used it. It is pretty well known that the Luftwaffe only used higher rated fuels on a very limited scale, and that this only chnged relatively slowly as the wasr progressed. The allies on the other hand embraced the widespread use of high octane fuel from an early stage. Whilst german fuels were comparable in their octane ratings, they were never fully adopted on a widespread scale, or at least on not a wide a scale as the allies did. By arguing that 100 octane rated fuel was not widespread, the pro-german revisionists can argue with even greater conviction the superiority of german technology over the allied tech development, and that the allies only won because of brute strength. A variation to the "we were stabbed in the back" argument that gained so much favour in weimar germany after wwi, and assisted the Nazis in their rise to power. |
![]() |
|
|