SPIT MK I/II and over boost [Archive] - Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

View Full Version : SPIT MK I/II and over boost

jf1981

12-29-2011, 02:49 PM

Hi,

I recently noticed that in the Spit, we can un-lock the throttle and make available higher boost than rated.

- Why does'nt it affect Spit 1 ?
- Why can we run constantly at max boost (2650 rev per sec) without any issue with the engine ?

TX

Continu0

12-29-2011, 03:06 PM

some call it a feature, others a bug.

You have to wait for the next patch and hope it is fixed.

SEE

12-31-2011, 01:55 AM

Boost doesn't function on Mk1 and Mk1a. A few claim it does but I reckon it's a placebo effect. I recall a post where the Boost figure was extracted from the FM and it adds 0.002 sq/in = zilch!

jf1981

12-31-2011, 04:48 PM

Faustnik

12-31-2011, 05:15 PM

The biggest issue in the sim is radiators have no damage effect.

Hopefully that a lot of issues hill be fixed in the patch. :)

41Sqn_Banks

01-01-2012, 08:03 AM

Quote "Another important difference between the Bf109E and the Spitfire Mk.IA lay in the supercharger design. The early Merlin engines were equipped with gear-driven single-speed, single-stage units. The supercharger had to be throttles back at low altitude to avoid over-boosting the engine. As altitude increased, more and more of the supercharger capability was used and engine horsepower continued to increase until critical altitude was reached, after which power fell off rapidly"

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?950-FIGHTER-COMBAT-COMPARISON-Bf109E-3-vs-Spitfire-MkI

This is wrong. Early Spitfire I were equipped with a fixed datum and later Spitfire I were equipped with a variable datum type boost control. Both limited the boost to +6.25 and therefore prevented over-boosting. +6.25 and 2600 PRM is "Climb power" which is allowed for 30 minutes.

Initially the boost control cut-out simply disabled the boost control to allow any boost up to around +17 at low level. Though the use of higher boost than +6.25 was only allowed when 100 octane fuel was used. (This is stated in a 1938 manual btw.!)

In 1940 when 100 octane fuel became available for operational squadrons the boost control cut-out was modified to disable the boost control but still limit the boost to +12 which was then allowed as emergency power for 5 minutes.

Reference: AP 1590B Merlin II and III Aero-Engines (October 1938, reprint October 1939).

Basha

01-01-2012, 10:34 AM

As i have read elsewhere about the "Boost" the game should give Spits 100 octane fuel and 12lbs boost to be historically correct but has n't, will the next patch sort this issue ?

Faustnik

01-01-2012, 05:31 PM

You are claiming that all Spits in 1940 use 100 Octane and 12 lb boost?

Spit boost in COD is not working. What for the patch when check speeds.

fruitbat

01-01-2012, 06:06 PM

You are claiming that all Spits in 1940 use 100 Octane and 12 lb boost?

Show me that the ones in 11 group weren't, during BoB.

I've read plenty of evidence that plenty were, but of course, i can't show that all important document they all were or weren't, which would finally end this debate one way or the other, because it may never existed.

However, it would be just as useful if someone could put up evidence that spits in 11 group weren't using 100 octane fuel during the BoB. Not squadrons that were on rotation out of 11 group, or in squadrons based in other groups.

I haven't seen any of that.

TomcatViP

01-01-2012, 06:57 PM

fruitbat

01-01-2012, 07:06 PM

Oh no ... another year of BS :(

you guys are really pushing us out of any flight Sim.

I don't fly RoF anymore and now shoot CoD only occasionally as there is no interest to fight those floating Spit MkIIa.

Great spirit!

Blah blah blah.

Its a fact that plenty of spits and hurris were running around on 12lbs boost.

Just as its pretty apparent that the 109's are under modelled and nerfed too.

What most people want, myself included is the sim to be accurate on both sides, something its not at the moment for either.

TomcatViP

01-01-2012, 07:23 PM

A fact ? Really ? lol

And concerning the 109 learn your eng syllabus you'll see that you can do nearly all of what is in the book.

But I am not the kind of guys that think that cruising at max speed is absolutely essential in any serious sim ;).

Faustnik

01-01-2012, 07:42 PM

Faustnik

01-01-2012, 07:55 PM

fruitbat

01-01-2012, 07:55 PM

Fruit bat,

The BoB was several months of improvements with the Merlins. Better engines and better fuel. To say that 1940s Spits used 12 boosts is good look at history.

CoDs Spits boosts are just wrong. I spend a lot of time in the Spit in ATAT online and the Spits are faster then the 109s at low Altitudes. Spits can outrun and dogfight the 109s but, they are very difficult to kill then.

Again, hopefully the patch will fix them.

I'm not saying that all spits used 100 octane, as this is obviously not the case, from the fuel totals used by the RAF for 100 octane and 87 octane during the battle, but with all the pilot accounts and squadron opps reports that relate to usage during BoB, to say that non of them were is also foolish. Its even more foolish to assume that 11 group did not have priority.

As to whether the spit mk11a goes to fast on 100 octane, thats not something that i know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me, It all depends on which particular spit test you choose to use, and what particular configuration it was in equipment etc.... Which leads me to agree that at the moment Spits boost/speeds in combination are wrong at the moment to.

@Tomcat VIP, my German is non existent, so i can only go on the data that people have posted here that seems to show that the 109 is to slow down low, not to mention that non of the planes can reach there ceilings, but i guess thats OK to you.

as to your line,

"But I am not the kind of guys that think that cruising at max speed is absolutely essential in any serious sim"

wow, without your insight, i just don't think i could of managed to fly online for so many years.... Oh wait......

fruitbat

01-01-2012, 08:04 PM

Fruit back,

I'm too slow to right. I like your lost post.

I would like to see with the Spit 1/1a with 9 boost and 87 gas. Spit II with 100 octain and 12 boost. Even better, about 8 Spits for several for 1940 months.

I would like to see a situation when the fuel can be selected between 87 octane and 100 octane for all models and also the different German fuels (B4 and C3 is it?) for 109's by the mission builder, and then limited server side, and performance adjusted from that, but hey ho.

But then i guess if we're dreaming add to that the fact that a spit at the end of the battle was heavier than at the start and therefore slower to, due to all the extras bolted on, bullet proof screen etc...

Faustnik

01-01-2012, 08:28 PM

I've seen some pics of BoB with C3 109s but, I think it was rare.

(I was hurt for a long time and I am trying it post again. Sometimes my post dont make a lot of sense. :rolleyes: )

IvanK

01-01-2012, 09:26 PM

The 109E sitting in the crash scene in the hanger at Duxford was a C3 machine.

fruitbat

01-01-2012, 09:59 PM

(I was hurt for a long time and I am trying it post again. Sometimes my post dont make a lot of sense. :rolleyes: )

I'm sorry too hear that, over the years i've read many posts by you regarding the Fw190 which were essential reading lurking over at Cwos and at ubi, hope things are better,

~S~

41Sqn_Stormcrow

01-01-2012, 10:31 PM

I think we need to apply some common sense here. 100 octane was apparently used but there are serious doubts that it was used in each squadron and each Spit. It seems there is no data available that proofe that all Spits flew with 100 octane fuel.

If - what I personally believe to be likely - there had been Spits that flew with 100 octane fuel and others not it should be obvious that we never can achieve the same mix of variants in the simulation (online at least). So what should be done?

We should think about what is desirable for us as simmers as the whole community. I do not have the answer to that but would like to ask following questions:

- should we implement the 100 octane spit types as default even if it is quite probable that not all had this feature?

- Should we procede then also in the same manner with all the other planes in the game that is to go for the high performance variant of it even if we do not know in which number they've seen action?

- If we had the numbers which should be the threshold to decide that the default plane should be the better performing one?

(I presume that nobody here would really support the application of a certain logic in a one-sided manner that is only go for the highest performance variant for one particular side)

These questions are not rhetoric. I think we should ask ourselves this because I think it would be a fundamental decision that would be taken by the devs.

Al Schlageter

01-01-2012, 11:54 PM

The 109E sitting in the crash scene in the hanger at Duxford was a C3 machine.

C3 109s were scarcer than chickens with teeth.

The following Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons are known to have used 100 octane fuel before or during the BoB:

1, 17, 19, 41, 43, 54, 56, 64, 65, 66, 72, 73, 74, 79, 85, 87, 92, 141, 145, 151, 152, 222, 229, 234, 245, 249, 264, 303, 602, 603, 605, 609, 610, 611, 616

These squadrons were stationed at the following airfields at sometime during the BoB.

11 Group

RAF Biggin Hill

- RAF Gravesend
- RAF West Malling

RAF Debden

- RAF Martlesham Heath

RAF Hornchurch

- RAF Hawkinge
- RAF Manston
- RAF Gravesend
- RAF Rochford

RAF Kenley

- RAF Croydon

RAF Northolt

- RAF Hendon

RAF North Weald

- RAF Martlesham
- RAF Stapleford

RAF Tangmere

- RAF Westhampnett
- RAF Ford - Bristol Blenheim
- RAF Thorney Island - Bristol Blenheim
- Lee on Solent, RN airfield
- Gosport, RN airfield

Not sure which Sector airfield these were assigned to but as all the sector airfields had 100 octane fuel, so these to would need a stock of 100 octane fuel.

RAF Detling
RAF Eastchurch
RAF Lympne

In 10 Group, 5 of the 6 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel.

In 12 Group, 7 of the 8 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel.

In 13 Group, 7 of the 10 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel. Of the 3 that possible didn't have stocks of 100 octane fuel, one was based in the Shetland Is. and the other in the Orkney Is.

Kwiatek

01-02-2012, 09:19 AM

The 109E sitting in the crash scene in the hanger at Duxford was a C3 machine.

It is not version with Db601N engine?

Faustnik

01-02-2012, 05:22 PM

Molders unit used E4/Ns with 96 octane starting 7 September. 96 octane was in "short supply". (JG26 War Diary, Caldwell)

I don't thing that 109s should be used game. Maybe a E4/N or E7 model for late BoB?

More pilots should use Bf109e1. A large percentage of BoB pilots used them.

(Just my opinion)

fruitbat

01-02-2012, 07:18 PM

More pilots should use Bf109e1. A large percentage of BoB pilots used them.

(Just my opinion)

Agreed and oft posted, especially before we actually got the E1.

Needs to be set by mission builders server side more, but you know what online is like, everyone wants the latest/best.

Its why il2 online for so long was Fw190D9's ans 109K4's vs La7's and Spit25lbs.

History is an interesting side note......

Blackdog_kt

01-02-2012, 07:57 PM

The way i would prefer it is to be able to set fuel parameters for the flyables, quite similar to loadouts, and then make the whole lot possible to be enforced by the server.

Regardless of what we choose to fly, giving us the ability to run overboosted power settings in every case is as unrealistic as running a full belt of DeWilde or minen shells and it's one of the rare cases where historically accurate also means better for playability.

It would be really cool if loadouts and type of fuel for each airbase with a spawn point could be enforced server side.

Failing that, we could do with modified copies of the same flyable in a new slot. So for example, we would end up with a 100 octane Spit and an 87 octane spit in the aircraft selection menu, where the 100 oct version would be a mere copy of the 87 oct 3d model with a few numbers altered in the FM files, ie it's not that much work and it also allows the mission designer to limit the amount of high power versions. Similar for the axis side and then we'd be set.

This would also allow people who script dynamic missions to spice things up a bit. For example, if you fail to protect your convoys (RAF) or fuel supply trains (LW), a script could lower the amount of high powered versions simultaneously available based on friendly ground target losses, thus reflecting a shortage of high grade fuel.

I guess we'll see how it's handled once the FM revisions take hold, but either solution i would be ok with. The first method would be slightly preferable for me, because then we might be able to load different grades of fuel in different tanks (just like it was done on the Blenheims for long range sorties, 87 octane in the inner tanks and 100 octane in the outer tanks).

Osprey

01-02-2012, 08:51 PM

You are claiming that all Spits in 1940 use 100 Octane and 12 lb boost?

I claim that only some of the Bf109's had propellers in the BoB. Prove that they all did by showing me evidence that every one of them did.

Faustnik

01-02-2012, 09:02 PM

I claim that only some of the Bf109's had propellers in the BoB. Prove that they all did by showing me evidence that every one of them did.

?

I do not this that all 109 used the same propeller. :confused:

Osprey

01-02-2012, 09:26 PM

I was being sarcastic.

The point is that there are quite a few on here who have an agenda which appears to be based around making it easier for them to score kills online rather than historical accuracy. There is a huge amount of evidence showing that the RAF had and used 100 octane for it's fighter force from May 1940 yet people are still arguing otherwise.
We have a saying in the English speaking World. "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and moves like a duck then it's probably a duck". This means that we have a load of evidence so it's probably true, this isn't a court of law where absolute proof of everything is needed.

IL2 1946 FM was ruined by Luftwaffe drivers attacking the Spitfire FM and bigging up their own FM. I am terribly worried that the same will happen again. Presently, pre-patch, the 109 has HUGE advantages and yet we still hear whining about a handful of Spitfire IIa's online. I dread to think what whining is due to come when the Spitfire become at least equal to the 109 and the 109 DM is implemented - I fear that they may complain so hard they actually spoil history.

Here's a snippet of evidence from the time. Britain was on the brink, do you honestly think we weren't using this fuel to try and win with it?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/100oct-stocks-1940.jpg

Osprey

01-02-2012, 09:41 PM

CaptainDoggles

01-02-2012, 09:42 PM

Faustnik

01-02-2012, 09:49 PM

Osprey,

I think I am wrighting poorly. :(

I am only interested in the history. I am not arguening that Spits and Hurris in BoB used 100 octain and +12 boost. Me question was did all Spits and Hurris use 100 oct. I think that many 87 oct where used early in the battle and more 100 oct were used as the battle progresed.

I will be happy to fly with the work red of blue plane. If I see a Spit that getting short changed I will whine it FM thread.

(What IL-2 Mod are you talking about?)

fruitbat

01-02-2012, 09:52 PM

I don't either tbh. And about 1946 being 'ruined'. This is what I mean:

Check the data on this page for performance.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the Spitfire outperforms the 109 on the graphs. Now take a look at the same aircraft in IL2 compare UP2.01 (maybe there's a later version, I gave it up). You'll see the 109's outperform the IX Spitfires.

I'm not biased toward the RAF, I've been ground down over the years. I want the FM's and DM's to be correct and let the pieces fall where they may. If the same happens again I've already decided to confront it or the whiners will turn a sim into a game and I'll put it in the bin.

To digress,

There is a certain irony about the 109's performance vs Spitfires compared to the Fw190's in il21946. Guess the 109 has more louder whiners!

I presume your familiar with the SpitV and Spit IX tests vs the FW. The acceleration part is most illuminating, i can post if you've never seen it.

I do find it frustrating myself where people focus on red or blue, i want them all to be accurate, even if it does mean such as in 1942 the 190 was leap years ahead of the spit. I want to Simulate the Rl experiences, good or bad, the ebb and flow of development. Not just to fly around in the best plane all the time.

Faustnik

01-02-2012, 09:52 PM

A lot of people think that adding 100 octane fuel instead of 87 octane will magically make their aircraft perform better.

Merlins from 87 oct to 100 oct as small modification?

Osprey

01-02-2012, 09:53 PM

fruitbat

01-02-2012, 09:57 PM

Merlins from 87 oct to 100 oct as small modification?

modifications needed can be found here,

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ap1590b.jpg

Osprey

01-02-2012, 09:59 PM

To digress,

There is a certain irony about the 109's performance vs Spitfires compared to the Fw190's in il21946. Guess the 109 has more louder whiners!

I presume your familiar with the SpitV and Spit IX tests vs the FW. The acceleration part is most illuminating, i can post if you've never seen it.

I do find it frustrating myself where people focus on red or blue, i want them all to be accurate, even if it does mean such as in 1942 the 190 was leap years ahead of the spit. I want to Simulate the Rl experiences, good or bad, the ebb and flow of development. Not just to fly around in the best plane all the time.

Indeed. The acceleration and climb rate difference is remarkable. Having seen the Flugwerk 190 climb @ Duxford with my own eyes, well, that was stunning!
I don't think you got too many whiners on FW though because, frankly, if you follow some simple rules the 190 is a doddle. I flew it in 1946 a lot and found it 'unchallenging' ;)

Blackdog_kt

01-02-2012, 10:51 PM

This is a pretty dumb argument, guys. First of all, higher octane number doesn't actually DO anything unless your engine is boosted high enough. A lot of people think that adding 100 octane fuel instead of 87 octane will magically make their aircraft perform better.

That is false.

But regardless of this fact, in game there should be a spitfire with 100 octane, and a spitfire with 87 octane. There should be 109s with C3 and B4. There should be spits with +9 and +12 lbs boost. etc etc etc.

Then the mission builders can decide what is appropriate.

Exactly. Instead of having constant argumentation on the forums and taking up valuable development time just formalizing the decision, the developer would be better off just giving us the available variants (same 3d model and DM, slightly altered FM, so it shouldn't be a terrible amount of work) and let us decide how to use them while they focus on something else.
This not only saves time in the long run for a small initial time investment on their part, it also makes the sim more accurate and complete.

Then, if i don't like the variants used in a certain server i just fly on a different server, everyone is happy and the avenue of communication to the developer team is decluttered for discussion of other features, etc.

I don't want to fly the best aircraft all the time either, even if it's a good one that i like i will often fly it in a regime where it's at a disadvantage: when i was flying 190s back in IL2 '46 i was mostly taking on high flying 51s and 47s in Antons (instead of Doras), not bouncing Spits that crawled on the deck ;)

I think most people here are like that, they fly not only for the win but for the overall experience and just want an accurate ride, no matter how overpowered or underpowered it was in comparison to its contemporaries. Let's just have the "tools" to recreate air combat scenarios accurately and then each one of us can decide what to with them, instead of one group trying to shoe-horn a different group within their preference limits. Options are always good to have :cool:

CaptainDoggles

01-02-2012, 11:36 PM

I don't understand your argument. You are saying that it doesn't do anything unless the engine is modified to use the higher grade, which it was. So we agree.I don't think we agree. Do you even know what the octane number measures? I'll give you a hint: It's not related to the energy density of the fuel. If you had an engine that was designed for 87 octane and put 100 octane in it instead, nothing would happen. 100 octane fuel does not give you more power or fuel efficiency than 87 octane does.

I bothered with some screenies to show what I meant with 1946 though.What does any of this have to do with 1946? Are you trying to show that the G-2 was overmodeled? Congratulations! Nobody's ever suggested that was the case before!

Please tell me IL2 compare doesn't actually work.Why would I do that? AFAIK you're the only one who's mentioned IL2 compare.

VO101_Tom

01-03-2012, 12:51 AM

I don't understand your argument. You are saying that it doesn't do anything unless the engine is modified to use the higher grade, which it was. So we agree.

I bothered with some screenies to show what I meant with 1946 though.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/JerryFodder/spit9v109gspeed.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/JerryFodder/spit9v109gclimb.jpg

This is what IL2 compare has it at
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/JerryFodder/IL2compareSpitv109.png
Please tell me IL2 compare doesn't actually work.

Hi. You wrote that there is a big difference in the reality vs "compare" graphs. It's true, but remember that these original graphs are not flying the 109 full power! The difference between 1:35 ata (Steig-und Kampfleistung) and 1:45 ata (start-und notleistung) is 150-200 PS, which is approx. 15-20% extra power. This is true for DB601 and 605 too.

41Sqn_Banks

01-03-2012, 01:33 AM

I don't think we agree. Do you even know what the octane number measures? I'll give you a hint: It's not related to the energy density of the fuel. If you had an engine that was designed for 87 octane and put 100 octane in it instead, nothing would happen. 100 octane fuel does not give you more power or fuel efficiency than 87 octane does.

The point is the following: If you use 87 octane fuel you are not allowed to apply a higher boost than +6.25, if 100 octane fuel is used the maximum allowed boost is +12.

Thus 100 octane fuel doesn't give you more power directly, however it allows you to apply more boost - which will give you more power.

Kurfürst

01-03-2012, 11:52 AM

Check the data on this page for performance.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the Spitfire outperforms the 109 on the graphs. Now take a look at the same aircraft in IL2 compare UP2.01 (maybe there's a later version, I gave it up). You'll see the 109's outperform the IX Spitfires.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know why on the most biased spit dweeb's home-made graphs the performance tests are cheery picked in such way that that it would show the most poorer performing 109s tested against the best performing Spits tested, and omitting the poorer performing Spits and better performing 109s. Come on, the credibility of that site's fan articles have been discussed in lenght already.

The 109G-2 was imho one of the most accurately modelled aircraft in the old Il-2. And it did historically outperform the early Mark IXFs with the Merlin 61, up to about 8000 meter.

fruitbat

01-03-2012, 11:58 AM

The 109G-2 was imho one of the most accurately modelled aircraft in the old Il-2.

That does not surprise me at all, your opinion that is.:lol:

Kurfürst

01-03-2012, 12:01 PM

I think we need to apply some common sense here. 100 octane was apparently used but there are serious doubts that it was used in each squadron and each Spit. It seems there is no data available that proofe that all Spits flew with 100 octane fuel.

Agreed.

[QUOTE=41Sqn_Stormcrow;375412]
We should think about what is desirable for us as simmers as the whole community. I do not have the answer to that but would like to ask following questions:

- should we implement the 100 octane spit types as default even if it is quite probable that not all had this feature?

I think the answer is definietely yes. Server hosts and mission builders can decide their take on the level of availability of the fuel.

- Should we procede then also in the same manner with all the other planes in the game that is to go for the high performance variant of it even if we do not know in which number they've seen action?

- If we had the numbers which should be the threshold to decide that the default plane should be the better performing one?

(I presume that nobody here would really support the application of a certain logic in a one-sided manner that is only go for the highest performance variant for one particular side)

These questions are not rhetoric. I think we should ask ourselves this because I think it would be a fundamental decision that would be taken by the devs.

I think the answer to these question is also a definiete yes, otherwise it would be quite clear that some fanboys are just craving for the "bestest" versions of each plane for their side, while trying to deny the other side from the same.

I for one would consider for example Bf 110C / 601N, ie. C3 types a neccessary addition (since about half the Zestorer units were flying these during the battle, its a plane that was important but not represented yet), and as for a C3 109 probably the Bf 109E-7/N would be a good choice. Its the first mass produced 601N variant, would be absolutely useful for later (Afrika, Med, Balkans, Barbarossa) maps, and it could represent well the earliest examples, since performance was the same.

Kurfürst

01-03-2012, 12:02 PM

That does not surprise me at all, your opinion that is.:lol:

Well people will just have to measure it's weight against your opinion's weight, m8. :p

Al Schlageter

01-03-2012, 12:20 PM

I think we need to apply some common sense here. 100 octane was apparently used but there are serious doubts that it was used in each squadron and each Spit. It seems there is no data available that proofe that all Spits flew with 100 octane fuel.

Agreed.

Yes, why would a Spitfire in the Shetlands need 100 octane fuel.:rolleyes:

I think the answer is definietely yes. Server hosts and mission builders can decide their take on the level of availability of the fuel.

If the a/c is based in 11 Group, it used 100 octane fuel.

see bold text

Kurfürst

01-03-2012, 12:25 PM

see bold text

Its just your list, and its selective, it doesn't even show 1/3 of the airfields the Fighter command used during the Battle.

There were over 50 such airfields. The complete list can be found in one of the earlier threads.

You simply picked the ones that have evidence of 100 octane fuel supply, and pretended they are the only airfields used. In short, you lied.

Kurfürst

01-03-2012, 12:34 PM

Based on the current evidence (feel free to add new sources showing 100 octane at the said airfield during the Battle and I'll update the list) shows that 100 octane aviation spirit was supplied to

8 out of 19 Sector Airfields
9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields (however 7 of the 32 functioning as satellite airfield for rotation etc., with no Sqn permanently based there).

The below is a detailed list of Fighter Command Stations during the Battle of Britain.

I've marked the ones you listed above which show some kind of evidence of 100 octane fuel being supplied to them (usually Combat reports in the literature) with an underline. Coloring would be better but I am not sure how to this with this forum engine.

The following list of stations and associated Squadrons also give a fair idea about the extent of Squadron movements during the Battle, and how it complicates things..

The source is below.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/images/sectors.gif

via http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/stations.html

11 Group

Group Headquarters

11 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Uxbridge, the administratve centre. Also within the physical area of 11 Group and close to Uxbridge is RAF Bentley Priory, the Headquarters of Fighter Command during the Battle.

Sector Airfields

RAF Biggin Hill.

RAF Biggin Hill was home to the Biggin Hill Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 32 Squadron from 4 June 1940
No 79 Squadron from 5 June 1940
No 610 Squadron from 2 July 1940
No 79 Squadron from 27 August 1940
No 72 Squadron from 31 August 1940
No 92 Squadron from 8 September 1940
No 141 Squadron from 13 September to 18 September 1940
No 72 Squadron from 14 September 1940
No 74 Squadron from 15 October 1940

RAF Debden.

RAF Debden was home to the Debden Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 85 Squadron from 22 May 1940
No 17 Squadron from 19 June 1940
No 257 Squadron from 15 August 1940
No 601 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 111 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 17 Squadron from 2 September 1940
No 25 Squadron from 8 October 1940

RAF Hornchurch.

RAF Hornchurch was home to the Hornchurch Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 65 Squadron from 5 June 1940
No 74 Squadron from 25 June 1940
No 54 Squadron from 24 July 1940
No 41 Squadron from 26 July 1940
No 54 Squadron from 8 August 1940
No 266 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 600 Squadron from 22 August 1940
No 264 Squadron from 22 August 1940
No 603 Squadron from 27 August 1940
No 41 Squadron from 3 September 1940

RAF Kenley.

RAF Kenley was home to the Kenley Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 615 Squadron from 20 May 1940
No 616 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 253 Squadron from 29 August 1940
No 66 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 501 Squadron from 10 September 1940
No 253 Squadron from 16 September 1940

RAF Northolt.

RAF Northolt was home to the Northolt Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 609 Squadron from 19 May 1940
No 257 Squadron from 4 July 1940
No 303 Squadron from 22 July 1940
No 43 Squadron from 23 July 1940 to 1 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 1 August 1940
No 401 Squadron RCAF from Mid-August 1940
No 615 Squadron from 10 October 1940
No 302 Squadron from 11 October 1940

RAF North Weald.

RAF North Weald was home to the North Weald Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 151 Squadron from 20 May 1940
No 56 Squadron from 4 June 1940
No 25 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 249 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 257 Squadron from 8 October 1940

RAF Tangmere.

RAF Tangmere was home to the Tangmere Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 145 Squadron from 10 May 1940
No 43 Squadron from 31 May 1940
No 601 Squadron from 17 June 1940
No 1 Squadron from 23 June 1940
No 266 Squadron from 9 August 1940
No 17 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 607 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 601 Squadron from 2 September 1940
No 213 Squadron from 7 September 1940
No 145 Squadron from 9 October 1940

Fighter Airfields

RAF Croydon.

RAF Croydon was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 111 Squadron from 4 June 1940
No 501 Squadron from 21 June 1940
No 401 Squadron RCAF from July 1940
No 85 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 72 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 111 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 605 Squadron from 7 September 1940

RAF Detling.

Detling was one of the 11 Group satellite airfields used by units on a day-to-day basis as required, often flights or squadrons would detach to such an airfield in the morning and return to their main operating and maintenance base in the evening.

RAF Eastchurch.

RAF Eastchurch was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 266 Squadron from 12 August 1940

RAF Ford.

RAF Ford was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 23 Squadron from 12 September 1940

RAF Gosport.

Gosport was, along with Lee-on-Solent, one of the Royal Navy's airfields used in the defence of Southampton and Portsmouth. Royal Navy fighters were permanently based there, and occasionally RAF units were detached, using the airfield in the same way as a satellite or relief landing ground.

RAF Gravesend.

RAF Gravesend was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 610 Squadron from 26 May 1940
No 604 Squadron from 3 July 1940
No 501 Squadron from 25 July 1940
No 66 Squadron from 11 September 1940

RAF Hawkinge.

RAF Hawkinge was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 79 Squadron from 2 July 1940

RAF Hendon.

RAF Hendon was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 257 Squadron from 17 May 1940
No 504 Squadron from 5 September 1940

RAF Lee on Solent.

Lee on Solent was, along with Gosport, one of the Royal Navy's airfields used in the defence of Southampton and Portsmouth. Royal Navy fighters were permanently based there, and occasionally RAF units were detached, using the airfield in the same way as a satellite or relief landing ground.

RAF Lympne.

Lympne was one of the 11 Group satellite airfields used by units on a day-to-day basis as required, often flights or squadrons would detach to such an airfield in the morning and return to their main operating and maintenance base in the evening. Due to the extreme forward position of this site it was under constant threat of attack and was not permanently manned during the Battle by any one Squadron.

RAF Manston.

RAF Manston was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 604 Squadron from 15 May 1940
No 600 Squadron from 20 June 1940

RAF Martlesham.

RAF Martlesham was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 25 Squadron from 19 June 1940
No 257 Squadron from 5 September 1940
No 17 Squadron from 8 October 1940

RAF Rochford.

RAF Rochford was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 54 Squadron from 25 June 1940
No 264 Squadron from 27 August 1940
No 264 Squadron from 29 October 1940

RAF Stapleford.

RAF Stapleford was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 151 Squadron from 29 August 1940
No 46 Squadron from 1 September 1940

RAF Thorney Island.

RAF Thorney Island was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 236 Squadron from 4 July 1940

RAF Westhampnett.

RAF Westhampnett was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 145 Squadron from 31 July 1940
No 602 Squadron from 13 August 1940

RAF West Malling.

RAF West Malling was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 141 Squadron from 12 July 1940
No 66 Squadron from 30 October 1940

10 Group

Group Headquarters

10 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Box, the administratve centre.

Sector Airfields

RAF Filton.

RAF Filton was home to the Filton Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 504 Squadron from 26 September 1940

RAF Middle Wallop.

RAF Middle Wallop was home to the Middle Wallop Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 236 Squadron from 14 June 1940
No 238 Squadron from 20 June 1940
No 401 Squadron RCAF from 21 June 1940
No 501 Squadron from 4 July 1940
No 609 Squadron from 5 July 1940
No 604 Squadron from 26 July 1940
No 222 Squadron from 13 August 1940
No 238 Squadron from 10 September 1940
No 23 Squadron from 12 September to 25 September 1940

Fighter Airfields

RAF Boscombe Down.

RAF Boscombe Down was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 249 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 56 Squadron from 1 September 1940

RAF Colerne.

RAF Colerne was used as a satellite and relief airfield for Middle Wallop during the Battle, units rotated in and out of the station on a daily basis.

RAF Exeter.

RAF Exeter was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 213 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 87 Squadron from 5 July 1940
No 601 Squadron from 7 September 1940

RAF Pembrey.

RAF Pembrey was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 92 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 79 Squadron from 8 September 1940

RAF Roborough.

RAF Roborough was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 247 Squadron from 1 August 1940

RAF St Eval.

RAF St Eval was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 222 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 236 Squadron from 8 August 1940
No 238 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 222 Squadron from 11 September 1940

RAF Warmwell.

RAF Warmwell was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 152 Squadron from 12 July 1940

12 Group

Group Headquarters

12 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Watnall, the administratve centre.

Sector Airfields

RAF Church Fenton.

RAF Church Fenton was home to the Church Fenton Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 87 Squadron from 26 May 1940
No 73 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 249 Squadron from 8 July 1940
No 85 Squadron from 5 September 1940

RAF Digby.

RAF Digby was home to the Digby Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 46 Squadron from 13 June 1940
No 29 Squadron from 27 June 1940
No 46 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 151 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 611 Squadron from 10 October 1939

RAF Duxford.

RAF Duxford was home to the Duxford Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 264 Squadron from 10 May 1940
No 19 Squadron from 3 July 1940
No 310 Squadron from 10 July 1940
No 46 Squadron from 18 August 1940
No 312 Squadron from 29 August 1940
No 242 Squadron from 26 October 1940
No 19 Squadron from 30 October 1940

RAF Kirton-in-Lindsey.

RAF Kirton-in-Lindsey was home to the Kirton-in-Lindsey Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 222 Squadron from 4 June 1939
No 253 Squadron from 24 May 1940
No 264 Squadron from 23 July 1940
No 74 Squadron from 21 August 1940
No 264 Squadron from 28 August 1940
No 616 Squadron from 9 September 1940
No 85 Squadron from 23 October 1940

RAF Wittering.

RAF Wittering was home to the Wittering Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 266 Squadron from 14 May 1940
No 74 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 266 Squadron from 21 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 9 September 1940

Fighter Airfields

RAF Coltishall.

RAF Coltishall was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 66 Squadron from 29 May 1940
No 242 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 616 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 74 Squadron from 9 September 1940
No 72 Squadron from 13 October 1940

RAF Leconfield.

RAF Leconfield was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 249 Squadron from 18 May 1940
No 616 Squadron from 6 June 1940
No 302 Squadron from 13 July 1940
No 303 Squadron from 11 October 1940

RAF Tern Hill.

Tern Hill was one of the 12 Group airfields used for resting units, and as a training airfield and maintneance depot. It was used as a relief landing ground and as a temporary base for night fighters operating against raids on Liverpool and cities in the north midlands.

13 Group

Group Headquarters

13 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Newcastle, the administratve centre.

Sector Airfields

RAF Acklington.

RAF Acklington was home to the Acklington Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 72 Squadron from 6 June 1940
No 79 Squadron from 13 July 1940
No 32 Squadron from 28 August 1940
No 610 Squadron from 31 August 1940

RAF Dyce.

RAF Dyce was home to the Dyce Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 248 Squadron from 22 May 1940
No 141 Squadron from 22 August 1940
No 145 Squadron from 31 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 9 October 1940

RAF Turnhouse.

RAF Turnhouse was home to the Turnhouse Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 603 Squadron from 5 May 1940
No 141 Squadron from 28 June 1940
No 253 Squadron from 21 July 1940
No 65 Squadron from 28 August 1940
No 141 Squadron from 30 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 14 September 1940
No 607 Squadron from 10 October 1940

RAF Usworth.

RAF Usworth was home to the Usworth Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 607 Squadron from 5 June 1940
No 43 Squadron from 8 September 1940

RAF Wick.

RAF Wick was home to the Wick Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 1 Squadron from 23 May 1940

Fighter Airfields

RAF Catterick.

RAF Catterick was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 219 Squadron from 4 October 1939
No 41 Squadron from 8 June 1940
No 54 Squadron from 28 July 1940
No 41 Squadron from 8 August 1940
No 504 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 54 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 600 Squadron from 12 October 1940

RAF Drem.
RAF Drem was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 145 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 263 Squadron from 2 September 1940
No 111 Squadron from 8 September 1940
No 141 Squadron from 15 October 1940

RAF Grangemouth.

RAF Grangemouth was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 263 Squadron from 28 June 1940

RAF Kirkwall.

RAF Kirkwall was used as a satellite and relief airfield for fighter and coastal operations over the Scottish Islands and naval bases there.

RAF Sumburgh.

RAF Sumburgh was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 248 Squadron from 20 July 1940
No 248 Squadron from 31 July 1940

fruitbat

01-03-2012, 01:07 PM

Even as comprehensive as that list is, its still not the full picture, as often a squadron that was based at a sector airfield would often have a flight operating during the day from a satellite.

For example, whilst 54 squadron was based at Hornchurch, at first light a flight would often fly down to Manston, and operate there for the day, flying back at dusk.

Still its an impressive guide as to roughly who was where roughly when.

An observation, it would be even more complete if it added the there rotation out dates as well, and if the dates were more accurate.

For example, with 54 squadron, there date's based at Hornchurch would be,

Spring - may 30th
4th june - 24th june
25th June - 31st July (Rochford & Manston, Satellites of Hornchurch)
8th aug - 3rd sept.

Which by the way don't tally with your dates, mine are from there own ops book, where are yours from?

Al Schlageter

01-03-2012, 01:21 PM

You missed Debden which had 100 octane since Sept 1939.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/6dec38-100octanefuel.jpg

Al Schlageter

01-03-2012, 01:23 PM

How many of those airfields you have listed in 10, 12 and 13 Group are on the CLoD map?

Osprey

01-03-2012, 07:10 PM

The point is the following: If you use 87 octane fuel you are not allowed to apply a higher boost than +6.25, if 100 octane fuel is used the maximum allowed boost is +12.

Thus 100 octane fuel doesn't give you more power directly, however it allows you to apply more boost - which will give you more power.

Exactly, and I even spelled that out for him in the reply which he then quoted. Wierd.

TomcatViP

01-03-2012, 07:22 PM

Kurfürst

01-03-2012, 08:47 PM

Which by the way don't tally with your dates, mine are from there own ops book, where are yours from?

Hi, they were simply copied over from the RAF.mod site. I guess some differences are possible.

CaptainDoggles

01-03-2012, 09:18 PM

The point is the following: If you use 87 octane fuel you are not allowed to apply a higher boost than +6.25, if 100 octane fuel is used the maximum allowed boost is +12.

Thus 100 octane fuel doesn't give you more power directly, however it allows you to apply more boost - which will give you more power.

Yes, this is true. But you can't just "apply more boost" unless the engine has specifically been designed to allow it. If your engine only has enough compression ratio to make use of 87 octane you will need to make modifications.

CaptainDoggles

01-03-2012, 09:22 PM

Exactly, and I even spelled that out for him in the reply which he then quoted. Wierd.

Yeah but it was couched in a bunch of nonsense about 1946 and il2compare that I really couldn't care less about so I probably only half-read your reply.

Osprey

01-03-2012, 09:27 PM

Yeah but it was couched in a bunch of nonsense about 1946 and il2compare that I really couldn't care less about so I probably only half-read your reply.

But you quoted it. And now you're saying it's nonsense but you only half read it....probably.

Make up your mind CD, don't comment on it if you haven't followed the context.

Faustnik

01-03-2012, 11:02 PM

nonsense about 1946 and il2compare.

I use HSFX5 IL-2 as well as CoD. HSFX5 Compare looks pretty good. Spit 1 looks like 87 oct and Spit IIa looks like 100 oct. There is a early Hurri 1 with 87 oct and a later Hurri 1 +12 oct. HSFX5 is a not nonsense.

This is what I was trying to say before, 1940 should have different versions for 87 oct amd 100 oct. Hopefully CoD will have Spits and Hurris with several versions. You can't just say that all 1940 Spit and Hurris used 100 oct, and you can't say that all used 87 oct.

Al Schlageter

01-03-2012, 11:37 PM

I use HSFX5 IL-2 as well as CoD. HSFX5 Compare looks pretty good. Spit 1 looks like 87 oct and Spit IIa looks like 100 oct. There is a early Hurri 1 with 87 oct and a later Hurri 1 +12 oct. HSFX5 is a not nonsense.

This is what I was trying to say before, 1940 should have different versions for 87 oct amd 100 oct. Hopefully CoD will have Spits and Hurris with several versions. You can't just say that all 1940 Spit and Hurris used 100 oct, and you can't say that all used 87 oct.

Not very smart of the British to not use 100 octane fuel when they had so much of it in an region where it was definitely required.

The only concern should be the RAF bases that are on the CloD map.

41Sqn_Banks

01-04-2012, 12:08 AM

Yes, this is true. But you can't just "apply more boost" unless the engine has specifically been designed to allow it. If your engine only has enough compression ratio to make use of 87 octane you will need to make modifications.

Below full throttle height every supercharged engine has more boost available than allowed. The problem is to prevent the pilot from applying more boost than allowed by mistake. The boost control does that. The Merlin engine has a provision to disable the boost control (so called boost control cut-out).

CaptainDoggles

01-04-2012, 12:23 AM

Below full throttle height every supercharged engine has more boost available than allowed.Sure, but this isn't because of the fuel. That's all I'm saying.

The reason higher boosts aren't allowed is because the fuel will ignite prematurely, usually before top dead centre and at best this saps your available power. At worst it will wreck the engine.

Blackdog_kt

01-04-2012, 12:54 AM

So, in one single thread we have three separate topics:

1) availability or lack of 100 octane fuel during the BoB
2) IL2 compare
3) engineering discussions

:-P

This topic always generates wild discussions, but the one thing i can gather from whatever's been posted thus far is:

"nobody can convince me either way"

I think the best way is to have all versions available and then it's up to the mission designer to do the research and decide what to use. If i'm building a campaign and the squad i use was on a satellite field that day with 87 octane fuel only, i'll use the low power version of the flyable in the mission. If the next day they had moved back to their main base with 100 octane supplies, i'll use the high power flyables for the next mission. And so on and so forth for the aircraft of both sides (eg, the high power 110s).

I really don't see what the rest of the fuss is all about. We want accuracy, it's also up to us. It's not a case of the developer making a decision and forcing it on everyone and every scenario, especially when there are scenarios that would require having the other version of the flyable as well.

And even if everyone used their best fuel all the time in real life, we still need the low octane versions for a very simple reason. When the community or the developers release a dynamic campaign, it would be a great feature to have lack of supplies be reflected on the aircraft we fly: you let those 111s bomb your fuel dump in the previous mission and blow up your ammo shed, you're flying with 87 octane and half the amount of machine gun rounds in the next mission.

But i guess that's too imaginative and gameplay-enhancing, when we can just spend our time trying to force everyone to subscribe to and accept a single version of events instead :-P

I'd say it's better to lighten up a bit and think outside the narrow confines of each one's favorite cockpit for a change ;)

SEE

01-04-2012, 02:15 AM

Juts to remind the expert here that the Spit I/II (especially the II) hve UFO flight model for now.

They can run away if you dive on them
Past you at 450 and turn 180 to engage the fight that you want to deny running flat out straight
Turn indefinitely at 90 bank angle
Hve a nose up attitude that will make shy a dolphin in a marine park (yuck yuck)
ETc.. etc..

Let's start at the beginning. 100 octane fuel was not candies FC give away to Fighter pilots !

Here we go again! I suggest you fly behind Mk.MrX in his BF - he doesn't seem to have problems with any of the Allied ac despite the fact he considers the Spit Mk2 has having an unfair advantage. Unfortunately it did if you read LW pilot accounts - but I guess they are wrong too as is every other piece of evidence posted.

I have been cutting my teeth on the Bfs - nice WEP - and you can engage it continually - a bit like the boost on the SpitMk2 that you are always complaining about. Adolph Galland had very high respect for the Spits....I wonder why when I read your posts.

ElAurens

01-04-2012, 02:31 AM

CWMV

01-04-2012, 03:28 AM

Dude, facts are facts. Numbers don't lie.

CaptainDoggles

01-04-2012, 03:40 AM

edit: never mind.

This thread reminds me of why I hate this community.

ElAurens

01-04-2012, 11:26 AM

What numbers is my question.

So far I have seen NO qualitative testing of any of the aircraft currently in the sim. All I read are "pilots" reports and recollections after flying the sim, and as we all know, you can't trust those.

:cool:

MoGas

01-04-2012, 12:01 PM

I would invite anyone that flys blue to fly a Mk. I RAF aircraft, doesn't matter which one, for a month, and then get back to me about how "undermodeled" the Bf 109 E4 is.

But then this is a dream, because it will not allow them to pad their stats for an entire month...

:rolleyes:

I did, and ended up like a pitching idiot, that my 109 just runs away, negative rolls back to France, until help or whatever arrives lol, speaking about SpitI and Ia.

As usual outnumberd and BnZ by fancy 109`s against MKI, (dont get me rong, I found this funny too, when flying 109`s) my switch to Spitfires, was simple the challenge to fly against fast good climbing and strong armed 109`s.

With a slow and not good climbing Spit (Hurries pull away just easy, never knew that the Hurrie is faster then a SpitIa)with a nice neg-cutout on the engine (but Luthier forgot to add the redouts), plus the fancy 303cal. (I am not saying the 303cal is rong, its clear it is not a 50cal.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On the otherhand, I flew SpitII aswell now, against good 109 people, and you perform the 109 tactic on 109`s, outrun, outclimb, BnZ, re-engage, when situation is allowing. And finally you get bad comments, from the enemys point of view.

I blame Luthier and his team, for this kind of storys....

;)

SEE

01-04-2012, 02:32 PM

If the FM and Realism were as accurate as some want it then I doubt the vast majority would enjoy it.

Does anyone really want to fly 8 sorties a day and maybe get credit for 8 or 9 kills over a four month period? There have to be compromises and the result is arguments regards these.

Its primarilly a game for entertainmnet value with simulation properties - there to enjoy wether as part of a group or solo flyer!

As for the Spit Mk2....absolutely true, the best FM in the game and the others porked in some way, which explains why a lot of MP flyers don't select it even when available - for fair play, the challenge or prefer the Rotol Hurri or Mk1's.

svend

01-04-2012, 08:00 PM

Hi all,

First of all I will direct these first lines towards the moderators and apologize if this reply isnt seen as on topic, if not please delete it and I will open a new thread if found necessary :)

All the years I have been part of the WWII community (and that`s alot of years), these threads do pop up from time to time and alot of heart are brougt into it and do end up in alot of fire, insults, accusations and that
worries me.

Historical correctness regarding 100% octan fuel during the Battle Of Britain have been discussed
on WWII flightsim forums years back, as long I have been part of it (included FM`s as a result of 100% octan). The importance
in my own beliefs is/are not important for me to communicate out. Why? Simply because it will not change anything.

I do not post alot on forums and for a reason - I usually find, what Im looking for :-) and keeping away from FM threads and the like simply because it`s not my job to convince others with opposite beliefs. Why? Se above :).

The only thing that counts is, what the dev team have on print and researched, however it does not, guarantee a 100% correct sim. Why?
Because it have to reach out to alot of interest marked vice, both historical, game play and balance of game play.

Im an historical freak regarding Battle Of Britain and followed all topics on this and other forums (mostly other forums as Im new on this one).
I have seen 3rd party involvment, with no sim interest, what so ever, delever very interesting things forward to the community to help out abit and maby share some light. Through the years I have been doing my own research, both
from threads from this and other forums, through other channels aswell through the years (from a historical perspective)
and that`s why Im firm in my own belief, what`s historical correct or not.

The word "Sim" is very dear to us all, or most of us and to the devs aswell I hope :). A sim to me is a product that
stay true to history as possible useing code (not everything is possible), especially, when covering a period like
the Battle Of Britain or all other periods for that matter. Can it be done? Yes it can - most important though, what will the consequences be if done,
that way? I will not answer that question for you, simply because the answer have to come from within youself and most important
what do I gain from it? Will it satisfie my style of play? Will my personal goals suffer from it? Hmm could be if
yes to last two question. I do not know if the dev team have the correct figures or not - or close to correct and
use them in future development updates (Im still talking about 100% octan). Would it be easy to test the community
and read the effects of it? Yes absolutely. Place one or two planes in the game as close as possible
number vice and se the reaction from the community (two will give a better result) and no harm done the FM can be changed.

Will this change history? Lol no it wont - it will change the game. Uuuups "GAME" or "SIM" It`s not my intention
with these words to hurt anyones feelings, especially the dev team and cant blame them if something have to be left out
or added to let the game/sim shine in it`s own light and give it it`s own special place in the history of WWII simulation. I
will say this though, that I have the right to call this a game aslong as "True to life aircraft" (from the CLoD website)
is not represented. If this put a smile on some dev faces I understand well - IM smileing myself AND do understand if
steps have to be taken to balance gameplay so peace be with you :)

The insults, accusations and words used in these threads AND not to forget, direct personal insults on non native speaking
english forum members is disgusting, total out of line. The arrogance I have seen some forum members use, to deliberately provoke
others to stay away from or continue a meaningful and positive debate on topic, may remotely be seen as an act of manipulation attend and distortion.
These individuals are easy to spot and known to the community and moderators and do not bring anything. As a result of this. I have found it necessary
for the first time during all those years, I have been part of the WWII sim community - been forced to add these people to my ignore list. I did this simply
because it`s the only way to enjoy the read of many, many interesting post on this forum. Im not proud of it - I se it as the only way to enjoy this forum.

I do apologize if some of this I have written here can be too much. It`s not my intention to step on anyones toes, but sometimes even I need to let off
some steam and thoughts.

Regarding the 100 octan fuel and my beliefs previously mentioned above, do not have any importans at all because it`s in the hands of the devs. They are
the ones, who will get the direction on where this sim will go (yearh I used the word sim this time) loool 50%-50% :P. Same goes for me being a blue or red flyer,
not important at all. I will reveal that I fly online mostly and offline to test things out, mostly planes and can be time consumeing.

My best wishes for CLoD, the devs and this forum and it`s members for 2012

Kind Regards
Svend

Osprey

01-04-2012, 08:09 PM

edit: never mind.

This thread reminds me of why I hate this community.

I must admit, I've was wondering why you had so much angst, it was very personal wasn't it..... Perhaps you need a holiday.

Blackdog_kt

01-04-2012, 09:30 PM

Guys, please don't get personal. Not everyone can subscribe to the same opinion and not everyone has the same sources or values each source equally.

Let's ask to have both high and low octane versions and then we can use whatever we like in our missions, without infringing on the ability of others to do the same.

I try not to point fingers, but in this case both "camps" are so evenly matched in doing this that i think no harm will come from it, everybody's guilty of this behaviour to an extent. What behaviour? The "It's not good enough for me if i get the tools to recreate what i think is historically correct. I want these to be the only tools available so everyone else will do what i think is right, so that i never run the risk of flying in an unfavorable environment when going online and messing up my gameplay enjoyment factor, sense of achievement or precious online K/D stats" kind of behaviour.

Let's be serious for a moment and understand that

a) whatever the case may have been during BoB, the scope of the series is not just BoB, so we will end up needing both high and low octane versions (battle of France/phoney war/low countries anyone?) and
b) both blue and red are currently missing their high performance rides (eg, about half the 110 fleet was running DB601N engines by the time of BoB and in certain regimes of flight this made them faster than the RAF fighters)

The pendulum swings both ways really. Let's ask the developers to get the missing variants which are not even new flyables (same 3d models with a few numbers changed in their FM really) and be done with it, so we can both start using them according to what each one thinks is historically correct and move on to the next bit that needs attention ;)

svend

01-04-2012, 10:08 PM

Guys, please don't get personal. Not everyone can subscribe to the same opinion and not everyone has the same sources or values each source equally.

That`s absolute correct. Values each source equally is aboute evaluete and take the time to do so and not, what do I gain from it.

Let's ask to have both high and low octane versions and then we can use whatever we like in our missions, without infringing on the ability of others to do the same.

Agree

I try not to point fingers, but in this case both "camps" are so evenly matched in doing this that i think no harm will come from it, everybody's guilty of this behaviour to an extent. What behaviour? The "It's not good enough for me if i get the tools to recreate what i think is historically correct. I want these to be the only tools available so everyone else will do what i think is right, so that i never run the risk of flying in an unfavorable environment when going online and messing up my gameplay enjoyment factor, sense of achievement or precious online K/D stats" kind of behaviour.

Agree

Let's be serious for a moment and understand that

a) whatever the case may have been during BoB, the scope of the series is not just BoB, so we will end up needing both high and low octane versions (battle of France/phoney war/low countries anyone?) and
b) both blue and red are currently missing their high performance rides (eg, about half the 110 fleet was running DB601N engines by the time of BoB and in certain regimes of flight this made them faster than the RAF fighters)

The pendulum swings both ways really. Let's ask the developers to get the missing variants which are not even new flyables (same 3d models with a few numbers changed in their FM really) and be done with it, so we can both start using them according to what each one thinks is historically correct and move on to the next bit that needs attention ;)

Agree

Al Schlageter

01-06-2012, 02:30 PM

I think the best way is to have all versions available and then it's up to the mission designer to do the research and decide what to use. If i'm building a campaign and the squad i use was on a satellite field that day with 87 octane fuel only, i'll use the low power version of the flyable in the mission. If the next day they had moved back to their main base with 100 octane supplies, i'll use the high power flyables for the next mission. And so on and so forth for the aircraft of both sides (eg, the high power 110s).

If you are looking for realistic missions, the satellite field would also have 100 octane fuel.

The squadron would be armed and fueled with 100 octane fuel fly out the satellite field very early in the morning and have their tanks topped up with 87 octane. They then would take off on an intercept mission. Some of the pilots would report rough running engines during combat but run OK while returning to base.

Upon returning to the satellite field the a/c would be rearmed and 87 octane fuel put in the tanks. They are scrambled on another intercept mission and the controller tells them Buster. The throttles are pushed full forward. Before they can reach any altitude, kaboom, kaboom, kaboom one after another 12 Merlins blow up and the squadron are now gliders looking for a place to crash land.

Not a very realistic scenario you presented.

Blackdog_kt

01-06-2012, 06:51 PM

Al Schlageter

01-06-2012, 11:14 PM

I don't know exactly how it was in the BoB, it was just an example (and in such a case, the pilots would be smart enough to use 87 octane power settings and their mechanics would warn them). What i'm really saying is, since we can't reach a consensus let's have both options and then each mission designer/server host can decide on their own and we can decide if we fly there.

Solves the issue pretty much ;)

That is the problem.

In the heat of the moment, tired and on an adrenalin high with their life on the line, you expect the pilots to remember they can't use full throttle?

Using 87 octane fuel on the CloD map is gaming the game.

Seadog

01-08-2012, 12:17 AM

I think we need to apply some common sense here. 100 octane was apparently used but there are serious doubts that it was used in each squadron and each Spit. It seems there is no data available that proofe that all Spits flew with 100 octane fuel.

There isn't a single documented example of a BofB Spit or Hurricane that flew a combat sortie with 87 octane fuel.

Only the "Deutchland uber alles" types continue to claim that 87 octane was used by Spits and Hurricanes during the BofB.

xnomad

01-08-2012, 08:13 AM

I would invite anyone that flys blue to fly a Mk. I RAF aircraft, doesn't matter which one, for a month, and then get back to me about how "undermodeled" the Bf 109 E4 is.

But then this is a dream, because it will not allow them to pad their stats for an entire month...

:rolleyes:

This is exactly why I've been flying the Spit a lot online. In fact I've hardly flown the 109 lately and I'm a huge 109 fan. The reason is that the CEM is more complex and challenging in the Spit. You can fly the 109 on full throttle all day and engage WEP whenever you want without a risk.

The Spit really struggles against the 109 and especially if you have to climb to meet them, you end up just cooking the engine. It's not fair as the 109 pilots don't have to worry about their engines unless they are negligent with the prop pitch in a dive.

It's true there is just not enough love from the devs for the Spit. I want the 109 drivers who fly full throttle to be punished too. It's just not realistic caning your engine for the entire mission.!

TomcatViP

01-08-2012, 12:17 PM

I agree. Those guys using cte Boost in the 109 shld be toasted with a randomly occurring big explosion that let them cool down in the bottom of the channel the time they think how bad it is to game the sim !

Where is James and the MI6 ? !!

Al Schlageter

01-08-2012, 12:39 PM

The DB601N was mentioned, so some history......

Timeline:

24.05.1940: GL announces that 1000 DB601N engines are to be produced until 01.01.1940. (??1941)

31.05.1940: Of the 1000 engines, 350 engines have to be considered reserve engines. Thus, only the series production Me 109F can be equipped with the engine. An introduction into Me 110 production at a later date is to be considered.

07.06.1940: New program shows Me 109 and Me 110 equipped with DB601N.

12.07.1940: Generalstab decides that the existing DB601N engines are for now to be installed in the Me 110 exclusively.

19.07.1940: The currently available DB601N engines are required for conversion of the Me 110 in front-line operations. This means an end to further conversions of the Me 109 (of which so far, one group has been converted). The Me 109F series retains the DB601N engine. New-production Me 110 retain the DB601A as before.

26.07.1940: Generalstab opposes further conversions of Me 110 aircraft to DB601N engines except for the groups currently under conversion.

09.08.1940: For the conversion of a total of 3 groups of Me 110 and the already completed conversion of one group Me 109, a monthly total of 70 engines is required for 30 replacement aircraft Me 110, 10 replacement aircraft Me 109. An additional 30 engines are allocated for the reserve engine pool. As currently 280 engines are used in operations, this equates a 10 % reserve.

30.08.1940: It is requested from LC 3 to built a reserve of 45 engines (September), 35 (October), then 30 engines each month until a total of 180 engines is reached.

27.09.1940: Chef Generalstab decided to sustain 4 groups of Me 110 with N engines. 40 of DB601N engines are ear-marked for the reserve pool for these groups. The remaining engines are to go into the reserve pool (1/3) and into Me 109 (2/3).

18.10.1940: It is impossible at the time to convert more than the one existing Bf 109E group to DB601N, and it's not expected to be possible before 01.12.1940. Currently the DB601N engines go to: 1) new production Friedrichs, 2) new production Me 110 to sustain the existing four groups, 3) into 40 new production Emils to sustain the existing one group, 4) into the reserve engine pool for 1 - 3.

26.10.1940: Until the end of October, 1100 - 1200 DB601N engines were delivered. They are installed in the four existing Me 110 groups and the single existing Me 109 group, some reconnaissance aircraft of the Aufklärungsgruppe Ob. d. L., plus 130 reserve engine pool. The rest of the engines went into Me 109F and Me 110 production. The production of DB601N-engined Me 110s is to be channelled into night fighters, for which a constant strength of 120 is demanded.

06.11.1940: Generalstab requests more Me 109 with DB601N-engines. In order to free the required engines, the Generalstab accepts that two month's worth of Me 110 production are delivered with DB601A exclusively (November and December production). The engines thus freed are to go to 1) remaining Bf 109E production, 2) III./ZG 26 Erprb.Gr 210. II./ZG 26 and II./ZG 76 are given low priority or have to swap their engines for DB601A if required.

22.01.1941: The Leitender Chef-Ingenieur has considered the fuel situation and suggest to possibly convert the Me 110 to DB601A engines. The Generalstab lists the operational aircraft with DB601N engine by 01.01.1940 as follows:

Me 109E-1: 16
Me 109E-3: 1
Me 109E-4: 59
Me 109E-6: 1
Me 109E-7: 34
Me 109E-8: 2
Me 109F-1: 5

Me 110C-1: 4
Me 110C-4: 40
Me 110C-5: 12
Me 110C-7: 14
Me 110D-0: 18
Me 110D-2: 20
Me 110D-3: 8
Me 110E-1: 176
Me 110E-2: 14

He 111P: 8
Do 215: 68

(Apparently, the fuel situation made it difficult to keep the DB601N in operation, and at least Me 110 production was ordered to go back to the DB601A predominantly while the DB601N was phased out in favour of the DB601E.)

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=515

Al Schlageter

01-08-2012, 04:54 PM

Couple of graphs on Lw a/c:

http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx123/AnotherBerliner/de_fighter_numbers.jpg

http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx123/AnotherBerliner/de_bomber_numbers.jpg

Sollstärke = authorised strength
Iststärke = actual strength
Einsatzbereit = operational

source: Klee

Blackdog_kt

01-08-2012, 09:16 PM

All i'm trying to say is let's have the tools that will allow each one of us to fly according to what they think is correct, or even (heavens, no!) more enjoyable to them.

However, it seems that there's a few people so entrenched in their efforts to make everyone fly "their way" that i'm just wasting my breath :-P

All the charts, combat reports and official documents? Useful and interesting, but they should be moved to the realm of "mission designer's considerations".

In terms of sim design and features, it should support both high and low octane FMs, because we will NEED them in case of dynamic campaigns (some community members are actively engaged in this) coming in the not too distant future.

You know, the kind of campaigns that don't play out exactly like things went back in 1940. The kind of campaigns where a sustained bombing offensive might result in one team not having enough 100 octane fuel. How then will we simulate it, if all we have is 100 octane FMs for each single flyable?

Please, try to think beyond getting that one extra kill on a DF server because "Lolz, i has 100 octane! I'm fast and furious!" and start seeing the big picture :rolleyes:

We need both high and low octane FMs, for both sides.

Al Schlageter

01-08-2012, 10:03 PM

drewpee

01-09-2012, 07:41 AM

I fly red and blue. My kill death ratio is about 5/1. The Spit is easer to dog fight in a 1 on 1 scenario and is good for defense. Its also got excellent visibility, so unless I'm fixated on a target there is no chance of being jumped. The 109 is better as hit and run and flying with a wingman. I find it harder to hit a target and need the extra ammo. The visibility is poor as there is no way to check 6 with out turning. I'll fly any model of 109 as they're almost identical.
Red and blue are well matched once I learned to fly each AC. As for the Spit-2 I avoid it like the plague. It out classes everything. As a blue pilot I'll only engage with advantage and disengage if I failed to damage the Spit on the first pass or if the pilot appears to be a rookie. I will not fly it as I don't like the advantage.

The Spit-2 is a trouble maker.

Blackdog_kt

01-09-2012, 08:07 AM

If you want to 'game the game', go right ahead. :) There was no lack of 100 fuel and if the bases requiring 100 fuel didn't have 100 fuel they wouldn't have 87 fuel either.

100 fuel doesn't do anything for the Hurricane and Spitfire over a certain height.

If historical scenarios are required, then the info is of importance. It is not about getting those extra kills. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm talking about a dynamic campaign with a supply system, where bombing the enemy's resources has a tangible effect in their ability to fight back. How are you going to work with that if the sim can't simulate aircraft flying with low octane fuel?

If we knew what was correct i'd still say include both variants for this reason and also, for battle of France scenarios.

Even so, it's pretty clear there's no consensus on what was historically correct but each "camp" keeps pushing in the hope that their version of events will be chosen and modeled in the sim. Well, this way the only thing that will happen is having half the people overjoyed and half disappointed, instead of a situation where both could be happy with what they have.

If considerations such as these are your definition of gaming the game then be my guest, we'll agree to disagree. I mean, we can't expect the entire sim to play out exactly like the real thing did down to individual engagements, where would the fun be in that? I'd rather we had the tools to create all possible scenarios, so that we can study different aspects of the actual events.

What if the LW didn't have enough E-4s because they had lost too many early on? What if RAf was short on 100 octane fuel? What if LW kept pounding the airfields, after dropping those radar towers? It's like having your own time machine/history lab right on your desktop and gives an even better appreciation of the real events.

The sim can do such things now that we have scripting (there are community members working on dynamic campaigns that feature supply tracking). It's a shame to miss out on all this because of near-sightedness and it's a bit egoistic to try to deprive others of enjoying such features. I mean, it's like i come out and say "hey, i know my CEM well enough, i suggest CEM can't be disabled because it's gaming the game" :rolleyes:

klem

01-09-2012, 10:27 AM

If you want to 'game the game', go right ahead. :) There was no lack of 100 fuel and if the bases requiring 100 fuel didn't have 100 fuel they wouldn't have 87 fuel either.

100 fuel doesn't do anything for the Hurricane and Spitfire over a certain height.

If historical scenarios are required, then the info is of importance. It is not about getting those extra kills. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

+1 on 100 octane supplies.

We aren't the only forum to have discussions on this and I found a very interesting post on another forum whch replaces the usual speculation with some documented facts. I'm not going to reproduce them here, you can read them at this forum post.....
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-2.html#post542367
and another containing combat reports from as early as May 1940 with many, particularly the Hurricane Squadrons, before the Bob 'started' in July 1940.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-3.html#post542707

Like our own forum the Thread contains some vociferous posts against the idea and claims that the BoB was fought largely using 87 octane fuels although the main protagonist doesn't seem to offer contemporary data or reports. The posts in the links do contain such contemporary reports and some reflective reports written only a few years later indicating that Fighter Command was moved to 100 Octane fuel from March 1940, either through field mods or the delivery of new aircraft already converted. Its also unthinkable in the face of imminent attack that, with the 100 octane fuel reserves available, the whole of Fighter Command could not have been supported or would not have been converted. If there had been any division between 87 and 100 octane the aircraft requiring the highest performance would have taken preference and is perhaps why Bomber Command wasn't converted until 1941.

The Thread itself is begun by a poster who also refers to the work of Dr Gavin Bailey which supports the argument that 100 octane was readily available from Britain's own resources by the time of the BoB and not just dependent on US supplies (this is an argument sometimes used to suggest that the RAF couldn't have had the necessary supplies for the BoB). His book is mentioned here...
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/CXXIII/501/394.abstract

Al Schlageter

01-09-2012, 03:43 PM

Blackdog, you and others, can do your 'what ifs' (I have nothing against them and would be intersting) but the fact is 100 octane was NOT in short supply. Even before the BoB started 8800 tons of 100 fuel was issued in May, 5700 tons in June and 8700 tons in July. Do you know how many gallons that is? (for rough calculation, 300gal per ton or enough to fill the tanks of 3 squadrons of Spitfires per ton)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/weekly-issues-100octane.jpg

No clear no consensus on what was historically correct? Open your eyes and mind as proofs have been shown. The only negative voices are those that want to castrate the RAF fighters and these voices have been crying the same tune for years.

Yes klem and even back in the day on the Ubi Il-2 board as well.

What is interesting is the main protagonist, who is in denial of the widespread use of 100 fuel during the BoB, put forward very minimal proof for 1.98ata boosted Bf109K-4s. This was only an own typed order, not an original document, which has been modified over time.

Faustnik

01-09-2012, 04:08 PM

Thats a great stat Al Schlageter!

**************

drewpee,

I like the Spit 1s and the 109E1s but, by favorite is any version of Hurri! Stability is the answer. :) When radiators are fixed, CoD will be a whole realistic sim.

TomcatViP

01-09-2012, 04:17 PM

The prob with the kind of comment you hve posted Schlag is that you think that history is your and we are the bad guys.

We are not here to CASTRATE ?!:!! the RAF. We love the RAF as much as you seems to do. Just keep in mind that adulation is way out of purpose when it come to deal with history. You need to step down and look at the overall pic you'"ll see that the three is not the forest and things are more complicated.

Anyhow it will be nice if you and alike stop posting this insulting comments. The 1940 RAF does not belong to you no matter how loud you say it over our faces.

Thx in advance

csThor

01-09-2012, 04:34 PM

fruitbat

01-09-2012, 04:47 PM

I'm talking about a dynamic campaign with a supply system, where bombing the enemy's resources has a tangible effect in their ability to fight back. How are you going to work with that if the sim can't simulate aircraft flying with low octane fuel?

If we knew what was correct i'd still say include both variants for this reason and also, for battle of France scenarios.

Even so, it's pretty clear there's no consensus on what was historically correct but each "camp" keeps pushing in the hope that their version of events will be chosen and modeled in the sim. Well, this way the only thing that will happen is having half the people overjoyed and half disappointed, instead of a situation where both could be happy with what they have.

If considerations such as these are your definition of gaming the game then be my guest, we'll agree to disagree. I mean, we can't expect the entire sim to play out exactly like the real thing did down to individual engagements, where would the fun be in that? I'd rather we had the tools to create all possible scenarios, so that we can study different aspects of the actual events.

What if the LW didn't have enough E-4s because they had lost too many early on? What if RAf was short on 100 octane fuel? What if LW kept pounding the airfields, after dropping those radar towers? It's like having your own time machine/history lab right on your desktop and gives an even better appreciation of the real events.

The sim can do such things now that we have scripting (there are community members working on dynamic campaigns that feature supply tracking). It's a shame to miss out on all this because of near-sightedness and it's a bit egoistic to try to deprive others of enjoying such features. I mean, it's like i come out and say "hey, i know my CEM well enough, i suggest CEM can't be disabled because it's gaming the game" :rolleyes:

I quite like the idea of your what ifs, but i'd rather have the history first, and that means spit mk1a and hurri on 100 octane, as a huge amount of proof has been shown already (only the blind or unwilling dispute).

Then we can have the what ifs.

Al Schlageter

01-09-2012, 05:05 PM

csThor

01-09-2012, 05:50 PM

Seadog

01-09-2012, 08:04 PM

Apparently the "Deutschland über alles" types have their evil twins in the "Britannia rule the waves" types. :roll:

I have to agree with BlackDog - some people don't discuss, they try to run over their discussion partners like a steamroller in order to put their particular idea about history over everyone else. And people wonder why some of us prefer offline?

I challenge anyone to produce any source stating that any BofB Hurricane or Spitfire flew even a single combat sortie with 87 octane fuel. This isn't about promoting one side or the other, but is all about historical accuracy.

Abundant evidence has been produced showing that there was more than enough 100 octane fuel available for all front line Fighter Command squadrons, but if 87 octane was used along with 100 octane, then there should be references to it in memoirs, pilot combat reports and historical accounts, and yet no such evidence has ever been produced.

It is time for those who claim that 87 octane was used by front-line RAF FC units during the BofB to produce positive evidence for their claims, or to retract those claims.

Kurfürst

01-09-2012, 08:25 PM

I challenge anyone to produce any source stating that any BofB Hurricane or Spitfire flew even a single combat sortie with 87 octane fuel.

Yaaaawn.

After years of trying to dig up everything in the archieve and still not a single paper saying that 100 octane replaced existing 87 octane in all Squadrons/Stations has been found. Not one paper. I'd say it's a sign. We had the same drama about 150 grade fuel years ago.

There's not one paper noting anything the like, and the people who were desperate to find some are extremely careful to only show snippets of the relevant papers. Some has even went as far manipulating the evidence. Time and time again they have been asked to share the fiels publicly, but they refuse, and keep posting the same papers that says selected units have been supplied, and nothing more.

Then it usually takes a bizarre turn, and since they can't prove what they want to be true, and getting frustrated, given the complete absence of supporting evidence, suddenly everyone else has to prove they are wrong.

It always reminds me of this classic scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc

Al Schlageter

01-09-2012, 08:49 PM

I challenge anyone to produce any source stating that any BofB Hurricane or Spitfire flew even a single combat sortie with 87 octane fuel. This isn't about promoting one side or the other, but is all about historical accuracy.

Abundant evidence has been produced showing that there was more than enough 100 octane fuel available for all front line Fighter Command squadrons, but if 87 octane was used along with 100 octane, then there should be references to it in memoirs, pilot combat reports and historical accounts, and yet no such evidence has ever been produced.

It is time for those who claim that 87 octane was used by front-line RAF FC units during the BofB to produce positive evidence for their claims, or to retract those claims.

+100 !!!! Seadog

Kurfürst

01-09-2012, 08:59 PM

Must be fun, registering several handles just to reply to yourself on a discussion board. :D

Al Schlageter

01-09-2012, 09:02 PM

LOL BarbI. All you produced was your typed words (changed multiple times) for 1.98ata for the Bf109K-4. The rest of your proofs are just fanciful speculation. What has been shown for 100 fuel is more than enough proof that 11 Group and the bordering units in 10 and 12 Groups were using 100 fuel using your criteria of proof for 1.98ata.

Stop judging other people by your own actions.

Kurfürst

01-09-2012, 09:10 PM

Relevance?

Bounder!

01-09-2012, 09:19 PM

+1 on 100 octane supplies.

We aren't the only forum to have discussions on this and I found a very interesting post on another forum whch replaces the usual speculation with some documented facts. I'm not going to reproduce them here, you can read them at this forum post.....
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-2.html#post542367
and another containing combat reports from as early as May 1940 with many, particularly the Hurricane Squadrons, before the Bob 'started' in July 1940.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-3.html#post542707

Like our own forum the Thread contains some vociferous posts against the idea and claims that the BoB was fought largely using 87 octane fuels although the main protagonist doesn't seem to offer contemporary data or reports. The posts in the links do contain such contemporary reports and some reflective reports written only a few years later indicating that Fighter Command was moved to 100 Octane fuel from March 1940, either through field mods or the delivery of new aircraft already converted. Its also unthinkable in the face of imminent attack that, with the 100 octane fuel reserves available, the whole of Fighter Command could not have been supported or would not have been converted. If there had been any division between 87 and 100 octane the aircraft requiring the highest performance would have taken preference and is perhaps why Bomber Command wasn't converted until 1941.

The Thread itself is begun by a poster who also refers to the work of Dr Gavin Bailey which supports the argument that 100 octane was readily available from Britain's own resources by the time of the BoB and not just dependent on US supplies (this is an argument sometimes used to suggest that the RAF couldn't have had the necessary supplies for the BoB). His book is mentioned here...
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/CXXIII/501/394.abstract

Very interesting links Klem, wanted to say thanks for posting them

Seadog

01-09-2012, 10:50 PM

Yaaaawn.

After years of trying to dig up everything in the archieve and still not a single paper saying that 100 octane replaced existing 87 octane in all Squadrons/Stations has been found.

I am not asking for evidence that 100 octane replaced 87 octane in all front line fighter squadrons, instead, all I am asking is for evidence that even a single combat sortie was ever made by RAF FC Spitfires or Hurricanes using 87 octane during the BofB.

Abundant evidence exists for hundred octane fuel use by RAF FC, during operational sorties, but none has ever been produced showing 87 octane use by a single front line BofB RAF FC Spitfire or Hurricane sortie.

Kurfurst, it is time for you to put up or shut up.

CaptainDoggles

01-09-2012, 11:01 PM

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

Al Schlageter

01-09-2012, 11:07 PM

Relevance?

The double standard you have. Minimal, actually next to nothing, when it concerns your beloved Bf109 of nazi Germany and evidence to the nth degree when it comes to anything to do with the British.

klem

01-10-2012, 07:05 AM

csThor

01-10-2012, 07:23 AM

Please note that I have not made a statement towards or against the subject of 100 octane fuel. I simply said the style of some posters here kills any meaningful discussion of any type and creates more bad blood. Just to make that absolutely clear.

TomcatViP

01-10-2012, 08:55 AM

I really don't understand the desperate need to deny that most, and probably all, fighter command aircraft were using 100 octane fuel during the BoB. There is more than enough evidence to show that the change to 100 had been authorised well before the BoB, there were more than enough stockpiles, the conversion process was simple enough by RAF servicing standards of the time and it was in widespread use from combat and Squadron reports.

It would have been ridiculous for the RAF, with all the stocks available, to have only transferred some units to 100. Why would they do that when they were at war and expecting invasion? The only delaying mechanism would have been the mechanical modification of engines which was simple enough and carried out during servicing. New engines were delivered already converted. It would have been more ridiculous to suggest it wasn't available to the units facing most of the fighting and not very sensible, with the rotation of Squadrons with their aircraft, not to organise the support of 100 octane for those aircraft while on rotation.

I suspect that some people either want to unhistorically 'castrate' the RAF as someone suggested or they are just Trolling.

Regarding Blackdog's ideas for missions, I have no problem with representing fuel shortages following bombing of production plants etc but that is a seperate issue. It never happened to the point that fuel bacame a problem but a 'what if' is fine by me, that's what missions are built for, it isn't all re-enactment.

Yeah easy. Simple. Quick. And all that in the middle of a ragging war when bomber units where painfully in needs of more power for take off as their aircraft were fitted with the absolute essential war-weary equipments they lacked before. And Hurricane units (the most numerous aircraft) were fighting hard the gap btw their mount and the fast flying germans bombers.

It makes no sense Klem. No a single notch of it. It's an illusion for late grown child tht prbably started somehow reading two line in an history books.

I love the Mayas civilization but I am not convincing myself Steve Job and the NASA were their creation

Guess why the 21st century RAF can't introduce a new fighter without so much pain ?

IMHO : You'd better help the devs to fix the Spit FM toward some realism at least. I am sure that they would then be happy (and with some financial interest too) to give you your boosted Merlin on Spitfire

Blakduk

01-10-2012, 09:25 AM

Klem- i've just gone through that forum thread you posted the link to http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108.html
I'd say that nails it- credit must go to MikeWilliams and Glider for their research efforts- the weight of evidence clearly affirms the fact that 100 octane fuel was widely used by RAF fighter command since early summer 1940.

As for the tone on that forum- it's a marked contrast to the personal insults that get thrown around here.

Bounder!

01-10-2012, 09:32 AM

Kurfürst

01-10-2012, 10:42 AM

The double standard you have. Minimal, actually next to nothing, when it concerns your beloved Bf109 of nazi Germany and evidence to the nth degree when it comes to anything to do with the British.

Unfortunately I do not show any double standards, and have never claimed anything in excess of the available evidence seen here in detail http://www.kurfurst.org/, which you seem to consider minimal and next to nothing, even though 360 000 pageloads tends to disagree with your assessment.

You seem to be desperate to give some meaning to your life by randombly kidnapping threads will all sorts of your unrelated and incoherent hysterics like 1,98ata on late 109s, a question that I am afraid has been decisively set straight long ago.

Kurfürst

01-10-2012, 10:58 AM

I am not asking for evidence that 100 octane replaced 87 octane in all front line fighter squadrons, instead, all I am asking is for evidence that even a single combat sortie was ever made by RAF FC Spitfires or Hurricanes using 87 octane during the BofB.

Well its rather simple, I would have believed even with a blindfold one would easily get it. The standard fuel in the RAF was 87 octane, and from around March 1940 we have a British document saying that 100 octane fuel replaced it in select fighter stations. No, it doesn't say all, it specifically says: "the fighter stations concerned".

That seems crystal clear I am afraid.

And, despite literally years spent desperately by some to find something to the contrary, there's an utter inability to produce a primary source even hinting universal use; Spitfire manuals from the summer of 1940 still continue to mention both 87 and 100 octane ratings, the fuel consumption figures of the RAF clearly show that 2/3s of the avgas consumption was 87 octane, research in Australia found a paper that clearly noted RAF FC had not managed to fully convert until November 1940; the utmost Spitfire authorites has noted the fears of 100 octane supply due to tanker losses and the U-boot threats.

Most of us find it difficult to ignore all of that, unlike you. And just because you continue to use loud rhetorics in otherwise hollow and childish posts, its not gonna change.

Abundant evidence exists for hundred octane fuel use by RAF FC, during operational sorties, but none has ever been produced showing 87 octane use by a single front line BofB RAF FC Spitfire or Hurricane sortie.

Which part of 87 octane being the standard fuel in the RAF FC prior the spring of 1940 and that afterwards select fighter stations were receiving 100 octane fuel were you unable to decode?

Kurfurst, it is time for you to put up or shut up.

I don't take orders from you I am afraid. ;)

klem

01-10-2012, 11:51 AM

Yeah easy. Simple. Quick. And all that in the middle of a ragging war when bomber units where painfully in needs of more power for take off as their aircraft were fitted with the absolute essential war-weary equipments they lacked before. And Hurricane units (the most numerous aircraft) were fighting hard the gap btw their mount and the fast flying germans bombers.

It makes no sense Klem. No a single notch of it. It's an illusion for late grown child tht prbably started somehow reading two line in an history books.

I love the Mayas civilization but I am not convincing myself Steve Job and the NASA were their creation

Guess why the 21st century RAF can't introduce a new fighter without so much pain ?

IMHO : You'd better help the devs to fix the Spit FM toward some realism at least. I am sure that they would then be happy (and with some financial interest too) to give you your boosted Merlin on Spitfire

I'll stick to the written sources of the time rather than the wishful thinking of todays gamers.

You do the ground crews and engineering personnel a great dis-service when you suggest they couldn't manage it 'in the middle of a ragging war'. Perhaps you are judging them by more casual peacetime standards.

If you can't make even a notch of sense from the reports you have been shown I can only assume you are suffering from the same wishful thinking that dogged Hermann Goering.

Like some other anti-100 posters you choose not to believe the evidence of the time that is presented. I can't change that and I'm not going to bother trying any more.

btw, if your 'late grown child' was a reference to me you couldn't be more wrong.

svend

01-10-2012, 12:00 PM

+1 couldn't agree more. Hats off to the guys researching and posting links to their sources.

+100

TomcatViP

01-10-2012, 12:27 PM

...from the same wishful thinking that dogged Hermann Goering...

Pls Klem edit your post. Hugely discomforting to read.

"The late grown child" was nothing as an insult.

Moreover I didn't say that there wasn't 100 oct. I say that there is no link that the FC was converted and it does not make any sense in an air defense campaign.

Let's take the biofuel swap of modern aircraft engine. It makes sense to test and add the use as a strategical resource for short high intensity conflict. That's why all major airforce today want to show others they have that possibility. Does it means that the USAF will convert its fleet of F15/16/22 to BioFuel ? Yeah as much as they want starving soldier on the battlefront...

You've got to get an eye on the purpose of an application. From time to time of course, there is no thinkable application for a reasonable mind.

fruitbat

01-10-2012, 01:18 PM

Moreover I didn't say that there wasn't 100 oct. I say that there is no link that the FC was converted and it does not make any sense in an air defense campaign.

lol.

svend

01-10-2012, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by TomcatViP
Moreover I didn't say that there wasn't 100 oct. I say that there is no link that the FC was converted and it does not make any sense in an air defense campaign.

:confused:

klem

01-10-2012, 03:01 PM

Pls Klem edit your post. Hugely discomforting to read.

"The late grown child" was nothing as an insult.

Moreover I didn't say that there wasn't 100 oct. I say that there is no link that the FC was converted and it does not make any sense in an air defense campaign.

Let's take the biofuel swap of modern aircraft engine. It makes sense to test and add the use as a strategical resource for short high intensity conflict. That's why all major airforce today want to show others they have that possibility. Does it means that the USAF will convert its fleet of F15/16/22 to BioFuel ? Yeah as much as they want starving soldier on the battlefront...

You've got to get an eye on the purpose of an application. From time to time of course, there is no thinkable application for a reasonable mind.

TomcatVIP perhaps there is a language problem here.

My previous post was a response to the way your post read. You seemed to be saying that the RAF did not have had 100 octane in wide use in FC and in your last post you say there was no link that it was converted but there are many links to show it was. You also say that it does not make sense to use it in an air defense campaign but what better time than when fighting for your life?

Your modern comparison with the biofuel example has no relevance in this argument. The RAF wasn't interested in showing it could use 100 octane for any propaganda or political purpose or as a standby fuel. It needed it, it had it and it used it. The "purpose of the application" was survival not merely a demonstration of capability.

I sincerely don't understand why a 'reasonable mind' cannot accept the documented evidence of the time showing widespread use. However, let me offer a suggestion. Let us suppose that not ALL of FC was converted for the BoB. Do you seriously believe that the fighter stations in the South East of England, facing almost all of the combat flying, would not have been equipped with 100 octane fuel when so much was available and the conversion process was fairly simple? If you want to say that the stations in Northern England may not have had 100 octane I am happy not to argue that point because they do not exist in CoD.

btw I am sorry if my reference to Hermann Goering was discomforting but it was precisely wishful thinking and ignoring or not gathering accurate intelligence that led to his poor conduct of the campaign. I felt it was a reasonable and relevant comparison with the views that wish to ignore documented evidence. Perhaps I should just say "believe what you like, we have 100 octane" (or we should have).

Anyway, if you still hold to your views and I still hold to mine there's no point in carrying on the discussion. I wish you well.

fruitbat

01-10-2012, 03:30 PM

I wouldn't bother to much Klem, i pretty sure some of the people here are members of this,

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

;)

Seadog

01-10-2012, 04:01 PM

Well its rather simple...

So you admit you can't produce evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB RAF FC Hurricane and Spitfire using 87 octane.

robtek

01-10-2012, 04:08 PM

So you admit you can't produce evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB RAF FC Hurricane and Spitfire using 87 octane.

Same as you can't PROVE that there wasn't one.

Seadog

01-10-2012, 04:31 PM

Same as you can't PROVE that there wasn't one.

Then why is there abundant evidence showing widespread use of 100 octane, and literally dozens of memoirs and histories showing the use of 100 octane, and many individual combat reports showing the use of 100 octane? Why are there no memoirs or squadron level or individual combat reports stating the use of 87 octane fuel?

I can't prove something that didn't happen, and there is NO evidence showing 87 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties during the BofB.

There is evidence for widespread 100 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane BofB combat sorties , but no evidence of Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties using 87 octane.

Osprey

01-10-2012, 04:36 PM

Which is precisely what I was talking about. You want to be taken seriously? Then start acting like a responsible adult capable of serious discussion instead of slinging mud at everyone who's interested in discussion instead of "Because I say so" type statements.

I think the some RAF fliers are done with that Thor. What we see now is a reaction because the last series was spoiled by individuals with an agenda and the devs bent over. This time, with more detail and with the same old hands more educated in terms of flying and historical knowledge, we see the Spit drivers stand up because they don't want it to happen again. Already we have some calling the Spitfire a UFO - these people can go to hell. I notice that these types never seem to mention the horrendous DM of the 109 though, for example.

I think I speak for practically all of the RAF jockeys when I say that I want accuracy even at the expense of the RAF, I hate to see this very vocal minority do the rest of us such a dis-service.

What are these types going to do when the DM is patched? They'll piss and moan rather than realise that they aren't super-pilots and need to fly a different way.

ElAurens

01-10-2012, 04:42 PM

It's called the "big lie" Osprey.

Repeat the same misinformantion often enough, and loud enough, and it will eventually be accepted as truth.

At least on gamer forums like this.

On real historical aviation forums this kind of behavior usually results in being laughed off the forum, or an outright ban.

Right Issy?

Osprey

01-10-2012, 04:43 PM

As for the tone on that forum- it's a marked contrast to the personal insults that get thrown around here.

It used to be like here, until they banned Kurfurst for the same as what he tries to do here. (I am not joking)

ElAurens

01-10-2012, 04:44 PM

See my above post.

Osprey

01-10-2012, 04:47 PM

research in Australia found a paper that clearly noted RAF FC had not managed to fully convert until November 1940;

Would this be that paper what Glider asked you to produce and you couldn't? That others made efforts through their records office contacts on your behalf and found nothing?

@ElAl, yup, got it.

The important thing is we get this message across to the development team though, if that happens I couldn't give a rat about what Kurfurst and co believe.

winny

01-10-2012, 05:25 PM

There's tons of circunstancial evidence that the RAF converted the Spitfires and Hurricanes. Loads of it.

A couple of things to also think about..

1. The modification to the boost cut out control that was needed was (AFAIK) one way, once done it meant you couldn't put 87 octane into a converted Merlin
(This is my understanding of it, correct me if you know better :))

2. At the time of the changeover the RAF painted '100' next to the fuel filler cap to ensure that the correct fuel was put in. I have literally hundreds of photographs of BoB Spitfires and I have yet to find a photograph taken during the BoB that shows a Spitfire or Hurricane with this feature, which suggests to me that the need to differentiate between the 2 types of fuel was no longer there, ie. all converted.

Also several RAF pilots state in their memoirs that the conversion took place 'just before' the BoB proper, Tim Viggors, Pete Brothers, Al Deere are recent ones I've read.

csThor

01-10-2012, 05:46 PM

I think the some RAF fliers are done with that Thor. What we see now is a reaction because the last series was spoiled by individuals with an agenda and the devs bent over. This time, with more detail and with the same old hands more educated in terms of flying and historical knowledge, we see the Spit drivers stand up because they don't want it to happen again. Already we have some calling the Spitfire a UFO - these people can go to hell. I notice that these types never seem to mention the horrendous DM of the 109 though, for example.

I think I speak for practically all of the RAF jockeys when I say that I want accuracy even at the expense of the RAF, I hate to see this very vocal minority do the rest of us such a dis-service.

What are these types going to do when the DM is patched? They'll piss and moan rather than realise that they aren't super-pilots and need to fly a different way.

See it this way: Back in the Il-2 days Oleg Maddox was accused of having no patriotism for making german aircraft too good vs the soviet types by the russian communities while he was accused of making the soviet types too good and the germans too bad by the germans. Oh and he was also accused of being a "damned commie" by the US community and of not having the slightest idea about history by the RAF fans because some types never made it into the game. So if everyone complained there must have been something right with the game ... ;)

I think it is a bit far fetched to say that the RAF types are modeled the way they are because of the lobbying of a few loud people. That gives them much more influence than they really have. But ...
It's one thing to vehemently defend the evidence or documents which point to the RAF using 100 octane fuel for its fighter squadrons (which I, as a LW-centered player with an avid interest in military history agree with). But I have also seen several discussions being more or less successfully derailed by the same outspoken RAF fans once the subject of german performance, and especially the question of the DB 601N equipped types, was mentioned. People may have their personal interests, that's fine and normal, but it must absolutely not lead to them wearing blinders and red/blue-tinted glasses which doesn't allow them to be impartial anymore. Being a fan is one thing, being a fanatic is another.

whoarmongar

01-10-2012, 05:55 PM

I have read loadsa memoirs from BoB pilots and have NEVER read anywhere in any of them about a pilot complaining along the lines of "Ran into a bunch of 109s/110s and couldnt catch them because we were using crappy low octane fuel".
I think if any BoB fighter squadrons in 11 group had been forced to use the low octane juice there would of been a stampede of squadron leaders knocking at fighter commands door complaining, and if that had happened and the prime minister (who had a full understanding of the importance of the BoB) had heard about it heads would have rolled.

Arghhh I really didnt want to get into this troltrap,I wish I hadnt posted but when someone is wrong on the internet you cant let them get away with it can you .

Kurfürst

01-10-2012, 06:39 PM

Would this be that paper what Glider asked you to produce and you couldn't?

Yes the very same I was referring to, although the full story goes that I have referred Glider to the findings of an Australian guy going under the handle Pips who posted the summary of this paper several years ago on butch's board. BTW Neil Stirling was also participating, but he keeps dead silent about this paper on his site propagating 100 octane use.

Now, despite being perfectly aware that he needs to contact this Australian guy, Glider kept b!tching to me about producing the paper, of which I have only seen a summary on a board. I kept telling him to contact Pips and ask him.

Instead, Glider kept asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

Then I gave Glider the URL to the discussion where this was posted. At first he claimed "he could not find the alleged discussion", then went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

After a while Glider gave up this tactic of dismissing the paper, and claimed he contacted the Australian archieves, but the Archive said they've never heard about it, and again went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

That others made efforts through their records office contacts on your behalf and found nothing?

Lastly, Glider reproduced the email reply of the Australian archive staff, who in reality replied to Glider's vaguely worded email (somewhere along the lines 'gimme the paper of 100 octane') that given such inaduquate reference that he gave, its not possible to find it and he should supply accurate and precise reference so they would try to dig it up.

You may have already guess that after that Glider went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australi, having seen but a summary of the paper on a discussion board and giving him all details I've known about, a to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

At that point I believe it's understandable that I came to the conclusion that, for entirely subjective reasons, it may not be possible to have a fruitful and rational discussion on the matter with Glider.

Then you came into the picture and told your (half-)story, and so I've told mine, and now people can make up their minds about you, Glider, and the concept of credibility. ;)

Kurfürst

01-10-2012, 06:44 PM

On real historical aviation forums this kind of behavior usually results in being laughed off the forum, or an outright ban.

Right Issy?

Right. And that's is why I was never banned from a real historical aviation forum, and that is why you have been never been a member of one, or have the slightest idea how a discussion would look like between people with real interest in combat aviation and an open mind, regardless of nationality. ;)

Kurfürst

01-10-2012, 06:53 PM

So you admit you can't produce evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB RAF FC Hurricane and Spitfire using 87 octane.

No, I didn't. And as others have pointed out, if you want to prove that RAF fighters ran on nothing but 100 octane, you should bring the evidence for it, not asking me to disprove your unsupported theory. ;)

winny

01-10-2012, 07:33 PM

No, I didn't. And as others have pointed out, if you want to prove that RAF fighters ran on nothing but 100 octane, you should bring the evidence for it, not asking me to disprove your unsupported theory. ;)

if you want to prove that RAF fighters ran on a mix of 87 and 100 octane, you should bring the evidence for it....

Round and round we go..

So can you give me a definite number of 87 octane fighters used by the British between June and November 1940? To prove your theory.

No, you can't. So you're in exactly the same situation as the people you're asking evidence from. Except that you're being hypocritical. your theory is exactly that, a theory.

robtek

01-10-2012, 07:41 PM

Then why is there abundant evidence showing widespread use of 100 octane, and literally dozens of memoirs and histories showing the use of 100 octane, and many individual combat reports showing the use of 100 octane? Why are there no memoirs or squadron level or individual combat reports stating the use of 87 octane fuel?

I can't prove something that didn't happen, and there is NO evidence showing 87 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties during the BofB.

There is evidence for widespread 100 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane BofB combat sorties , but no evidence of Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties using 87 octane.

There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

The compromise solution might be that the overwhelming majority did use 100 oct.

Kurfürst

01-10-2012, 07:44 PM

fruitbat

01-10-2012, 09:03 PM

Blakduk

01-10-2012, 10:08 PM

No, not happy at all.

All the evidence indicates that 100 octane fuel was ubiquitous in Fighter command during the Battle of Britain. The only 'evidence' to the contrary is one unverified document that allegedly existed at some time in an archive in Australia, that now cannot be retrieved. There is unfortunately no copy of it anywhere and repeated requests by members of other forums to be shown evidence confirming the existence of this document have come to nought.

The British had determined to use 100 octane fuel in aeroplanes in 1938 (despite the technological hurdles confronting them in refining the stuff). Sufficient advances in techonology were achieved such that by later 1939 the decision was made to standardise Fighter Command's fuel to 100 octane. Conversion took place throughout the early part of 1940, to the extent that it was considered standard by March/April 1940. By July 1940, when the BoB was beginning, it was a done deal.
Conversion for the remainder of the RAF (bomber and coastal command) was ordered in late 1940 but not completed until early 1941.

To insist on placating a person who has a contrary belief despite the lack of supporting evidence for their view is pure folly.

As Geoffery Lloyd, the minister for 'Fuel and Power' in 1940 later said in answer to a question put to him in 1944 'Do you think 100 octane was the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain in 1940?', he replied 'I think we would not have won the battle of britain without 100 octane- but we did have 100 octane'.

Seadog

01-10-2012, 10:13 PM

There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

The compromise solution might be that the overwhelming majority did use 100 oct.

There is a black and white dicotomy:

White: There is evidence for numerous combat sorties by BofB Hurricanes and Spitfires using 100 octane fuel.

Black: There is NO evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB Hurricane or Spitfire using 87 octane fuel.

There is NO grey zone, because if there was, there would be evidence for combat sorties with 87 octane fuel along with 100 octane fuel.

Theory: 100 octane was used exclusively by front-line RAF FC Hurricanes and Spitfires during the BofB.

Theory predicts that combat reports would be uncovered showing 100 octane use. These reports exist and have been brought to light; the theory correctly predicts the evidence.

Theory: 87 and 100 octane was used by front-line RAF FC Hurricanes and Spitfires during the BofB.

Theory predicts that combat reports would be uncovered showing 87 octane use. These reports do not exist, and none have ever been published.
The theory fails the evidence test.

ACE-OF-ACES

01-10-2012, 10:27 PM

Right Issy?
WOW.. That brings back memories! ;)

fruitbat

01-10-2012, 10:36 PM

As long as there's a 100 octane spit mk 1 and hurri in game, i'm happy, which even the most vociferous naysayers admit were there in some numbers.

As to whether they all were or whatever, the nay sayers won't change there mind, but it will be irrelevant, and they can argue till the cows come home for all i care.

Mission builders can build as they see fit.

As long as we get the 100 octane spit and hurri.

Blakduk

01-10-2012, 11:04 PM

My issue is not really about the game in this discussion- if the game developers want to even up the competition between red and blue by compromising elements that's their call. I'll still play it.
Want i dont want to see happen is people altering historical facts.

As Captain Rum said in Blackadder when challenged about not having a crew a aboard his ship:
Blackadder- 'I was under the impression that it was common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew'
Rum:- 'Opinion is divided on the subject'.
Edmund: 'Oh, really?'
Rum: 'Yes. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn't'

fruitbat

01-10-2012, 11:35 PM

Want i dont want to see happen is people altering historical facts.

People have been doing that since history began.

I like you see all the evidence thats been presented to show only one thing, but there are some here that won't change there mind for whatever reason.

However, since even the most vocal naysayers admit that there was hurris and Spit mk1s using 100 octane fuel in some reasonable numbers, they need to be in the game period.

As long as the devs get that, the rest is just immaterial to me, people believe strange things, after all some people still believe the earth is flat....

SEE

01-10-2012, 11:50 PM

There is a lot of interesting data and facts regards the octane rating and I have enjoyed reading through them, But, the simple truth is that a Rotol Spit Mk1a, as modelled, is slower than a Rotol Hurricane and the 6Ilbs of Boost does sweet FA to boot! - That's about as 'Black and White' as it gets - there is no 'grey' area in that simple observation!

Even if not completely perfect, relative performance of all the fighters is the essential fix for me (for the time being anyway....except having 6Ibs of boost working is better than no Boost)!

Bounder!

01-11-2012, 03:08 AM

TomcatViP

01-11-2012, 11:51 AM

If we are still debating (I mean hearing each other arguments) I wld say that Spit FM need to be fixed... Then the matter of 100 or no 100 won't be such a question. [/SradfordUpAvon_Mode=OFF]

robtek

01-11-2012, 12:01 PM

As MG already said, that FM's and DM's would be fixed/revised with the next patch, i'd like to say, any discussion of FM/DM before that is a pure waste of time

klem

01-11-2012, 12:29 PM

If we are still debating (I mean hearing each other arguments) I wld say that Spit FM need to be fixed... Then the matter of 100 or no 100 won't be such a question. [/SradfordUpAvon_Mode=OFF]

Possibly. I haven't looked into it but perhaps the 'undermodelling' of the Spitfires is because they are modelled with 87 Octane?

Kurfürst

01-11-2012, 02:08 PM

Hmm, Spitfires being undermodelled. Interesting.

Klem, may I ask you to try something.

Pick a Spitfire II.
Bank it 90 degrees.
Pull back the stick fully forward.

Come back here and share your observations about it. :D

Al Schlageter

01-11-2012, 02:14 PM

CaptainDoggles

01-11-2012, 02:34 PM

Possibly. I haven't looked into it but perhaps the 'undermodelling' of the Spitfires is because they are modelled with 87 Octane?

"Spitfires" as a whole are not undermodeled. I'll agree that the Spitfire Mk.1 is underperforming, but not because of "87 octane".

This is what I was trying to get at earlier in this thread. People misunderstand what the octane number actually measures.

CaptainDoggles

01-11-2012, 02:36 PM

How does one pull back the stick fully forward?

:rolleyes: I think you know what he means.

Kurfürst

01-11-2012, 02:40 PM

I'll agree that the Spitfire Mk.1 is underperforming, but not because of "87 octane".

Frankly I am not sure about them. Do they (Mark Is, they seem to be modelled with 87 octane boost levels) not meet specs for a 87 octane one? Climb too slow? Or..?

VO101_Tom

01-11-2012, 02:51 PM

Possibly. I haven't looked into it but perhaps the 'undermodelling' of the Spitfires is because they are modelled with 87 Octane?

Frankly I am not sure about them. Do they (Mark Is, they seem to be modelled with 87 octane boost levels) not meet specs for a 87 octane one? Climb too slow? Or..?

No.
Couple of months ago i compared the www.spitperformance.org graphs with the game speeds (here (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=347529&postcount=29)). The graphs show the 6lbs boost (with 87 oct. fuel) speed of Spitfire. The 109 would be faster, but not that much – if we look at the proportions of course, because now the 109 is slower than it should).

klem

01-11-2012, 04:56 PM

No.
Couple of months ago i compared the www.spitperformance.org graphs with the game speeds (here (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=347529&postcount=29)). The graphs show the 6lbs boost (with 87 oct. fuel) speed of Spitfire. The 109 would be faster, but not that much – if we look at the proportions of course, because now the 109 is slower than it should).

Thanks tom, it was just a thought.
(I think this is the link you meant http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html )

================================================== =

@Kurfurst. Sorry if I was not clear. I was talking about the Spitfires that are universally claimed to be "underperforming", these are the Spitfire I and Ia. I did not mean the Spitfire IIs.

I did some quick checks on the Mk II a few months ago against the MkII report linked above. I couldn't get it to fly as fast as the report stated but it was very close, just a couple of % under. Mind you I was pretty crude about it, as it meant thrashing the engine at the maximum boost I could make at that altitude (the report suggests +9lbs boost was used) and eventually it broke. So not to be taken too seriously and probably also impatience on my part. Results:-

Alt Boost RPM ASI mph ASI in report
6500 +5.3 2990 280 between 306 @ 5,000' and 326 @ 10,000
10000 +5.3 2990 280 326
15000 +6.2 2990 270 345
(on another run at 10,000' I seem to have written down +5.3 and 290 mph {?!} )

All below the reported data but of course I could not get +9lbs boost.

You may find this site interesting. I can't vouch for its accuracy butit looks pretty good to me.....
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
You can see from the level speed chart why we want the 100 octane - and I can understand why you would not be happy about that. By the way I have read several bio accounts of how, in the BoB, the 109 would escape in a dive but on occasions it was possible for the Spitfire to catch them in long chase.

Incidentally on use of 100 octane fuel, I know we seem to have agreed to disagree but that last link contains the following ...

"As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock. The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons.

Jeffrey Quill recalled:

It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb."

What is interesting apart from the date by which FC was converted is that quarterly use was 18,100 tons against a stockpile of 220,000 tons. There was no shortage.

Osprey

01-11-2012, 05:10 PM

Klem, he's seen all of that but he just isn't interested. Tom's post is interesting, I will have to read more on the top speeds since I am quite surprised that the 109E-1 is marked @ 302mph vs the Spitfire 283mph. I know it's @SL but that is rather a lot.

I'll answer all in one post if you can stomach it ;)

...I think it is a bit far fetched to say that the RAF types are modeled the way they are because of the lobbying of a few loud people. That gives them much more influence than they really have. But ...
It's one thing to vehemently defend the evidence or documents which point to the RAF using 100 octane fuel for its fighter squadrons (which I, as a LW-centered player with an avid interest in military history agree with). But I have also seen several discussions being more or less successfully derailed by the same outspoken RAF fans once the subject of german performance, and especially the question of the DB 601N equipped types, was mentioned. People may have their personal interests, that's fine and normal, but it must absolutely not lead to them wearing blinders and red/blue-tinted glasses which doesn't allow them to be impartial anymore. Being a fan is one thing, being a fanatic is another.

I oppose all types who argue this. I don't get involved in the DB601 argument because I don't know anything about it. Show this evidence and I'm sure you'd get support from the likes of Klem, Al Sch... etc and myself here.

Yes the very same I was referring to, although the full story goes that I have referred Glider to the findings of an Australian guy going under the handle Pips who posted the summary of this paper several years ago on butch's board. BTW Neil Stirling was also participating, but he keeps dead silent about this paper on his site propagating 100 octane use.

Now, despite being perfectly aware that he needs to contact this Australian guy, Glider kept b!tching to me about producing the paper, of which I have only seen a summary on a board. I kept telling him to contact Pips and ask him.

Instead, Glider kept asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

Then I gave Glider the URL to the discussion where this was posted. At first he claimed "he could not find the alleged discussion", then went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

After a while Glider gave up this tactic of dismissing the paper, and claimed he contacted the Australian archieves, but the Archive said they've never heard about it, and again went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

Lastly, Glider reproduced the email reply of the Australian archive staff, who in reality replied to Glider's vaguely worded email (somewhere along the lines 'gimme the paper of 100 octane') that given such inaduquate reference that he gave, its not possible to find it and he should supply accurate and precise reference so they would try to dig it up.

You may have already guess that after that Glider went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australi, having seen but a summary of the paper on a discussion board and giving him all details I've known about, a to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

At that point I believe it's understandable that I came to the conclusion that, for entirely subjective reasons, it may not be possible to have a fruitful and rational discussion on the matter with Glider.

Then you came into the picture and told your (half-)story, and so I've told mine, and now people can make up their minds about you, Glider, and the concept of credibility. ;)

Just to understand you then. You are dismissing a multitude of documents which have been produced in various forms from the time in favour of a single one which you cannot produce on the basis that the person who didn't believe it but tried to get it, couldn't, and neither could you?
Seriously Kurfurst, do you not see the gaping hole in your argument? I'm not kidding when I say this but continuing with logic like this generally ends up with the propagator being called a lunatic. Is it just really because you are unable to accept that you are wrong or is there some other reason? You can't use the same protocol which courts of law use, there is no innocent until proven guilty, it's perfectly acceptable to use circumstancial evidence if there is enough of it.

Hmm, Spitfires being undermodelled. Interesting.

Klem, may I ask you to try something.

Pick a Spitfire II.
Bank it 90 degrees.
Pull back the stick fully forward.

Come back here and share your observations about it. :D

What exactly will this prove? That the Spitfire out-turns the 109? It does.

I'm presently reading "A Willingness to Die" by Brian Kingcome, his memoirs. He was a frontline BoB Spitfire pilot for 92 Squadron @ Hornchurch. Last night I read, on page 123, chapter 5, "The Phoney War and The Real Thing" he writes "slowly we reverted almost to a peacetime routine, time of year and sunset permitting, we usually ended our day with a beer or so in the mess before setting out on a pub crawl, pooling our petrol coupons or occasionally filching the odd gallon of 100 octane aviation fuel from the bowsers at dispersal.". This was during the phoney war, BEFORE the German invasion of France.

ACE-OF-ACES

01-11-2012, 05:16 PM

winny

01-11-2012, 06:12 PM

From the history of Trimpell Oil Refinery - Heysham. I'd love to know where they got the '384 Spitfires converted' from, would be interesting to find out.

The site was set up in 1939 as the Heysham Aviation Fuel Works to produce aviation fuel for the RAF. Using coke brought in from the Durham coal field together with imported gas oil, ICI produced the base petrol and ammonia while Shell produced iso-octane to boost the base petrol from 87 octane to 100 octane standard. Shell had found that the use of tetraethyl lead and hydrogen as fuel additives made it possible to suppress engine knock and to boost aircraft engine performance.

The plant at Heysham, together with those at Stanlow and Billingham produced iso-octane additives required to raise 87 octane fuel to 100 octane rating. Initially, the limited size of the 100 octane fuel stockpile required strict rationing until supplies could be increased to meet requirements and the 100 octane fuel was dyed green to distinguish it from the 87 octane fuel which was blue.
Bulk supply contracts for higher octane fuel were placed by the Air Ministry and it was put into widespread use in the RAF in March 1940 when Spitfires' Rolls Royce Merlin engines were converted to use the 100 octane fuel.

By May 1940, reconnaissance Spitfires had begun flying combat missions using the 100 octane fuel. By 31 July 1940, there were 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using the 100 octane fuel.

VO101_Tom

01-11-2012, 06:26 PM

Thanks tom, it was just a thought.
(I think this is the link you meant http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html )

Yes, this site.

VO101_Tom

01-11-2012, 07:10 PM

I will have to read more on the top speeds since I am quite surprised that the 109E-1 is marked @ 302mph vs the Spitfire 283mph.

That is not even the top speed. Only 1:32 ata boost pressure ("climb and combat power"). The maximum performance ("start and emergency power") is 1:42-1:45 ata. This would be an additional 150-200 PS (http://iaro.3dmax.hu/images/2011/11/29/chart01.jpg) (~15-20%) engine power...

Seadog

01-11-2012, 07:11 PM

From the history of Trimpell Oil Refinery - Heysham. I'd love to know where they got the '384 Spitfires converted' from, would be interesting to find out.

By May 1940, reconnaissance Spitfires had begun flying combat missions using the 100 octane fuel. By 31 July 1940, there were 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using the 100 octane fuel.[/I]

According to Dowding there were 19 Spitfire squadrons in RAF FC on July 08 1940:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/LondonGazette/37719.pdf (p4560-61)

but I'm not sure where the 384 figure comes from.

Faustnik

01-11-2012, 07:22 PM

Has anyone bothered to log the TAS, Altitude, Throttle setting, etc in real time to a file during the CoD spitfire test flight?

This forum is interesting from the history discution. Some +12 data is really nice! Its to bad that so much RED vs. BLUE bs.

After the new patch we should do some testing.

ACE-OF-ACES

01-11-2012, 07:30 PM

After the new patch we should do some testing.
It would be nice if more people did before claiming the FM is too this or too that..

But I fear that will never will happen..

Which is why I decided to make my own website dedicated to performance testing, i.e.

www.flightsimtesting.com

Where I have created an online version of IL-2Compare, which allows you can compare one plane to another.

Right now all I have is IL-2 data..

But I am working on posting CoD and real world data..

Than you will be able to compare 'game' data to 'real world' data side by side in real time.

Basically all the stuff I have been doing for the past 10+ years in print outs people will be able to do in real time onilne.

TomcatViP

01-11-2012, 07:42 PM

Wow great !

thx I will be a frequent visitor. You'd better assign a chair to my name in some corner ;)

VO101_Tom

01-11-2012, 07:56 PM

Has anyone bothered to log the TAS, Altitude, Throttle setting, etc in real time to a file during the CoD spitfire test flight?

And than compare that data to the real world data?

If not I would highly recommend that you do, because based on my experience most of the 'errors' people argue about are pilot errors during the test flight, not FM errors.

And the only way to be sure of that is to log said data in real time during the entire test flight, because something as simple as not holding a steady altitude during flight can have a big impact on the speed values.

Hi. The conditions were ideal for the game, so we get the best results - this can only get worse if there was disturbing circumstance. That was the maximum speed that I could reach.

I had same settings during all tests.
Realism settings: full real. Weapons, fuel, weathering was default (can't change anyway).
Quick mission: Bomber Intercept Low, without enemies. Altitude: 0-50m over the Channel, time: 12:00, i dont know the wind. All speed IAS.

I slowed down the aircrafts at the start, then full gas. Trim tab set to level flight (without ascent/descent of course), the radiators was open as needed, and no WEP. Variable Prop Pitch set to max constant speed (had to experiment with this, but the results are all maximum, constant speed).

Are you tested them? You have different values?

ACE-OF-ACES

01-11-2012, 07:57 PM

Wow great !

thx I will be a frequent visitor. You'd better assign a chair to my name in some corner ;)Consider it done! ;)

ACE-OF-ACES

01-11-2012, 08:05 PM

Hi.
Hey!

The conditions were ideal for the game, so we get the best results - this can only get worse if there was disturbing circumstance. That was the maximum speed that I could reach.
Not 100% sure yet if the 'ideal' conditions in the game equate to 'standard atmosphere' conditions.. Which is what all real world data is converted to, unless stated otherwise. I am pretty sure the 'ideal' conditions are not 'standard atmosphere' based on some of the temps and pressures I have seen thus far.. But the good news is it is a simple mater to convert the CoD data to 'standard atmosphere' conditions, by using the same methods they use to convert real world data

I had same settings during all tests.
Realism settings: full real. Weapons, fuel, weathering was default (can't change anyway).
Quick mission: Bomber Intercept Low, without enemies. Altitude: 0-50m over the Channel, time: 12:00, i don't know the wind. All speed IAS.
That is the way to do it.. Stick with the same conditions for each test.

I slowed down the aircrafts at the start, then full gas. Trim tab set to level flight (without ascent/descent of course), the radiators was open as needed, and no WEP. Variable Prop Pitch set to max constant speed (had to experiment with this, but the results are all maximum, constant speed).
Now all you need is to go to the FMB section, talk to Altros and ask him for the C# file that will allow you to log the flight data to a text file as you fly the mission, than you can use that data to verify the test methods (read how you fly) and once that is verified as correct you can than convert the data to standard atmospheric conditions and compare it to the real world data.. Or wait a few weeks until I get my website done! ;)

Are you tested them? You have different values?
I have been doing some CoD testing.. But I have been more interested in getting my website done, in light of the fact that the next patch may change the way a lot of the planes currently fly.

VO101_Tom

01-11-2012, 08:37 PM

Sure, I have not tested anything untill the next patch. :rolleyes:
The online compare sounds good, i save this bookmark before, looking forward the clod version :cool:

Blakduk

01-11-2012, 09:12 PM

If this game ever models the BoB spitfires and hurricanes correctly i predict the same thing will happen as happened in Il2- far fewer will fly for blue as they will complain the spitfires are too good at dogfighting, and they will be labelled 'noob' planes!
I'm fine with that- i used to fly a lot on the Skies of Fire server and would frequently have to fly blue to even up the maps. Avoiding any turn-fighting and never engaging a Spitfire unless you had an 'E' advantage were critical.

I'm okay with that as too few people fly these planes the way they were historically- Galland stated in his book 'The First to the Last' that the '... Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more maneuverable'. He then went on to make the famous request of Goring to be given a flight of Spitfires.

ACE-OF-ACES

01-11-2012, 09:24 PM

far fewer will fly for blue as they will complain the spitfires are too good at dogfighting, and they will be labelled 'noob' planes
To be fair.. that sort of stuff is not limited to blue pilots..

Depending on the match up you will find red pilots doing the same thing!

And it is that sort of stuff is why I am making my website..

Because I 'belive' that once people can see a side by side comparsion graph of ingame plane data vs. real world plane data..

And the data matches within say 5%

They will not be able to make such claims anymore!

At which point they will have to look in the mirror and 'realise' the true sorce of thier defeat! ;)

On the flip side

If the ingame plane data does not match within 5% than they will have a valid argument and don't have to look in the mirror! ;)

TomcatViP

01-11-2012, 09:39 PM

Hummm may I remind you that Il2 compare does not take into account E ?

The prob with the Spit in old Il2 was not so much with the numbers but with its relaxed "E-liability".

Somehow the very same happen here for now.

@Duk : your comment was funny to read. If I resum you said that It was hated as naturally too good... Sorry but didn't you forgot to mention the fact that only the very best flew the SPit in Il2 ;)

Blakduk

01-11-2012, 09:48 PM

AOA- I appreciate your efforts in collating the data and displaying it for all to see- i've found such efforts invaluable throughout my time playing the Il2 series.

What i really miss is the program Neural Dream created- the 'Aircraft Reference Guide' ( I think it's still on the Mission4Today website). The layout was so easy to use and especially helpful when the aircraft were unfamiliar. As this series expands i hope some talented people produce such excellent work for this.

@Tomcat- in Il2 the Spit is very forgiving. If you make mistakes and find yourself at a disadvantage in a 1:1 engagment you can yank-and-bank your way out of trouble, especially if a 109 is foolish enough to engage in a lengthy rolling scissors type dogfight. I agree the relaxed 'E' liability was suspicious, but the higher wing loading of the 109 may account for that. I found a 109 could outturn a Spit at high speed with a harsh quick turn, but would bleed E very quickly if the hard turn was sustained for more than a few seconds.

CaptainDoggles

01-11-2012, 10:05 PM

And it is that sort of stuff is why I am making my website..

What website is this?

VO101_Tom

01-11-2012, 10:26 PM

What website is this?

http://www.flightsimtesting.com/

CaptainDoggles

01-11-2012, 10:29 PM

Oh neat stuff.

ACE-OF-ACES

01-11-2012, 10:43 PM

Hummm may I remind you that Il2 compare does not take into account E ?
No need!

In that it is something I am well aware of, and none of the standard WWII performance charts like TAS vs Altitude and ROC vs Altitude are depended on the E state. As a mater of fact the test methods are preformed such that E does not factor into the test.

For example, TAS vs. Altitude is a 'level' speed test, as in no change in altitude before or after the TAS value. That is to say you can not dive down from 12kft to 10kft and use that TAS value as the max value at 10kft. The TAS value for 10kft has to be obtained in level flight. That is to say you can not convert altitude into speed (convert energy)

The prob with the Spit in old Il2 was not so much with the numbers but with its relaxed "E-liability".

Somehow the very same happen here for now.
This is a perfect example of a 'theory' that has no real world data to support it..

That is to say, I challenge you to find any real world data on this so called "E-liability" of a Spitfire..

After just a few moments you will realize there is no such data..
Thus no way anyone could compare the in game Spitfire E-Liability numbers to the real Spitfire E-Liability numbers
Thus no way anyone could say how well the in game Spitfire E-Liability is simulated

fruitbat

01-11-2012, 11:26 PM

No need!

In that it is something I am well aware of, and none of the standard WWII performance charts like TAS vs Altitude and ROC vs Altitude are depended on the E state. As a mater of fact the test methods are preformed such that E does not factor into the test.

For example, TAS vs. Altitude is a 'level' speed test, as in no change in altitude before or after the TAS value. That is to say you can not dive down from 12kft to 10kft and use that TAS value as the max value at 10kft. The TAS value for 10kft has to be obtained in level flight. That is to say you can not convert altitude into speed (convert energy)

This is a perfect example of a 'theory' that has no real world data to support it..

That is to say, I challenge you to find any real world data on this so called "E-liability" of a Spitfire..

After just a few moments you will realize there is no such data..
Thus no way anyone could compare the in game Spitfire E-Liability numbers to the real Spitfire E-Liability numbers
Thus no way anyone could say how well the in game Spitfire E-Liability is simulated

Which does lead to the interesting question, how do 1C and other company's making flight sims actually model E-Liability numbers?

How do they derive these?

CaptainDoggles

01-12-2012, 12:19 AM

There's no such thing as "E-liability". It is a concept invented by layperson sim pilots, and is not something that is expressly modeled in any serious flight simulator.

When you increase the load factor on an aircraft (i.e. when you pull back on the stick) then you increase the drag coefficient. This is what slows the aircraft down.

41Sqn_Stormcrow

01-12-2012, 12:36 AM

But this is the whole point. For me E-Liability is the capacity of a plane to retain energy which is the sum of speed-based energy and altitude-based energy. I do not want to go into detail but basically E-Liability in a turn for instance will depend on the lift a plane can generate by increasing the angle of attack and how much this will cause drag. The more you pull the more lift your plane generates due to higher angle of attack and the tighter you turn. Now basically ALL planes will be able to generate the same amount of lift or let's say the same amount of lift/weight. A plane however that requires more angle of attack to do so will create - by same aerodynamic performance - more drag than one that does not need this. For instance this would happen to a Spit that has a higher weight. In order to achieve same turn radius the heavier Spit would require higher angle of attack and hence more drag would be created slowing down the heavier Spit more.

Again, if the aerodynamic performance is not as well for a plane (at same weight) it would either also have to pull more angle of attack to create the same amount of lift.

Or, even if another not so performing plane can generate same amount of lift with same angle of attack, it still might generate more drag.

Now if we take into account propulsion too, we can basically say that the plane with the better thrust will be more at ease to compensate higher drag, so even if the plane would have to pull stronger for same turn radius (for instance because of higher weight, aerodynamic performance being similar otherwise) it might still be capable to preserve its speed at the same rate as the lighter aircraft if its engine is powerful enough.

So, summa summarum, it is a darn complicated story. My guess is that no flight sim ever gets so deep into detail to really come up with a good set of data. I think all flight sim FMs are based on some parameters and tweeks to fit quantitave and some qualitative criteria for each plane and hoping that for other qualitative criteria the outcome is ok.

CaptainDoggles

01-12-2012, 12:40 AM

So, summa summarum, it is a darn complicated story.Agree. But I feel that for someone who does not understand the basics of flight performance, it is disingenuous at best to explain something to them in terms of the pseudo-property "e liability".

My guess is that no flight sim ever gets so deep into detail to really come up with a good set of data. I think all flight sim FMs are based on some parameters and tweeks to fit quantitave and some qualitative criteria for each plane and hoping that for other qualitative criteria the outcome is ok.Also agree. There are a lot of 2nd-order differential equations in aerodynamics that are not efficient to solve in real-time, esp. on consumer-level hardware.

IvanK

01-12-2012, 01:05 AM

Specific Excess Power (Ps) is the measure of cough "E-Liabilty", and takes into account the complete picture, i.e aerodynamics power etc. The Fan plot in Il2 Compare provides a single Ps=0 line at 1000m for all types derived from turn times. From this you can determine each types Sustained G capability which is a function Ps. Fan plots were invented for this purpose.

We also know of the calculated Fan plot that the RAE produced for the 109E3 and Spitfire I at 12,000ft. Comparing the values will provide a comparative measure of Sustained turn performance ... or E under G/AOA. The chart gives the 109E 3 a sustained turn capability of 2.4G and the Spitfire MKI a sustained G of 3G.

A 0.6G sustained turn advantage is pretty significant

Neat On line implementation of Il2 Compare whose responsible for that ? V101_Tom or Ace of Aces ? ... be nice to see the fan plots in there as well.

SEE

01-12-2012, 01:18 AM

......the spitfires are too good at dogfighting, and they will be labelled 'noob' planes!

"Even a child could fly one!" no guesses who made that famous remark!

The simple truth is that many of the pilots who flew these highly advanced machines were just kids fresh out of school with no combat experience.

That remark is testament to Mitchells excellent design - a damned good fighter that a kid and young men could, and bloody well had to, fly against overwhelming odds, excellent Axis fighters and adversaries with more combat experience!

ACE-OF-ACES

01-12-2012, 01:21 AM

Which does lead to the interesting question, how do 1C and other company's making flight sims actually model E-Liability numbers?

How do they derive these?
I have to agree with Captain Doggles.. I have never come across that term until today.. So I wouldn't even want to guess at what it means.. I can only assume it is a differnt way of saying specific excess power (Ps).. Which can be calculated from the avaliable IL-2Compare data..

See figure 20 in the following pdf link.

FLIGHT MODEL ANALYSIS OF THE HSFX 5.0b Bf-109G-10 1944 (http://www.flightsimtesting.com/temp/FM_ANALYSIS.pdf)

This is the kind of test reports I use to create, until I decided to make a website where people can select the plane they are interested in, at which piont it will calculate all these graphs on the fly (pun intended). I will be adding the Ps chart and others to my website in the following weeks to come

ACE-OF-ACES

01-12-2012, 01:38 AM

Neat On line implementation of Il2 Compare whose responsible for that ? V101_Tom or Ace of Aces ? ... be nice to see the fan plots in there as well.
This I..

See the link to the pdf in my previous post.. I have fan plots (aka DogHouse) and Ps charts and more.. I am slowly adding those each weekend that I get some time to work on it.. I actully have the fan plots done, but, I need to add the lables for the constant load factors and constant turn radius lines..

I have done all this before in MATLAB, but never before in a website app in C#, but it is not hard to do, just takes time. My goal is to have everthing that is in that pdf on my webpage.. AND MORE! ;) For example, you can change the fuel loads in my version of IL-2Compare Online, which is something you could not do in the old executable version

ACE-OF-ACES

01-12-2012, 01:51 AM

In that it is something I am well aware of, and none of the standard WWII performance charts like TAS vs Altitude and ROC vs Altitude are depended on the E state. As a mater of fact the test methods are preformed such that E does not factor into the test.
Hmmm before someone jumps me on this.. Allow me to say this better than I said here

In that it is something I am well aware of, and none of the standard WWII performance charts like TAS vs Altitude and ROC vs Altitude are depended on the conversion of E. As a mater of fact the test methods are preformed such that conversion of E (i.e. alt to speed, or speed to alt) is not allowed. That is during a speed test altitude is held constant, thus the change in E is only due to the change in speed. Where as during a ROC test, the speed (climb speed) is held constant, thus the change in E is only due to the change in altitude

There that is more correct

JtD

01-12-2012, 04:28 AM

Historical performance data for climb typically comes with a climb speed information. This climb speed hardly ever is constant. Often, TAS increases while IAS decreases. This has an effect on climb performance, and it is measurable. Il-2 compare does not take the planes acceleration into account, and the climb performance in Il-2 compare is a little bit higher than what is achievable in game or would be, even if perfectly modelled, with the real plane.

klem

01-12-2012, 06:59 AM

"Even a child could fly one!" no guesses who made that famous remark!

The simple truth is that many of the pilots who flew these highly advanced machines were just kids fresh out of school with no combat experience.

That remark is testament to Mitchells excellent design - a damned good fighter that a kid and young men could, and bloody well had to, fly against overwhelming odds, excellent Axis fighters and adversaries with more combat experience!

One question asked at the time was "could the average RAF pilot go to war in this". Answer, born out by the many interviews you can still find on Discovery, History, etc channels is "Yes" and "you didn't get into a Spitfire you strapped it on, it was a delight to fly" (Bob Doe I believe). Adolph Galland, comparing it to the Me109: "The Spitfire was ridiculously easy to land".

On the subject of 'E' state, performance, is it right? etc.. A decent flight model will take all that into account. The data for power, weight, drag factors etc have to be correct and the environment data, including gravity, is modelled in.

In simplistic terms 'E' at 500 feet is essentially the same as 'E' at 10,000 feet for the same true speed. E=MC^2. Its when you change altitude, power etc that E changes. Potential E is another matter, you have the potential to develop much more E at 10,000 feet (by diving) than you do at 500 feet, also you have the potential to develop more E by putting up the power.

TomcatViP

01-12-2012, 09:56 AM

It seems I need to add some clarification here.

The Term I invented - E-Liability - was part of attempt to make a joke combining the Law of Energy conservation (Em=cte - Em being the mechanical energy of a closed system - ie : every well defined system) and the fact that our beloved Spit in IL2 had the right to bypass it (the dive climb maneuver for example).

SO sorry it was pure un-intentional trolling :oops:

Specific excess power (SPow) is what come close to this - Thx IK.

Just remind that Em = cte is not a true representation of what is really happening. The plane is in fact trading energy with the surrounding air at an huge rate so the the neat amount would be most of the time negative in a dogfight.

For example, flying level if you attempt a climb you'll go higher than if you had started turning just before. An other example is the yoyo move.

A good equation IMHO that give a clear picture of this is the low kinetic energy that stat that the time derivation of the kinetic energy equate the sum of consumed power of a system

dEc/dt = Sum of (P)

With P being the power of the engine, the power consumed by the drag etc... depending only of the speed and the turn rate.

BoT :

Following IK remark : 0.6G is a huge diff.
But doesn't it look right if you compare the wing area ?
However it would be only an advantage in a flat turn. Slow speed turn with vertical added would be problematic for the Spit pilot giving the wing being prone to dyn stall (lower aspect ratio + thiner + elliptical planform) and the ctrl sensitivity in pitch that you alrdy hve demonstrated.

But do we hve similar curves for the Hurri ?

SEE

01-12-2012, 12:57 PM

ACE-OF-ACES

01-12-2012, 02:01 PM

Historical performance data for climb typically comes with a climb speed information.
Typically? Well I have not counted all the test reports that included BCS vs. those that did not include BCS, but based on my memory I have seen more test reports without BCS than with

This climb speed hardly ever is constant.
Same is true wrt altitude in top speed testing.. It is impossible to maintain a 'constant' altitude.. But the NAVY test documents say the altitude must be held within a 'range'.. If I remember correctly it was something like +/-100ft or 150ft. Same goes for BCS.. It is impossible for a human to maintain a constant BCS. The goal of each is to keep both as constant as humanly possible during the test from one second to the next. Some if not most planes ROC performance required the BCS to be adjusted as altitude increased, but the change was done such that the transition was smooth and within that +/- acceptable range such that the IAS could still be considered constant from one second to the next.

Often, TAS increases while IAS decreases. This has an effect on climb performance, and it is measurable.
Often? Actually TAS 'always' increases with altitude.. But in WWII TAS gauges were the exception to the rule, that is to say most if not all fighters only had IAS gauges. Thus the test pilot focus was on the IAS, but not because he didn't have a TAS gauge as much as the stall speed is realities to IAS, not TAS. Thus they would keep the IAS as 'constant' during the ROC test from one second to the next, While TAS increased during the test due to the increase in altitude.

Il-2 compare does not take the planes acceleration into account,
That is good news wrt ROC testing because as in real life the goal was to keep the BCS as constant as humanly possible. And as any high school physics book will tell you, when velocity is constant acceleration is ZERO. So another way of putting it, you could say that during a ROC test the goal is to keep acceleration as close to ZERO as humanly possible, even during the transitions in BCS

and the climb performance in Il-2 compare is a little bit higher than what is achievable in game or would be, even if perfectly modelled, with the real plane.
Maybe.. I guess it really depends on ones definition of 'a little bit' but based on the +/-5% acceptance the IL-2Compare data falls well within (matches) the manually flown (3rd party test pilot) test results that I have done.

ACE-OF-ACES

01-12-2012, 02:05 PM

and the fact that our beloved Spit in IL2 had the right to bypass it (the dive climb maneuver for example).
Fact?

Really? Well than there must be some well defined and documented test of the ingame spit to make such a claim.. Right?

Can you provide us the link?

I think that would be interesting to see just how that test was conducted.

On that note, here is a classical WWII ZOOM test I did back in 2007 on the Spit 25lbs

Spitfire MkIX 25lbs (http://www.flightsimtesting.com/temp/SpitfireMkIX25lbs_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf)

And I saw nothing in that test that would suggest it was ignoring the laws of physics..

Also, when I did the FM ANALYSIS of the Spitfires, I saw nothing in the Ps charts or Doghouse charts that would suggest it was ignoring the laws of physics

But maybe this test your referring to does?

So I am looking forward to the reading the test that your FACT claim is based on!

Thanks in advance!

CaptainDoggles

01-12-2012, 03:01 PM

Often? Actually TAS 'always' increases with altitude.. Not during zoom climbs.

JtD

01-12-2012, 03:41 PM

Neither his point nor mine.

Regarding acceleration in a climb, that's TAS you need to look at, the energy of a plane going 600 in vacuum and going 600 in sea level atmosphere is the same, even if IAS in one case is 0 and in the other 600. That energy needs to be accounted for. Flying the plane a a constant IAS will not give you an acceleration free climb.

As an example, the acceleration during a climb at a constant IAS of 360 km/h to 6000m in standard atmosphere will cost you about 400m in altitude, or 7% in average climb rate. At lower speeds, closer to the typical climbing speeds of WW2 aircraft, the loss is less, around 3-4%.

TomcatViP

01-12-2012, 03:58 PM

Well AoA I won't make any comments on the SPit in IL2. It's way out of topic and CoD does not deserve that with all the efforts they hve made to make it credible

But I figure you never attempted to B&Z a spit in Il2. My personal safety minimal margin was 500 meters to regain after each pass to find myself still above the free ballooning alt of the beast ;)

ACE-OF-ACES

01-12-2012, 04:23 PM

Not during zoom climbs.
realitive to IAS TAS increases with altitude..

Thus if you 'climb'

TAS will be increasing

ACE-OF-ACES

01-12-2012, 04:27 PM

Regarding acceleration in a climb
I think I found the source of our miscommunication?

I am talking about a ROC test

Where there is no acceleration!

The speed (BCS) is kept as constant as it can be kept (humanly possible) during a WWII style ROC test

ACE-OF-ACES

01-12-2012, 04:33 PM

Well AoA I won't make any comments on the SPit in IL2. It's way out of topic and CoD does not deserve that with all the efforts they have made to make it credible
I only brought it up because you were saying the IL-2 Spit and the CoD Spit have the same problem..

Or did I misunderstand you when you said the following?

The prob with the Spit in old Il2 was not so much with the numbers but with its relaxed "E-liability".

Somehow the very same happen here for now.

But I figure you never attempted to B&Z a spit in Il2
You figured wrong ;)

My personal safety minimal margin was 500 meters to regain after each pass to find myself still above the free ballooning alt of the beast ;)
Which IMHO says more about the relative pilot skills than the FM and thus is not proof that the Spit is ignoring the laws of physics

JtD

01-12-2012, 06:33 PM

...The speed (BCS) is kept as constant as it can be kept (humanly possible) during a WWII style ROC test...
As an example of WW2 climb tests, look at table I in this Spitfire IX test (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274.html), you can see a constant IAS up to FTH and a constant TAS above FTH. Il-2 compare will always give you constant TAS, which will give you the somewhat higher climb performance below FTH, about 100 fpm in this case. Less than 5% obviously, and all I wanted to say.

klem

01-12-2012, 07:28 PM

The technical theory FM arguments are way over my head but I appreciate everyones input. I just read Cambers post (excellent too!) and it refers to the Acusim modelling of the Spit.

I asked someone who has this installed how the Spit compared to the one in CloD regards handling? His opinion was that it was very similar (better in some aspects regards performance).

I appreciate that it has little significance in contributing to this discussion but I would be interested to know if there is a marked difference between the FM modelling given to us by MG and another such as Acusim both of whom I would imagine are researching and using the same data.

The A2A Spifire is sweet to fly and similar in handling to the CoD although to me it 'feels' nicer. The IIa seemed to me to have better acceleration but I haven't done any comparative tests. The A2A Spit Ia only comes with the fixed 20' pitch wooden prop or the DH5-20 2 position three bladed prop (like the DH5-20 in CoD). It does not come with a CSP. It is more sophisticated that CoD in that the engine is more prone to lasting damage through mishandling, e.g. overheating is not only hard to overcome but with Accusim modelling it causes lasting damage to the engine which stays with you on the next flight unless you put right 'in the hangar'. If looked after properly it is just fine.

I'll try to find time to compare level speeds and climb to height in the two DH5-20 versions.

SEE

01-12-2012, 10:00 PM

Cheers Klem! From your observations, apart from CEM/performance, etc, the handling characteristics are at least reasonably similar which is re-assuring.

TomcatViP

01-12-2012, 10:16 PM

Whatever talents AcuSim has, Microsoft flight SIm has (traditionally)one of the worst FM in plane simulation. So that's not really a good comparison for CoD.

CaptainDoggles

01-12-2012, 10:32 PM

Whatever talents AcuSim has, Microsoft flight SIm has (traditionally)one of the worst FM in plane simulation.Got data to back that statement up?

TomcatViP

01-12-2012, 10:44 PM

No really, you can't feel it ?:confused:

ACE-OF-ACES

01-13-2012, 01:33 AM

As an example of WW2 climb tests, look at table I in this Spitfire IX test (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274.html), you can see a constant IAS up to FTH and a constant TAS above FTH. Il-2 compare will always give you constant TAS, which will give you the somewhat higher climb performance below FTH, about 100 fpm in this case. Less than 5% obviously, and all I wanted to say.
Ah good so both you and that report agree with what I allready said, i.e.

Some if not most planes ROC performance required the BCS to be adjusted as altitude increased

S!

VO101_Tom

01-13-2012, 03:44 AM

Got data to back that statement up?

Sadly, any real-life pilot can confirm it. The MsFS is very excellent on-board systems, avionics and instrument flight simulation. But the flight model is a large pile of xxxx...

klem

01-18-2012, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by SEE
The technical theory FM arguments are way over my head but I appreciate everyones input. I just read Cambers post (excellent too!) and it refers to the Acusim modelling of the Spit.

I asked someone who has this installed how the Spit compared to the one in CloD regards handling? His opinion was that it was very similar (better in some aspects regards performance).

I appreciate that it has little significance in contributing to this discussion but I would be interested to know if there is a marked difference between the FM modelling given to us by MG and another such as Acusim both of whom I would imagine are researching and using the same data.

The A2A Spifire is sweet to fly and similar in handling to the CoD although to me it 'feels' nicer. The IIa seemed to me to have better acceleration but I haven't done any comparative tests. The A2A Spit Ia only comes with the fixed 20' pitch wooden prop or the DH5-20 2 position three bladed prop (like the DH5-20 in CoD). It does not come with a CSP. It is more sophisticated that CoD in that the engine is more prone to lasting damage through mishandling, e.g. overheating is not only hard to overcome but with Accusim modelling it causes lasting damage to the engine which stays with you on the next flight unless you put right 'in the hangar'. If looked after properly it is just fine.

I'll try to find time to compare level speeds and climb to height in the two DH5-20 versions.

I've done the A2A FSX Spitfire MkIa with the DH 2 pitch prop and will post results soon but the CoD DH5-20 isn't modelled properly. It should be possible to obtain variable pitch in the mid-range of the prop control (which should be a plunger btw not a lever) making it effectively a variable pitch prop although not intended to be be. In fact using the variable capability became an official recommendation and it could deliver almost the same performance as the Rotol in expert hands with the pilot being the 'constant prop speed' governor.

Bottom line is I'll have to use the Rotol set to 2600 rpm which is the prop speed I manually maintained in the A2A FSX model. As the 2 pitch props were capable of being converted to CSPs in the field I am assuming they used the same blades.

Crumpp

01-18-2012, 12:55 PM

Historical performance data for climb typically comes with a climb speed information. This climb speed hardly ever is constant.

Climb speed will never be constant with altitude. Any pilot or first year aeronautical science students knows this....

Climb rate without speed is useless information. All aircraft performance occurs at a specific point on Power required curve and is fixed by the design of the aircraft.

If speed is held constant, the aircraft is not maintaining the best performance point on the Pr curve.

http://home.pcisys.net/~aghorash/Why_Vx_and_Vy_Change_With_Altitude.pdf

http://aerosrv.cls.calpoly.edu/dbiezad/Aero_Courses/Aero_409/409%20Articles/Vx%20and%20Vy.pdf

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/343259-vx-vy.html

http://williams.best.vwh.net/smxgigpdf/mfly2.pdf

JtD

01-20-2012, 05:23 PM

Climb speed will never be constant with altitude. Any pilot or first year aeronautical science students knows this....
Yes, and in second year they learn that there always are exceptions to the rule, and thus it's "hardly ever" and not "never". An example for an exception has already been given in this topic, so feel free to educate yourself.

Crumpp

01-21-2012, 08:39 PM

Yes, and in second year they learn that there always are exceptions to the rule, and thus it's "hardly ever" and not "never". An example for an exception has already been given in this topic, so feel free to educate yourself.

Baloney. To achieve Vx or Vy, velocity must change with altitude. There are no exceptions to that no matter how much you tap dance.

camber

01-22-2012, 09:15 AM

Gentlemen!

So many of these arguments seem to based on interpreting an slightly ambiguous statement to make it wrong.

As an example of WW2 climb tests, look at table I in this Spitfire IX test (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274.html), you can see a constant IAS up to FTH and a constant TAS above FTH. Il-2 compare will always give you constant TAS, which will give you the somewhat higher climb performance below FTH, about 100 fpm in this case. Less than 5% obviously, and all I wanted to say.

Well this is pretty clear and supported by the reference. the Spittie pilots doing that test climbed at constant IAS mostly and recorded climb rate.

Climb speed will never be constant with altitude. Any pilot or first year aeronautical science students knows this....

Obviously the pilot can choose to climb at constant IAS if aircraft capability permits. I take it, this statement should be:

Vx (IAS for best climb angle) and Vy (IAS for best rate of climb) will never be constant with altitude."

This is true enough but I know a flight instructor that had it a bit confused :). So climb tests at constant IAS (such as that Spittie one) may not be capturing optimum rate of climb at each altitude? Interesting.

Yes, and in second year they learn that there always are exceptions to the rule, and thus it's "hardly ever" and not "never". An example for an exception has already been given in this topic, so feel free to educate yourself.

There seems no real disagreement at this point, just an imaginary one

Baloney. To achieve Vx or Vy, velocity must change with altitude. There are no exceptions to that no matter how much you tap dance.

A clearer statement now it is expanded from just "climb speed".

It is quite hard to write unambiguously in technical detail, and anyone's forum posts are likely to fall down on this now and again regardless of their aviation knowledge. But instead of jumping on it as evidence of moron, why not have a lovely big glass of wine? Of course that is what I am doing AND writing this post, so maybe you can do both if you really want to ;)

2007 Reisling, camber

JtD

01-22-2012, 02:49 PM

Oh, an educated voice of reason with good manners, what a refreshing sight. I sure hope to see you around for a long time!

ACE-OF-ACES

01-22-2012, 04:26 PM

Climb speed will never be constant with altitude. Any pilot or first year aeronautical science students knows this....
Obviously the pilot can choose to climb at constant IAS if aircraft capability permits.
The funny part is Crumpp is saying the same thing

He just appears to be a little confused with regards to 'vector math' (what he called correct physics).

That being the resultant (single) vector that is the equivalent of a set (more than one) of vectors. Where is is possible to have a resultant vector with constant magnitude as it changes direction.

In this case the 'resultant' vector is IAS, that is the equivalent of the Vx and Vy set of vectors

From the spitfire test data we can see it maintained a constant IAS for most of the climb, but at the same time the ROC changed as the spitfire climbed.

Mathematically speaking, the resultant vector (IAS) 'direction' changed to maintain the resultant vector (IAS) 'constant magnitude'.

In the case of the spitfire ROC test the 'climb angle' changes which in turn changes the direction of the resultant vector (IAS). Which in turn changes the magnitude of Vy and Vx.

Note in this case Vy is equal to the ROC, the vertical component and Vx is equal to the horizontal component (i.e. earth frame of reference aka coordinate system)

At this point I think it would help those having trouble with vector math to check out the following link..

Comparing Two Vectors (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/vectcomp.html)

Paying special attention to Example #2, vectors with same magnitude but different directions, i.e.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/vectcomp.gif

And just to be crystal, allow me to say this again, the 'constant' climb speed statement was more of a test pilot term.. It did not mean they kept it constant down to three decimal places, that is just humanly impossible. What it meant was 'when' you change the IAS during the climb as required, the change should be made as smoothly as possible such that the change in acceleration was kept as small as possible.

41Sqn_Banks

01-22-2012, 05:20 PM

Well this is pretty clear and supported by the reference. the Spittie pilots doing that test climbed at constant IAS mostly and recorded climb rate.

Obviously the pilot can choose to climb at constant IAS if aircraft capability permits. I take it, this statement should be:

Vx (IAS for best climb angle) and Vy (IAS for best rate of climb) will never be constant with altitude."

This is true enough but I know a flight instructor that had it a bit confused :). So climb tests at constant IAS (such as that Spittie one) may not be capturing optimum rate of climb at each altitude? Interesting.

Spitfire I Pilot's Notes state:

CLIMBING

9. For maximum rate of climb the following speeds are recommended: -

Ground level to 12,000 feet 185 m.p.h. A.S.I.R.

12,000 feet to 15,000 feet 180 " "

15,000 " 20,000 " 170 " "

20,000 " 15,000 " 160 " "

Hurricane I Pilot's Notes state:

Optimum climbing speeds (A.S.I. reading)

For aeroplanes fitted with 2-bladed wood airscrews to Drg. No. Z. 3895 and with kidney type exhaust manifolds, the optimum full throttle indicated climbing speed at sea level and up to 10,000 ft. is constant at 157 m.p.h., A.S.I. reading with a reduction of 1 m.p.h. for each additional 1,000 ft. of altitude.

Note. - The all-up weidght of the aeroplane during the tests upon which the above climbing speeds are based was 6,000 lb.

Crumpp

01-22-2012, 11:58 PM

Obviously the pilot can choose to climb at constant IAS if aircraft capability permits

Climb speed refers specifically to Vx or Vy. It is not common to split hairs on it having it mean anything but Vx or Vy without specifying the condition of flight.

http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/flight-planning/aircraft-climb-speeds.php

All aircraft can climb at a constant IAS. If you do that however, you are not at Vx or Vy.

Crumpp

01-23-2012, 12:04 AM

There is no reason for a huge involved, "Gee Whiz, I wish I was smart" discussion on this topic.

It is a simple fact, an airplanes climb speeds or Vx and Vy, are not constant with altitude. No amount of tap dancing or splitting hairs will change the physics.

In practical terms for flying an airplane it is easier to remember a few speeds for Vx and Vy that get you in the ballpark or just hold it constant so you only have to remember 2 numbers.

Crumpp

01-23-2012, 12:13 AM

Hurricane I Pilot's Notes state:

Read your Hurricanes notes....

Optimum climbing speeds (A.S.I. reading)

Optimum for what???? Is that best rate or best angle???

It is actually because of the fixed pitch propeller but lets not get ahead of ourselves and get all confused on the correct principles for climbing speeds.

ACE-OF-ACES

01-23-2012, 02:29 AM

Obviously the pilot can choose to climb at constant IAS if aircraft capability permits. I take it, this statement should be:

Vx (IAS for best climb angle) and Vy (IAS for best rate of climb) will never be constant with altitude."

This is true enough but I know a flight instructor that had it a bit confused :).
Well flight instructors are only human!

But re-reading your reply I noticed something..

But first some definitions

In pilot jargon terms (read not math terms)

Vx best angle of climb 'airspeed'
Vy best rate of climb 'airspeed'

Put another way

Vx is the 'airspeed' that produces the most altitude in the shortest ground distance
Vy is the 'airspeed' that produces the most altitude in the shortest amount of time

For example

Vx is the airspeed you would want to climb at if your goal is to clear an obstacle at the end of the runway
Vy is the airspeed you would want to climb at if your goal was to intercept the bombers

The point to notice here is both Vx and Vy are 'airspeeds', be it indicated (IAS) or true (TAS).

Which should not be confused with the Vx and Vy I used in my previous (mathematical) example on the resultant vector! Where the Vx and Vy velocity tied to the x and y axis frame of reference. These pilot jargon terms Vx and Vy are actually the resultant vector, i.e. airspeed.

So climb tests at constant IAS (such as that Spittie one) may not be capturing optimum rate of climb at each altitude? Interesting.
Not likely..

They were more than capable of determining the airspeed that produced the best ROC. With regards to WWII they would do several test and different airspeeds to determine which one produces the best ROC.

One thing to take note of, with regards to WWII test data, most WWII fighter aircraft didn't have TAS gauges, which explains why most WWII ROC data gives airspeeds in IAS, and most if not all of those WWII test reports that do provide TAS, TAS was calculated (post test processing) from IAS.

So most WWII references are in terms of IAS. Where as today TAS gauges are more prevalent, and therefore most modern pilot discussions on Vx and Vy are talking in terms of TAS, where most make note of how Vx (TAS) and Vy (TAS) airspeed changes with altitude.

We also know that TAS changes with altitude relative to IAS, So even with a constant IAS, TAS is changing.

In WWII they typically referred to the airspeed that produced the best ROC as the 'best climb speed', which in todays pilot jargon equates to Vy (best rate of climb airspeed).

Therefore with regards to the WWII ROC test reports jargon vs modern pilot jargon, the constant indicated airspeed (IAS) in the WWII ROC test is the same as saying Vy indicated today, convert both to TAS and this WWII story will match those of today, where Vy changes with altitude.

41Sqn_Banks

01-23-2012, 06:39 AM

Not likely..

They were more than capable of determining the airspeed that produced the best ROC. With regards to WWII they would do several test and different airspeeds to determine which one produces the best ROC.

One thing to take note of, with regards to WWII test data, most WWII fighter aircraft didn't have TAS gauges, which explains why most WWII ROC data gives airspeeds in IAS, and most if not all of those WWII test reports that do provide TAS, TAS was calculated (post test processing) from IAS.

So most WWII references are in terms of IAS. Where as today TAS gauges are more prevalent, and therefore most modern pilot discussions on Vx and Vy are talking in terms of TAS, where most make note of how Vx (TAS) and Vy (TAS) airspeed changes with altitude.

We also know that TAS changes with altitude relative to IAS, So even with a constant IAS, TAS is changing.

In WWII they typically referred to the airspeed that produced the best ROC as the 'best climb speed', which in todays pilot jargon equates to Vy (best rate of climb airspeed).

Therefore with regards to the WWII ROC test reports jargon vs modern pilot jargon, the constant indicated airspeed (IAS) in the WWII ROC test is the same as saying Vy indicated today, convert both to TAS and this WWII story will match those of today, where Vy changes with altitude.

+1

41Sqn_Banks

01-23-2012, 06:53 AM

Read your Hurricanes notes....

I did, it still says constant IAS to FTH and linear reduction above optimum climb.

Optimum for what???? Is that best rate or best angle???

Best rate of climb.

It is actually because of the fixed pitch propeller but lets not get ahead of ourselves and get all confused on the correct principles for climbing speeds.

This is not propeller related. There are performance tests with Rotol propellers show that the same applies to Hurricanes or Spitfires with CSP.

Crumpp

01-23-2012, 11:49 AM

I did, it still says constant IAS to FTH and linear reduction above optimum climb.

It is a pretty simple concept to grasp. Climb speed changes with altitude.

That is it and all you need to know!!

If it does not change with altitude or is a simple linear then for practical pilotage it is simpified to get the pilot in the ballpark!

Again, very simple concept that does not require in depth discussion.

41Sqn_Banks

01-23-2012, 12:18 PM

It is a pretty simple concept to grasp. Climb speed changes with altitude.

That is it and all you need to know!!

Are you talking about IAS or TAS? If you mean TAS I'm absolutly with you.

If it does not change with altitude or is a simple linear then for practical pilotage it is simpified to get the pilot in the ballpark!

Again, very simple concept that does not require in depth discussion.

Of course it's an pratical approximation. In a theoretical discussion there is no direct relation between IAS and climb rate.

Crumpp

01-24-2012, 02:17 AM

It is a very simple concept that does not require an indepth discussion.

Climb speeds change with altitude.

It does not matter if we are talking Indicated or True airspeed, they both change.

In fact, Indicated airspeed for Vy decreases with altitude and Indicated airspeed for Vx increases with altitude.

Where they meet is the aircraft's absolute ceiling.

http://aerosrv.cls.calpoly.edu/dbiezad/Aero_Courses/Aero_409/409%20Articles/Vx%20and%20Vy.pdf

Crumpp

01-24-2012, 09:45 AM

In a theoretical discussion there is no direct relation between IAS and climb rate.

There is a definite fixed by design relationship between airspeed and climb rate based on excess power or thrust depending on whether we are talking rate or angle of climb.

41Sqn_Banks

01-24-2012, 10:06 AM

There is a definite fixed by design relationship between airspeed and climb rate based on excess power or thrust depending on whether we are talking rate or angle of climb.

Again ... you are talking about TAS and I asbolutly agree about the relation between TAS and climb rate. However IAS is influenced by installation and instrument errors and density of air. The "design relationship" cannot take these factors into account, hence there is no direct relation between IAS and rate of climb.

TAS and climb rate are in relation.
TAS and IAS are in relation.
But there is no direct relation between IAS and climb rate. For example: IAS changed becaused by a frozen pitot tube, but this will not change the climb rate.

I want to make clear that I do not want to say that IAS is mathematically constant for a theoretical maximum rate of climb. I absoluty agree with you that theory says is is decreasing. However what I want to say is that there are pratical references that indicate that for a specific aircraft the IAS for maximum rate of climb can be near constant over a certain altitude range.

ACE-OF-ACES

01-24-2012, 03:17 PM

However what I want to say is that there are pratical references that indicate that for a specific aircraft the IAS for maximum rate of climb can be near constant over a certain altitude range.
Bingo!

Which was stated prior to crump stating it so he actully agrees with what was allready said, yet his replies thus far seem to be ingnorant of the fact that it was allready stated prior to his statement.

Crumpp

01-24-2012, 05:54 PM

can be near constant over a certain altitude range.

Who told you it was "near constant"??

The rule is Vy will be reduced 1 KNOT IAS per 1000 feet altitude. Vx will increase 1 KNOT IAS per 2000 feet altitude.

From sea level to 20,000 feet...

Vy changes 20 KNOTS, 23mph, or 37kph.....

Vx changes 10 KNOTS, 11.5mph or 18.5kph....

Crumpp

01-24-2012, 05:58 PM

But there is no direct relation between IAS and climb rate.

See above post......

theory says is is decreasing

There is no theory to it. We are not talking quantum physics. Get a pilots license or go to school to learn about airplanes. Stop getting your information from these gamer discussions about virtual planes from folks who have never even smelled avgas.

It is a very simple concept that does not require an indepth discussion.

Climb speeds change with altitude.