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

[Flanker35M]

S!

Winny..war or not the technical staff did work by the a certain order and did use literature. Claiming these guys just did it without any supervision or literature is just thick. The base how an unit work is doing things, how professional it is performing it's tasks..all those are trained and done before the war. RAF or any other AF did not switch mode because of war..sure they had to improvise in the field but it was based on something. And belive me even in war superiors ask for paperwork because it is essential for the big picture if you get the drift.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Winny..war or not the technical staff did work by the a certain order and did use literature. Claiming these guys just did it without any supervision or literature is just thick. The base how an unit work is doing things, how professional it is performing it's tasks..all those are trained and done before the war. RAF or any other AF did not switch mode because of war..sure they had to improvise in the field but it was based on something. And belive me even in war superiors ask for paperwork because it is essential for the big picture if you get the drift.

Fair enuff, I was being sarcastic. And I'm not thick. But my point was kind of that it's hard to tell if a set of pilot's notes were maintained correctly without knowing their history.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Point taken Winny

[Crumpp]

Banks, good points. I know from experience too that things are done outside books as they are a routine. But this can cause a danger too as you can miss things an addition or change can bring so I am sure ground crews were informed on important changes and schooled for a professional and safe working procedure.

Flanker,

Good points and your experience is obvious. The Curtiss Helldiver is a great example of the measures taken to keep aircraft from falling out of the sky and in safe operation.

It does not make any sense to rush an airplane to destruction and kill people.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Flanker,

Good points and your experience is obvious. The Curtiss Helldiver is a great example of the measures taken to keep aircraft from falling out of the sky and in safe operation.

It does not make any sense to rush an airplane to destruction and kill people.

According to Morgan and Shacklady ( the very next paragraph after the one you kept quoting) "first trials of the fuel in a Spitfire took place at Rolls-Royce Hucknall on 24th September 1939 when K9788, fitted with a Merlin RM3S made it's first flights"

They also carried out bench tests in April 1938 - the engine failed during it's 100 hour type test. It managed 94 hours including 4 hours of maximum take off power of 1250hp @ 3,000 rpm +12lb boost. I'll repeat that. April 1938

I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "rush" is...

[Crumpp]

"first trials of the fuel in a Spitfire took place at Rolls-Royce Hucknall on 24th September 1939 when K9788, fitted with a Merlin RM3S made it's first flights"

They did rush it!!'

If we take January 1942 as the time the conversion for Spitfire Mk I's was complete that represents about two years and four months between initial flight test and 100% ground operational adoption.

Compare that to the RLM's testing of 1.58ata/1.65 ata as a straight manifold pressure increase in the BMW801D2. The motor was tested at that manifold pressure in May 1942. It was not until July 1944 that we see it in the Flugzueg Handbuch for the FW-190A8. That is a two years and two months lag time. Do you not think the RLM was rushing this improvement, too?

[Glider]

Still trying to trying to work out how you can make such a massive interpretation based on a SPit 1 Manual for 1942, and ignore the official papers that cleared the Spit for use of 100 octane in 1939. Remembering that you agree that all Spit II units were using 100 Octane in mid 1940 and presumably agree that the Spit V would have used 100 Octane.

Clearly original documentation from the NA are not as good as your assumption.

What is your training and background?

[Flanker35M]

S!

Thanks Crumpp, 16 years of active service in military behind with fighters and their systems/armament/maintenance I think it gives something to this flying hobby, but I think knowledge just increases the pain in both good and bad

[lane]

Originally Posted by Glider

Still trying to trying to work out how you can make such a massive interpretation based on a SPit 1 Manual for 1942, and ignore the official papers that cleared the Spit for use of 100 octane in 1939. Remembering that you agree that all Spit II units were using 100 Octane in mid 1940 and presumably agree that the Spit V would have used 100 Octane.

The first Spitfire into service was delivered to No. 19 Squadron at Duxford on 4 August 1938. The use of 100 octane fuel was approved for Spitfire Squadrons by 24 September 1938.32 Fighter Command noted on 6 December 1938 that Duxford, Debden, Northholt and Digby had received 100 octane fuel.32b As of December 1938 Nos. 19 and 66 were based at Duxford and were the only RAF units then equipped with Spitfires. The Air Ministry noted in a memo dated 12 December 1939 that "100 octane fuel is approved for use in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft, and state that issue will be made as soon as the fuel is available in bulk at the distribution depots serving the Fighter Stations concerned." 32c

24 September 1938


6 December 1938


14 November 1939


12 December 1939

[Glider]

Originally Posted by lane

The first Spitfire into service was delivered to No. 19 Squadron at Duxford on 4 August 1938. The use of 100 octane fuel was approved for Spitfire Squadrons by 24 September 1938.32 Fighter Command noted on 6 December 1938 that Duxford, Debden, Northholt and Digby had received 100 octane fuel.32b As of December 1938 Nos. 19 and 66 were based at Duxford and were the only RAF units then equipped with Spitfires. The Air Ministry noted in a memo dated 12 December 1939 that "100 octane fuel is approved for use in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft, and state that issue will be made as soon as the fuel is available in bulk at the distribution depots serving the Fighter Stations concerned."

Thanks for this. What I note of course is the rider at the bottom of the last paper that said that the fuel stocks were probably sufficient. The papers also cover the way fuel is to be distributed i.e by using up what is already issued and replacing it with 100 octane

When you then add the papers in December we have idnetifying the first 23 stations to be issued with the fuel in the first instance. The first combat reports in Feb using 100 octane. This is then followed by:-

1) The note for the 5th meeting of the Oil Committee held in February in the Summary of Conclusions from the ACAS saying that fighter and Blenhiem units are to be equipped with 100 Octane.

2) The papers from the 6th Meeting actioning the request and speed up the process by actively restocking the fuel, not waiting for it to be used up

3) The papers from the 7th Meeting noting that thanks had been expresseed for the completion of the task

I would say its a pretty comprehensive set of papers that support each other.

I also note that none of those papers say testing, or trials as Crumpp would have us believe

Edit - I also forgot the 9th meeting of the Oil committee held on 7th August 1940 when they were told that all operational aircraft in all commands were to use 100 octane