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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 394165)

Fighters that need to intercept a high flying enemy first need to climb to that high altitude. It makes a lot of sense to reduce the climb time through the first 10,000 feet to a minimum by the use of highest engine power available (which required 100 octane fuel), especially if you can't detect the enemy on a long distance.

Yes, that and take-off too.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...t-approval.jpg

These documents relating to fuel requirments of the the Advanced Air Stiking Force and the Air Component, both in France during May 1940, give some idea of consumption, stocks, and how fuel requirements were calculated. As can be seen the Hurricanes used 100 octane, the Blenheim used a mix, while the Battle and Lysander used 87 octane, as did any transport, liason, visiting types etc.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...cks-7may40.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...stocks-pg1.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...stocks-pg2.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...stocks-pg3.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...stocks-pg4.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...nt-15may40.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ay40-app-a.jpg

To underscore the above documentation of Hurricanes using 100 octane fuel in France please note the following:

P/O John Bushell, 151 Squadron, 18 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...dn-18may40.jpg

F/O Paul Richey, 1 Squadron, 11 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ichey-pg76.jpg

F/O E. J. Kain, 73 Squadron, 14 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...monks-pg98.jpg

P/O D. W. A. Stones, 79 Squadron, 14 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...tones-pg32.jpg

P/O R. P. Beamont, 87 Squadron, 15 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...nt-15may40.jpg

P/O F. B. Sutton, 56 Squadron, 18 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...utton-pg80.jpg

F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 18 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ed-18may40.jpg

F/Lt. I. R. Gleed, 87 Squadron, 19 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ed-19may40.jpg

Sgt. L. H. B. Pearce, 79 Squadron, 20 May 1940
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ce-20may40.jpg

100 Octane Fuel. Completion of the Thornton Plant. Memorandum by Minister of Aircraft Production.

1940 Oct 30

Quote:

AVIATION fuel of 100 octane content is now a necessity for operational
aircraft.
...
4. Our requirements of this fuel for 1941 are covered. But in 1942, after
allowing for purchases already made and the estimated output from Heysham
and Trinidad, we shall have to find 600,000 tons from other sources to meet our
needs. These will increase in 1943.
...
7. A decision is now necessary on whether we are to continue with the
erection of the Thornton plant.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...AB+67%2F8%2F81

They even thought about cancelling the construction of a new plant in October 1940. Looks like there was plenty of 100 octane fuel available.

There is a point where interesting theories meet reality.
The secondary historians say 100 octane fuel was an important factor, the primary sources say 100 octane was used.
I suggest the people still peddling this theory use their skills for something more productive for us COD flyers.

56RAF_phoenix

I really hope that when the SDK gets released we'll get both 87 and 100 octane versions of the flyables and then it will be the server admin's job to choose what they will use in each mission, rendering this whole debate moot.

Because let's face it, apart from the historical accuracy of things, a lot of the gnashing of teeth on both sides of the argument simply boils down to "i want my plane to be better than yours at the sim's primary design level so i'll always have an advantage". :-P

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 394296)

100 Octane Fuel. Completion of the Thornton Plant. Memorandum by Minister of Aircraft Production.

1940 Oct 30

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...AB+67%2F8%2F81

They even thought about cancelling the construction of a new plant in October 1940. Looks like there was plenty of 100 octane fuel available.

Nice, thanks for sharing 41Sqn_Banks,

Apparently they decided to keep the Thornton plant -- partially for post war employment reasons. They sound almost apologetic for being awash in 100 octane fuel. "It might be that after the war not only aeroplanes but motor cars will run on 100 octane fuel. :)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ane-7nov40.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 394184)

I am not quite sure if I got your calculations right - are you saying that the consumed amount was sufficient for a very rough average of 793.3 fuel loads per day for September 1940 for example?

Now the calculation doesn't account for non-operational flights - this was looked into earlier, at around post no 87. It was found that three s-e Sqns that were looked at flew about 230 hours of training/non-operational flights in a single first week of August 1940:

54 sqn for example:
http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110313.jpg

32 Squadron flew 60 and-a-half non-operational hours in the first week of August 1940, all of which were transfers to and from their forward base.
43 Squadron flew approximately 10 non-operational hours in the first week of August 1940, namely one transfer of six aircraft and their return and another transfer of seven aircraft, and three night practise flights.
54 Squadron flew approximately 159 non-operational hours

This works out as a rough avarage of 76 non-operational flight per Sqn per week, or about 300 hours a month per Squadron.

And as you have also noted, there was a rise in consumption of 87 octane fuel as frontline operations intensified. The Merlins and Mercurys could still use 87 octane fuel and for secondary duties would not need to use 100 octane fuel.

Remember also that the figures are for fuel consumed, not fuel issued , and my rough calculations assume that all aircraft used a full fuel load for every sortie, which, of course, didn't always happen. For example, if a Hurricane lands after a half hour flight with 45 gallons of fuel left, the fuel tank would then be topped up with 45 gallons - next sortie it lands with an empty fuel tank. To undertake two sorties that Hurricane consumed 135 gallons of fuel, not 180 gallons. Entire squadrons often landed after a sortie with half full fuel tanks.

BTW: Other grades of fuel means that 87 Octane wasn't the only grade used - from memory there was also 73 and 80 octane used? I think the Gypsy and Gypsy Major engines used in the likes of Tiger Moths could use these lower grades? (Getting way OT here)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 394330)

Because let's face it, apart from the historical accuracy of things, a lot of the gnashing of teeth on both sides of the argument simply boils down to "i want my plane to be better than yours at the sim's primary design level so i'll always have an advantage". :-P

I can think of one for which that is true for but for myself and some other it is about historical accuracy.

Same here Al. I get my ego boosted by rocking on stage with my band. Stat whoring in a CFS doesn't do it for me.