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

[NZtyphoon]

Alec Harvey-Bailey, The Merlin in Perspective, (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Derby, 1983)



W.G. Dudek and D. R. Winans, excerpt from AIAA Paper No. 69-779, Milestones in Aviation Fuels, (Esso Research and Engineering Company, New York 1969.)


A. R. Ogston, excerpt from History of Aircraft Lubricants (Society of Automotive Enginees, Inc. Warrendale, PA USA), p. 12.


1)The authors of these articles are respected engineers and fuel technicians who are properly qualified to know how much power the Merlin III could generate on 100 octane fuel.

2)Rolls-Royce were already building Merlins that could run on 100 octane fuel in 1938.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%203453.html RM 2M "The normal output at 7,870ft. is 1,265 h.p. and the maximum at
9,500ft., 1,285 h.p. with 1,320 h.p. available for take-off....The maximum potential output of the Merlin II is 1,800 h.p..."

3) Not forgetting either that on August 7 1937 Rolls Royce had a "more-or-less standard Merlin II, running at 18 pounds boost on a special mixture of straight-run gasoline, benzol and methanol with a dash of tetraethyl lead, achieved an output of 1,536 hp at 2,850 rpm over a four minute run." (this was used for the Speed Spitfire). Price The Spitfire Story 2010 p. 107. Ergo the engine was already strong enough to take the extra power.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

....

2)Rolls-Royce were already building Merlins that could run on 100 octane fuel in 1938.

It's an exposition for the Paris airshow. RR put on show the must advanced items they had with war in perspective - e.g look at my bad looking Merlin that will eat your sausage's 109.

The mot ridiculous at this game were arguabily the french with their twin engined single cranckshaft 2000hp marvel that history has shown how irealistic this formula was (the very 1st french act of sabotage of the German war machine ?)

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%203453.html RM 2M "The normal output at 7,870ft. is 1,265 h.p. and the maximum at
9,500ft., 1,285 h.p. with 1,320 h.p. available for take-off....The maximum potential output of the Merlin II is 1,800 h.p..."

they also explain the line just bellow that Maximum means maximum theoritical power !!!

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

3) Not forgetting either that on August 7 1937 Rolls Royce had a "more-or-less standard Merlin II, running at 18 pounds boost on a special mixture of straight-run gasoline, benzol and methanol with a dash of tetraethyl lead, achieved an output of 1,536 hp at 2,850 rpm over a four minute run." (this was used for the Speed Spitfire). Price The Spitfire Story 2010 p. 107. Ergo the engine was already strong enough to take the extra power.

It's a record breaker plane ! No reception flight, training, long formation flight etc... You can't draw a comparaison... C'mon tell me you are jocking !

You are also citing the 1300+HP nbr when the line bellow teh journalist explicitely said that "a fully supercharged" merlins does 1030hp. This in line with what I hve alrdy pointed out (from RR doc sources) that your hve repeateadly mixed SHP (power on the shaft without supercharger plugged) and BHP.

I don't know really on what base we can discuss anymore you and me.

@Bounder :

I made an abstract of the article last week. Pls (re)read it there : http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=457

[klem]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

It's an exposition for the Paris airshow. RR put on show the must advanced items they had with war in perspective - e.g look at my bad looking Merlin that will eat your saucage's 109.

The mot ridiculous at this game were arguabily the french with their twin engined single cranckshaft 2000hp marvel that history has shown how irealistic this formula was (the very 1st french act of sabotage of the German war machine ?)

they also explain the line after that Maximum means maximum theoritical power !!!



It's a record breaker plane ! No reception flight, training, long formation flight etc... You can't draw a comparaison... C'mon tell me you are jocking !

This is just another example of TC trying to side track answers to his own question because he can't win. It doesn't matter what the purpose of the engine/aircraft demonstrations were, we were answering TCs statement:-
"More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel."

The posts that followed show that tremendous increase in power was possible - read the posts and references - and NZt's posts and references show that the engine was demonstrated to be strong enough to deliver the increased power.

We have arrived at Trolling and I've had enough of this thread.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by klem

This is just another example of TC trying to side track answers to his own question because he can't win. It doesn't matter what the purpose of the engine/aircraft demonstrations were, we were answering TCs statement:-
"More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel."

The posts that followed show that tremendous increase in power was possible - read the posts and references - and NZt's posts and references show that the engine was demonstrated to be strong enough to deliver the increased power.

We have arrived at Trolling and I've had enough of this thread.

Insulting contents once again.

The major problem with you is that you are seeing others here with the narrow pencil of your "open minded" attitude.

It's not a matter of wining or loosing. I am not here arguing with you to be part of history. I am not an historian. I just don't trust your hair raising theory and I am still waiting to be convinced out from what I hve read so far. Simple like that.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I just don't trust your hair raising theory and I am still waiting to be convinced out from what I hve read so far. Simple like that.

So what do we need to provide to convince you?
- A combat report from a pilot that use +12 boost on a Merlin II/III?
- A flight test?
- A quote from a manual?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

So what do we need to provide to convince you?
- A combat report from a pilot that use +12 boost on a Merlin II/III?
- A flight test?
- A quote from a manual?

We don't need to provide any evidence to Mr Tomcat because Mr Tomcat has no interest in being convinced - Klem is right, this is just trolling and arguing for the sake of it, otherwise why post inane comments like:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

calm down little jedi

If not to inflame a response?

He claims to know better than A C Lovesey, chief engineer of Rolls-Royce, or W.G. Dudek and D. R. Winans (excerpt from AIAA Paper No. 69-779, Milestones in Aviation Fuels, Esso Research and Engineering Company, New York 1969.) who are respected authorities on the properties of aviation and other types of fuel, or simply ridicules any information he finds uncomfortable, and pushes the same circular arguments, posting very little evidence to back them up. I have better things to do than waste time trying to convince Mr Tomcat - this "ignore" setting is a handy device which I will now use...ahhh, bliss!

[lane]

Dr. Alfred Price, Spitfire Mark I/II Aces 1939-41, (Osprey Publishing, 1996), p. 19.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

3) Not forgetting either that on August 7 1937 Rolls Royce had a "more-or-less standard Merlin II, running at 18 pounds boost on a special mixture of straight-run gasoline, benzol and methanol with a dash of tetraethyl lead, achieved an output of 1,536 hp at 2,850 rpm over a four minute run." (this was used for the Speed Spitfire). Price The Spitfire Story 2010 p. 107. Ergo the engine was already strong enough to take the extra power.

Its lovely to see how NZTyphoon constantly conflicts himself, posting the following, which noted that the Merlin failed its type test even a year later, on 4 April 1938.



In fact Merlins still failed type tests at much lower ratings in around November 1939:



and continued to have an increased failure rate even in August 1940:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

Bottomline, NZTyphoon seems to like to boast about the development of Merlin outputs on single engines and on limited runs on tests stands, ie. 'more or less standard' Merlins.

In connection to the 1536 HP achieved on the Merlin in August 1937 with a curious mix of gasoline, benzol and methanol, perhaps equivalent DB developments should be noted to cool of any undue excitement.

[b]11 November 1937. Messerschmitt Bf 109 V13 sets world record with DB 601 Re/III - 1660 PS
8. Juni 1938
8 Juni 1938. Junkers Ju 89 V 2 sets altitude record with 4 × DB 601 Re/IV - 2060 PS each
30 March 1939. Heinkel He 100 V8 sets world speed record with DB 601 Re/V - 2770 PS.

The above also explains why the 'Speed Spitfire' was never attempted. There was no 2700-HP Merlin...

[TomcatViP]

The much modified SpeedFire did run operational reconnaissance missions on a couple of occasion. She was used for high speed low deck run on the French coast fitted with cameras (620/50 kph if I do remind well)

The consumption of her engine prevent her to be flown much deeper.

The pilot (a test pilot if I do remind correctly) had to care about the level of water left in the specific rads (vapor blown away) with great attention (well planned missions). Despite some concerns at the beginning he did not have any serious problem during his attempts.

Le Fana de l'aviation published the story in France some years ago. It might hve been a translated article extracted from US/UK sources.

Regarding the HP of the Merlin as of NZT sources it : He is confusing SHP and BHP. It was a standard use in RR to give the power of an engine without the charger fitted as the methods used to calculate the true corresponding power at alt from a bench test ran on the ground were not reliable (source RR - already mentioned by myself somewhere in the thread).

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Regarding the HP of the Merlin as of NZT sources it : He is confusing SHP and BHP. It was a standard use in RR to give the power of an engine without the charger fitted as the methods used to calculate the true corresponding power at alt from a bench test ran on the ground were not reliable (source RR - already mentioned by myself somewhere in the thread).

How ever was the engine ever run to obtain the hp number as the supercharger was between the carb and the cylinders?

As Barbi and Eugene are so positive that 87 octane fuel was still in widespread use by RAF FC, they should have no trouble listing the squadrons, and the bases they flew from, that were still using 87 octane fuel late in the BoB.

As for Barbi's comment of fuel consumption, he is no doubt referring to the useless garbage graph (no source for the data points ever given) he posted earlier in this thread. Useless garbage because the consumption of 87 octane fuel includes that other RAF Commands (Coastal, Bomber, Training et al).

There's of course this paper of 7 August that supposed to 'authorize' all Commands for using 100 octane

Now this statement shows what a double standard Barbi has as he uses a German document, and [v]ONLY[/b] this document, giving authorization for 1.98ata use to 4 Gruppen with the Bf109K-4 and even goes on and speculates that other K-4 and G-10 units also used 1.98ata boost. This contradicts Eugene's emphatic statement that German units never ever did modifications without official authorization.

It is not known if and how many units had converted to 1,98 ata manifold before that order came, but it should be noted these units, in particular III./JG 27, III./JG 53 and IV./JG 53 were the major users of the Bf 109 K-4 in the Lufwaffe. The other units effected are not known at present, but given the abundance of photograph depicting G-10 and K-4 fighters belonging to other units, marked for C-3 fuel use - a likely sign of the DC engine at 1,98 ata - the boost increase was likely not limited to JG 27 and JG 53 alone.