Thanks so much for the information 41Sqn_Banks! I'll have to keep my eyes open for some of these manuals. They’re fabulous. I've had good success obtaining used books on line from Abebooks. I'll start running some searches there and see what comes up... Good tip on the book scanner too. If I can find a book worth scanning, I’ll get the scanner ;) The work you've done obtaining these manuals and then creating the lovely images is outstanding, not to mention what we've all learned from the material therein. Thanks again for sharing!

I wasn't referring to the documents that Banks posted. I was referring to the endless, monotonous 100 octane argument that's spilled over into YET ANOTHER thread.

People just can't let it go. Wanted to nip it in the bud.

comment 76 is interesting

So Banks....

You read it and we are in agreement that using the boost cut out was allowed on 87 Octane.

All I have presented to support you statement is general statement that allows to exceed the "flying Limitations" if situation demands it from April 1943. I will shows at the end of the post that statement does not apply to the "engine limitations". I also presented a general description of different engine systems from a training manual that describes the use of the override devices for take-off and the cut-out devices for emergency; without specifying fuel and engine.

All you have presented ... is nothing, you don't even quote or give the correct title and page or paragraph number to support your statements. That shows a lack in scientific research methods and lack of respect for your opponents. It just feels odd that I have to provide you with the sources to support your statements.

But nevertheless your statement is correct, it was generally allowed to use the override and the cut-out and sure there were engines that allowed the use with 87 octane fuel. Now let's apply these general statements on a particular engine type, for example the Merlin II/III.
The Merlin II/III didn't have a override for take-off like for example the Mercury XV, the take-off boost was +6.25 which is the boost obtained with enabled boost control and throttle lever fully open. But it did have a cut-out for emergency and it was allowed to use it, as can be seen in AP 1564A Pilot's Note Hurricane I from March 1939:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1337373360

According to AP 1590B Merlin II and III Aero-engine from October 1938 the cut-out gives direct control over the throttle valve, thus "over-boosting is possible and care should be taken to avoid this":
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1337372707

So yes, it was certainly allowed to use the cut-out with 87 octane fuel as long as +6.25 boost was not exceeded, which is clearly and without any room for interpretation stated in Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III , January 1939: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1334682385

Note that it is clearly stated that this restriction applies even for "emergency" cases. As +6.25 boost is available with enabled boost control the only remaining logical reason to use the cut-out with 87 octane is in case of a failure of the boost control.

Then we have several additional documents that state the restriction of 100 octane fuel for the use of the cut-out for increased boost for "emergency" presented in this post: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1716

And just to add another one from AP 1590B A.L. 4, November 1940:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1337375347
"necessitates the use of 100 octane fuel"


Your whole argument is based on this:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1337207418

Do you realize that this statement is only related to "Flying limitations" in Part I of the manual and cannot be applied to the "Engine limitations" in Part II, which are outlined in the following:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...9&d=1337207425

And again this statement contradicts your theory. So even if can can provide a evidence that the use of the cut-out to exceed +6.25 boost with 87 octane allowed at any time, we have several document that mention the restriction of 100 octane in 1940. These restriction would have been introduced "in the light of Service experience and operational requirements".

Crumpp, Banks has weighed, measured and found you wanting.

You have nothing of any substance or fact in your argument.

What are you going to quote out of context next?

I wait with anticipation.

Crumpp, How about confining your arguments to the thread on 100 octane? Captain Doggles has a legitimate point - I posted pages from the Beaumont book to show that another historical document from the 1940s reflected what was printed in Banks' manual.

Here is another one from AP 1564A, Vol. I Section 8, July 1940:
"only when 100 octane fuel is used"

So why don't you just say:

YES, you are right.

It would be so much less tiresome to type for you.

:rolleyes: