Beating a Dead Sea Mammal: How can a non-ASB Operation Sea Lion thread be created?

Why train pilots on fuel rate flow? If you LOOK at pilot training manuals, this is standard information for type of plane. Gallons or liters as the measurement unit, the pilot, as part of his fuel management, has to know flow rates in liters or gallons per minutes: at cruise, at full, at over-boost (variously called war-emergency or military power) and know the crucial flow differences at the various altitude bands, if he was a WALLIE or the different auto flow settings if he was a German. This is an essential (as in a matter of life and death) part of pilot training. The fuel gauges whether by weight gauge (spring) or volume (dipstick) gave an approximate measurement of amount of fuel available. Most car drivers never think of it, because their fuel gauge is fractionated in quarters and if they run out of gas they walk, but a pilot has to KNOW within 10% about how much fuel he has onboard for time of use. (There are also plane trim issues as tanks empty, but here we are discussing time aloft and how it is measured.)
Yes you're kind of stating the obvious there but what you're also doing is contradicting yourself. You've gone from "Time is the ONLY criteria" to a case of the pilot knowing fuel consumption figures and how much fuel he has onboard and estimating how much time he has left in the air. Without the knowledge of fuel consumption the pilot can not know how long he has left in the air.

Read again what I said...

"Basically your calculations are based on miles per minute, mine on miles per gallon. That’s not to say either method is wrong, just that we have different views on what is important."
 
Then why not accept the obvious? And there is no contradiction in anything I said about time. Fuel flow is a time differential function AND IT IS VARIABLE. In simple English, the rate of fuel flow in an aero engine determines time of powered flight in a heavier than air vehicle that operates by Bernoulli effect (lift due to pressure differential of air flow). And that flow can vary from moment to moment depending on outside conditions, sometimes as the pilot adjusts the mix ratio, or sometimes upon where the plane is (altitude, wet or dry air, climb or dive). VARIABLE. Do you not understand the direct link between TIME OF FLIGHT and variable fuel flow? Just asking.^1

^1 Why do I get that feeling?
 
Last edited:
^1 Why do I get that feeling?

Maybe because experience teaches Ian Hathaway as being unwilling to concede the point just as he still maintains that the Luftwaffe had "effective" air superiority over the Channel despite the Kriegsmarine finding their operations were being compromised by RAF activity?

Also because the fine parsing of the range of the Bf 109 operating as an escort is only part of the story. Among the other parts are that the partially in retreat 11 Group has concentrated its own remaining strength in its northern sectors while denying the Luftwaffe the ability to operate with its own full fighter force as those northern sectors are out of range of a majority of Bf 109 airfields and in addition has more warning time (or rather now is only defending those bases for which it has more warning time) against attack.

This would then open the question would the Luftwaffe be sufficiently confident to divert a portion of its offensive strength to suppressing other RAF Commands and the Royal Navy's South Coast bases and could it do so in time to make Sea Lion a viable proposition? Of course that then merely opens the door to further questions but the point of considering the withdrawal option is that it does open the door to the Luftwaffe attempting the second stage of actual Sea Lion support ops, something which in OTL it failed to do.
 
Then why not accept the obvious? And there is no contradiction in anything I said about time. Fuel flow is a time differential function AND IT IS VARIABLE. In simple English, the rate of fuel flow in an aero engine determines time of powered flight in a heavier than air vehicle that operates by Bernoulli effect (lift due to pressure differential of air flow). And that flow can vary from moment to moment depending on outside conditions, sometimes as the pilot adjusts the mix ratio, or sometimes upon where the plane is (altitude, wet or dry air, climb or dive). VARIABLE. Do you not understand the direct link between TIME OF FLIGHT and variable fuel flow? Just asking.^1

^1 Why do I get that feeling?

What I think you're saying:

The pilot tracks:
current stock of fuel
current consumption rate
distance from safe landing zone

and estimates:
remaining flight time
remaining range

to determine when he needs to head for home.
 
Maybe because experience teaches Ian Hathaway as being unwilling to concede the point just as he still maintains that the Luftwaffe had "effective" air superiority over the Channel despite the Kriegsmarine finding their operations were being compromised by RAF activity?

Also because the fine parsing of the range of the Bf 109 operating as an escort is only part of the story. Among the other parts are that the partially in retreat 11 Group has concentrated its own remaining strength in its northern sectors while denying the Luftwaffe the ability to operate with its own full fighter force as those northern sectors are out of range of a majority of Bf 109 airfields and in addition has more warning time (or rather now is only defending those bases for which it has more warning time) against attack.

This would then open the question would the Luftwaffe be sufficiently confident to divert a portion of its offensive strength to suppressing other RAF Commands and the Royal Navy's South Coast bases and could it do so in time to make Sea Lion a viable proposition? Of course that then merely opens the door to further questions but the point of considering the withdrawal option is that it does open the door to the Luftwaffe attempting the second stage of actual Sea Lion support ops, something which in OTL it failed to do.

But dagnabit, that ignores shuttle-basing forward to rear or sideways as the battle tempo dictated. (which the RAF did.).
 
What I think you're saying:

The pilot tracks:
current stock of fuel
current consumption rate
distance from safe landing zone

and estimates:
remaining flight time
remaining range

to determine when he needs to head for home.

A bit. He does it all in his head, much as a driver on a long distance trip (Arizona say) looks at his fuel gauge, sees half empty, and estimates how many miles to the next gas station (150 miles by the road sign) and how much driving time to get there. If it is a long way and he figures he will be cutting it close, he cuts speed to reduce fuel flow rate and stretch his "range". He also knows about how much time it will buy him. 70 mph he has 2 hours of drive time and he walks for 10 miles. 50 mph, he has 3 hours and reaches the pump on fumes.
 
But dagnabit, that ignores shuttle-basing forward to rear or sideways as the battle tempo dictated. (which the RAF did.).

Well the essential problem is the Luftwaffe must have reduced Fighter Command or at least 11 Group sufficiently it can do other things by the 16th September or thereabout or else Sea Lion is likely to be closed for the winter season.
 
Maybe because experience teaches Ian Hathaway as being unwilling to concede the point just as he still maintains that the Luftwaffe had "effective" air superiority over the Channel despite the Kriegsmarine finding their operations were being compromised by RAF activity?

FYI, out of curiousity I checked with a pilot (6,000 hr single engine) last week. He said that if flying the ME-109 for maximum range, (ie, not tied to escort or otherwise flying inefficiently) about the absolute maximum combat radius would be around 140 miles. So, if anything, Ian is being a little bit conservative.
 
Bedford, UK to Calais, France = 275km (171 miles.) Why? 20 minutes north of the Thames by air. (^^^^) about 70 miles from London or 113 km.

140 x 3 = 420 miles (book range is 410). So... 10 miles pad additional to the stated book range. Still no RTB (~2 minutes added?). It means essentially nothing as far as previous time calculations are concerned.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Bedford. near RAF Henlow

416A22A5_5056_A318_A85ADA9D80205FC5.jpg
 
Last edited:

Onlooker

Banned
I don't understand the obsession for larger German navy. Aircraft were proven to be kings of naval warfare in WW2. Sufficiently large luftwaffe could keep the channel open for essentially free landing and resupply of troops indefinitely, or cause unsustainable casualties to the RN if it interferes, which it would.
 
I don't understand the obsession for larger German navy. Aircraft were proven to be kings of naval warfare in WW2. Sufficiently large luftwaffe could keep the channel open for essentially free landing and resupply of troops indefinitely, or cause unsustainable casualties to the RN if it interferes, which it would.

Planes cannot stay on station.
 

Onlooker

Banned
Planes cannot stay on station.

Distances involved are lesser than many of carrier battles of pacific. Keeping land based aircraft on ready for deployment would be beyond easy and could be deployed in numbers that dwarf any of the battles of the pacific. Ships at 30kt cant aproach the area and be gone, or even aproach, change their mind and leave unharrassed.

That would however require planing for such type of combat from before the war, including development of Torpedo bombers and proper torpedos for such combat as well as better dive bombers.
 
Distances involved are lesser than many of carrier battles of pacific. Keeping land based aircraft on ready for deployment would be beyond easy and could be deployed in numbers that dwarf any of the battles of the pacific. Ships at 30kt cant aproach the area and be gone, or even aproach, change their mind and leave unharrassed.

That would however require planing for such type of combat from before the war, including development of Torpedo bombers and proper torpedos for such combat as well as better dive bombers.

The Germans sneaked in several tens of thousands of men across the Med through air and sea into Tunisia at the close of the North Africa campaign. What happened to them? Captured because the RN was able to prevent evacuation by sea. Now the British at Dunkirk and the Germans at Messina were able to evacuate through contested air space by sea, because airpower does not have the ability to stop transit on the water. For THAT, you need ships which were not present to stop those evacuations by sea. Those ships if present can float there for weeks and blockade continuously. Airplanes cannot stay on station more than their flight time allows. We've gone through ten pages (^^^^) explaining this simple fact about TIME.
 
Last edited:
Top