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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

See above post....

It is a fact that 100 Octane will be included in the Notes on the Merlin Engine section of the Operating Notes when it becomes the standard. Until then, any aircraft using the fuel will be operating under a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine for that specific aircraft.

That is how it worked then and how it works today.

By convention, all flight manuals include a single page reference to the engine operating limits.

Keep in mind, we are looking at what is called an Information Manual on these aircraft. Every aircraft has a set of Operating Notes issued with it by serial number that covers that specific aircraft. They stay with that aircraft throughout its lifespan. It is the pilots and maintenance personnel's job to keep that serial numbered Operating Notes updated for that specific airframe.

The information manual is republished periodically to incorporate all updates for the type but is not specific to an airframe.

When the information manual reflects 100 Octane, then all operational aircraft of the type can use it.

Once again Crumpp is talking absolute nonsense - It has been very carefully explained and finally acknowledged by Crumpp, that the Pilot's Notes were issued with supplementary slips which the pilot's then pasted into the relevant sections of the Notes.

The PILOT'S NOTES GENERAL first edition (issued to each pilot along with the Pilot's Notes for each aircraft type) is very specific - Section 8 says that the operating limits for engines relate to the fuel type that engine was designed for ie; for Merlin II and III series, because they were designed to use 87 Octane fuel those were the operating limits printed in the Pilot's Notes. This complies with Crumpp's "Section II" - any changes made to the operating limits were made by the supplementary slips issued to the pilot with the Pilot's Notes. If the Pilot's Notes do not have the new operating limits pasted into them it is because;

A: The Pilot's Notes were never issued and were left in storage - or

B: The Pilot's Notes were not issued to an operational frontline unit - this is acknowledged by the Spitfire I Pilot's Notes from January 1942 which state that aircraft of "other units" used 87 octane fuel. (The Pilot's Notes General second ed was printed in 1943 and dropped this provision because no frontline aircraft were using 87 octane fuel.)

Do we believe Crumpp or the Pilot's Notes General? Your choice...

Crumpp knows this is true: it has been explained to him several times but still he persists with this crap. Crumpp also knows that Rolls-Royce had already tested Merlin IIs on 100 Octane fuel in 1938, and had at least 18 months to redesign and tool-up for the increased power rating needed.

The timeline of the Merlin's adaptation for using 100 Octane fuel:

1937 Merlin II developed 1,536 hp at +18 lbs on special blend of fuel;

1938 Figures for Merlin II and III using 100 Octane fuel presented at Paris airshow, albeit no mention of +12 lbs boost; clearly whatever redesign of the cylinder heads was needed Rolls-Royce would have had the job well in hand.

1939 Merlin II & III tested and approved for +12 Lbs boost; September 1939; Blenheim IVs of BC cleared to use 100 Octane fuel in outer wing tanks. November decision that reserves of 100 octane fuel adequate to allow all Merlins to be modified to use the fuel.

1940 February - first squadrons converted to use 100 octane; March A.P1590B/J.2-W specifically states conversions well underway; May - 100 Octane used by Hurricanes and Blenheims based in France during combat ops....etc etc etc.

So who do we believe? Someone who claims to be all sorts of things, but has provided no documentary evidence to back up any of his statements about 100 octane fuel, or someone who has recorded the history of one of the oil refineries which produced 100 Octane fuel, having examined the records? (Attach 3)

Do we believe an historian who has studied Squadron records and interviewed pilots, or do we believe someone who has provided no evidence to support his case? Your choice...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/603-ross-pg125.jpg

Do we believe someone who says that there is no evidence that 100 octane fuel was used because a set of Pilot's Notes don't show the relevant operating limits, or do we believe the pilots who used 100 Octane in combat. Your choice...

BTW: The forms issued for each aircraft were form 700s which were used by the ground crews during the daily maintenance checks conducted on each aircraft by the ground crews - these forms were signed by the various ground crew specialists, then countersigned by whatever pilot next flew the aircraft. Form 700