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)

One has to take in account also that more than half of the DB601N production went to the 110's, which used them in the BoB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven (Post 302930)

I thought the ingame variant was already 100 octane performance wise, but only the dial indicates a too low value of boost. Or did I miss something again? :grin:

I have no idea, I was just speculating, wildly...

It could just boil down to faulty instruments.

(But where's the fun in that?!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 302965)

One has to take in account also that more than half of the DB601N production went to the 110's, which used them in the BoB.

And if the DB601N was having troubles in the 109 then there must have been trouble with the 110 as well.

Some of the last comments tells a lot abt what are the seriousness of some on this discussion. I don't want to be personal but I nearly spit of my coffee reading that some are seriously thinking that the Spit was like a X-wing fighters in BoB skies. The I-185 ? the Mig 3 U ???!!! Hey boy do you know how many were built and sent to the front ? Pls stop turning those brave young men that fought in harsh conditions stupid as they might hve knew nothing abt facebuk and Showme !

Pls dev paint a SPit half in Pink, add a methane pulse detonation engine at the rear end and load our guns with some talk powder that we can cleanup this discussion right now
:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter (Post 302985)

And if the DB601N was having troubles in the 109 then there must have been trouble with the 110 as well.

Your original quote mentioned problems with the installation, not the engine itself. The way i read this is that there was probably some redesign needed under the cowling and shuffling around the engine accesories, not that the engine was faulty per se.

If that's true, then it actually means it would be easier to install in a 110 as it's a bigger airframe with more available space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ (Post 302833)

As talks begin to wander towards personals things, I want to point out one thing. This thread was created for discussions about inaccuracies between FM and RL data, however later it took the course of debating if planes present in game are suitable for BoB period.

Although Kurfurst doesn't agree that all Spitfires MK.I were on 100 octane, I think he won't disagree that Spitfire MK.I on 100 octane were not such rare and exotic breed (ala I-185, Mig-3U and so on), which would not be worth to be modeled. I think both sides would agree that we need 2 additional Spitfire MK.I models: CSP and CSP+100 octane. This is what is required from devs now. Everything else (debates about how much 100 octane were available) would be more helpful for mission designers and not to devs (somehow I don't think they would invest much time correcting campaigns).

Exactly, best post in the entire number of threads concerned with the octane issue. Give us all the Spit Mk.I variants that were relevant in the timeframe of BoB and BoF, then it's the mission designer's/server admin's job to decide what to do with them. If people don't like it they fly another offline campaign, modify it to include their preferred ride or fly on a different server, problem solved.

I am not sure it can works like that. For example I hve bought RoF with enthusiasm as soon as it was released and can't play it anymore.... There is no default FM left anywhere on any server !

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 (bold text) at sometime during the BoB.

11 Group

RAF Biggin Hill

- RAF West Malling

RAF Debden

- RAF Martlesham Heath

RAF Hornchurch

- RAF Hawkinge
- RAF Gravesend
- RAF Manston, night fighter base
- RAF Rochford

RAF Kenley

- RAF Croydon

RAF Northolt

RAF North Weald

- RAF Martlesham
- RAF Stapleford

RAF Tangmere

- RAF West Malling
- RAF Ford
- RAF Lee on Solent, RN airfield
- RAF Gosport, RN airfield
- RAF Thorney Island
- RAF Westhampnett

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

RAF Detling

RAF Eastchurch

RAF Hendon

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter (Post 303065)

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

74 squadron were based at Hornchurch but flew (I think) to a forward Station (Manston) every day. You should maybe add that.

Good list :)

Quote:

74 squadron were based at Hornchurch but flew (I think) to a forward Station (Manston) every day. You should maybe add that.

Yes, same for the 54, Hornchurch was the normal base but the Squadron expended much of July using Rochford as base.

Yes, a good list. Not more mistery about this theme.

Quote:

Originally Posted by winny (Post 302832)

EDIT: I've also decided to get in touch with Rolls Royce at Derby to see if they have anything on wether or not a converted 100oct Merlin would run on 87 oct. The reason is that a lot of Squadrons used 2 stations. One where they stayed overnight and a forward base. If the conversion meant that a merlin wouldn't run on 87 then that would mean both stations would have to have had 100 oct, meaning more stations, more fuel, etc..

They would probably thank you to include their hyphen.

AFAIK there would be no problem associated with running a Merlin on 87 octane post conversion provided that the appropriate boost limits were respected.

However, just filling up with 100 octane afterwards doesn't then cut the mustard as you'd have to clean the fuel system out. Otherwise you'd be running on a mixture which might be say 95 octane, potentially causing trouble at +12.

Therefore, I don't think people would make a habit of switching from one grade to another.