Yes but only with 100 octane.

p.s. who did you quote?

Read the Merlin Operating notes again; "It is emphasised that high boost for emergency may only be employed with 100 Octane fuel..."

The Pilot's Notes General were to be be used in conjunction with the aircraft's Pilot's Notes, and with any limitations pasted into those notes using supplementary slips, and with the Merlin Engine operating notes: the Pilot's Notes General were never specific to any particular aircraft type.

Pulling the boost override with 87 octane would be equivalent to committing suicide; even if the engine didn't fail immediately, it would lose power due to premature detonation. Why in God's name would any sane pilot "pull the plug" if it resulted in loss of performance?

Yet, in all the combat reports of the pilots pulling the plug, the aircraft responded with increased performance; there are no reports where the engine began to suffer detonation and/or failed...:rolleyes:

... will it make 2000? :D

http://i.imgur.com/ff3lu.gif

Yes, but the companies wants to sell the aircrafts. That tests were made with unique prepared aircrafts for sure. A front line fighter would perform different. Some aircraft were easier to maintain and repair and were most of time more "combat ready" and "trimmed" than others, or even the perfomance downgrade by wearing should be much less. Even the way the aircraft is painted or waxed made a big difference in performance. Do you think 30km/h or 60 km/h should be a great difference? An 110 nightfighter with 52 victories, named Martin Drewes, stated that it was possible to fly 30km/h faster if they do not wax their aircraft or even removing the camouflage. He says: Better to fly faster than have a better looking aircraft.

Conclusion: There are many variables in the performance showed in this tests. For sure that aircraft were prepared or used advantageous methods of analysis to match the performance requiriments in the contracts. Problaby if an aircraft had more difficult mainentance in front line it ll be most of time deviated from that "original" performance.

Most of the tests were undertaken by the RAE, the bona fide testing organisation for the British Airforce testing on behalf of the government, these were not "manufacturer's tests". Manufacturer's test results were not the way aircraft gained approval. The RAF would not have accepted aircraft designs without the RAE's input and it was not in the RAF/Air Ministry's interest to generate false results when they were trying to determine the capabilities of their fighters to defend the country. These were production standard aircraft. Yes they may have been fairly new but where would you like them to have started? With clapped out front line aircraft?

As for wax/no wax/wear/trimmed etc., how would you like 1C to set up the Spitfires and Hurricanes, oh, and of course, the 109s? Worn/degraded to 90% performance? Or do you want 100% condition 109s and 85% condition RAF aircraft?

1C can only begin by assuming production standard aircraft, take data from genuine contemporary tests and use that. If they want to model in wear thats fine. For Axis aircraft too of course.

Some of these arguments are becoming ridiculous.

Probably because they never had the good fortune to make a combat report.

:rolleyes:

The ridiculous arguments are valid of course, as everyone has thier opinion of how it should be in CoD.

None of it matters because as soon as the RAF get 100 octane there will be a new axe to grind here.

Most likely ammunition effectiveness with a forum full of graphs and charts showing pretty much what we have now,
peoples opinions on how CoD should be.


Carry On



:)



.

I was just going by those test certificate posted previously. Noting in the documents stated that their power curve had been extrapolated, So I can only assume that the figures were obtained by testing.


I stand corrected.

Cheers!

Could that be that when the pilots 'pulled the plug' the boost was still at a level before detonation occurs.

One of the pilot stories (show in this thread) before did mention black smoke comming from the exhaust and the plane vibrating a lot. Sound like he was pushing it a bit too far. But none of the others mentioned it.

Well, I can found dozens of 70+ smokers that did not get any Cancers and makes them testify about how safe was the cigarettes for them.

Would you then believe that Smoking is good for your health ?

Actually not a "ridiculous argument" because detonation would have been a serious possibility had pilots tried to use +12 lbs override boost with 87 Octane, which did not have the anti-knock properties of 100 Octane. The engine might not have failed right away but it would certainly have been damaged and the pilot given a boot up the backside by the mechanics.

This is one of the absurdities of Crumpp's argument that somehow most of the Merlins used in frontline fighters during the Battle of Britain were restricted to using 87 Octane fuel - Hugh Dowding would not have been complaining to all Groups, Stations and Squadrons about pilots overusing +12 lbs boost, he would have been reminding pilots to never use +12 lbs boost under any circumstances, unless they belonged to the select few units permitted to use 100 Octane and +12 lbs boost.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWKRw0HmBLE

Prior to the 12lb mod/100 octane, if you pulled the boost override you would get 18lb boost up to about 5000ft, 16 lb boost to about 7500ft, 12 lb boost to about 11000ft and 7lb boost at ~17500ft. 7lb was the maximum permissible with 87 octane so the altitude range that it would be beneficial is very restricted; below that altitude power would be reduced because detonation would occur, engine would no longer run smoothly and the engine would quickly fail altogther. The only way that the boost override would be beneficial would be if it had a mod to restrict the additional boost to ~7lb, but of course this would only result in a very modest power increase, and this mod was never done.

AFAIK, the 109E was limited to 7lb boost as well (1.4 ATA) when using 87 octane.

That's a poor argument.

The DB of the 109 had far more cylinder volume than the Merlin.

RR did ran the Boost horse simply because that was the way they had to go against the DB. Latter in the war they might also hve understood the huge advantage they had in therm materials of quality.

My old 2L Swedish SAAB engine had as much power than an average 5+L US V8 without supercharger .... But a 2+bar boost level.

I hope you will understand that way

The boost level in German plane is more linked to the lack of Nickel in their engine material. They had to build thicker internal surface and build bigger eng in order to run their eng at a lower temperature.

This has nothing to do with a comparison with the Merlin.

Interestingly, if we do compare the application of aviation engine in tanks, we might show that reciprocally, the bigger German eng where more reliable in that application. But honestly this is pure speculation.

It was with reference to Klems post

I said they were valid.

Exactly right as I understand it Seadog. Although I would add one proviso...the boosts you mention are at maximum throttle. There would be nothing to stop a pilot pulling the boost override and adjusting his throttle handle (which is now directly linked to the actual throttle valve) to get a desired boost. So the pilot could possibly get some more performance, say by adjusting to +7psi where before he was stuck on +61/4 psi. Boost is no longer controlled, so if he dived to a lower altitude the boost will rise on it's own and possibly damage the engine. No wonder it was not an approved way of getting combat power on 87 octane...the gain was probably modest, the risk of misuse large. Whether or not it was used unofficially is open to conjecture.

Good point about the 109E, 1.45 ata is about +6.6psi boost. So I disagree Tomcat, it appears on 87 octane both the DB601 and Merlin were restricted by the maximum usable boost avoiding fuel predetonation..not by engine design paramaters or materials.

I am still intrigued by the engine test bed report apparently stating figures of 12500 feet, ~10.5psi boost and 1300bhp. But whether these are calculated figures, an engine tested with 100 octane, whether intake pressure was actually set to 12500 ft equivalent etc. does not appear to be available. Interesting to know what would happen if in a 87 octane Spit pre BCCO mod if you pulled the cutout and progressively raised boost above 6 1/4 psi. At what boost points would:
1) predetonation be detected
2) bhp start to decrease with increased boost (due to predetonation)
3) Significant loss of engine life occur
4) High risk of rapid engine failure.

"it is emphasized that the high boost for emergency may only be employed with 100 octane fuel"

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1337207418

"Clearly say ..." we obviously have a different understanding what clearly means.

That's what I call clearly:
January 1939: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1334682385
"100 octane must be used"

March 1940: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg
"100 octane must be used"

April 1940: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...erlin3-pg6.jpg
"100 octane ... must be used"

November 1940: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1337196053
"only be employed with 100 octane fuel"

June 1941: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1334727256
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1334727263
"only of 100 octane fuel is in the tanks"

33rd Weekly Report Oil Position 23 April 1940 showing out of 242 Norwegian tankers 119 had been bought under Allied control, with 18 heading to Allied ports and the other 93 in neutral ports, or heading into neutral ports, the 119 brought under Allied control more than making up for the total tanker loss for the entire war period September 1939 to November 1940:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-004.jpg


"The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel"

1st Monthly Oil Position Report July 1940 ( Dated 6 August 1940)

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-002.jpg

Table from 1st Monthly Oil Report July 1940: Consumption: Read in conjunction with attachment 1:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-005.jpg

Table from 1st Monthly Report July 1940; Stocks dropped by 15,000 tons April-May then increased by 12,000 tons to June:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-006.jpg

Table from 33rd Weekly Oil Position Report 23 April 1940 showing 100 Octane fuel being stockpiled in the UK and overseas; "West of Suez" - France springs to mind.
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-006.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...e_2revised.jpg

Oil Position 5th Monthly Report November 1940:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...page-004-1.jpg

Absolutely. They could have easily "pulled the plug" to achieve any boost they desired once the override was on.

Why don't they just say "all aircraft" instead of specifying just modified ones? All aircraft should be modified, right??

What is the asterisk note and the bottom about? Can you show the whole document?

The last time you started talking about stockpiles in France, it was in reference to a report projecting fuel stocks for future war.

Now your saying West of the Suez means France? Heck, it could mean Cleveland Ohio or maybe Hornchurch, too?

Considering that they were shipping troops to begin the Desert War I would imagine that is a future projection of their needs for aviation fuel. The first British troops went on the offensive on 11 June 1940 in North Africa.

It is right there, you highlighted it. The RAE opened the can of worms and gave their pilots license to violate the airworthiness of the aircraft:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4287/ap20952nd0.jpg


Exactly. We also see two things the give insight into the state of mind of Fighter Command.

1. First from the fuel committee meetings the confusion on exactly what must be done to modify the engine. I don't know if you have taken Organizational Behavior in college but if there is confusion at the top of any organization, there is even more confusion at the bottom of it. Even with a clear vision at the top, it is a process to get that vision communicated and enacted at the bottom. The larger the organization, the longer the lag time and more difficult the process.

Secondly, we see Dowding's memo warning the pilots about the dangers of overboosting. You can bet Dowding did not sit around wondering what to do that day and just decided to fill his time writing a memo about overboosting destroying engines. "Squeaky wheel gets the grease", that memo came about because his maintenance and logistics people complained if it does not change there could be consequences that effect their ability to keep his planes flying.

That memo was printed because they felt was a problem with pilots "pulling the plug" before they properly balanced the risk.

This is one of the amazing inconsistencies about the Pips memo - according to this a mere 25% of the fighter force - supposedly 125 fighters - caused such a high strain on 100 octane fuel supplies that all further conversions were stopped and the RAF ordered that 87 Octane fuel be the primary fuel.

Question is if 125 fighters can put a huge strain on reserves of 263,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel (as of 18 April - see Table 33rd Weekly Oil Report) , what kind of a strain are the other 475 fighters, plus all the other aircraft using 87 Octane going to put on the reserves of 327,000 tons of "Other grades" of fuel? This hasn't to my knowledge been commented on before, but it is patently ridiculous to state that 125 fighters put any kind of a strain on 263,000 tons of 100 Octane: then, on top of that, to insist the RAF decided to put even greater strain on the "Other Grades" stockpile beggers belief.

Take a look at the extreme RH side of table i (b) Weeks' supplys showing how long it was estimated the current stocks would last based on average consumption, and assuming no more supplies were shipped in.

This is the rest of the document:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-002.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-004.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-010.jpg

Nonsense, the documents showed quite clearly how much fuel was already in France (attached) and other papers in the series showed the projected requirements.

Yeah right, use a bit of common sense because in April 1940 the Italians had yet to declare war, so the Mediterranean and Africa were not war theatres, nor were there any aircraft using 100 octane fuel based in those areas and, contrary to your unproven speculation, fighters based in France were using 100 octane fuel, while some Hurricanes had been active in Norway. Not forgetting the Blenheim IVs of 2 Group and the BEF.

This is just pure speculation on your part - there is absolutely nothing in the paper talking about "future needs, projections" or any other such language.

Note: these examples are all from May 1940.

Here's an example of 12lb boost at low altitude:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lane-26-5-40.jpg

here's another:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e/bushell.html

note here that the pilot is using "full" 12lb boost and he has noted that he was at 5000-6000ft.

and another:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e/bushell.html

again at 5 -6000ft and again with 'full' 12lb boost

The idea that that they were using 12lb boost with 87 octane fuel could only be conceived by someone who desperately wants to avoid the truth.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-004.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-002.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-005.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-006.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-006.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...00octane_2.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-004.jpg

[QUOTE=Kurfürst;427304]

and your point is?

Your document says absolutely nothing about fuel "in" France. It talks about requirements and estabilishments.

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3...ocks7may40.jpg

Present Establishment is what they currently are authorised to have plus they need an additional 200,000 gallons. In the same way the additional guards are an extra establishment. The current guards would be described as the present establishment

If we follow your logic then the RAF in France had no fuel of any description because you are turning all the current fuel (present establishment) into future requirements.

[QUOTE=Seadog;427306]Cynicism.

[QUOTE=Crumpp;427314]Your document says absolutely nothing about fuel "in" France. It talks about requirements and estabilishments.

Why would they require a fuel that they aren't using?

Are you now claiming that UK technology was so far in advance of the Germans that RAF fighters could use 12lb boost with 87 octane fuel? We have clear and unequivocal use of 12lb boost over France in May 1940...

According to your line of reasoning It's no wonder that Galland begged for a squadron of Spitfires...

We are still waiting for the list of the 16 squadrons that were the only squadrons using 100 octane fuel and 12lb boost in Sept 1940.

We are still waiting for an explanation on how the RAF consumed ~50,000 ton of 100 octane fuel during the BoB, despite the claimed shortage of said fuel.

[QUOTE=Seadog;427330]You do know he was being sarcastic just to get at goering right?
I see some people who actually believe galland wanted spits which is just not the case.

No he wasn't, he was sick of those little girlie 109's and wanted a mans aeroplane :)

[QUOTE=CWMV;427513]Crump/Kurfurst believe that the Merlin could run at 12lb boost on 87 octane fuel with greatly improved performance. If their thesis is correct, and Galland also knew this, then, of course, he would have tried to light a fire under Goering's butt.

Son, you have had some issues expressing a coherent thought of your own, so I guess you should fix that before lending a hand and tell what others believe.. ;)

Just what do you believe?

It's hard to keep track.

We know that Hurricane/Spitfire pilots were pulling 12lb boost over France in May 1940, and we also know that you are "cynical" about the RAF using 100 octane fuel in that time frame...so it seems that you must believe that the Merlin could run at 12lb boost on 87 octane fuel.

Kurfurst
Just so there isn't any confusion what is your belief re 100 Octane in France?

AFAIK Hurricane Squadrons used it, not that it helped them that much, given the results of the campaign. I don't think it has any relevance for BoB, given that all the fuel in France was either destroyed by the British or captured by the Germans.

are you saying all available 100 octane was lost in France?

Obviously no, it's what you are suggesting.

What I am suggesting is that the fact that some Squadrons were using it over France is irrelevant until we know how and if they were supplied with 100 octane fuel once their remnants returned to England.

Where does that failed logic come from? I suggested nothing...merely asked a question.

How and if are redundant questions, if it was available in France then it 'will' have been available on the homeland, if Hurricanes were already using it then they would have continued to do so, there is no evidence of any retrograde steps in that area.

If they were using 87 Octane in the BoB, a tiny bit of evidence should have turned up by now. Instead we have a lawyer doing the Chewbacca defence.

:grin:

I think your answer might rely in what kind of fuel was available in France and how they might hve used 100oct as a blend substitute.

Regarding the result of the Brit exp corp during the Fr campaign, a recent study has shown tht they did outperform the French's Armée de l'air. And even if the nbr of plane shot down is a close match, it tells a lot about how things went wrong on the Fr side.

I still fail to be convinced by either side in this. There's just too much conflicting evidence, couple that with personal interpretations and, in some cases, a "multiplayer advantage" agenda and it's a royal mess to keep track of :-P

That's why i still think the best way is to have all possible variants in the sim, especially since they will be the same 3d models (the only thing that would change is the engine parameters).

So when we open up our aircraft selection screen, we would have:

Spit Mk.Ia 87 oct
Spit Mk.Ia 100 oct
etc etc

Me 110 low octane
Me 110 high octane (DB 601N)

and so on.

Then the player can choose what they want to fly in single player and the server admins can choose what their campaign will depict. Even more importantly having both variants allows for better dynamic campaigns, both offline and online: if your fuel supplies get bombed your side has to fly on 87 octane until new shipments come by ship convoy, which would then be targeted by the opposition and epic fights would ensue protecting that AI ship convoy.

Apart from debating for the sake of historical scrutiny which i can understand, in terms of gameplay this issue is blown up way too much in my humble opinion. Give me both high and low octane versions of the flyables, a script to track fuel supplies and a whole lot of tactical and strategic possibilities open up.

Having just one version of the flyables no matter what is just a sterile representation: it's like modeling an air show piece, not an aircraft during war that depends on a host of other factors to operate at its peak ability.

If i bomb the enemy's fuel dumps and their aircraft are slower as result, i have an incentive to try it and the other team has an incentive to stop me. If the aircraft fly the same no matter what i bomb (because the "slow" version is not modeled), i have no incentive at all and we can all just hug the white cliffs of Dover and keep flying furballs on the deck until battle of Moscow comes out :-P

Nothing wrong with flying for fun, but why limit the possibilities of better dynamic campaigns by giving the mission designers less to work with? I don't get it, after all for the majority of pilots who get bounced +12 boost will not make much of a difference anyway. It's not the instant win button many think it is. It's just something to use on the climb out to an interception, or on a long chase at lower altitudes.

The pilot's after action reports is enough proof IMHO that 100 oct was used.. Thus the only argument left is how widely it was in use..

But the fact that it was used at all is enough reason to include a 100 oct version of the planes in the game and leave it to the mission builders to decide.

I think we can fairly assume that 100 octane was used by at least a couple of squadrons in BoB in sufficient numbers to justify the addition of a 100 octane spit as an additional plane.

So that's for the wishes.

What I understand though is that the devs clearly said there won't be new planes for Cliffs of Dover so I have doubts that we will see it. As implementing an additional 100 octane Spit is the same work as modifying the existing one it won't matter imho.

lol.

Actually we only have a handful of raffanatics doing the good old character assassination campaign, because they can't come up with anything better, mental or material, as they lack in both. ;)

Based on the information presented in this thread alone I think it is safe to say it was far more than a couple!

Unlike the K4 fletner tab issue that Kurfust team trys promote and say all K4s had based on one picture of an assembly line of G models and an drawing of a K4 scribbled on a napkin.. When there are more than a half dozens of pictures of actul K4s with no fletner tabs.

True, but the next sequal is the russian front, and the ruskies bought alot of spits from the Uk, so the devs could add this plane at that time. Not that it would be used on the russian front, but the current UK map will be part of the sequal, thus giving the mission makers a chance to make BoB missions in the comming sequal with 100 oct spits and hurries

May be so - I just retained from the discussion that 100 octane was used - and I got bored of the discussion if it was all or some squadrons - which would not change a bit of what I think :)

If the 100 octane was used on a regular basis it should be present. I wish to retain the 87 octaine spit because we might want to create pre BoB scenarii in the future (Dunkirque for instance) and it would be a shame to eliminate the 87 octane spit from the game which would prevent any historical mission for pre BoB scenarii.

I like you feel there is enough proof that it was used.. As I noted I think the only argument left is how widly it was used.. Which is where I left it, but since you decided to add the qualifier of 'a couple' I felt the need to point out that based on all the info presented here in this thread 'I' think it is safe to say it is 'far' more than a couple.. How far? Who knows and who really cares wrt to CoD and the comming sequal! I think most of the adults here would agree that there is enough proof to justify the addition of a 100 oct variant at some point, be it the next sequal or later.. For me the sooner the better

Even worse than the flettner tab is the 1.98ata boost for the K-4. Next to nil, nada, zilch documentation compared to what has been put forward for 100 octane fuel. The fantasy speculation even carrying over to the G-10s :rolleyes:

Agreed

Which only highlights the hypocrisy in the 'proof required' by those (some) arguing against the addition of a 100 oct variant.

I asked you for what proof you have to support your claims, and you came up with nothing. Since then, you're only hanging around to throw out insults and red herrings, just look at the ten last posts you made here. Imo, no one is assassinating your character, your character committed suicide many, many pages ago. I guess some are desecrating the corpse, I wonder what made them this mad at you.

I kindly ask you to stop lying and re-read the thread from the beginning.

Amazing really, in discussions about the battle of Britain the Luftwhiners claim the US won it for the Brits because they sent us 100 octane and in the same breath deny we ever used it.........confused?

I like the 'if' part of the reply. Kurfursts view is that the RAF did use 100 octane in France to defend France, but the RAF may not have used it to defend the UK.

A novel thought I admit.

Well if you could come up with some supporting evidence for the theory that the the RAF used 87 octane in the BOB it would be welcome.

If that was the case surely there would be reports of performance during battle of France and how it compared once supply was restricted during battle of Britain? I haven't seen any comments on this marked change in aircraft performance and how the RAF was suddenly on a back foot.

Ok

I locked this thread last week for the same reason its gone full circle once again with insults.

You can draw you own conclusions to suit your own opinions from the data provided in this thread already,
further discussion is pointless.

It will remain closed permanently.




.