Spit Mk1A climbrate

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Lol only Kurfurst would compare 1944 8th AF fuel consumption with the later and more thirsty planes to a 1940 RAF comsumption with Spits/Hurris

Insane spring to mind?

Desperation Kev.

[Kev367th]

Opps wrong thread.

but thanks , yup desperation.

[Furball]

Kurfurst, do you even play this game?

[Kev367th]

No, he just goes around the various online flightsim games BB's trying to convince them to add LW birds that existed in such small numbers they were insignificant, and at the same time trashing anything Spit related.

As I have said, his data is usually quite sound, unfortuneately it's the way he uses the data that is the problem.
i.e. comparing 1944 8th fuel usage to show the RAF couldn't of had enough 100 octane fuel for 1940 Spit/Hurris.

Despite the fact there was more than enough 100 octane fuel to support the 4000 on average sorties per week flown by the RAF during the BoB.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Lord Haw Haw
No, I said Wood and Dempster said 22,000 used, I didn't say they gave the figure for how many sorties. English isn't your first languauge so I'll forgive you for this.

[/B]

So you say something, then in the next post you deny you said it...

Originally posted by Lord Haw Haw

How much fuel did a Mustang or Thunderbolt carry compared to a Spitfire I or Hurricane I? And that ignores the numbers.

FC had about 600 - 700 fighters operational, the 8th would fly far more sorties than that in a day, sometimes that many on a single raid.

Originally posted by Lord Haw Haw



You made a mistake and just proven my point.

You say the FC had 6-700 fighters operational.
We know the FC`s Spitfires consumed 12 000 tons of fuel in one month, yet you tell us 22 000 tons was enough for 4 months...

When the Spitfire and Hurricanes carry less than a quarter as much fuel, and there are far fewer of them, why not? .

[/B]

You are telling us a FC Spitfire carries 4 times as much fuel as a FC Spitfire ? That`s silly. A Spit would carry 85 gallons, in 1940 or 1944.





Right. That probably fits with the average of 2,500 tons a month for the whole of 1940, consumption would have increased towards the end of the year because of the gradual switch over throughout the RAF.



Well all, or almost all, I think.

Originally posted by Lord Haw Haw

Slight logical flaw here. You are ASSuming 6250 tons a week in November 1940 was just for Fighter Command. Do you have any evidence to support that? The report certainly doesn't say it.

[/B]

Originally posted by Lord Haw Haw
Of course, the more likely conclusion is that Fighter Command was burning about 1 - 2,000 tons a week, and the rest of the RAF, as well as the aircraft and engine makers, were burning the rest.

[/B]

Which is pure specualtion of course, and you have no evidence

You only made up th

Originally posted by Lord Haw Haw
Do the records show that? I don't think Pips has ever provided them, has he?

[/B]

Well I don`t think Neil Stirling has ever provided anything than his own claims in his own post,

Originally posted by Lord Haw Haw

I suspect the records show 25% of the RAF burning 100 octane, not 25% of fighter command.

[/B]

Well you a welcome to prove that

Let`s start of fuel consumption of 87 and 100 octane fuel by Fighter command.

Originally posted by Lord Haw Haw
The problem with this is the Wood and Dempster figure. If 22,000 tons for fighter command was only powering a third of their sorties for the period, then you get about 220,000 FC sorties in 13 weeks during the BoB, or about 17,000 a week.

[/B]

According to whom... you?

No, to summarize an Australian claims that an Australian report says that.  .

[/B]

An Australian report that is a copy of a British report.

Against this, a Brit, known for his wishful thinking when it comes to RAF clearances and use of high grade fuel, Neil Stirling says it was in widespread use, but cannot show anything.

British reports say an average of 2,500 tons used a week, 500,000 tons in stock by November 1940, 22,000 tons used by FC in 13 weeks, enough for 1.5 times the number of operational sorties they actually flew..

[/B]

Show me these 'British reports'....

Wood and Dempster specifically say fuel for Fighter Command, the November report is for all British consumption.

[/B]

The, the November report says only Fighter Command, and now you are making up things.

The RAF had other commands in 1940, bombers, transports, coastal, etc, plus industry always used some for engine testing etc..

[/B]

None of them used 100 octane fuel, of course.

Well, Isegrim, Neil has shown fuel stocks, and fuel consumption, for 1940. Mike has shown usage in 18 Spitfire squadrons during the BoB..

[/B]

Well if Neil Stirling showed fuel stock and fuel consumption, neither in connection with Fighter Command or proving anything.. they are just numbers without a context.

Mike Williams claims all and every Spitfire that ever met a 109 had 100 octane fuel on his site. He has absolutely nothing to prove it.

He of course, showed anecdotes about the use of 100 octane fuel in 18 Squadrons - out over 50 Sqns that saw action during BoB....

These anecdotes again, coming from the entire duration of the battle, and there are trangely only a few from July and August, and most of them from September and October, which again show the fuel was gradually introduced, and did not see widespread use until the end of the Battle.

And of course Williams makes a lot of other nonsense claims about DB 601N powered 109s only appearing in the end of the Battle, lies, just like his other claims. Why should I trust a known liar?

You have reposted a precis from an Australian, that hasn't been backed up by any original documents..

[/B]

OTOH you have reposted a precis from an Brit, that hasn't been backed up by any original documents.

What documents? Don't you mean Pips interpretation of some documents? He hasn't actually quoted anything, just given his interpretation. And so far he still hasn't backed it up..

[/B]

Well where are the documents about the widespread use of 100 octane?

Strangely, when I ask Neil Stirling about the use of 100 octane fuel in Bob, he suddenly disappears... what does that tell you.

[Angus]

Uhmmmm, this:
"Now this guys claims Wood and Dampster says 22 000 tons would be enough for 6000 sorties a week - bullocks as WandD notes 22000 tons being used up"
22.000 tons /cubic?) are actually enough for some 65.000 full Spitfire tanks (85 gals)
Anyway, some 85 gals were the norm, except in cases like the Mk VIII, and in 1940 & 1941 that was enough for some 2 hrs in the air.

We have had plenty of documents stating that 100 oct was practically the norm in the BoB, so perhaps our climb performance should be adjusted to that.
Rather bad maybe, for the only thing the 109E can than do better is bunting
But the airscrew is of course as vital, - that however AFAIK seems to have been mostly up to 3-blade CS by 1940 summer.
Now to the original topic.
I will dig up and post a climb comparison betwen some spit I's and 109E-3 calculated in Newtons, - the Spitfire running on 87.
This was calculated to estimate the effectiveness of the wing, and it clears some issues there, for the power outputs are almost the same. Total created lift however differs quite a bit.
So, hold yer breath

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
We have had plenty of documents stating that 100 oct was practically the norm in the BoB, so perhaps our climb performance should be adjusted to that.

Well if you have plenty of evidence Angus, please post it, for we are lacking evidence in this thread.

Say, the amount of 87 vs. 100 octane fuel consumed by FC during to battle would be a good start.

Otherwise, the 100 octane was norm statements looks like wishful thinking...

[Angus]

Won't bother, leave it to other, for it's scattered all over the forum, and MOI is too BZY becoming rich and famous and all that to chase down stuff for you, which I belive, Milo has posted several times

[Angus]

Ok, here comes more.
Spit I, 1939, 87, Merlin III, Rotol CS.
Climb to 10K in 3.5 mins and to 20K in 7.7
That gives respectively 2372464286N/sec to 10 K and 2156785714N/sec to 20K
Move to the Merlin XII and with a weightier aircraft, 100 oct+rotol, you go to 3.35 to 10K, and straight 7 to 20K
I belive these are 1939 figures (will someone check?) so there already seem to be some stock of 100 grade fuel.
That gives respectively 2528677612 N/sec to 10K and 2420305714 N/sec to 20K
NOTE! These are rather good Spitties, the 2 bladed ones are vastly worse.

A nice little 109 I found gave 3.7 and 8 minutes to 10 and 20K running on 87 octs,
Over to Newtons/sec, we have 2179307432 and 2015859375.
So, with almost exactly the same HP, a Spit I once it has the rotol CREATES some 5-8% more lift than it's contemporary with what most clame to be about the same power. Interesting.
(BTW, a 109E-3, 1940, weight 5875 lbs, rated at 1050 hp)

AFAIK the 100 grade was not used by the BEF in France, but entered early in the BoB.
Anyway, the 3-bladed propeller changed more in the climb rate than the conversion to 100 octs.
So, with both, you are looking into the second number which gives created lift with more than 15% between the contemporaries.
But the Spitfire is heavier, - actual time difference to alt is some 4% and 12%.

So, that was Spitties climb rate to 10K and 20K with 87 oct and 100 oct on CS.
Always on the hunt for Emil tests though.

[Wotan]

Angus you always post unsourced fairy tales filled with 'I think', I heard' and 'AFAIK'. No one take those posts seriously.

On topic,

I don't care what boost the Spit Ia used as standard in BoB but I will point out that  just pouring high octane fuel into a tank doesn't necessarily mean you will see any significant performance gains. Things like compression, adjustment in timing etc. are necessary to take advantage of the higher octane fuel.

Just because you can show xxx amount of fuel in stock it doesn't necessarily mean that  every Spit was flying around on 'magic juice'.

Outside the claims of 'stockpiles of 100 octane fuel' does any one have anything more substantial to show that 100 octane was used by:

18 Spitfire squadrons during the BoB.

 

Rather then 'MW said so'...

Forget the 'fuzzy' leap o'faith math...

Furball,

Kurfurst, do you even play this game?

How many people posting in this thread do you think 'play AH?' No that it matters since this forum is a open discussion forum about Aircraft and Vehicles.

[Furball]

Originally posted by Wotan
How many people posting in this thread do you think 'play AH?' No that it matters since this forum is a open discussion forum about Aircraft and Vehicles.

I'm just asking... by the way he speaks it sounds like he plays the game.  I dont recognise the name on here, so i asked him.  Is that ok? or would you like me to edit it, sir?

[Angus]

Wotan, all numbers posted are from the fourthfightergroup site.
Just can't find the link for it on the computer I am on.
The test numbers are absolute, so are the calculations.
And many people take that seriously, but alas there are always some that find some absoluteness rather uncomfortable.
When I say "I think" I rather feel good about it, because if I have to look it up, I find out I am usually right.
Much better than posting with a doubt and not saying it if you see what I mean.
Or posting with a religious agenda, tsk tsk.
Now, to a closed mind:
"I don't care what boost the Spit Ia used as standard in BoB but I will point out that just pouring high octane fuel into a tank doesn't necessarily mean you will see any significant performance gains. Things like compression, adjustment in timing etc. are necessary to take advantage of the higher octane fuel. "
So, why bother pouring stronger fuel into a tank?
Please scroll up and look at the numbers I posted.
And if you have "magic juice" (which might be no use anyway as you put it) why not use it?
Bear in mind that RR had a long experience with extreme boosting since the raceplane-days, and already pumped out 2000 hp+ in a production line Spit I in 1939, just for the test.

I think

[Wotan]

Originally posted by Furball
I'm just asking... by the way he speaks it sounds like he plays the game.  I dont recognise the name on here, so i asked him.  Is that ok? or would you like me to edit it, sir?

I don't care what you 'ask' and didn't say as much. I simply asked why does it matter? More importantly what bearing does have on the discussion at hand?

Folks don't 'just' do anything there is always a reason...

Wotan, all numbers posted are from the fourthfightergroup site.

That is MW's site and it does not prove what you claim it does... it may make a case on the availability of 100 octane fuel but so what..?

So, why bother pouring stronger fuel into a tank?

I don't think you understand the point. The simple act of pouring a 100 octane fuel into a Spits tank won't necessarily mean much in terms of added performance.

It may actually hurt performance.

Just like you couldn't just 'pour C3' into a 109K and run at 1.98 ata I doubt seriously you just pour 100 octane in a Spit Ia and off you go...

Things dont work that way. There would have needed to been some adjustment made to take advantage of high octane fuel.

[justin_g]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg

[Angus]

Now, Wotan, you're just getting silly.
Firstly, see the above document from Justin.
Secondly this:
"That is MW's site and it does not prove what you claim it does"

You should be perfectly aware that MW's site usually offers a link to the scans of the original documents.
You can of course sit put and say nonono untill someone posts the scans directly, - then what are you going to say?

Of course there were some modifications being done to get the most out of the 100 oct fuel, as your car will also need to be set for 95 or 98 (although I've ran some on aviation fuel without probs, hehe)  and as you can see from my data from MW's data with my calculations BTW, the usage of another merlin with 100 oct instead of 87 increased the climb rate by a handsome margin.
The CS to a 2-blade did more though.
And again, running on very strong juices was no novelty to RR.