You already know how I'm thinking about it... I'm just watching the total of votes on the bugtracker: I don't think many guys here are against the 100 octane fuel introduction.

Think about the Spitfires outnumbering the P51s on the old IL2 public servers... Most people don't care about their safety (being in a faster plane), they care about TnBing... no tactic, no patience... they act like dogs in heat, point the nearest target. Above all the Spit are historically easy to fly... it's not surprising if many newbies fly them. And to be honest you have to know that I did not let my cadets to fly 109F4 or G2 too...

Give them more speed.. nothing will change until they learn how the real pilots were fighting (ambush and BnZing as priority).

If you ask me I'll always take the P51 over anything... or the Spitfire over the P47 if I have to fly under 10km. If I can't choose then I will think about a tactic (probably it will result on me diving away as during the hunting of heavy bombers... I can't fight against P51 and P47 at 10km... then I'll dive away after the headon with the bombers)

BtW the strong opposition is coming from only 2 guys because of historical accuracy...

OK, I misunderstood your statement on why you thought adding the 12 lb boost should be a low priority. Virtually ALL of the "veteran" CoD Spitfire and Hurricane pilots who already employ solid ACM tactics strongly feel that 12 lbs of boost be a high priority. It makes no sense to make the 12 lbs of boost a low priority simply because newbie pilots would possibly misuse it!

Just to clarify, I didn't mean for the RAE tests to be uses as benchmarks for what we have in CloD - that would be pointless. I was just pointing out that, like the RAE did, it's possible to do similar and make in game comparisons regards particular aspects of FM that are the subject of discussion.

It was certainly being used and the RAF was in the process of transitioning. Of course it should be included.

Both sides were phasing in 100 Octane fuels during the Battle of Britain.

IMHO, they should model the stability and control characteristics of both aircraft correctly, too.

Does ANY thread dealing with something even remotely related to aircraft performance need to turn into a slap concest on the 100 octane issue?

This factor was hugely significant with rookie pilots in 109's. There is abundant anecdotal evidence that the combination of the wings creaking loudly under high wing load and the slats pulling out and then slamming shut with a loud bang each time was enough to make rookie pilots avoid tight turns.

Experienced pilots of course had learnt to trust the aircraft, anticipate slat deployment (and take it into account when shooting) and flew quite differently.

Its quite possible this trait of the 109 partially explains the typical later Luftwaffe order of battle where one or two Experten in each squadron undertook most of the combat supported by a large number of less skilled pilots.

When arguing for 100 octane fuel are you saying the red plane should be faster than they are now? If red planes should be faster due to historical correctness I can understand your concern but only if the blue planes are like wise correct in speed and climb rates, but are they? I both teams are equally down on speed the its not a big problem. Speed is only a figure on the screen as long as its relative to all moving objects. It would fool most of us if they added 10% to the ias gauge.

It's partially possible: still I think the most important duty of the veterans was to keep the rookies alive for 4-5 missions and that's easily more a tactic matter then practicing "tight turns".

Probably in the training centers whose rookies learned how to fly/takeoff/land, acquainting themself with the plane (mechanically).
A combat mission was really a different thing.

You take some virtual rookies and they will do always the same errors during the first dogfights except for some guys who actually had enough prior experience: I used to have some 1v1 flying in a HurricaneMkI against anything they wanted to ride, above all against the cocky ones... after their 5th KIA they learned that good tactics are superior to raw performances (above all turn rate).

But these virtual pilots can actually die more times. The real ones had to learn what to do and not to do in combat: probably tight turning was not a priority.

Anyway, about the RAE mock fights:

- we know that Flying Officer J.E. Pebody had completed the handling tests, but we don't know how these were conducted... was he totally familiar with the plane? Hermann Graf had a very troubling training on the 109... he was almost to be thrown out of the door and he was more a lucky dogfighter than a silent killer as Hartmann. Could the RAE pilot really push the plane at his 100% also with the slats opened as the 109 veterans did?

- many pilots has flown against him: what about their experience? It's is possible that many (the statement says "large number") of them were not-rookies and still had fear of stalling and spinning (ergo Spitfires could actually lose energy in turns), or maybe were those fresh rookies?

It would be a nice to have some info about that.

Fair question, Drewpee. Camber's recent post may shed some light on this issue:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...4&postcount=56

And all the FM's are ~25mph off.....in some unknown configuration...ie radiator settings, atmospheric conditions, etc...

It is all relative.

I have not examined any of the FM's in any detail since I got the game. I just noted how easy it was to spin the Bf-109E and the impossibility of breaking the Spitfire Mk I airframe on a dive pullout from 400mph IAS with full left rudder and full back elevator violently applied.

I am willing to bet the FM's are closer than one would think in terms of level speed and climb rates. The stability and control characteristics are not close though.