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

[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.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

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).

Evidence please?

[TomcatViP]

Browse back the thread. I hve alrdy discussed this point and listed the source (RR history book).

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Browse back the thread. I hve alrdy discussed this point and listed the source (RR history book).

These are your posts in this thread: #157:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Frankly I don't understand what are those ppl hijacking a game forum

#205;

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wrong. See my post above and data pasted bellow. You need to take into account the s/c !

#206:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A Spit from Toyota's Burnaston plant ?

#245:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I don't understand the spit lover that are arguing for 100oct when the Spit FM makes her Zip Zapping the air like a cartoon rubber ball

#294:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Some of the last comments tells a lot abt what are the seriousness of some on this discussion. I don't want to be personal but I nearly spit of my coffee reading that some are seriously thinking that the Spit was like a X-wing fighters in BoB skies.

#296:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I am not sure it can works like that. For example I hve bought RoF with enthusiasm as soon as it was released and can't play it anymore.... There is no default FM left anywhere on any server !

#301:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wouldn't it be more relevant to ask in a less biased manner how many conversion were done before August 40 ?

#303:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Hopefully Holmes had more a Cartesian thinking ! ???!!!

#315:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

really ?
20000 post of the same "piece of evidence" does not makes it a demonstrated fact. We are still waiting for some cross references.

#322:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A 100° British lager ?

#365:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Guys the 100 oct justified itself whenn it comes to hve low alt extra power (short time) or increased fuel efficiency at low revs. That's why you see that kind of usage on the Blenheim.

#381:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A fairly good read : http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%201286.html

#383:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A document outsourced from nowhere with a very specific account of history and so contradictory with - for example - the doc I linked from Flight Journal an internationaly respected publication : humm and what next, the Brit first detonated a nuke INSIDE a Merlin engine when the US were still craking nuts in the French Ardennes ?

#387:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Where all this cleverness and fine written irony are gone Schlag?

#392:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wew... are you turning rogue ?

#408:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Oh Yeah it's a great document. And thx for that. But what is buzzing me as hell is why are you so one sided in your citation

#411:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Ok fair enough for the fighters. But with so many RAAF personnel flying Hurries and SPits in ENgland, any 100 oct probable requirement would hve been listed.

#412; #427; #434, #437,#457,#461, #467, #484, #496, #501, #515, #523, #525, #526, #529, #534, #537, #540, #542, #544, #549, #553, #555, #558, #580

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

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).

Nowhere, until this last one, is there any mention by you in this thread, or any other I can find, that R-R tested engines without superchargers, nor have you presented any evidence:

So, where is your evidence that R-R routinely tested engines without superchargers?

[Glider]

The Meteor Tank engine was basically a Merlin without a supercharger. It worked well and was used for many years post war on the Centurion and shows how robust the basic Merlin was.

However that clearly came after the aero engine merlin.

[TomcatViP]

post #205 give you a tip

Vip2000 also did use teh same book (in fact bought it after reading his post)

Impressive work btw but now I guess that you are some kind of antic cyclopes to get a so selective sense of reading.
:rolleyes

@Glider : I am not talking abt a production engine. For what I understand those were for test and performances check only.

end of post #593

[Glider]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

)

@Glider : I am not talking abt a production engine. For what I understand those were for test and performances check only.

end of post #593

I know, but I also know that you didn't provide any documentation, papers, test reports, anything in fact, to support your statement.
I looked for what I could find and supplied it, all we ask is that you do the same or is that not fair?.