I dunno what you talk about mate, this one you kindly attribute to me is a Mark Niner... and this isn't the one I talk about.

Whoops the correct manual

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf

The following is the link to where you identified the notes you were using as being the Zeno Notes

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...a-20108-8.html

Post numbers 108, 112, 116

Okay lets' cut a long story short, if only for game purposes. What is modelled in Clod, 87 Octane or 100 Octane?
Is this just a debate between intellectuals with different viewpoints or a game breaker?
I struggle to find the relevance if it is not game related and if it is why have the developers not weighed in?
If it is just two standpoints then to each his own but if it materially affects game play the I want 100 Octane fuel to be an option at least and let the mission designer decide on it’s historical merit ;)

That depends how you look at it.

Instrument indications say that we have 87 octane boost limits, and strange behaviour of the boost control cutout.

Speeds and rates of climb are somewhat equivocal. Last time I checked, the Spitfire II was too fast and had strange full throttle heights, but boost topped out at about +8.

TBH it might be more reasonable to just say that there appear to be issues with the models rather than to try to pin this down to a fuel standard, because really we don't know enough about the assumptions underlying the FM, nor do we have the test technology (device link autopilot etc) to speak with the same certainty about CoD that we could talk about IL2/1946.

Thanks. It says July 1940, Spitfire IIA and IIB manual, and

"Fuel: 100 octane (the reduced limitations for use with 87 octane are shown in the brackets)"

Also this, for Spitfire I from same timeframe I believe:

"When using 100 octane.." And above it limiations we know for being for 87 octane.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1pn2-a.jpg

I know it does, it also says 20mm cannon

Pilot's Notes were issued but then revised constantly, so an issue date of July 1940 does not mean that all the info therein dates to July 1940, but in any event, even if it does, publishing the 87 octane limits are still prudent, since an aircraft may land at a training field, or even a civil airport and be forced to fuel up with 87 octane. Additionally, OTU aircraft may have run on 87 Octane and hence the info would still be needed, and overseas 100 octane was still scarce, and the writers could not know where an aircraft might be operating.

The fact remains that there are no published reports stating that Hurricane/Spitfires used anything but 100 octane during the BofB.

My friend has a car with a HO engine, and it requires 100 octane fuel, but the owners manual contains info regarding lower octane fuel use and prudent operating cautions.

It seems that 87 octane is being used in the FMs, but to many people, including myself, a game like this is only of interest if it simulates RL performance. If it doesn't simulate RL performance, it is just another arcade game, of no more interest than Star Wars.

100% agree with you. But can someone quote in game stats supporting this. It is all good and well this entire theoretical debate goes on but if the developers are not being told X should actually be Y and Y should include input from Z...
Nothing will ever be changed. I doubt whether a Russian developer is going to wade through 20 to 30 pages of a thread to figure out what the end result is.
I am 100% for 100 Octane but the developers need it in a simplified form and with documents to back up why the change needs to be made.
They could maybe just introduce field-modified 100 Octane Spitfire 1’s and 1a ‘s and have the Spitfire 2 already with 100 Octane as an example. Again this will leave the choice to the purists when mission building.
I doubt even Kurfürst can argue against that.

On the contrary there are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the RAF was equipped with 100 Octane for the BOB.

However There is nothing published anywhere that says that there was a fuel shortage, that they were forced to use 87 octane on operaions. All Kurfurst has posted is a pre war paper that said 18 squadrons of fighters and 2 squadrons of twin engined bombers. Plus an unsubstantiated posting from an Australian which
a) is riddled with errors.
b) is not supported by anything
c) that no one (not even Kurfurst) has seen
d) whee the archives that are supposed to hold it do not recognise.


Now the point of this was to ensure the people who are involved in the coding of the flight simulation were aware that if they followed the ideas put forward by Kurfurst were leaving themselves wide open for adverse comments.

I believe the case put foward for the use of 100 Octane in FC by all the units is a strong case, not perfect but strong.

We have
a) the pre war intention, of 18 + 2 squadrons
b) the preparation in Dec 1939 for the issues to the FC command stations in two stages initially the First Instance (covering all the Operational Bases and those that were identified at that time that would become operational) and the second tranch (The Non Operational bases). This paper outlines the conditions to be met (stocks to be in place) before it can be used.
c) the request from the Chief of the Air Staff simple and without limitation for fighter units and Blenheim units to start using the 100 Octane. The Chief of the Air Staff doesn't ask permission from the Oil Committee which is headed up by a senior but junior to him Air Force Officer. In the the British Armed Forces orders from senior officers were and are still today, requests.
d) The Oil Committee getting this underway. The Magic 'Certain' word comes up at this stage. Do I wish he hadn't written certain, of course, but I believe that it will refer to the first instance i.e. the operational stations not all the stations in Fighter Command. But Please note, I knew that information would casue confusion and I could have left it out, but I didn't I gave all the information that I had to the forum.
d) A very clear path that shows without any ambiguity that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group had 100 Octane
e) Confusion in Fighter Command about the changes needed and the sorting out of those questions (Mr Tweedie)
f) The completion of the task by the oil committee and the note of thanks on the job done.

Note that was all done by May. Even if there was a slight delay the BOB didn't start in anger until a few months later so time was on their side.

g) Finally we have in August permission given to use 100 Octane in all the commands.

All the above supported by consumption details, stock supplies, a good cross section of squadron notes, station notes and other documentation.

As I said earlier, is it a perfect case no, but its a strong one with a lot of documentation to support it.

What documentation have you got to say that 87 Octane was used in Operational missions during the BOB. None.

Some people doubt that all units didn't have 100 octane, so prove it, find any book, any article, any pilots story or other station record that says that.

I will review Pps posting again with supporting docs as that seems to be key to the anti 100 Octane Brigade and then leave you to it. I can add nothing more.