![]() |
|
|||||||
| FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. Last edited by NZtyphoon; 03-09-2012 at 02:31 PM. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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 ?) Quote:
Quote:
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 Last edited by TomcatViP; 03-09-2012 at 06:02 PM. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
"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.
__________________
klem 56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds" http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/ ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by TomcatViP; 03-09-2012 at 05:58 PM. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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? |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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! Last edited by NZtyphoon; 03-09-2012 at 08:44 PM. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dr. Alfred Price, Spitfire Mark I/II Aces 1939-41, (Osprey Publishing, 1996), p. 19.
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
![]() 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' 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...
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200 Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415 Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
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). Last edited by TomcatViP; 03-14-2012 at 04:23 PM. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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). Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() |
|
|