Mr Douglas spends a considerable amount of his time and money on research for books, one of which I have bought.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Mr Douglas spends a considerable amount of his time and money on research for books, one of which I have bought.Calum, it's clear you don't want to share any information. But why don't you go parasite another thread?
I could play the contempt game too, hitting masters-degree-of-not-disclosed-university-which-happens-to-be-deep-in-the-UK-ranking-and-let's-talk-about-global-rankings and never-been-employed-in-a-large-company-because-lacking-basic-social-skills. But would that help me understand anything about 100-octane?
Please learn the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. In the fields he is expert in Mr Douglas is without doubt the most informed researcher here and his contributions reflect that. However his living is made from his expertise and research, he has no obligation to anyone to hand it all over on a message board forum, just because you want to save a lot of time and money. You just invented your "rules" because you want free stuff, so be careful with the word "parasite".If such is the case, let me correct the wording. "Not abiding by the commonly accepted rules of research in hard or social sciences" may be more accurate, doesn't it?
Thanks for the rule of holes, I will abide to it.Please learn the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. In the fields he is expert in Mr Douglas is without doubt the most informed researcher here and his contributions reflect that. However his living is made from his expertise and research, he has no obligation to anyone to hand it all over on a message board forum, just because you want to save a lot of time and money.
Keep digging.Thanks for the rule of holes, I will abide to it.
I can't imagine Mr Douglas to have any "obligation", I merely pointed that a document whose exact source is withheld usually signals a problem, and that not citing sources is not the standard way research works. Please confirm that saying so is not trespassing rules of the forum (if so, won't do it again).
Discussing with experts on this board is certainly a way to "save a lot of time". It's the whole purpose of discussing with experts, actually: being more relevant, saving time. Is that wrong...?
The exact source of the document is Bentley Priory, stated at the top.Thanks for the rule of holes, I will abide to it.
I can't imagine Mr Douglas to have any "obligation", I merely pointed that a document whose exact source is withheld usually signals a problem, and that not citing sources is not the standard way research works. Please confirm that saying so is not trespassing rules of the forum (if so, won't do it again).
Discussing with experts on this board is certainly a way to "save a lot of time". It's the whole purpose of discussing with experts, actually: being more relevant, saving time. Is that wrong...?
You confuse me for someone else. This may explain why your behavior is so defensive. The site administror(s) know from my IP I don't have another account. Besides, I'm sure I make EFL grammar mistakes that others don't. You are not such a Sherlock Holmes after all. But it seems you routinely trigger fights with fellow members of this site...PS> Is this you back again under a new name, AGAIN, Xylstra, or are there really two separate people alive this full of angry nonsense-waffle ?
Thanks for putting together this long post. The mass of data as well as its diversity leaves no doubt about 100-octane fueling the RAF during the battle of France.RAF use of 100 octane during the Battle of Britain is well sorted. Less well widely known and understood is RAF use of 100 octane during the Battle of France. Published accounts during the war show the use of 100 octane and its benefits prior to and during the battle of France. Maybe this was forgotten in subsequent generations or the writings about the BoB just eclipsed those of the Battle of France?
If you believe that the introduction of 100 Octane resulted in marginal and even pointless effects on performance then the whole thread has been pointless.Thanks for putting together this long post. The mass of data as well as its diversity leaves no doubt about 100-octane fueling the RAF during the battle of France.
Since the article from G.Bailey concludes that 100-octane had a marginal (and perhaps insignificant) effect on A/C performance, I still feel the issue of knowing what proportion of RAF squadrons actually used 100-octane to be quite pointless, even though that was the question starting this thread.
That's were I stand now, correct. There does not seem to be more recent litterature about 100-octane than Bailey's 2008 article, so I'll stick to his conclusions.If you believe that the introduction of 100 Octane resulted in marginal and even pointless effects on performance then the whole thread has been pointless.
You dont need anything more than a graph showing the power and performance differences, which you have been shown. The statement is as wrong in 2008 as it was in 1940, such a statement also treats those people long since dead as fools, which they quite obviously werent. Obtaining more power via higher octane fuels and the boost pressures that they allowed was one of the technological competitions during the war.That's were I stand now, correct. There does not seem to be more recent litterature about 100-octane than Bailey's 2008 article, so I'll stick to his conclusions.
But also learned quite a few things on related topics, like 100-octane during battle of France.
30 m.p.h. increase isn't bad as per F/Lt I. R. Gleed, of 87 Squadron flying a Hurricane in France on 19 May 1940 and recorded in his book published in 1942 - Arise to Conquer, (Random House, New York 1942) p. 61 :You dont need anything more than a graph showing the power and performance differences, which you have been shown. The statement is as wrong in 2008 as it was in 1940, such a statement also treats those people long since dead as fools, which they quite obviously werent. Obtaining more power via higher octane fuels and the boost pressures that they allowed was one of the technological competitions during the war.
You dont need anything more than a graph showing the power and performance differences, which you have been shown. The statement is as wrong in 2008 as it was in 1940, such a statement also treats those people long since dead as fools, which they quite obviously werent. Obtaining more power via higher octane fuels and the boost pressures that they allowed was one of the technological competitions during the war.
Now
"The performance benefit afforded by 100-octane fuel was only significant at maximum engine power settings at low altitudes for short periods of time, such as providing a decreased length of take off run."
I am not sure that using increased boost for take-off was ever done with the early Merlin engines, regardless of fuel used.
Blenheims with Mercury engines did it. They often filled the inner tanks with 87 octane fuel and the outer tanks with 100 octane fuel for take-off and climb out and then switching to the inner tanks for cruise. Sometimes they shifted back to the outer tanks (100 octane) if they thought combat was imminent. 100 octane did nothing for cruise.
The plugs are specific to the fuel type. However, if you look through encounter reports, squadron diaries, pilot memoirs, etc, if 87 octane fuel was in widespread use by combat units, you would find pilots stating that their low altitude performance was suffering because they were forced to use 87 octane fuel, which deprived the Merlin III of nearly 300hp at 10K ft. Do you really think that a combat pilot, knowing that 100 octane fuel is being used elsewhere in FC, would silently endure that loss of performance, for no good reason?By the way, 100 octane requires a few twists in the engine, like changing the spark plugs. Once done, is there any issue fueling 87 octane? I believe not, but just asking.
RAF use of 100 octane during the Battle of Britain is well sorted. Less well widely known and understood is RAF use of 100 octane during the Battle of France. Published accounts during the war show the use of 100 octane and its benefits prior to and during the battle of France. Maybe this was forgotten in subsequent generations or the writings about the BoB just eclipsed those of the Battle of France?
Jeffrey Quill, the notable Spitfire test pilot, wrote to the authors on 15 August 1988, in response to an enquiry about the introduction of 100 octane fuel: I think it virtually certain that the Hurricane operated in France on 87 octane because I think it was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane.