The 500 unit’s accounts for roughly half of the existing airframes of Hurricanes and Spitfires the RAF has on hand in June/July 1940. New production delivered in August most likely came off the production line with the modification of the 2 speed DH propeller to CSP.

I would have expected the Spitfires to get priority on the new props and weren't most RAF fighters Hurricanes?
Roughly half of the existing airframes is more than the number of Spits at the time wasn't it? You wouldn't
happen to have numbers existing even if you don't numbers converted by any date? Were there 600 or so RAF
fighters total at the start?

Notice how Kurfurst has changed his tune when confronted with the facts.

The cropped document he produced earlier he used to claim most 109's had auto pitch, implying only the first aircraft built in 1938 were not equipped.

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

They did have automatic prop pitch, already at the start of the war, but it would appear that not all Emils got them - I presume the first production models (nota bene, Emils entereted production at the end of 1938).

When confronted with the fact that a 109 built in mid '39 doesn't have one, he backtracks and suggests the device was introduced in Nov/Dec. '39.

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
early production aircraft which did not yet have the automatic propeller pitch device (which appears to have been introduced in around November - December 1939

When he is faced with the issue of the pilot accounts from 1940, of flying with manual pitch, he backtracks further.

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
we can certainly say that I./JG 52 and II./JG 53 had planes from probably still an earlier batch, that were not fitted with the new device for some time.

In fact, he has to resort to the example of a captured 109E4 example to actually provide proof that 109E's were equipped with auto pitch.

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Bf 109E-4/B WNr. 4101 (appearantly it was a rebuild from an older E-3, and before that, an E-1), originally built by Erla in 1939 as an E-1

And anyone following the discussion will notice he has STILL not posted the complete document from where he produced the cropped and edited page on which he based his original claim...

I doubt we'll see it.

Salute

Crummp you seem to be having a problem in reading exactly what is written.

The actual maintenance technicians report the work having been done, it is only the paper pushers who are raising an issue, since they didn't get the proper forms issued to them.

Further proof is in this document, which notes that all conversions were scheduled to be done by September '40, and also reveals the answer to the question as to when the Hurricane two pitch models were converted:



Hurricanes were given 2nd priority in conversion to constant speed propellors behind the Spitfires.

Note the reference to all Spitfires being finished by September, and also note that Spitfire Squadrons based in Kent and Wessex would be converted first, the Squadrons based in Northern England, Northern Ireland and other low combat areas were the last to be converted in September.

Note also, that CSP equipped Hurricane 1B's were being supplied in priority to front line Squadrons, and two pitch models were removed to low combat areas.

The first CSP Hurricanes were in combat as early as April of 1940 in France:



Material supplied courtesy WWII Aircraft Performance site:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

quote:

Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Notice how Kurfurst has changed his tune when confronted with the facts.

Nobody backtracks from anything, I am stating the same all along the way, while you are using pathethic strawman arguements, and try some sort of lousy trick to force me into posting the whole manual so you could have it. Its so transparent that I am actually embarrassed instead of you...

Tell you what, if only you have asked it nicely, you'd already have it. This way, on the other hand, you only further established yourself as a hapless fool.

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Tell you what, if only you have asked it nicely, you'd already have it. This way, on the other hand, you only further established yourself as a hapless fool.

Could I have the manual please, Kurfurst? Pretty please? I can only find a (presumably) earlier one, and the only page that seems to be scanned from the original is the front cover. Is the manual you are quoting from scanned from the original document?

Seems to me that adoption of a CSP was pretty much the same for both the RAF and Luftwaffe. The RAF converting from dual pitch propellers at the same time the Luftwaffe converted from variable pitch propellers.

The RAF converted much later than I originally thought.

All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

...you are using pathethic strawman arguements, and try some sort of lousy trick to force me into posting the whole manual so you could have it.

Now why would anyone want to restrict other's access to original documents?

Why wouldn't that person post them so they are all public and open for all to see?

Very strange. Unless that person is more interested in controlling access to the facts.

If anyone goes to the WWII Aircraft site, they will see original documents, unedited posted to support the text:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

This contrasts with Kurfurst's site, where only documents which have already been posted at other sites in orginal unedited form are made available:

http://www.kurfurst.org/

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Buzzsaw-,

quote:

The cropped document he produced earlier he used to claim most 109's had auto pitch,

I don't understand what your issue is buzzsaw. It is a fact the VDM propeller for the Bf-109E was the standard hydraulic-electric CSP produced and patented by VDM.

All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

Originally posted by TheGrunch:
Could I have the manual please, Kurfurst? Pretty please? I can only find a (presumably) earlier one, and the only page that seems to be scanned from the original is the front cover. Is the manual you are quoting from scanned from the original document?

Drop me an email at kurfurst@atw.hu ! Its from the complete short manual for E-1 and E-3, sent over to me by a friend long time ago.

quote:

Now why would anyone want to restrict other's access to original documents?

Because your behavior precludes you from participating in any serious discussion and causes you to be ignored as I will continue to do after this reply.

You are impossible to take seriously, buzzsaw.

Go back and read the documents you posted. You can't follow a conversation and in fact just confirmed what M_Gunz and I were discussing.

Your memo about the Hurricane confirms the RAF position that the CSP upgrade was NOT completed in July but in fact took much longer than DH claims. The document confirms that work cannot start any earlier than middle September 1940 and they estimate they can possibly finish in the Autumn. It says absolutely nothing about the work is completed.

It talks about the rotol CSP as being standard too. The rotol CSP does not represent a performance increase over the 2 speed propellers according to the RAF. The RAF was not happy with its delivered performance which is why the DH propeller was sought after to replace it.

All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
In fact, he has to resort to the example of a captured 109E4 example to actually provide proof that 109E's were equipped with auto pitch.

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Bf 109E-4/B WNr. 4101 (appearantly it was a rebuild from an older E-3, and before that, an E-1), originally built by Erla in 1939 as an E-1

And anyone following the discussion will notice he has STILL not posted the complete document from where he produced the cropped and edited page on which he based his original claim...

I doubt we'll see it.

If I followed that part of the discussion then I remember that he was pointing out just what 109 someone else's British
report was about. You know, that report that told of the captured 109 having no auto-prop that somehow proves the 109's
in the BoB that did not have auto-prop.
All that Kurfurst did was to show the so-called proof invalid, he didn't originate it nor did he choose the report.

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

quote:

Now why would anyone want to restrict other's access to original documents?

Because your behavior precludes you from participating in any serious discussion and causes you to be ignored as I will continue to do after this reply.

You are impossible to take seriously, buzzsaw.

Go back and read the documents you posted. You can't follow a conversation and in fact just confirmed what M_Gunz and I were discussing.

Your memo about the Hurricane confirms the RAF position that the CSP upgrade was NOT completed in July but in fact took much longer than DH claims. The document confirms that work cannot start any earlier than middle September 1940 and they estimate they can possibly finish in the Autumn. It says absolutely nothing about the work is completed.

It talks about the rotol CSP as being standard too. The rotol CSP does not represent a performance increase over the 2 speed propellers according to the RAF. The RAF was not happy with its delivered performance which is why the DH propeller was sought after to replace it.

All the best,

Crumpp

Once again Crumpp imposes a 'Ban' on those who make a point that causes him to look foolish.

Actually Crumpp you are the one who can't follow a discussion. I have already posted documents which clearly show the Spitfire had far superior climb performance with the Rotol CSP prop, your claim to the contrary not withstanding. (go back and re-read the thread) So your claim that is shows no improvement is clearly incorrect.

Regarding the adhoc de Havilland mods, which were done without formal paperwork authorization from the RAF, they are just another example of the conversions from two pitch to CSP which took place in the emergency enviroment which was a fact in June of 1940. The fact that you can't read the documents you posted yourself is a clear indication of a tendency which has been noted by others. That being a refusal to acknowledge anything which might contradict your imagined infallability.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Buzzsaw-,

quote:

You are impossible to take seriously, buzzsaw.

That's just what I've been saying for years.