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

[Crumpp]

Could that be that when the pilots 'pulled the plug' the boost was still at a level before detonation occurs.

Absolutely. They could have easily "pulled the plug" to achieve any boost they desired once the override was on.

"The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel"

Why don't they just say "all aircraft" instead of specifying just modified ones? All aircraft should be modified, right??

Table from 33rd Weekly Oil Position Report 23 April 1940 showing 100 Octane fuel being stockpiled overseas "West of Suez" - France springs to mind.

What is the asterisk note and the bottom about? Can you show the whole document?

The last time you started talking about stockpiles in France, it was in reference to a report projecting fuel stocks for future war.

Now your saying West of the Suez means France? Heck, it could mean Cleveland Ohio or maybe Hornchurch, too?

Considering that they were shipping troops to begin the Desert War I would imagine that is a future projection of their needs for aviation fuel. The first British troops went on the offensive on 11 June 1940 in North Africa.

[Crumpp]

"Clearly say ..." we obviously have a different understanding what clearly means.

It is right there, you highlighted it. The RAE opened the can of worms and gave their pilots license to violate the airworthiness of the aircraft:

Camber says:
There would be nothing to stop a pilot pulling the boost override and adjusting his throttle handle

Exactly. We also see two things the give insight into the state of mind of Fighter Command.

1. First from the fuel committee meetings the confusion on exactly what must be done to modify the engine. I don't know if you have taken Organizational Behavior in college but if there is confusion at the top of any organization, there is even more confusion at the bottom of it. Even with a clear vision at the top, it is a process to get that vision communicated and enacted at the bottom. The larger the organization, the longer the lag time and more difficult the process.

Secondly, we see Dowding's memo warning the pilots about the dangers of overboosting. You can bet Dowding did not sit around wondering what to do that day and just decided to fill his time writing a memo about overboosting destroying engines. "Squeaky wheel gets the grease", that memo came about because his maintenance and logistics people complained if it does not change there could be consequences that effect their ability to keep his planes flying.

That memo was printed because they felt was a problem with pilots "pulling the plug" before they properly balanced the risk.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Why don't they just say "all aircraft" instead of specifying just modified ones? All aircraft should be modified, right??

This is one of the amazing inconsistencies about the Pips memo - according to this

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel.

a mere 25% of the fighter force - supposedly 125 fighters - caused such a high strain on 100 octane fuel supplies that all further conversions were stopped and the RAF ordered that 87 Octane fuel be the primary fuel.

Question is if 125 fighters can put a huge strain on reserves of 263,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel (as of 18 April - see Table 33rd Weekly Oil Report) , what kind of a strain are the other 475 fighters, plus all the other aircraft using 87 Octane going to put on the reserves of 327,000 tons of "Other grades" of fuel? This hasn't to my knowledge been commented on before, but it is patently ridiculous to state that 125 fighters put any kind of a strain on 263,000 tons of 100 Octane: then, on top of that, to insist the RAF decided to put even greater strain on the "Other Grades" stockpile beggers belief.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

What is the asterisk note and the bottom about? Can you show the whole document?

Take a look at the extreme RH side of table i (b) Weeks' supplys showing how long it was estimated the current stocks would last based on average consumption, and assuming no more supplies were shipped in.

This is the rest of the document:

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The last time you started talking about stockpiles in France, it was in reference to a report projecting fuel stocks for future war.

Nonsense, the documents showed quite clearly how much fuel was already in France (attached) and other papers in the series showed the projected requirements.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Now your saying West of the Suez means France? Heck, it could mean Cleveland Ohio or maybe Hornchurch, too?

Yeah right, use a bit of common sense because in April 1940 the Italians had yet to declare war, so the Mediterranean and Africa were not war theatres, nor were there any aircraft using 100 octane fuel based in those areas and, contrary to your unproven speculation, fighters based in France were using 100 octane fuel, while some Hurricanes had been active in Norway. Not forgetting the Blenheim IVs of 2 Group and the BEF.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Considering that they were shipping troops to begin the Desert War I would imagine that is a future projection of their needs for aviation fuel. The first British troops went on the offensive on 11 June 1940 in North Africa.

This is just pure speculation on your part - there is absolutely nothing in the paper talking about "future needs, projections" or any other such language.

[Seadog]

Note: these examples are all from May 1940.

Here's an example of 12lb boost at low altitude:



here's another:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e/bushell.html

note here that the pilot is using "full" 12lb boost and he has noted that he was at 5000-6000ft.

and another:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e/bushell.html

again at 5 -6000ft and again with 'full' 12lb boost

The idea that that they were using 12lb boost with 87 octane fuel could only be conceived by someone who desperately wants to avoid the truth.