Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[41Sqn_Banks]

It's interesting that so far ORB was found that mentions the switch to 100 octane fuel after May 1940. Of course some ORBs don't mention the switch at all. However if at least one squadron could be found it would clearly proof that it was not in use by all squadrons.

BTW: Anyone know what Merlin Modification 102 and 123 was? It was applied to the Spitfire of 41 Squadron in November 1939: http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/424/4240052.gif

Also I remembered that there are two different Pilot's Notes for the Spitfire II are circulating, one that mentions the use of 100 octane only and another that mentions 100 octane (operational) and 87 octane (non-operational). Wouldn't it be logical that the first issue only contains 100 octane use as the new Spitfire II was only used operational at first, and only later when non-operational units used it the handling of 87 octane is mentioned.

[Crumpp]

I think its worth mentioning that Drem is in the North of Scotland. Not the first place I would issue 100 Octane too, if supply and distribution was to be limited.

And the perfect place to conduct operational trials of a new fuel.

One of the things that greatly hampered the Luftwaffe was the inability to conduct operational testing outside of combat operations.

There was no place like Drem outside of the maelstrom of combat to collect operational data.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Also I remembered that there are two different Pilot's Notes for the Spitfire II are circulating, one that mentions the use of 100 octane only and another that mentions 100 octane (operational) and 87 octane (non-operational). Wouldn't it be logical that the first issue only contains 100 octane use as the new Spitfire II was only used operational at first, and only later when non-operational units used it the handling of 87 octane is mentioned.

Both are from June 1940 IIRC so any later amendments can be ruled out. In addition, Spitfire I pilot notes note 87 octane limits as well. I am haven't seen but its probably true for Hurricanes as well.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Both are from June 1940 IIRC so any later amendments can be ruled out. In addition, Spitfire I pilot notes note 87 octane limits as well. I am haven't seen but its probably true for Hurricanes as well.

The Pilots notes that Kurfurst quotes from isn't from the BOB. Unless he agrees that Spit II in the BOB had 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG which we know didn't happen

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

The Pilots notes that Kurfurst quotes from isn't from the BOB. Unless he agrees that Spit II in the BOB had 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG which we know didn't happen

... and now you are making things up again.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

... and now you are making things up again.

We have been throught this before on another Forum and again on this forum

The Zeno pilots notes you quote are here
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf

Please note item 35 gun controls where it has a) and b) and B has 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG. Section 2 has the bit you keep quoting 100 Octane and 87 Octane.

The posting where you identified these as being the ones you quote is here
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...a-20108-8.html

The Pilots Note I refer to are here
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...uals-9050.html

Please note item 44 Gun Controls where only the 8 mgs are mentioned, and item 55 where it clearly states only 100 Octane

The question I ask is this:-
When you know with an absolute certainty, that the quote you are making is wrong and misleading, why do you keep mentioning it as part of your evidence?
Unless of course you believe it to be true and that the RAF had Mk II spits in July 1940 with 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG which is what your pilots notes say

People are free to look at these links, and if you do not reply with an explanation may well make their own mind up as to why.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

The question I ask is this:-
When you know with an absolute certainty, that the quote you are making is wrong and misleading, why do you keep mentioning it as part of your evidence?

What I know with an absolute certainty is that there is a Spitfire I manual and a Spitfire II manual, both from June-July 1940 and both specify both 87 octane and 100 octane limits.

I also know for certainty that you have an idiotic thesis why to dismiss yet another source which is clearly dated June 1940 and notes what limits apply 'when 100 octane fuel is used' and not 87.

Guess what, I just do not give credit to neither this idiotic thesis of yours, neither the other which says that when British papers say select fighter squadrons, it's 'a typo', nor the one which says its not a typo but it was reveresed later, nor the one which says the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had was from captured British stock, nor the one which says that no Spitfire or Hurricane had two pitch propeller in the Battle of Britain and so on.

Guess what, you simply have no credibility left in my eye.

Unless of course you believe it to be true and that the RAF had Mk II spits in July 1940 with 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG which is what your pilots notes say.

Of course they had. Look up Spitfire the history, on page 60 in my edition :

"P9504... still had four of the original Browning MG mountings in the wings. It was used to test a trial installation of two Hispano cannon and four Browning guns... within days a second Spitfire, X4257 had a wing built from scratch, with the new armament and service trials begun on 20 August. Five days later R6761, 6770,6889,6904 and 6919 were withdrawn from No.19 and modified to the same standards. etc.."

P9504 was a Mark I, the first produced a/c with 4 x 7.7 + 2 x 20mm, first flight 30 April 1940.

People are free to look at these links, and if you do not reply with an explanation may well make their own mind up as to why.

Boooh, more childish threats reminding me of dire consequences. Had it crossed your mind that I usually do not reply to your posts because I find them a waste of time, being illogical, wishful and of no consequence, clinging fanatically to an idea you cannot prove at all?

How about just taking Crumpp's advice which seem to be the majority view here anyway - admitting that we (you) simply do not know the exact details (yet) and have really no solid idea how many Squadrons were employing 100 octane fuel?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Had it crossed your mind that I usually do not reply to your posts because I find them a waste of time, being illogical, wishful and of no consequence, clinging fanatically to an idea you cannot prove at all?

I admit to thinking that as all I normally ask you to do, is supply some evidence to support your case, that your lack of reply is because you don't have any evidence to give.

Re the layout of the pilots notes, people are free to look at a selection and make their own mind as to which has the correct format.

They may also wonder how you have pilots notes for the Spit IIb with 20mm (including photos of the cockpit) in July 1940, for an aircraft that wasn't built until 1941 and believe that to be solid proof.

[lane]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

<...> BTW: Anyone know what Merlin Modification 102 and 123 was? <...>

Hi 41Sqn_Banks,

Merlin/102: To make provision for increased ratio starter gearing the slipping torque of the starter clutch has been increased by extra spring pressure.

Merlin/123: Introduction of epicyclic type of starter motor gears having a 94.6 to 1 turning ratio.

A bit off topic but flip back one page in your 41 Sqdn ORB and check out Spitfire Alteration 1/36 - Armour Plating

[TomcatViP]

The Spit II was introduced in august in OTU.

Regarding the armoured windshield I hd the same remark as KF looking at the picture... weird.

Spit II was introduced a bit latter during BoB. Link Alrdy posted on ATAG

http://plane-crazy.purplecloud.net/A...e%20mk%202.htm