Kurfurst still won't give up his propaganda campaign. After being banned is editing Wikipedia articles without asking and trying to sneak it under admins noses by IP address

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...s/86.101.5.223

Just how many pro-Germany WW2 100 octane aircraft loons are there in Budapest these days?
http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/86.101.5.223#Comments

As far as I am aware little if any. 100 Octane was stored in underground tanks that were well camouflaged and away from ports and other obvious choke points.

According to the Official War History book Oil by D.J Payton-Smith "Losses of stocks were almost negligible; only about 7 per cent of naval stocks and 3 per cent of civil stocks were lost in Britain by enemy action between July 1940 and June 1941. The Army and Royal Air Force lost no stocks at all." p. 137.

Unfortunately for Barbi and Crumpp it still leaves 35,816 tons of 100 Octane fuel available for "other" purposes, apart from FC frontline duties, including supplying FC with all their requirements for transfer flights, training etc, plus supplying engine manufacturers, MUs, repair depots, carrier pigeons, fighter-pigeons and bomber-pigeons etc. It also meant that Blenheims of BC and Coastal Command were able to fly frontline operations.

It is his SOP

Not suprised at all.. Only suprising thing is how many people still bother with him

What in the world does he do, aside from rewriting/reinterpreting history?:confused:

You think they only had a two to one reserve......on fuel??

:)

:rolleyes: So :( when reading comprehension is lacking.

You think that they wouldn't use any of it in wartime, but store it up?

Actually the 35,816 tons of 100 Octane consumed was used to cook sausages and eggs and and toast lots of Crumppets.

(He used exactly the same arguments against the RAF using 100/150 grade fuel - Crumpp, who doesn't know the differences between fuel reserves, fuel issued and fuel consumed, likes to believe that the RAF specialised in storing fuel reserves of high grade aviation fuel like squirrels and never using the stuff, unlike the generous Germans who used high octane fuel like it was water.) :rolleyes:

LOL!

But be carful what you say 'here' because Kurfurst might use your quote at 'wiki' as source of proof as to why 100 octane was not aval for Spits and Hurris ;)

Just as an aside, What was the storage life for the fuel, (both 100 and 87 Octaine)? Less than a year? Modern fuels degrade over time (visibly noticable by the gums and varnishes that seperate from the fuel and discolour it) and would cause all sorts of issues in use. The Fuel companies advise not keeping fuel stored for any great length of time.

I would assume they would have used some sort of rolling reserve system that as new shipments of fuel would be put into storage and the older stock sent out to be used. Does anyone know how they managed their fuel reserves?

I found this pdf file Collective Knowledge on Aviation Gasolines which, if you scroll down to pages 21 & 22 says:
"A petrol researcher named Charles F. Kettering and his assistant Thomas Midgley, and later Midgley‘s colleague Thomas Boyd, did about ten years of research on various fuel formulations and additives to both address the pinging noises heard in engines and to find a way to elongate the petroleum crude oil reserves (Kovarik, 1994/1999).

Shortly after its discovery, tetra-ethyl lead became ―‘Kettering‘s magic anti-knock fluid‘ (Kovarik, 1994/1999) that would provide the anti-knock margin necessary for engines to be designed both more efficiently to burn the fuel more fully in the combustion chambers and to generate more horsepower (Kovarik, 1994/1999). Lead was added to lower quality petroleum in low percentage volumes and this in combination with more effective combustion in the engines was recognized as an effective method for stretching the usage of refined crude oil products to help address oil shortage issues (Kovarik, 1994/1999).

Without going too much into detail about its advantages over other fuel additives to reduce knock, tetra-ethyl lead did not have a high freezing point, did not gum while in storage, did not lower the overall energy content or BTUs, and very little of it was needed to provide the benefits it was designed to deliver (Kovarik, 1994/1999). Tetra-ethyl lead did attack parts of the engine if too much was left behind after combustion, thus the need to use a scavenger such as bromide which achieved market dominance to meet this purpose (Kovarik, 1994/1999). Overall, tetra-ethyl lead became the low percentage additive of choice to help alleviate demands on oil reserves and to prevent knock even though health concerns over its manipulation had already been brought to the public‘s attention from its onset (Kovarik, 1994/1999)." This is wrong in that TEL didn't stop gumming altogether, but probably helped reduce it to manageable levels over a longer storage life.

The current shelf-life for 100 Octane (100LL) is about a year. There's also an article here.

The Air Ministry produced books called the Aeroplane maintenance and Operation Series No. 16 "Aeroplane Fuel and Oil Systems" which had a chapter on Testing Aeroplane Fuel. While this does not specify a shelf life it describes the testing regime to ensure that aviation fuel is able to be used: for 87 Octane fuel it specifies "(a) Existent gum = not more than 100 milligrams per litre, by evaporative glass test (b) Potential gum = not more than 100 milligrams per litre after heating at 35° C. for 20 hours." Presumably testing was carried out from the fuel storage facilities all the way down to Squadron level.

Crump wouldn't happen to fly blue by any chance would he?

He actully claims (or at least did) he plays NO PC games what so ever..

Which IMHO is funny, in an odd way, either way you look at it (true or false)

In that case why would he hang around a gaming forum disagreeing with majority opinion without evidence......

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NVVaosKw4z.../cutetroll.jpg

S!

This fuel testing is done today also every day to ensure that no contaminants or similar enter the plane. Sure the methods are a bit better though. Leave out the smack talk etc. and this thread is very interesting.

Bingo!

That is one of the 'funny' thing I was referring too..

I am sure he considers it some sort of 'duty' on his part to set things right in the simmer world! Because god knows a guy with a pilot's license trumps anything said by a guy without a pilot's license! Some (most?) pilots are funny like that! Which reminds me of a little joke..

If your in a room full of people..

Question.. Do you know how to tell who are the pilots in the room?
Answer.. Easy, they are the ones that during any introduction point out they are pilots

Example

You: Hi my name is Dave what is your name?
Pilot: Hello my name is Eugene, I am a pilot!

The wristwatch. It's the wristwatch that's the giveaway. Every time.

Cool! I'ld better start mentioning it a bit more often. Did you know I've got a ..... Hang on! Do you need a current medical certificate??????

;)

Don't confuse the sweetened stock with the blended fuel you put in your tank. Blending does not occur until the gas is leaving the storage facility and heading for the pump to be sold or put into a vehicle to be used. Once it is blended, it is considered consumed.

All the 100LL stock is made one time per year. It is not blended though until it is sold to an airport. The Reid Vapor Pressure tolerances of aviation fuel are much more stringent than automotive fuel.

http://ask.cars.com/2009/02/whats-th...y-cars-pe.html

You can get away with blending automotive fuel twice per year for the most part.

Airplane fuel does not work that way. My old Socata used to have vapor lock issues because I did not fly for months when I was away on business. The plane would sit with full tanks in the hanger. By the time I got to fly it, the conditions had changed from when it blended to maintain Reid VP and I would end up hitting the auxiliary fuel pump all the time to keep my fuel pressure up so the engine would not quit. Once that gas was out of my tanks, I did not have to use the aux pump except for start, takeoff, and landing.

And what exactly do intensive wartime operations of military aircraft have to do with what US civil aviation does with fuel blended and used for peacetime civilian operations? Socata's sitting in hangers for months? So What? For instance, the standard practice of the RAF was to fill the tanks of their fighters asap after landing to avoid vapour locks, condensation etc - there was no time for fuel to deteriorate through sitting around in a hanger for months waiting for something to happen. By Crumpp's reasoning the RAF mixed up small batches of 100 octane fuel then let it sit around, or tested it to see if it would work, instead of using as much as possible at a time when the country was facing full scale air assault!

Confusing peacetime civilian practice with military practice during wartime, and saying that the same constraints apply to the use of aviation fuel is just nonsense. It is just another red herring by someone who doesn't want to admit that he has no arguments left against FC using 100 octane fuel for all of its front line operations by Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants throughout the Battle of Britain.

Agreed 100%

Now.. as I said a dozen or so pages ago..

Why are you guys wasting your time arguing with this less than a handful bunch of biased nay-sayers?

I think you guys should start a group PM here to pull all this data togther into a nice little package and submit it to someone that actully maters here in the real world.. i.e. Luither.

Luither has shown in the past to be someone with an open mind, that is to say if you provide him the data he will make the change if the change can be made.

PS if you need a place to post your result I can offer up my website as a place to post your 'summary' of all this data

I am still waiting for the 40 plus Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons that only used 87 fuel during the whole BoB from the Dynamic Duo.

Eugene still hasn't produced the OoB he said he would post.

Well don't hold your breath! ;)

But seriosly.. You guys really need to stop wasting your time with these guys.. Put them on ignore and lets work togther to put togther a package for Luiter.

nah, its fun watching them squirm.

Yes this.

AoA, I second you to be organiser ;)

I agree - this thread has long run its course; if Barbi and Crumpp and co want to believe in their horse pucky let 'em - I nominate and second Ace to be organiser. 8-)

A little graphic I put together using info from this thread, the official RAF website and the Spit Perf website. It is from July 1 to Sept 30 1940.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3503/bobdeploy7.jpg

Nice, but can we have is in .xls?

xls is not a savable extension in SmartDraw.

Well.. if no one else wants to do it I can hurd the cats! ;)

Ill start a group PM this weekend.. We can discuss our goals and work from there. S!

No...you did not read the link.

Once a fuel is blended, it is considered consumed just I told you before. I just pointed out the error in fact you are making.

My personal belief is the RAF operated 16 squadrons on the fuel as that is what our facts say. No need to build a house of cards based on crude, one-dimensional, speculation and factual error.

Here is a PPT presentation on the tax issues of gasoline production. The important take away is the Terminal does the blending from Gasoline stocks(see page 8 ). Now there are different types of gasoline stocks. You don't use car gasoline stock to produce 100LL aviation fuel. Just like 100 grade aviation fuel used during WWII, 100LL has its own blend-stock but like all gasoline products it must be blended at the terminal just before delivery to the customer to make the finished product.

http://www.api.org/meetings/topics/t...ar_Garza-2.pdf

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sure Eugene, that is why this paper says 'weekly issues' instead of the word 'weekly consumption'.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-100octane.jpg

Lots of gum flapping without listing those 16 squadrons.

Which is exactly what you're doing, and you will clearly stick to your core belief come hell or high water. Not a problem. ;)

If you want to continue to believe that for some obscure reason the RAF issued 62,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel, then consumed 52,000 gallons, while only needing some 16,000 tons to fly every sortie flown between July 10 and October 6 then okay, that's your pigeon. :cool:

If you want to stick to the story that the RAF only allowed 16 squadrons to use the fuel, based on an abbreviated, pre-war transcript of what was probably a lengthy discussion - go ahead. :cool:

If you honestly believe that modern peacetime practices equate to 1940s wartime conditions when, as I will repeat - because you can't seem to grasp this tiny issue - the RAF was fighting off a full scale air assault, hey go for it! :rolleyes:

Alec Harvey-Bailey, The Merlin in Perspective, (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Derby, 1983)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/r...yce-100oct.jpg

W.G. Dudek and D. R. Winans, excerpt from AIAA Paper No. 69-779, Milestones in Aviation Fuels, (Esso Research and Engineering Company, New York 1969.)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-42363-319.jpg

A. R. Ogston, excerpt from History of Aircraft Lubricants (Society of Automotive Enginees, Inc. Warrendale, PA USA), p. 12.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...cants-pg12.jpg

Just explain to everyone why it is that people far more qualified than you say the fuel was blended at the refineries, then shipped to Britain as 100 Octane fuel? (Not forgetting, either, that 100 octane was also blended in Britain, which is why some of the Beaconhill fuel was set aside as a sample.) And please explain why people, who are far more qualified than you, tell us that the switchover to 100 Octane for all Spitfires and Hurricanes was in March 1940?

And please explain why the same rules don't apply to other grades of aviation fuel? Why is it that you accept entirely the proposition that the RAF can issue and consume 87 Octane fuel, which is also blended, in large quantities and you have no similar objections? Hmmm? Why apply this logic ONLY to 100 Octane fuel?

You are of course free to believe what you like but you cannot claim any facts, for instance.

a) You do not know which squadrons
b) You do not know which stations
c) You do not know how it was to be distributed
d) You do know the roll out schedule,
e) You do not even know if the schedule was kept at 16 fighter squadrons as the last para states that this is subject to change.

Now if you can prove any of the above, you might have a case as without any proof you do not have any facts

Can you list the facts you do have.

Indeed. The 16+2 squadrons were planed, and we don't have a document that proofs that the numbers of the plan were reached, not reached or even exceeded.
Of course we have the combat reports that show way more squadrons. Remains the "rotation theory" but this is clearly wrong. There are combat reports of 41 Squadron that proof the use of 100 octane fuel during their time in Hornchurch (11 Group) and few days later when they were back in Catterick (13 Group).

Now, now Banks stop providing facts that will be ignored by Eugene. He has ignored them before, so why do you think he will not ignore them again.

Well, this thread is both quite interesting and yet also rather demented in its last 50 pages or so.

From all the arguments and counter-arguments posted, it seems clear that the following can be derived :
100 octane fuel was used by ( a substantial number of/a lot of/quite a few ) Fighter Squadrons.
87 octane may have been used by ( a few/some ) Squadrons as well.

Therefore the ideal solution would be for the Devs to model both and allow Mission-builders to determine airfield availability.

Isn't this what most (all ? ) of us would prefer to see ?

Demented? :rolleyes: Considering that those with little or no evidence to prove their case -
ie: that the RAF only allowed 1/3rd to 1/2 of the frontline fighter squadrons (Hurricane, Spitfire, Defiant) to use 100 Octane fuel -
were hiding their lack of evidence behind a smokescreen of bluster, red-herrings and diversions "...a tale told by an Idiot, full of Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing."

while demanding 100% iron-clad proof, down to the last crossed t and dotted i, that the RAF allowed all front-line fighter units to use 100 Octane fuel throughout the B of B - things got a little...demented. ;)

Apart from anything else the amount of 100 Octane fuel issued and consumed, versus the amount needed to accomplish all of the frontline daylight sorties carried out by Fighter Command from July through October 1940, should be enough on its own to show that the probability that all front-line Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants used 100 Octane fuel throughout the battle, is extremely high.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

Arthur Conan Doyle

I would agree with Sturm in that the developers will use both fuels and let the mission builders make the call. If the misson is over N Ireland then 100 octane wouldn't be needed anyway as there wouldn't be any 109's. If they insist on 87 octane in no 11 group then I can imagine what response they would get.

The reason I first joined the thread was to ensure that the misson builders were not limiting the RAF to 16 squadrons as that was patently wrong.

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

It says they made the 100 grade stock. The article explains how they making regular gasoline stock using catalytic cracking produced a stock pure enough to be have alkylation it was made into 100 grade fuel stock.

Of course they blended the alkylates at the refinery. Stockyards do not have the equipment to do that kind of operation. Stockyards today do not perform alkylation either.

Fuel stock is what gets shipped from the refinery. It is not the fuel that goes into airplane tanks.

Even aircraft oil requires blending. An extreme example is for Lycoming engines that you can find oil that is already blended or you must blend it yourself. There is an mandatory service bulletin that requires certain Lycoming engines to use LW-16702. Lycoming highly recommends the additive for all of their engines.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/supp...dfs/SB471B.PDF

Here you can buy the additive and blend it yourself....

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...iladditive.php

Or you can buy the oil already blended:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...shelloils3.php

Either way, if you fly a certain Lycoming engine, you must have use it.

You continually fail to name those 16 squadrons despite pilot reports saying at least 22 squadrons using 12 boost which required 100 fuel before July.

You have yet to produce that OOB you said you would. Sure they did :rolleyes: as my graphic shows.

Actually this is the part that hasn't been proved, because there is no evidence of it whatsoever aside from a couple of training flights becoming embroiled on the odd occasion (listed by Glider). The problem is that one or two people have taken this lack of any evidence as reason enough that it was so widespread as not to be worth mentioning, anywhere, ever.


Aside from that I agree, modelling both would be best for very early war scenarios.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=772

This is only the Spitfire squadrons. Please don't make the suggestion that Hurricanes were all on 87 for god's sake.

Hey Guys

Got a little busy this last weekend, was not able to put out the group PM, so don't feel left out if you didn't get the PM! I hope to get to it this week!

I would like you to read your source, If you look at it you will find they are one and the same and there isn't one that says 16 squadrons were using 100 octane in September.

If there is I would be glad to see it but I am certain that you don't have one that says, sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel to quote your words.
If you cannot supply such a source, I would like an explanation as to why you are saying that you have such a paper and don't.

Glider you have seen the sources. They are already posted in this thread.

I am not interested in wasting my time hunting them down to be re-posted. Read the thread, please.

I will scan the OOB's but on my time not yours.

As per usual Crumpp, you have not explained anything by diverting into modern peacetime practices.

Please explain why the RAF issued 62,000 tons of 100 Octane between July and end of October 1940, consumed 52,000 tons, yet just over 15,000 tons was needed to fly every defensive sortie flown between July 10 and October 6?

And, no I don't care what happens in the private aviation business now, it would be good if you could explain: what happened to some 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in 1940?

May I repeat that?

What happened to 35,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel?

The rest of your claims - that only 16 Squadrons ever used the stuff until sometime in September - are based on Morgan and Shacklady which, as I have explained very carefully, based their claims on a pre-war planning paper, which is a highly suspect way of explaining what happened in wartime, when Britain was facing a full scale air assault and the possibility of invasion.

In fact the entire section of the use of 100 Octane fuel in Morgan and Shacklady is a deeply flawed analysis of what happened in 1940. For example, they claim that lots of tankers carrying 100 Octane were sunk by U-Boats etc, but provide absolutely NO evidence to back the claim up. In fact something like 78 tankers (Barbi's figures) were sunk between September 1939 and November 1940 while 1,150 unloaded their cargoes in Britain during the same period. Just because Morgan and Shacklady are great at describing the technical details of Spitfires it doesn't mean that they have a complete grasp of all historical events of the times.

All Crumpp can come up with is absolutely nothing. Why he wants to believe so fervently - so religiously (evidence of things unseen) and rigidly - that the RAF used very limited amounts of 100 Octane fuel is beyond me, and I don't really care. I have far more important things to do than bother with his nonsense and blather any more.

Your right, I have seen the sources and they don't say what you claim. Please note item 8.

So just to sum up the outstanding questions which are outstanding with you

1) Have you any evidence to support the 16 squadron idea
2) If you believe that it was a rotational issue so only 16 squadrons were using 100 octane at any one time, is there anything to support your theory
3) I am not that interested in your OOB as I posted one from the official archives which clearly showed more than 16 squadrons in the front line 10, 11, 12 Group at any one time. I am confident that if your supported your views then you would have posted them in double quick time

So I must repeat you may have your belief but you do not have any facts, none at all.

I believe the following to be the source that you are using, if you have more than that then please let us know because they are not in this thread:-

I see Eugene is doing his usual song and dance routine evading answering direct questions.

He knows he is wrong about only 16 squadrons but as he is never wrong, he won't admit he is wrong. If he was so sure of only 16 squadrons, then why hasn't he given their numbers.

Which 16 squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were using 100 fuel in September Eugene?

Which squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were still using 87 fuel in September Eugene?

We won't get an answer, as like Barbi, he expects others to do his research and then won't believe the research of others when presented.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9835/boboob.jpg

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/4720/boboob2.jpg

I have them for every few weeks over the course of the entire battle. The facts are the RAF maintained a rather vigorous rotation schedule.

No, I just ignore you for the most part. ;)

Nope, you just ignore the stuff you have no answers for, because you have no evidence to back up your fervent beliefs, just like your pal Barbi. So, you want to ignore people who have legitimate questions you won't answer? You're on my ignore list, because you just ain't worth bothering with. :cool:

So which squadrons were using 12lb boost and 100 fuel?

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/4720/boboob2.jpg

That is the core of the issue and one that would bury this rotation theory.

Its interesting as we know from papers that Drem had 100 octane and that Drem is a satallite station of Turnhouse which means that Turnhouse had 100 octane. Take that a stage further, it means that on the 30 Sept Drem in Scotland had 3 squadrons and 2 flights using 100 Octane i.e. a fifth of the RAF supply of 100 Octane was in Scotland

41 Squadron definitely had 100 octane fuel while operating from Catterick in 19 June 1940, 11 August and 15 August. They also had 100 octane fuel while operating from Hornchurch and satellite Manston at the dates between.
In June they frequently operated from satellite station Hartlepool.

S!

I wonder why you guys outright deny rotation of squadrons. That is mentioned even in memoirs of Johnnie Johnson, Geoffrey Wellum etc. that squadrons were pulled back for resting, refitting, training for new planes etc. Pilots were too tired to fight and losses did cut the effectiveness of a squadron. Are you so obsessed with this 100 Octane Crusade that you fail to see the trees from the wood? This same rotation was used throughout the war by Allies and even today rotation is a principle used by armed forces.

What will be next you guys want? Luthier slaps in 100 Octane to all Sissies and Hurricanes. Next you start the crusade that it was not 5min clearance for maximum boost but indefinite time and engines suffered no damage even some exceeded it? With the kiddyplay CEM we have now 100 Octane and 5min limit will be abused to hell and back, like the 25lbs boost Sissyfire Mk.IX in IL-2 1946. CEM is a joke and simplistic at the moment.

You call names like Eugie and Barbi and still sit on your high horse to be the High Priests of Truth? You fall in to the same pit like everyone and pat eachother in the back in a circle for this. This thread could have been a VERY INFORMATIONAL one without this mud being slung and stubborn dug in attitudes seen. None of you know EXACTLY what happened or how things were no matter how many documents you scan. There is more than just a few scans seen here. I bet none of you would have the time to go through the archives in such manner that you would know in detail what happened. Now merely scratching the surface.

And bottom line is that Luthier does not need to put in to CoD this 100 Octane at all. Just changes the FM and voilá..you got it. Small text in GUI to tell which version you fly. And the crowd cheers. But it does not turn your planes into some magic X-Wings ;) I fly offline for different testing purposes BOTH red and blue planes, online mainly blue as I have done so since I started flying online 1997. So do not pull the blue bias on me ;) This is a GAME after all.

No one is denying the rotation of squadrons. There is the theory that a squadron used 100 octane fuel when at a certain location (e.g. 11 Group) but didn't used it when rotated to another location(e.g. 13 Group). This would mean that not mroe than 30 squadrons used 100 octane fuel but maybe only 16 squadrons at the same time.

The point is: If a squadron used 100 octane fuel in 11 Group and also in 13 Group this mean a) either 100 octane fuel was used in 11 and 13 Group
b) or the fuel was transferred together with the squadron (which is of course very unlikely)

Case a) and the reported use 100 octane fuel in at least 30 squadrons proofs that the "16 squadron" limit was not effective.

It's well documented that +12 boost was a overload condition. The 5min real-life limitation of course doesn't mean the engine is dead after 5min 1sec. IIRC there is a document that states that engine life drops from 100hours to 20hours if +12 boost is used.
It's a gaming convention to use the real-life limitation as a trigger for engine damage, this has nothing to do with the negative effects in real-life.

Agreed.

The benefits of +12 boost and 100 octane fuel are documented, there is a increase of speed and climb rate below FTH.

It may not add s-foil servomotors, lasers and a droid but at least it installs a warp drive, photon torpedoes and a Vulcan science officer ;)

Flanker, you are blue biased, it's really clear in your attitude. How can one claim to be impartial yet call one aircraft an insulting nickname? Please stop doing that.

That's correct, if you are getting shot down a lot today you will get shot down a lot tomorrow too even if you have rocket fuel in your tanks.

*runs for cover from the incoming bombardment*

No-one is claiming to know EXACTLY what happened, and if you bother to read things properly instead of merely skimming through you will see that. What is important is the weight of evidence which shows that it is more than likely that FC used 100 Octane fuel for all daylight, frontline Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant sorties flown throughout the B of B.

If you knew anything at all about historical research - not just the kind of stuff dreamed up on many internet sites - you would know that finding 100% iron-clad evidence for anything is well nigh impossible, and most genuine historians understand that, and do their research accordingly.

The fact is that those who have very little evidence against the use of 100 octane fuel have spent the best part of this thread disputing, sneering at, and ridiculing every single scrap of evidence presented by people like Glider and lane, who have actually spent hours trawling through thousands of documents, usually at a great deal of expense. They have also spent a great deal of time sneering at, attacking and ridiculing Glider and lane and anyone else they happen to disagree with. So, accuse people of "sitting on a high horse" all you like - if you have been subjected to the same treatment, by these same people, over several websites, for years, you would probably be on a high horse as well.

As for your last little sneer? Have you ever bothered spending hours trawling through archives? Or is this just a little smart-alec throwaway line designed to make you feel good about yourself?

Note: errors in the 2 OoBs that Eugene posted

July - Turnhouse - 243 squadron - no such accredited BoB squadron
Sept - Kenley - 233 squadron - no such accredited BoB squadron

There was a 253 squadron though.

S!

NZ Typhoon. Do you think I do NOT have access to historical data? For example the people of Finnish Virtual Pilots(part of that too) has access to the war archives here and the amount of stuff to trawl through is immense. And this from an Air Force smaller than RAF, but older ;) So do not preach to me about researching. I also did go through original documents on planes from pilot's notes to mechanic side of things. So please keep the insults to yourself, with all respect. I have resorted to it as well so I am not even claiming to be a saint ;)

Osprey, I want only accurate values in a GAME. Do not call this a "simulator" as it is far from it or has very few really modelled things. Compared to those simulators I see at work in military this is just a console port, if you get the picture ;) I fly blue because it offers more challenge than red. But I fly red too to learn their planes, so no bias here. And testing is fun, no matter which side. When you work with real fighter aircraft the more you see how little we have in this game, or any other title "simulated". Knowledge increases the pain so to say. The day I see a game that has been modelled without blue or red goggles I will be more than happy. But for now we have what we have, pot and kettle fights :)

S!

S-Foils and all that was funny Banks. Good one! I agree on the benefits of the fuel, but it seems many think it will be the I-Win button when it is not. After all it is the pilot, not the plane. CoD has the chance to be THE game when fixed and still waiting for that. Meanwhile have to settle what we have now :) I shoot down some and I get shot down..part of the game :) No hard feelings as this is a hobby in my scarse past time.

And this guy and his buddies accuse me of hit-n-run troll tatics just to stir up trouble.. Got to love the double standards..

Anyway, adults are trying to have a discussion here.. that has nothing to do with how many times you get shot down in the game.. please take your net elseware

If the less than a handful (three or so) of 100 octane nay-sayers were consistent with their 'standards' of proof..

I could cut them some slack

But, as it turns out they are not

On that note, If you want to see something real funny.. As in Kurfurst dropping his standards of proof to nil

Ask Kurfurst about flettner tab usage on the 109K-4 ailerons..

A few years back he was on a campaign to have Oleg change the 109K-4 FM to include flettner tabs on the ailerons..

His so called proof for doing so was based on a couple of pictures of mostly drawings not actual planes

And 'that' was enough proof as far as Kurfurst was concerned to change the 109K-4 FM.

Even though there are dozens and dozens of WWII pictures of actual 109K-4s shown without flettner tabs, and even though there is a famous WWII German test pilot report stating all the problems associated with flettner tabs

Mater of fact.. I think this was one of the reason he got banned from wiki

I agree, and that's what we are after by this very thread, so how you can deride the work of others without so much as reading and absorbing what they are saying before commenting is a little rude don't you think? I would like as much accuracy as a computer can muster, advantages, disadvantages, the lot.

I find your comment about working with aircraft condescending at best though. It's like you are telling us that you work with real aircraft so you should be listened to, yet also stating the bleedin' obvious that a computer game is not real. You are stating this because?

Finally, I am staggered if you think that blue is more of a challenge than red. It's pretty obvious what major, and thoroughly inaccurate, advantages blue have right now. Please do not complain when things get evened up, because they will, and you are going to find the Spitfire a world of pain for you.


I'm confused Flanker, a moment ago you stated that it's a game, doesn't compare etc, and now you say it has a chance to be the best and that fighter tactics play such a big part. I agree with the latter and I would suggest that the former is mostly separated mainly by a few million £'s worth of hydraulics.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, on red are after an 'I-win' solution. I would argue that plenty on blue do though - take Kurfurst here for example, and even yourself who has an active dislike of Spitfires (you frequently call it a Sissyfire - why? Can you not recognise it is one of the most defining aircraft of the World? Do you not love flight?).
Most red fliers I know are historian types, re-enactors, and are not interested in competition at all. I'm one of them, I've flown competition in the USL and been a member of teams winning closed and open pit. I have nothing to prove, I want to enjoy a hobby and learn about this history, and replicate it as accurately as possible. I get really p*ssed off with these types who believe in hype and seek advantage at every turn.

Is this 869 posts about 100 Octane fuel? :confused:

I have only one thing to say. More of a question if you will.

If these results were gathered about how fast an aircraft goes, would that data not already include the 100 octane fuel? As it is well known most RAF fighters flew on it is it not already included in the data?

:roll:

This argument continues to be ridiculous.
There should be no debate that 100 octane was used in the battle. You'd be far better off telling all the red pilots to stop using DeWilde in 4 of 8 guns, because THAT'S a valid argument.

The REAL issue here isn't even anything to do with COMBAT in the game. I just want a Spitfire that flies like a Spitfire. End of story. I want to roar by Dover Castle doing a level 280+ MPH. I want to be able to flip the boost cut out and really feel it.

Any of those things going to win me more dog fights? Maybe in one or two, but the majority of the combats I get in? No. The majority of the combats I get in that I win are the result of superior positioning. That's not going to change.

So I put it thusly:
If the Spitfires are not modelled correctly, and everyone seems to AGREE on this, then fix it. I don't even understand where we got onto this 87 vs 100 argument ANYway. Where in the game does it say that 87 is being used? In the performance of the aircraft? That could be because of ANY number of reasons, including that the devs just plain screwed it up.

If ANY planes aren't being modelled correctly, fix them.

The biggest cause of all these arguments? Missions are not being made to reflect actual operations. The planes are performing roles they didn't perform during this simulated era, so its NO WONDER that we're getting people complaining that things aren't working out "right".

No more objectives for RED that involves bombing targets in the interior of France. The Battle of Britain was a fight for SURVIVAL. DEFENCE. PROTECTION OF GREAT BRITAIN. Fat lot of good I'll do shooting down the Luftwaffe masses if I'm just north of Paris. And 100octane fuel won't even get me back in time. If Bleheim pilots want targets to bomb, give them some! Just don't make those targets critical to Red winning the map.

Yes indeed Farber. The fuel gave an increase in performance up to FTH and we want that modeled. If it's modeled with 87 then the Spitfire will be slower than the 109 below 16 kft, which wasn't true when 12lbs was used and thus the reason this is on post 1 zillion is because a couple of people want a slower Spitfire in game than what was represented in the BoB.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
There is a graph on spitfireperformance.com which shows a considerable advantage but I would like to see more official data than the one displayed before I could be sure about that. This is the one they have vs the E-1 plus other data, some of it official.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-109espeed.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-109eclimb.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-109e-eng.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/db601englimits.jpg

roll rate
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bank45.gif

Dive acceleration is not here but combat reports all state that the 109 got away comfortably. Steep climbing turns are the opposite in game as IRL where the 109 should stall first on a 120mph climbing turn.

And this. I totally agree, although I am personally not bothered about ATAG's choice of mission. Our server (Air Combat Group) runs historical missions, as do other servers, and that is a personal choice for the punter.

I'm really looking forward to the JG27 campaign regardless of FM anyway.

Yep. As soon as ACG Server is back up and running, I'll be all over it.

S!

Osprey, english is not my first language so some posts can sound harsh. What I meant with working with planes is that I bet most people here have only been in a Cessna or an airliner, seen planes in an airshow etc. Very few actually fly planes or maintain and work with the inner parts of a plane or with their weapons systems, depot level repairs and maintenance etc. When you do that and are in contact daily with real fighter jocks the flaws and limitations of a simulator/game become more and more obvious. So there it is: Game.

Spitfire was a great plane but IMO a bit over glorified. It did not win the BoB or WW2 alone, Hurricane did the grunt of the work in BoB for example. In other theatres it fared like any other fighter, but it suffered from same as Bf109: short range. It had it's vices too ;) Sissyfire came from the idiotically modelled 25lbs Mk.IX which everyone and their aunt/granny/uncle flew and touted it being historical. The Spitfire is still a graceful sight, but for me the Bf109 has a sweet spot always.

Osprey, you contradict yourself a bit. You say the Sissyfire will be the "world of pain" for blue. Is that the only plane that will be checked by Luthier? Flying blue is a challenge and with the comment "world of pain" you just confirmed it ;) How about later when the Fw190A's whack the Sissyfire Mk.Vb silly? The tables turn later with Mk.IX to more even etc. The circle goes on and on. So there is no "world of pain", just adaptation to the changing situation :) And when you learn to fly blue against the reds flying red is a breeze. Agree?

So after all..this is a game we enjoy to play. That's it. Sure creates heated debates but still we play. And tactics work in this game in most situations as the features(FM/DM/CEM etc.) of the game make it possible.

Well, over with this. I think all just want a game that is as accurate as possible within the constraints of our hardware and software.

Fair enough Flanker. Regarding your point though I don't think it compares tbh. I don't see how a modern pilot flying Eurofighter fly-by-wire and using BVR systems has anything remotely similar to the fighters of 1940. In actual fact things are moving closer to 'games' anyway with pilotless drones flown from California in Iraq and Afghanistan. The comparison is pointless, we have what we have.

Regarding the Spitfire and glory, this has nothing to do with facts which is what we are dealing with. What has the fuel discussion in this thread got to do with whether somebody wrote a book, told a story or made a film about the Spitfire and it's endevours? We are dealing with facts, not romantic fiction. I would argue that the 109 has the problem with glory because (a) so few survived and so much data was destroyed as Germany lost, and (b) it was all a part of German propaganda to state how Germany had such an amazing machine. Some people live this romance and cannot understand how Germany lost with such a superior fighter, they big it up way way too much imho.
All I can say about the Spitfire is that it was an excellent short range local supremacy fighter which was extremely versatile.

The BoB could've been won without the Hurricane, but not without the Spitfire.


PS, I flew 190A for years in '46, P-51, P-40 mainly. The USL makes squadrons fly allied and axis so you will fly all. I have no preference but accurate representation.

PPS, I can't understand why you carry over the 25lber insult into CoD. It's not here, and it wasn't in the list in Spits v 109s nor Warclouds either anyway.

~S~

Again, I don't know the answer and neither does anyone else in this thread.

I am sure the RAF would want data on continuous operational use. That is the whole purpose of operational trials. It would make sense to have some of the 16 squadrons that converted use the fuel continuously.

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.

Another song and dance routine. :(

How much 100 fuel did the RAF use during the BoB?

How much reserve stock of 100 fuel did the RAF have at the end of the BoB?

We are all still waiting for you to name these 16 squadrons that used 100 fuel.

All you have to do is provide evidence that even a single RAF FC Hurricane/Spitfire combat sortie was flown with 87 octane fuel.

Please demonstrate that just one sortie out of the tens of thousands made during the BofB was flown with 87 octane fuel.

Forget it - Crumpp is a waste of time; the boy just wants to believe want he wants to believe. :rolleyes: But, then again, let's pursue that line of thinking...

Interestingly, reserves of "Other Grades" of aviation spirit got progressively lower than those of 100 octane fuel throughout 1940 -
May 1940: 294,000 tons of 100 Octane v 298,000 tons "Other Grades";
August: 404,000 tons 100 octane v 230,000 tons "Other Grades";
November:440,000 tons v 257,000 tons "Other Grades".

Were one to follow Crumpp's entirely :confused: :rolleyes: "logic" the RAF wasn't using "Other Grades" of fuel either, except on operational trials, lest those reserves got below "believable levels" - take the :confused: :rolleyes: Crumpp logic far enough and the RAF wasn't using any fuel...sort that one out :!: :grin: :grin:

If we take Crumpp's logic another way those 16 Squadrons (aircraft type(s) not specified) consumed 51,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in "operational trials" between July and end of October 1940. So, assuming the 16 squadrons were a mix of Hurricane and Spitfire units:

1 gal 100 Octane= 7.1 lbs: 1 ton = 2,240 lbs divided by 7.1 = 315.5 gal of fuel per ton.

Hurricane = 90 Gal
Spitfire= 84 gal
Average= 87 gal

315.5 divided by 87 gal = 3.6 fuel loads per ton of fuel: 51,000 tons consumed X 3.6 = 183,600 sorties flown during operational trials! = 11,475 sorties by each of the 16 Squadrons. But Wait There's More! According to Crumpp only some of the 16 squadrons would have used 100 octane continuously:!: :grin:

S!

Osprey, the fighter pilots can judge how a plane behaves, jet or not. Not sure how RAF or others train but here they have to fly against propellor/turbo prop planes to simulate a slower target that still can pose a threat if it gets guns on you even for a short time.

My main point was the plane itself though, be it WW2 or modern plane, it has systems/subsystems and a structure. When you work with them on a daily basis you get a fairly good idea how for example damage would affect the plane or a system. This leads to the DM we have that has oddities, or should we say features, which boils down to the fact our home computer systems simply are not capable of calculating what would happen. Instead we have something like "X happens to Y part commence action Z" or at worst case hitpoint pools on areas. Have even 1 point left and it will not break or affect plane behaviour.

An example. Finns bought from RAF Hurricanes 1939-40. The Brits themselves told during evaluations that planes in service lost 10-20mph from their speed fairly quickly due wear/tear and fatigue, especially those Hurricanes that still had fabric covered wings. Those wings caused problems to Finns as well, they "ballooned" in a dive and at least one plane was lost due the fabric was torn off. So restrictions had to be set for their dive speeds. Just an example.

In game we do not have wear/tear or fatigue that cumulates. Still the same old "Refly with a factory fresh plane". So if this could be modelled in some believeable way then CEM and how you fly would become much more important. Now it is not. Just balls to the walls, fiddle a bit here and there and good to go. Again..a GAME.

I flew red quite a bit in old IL-2 in different occasions. So was not stuck to blue only. Main ride was still the biggest underdog Bf109G-6 Early without the 30mm. Blue pilots are called Luftwhiners, Luftwaffles etc. so Sissyfire will stick ;)

But thanks you for a good reply Osprey, appreciate that :)

Most air forces have Dissimilar Air Combat courses; the NATO air forces, for example have flown several exercises, mostly jet v jet http://www.rtbot.net/dissimilar_air_combat_training
http://www.100squadronassociation.org.uk/history6.html

The turbo-prop Tucanos in the RAF are used for Basic Fast Jet Training -they don't seem to be used to train jet pilots in attacking slower targets;

http://www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/training.cfm

All aircraft would have their critical areas, where too much wear and tear, or badly fitted fairings etc could have a drastic effect on achieving maximum performance; one problem with the Spitfire I remember reading about was that as the engine cowlings were constantly removed and replaced, they could be bent slightly out of shape, leaving gaps which could reduce top speed by 15-20 mph. Sometimes rubber hammers were needed just to fit them back in place and secure the Dzus fasteners. The German system in which the engine cowlings used built in stringers to provide strength and structural stability, and strong quick release latches which almost automatically closed gaps to a minimum, was much better from an engineering and maintenance pov. I wouldn't have the foggiest idea of how such factors could be replicated in IL2.

Believable to whom? You?

You have a reserve tank on your own aircraft. So let us say that you are flying along and run out of fuel in the main tank and you're over the sea somewhere. According to your logic you will decide not to switch over and use it because a reserve is a reserve after all, it's not to be used.

I 'believe' that the UK would've used up every drop if they had to. I 'believe' that all engines were converted in the event that Germany invaded and we had to throw the lot at them from the other groups. It wouldn't make sense to keep converting back and forth.

@Flanker, I try not to use Luftwhiner but it's different because it focus's on a type of person who flies exclusive blue and complains in order to gain game advantage. Kurfurst is a Luftwhiner. Sissyfire is directed at the aircraft ergo the pilots choice of ride. All he need do is have some success in what was a very successful aircraft of the time, and this has no reflection on personality, he need not complain about the enemy ever to gain that tag. This is why it's just a plain insult, because it is not earned or deserved. You say it's because of the 25lber but you apply it to all Spitfires.

You should remember that it was common for German pilots who had been shot down by Hurricanes to claim it was a Spitfire, such was their respect for what was an excellent machine.

Guys don't let Eugene sidetrack you. This is his SOP to deflect the conversation away from a specific subject, in this case the 16 squadrons that only used 100 fuel during the BoB. Ignore what ever he says until he produces the 16 squadron numbers. Then we can concentrate on his next wrong statement > there wasn't enough 100 octane fuel.

This thread has gotten away from the topic that initially drew my attention to it.
On this topic I am not so much interested in how the game's flight models are set up- i'm much more concerned with the distortion of history that has previously won the day.

There is abundant evidence that the RAF Fighter Command was using 100 octane as their standard fuel in early 1940, before the outbreak of the Battle of Britain- that evidence has been obtained by an impressive amount of work by a few posters here on this forum and others. There is no evidence to the contrary, only rumors and misguided beliefs that border on delusions.

With regard to flight models- that is another topic entirely that should be separate from this thread.
BTW- i tend to fly blue a lot lately as people online have figured out how to win flying red and are tending to crowd onto the red bandwagon

I think we do. We know that stations across the country were equipped with 100 octane including those in Scotland

1940 is nothing to do with operational trials. If you can find anything to support that then please post it. 1940 is about using it in action

Again this is rubbish. Using 10,000 tons a month there was more than enough fo Fighter Command and at that rate they had a 2 1/2 year stockpile. Put it another way, do you know any country that had a 2 1/2 year stockpile, of anything.

I am afraid that you continue to put forward nothing more than conspiracy theorys.

Do you think Crumpp needs to be reminded that Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons of Fighter Command had converted to 100 Octane fuel in February 1940, and several Hurricane squadrons used it operationally during the Battle of France, May 1940? I mean it makes his whole theory about operational trials by 16 selected squadrons throughout the Battle of Britain look a little silly :roll: :-| and I'm sorry, I know it's jolly inconvenient for Crumpp, who's built up a resistance to evidence, but sometimes the plain, unvarnished facts have a bad habit of getting in the way of a comfortable delusion. :???:

Sad but TRUE!
 

All Variants should be made flyable up until the end of Dec25th1940. It would make the game play and mission building more interesting and in my opinion make us all better pilots. Since I have been involved with this sim many keep the advances of tech at bay is ignorant to the facts.

PLEASE add and fix Spits, Hurries and 109 variants and this would end tomorrow. Except it seems that the developer will not listen to this plea. I for one would like to see this sim become the best but all this is pushing people back to il2 1946 Mod either HSFX 5.0.1 or UP3.0 RC4 or 4.11.

We as dedicated servers are looking for help in this matter. A lot of the allied flyers are tired of plane set and servers not offering a competing planes. Also not having a beu and welly or even a defiant is sad. Heck even a MKIIB Hurry could carry a 250lb bomb. Are you afraid that they were 12lb boost and you would have to model it, or because they are 2 stage engines. I for one have reloaded il2 1946 and swore that I would not. I began setting up a server for my squad mates to meet there demands because CloD will not build a solid crowd. AND THEY COULD RIGHT NOW! IMHO

So if any developers read this get on the ball and get CLoD Game I purchased on track which I waited 7years for.

Thanks for listening.

King

Due to reported posts


Ok fellas can we please keep the ego's and name calling out of the thread and try to have an adult discussion regarding the topic please.

This is the only warning there will be.

That applies to all of you.

Have fun

Can somebody please update the bugtracker with the 100 octane boost issue please

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/projects/cod

This needs to encompass the boost needle animation, the increase in power and all the other FM effects such as limits, temperatures etc.

I would recommend that 41Banks does it, he is an admin on the bugtracker and knows all about the discussions in this thread. :)

I would not recommend that..

First off it is not a bug by definition..
Second it will just give the biased hand full of 100 octane nay sayers another place to repeat their dribble

I see this issue as more of a historic information update.. Where we provide the information to the people who can actually change things.. That is to say, even if you were able to change the minds of the hand full of 100 octane nay sayers, they have no say let alone any power to change anything. Basically you don't need them so best to stop wasting time talking to them, or worse yet arguing with them! The only people who mater here is Luither and his team.. And based on past experience (P38 ROC increase) if you take the time to do the leg work and provide them the info, they will make the change if the change can be made. Therefore I would not post any request for change in the open forum, just gives the biased nay sayers an excuse to chime in. The best thing to do is submit it to Luither via a PM or email! You guys have already done all the leg work! All that is left is to organize the info, stick a bow on it and give it to Luither

There is no resistance to evidence. I just don't call random clippings of documents out of context combined with assumption evidence.

Let me give you an example. We still heavily research the airplanes we restore to get them right. I have Hans Sanders flight reports, BMW's initial, endurance, and Rechlin's test flights, the operational test squadrons, the time frame the motor was tested, an emergency order from BMW directing the engine to be modified and the new boost pressure to be use AT ONCE, the Chief Technical Officer of the Luftwaffe war diary entries clarifying the new boost was just a straight manifold pressure increase without the use of any ADS and it would be operationally approved in February 1945 for the BMW801D2 to use 1.8ata.

You know, I am still not ready to say it happened. Wanting and doing are too different things. I deal with real airplanes and it takes time to enact some very simple changes. Couple of years ago, an AD came out on Cessna 310 circuit breakers. This isn't a special circuit breaker, just replacing the outdated design with a modern standard aviation circuit breaker. Planes were down for months and the FDSO was writing extensions left and right so people could fly. The demand had simply exceeded the ability to make the breakers. Of course, in times of national emergency it will go quicker but still won't be simply "poofed" into existence.

You are talking about running the engine at 3 times its original design maximum capacity. Really guy? You think just changing the fuel did that?

You think they did that without extensive testing to ensure they did not lose all of their aircraft? You think they just said, "Great!! everybody use this right now all at once!!" Who cares about logistics or technical mumbo jumbo....

I don't think so.

No, you take just one pre-war document discussing 16 Squadrons by September 1940, and stick to that no matter what.

*Please name the 16 Squadrons, and describe the logistical arrangements the RAF made to ensure that only 16 Squadrons of fighters were supplied with the fuel, with your documented evidence please.

*Please explain how it was possible for only 16 squadrons to fly operational trials on 100 octane, yet 62,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel was issued, with 51,000 tons of it being consumed while only about 15,000 tons was needed to fly all defensive frontline sorties flown between July and 6 October 1940 - and provide some documented evidence please.

*In a previous post you made a claim that reserves of 100 Octane would have sunk to "unrealistically low levels" had the RAF used 100 Octane for all defensive sorties flown during the Battle of Britain. You have not yet provided any documentary evidence for this, plus you have ignored the fact that reserves of other grades of fuel progressively sunk well below the levels of those for 100 Octane fuel throughout 1940.

So you think the Merlin was designed to run at about 400 hp? Unfortunately the Merlin II and III were designed for much higher power than that - in fact the Merlin was tested and approved for +12lb boost by November 1939 and the Merlin XII for 12½ lbs boost with no ill effects (attach 1)

Nope, that's just your assertion - you completely ignore the fact that testing of the Merlin on 100 Octane fuel and +12lbs boost was completed in November 1939. You also ignore the fact that the same document observes that there were adequate reserves of 100 Octane available to allow the conversion of all Hurricanes and Spitfires to use +12 boost. (attach 1);

*You completely ignore the fact that squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes had converted to 100 Octane by February 1940;

*You completely ignore the fact that Hurricane Squadrons of the BEF in France, as well as home based units used 100 Octane in combat in May 1940. Bearing this in mind please explain why the RAF decided to continue to use 16 Squadrons for "operational testing purposes only" until at least September, and please provide documented evidence for this assertion. Then, once again, please explain how these 16 Squadrons - and some Blenheim units - between them consumed 52,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in three months while doing "operational testing".

*You are the one asserting that all the RAF was interested in doing throughout the Battle of Britain was making operational trials of 100 Octane, so kindly provide some documentary evidence for this claim; and please don't bother using a pre-war document, nor the fact that Morgan and Shacklady cite the document - all that proves is that the country was not yet at war and facing full scale air attack.

Until you provide some evidence you can stop dissing all the evidence presented by Glider, lane et al as " random clippings of documents combined with assumption", because the only thing you have presented is assumption, assertions and surmises - based on modern, civilian peacetime practices, which you seem to think is a reflection of what happened in 1940, while a nation was undergoing full scale attack - with absolutely no evidence to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove.

The bug tracker is for all issues, enhancements, corrections. It is moderated by a handful of hand-picked guys, and it is reviewed by Luthier and B6 directly. It's there precisely because it is the way to handle change requests of all types in software, we just don't do it by PM. Others should not be able to edit somebody else's item.

It is more than FM, the boost cut out just plain doesn't work, the boost pressure gauge shows incorrect boost levels when cutout is engaged and the engine overheats with damage way before the specified times of use in the pilots notes - these are bugs.

It needs raising in the tracker.

That may well be..

But

We have had similar bug/error/request threads in the past.. Even the original IL-2 had such thread.. And based on my experience with getting changes made to several planes in IL-2, most notable was the P38J ROC, your better off going direct to the source via PM or e-mail. For example I posted for months in the open forum (than the ubi IL2 forums) about the error in the P38J ROC and got no where.. Than I sent Oleg an e-mail with a short to the point message pointing out the error.. He e-mailed me back with one question, to which I responded with the answer, and the next IL2 patch corrected the P38J ROC error. wala change we can belive in! ;)

As this thread will prove.. Posting in the open forum does have an up side, that being you get input from like minded people (read team effort).. The down side is you get input from the biased nay sayers that have no proof what so ever, but will do everything in their power to keep planes they don't like operating below their historic values.

So once you got your info, and you don't see any new info coming from the discussion, best to cut it off because keeping it open only gives the biased nay sayers another opportunity to spew their rant..

As you have seen in the past few pages.. They will never answer your questions.. In that they know any attempt in doing so will only prove how wrong they are.. So instead they will just keep ignoring those questions and either go off on some tangent topic or re-iterate something they already said that has already been debunked..

They are the purest definition (poster boys) of a waste of time!

Every min you spend typing to them is a min you could have spent typing up a report to send to 1C.

You're not listening mate, forums and PM's are not how change requests are handled in the real world. The fact that Oleg chose this in the past underlines just what an unprofessional process he must have there. Anyway, I'm not going to argue about it, I make my living out of software QA so I'll just be smug and say that I know what I'm talking about.
It needs raising as a CR, but if you want to spam Luthiers inbox go ahead.

Hardly..

I hear what your saying about that bug thread..

And I hear you about how things should work in a perfect world..

But as we all know the world is not perfect.. So i''ll just be smug and say that I know what works.. but if you want to contine to argue with the nay sayers in the open forum go ahead.

It's not a thread or an open forum, it's a database. We're not talking about a perfect world, it's just basic software development process.

Ah.. my bad

I thought you were refering to one of the bug threads here in this forum.. That link you provided is a much more formal softare issue tracking system.. We use something simular (in house) where I work for the software I write.. With that said.. what section are you posting the 100 octane request in? I assume the 'Feature' section and not the 'Bug' section? Again, sorry for my misunderstanding! The day I saw your post I had just seen a bug list posted in this forum and I ASSumed you were refering to that thread! My bad!