Friday Update, February 10, 2012

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Ribbs67

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that one of the United States's early contributions to the war effort.. supplying the RAF with 100 octane fuel... thought I heard that in a documentary...

Would that have been on the History Channel? Take with a large pinch of salt.

Some reading for you Ribbs.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...bob-16305.html
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html

[khaAk]

The E4 series had 100 octane gasoline
From Wikipedia
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

Bf 109E-4 fighter aircraft, engine such as E-1, new cockpit cover as standard, armament 2×7.92× -mm gun, two 20mm MGFF/M in the wings

Bf 109E-4/B fighter-bombers, engine such as E-1/B; weapons such as E-4, up to 250 kg bomb load

Bf 109 E-4/Trop: fighter and fighter-bombers, such as E-4, with additional features tropics (sand filter, auxiliary equipment)

Bf 109E-4/N: fighter, such as E-4, but DB 601N engine with 1020 PS, higher compression, 100-octane gasoline-C3

Bf 109 E-4/BN: fighter-bombers, engine and armament as E-4/N, up to 250 kg bomb load

If you want gasoline octane 100
I want a BF109E4/N(BN)

Who cares about fuel. Geez , this is why it takes a milliion years to get anything finished around this joint.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by machoo

Who cares about fuel. Geez , this is why it takes a milliion years to get anything finished around this joint.

I guess everyone is waiting for you to do it right.

[jimbop]

Isn't the point of the fuel discussion that this is directly related to lack of performance? I.e. if the currently rubbish 1a had 100 octane it might out perform the Hurri? Please correct me if I'm wrong...

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

I have the Merlin III engine manual (AP 1590B) updated for the use of 100 octane fuel. Amendment List No. 4 to AIR PUBLICATION 1590B includes a completely new page with "Performance" and "Limiting operational conditions" that is dated November, 1940 and gives nominal ratings with +6.25 lb. per sq. in.
I'm confident that these new pages from November 1940 wouldn't state outdated values. So I'm convinced that there was no rated power of +9 lb. per sq. in. on a regular Merlin III engine (without modifications to bring it to Merlin XII standard).

The infamous +9 boost document is useless without knowing the source. It is Page 40 of a larger document. At least we need to have the other pages to bring it into the correct context. It even could be a typo (III instead of XII).

In R.M.2.S. nomenclature it says +8.25lbs as a take-off rating (one minute), but just as you say, nominal ratings were never +9lbs for Merlin III.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by king1hw

Robo, Please list your publications own by you that are pilots manuals on the Merlin II and III production and list the fuels tested since the Battle of France where most RAF Hurricanes were being tested at 12lbs boost instead of 6.25 WHICH IS A JOKE. Most if not all front line fighter air bases received 100 octane fuel. Douglas Bader Biography wrote about the main issues as well as many RAf fighter pilots documented the configuration.

Hello King, perhaps you haven't read properly what I've written. I said exactly what you're saying.

Originally Posted by king1hw

Again Post your scanned in data that you have purchased to prove to us you are not full of hot air and that the only fuel produced in Britain was 87 and that this was the only fuel available and no planes in the historical record of the BoB did not reach 12lbs boost and that the LW won the war because it had the superior aircraft. So I guess your the only one supplying 1c with your data which I have never seen.

I am confused. Why are saying this? If you notice, I am actually stating that all the planes in the game should be filled up with 100 octanes unless we want some very early pre BoF versions.

As for the documents, I have got Spitfire Mk.I pilot's notes (few versions with updates etc.), Merlin III manual, Merlin II too actually, good source of detailed info is Merlin in perspective - the combat years (Alec Harvey-Bailey). I am not sure if I can publish scans from copyrighted materials, I'd say not. In this book, interesting information about Merlins page 2-207, page 155 Merlin III ratings in developement, page 134-135 comparsion of British fighters to Bf 109 109 with a speed and performance chart (as appendix V to the discussion on page 71), page 85 is about Merlin and 100 octane fuel. Hope that helped.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by jimbop

Isn't the point of the fuel discussion that this is directly related to lack of performance? I.e. if the currently rubbish 1a had 100 octane it might out perform the Hurri? Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Yes, this is obviously very important as for having the a/c in game performing 'correctly'. Although I understand that it is fairly annoying for some folks because it's going on an on like a soap opera.

As for Hurricane Mk.I vs Spitfire Mk.I performance, I guess that's not the reason why is the Hurri faster etc. The effect of 100 octane fuel was not 'miraculous'. Especially at the altitudes where the BoB fights usually took place (16-18k +) the gain was none whatsoever!

At 16.000 feet already the Merlin III would give exactly the same power as on either fuel on full rpm = 1.030hp. The Merlin XII sith different supercharger gear ratio had this with better FTH at +12lbs. It was actually later Merlins XX and other two speed engines, that took full advantage from 100 octane fuel.

Jimbo! The Ia is not rubbish btw

[klem]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Yes, this is obviously very important as for having the a/c in game performing 'correctly'. Although I understand that it is fairly annoying for some folks because it's going on an on like a soap opera.

As for Hurricane Mk.I vs Spitfire Mk.I performance, I guess that's not the reason why is the Hurri faster etc. The effect of 100 octane fuel was not 'miraculous'. Especially at the altitudes where the BoB fights usually took place (16-18k +) the gain was none whatsoever!

At 16.000 feet already the Merlin III would give exactly the same power as on either fuel on full rpm = 1.030hp. The Merlin XII sith different supercharger gear ratio had this with better FTH at +12lbs. It was actually later Merlins XX and other two speed engines, that took full advantage from 100 octane fuel.

Jimbo! The Ia is not rubbish btw

Quite right about high altitude performance and if the 87 octane Spits were properly modelled we could have no complaints about their performance. But with 100 octane performance we would at least have the advantage below 16000 feet which is where, in CoD, we meet most of them. Actually it would encourage the 109s to flt more historically. Altitude performance is where you could perhaps argue they did 'own the sky'. But remember they were tied to the bombers after a while which meant more combats at a lower altitude and better opportunities for the 100 octane Spitfires.

[jimbop]

Thanks for the explanation Robo and, yes, maybe 'rubbish' was a bit strong