Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=20110)

It's Wrong-O-Clock for Crumpp today

http://photos.igougo.com/images/p608...kes_midday.jpg

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....
WRONG.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 418066)

Pstyle,

I was refering to fact a military fuel must carry a specification approved by that organization.

It will not become the standard fuel without a full specification. The completion of the specification IS the process of adoption. A provisional specification gets it into the system so it can be tested.

Understand?

I don't care if its "standard", I only care how widely it was used.
My point is that "standard" or "specification" are not perfect measures of use.

Understand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 418066)

And where is your evidience that this was policy? Or the paperwork saying that it had happened, that makes you so sure?

And what is 100 octane doing in the pilot's notes if it wasn't 'specified'?

I think Crumpp is just finding it difficult to believe the world used to run without extreme beaurocracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 418107)

100LL for example has a specification by convention. It also has a defence specification for NATO as it is in the supply inventory.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarti...ontentId=57723

All approved aviation fuels must recieve a full specification from the aviation authority in place by convention. 100 Octane is no different and the provisional specification has already been posted in this thread.

That being said.......

If you have not picked up on it, I pretty much ignore you NzTyphoon.

If you learn how things work in aviaton, you will be far more successful in interpreting original documentation.

100 Octane fuel continued to be called 100 octane fuel right throughout the war and never had a D.T.D (Department of Technical Development) number such as D.T.D 230 for 87 octane.

Pilot's Notes Spitfire V Seafire III page 18 100 Octane fuel only

Spitfire Pilot's Notes 1946 3rd ed (supercedes all others) September 1946 page 30-31 100 Octane fuel only - no D.T.D number.

The official designation for 100 Octane fuel was BAM100 (British Air Ministry) because it was developed outside of the Air Ministry's purview, by the private petroleum countries.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg01078.html

Crumpp you are the one who has consistently ignored information you don't like, so how about you show a little maturity and stop the "I'm superior to you ignoramus because I work in aviation" BS. You clearly have no understanding of how the British did things during the 1930s and 40s, you certainly don't know how things worked during WW 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 418102)

Glider, the document you post from December 1938 very clearly states that all stations will recieve an adequet supply of 100 Octane before the first aircraft is converted. If stations were not getting fuel then that is proof the operational adoption did not occur until all stations had it. Think about it, it just makes sense. You cannot easily switch fuels back and forth. If you add a lower knock limited performance fuel to the tanks, you must use lower operating limits or you will experience detonation which can end a flight very quickly.

Ok, so you're saying that for even one aircraft to have 100 octane, then all airfields must have 100 octane...

YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN OUR CASE!!!

WE KNOW THAT RAF FC HAD FAR MORE THAN ONE HURRICANE/SPITFIRE USING 100 OCTANE AT THE START OF THE BoFB.

THEREFORE ALL AIRCRAFT MUST HAVE BEEN CONVERTED!

*yawn* you are still debating the 100 octane issue? Wow!

Or is it like in the movie "Groundhog Day" where I have to re-read the whole debate over and over again until I do something special like to propose to implement 94.5 octaine as a compromise to get out of this iternal loop?

I guess the devs either have already made up their mind about the implementation or non implementation of the 100 octane fuel or just want to leave it as it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow (Post 418283)

Do try to clue in. The discussion has nothing to do with the game.

Well then I'd say: wrong thread! This is about comparing ingame plane data to RL data. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow (Post 418621)

Well then I'd say: wrong thread! This is about comparing ingame plane data to RL data. :)

Not quite, this has a great deal to do with the game because +12lbs boost has not been modelled for Spitfire Is and IIs of the B of B.

Why Crumpp has such a beef about this subject is anyone's guess because he doesn't play. Basically he has a bee in his bonnet that he, with his VAST experience in American modern civil aviation, knows far more about "how things are done in aviation" than all those amateurish, but enthusiastic, non-aviator aviation historians (such as Dr Alfred Price) who have, inconveniently, found so much evidence that 100 Octane fuel was in use in all frontline fighter squadrons during the battle.

He has plagued this thread with unproven theories as to why the RAF only allowed 16 squadrons to play with the fuel in "intensive operational trials", there was also his idea that somehow 52,000 tons of 100 octane fuel wasn't actually consumed July-October it just disappeared back into reserves as some type of administrative glitch that only he could understand, then there was a huge amount of quibbling over Pilot's Notes and what he thought they meant etc etc...ultimately wasting everybody's time, but especially his own.