Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data
 

I moved it from another topic about FM issues in COD:


Im not sure if power settings for 100 Octan fuel Merlin III which was used in SPitfire Mark 1 was +6 1/2 lbs ( nominal power ) and +12 lbs ( emergency power). It is possible that Merlin III with 100 octan fuel had different power settings - similar to Merlin XII ( Spitfire Mark II) and Merlin 45 early ( Spitfire Mark V)

Look at these document for Merlin III engine from 1940:

http://i53.tinypic.com/r0p095.jpg

IT doesnt look similar to Merlin XII which used also 100 octan fuel?




Also developers really dont care too much RL performacne of BoB planes ( Spitfire, Hurricane and 109). It is another their fault in these game. I just check COD manual with peformacne data for Spitfire, Hurricane and 109 where is very wrong data for these planes ( climb rate, maximum speeds and turn rate).

Here are some RL data for these planes:


Spitfire Mark I from BOB period ( CS propeller, aditional armour and windshield)

Here is speed with old power settings - +6 1/2 lbs and with new emergency power - + 12 lbs.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/s...-rae-12lbs.jpg


Spitfire MK1 climb rate at 6 1/2 lbs:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171climb.jpg



Spitfire turn rate at 6 1/2 lbs CSP:

http://i51.tinypic.com/2gspoc9.jpg



Hurricane MK1 from BOB peroid ( CS propeller, aditional armour, 100 octan fuel)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ne-I-level.jpg


Climb rate for Hurricane MK1 but without aditional armour and armoured winshield

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...limb-HRuch.png

For comparison climb rate at 6 1/2 lbs Hurricane withou armour and with aditional armour

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-climb-6lb.jpg


And the same with speed - Hurrciane MK1 without aditional armour

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...peed-HRuch.png

( Hurricane from BOB peroid with aditional armour/ armoured windshield would be slowier)



Bf 109 E-3 with DB 601 Aa engine - 1.45 Ata emergency power:

D a t e n b l a t t Me 109.

A b m e s s u n g e n:

Spannweite 9,90 m

Gesamtlänge 8,76 m

Grösste Höhe 2,45 m

Flügelfläche 16,40 m


G e w i c h t e:

Zelle 650 kg
Triebwerk 1075 "
Ständige Ausrüstung 85 "
Zusätliche Ausrüstung 200 "
Rüstgewicht 2010 kg
Zuladung 530 kg
Fluggewicht 2540 kg


M o t o r l e i s t u n g:

1) Nennleistung 1100 PS in 3700 m Höhe
bei 2400 U/Min.
(5 min. Kurzleistung in 3700 m Höhe)

Erhöhte Dauerleistung 1050 PS in 4100 m Höhe
bei 2400 U/min
(30 Min.)

Dauerleistung 1000 PS in 4500 m Höhe

Sparsame Dauerleistung 970 PS in 3700 m Höhe
Bei 2250 U/Min.

2) Startleistung 1175 PS in 0 m Höhe
(zulässige Dauer 1 Min.)
bei 2500 U/Min.

3) Bodenleistung 1015 PS in 0 m Höhe
Kurzleistung (5 Min. Dauer)
bei 2400 U/Min.

Erhöhte Dauerleistung 950 PS in 0 m Höhe
(zulässige Dauer 30 Min.)
bei 2300 U/Min.

Dauerleistung 860 PS in 0 m Höhe
bei 2200 U/Min.



Speed:

Höchtsgeschwindigeit in 0 m 500 km/h
in 1000 m 510 "
in 2000 m 530 "
in 3000 m 540 "
in 4000 m 555 "
in 5000 m 570 "
in 6000 m 565 km/h
in 7000 m 560 km/h

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_..._Bau_speed.png

Climb rate:

S t e i g z e i t e n.


Steigzeit auf 1000 m 1,0 Minuten
auf 2000 m 1,9 "
auf 3000 m 3,0 "
auf 4000 m 3,8 "
auf 5000 m 4,9 "
auf 6000 m 6,3 "


http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_..._Bau_climb.png


Turn rate :

These are, at Sea Level and at 6000 m, with and without deploying flaps to aid turning :

Without use of flaps :
at 0 m altitude - 170 m (557 feet), at 6000 m (19 685 feet) altitude - 320 m (1050 feet).

With use of flaps :
at 0 m altitude - 125 m (410 feet), at 6000 m (19 685 feet) altitude - 230 m (754 feet).


Similiar figures are given by a calculation by Messerschmitt AG on Bf 109E turn times and radius in an internal Messerschmitt report.

The calculation was based on a similiar set of data, but assumes the slightlly lower power output of the DB 601A-1 at 990 PS. Conditions in the calculation were 2540 kg weight, 990 PS output, an altitude of 0 m and no height loss. Under these conditions, the turning characteristics of the Bf 109E were as follows :

Turn time for 360 degrees: 18,92 seconds.
Turn radius for above turn: 203 m

Take note that the smallest turning radius and the best turning time do not occur at the same airspeed, which would

Further calculations were made for a diving turn of a descent rate of -50 m/sec, which would be equivalent translate to an overall power output

Turn time for 360 degrees in a -50m/sec diving turn : 11,5 seconds.
Turn radius for the -50m/sec diving turn above : 190 m



For comparison turn rate for Spitfire MK1, Hurricane MK1, 109 E-4


SPITFIRE Mk.I

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.2s 13.5s 14.7s -
Two 360s - 24.9s 28.2s 30.3s -

250mph
One 360 - 10.8s 12.8s 13.4s 14.1s
Two 360s - 24.4s 28.2s 29.9s 33.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 14.8s 16.0s 17.8s 20.8s
Full Flaps - 15.1s 16.4s 18.1s 21.8s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 125mph 125mph 125mph 120mph


Hawker Hurricane Mk I

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.1s 12.4s 13.6s -
Two 360s - 24.2s 25.3s 30.0s -

250mph
One 360 - 10.2s 11.7s 12.9s 15.0s
Two 360s - 23.6s 26.2s 28.5s 33.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 14.8s 16.4s 18.5s 22.1s
Full Flaps - 14.8s 16.6s 18.4s 22.2s
Best Flap - full full full full
Speed/best 105mph 105mph 100mph 100mph


Bf-109E-4

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.9s 13.4s 15.4s -
Two 360s - 29.4s 31.2s 35.0s -

250mph
One 360 - 12.9s 13.7s 15.5s 16.7s
Two 360s - 31.0s 32.4s 36.5s 41.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 18.0s 19.3s 21.2s 24.1s
Full Flaps - 19.0s 19.8s 21.7s 24.8s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 120mph 120mph 120mph 115mph





RL Data Speed for comparsion between Sptfire MK1 +12 lbs ( red) - Hurricane MK1 +12 lbs ( green) - 109 E-3 1.45 Ata ( black)


http://i56.tinypic.com/9qcrvb.jpg



And now for comparson data from COD:


http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/...hiem/speed.jpg


http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/...hiem/climb.jpg


http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/...Thiem/turn.jpg


COD looks really off here. I think development team should really make better research in RL performacne of these birds and take care more about historical realism and accuracy like expect most IL2 fans.

looks like it will be the same like the old il2... they hate AXIS!

I missed the thread where this was copied from.

So I have just one question: where is this data from? Sources and references?

Here.

We.

Go.

again.

Did you actually check, if the ingame performance of those planes, matches the charts in the manual?

Or are you just assuming that this would be the case?

Fiat G.50 HAS NOT the overboost function - WEP (it was called "+100" and added 100 mmHg for the engine)
Engine power could be increased, for a short period of time, to 960 HP at 3.000 m.
The engine should be then running at 890 mmHg pressure.
In the game, manifold pressure at max throttle is 710 mmHg... A lot less than what it could achieve.

As it is now, the plane feels so underpowered.
It certainly wasn't. Power to weight ratio was 0,35 HP-KG... way better than Hurricane I for example (0,24 HP-KG).
I certainly doesn't feel like that in the game.

Whenever you start to make a shallow climb with a G.50, it stalls.
It wasn't fast, but... it could outclimb an Hurricane 1 so...

And it can just reach 350 km/h at sea level. IRL it could master about 40 km/h more.

It is not about Axis or Allied or any side. It is just about inaccuracy which is in both side data. Just all.


Data which i posted are mostly from these kown site about performacne WW2 planes where you can find scans of many RL documents and datas:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

and here about LW planes:

http://www.kurfurst.org/

Plus many data and scans, manuals, books etc. which i got from many years reaserching :)


I dont check it in game actually beacuse i dont have it yet. I just look at COD manual data for these planes and also read some topic where some other people write about FM issues in COD, like here in these topic:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19754

So i clearly see that there is a problem here and it would be good if developers would make it in right way in future patches. I see that they just have a problem with accurate data for these birds so i i think they need help here - if they want of course.

Hurricane Mk1 with MErlin III, CSP and aditional armour ( pilot armoured seat, fuel tanks and armoured windshield) had take off weight 3061 kg. With 100 octan fuel - power at 6 1/2 lbs was 1030 HP and at +12 lbs was 1310 HP so power to weight ratio was - 0.33 HP/Kg ( +6 1/2lbs) and 0.42 HP/kg ( +12 lbs).

Im not wonder that G50 had also wrong power settings in COD. Such problems have near all COD planes.

You could post here reliable data for G-50 also. Maby developers will be interesting in these.

Well, if the numbers in the manual match the actual performance of the plane in game, then it's way off (according to the data shown here)...

I wonder what source they used for the FM.

This a very critical post for the sim. No matter the complexity of the engine model or physics, if the data is not reliable, people won't take the sim in consideration.

Thank you very much Kwiatek, this time let's make the data chars clear, public and historical.

+1
I don't care if my plane is porked,as long it is historically porked to 1940's standards!

Kwiatek maybe right ref performance. From the state of it the Alpha testers (they released the beta) probably never got round to FM testing due to all the other problems. Hard to trust charts (in the manual) that have combat flap turn times for a Spitfire FFS!:confused::mad:

Thats true, If we have the same stupid performances than Il2, I prefer fly the old il2, becouse at least we have a more finished job. I hate the Olegs team idea who thinks balance the game will be more fun, LOL, the people want realism, not a console game. Sorry, but if the game not changes at all in this way, I never bought him.

+10

Every one of us is claiming for realism in the sim till first Il-2, and creators also sell the sim to us as "the most realistic", so any sense in using incorrect data. By the way accurate data for most of aircraft are available for every people who wants to find it, Kwiatek demonstrate it, so non sense also trying to fool us with nobodyknowsfromwhere data... And not the only thing, everyone of us knows actually how an Emil's DB601 sounds, not to mention a RR Merlin, there are at least two airworthy Emil examples nowadays and you can see in youtube... does really make sense trying to say us a Db601 sounds like ingame? :shock: details like this only tell us what's the real level of research and finishing of the product, so please don't fool us any more and do things like you said it'll be do from start.

S!

+100

Totally agree, nothing to add.

From my own testing of the Spitfires, my only issues are with the mkI variants in the game...

after repeated tries I was only able to reach the top speeds (@18500ft) of:
260 IAS with the mkI
220 IAS with the mkIa

they should both be at or around the 365 TAS mark (its a few MPH higher or lower depending on the plane, prop,engine II or II and fuel octane 87 or 100)

Also the mkIa (which should be using a DH 5/29 or 5/30 bracket CSP) should have a better rate of climb than the mkI which used the older 2-pitch De Havilland prop.

Have a look at his thread on the A2A forums before you jump on your bandwagons: http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/...23585&start=30
Mod please delete if links arent allowed.

all my references are from the book Spitfire: The History by Eric Morgan and Edward Shacklady.

All figures are the actual recordings made during testing... most seem to be from either facilities, Martlesham Heath or Boscombe Down.

I was going to post my own conclusions, which are based on similar data from www.spitfireperformance.com that the spitfire as modelled in COD is considerably underpowered, and that turn rate for the Hurri appears off too.Sadly, an overzealous mod banned my account while I was in the process of typing a lengthy post on the subject and it disappeared into the ether when I hit submit.

Britain and the Commonwealth pilots at the Battle of Britain as seriously outnumbered as they were, 640 fighters facing 2600 Luftwaffe aircraft, where able to do what they did because of the relative performance of the machines involved, access to 100-octane fuel, combined with the advantage proffered by radar. Failure to portray the difference in performance is a huge disservice to everyone that was involved during that conflict regardless of the side they served.

As another poster pointed out, this has nothing to do with hating anyone; it is about accurate portrayal of the subject, THE single most important factor for any title that calls its self a simulation.

I don't like to respond to a post and contribute to overall bickering (when it is better to stay on subject), but:

If you were a sim developer? Or if you were a developer in general? If you mean the former then it doesn't really make sense as that is what a simulator is about (normally), and the playerbase of a simulator often has a large proportion of people who want it to reflect reality.

I think people shouldn't be complaining when people dispute facts and figures here (especially when backed up), for a lot of people it is very important.

You seem to misunderstand the gaming industry as a entity.
They work for US, not the other way round. We pay them to create a video game. If they do not put what WE want then they do not get PAID. These people are allowed to complain no matter how unneeded it is. They will eventually read it all.

If there was a better WW2 combat sim, then MADDOX games would lose money if they where not an*l about the realism.

When I become a game developer, I will listen to EVERY fan I have. Things only get better when you listen.

ive never seen anyone deffinitively prove when and how many spitfire quadrons were operational with 100 octane fuel. sure it was there and used but when was it first introduced and how many squadrons used it?

further, the brits weren't the only ones with better fuel. 109s and 110s both were using C3 about halfway through as well. anything with a /N suffix was using C3 and 2700RPMs for 5 minute WEP.

oh and the spitfires didnt have variable flaps.

Go and look in WWII aircraft performance.com and Spitfire Testing.com. There are heaps of documents on 100 Octane fuel and when it was in service etc. In short during BOB all operational fighters were running 100 octane fuel.

Seek and ye shall find.

Frankly this was discussed a zillion times, but despite years of research, there's still no positive evidence that 'all operational fighters' were running on 100 octane. It simply appears to be wishful thinking from a few fanatic fans of the aircraft. WWII aircraft performance.com does list a large number of papers, unfortunately none of them state that all fighters are to or currently using 100 octane fuel. There's no doubt that a signficant number of Spitfires and Hurricanes were running on this fuel, this has been known since the 1960s, so nothing new here, but as to how many, or what percentage, nobody so far can tell for a fact.

The issue is further clouded by the fact that fighter stations (around 50 or so were used during the Battle), and not fighter units were supplied physically with fuel drums.. and the fighter units tended to change their bases every now and then, to be replaced by an another unit. If say, Squadron A, flying from Station X (which had 100 octane present), transferred to Station Z (which did not have 100 octane present but regular 87 octane) and its place was taken by Squadron B in mid-August which until then was flying from Station Z, then you would have Combat Reports from both Squadron A and B using 100 octane, but the reality was that one of them used it in the first half of the month, and the other during the second half of the month..

The closest evidence is a 18th May meeting record, which is still far off from that, as it states farily clearly that the changeover effected select units.

The paper - Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee, 7th meeting memo - says (direct quote):

"... satisfaction was expressed at the fact that the Units concerned had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel"

There's a reason why the articles you refer to tend to be dismissed - there seem to be always a case of subtle manipulation of the original papers. Take example the reference to this same meeting mentioned above at the wwiiaircraftperformance.org site, which interprets it as the following:

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel".

Note how this reference to "the Units concerned" suddenly becomes "Spitfire and Hurricane units" in the text of the article; the original suggest that an unknown number (perhaps few, perhaps many), but definietely not all (otherwise why the distinction, if ALL units would be concerned?)

Unfortunately, the wwiiaircraftperformance.org article suddenly goes silent after what has happened after 18 May 1940. That's is unfortunate, because I saw the authors of said article discussing the same subject with an Australian researcher, who has informed them of the following at butch2k's board:

This has all been dealt with on another board in great detail with published authors weighing in with their facts, and you Kurfurst were banned on those boards for putting forward false information and refusing to back up your claims with actual documents and data.

You have no credibility in any kind of educated community, your opinions on this issue have been discredited completely.

All the original documents and accounts clearly point to the fact the RAF Fighter force during the Battle of Britain were converted to use of 100 octane fuel in all Fighter Stations in Groups 10, 11 and 12.

Your attempts to claim 100 Octane was not available was competely proven false in the two threads on the WWII aircraft forums.

The main poster in the threads who deals with every point at the beginning of the two threads, 'Glider' is the nickname of Gavin Bailey, a published author, who has written in detail on the subject, an article of his was published in the THE ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW, a well respected journal which only accepts papers and articles from those with impeccable credentials. Article is here:

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...1/394.abstract

Mike Williams, who manages the WWII Aircraft site, was also a participant in the thread.

Here are the links to the two threads, if members of this board take the time to read through them the conclusion is obvious.

#1

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...bob-16305.html

#2

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html


Why you Kurfurst, continue to put forward your clearly false claims is a mystery to those who have studied this issue in depth.

I also know that there were at least 2 Hurricane squadrons based in France during the Battle of France which were using 100 octane fuel.
Taken from another post I made here;

"The 1st combat reports of a 12 lb boost being used in France are from 18th May 1940 with F/Lt I. R. Gleed of 87 Squadron (based in Lille) and S/L E. M. Donaldson and P/O John Bushell both of 151 Squadron (based in Vitry).
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ed-18may40.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e/bushell.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...dn-18may40.pdf "

which again supports the theory that not all squadrons were operational with 100 octane until late or after the BoB.

That doesn't really matter when we're considering a BoB sim, though, does it? Who cares what 13 group were doing when our map doesn't even cover the area anyway? The fuel was being used by someone, and if it wasn't 10, 11 and 12 group fighters out of these consumption figures for the whole RAF, who was it? Remember the fuel was doled out by station, not by squadron. July - August we see that 27% of ALL RAF fuel consumed is 100 octane, and I can't imagine that was going to Bomber Command or Coastal Command.

so you're suggesting we just blanket apply 9lbs boost to all spits and hurricanes because 1/4 of the fuel used by the entire RaF was 100 octane?

all i'm saying is if there is 100 octane gifted to the brits i want C3 fuel in my E3(4/7)/N as i can dig up as much evidence that it was in fact used by some JGs as anyone has shown me for the RaF.

A quarter of all RAF fuel consumption and the capability of every fighter to use this fuel adds up to a lot of fighter sorties. I'm not suggesting it be a blanket application, but it certainly ought to be an option.

By comparison the number of /N model 109s was positively measly. 20 E-4/Ns, am I right?

What's the comparison you are trying to make here? 10,000 tons of fuel is a lot however you look at it.

How many E-7/Ns saw service during the battle?

Anyway, go and make another thread if you feel C3 fuel should be modelled, this thread wasn't about Red vs. Blue. I do question why you consider 27% of all RAF fuel consumption to be insignificant, though. Perhaps you think that Bomber Command and Coastal Command used 100 octane? Or stopped operations entirely during the Battle (they didn't)? That's the only way that 27% of all RAF fuel consumption being 100 octane could not be interpreted as a significant proportion of Fighter Command using the fuel.

i'm saying 1/4 use doesn't justify making all spits and hurris run at 9lbs of boost especially with no specifics. how much of that high grade fuel was used by PR spitfires? how much if any was used by bomber command? how much was used in hurricanes? how much in spits?

i dont have a number for 601N equipped 109s. i know is they first started showing up in late september in Es iirc with a handful of F1s showing up in october/november. all the Fs had 601ns.

the argument is just as valid as the raf argument. the significant majority of raf flights used 87 octane same as the germans. if you're going to give a minority fit for the raf give it to the germans too.

"all i'm saying is if there is 100 octane gifted to the brits i want C3 fuel in my E3(4/7)/N as i can dig up as much evidence that it was in fact used by some JGs as anyone has shown me for the RaF. "

Ok start digging and put it up here so we can all learn and benefit.

It's my understanding that a conversion was needed to the engine to enable it to run on 100 octane. They even painted little '100' s on the engine cowling so that 87 wasn't put in by mistake. By May 1940 all Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant Sqaudrons had been converted.

Here's what Jeffrey Quill said about 100 octane.

"It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb."

Have no idea what this means for CoD though..

At least the MKI seems to get pretty close. 260 mph IAS @18500 = 353 mph TAS. http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html

MAC

yeah well I went back and tried to recreate those results again at 18,400ft... could only get the mkI up to just a hair over 245 IAS and the mkIa only 240 IAS at 18,500ft.

all my tests Ive been running have been at full boost (gate pushed forward) and at full coarse pitch. The boost drops from +6.5lb to +4.5lbs at altitude. I fly with CEM on and the overheat option off.

it seems like the planes are a bit too slow.. but their boost levels are too low as well so that seems to have something to do with it.

they should all be around 270- 275 IAS at that alt.

Im gonna keep testing too see if its not "pilot error" ;)

Lets keep everything within the bounds of reality.. 2600 is the total LW airfleet deployed for the BoB. If you want to play with numbers, 600 Hurricanes and 357 Spitfires were lost... the Lw lost 533 109's.. so obviously the 109 is 2X as good right????

The relative performance of the Spitfire and 109E were more or less comparable. Neither had a decisive advantage that was enough to overcome engagement circumstances or pilot skill. Each had strong and weak points they would try to exploit.. Saying that because the RAF planes should be modelled to perform better because they won is ludicrous.

Model the planes as accurately as possible based on the data. Leave the anecdotal analysis out of the picture entirely. The circumstances of the combat had a FAR greater effect on the fighter on fighter combat than the relative performance.

For now, model the basics, the most common lunch pail aircraft that were the yeoman.. we can model the 15th variation that had 4 produced and saw service for 3 hours before the battle officially ended later.. :)

Everyone always starts screaming because they want the highest performing variant and every advantage.. The game is 72 hours old and there are many more issues to deal with before this becomes the priority.. at this point we don't even have accurate means to analyse the data and speeds.. going by Altimeters and Speedometers that are nothing more than a graphical portion of a GUI isn't wise..

Oh, I give up if that's the sense of proportion that people have. Apparently just over a quarter of all RAF fuel consumption being 100 octane from July-August (which means Fighter Command 10, 11, 12 and 13 Groups, all of Bomber Command and all of Coastal Command) no longer even leads to the conservative conclusion that the approximately 20 squadrons at a time stationed in 11 Group Fighter Command stations used it *at least*. Not like that's important since they're the stations that nearly all of the missions shipped with the game are concerned with of course.

Probably bombers and the handful of PRU Spitfires used it all. That would be totally logical during the defense against a large-scale bombing campaign. Oh, hell, in fact they probably filled up Sunderlands with it. Also, apparently widespread usage = the 15th variation that had 4 produced and saw service for 3 hours before the battle officially ended later. :confused:

I'm already confused enough about why we don't have a 109 E-1 and E-4, and why the 110C-4 doesn't use the FF/M, and why certain RAF aircraft that should don't appear to have CSUs, at the moment we basically have a Battle of France simulator without the fixed wooden props on some RAF aircraft, but now people are getting weird about something that should definitely be modelled in RAF aircraft in exactly the same way as any of the other features above.

Tuck claimed he used +12 LBS as early as in May over Dunkirk !

They are biasing out the game again, twisting history to make this a game and not a sim, sad !

Regards

Lets look at consumption: 10,000 tons of 100 octane spirit used per month in june and august.

10,000 tons = 10,160,000 Kilograms of Spirit due imperial tons.

Hawker Hurricane fuel Capacity 441 L = Approx 320 kg of fuel (SG of 0.72) I used the hurri becasue it carries 60L more than Spitfire.

So 10,000 tons of would provide 31750 full tanks of fuel for a hurricane. That would account for 1040 full tanks per day for hurricane for the 61 days of june and august. Make your own mind up if it is enough. I think it is enough to provide all front line fighter squadrons involved with 100 octane.

If you look at the stockpile amount of 100 octane fuel, it actually goes up between March 1940 and October 1940! That could only mean either Britain wasn't using the fuel and was saving it. Or there was plenty to go around.
Personally I believe there was more than enough to go round and let's face it Britain was fighting for her existence and wouldn't hold anything back.
Oh yes and not forgetting the order for squadrons to make the necessary alterations to their Merlins so their Hurricanes and Spitfires can run 100 octane fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ap1590b.jpg

Cross-referencing references to +12lbs boost in combat reports with the dates that the squadron involved were stationed at certain airfields we can see that 100 octane fuel was available for certain at the following airfields from at least the following months:

RAF North Weald (11 Group) in February
RAF Drem (13 Group) in February
RAF Rochford (11 Group) in March
RAF Digby (12 Group) in March
RAF Hawkinge (11 Group) in May
RAF Hornchurch (11 Group) in May
RAF Tangmere (11 Group) in May
RAF Duxford (12 Group) in May
RAF Gravesend (11 Group) in June
RAF Catterick (12 Group) in June
RAF Biggin Hill (11 Group) in July
RAF Kenley (11 Group) in August
RAF Northolt (11 Group) in August
RAF Westhampnett (11 Group) in August
RAF Middle Wallop (10 Group) in August
RAF Leconfield (12 Group) in August
RAF Croydon (11 Group) in September
RAF Warmwell (10 Group) in September

Thanks for the above. This is exactly the kind of analytical approach that is useful for the community and mission builders. There's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that 100 octane was used on a significant scale by RAF fighters (and to some extent, BC's Blenheim Squadrons, two of them IIRC), however, lacking positive evidence we do not know the exact scale of this. IMHO its a waste of time to go back and forth into 'interpreting' the existing evidence, which is insufficent to make categoric statements. What we know is that it was used, and that +12 Spits/Hurris have a legit place in the sim of course. However I also wholeheartedly agree that given the numerous bugs that riddle the sim due to its too early release are absolute more important than FM issues or the addition of new types..

We need to know what Stations were supplied with 100 octane, and what Squadrons were based at them and when. Its a very large and certainly demanding work, but the results imho worth the effort.

Based on the current evidence (feel free to add new sources showing 100 octane at the said airfield during the Battle and I'll update the list) shows that 100 octane aviation spirit was supplied to

8 out of 19 Sector Airfields
9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields (however 7 of the 32 functioning as satellite airfield for rotation etc., with no Sqn permanently based there).

The below is a detailed list of Fighter Command Stations during the Battle of Britain.

I've marked the ones you listed above which show some kind of evidence of 100 octane fuel being supplied to them (usually Combat reports in the literature) with an underline. Coloring would be better but I am not sure how to this with this forum engine.

The following list of stations and associated Squadrons also give a fair idea about the extent of Squadron movements during the Battle, and how it complicates things..

The source is below.



http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/images/sectors.gif

via http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/stations.html

11 Group

Group Headquarters

11 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Uxbridge, the administratve centre. Also within the physical area of 11 Group and close to Uxbridge is RAF Bentley Priory, the Headquarters of Fighter Command during the Battle.

Sector Airfields

RAF Biggin Hill.

RAF Biggin Hill was home to the Biggin Hill Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 32 Squadron from 4 June 1940
No 79 Squadron from 5 June 1940
No 610 Squadron from 2 July 1940
No 79 Squadron from 27 August 1940
No 72 Squadron from 31 August 1940
No 92 Squadron from 8 September 1940
No 141 Squadron from 13 September to 18 September 1940
No 72 Squadron from 14 September 1940
No 74 Squadron from 15 October 1940

RAF Debden.

RAF Debden was home to the Debden Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 85 Squadron from 22 May 1940
No 17 Squadron from 19 June 1940
No 257 Squadron from 15 August 1940
No 601 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 111 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 17 Squadron from 2 September 1940
No 25 Squadron from 8 October 1940

RAF Hornchurch.

RAF Hornchurch was home to the Hornchurch Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 65 Squadron from 5 June 1940
No 74 Squadron from 25 June 1940
No 54 Squadron from 24 July 1940
No 41 Squadron from 26 July 1940
No 54 Squadron from 8 August 1940
No 266 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 600 Squadron from 22 August 1940
No 264 Squadron from 22 August 1940
No 603 Squadron from 27 August 1940
No 41 Squadron from 3 September 1940

RAF Kenley.

RAF Kenley was home to the Kenley Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 615 Squadron from 20 May 1940
No 616 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 253 Squadron from 29 August 1940
No 66 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 501 Squadron from 10 September 1940
No 253 Squadron from 16 September 1940

RAF Northolt.

RAF Northolt was home to the Northolt Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 609 Squadron from 19 May 1940
No 257 Squadron from 4 July 1940
No 303 Squadron from 22 July 1940
No 43 Squadron from 23 July 1940 to 1 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 1 August 1940
No 401 Squadron RCAF from Mid-August 1940
No 615 Squadron from 10 October 1940
No 302 Squadron from 11 October 1940

RAF North Weald.

RAF North Weald was home to the North Weald Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 151 Squadron from 20 May 1940
No 56 Squadron from 4 June 1940
No 25 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 249 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 257 Squadron from 8 October 1940

RAF Tangmere.

RAF Tangmere was home to the Tangmere Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 145 Squadron from 10 May 1940
No 43 Squadron from 31 May 1940
No 601 Squadron from 17 June 1940
No 1 Squadron from 23 June 1940
No 266 Squadron from 9 August 1940
No 17 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 607 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 601 Squadron from 2 September 1940
No 213 Squadron from 7 September 1940
No 145 Squadron from 9 October 1940


Fighter Airfields

RAF Croydon.

RAF Croydon was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 111 Squadron from 4 June 1940
No 501 Squadron from 21 June 1940
No 401 Squadron RCAF from July 1940
No 85 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 72 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 111 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 605 Squadron from 7 September 1940

RAF Detling.

Detling was one of the 11 Group satellite airfields used by units on a day-to-day basis as required, often flights or squadrons would detach to such an airfield in the morning and return to their main operating and maintenance base in the evening.

RAF Eastchurch.

RAF Eastchurch was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 266 Squadron from 12 August 1940

RAF Ford.

RAF Ford was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 23 Squadron from 12 September 1940

RAF Gosport.

Gosport was, along with Lee-on-Solent, one of the Royal Navy's airfields used in the defence of Southampton and Portsmouth. Royal Navy fighters were permanently based there, and occasionally RAF units were detached, using the airfield in the same way as a satellite or relief landing ground.

RAF Gravesend.

RAF Gravesend was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 610 Squadron from 26 May 1940
No 604 Squadron from 3 July 1940
No 501 Squadron from 25 July 1940
No 66 Squadron from 11 September 1940

RAF Hawkinge.

RAF Hawkinge was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 79 Squadron from 2 July 1940

RAF Hendon.

RAF Hendon was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 257 Squadron from 17 May 1940
No 504 Squadron from 5 September 1940

RAF Lee on Solent.

Lee on Solent was, along with Gosport, one of the Royal Navy's airfields used in the defence of Southampton and Portsmouth. Royal Navy fighters were permanently based there, and occasionally RAF units were detached, using the airfield in the same way as a satellite or relief landing ground.

RAF Lympne.

Lympne was one of the 11 Group satellite airfields used by units on a day-to-day basis as required, often flights or squadrons would detach to such an airfield in the morning and return to their main operating and maintenance base in the evening. Due to the extreme forward position of this site it was under constant threat of attack and was not permanently manned during the Battle by any one Squadron.

RAF Manston.

RAF Manston was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 604 Squadron from 15 May 1940
No 600 Squadron from 20 June 1940

RAF Martlesham.

RAF Martlesham was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 25 Squadron from 19 June 1940
No 257 Squadron from 5 September 1940
No 17 Squadron from 8 October 1940

RAF Rochford.

RAF Rochford was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 54 Squadron from 25 June 1940
No 264 Squadron from 27 August 1940
No 264 Squadron from 29 October 1940

RAF Stapleford.

RAF Stapleford was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 151 Squadron from 29 August 1940
No 46 Squadron from 1 September 1940

RAF Thorney Island.

RAF Thorney Island was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 236 Squadron from 4 July 1940

RAF Westhampnett.

RAF Westhampnett was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 145 Squadron from 31 July 1940
No 602 Squadron from 13 August 1940

RAF West Malling.

RAF West Malling was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 141 Squadron from 12 July 1940
No 66 Squadron from 30 October 1940



10 Group

Group Headquarters

10 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Box, the administratve centre.

Sector Airfields

RAF Filton.

RAF Filton was home to the Filton Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 504 Squadron from 26 September 1940

RAF Middle Wallop.

RAF Middle Wallop was home to the Middle Wallop Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 236 Squadron from 14 June 1940
No 238 Squadron from 20 June 1940
No 401 Squadron RCAF from 21 June 1940
No 501 Squadron from 4 July 1940
No 609 Squadron from 5 July 1940
No 604 Squadron from 26 July 1940
No 222 Squadron from 13 August 1940
No 238 Squadron from 10 September 1940
No 23 Squadron from 12 September to 25 September 1940


Fighter Airfields

RAF Boscombe Down.

RAF Boscombe Down was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 249 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 56 Squadron from 1 September 1940

RAF Colerne.

RAF Colerne was used as a satellite and relief airfield for Middle Wallop during the Battle, units rotated in and out of the station on a daily basis.

RAF Exeter.

RAF Exeter was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 213 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 87 Squadron from 5 July 1940
No 601 Squadron from 7 September 1940

RAF Pembrey.

RAF Pembrey was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 92 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 79 Squadron from 8 September 1940

RAF Roborough.

RAF Roborough was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 247 Squadron from 1 August 1940

RAF St Eval.

RAF St Eval was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 222 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 236 Squadron from 8 August 1940
No 238 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 222 Squadron from 11 September 1940

RAF Warmwell.

RAF Warmwell was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 152 Squadron from 12 July 1940


12 Group

Group Headquarters

12 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Watnall, the administratve centre.

Sector Airfields

RAF Church Fenton.

RAF Church Fenton was home to the Church Fenton Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 87 Squadron from 26 May 1940
No 73 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 249 Squadron from 8 July 1940
No 85 Squadron from 5 September 1940

RAF Digby.

RAF Digby was home to the Digby Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 46 Squadron from 13 June 1940
No 29 Squadron from 27 June 1940
No 46 Squadron from 19 August 1940
No 151 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 611 Squadron from 10 October 1939

RAF Duxford.

RAF Duxford was home to the Duxford Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 264 Squadron from 10 May 1940
No 19 Squadron from 3 July 1940
No 310 Squadron from 10 July 1940
No 46 Squadron from 18 August 1940
No 312 Squadron from 29 August 1940
No 242 Squadron from 26 October 1940
No 19 Squadron from 30 October 1940

RAF Kirton-in-Lindsey.

RAF Kirton-in-Lindsey was home to the Kirton-in-Lindsey Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 222 Squadron from 4 June 1939
No 253 Squadron from 24 May 1940
No 264 Squadron from 23 July 1940
No 74 Squadron from 21 August 1940
No 264 Squadron from 28 August 1940
No 616 Squadron from 9 September 1940
No 85 Squadron from 23 October 1940

RAF Wittering.

RAF Wittering was home to the Wittering Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 266 Squadron from 14 May 1940
No 74 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 266 Squadron from 21 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 9 September 1940


Fighter Airfields

RAF Coltishall.

RAF Coltishall was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 66 Squadron from 29 May 1940
No 242 Squadron from 18 June 1940
No 616 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 74 Squadron from 9 September 1940
No 72 Squadron from 13 October 1940

RAF Leconfield.

RAF Leconfield was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 249 Squadron from 18 May 1940
No 616 Squadron from 6 June 1940
No 302 Squadron from 13 July 1940
No 303 Squadron from 11 October 1940

RAF Tern Hill.

Tern Hill was one of the 12 Group airfields used for resting units, and as a training airfield and maintneance depot. It was used as a relief landing ground and as a temporary base for night fighters operating against raids on Liverpool and cities in the north midlands.

13 Group

Group Headquarters

13 Group Headquarters was based at RAF Newcastle, the administratve centre.

Sector Airfields

RAF Acklington.

RAF Acklington was home to the Acklington Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 72 Squadron from 6 June 1940
No 79 Squadron from 13 July 1940
No 32 Squadron from 28 August 1940
No 610 Squadron from 31 August 1940

RAF Dyce.

RAF Dyce was home to the Dyce Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 248 Squadron from 22 May 1940
No 141 Squadron from 22 August 1940
No 145 Squadron from 31 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 9 October 1940

RAF Turnhouse.

RAF Turnhouse was home to the Turnhouse Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 603 Squadron from 5 May 1940
No 141 Squadron from 28 June 1940
No 253 Squadron from 21 July 1940
No 65 Squadron from 28 August 1940
No 141 Squadron from 30 August 1940
No 1 Squadron from 14 September 1940
No 607 Squadron from 10 October 1940

RAF Usworth.

RAF Usworth was home to the Usworth Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 607 Squadron from 5 June 1940
No 43 Squadron from 8 September 1940

RAF Wick.

RAF Wick was home to the Wick Sector Operations Room and Staff, and the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 1 Squadron from 23 May 1940


Fighter Airfields

RAF Catterick.

RAF Catterick was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 219 Squadron from 4 October 1939
No 41 Squadron from 8 June 1940
No 54 Squadron from 28 July 1940
No 41 Squadron from 8 August 1940
No 504 Squadron from 1 September 1940
No 54 Squadron from 3 September 1940
No 600 Squadron from 12 October 1940

RAF Drem.
RAF Drem was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 145 Squadron from 14 August 1940
No 263 Squadron from 2 September 1940
No 111 Squadron from 8 September 1940
No 141 Squadron from 15 October 1940

RAF Grangemouth.

RAF Grangemouth was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 263 Squadron from 28 June 1940

RAF Kirkwall.

RAF Kirkwall was used as a satellite and relief airfield for fighter and coastal operations over the Scottish Islands and naval bases there.

RAF Sumburgh.

RAF Sumburgh was home to the following Squadrons during the Battle:

No 248 Squadron from 20 July 1940
No 248 Squadron from 31 July 1940

Unfortunately the squadron movement is even more confusing that that list would suggest.

take for example 54 squadron.

although it was 'based' at Hornchurch, because Rochford and Manston were the 'satalite' airfields for Hornchurch, individual flights or the squadron as a whole were often despatched to these airfields for the day, returning to hornchurch at night.

some official records for 54 squadron from July,

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110261.jpg

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110262.jpg

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110263.jpg

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110264.jpg

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110265.jpg



heres a useful link to from which i got these and you can find quite a few squadrons operational records during BoB, just enter the squadron, year and month:cool:

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/

really interesting site, just wish it was more complete, its really great for mission building.

Great find and good point... :)

So we need a +12 boost spit and hurri. Just one question: For how long could the +12 boost be engaged?

5 minutes max i believe.

and i for one, want that reflected in the modelling.

In all the Pilot's Notes I've read, the limit for boost as set by Rolls Royce is 5 minutes.

No problem Kurfürst, just a matter of a few minutes and a good look at the RAF website vs. the combat reports on Mike Williams' site (is there not another source for these RAF combat reports anywhere else on the internet?). I'm not convinced myself that the supply was universal, but my personal impression is that at the very least 11 Group was converted almost universally before the battle "began".

Could I ask whether anyone is aware whether it's true (and I'm not sure where I heard this suggested) that the sector airfields and their satellites were supplied from the same depots? This would clear up a lot of the confusion, since we could then assume that many of the permanent fighter airfields were supplied as well.

Thanks VERY much for that link, fruitbat, I'll go through as many squadron ORBs from there as I can get to examine the 100 octane situation, when the squadron received CSUs, and indeed whether they were De Havilland or Rotol units, because if I remember correctly Kurfürst has posted in the past evidence that the De Havilland units were not as well-regarded by the RAF, and the widespread conversion to Rotol units afterwards seems to support this.

It's a pity the German record situation is not as complete or available. :(

You have to remember that the only RAF aircraft (as far as I'm aware) which would be using 100 octane fuel are the Spitfire, Hurricane and Defiant. I'm pretty sure (given stock levels during the battle) that the fuel was used universally amongst the groups. As we all know, squadrons changed groups as and when needed so the need for the fuel would of still been there, although I'd imagine an aircraft using 100 octane fuel would still be able to use 87 octane if needed...without the performance boost of course.

*EDIT*
Apologies if this has already been posted but Swallow has found an interesting piece of information in the Spitfire I pilot notes, Section 2; Handling and flying notes for the pilot, supplied with the Collector's Edition;

Fuel: - Operational units: 100 octane only. Other units: 87 octane

If you mean German 100 octane (designated C-3) use, indeed the exact units are unclear, but the matter is simplier because in practice it only effects those 109/110 units that were re-engined to the DB 601N.

We know from the transcript of the Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on 19 July 1940 that 1 Gruppe (Wing, usually with 3 Staffeln, or Squadrons. Most likely one of the JG 26 Gruppen, evidenced by the photos) of Bf 109E and 3 Gruppen of 110C had been already converted to 601N. That's roughly 30-40 109s and 100-120 Bf 110s with 601N/C-3 at the time of the start of the Battle.

A fourth 110 Gruppe was converted IIRC in September, so its more of an issue for the 110s, much of them (roughly half) had the 601N, and it was a significant performance boost, with the 601A the 110 did something like 520 kph at altitude, the 601N had better output accross the whole altitude range, so it works out as 550-560 km/h, practically as fast as 109s/Spits, and faster than Hurris.

And the 601N wouldn't take anything else but 100 octane C-3, else they wouldn't fly at all. No headaches here which LW airfield got the fuel and which didn't. ;) As a matter of fact British analysis of captured LW fuel samples shows that C-3 was even found in the tanks of some Ju 88s, but that seems fairly irrelevant, as there would be no performance increase compared to 87 octane, to my best knowledge, with their Jumo engines.

Initially 110s had priority for 601Ns, the 109s got priority and begun receiving/retrofitting them at around October 1940.

As of 1 January 1941 there were 112 109Es of all subtypes and 5 109F-1s, 153 Bf 110C/D/Es around, plus 4 He 111P and 34 Do 215s.

See: http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x...asheets_N.html

But then again, I have trouble catching up with frigging Blenheims in the Quick Missions.. even with CEM disabled. So there are far more serious issues to be dealt with, either with the sims bugs, with my flying, or with both. :D

Some (two?) Bristol Blenheim Squadrons also seem to have used it.

Bloody heck, well that does surprise me! Just checked in the Blenheim IV pilot notes and you're spot on the Blenheim can use 100 octane fuel. Wll they say you do learn something new everyday.

Was just about to mention this myself, yes.

Thanks for the info above Kurfürst, certainly the fact that the 601N could only use the C3 fuel does simplify matters considerably.

Moggy: Thanks for that info! Now we have to work out what 'operational' means! :lol: It's also worth considering whether it's a later edition of the manual, perhaps? It's definitely worth making sure we're 100% on the matter.

It's most likely II./JG 26 which received the DB 601N-powered aircraft but I am still hesitant to see this type as more than a "candy bar" for the most successful pilots (still too much of a guess rather than knowledge). "White 4" (of Uffz. Perez) was the personal aircraft of Hptm. Karl Ebbinghausen (the commander of II./JG 26, hence the killmarks on said aircraft) before it was passed on to 4./JG 26. Having either the Bf 109 E-4/N or the Bf 109 F-0 tested by Stab/JG 51 in October 1940 would be interesting if the campaign engine allowed for such "rewards for outstanding performance". ;)

The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. I've just checked the date on the top of Section 2 and it's January 1942. :(

Maybe someone had better get coding one. ;) I wouldn't bet on a Maddox Games campaign engine any time soon.

I thought it might be, I knew there were two variants going about, sorry about that Moggy. :(

No worries, the closest I've got to 100 octane fuel being mentioned in pilot's notes are from June/July 1940 and the Spitfire IIa and I can't see any ammendment dates on that all. My Hurricane Mk.I notes pre dates 100 octane fuel and only mentions 87 octane as a result.

Yeah, I've got those Hurri notes, as well, they only mention the two-blade fixed pitch wooden prop! :o

Well, I couldn't code if my life depended on it. But unfortunately I have to agree with you WRT a dynamic campaign from 1C:MG. :(

I am asking a friend about it. Really it depends on how complete the logfile is, much like IL-2. If it's as good as IL-2's logfile, I think he might consider messing with it. He's a coder for a software company and has an interest in WW2 flight-sims so we'll see.

Agreed. For the most part of the big daylight battles, the 109s with 601N weren't that numerous to justify the coding required. A 110C-x/N on the other hand is a must IMHO, with roughly half the ZGs were flying, and giving the 110 flying some favour. And it's probably II/JG 26 as you say, though I'd wager that it wasn't handed out to the most successfull pilots of seperate JGs initially. The 19 July memo specifically mentions a Gruppe, plus otherwise logistics and maintaince would be nightmarish, with a mix of 601A and 601N powered Emils...

If I had to choose the line-up, I'd do this:

Bf 109E-1 of 1939, as E-3, but with four MG 17s
[b]Bf 109E-3 (what we have now) of 1939, manual prop pitch, probably no armor(?), 601A. This is pretty much as the 109E started the war in September. A good stand in for May 1940 France battles as well.

Bf 109E-4, 1940. Auto prop pitch, pilot/fuel tank armor in the fuselage. Optionally head/windscreen armor (the latter seems to have been randomly appearing on planes), MG FF/Ms (Mine shells :) ). Standard DB 601A. 'Boxy' canopy instead of the rounded one. This would represent the detail improvements made in the meantime of September 1939 - May-August 1940, just like the CSP/armor thing on BoB Spitties/Hurris. Plus most E-3 were converted to E-4 by August anyway (the designation was changed because of the MG - FF/M cannon, slightly modified to fire high capacity HE shells).

Bf 109E-7/N. As E-4, but with 601N, and the E-7 can also carry drop tank. Not only it could represent E-7s that started to arrive in August 1940 and become the major production model, it could step-in as the early few E-3/N or E-4/N 'candy bars', as well as older E-1/E-3/E-4 retrofitted with droptanks, and could be well used for later adds ons and scenarios, such as Afrika or Barbarossa, by which time the remaining Emils were typically E-7/Ns beside 109Fs.. I'd skip the basic E-7 entirely, it only differes from the E-4 in the droptank option, and the slightly more powerful (ca +50 HP..) DB 601Aa... needless waste of development time IMHO.

I'd agree with that line-up wholeheartedly. :)

Going through ORBs now, and honestly sometimes it is hard to say. Often you can read about a squadron receiving a certain number of 'improved Hurricane aircraft from 5MU' and really there is little more information than that.

EDIT: Any comment on the phrase Me. Jaguars? Referring to aircraft dive-bombing? Maybe 110s?

Jaguar was the propaganda nickname for bomb-carrying Bf 110s.

@ Kurfürst

Right now we don't have more than incomplete hints about the presence of DB 601N-powered Emils. I certainly agree that equipping a full Gruppe would be more logic WRT supply issues but when looking at the numbers of Bf 109s involved in the BoB that number is still quite insignificant. Like I said modelling the Bf 109 E-7/N (or E-4/N for that matter) could have gameplay value if the campaign engine was more sophisticated.

On the other hand you're right about the Bf 110s since they had absolute priority for getting the DB 601Ns at first.

Wikipedia says this...not the most reliable source I know.

As I said earlier in the thread.. All operational Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant Squadrons in the RAF had been converted to 100 Octane by May 1940

Taken from Spitfireperformance.com

The use of 100 octane fuel was approved for Spitfire Squadrons by 24 September 1938. Fighter Command noted on 6 December 1938 that Duxford, Debden, Northholt and Digby had received 100 octane fuel. As of December 1938 Nos. 19 and 66 were based at Duxford and were the only RAF units then equipped with Spitfires.

The Air Ministry noted in a memo dated 12 December 1939 that "100 octane fuel is approved for use in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant aircraft, and state that issue will be made as soon as the fuel is available in bulk at the distribution depots serving the Fighter Stations concerned." Gavin Bailey concluded that "The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year." As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock.
The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons.

Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the R.A.F. By July 11th, 1940, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, twenty-one days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stock available on October 10th, 1940, was 666,000 tons. Oil reserves were 34,000 tons.

Wood & Dempster’s "The narrow margin" shows figures for stocks of 100 octane are in agreement with those of the War Cabinet, however, their figure of 22,000 tons issued falls short of the Air Ministry’s figures as shown below.

By 7 August 1940 "authority has been obtained for the use of 100 octane fuel in all operational aircraft and that instructions to that effect are being issued to Commands",

i.e. all operational aircraft in Bomber, Coastal, Training and Fighter Commands.
On October 29, just before the end of the Battle of Britain, 423,400 tons of 100 octane fuel was in stock in the UK. The War Cabinet recorded that 100 octane stocks stood at 202,000 tons on 31 December 1939 and that 100 octane stocks had risen to 499,000 tons one year later on 31 December 1940. The Air Ministry recorded that 58,000 tons of 100 octane were issued during the Battle of Britain. The War Cabinet recorded that 100 octane consumption within the UK for the whole of 1940 amounted to 130,000 tons, an average of 2,500 tons per week. Consumption of 100 octane during the Battle of Britain averaged 10,000 tons per month for the months of July and August rising to 14,000 tons in September followed by 17,000 tons during October. Total consumption of 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain therefore was on the order of 50,000 tons.

Yeah I edited that part there there.. ;-)

Though keep in mind that the delivery list is for newly produced (Neubau) aircraft, but apparantly, most 601N Emils were retrofits of existing airframes. Just check the 1st January 1941 strenght breakdown on my site, linked above - 54 E-4s (compare to the 20+15 factory produced..), 16 E-1/N (none produced by factories as per the Delivery Plans..) etc.

The story is that 110s had absolute priority at first, so they put up with producing a Gruppe worth of E-4/Ns. I can see the reasoning... the upped 110s would be just as fast as Spits, and much faster than Hurris.. as opposed to upped 109s being... more faster than the Hurricanes.. wait.. they are already faster than Hurris!

That changed in around October, 109s got priority, but by then the E-7 was the new (and IIRC - sole production type, with the E-1/E-3 already stopped and the E-4 stopping, older ones being upgraded to E-7 standard. So most 109E-x/N types were E-7/N, plus a number of older types that were retrofitted.

Radinger's 109A-E book's Delivery/Lieferplan based list of E-7 production seem to suggest that all (452 E-7 production total of the top of my head) had 601N instead of, but I have some doubts about that, probably some confusion when converting the original Lieferplan into book-form. I recall Olivier (butch2k) also said that all E-7s got the DB 601Aa instead of the 'vanila' 601A-1, besides the ones that got 601N.

That being said, IMO it is undoubtedly true and I agree that the 601N power Emils did not play a significant role the summer - quite simply just a handful were around. They were the highest performance fighters around, with speed I reckon in the order of 590-595 km/h. But the /N types did not become significant until towards the end of the year, and of course, the first half of 1941.

Hence why I believe an E-7/N would be a better choice, with an eye on forthcoming 1941 scenarios (Circuses and Rhubarbs and Africa, Greece, Barbarossa etc.). The E-7/N is simply a must for a late Emil that could be re-used in dozens of scenarios. Plus there would be no whining that Blue doesn't get da boosta variant. ;)

Modelling an 50-odd production run like the E-4/N would be a waste of time.. for the same reason, I am a bit puzzled about the Spitifire Mark II's ... pretty much the same thing as the Mark I, in every respect. Same speed, same climb, same guns.. Oh, sorry, different engine starter!!! :D as opposed to a Hurricane Mark II, that was significantly better than the Hurri Mk I..

A fictional Jabo variant of the 110, that made into the English press at the start of the war. From English Flight magazine illustration from 1939, the Germans cunningly made it look like exactly as the 110. ;)

I suppose it was based on rumors of the Me 210 development (which indeed started out as a 110 with a bomb bay).

As Kurfurst noted in the thread on ww2aircraft.net, that particular "Spitfire and Hurricane units" is an unnecessary alteration made by Mike Williams and it actually says "the Units concerned".
However I think the first quote you posted gets us *most of the way* toward saying that 100 octane was available at all operational units, i.e. "issue will be made as soon as the fuel is available in bulk at the distribution depots serving the Fighter Stations concerned".

The whole story of Emil versions is a total mess since aircraft were retrofitted and changed versions all the time. It was not unusual to have an aircraft delivered as E-1 being refitted as E-4 being refitted as E-7 being refitted as E-7/N. And of course it would only appear as E-1 in official production lists ... :rolleyes:

I don't really know enough about it! But I do know that there was a conversion involved to the Merlin and that if the fuel was at a certain airfield then some of the aircraft must therefore have been converted (or were in the process of being converted). It wasn't a complicted procedure.

Stocks were ample (given total usage for the battle of 55,000 tons).
so I think it's pretty safe to assume 100 octane to be in use by most if not all RAF frontline fighter sqns by June '40

Haha, don't forget winny, this isn't about what's logical, this is about satisfying Lufwhiners...totally different matter. ;)

So lets look at the figures again.

50,000 tons of 100 octane used is the equivalent of 185,750 hurricane sorties in which all fuel was used.


I think there is no doubt from the above figure that 100 was available and more importantly was actually consumed by the fighters of RAF. If you don't agree then how do you account for the consumption.

Ahhh, I see. I that case the whole of the RAF was on 100 octane simply because all the aircraft were so pretty and curvey.. :)

@DC338: That's enough for four full fuel tanks a day for 60 12-aircraft squadrons over 60 days. And as we know, Fighter Command didn't usually send up aircraft in squadron strength.

Not true winny, they were on 100 octane because it was green, and people didn't understand what "being green" meant back then. :lol:

Not accounting for non-operational flights (I've just checked the link given for old RAF records, one of the ORB's, iirc for 56 Sqn states that 159 non-operational - ie. training, setup - flying hours were accumlated by the Squadron in the first week of August 1940 alone.

This roughly translates to 25-30 tons of avgas, for a single fighter Squadron, for a week, or about 100-120 tons per month if the first week of August was typical. How many Fighter Squadrons were there, 60 or so..? Works out at roughly 6-7000 tons per month for the entire comand. And at this point not a single operational sortie was flown yet..

It does not take into account bombers that consumed many times that of a fighter on a single sortie, or non operational flight. Its a good educated guess that a single bomber Squadron would consume about 5 times as much avgas than a fighter Squadron - and we know some Blenheim Squadrons were involved. How much fuel that would be, say 500 tons of avgas per month per Bomber Squadron? With just two Blenheim Squadrons we are at 1000 tons for non-operational flights. So we are 7-8000 tons with the two Blenheim Squadrons a month.

It does not account for requirements for engine manufacturers to test run engines etc. IIRC in 1944 the British aviation industry required some 2000 tons of 150 grade avgas per month for testing, run-in purposes. Engines have to run-in, and so do newly produced aircraft.. let's assume they needed the same amount in 1940m too. Engines have to be run in before they are safe for full power - the Germans iirc prescribed 15 hours for DB 605AM running time before full ratings could be used and there wouldn't be too much wear or risk of failure. Lets assume 15 hours for the RAF in 1940, which received about 500 new fighters a month, and probably twice the number of engines, at low-power consumption of 25 gallons/hour. That's 15x1000x25=ca. 1700 tons per month.. pretty close.

Hmm. We have 10 000 tons of 100 octane per month, assuming 60 Fighter Squadrons and 2 Blenheim Squadrons are using 100 octane and flying regular non-operational missions, and that the manufacturers also run-in their engines and planes properly instead of placing a 'Hope you get lucky' sticker on them upon delivery.

But at this point, not a single flight was made against the Luftwaffe using 100 octane fuel.

Trouble is, according to the consumption figures, for example in August 1940 an avarage of 10 000 tons of 100 octane was consumed for all the above purposes AND operational flights. There's simply not enough high octane fuel for all that for all Squadrons, hence why about 2/3s-3/4 of the consumption is 87 octane.

Of course the figures above are just a rough guess, but then again simply dividing fuel/hurri tank capacity is even rougher..

This isn't a rough guess.

Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the R.A.F. By July 11th, 1940, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, twenty-one days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stock available on October 10th, 1940, was 666,000 tons. Oil reserves were 34,000 tons

Sounds like that's an extreme case to me Kurf. I've looked at a few of them, but so far:

• 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 106 non-operational hours of a huge variety of kinds (beware that one page of the ORB appears twice in a search for some reason).

There's no data for 56 Squadron in 1940 so I'm not sure which one you looked at. Anyway, won't be posting for a while, I hear the human body needs sleep. :o

Why would they use 100 octane fuel to run in a engine? If it was as scarce as you would have us believe surely they would have used 87oct for non operational purposes.

because there was a conversion process that wasn't exactly trivial. further engine testing would be done at the levels the engine was expected to run at. you wouldn't test an engien you planned to run on 100 octance with 87 octance.

etc.

It's definitely sensible to run-in engines at their 5-minute limit boost levels.


:rolleyes:

because that was the only difference right?

Likewise. Besides, if my plane is correctly porked, I can always switch sides ;)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg

These were the alterations made (dated March 20th 1940). After the alteration the only difference in actual operation was the modified boost cut-out control allowing the ability of the engine to be run on 100 octane fuel up to +12lbs. sq. in. The engine was still perfectly capable of being run on 87 octane fuel and indeed this would avoid the problem of lead fouling of the spark plugs if they had not been changed to the new ones.
You will note the last paragraph. Mechanics were not likely to run the engine up to +12lbs on the ground. Its use significantly reduced engine life.

Since the FTH for +12 was 10,000 feet or so, it would be pretty reckless not to ground test at +12 to ensure that Mod. No. Merlin/154 was embodied correctly given that it was a local mod; otherwise there would be no guarantee that +12 might not be exceeded, leading to rapid failure in flight.

Reverting to 87 octane would require that the 87 octane limits be observed; since operation of the cutout would now give +12 it would probably be wired shut; clearly in this condition the aeroplane would not be exactly combat ready.

Having filled the tanks with 87 octane again, they would probably require cleaning when reverting to 100 octane to ensure that the fuel reaching the engine met the performance standard.

Changing fuel is not quite so small an undertaking as many would imagine; aeroplanes are less forgiving than cars, and the consequences of engine failure are inevitably more severe.

Given that as far as I am aware the 100 octane fuel was mixed by mixing the iso-octane with existing 87 octane fuel I cannot imagine that a tiny remnant of 87 octane would be something to get distressed about, however I will admit that the possibility of Mod 154 being performed incorrectly might be something they would test, agreed. However the since local mod would be performed on existing engines that had already seen use I am unsure as to what this would mean in terms of the treatment of the engine immediately after the mod.

My bad, 54 Squadron. But I agree this could be an extreme case. My point was rather to illustrate that there would be considerable fuel requirement for non-combat sorties as well, which is usually not being taken into account.

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/511/5110313.jpg

Definitely agreed there. As it was stated earlier in the thread there was a lot of movement to and from forward bases which seems to have been the bulk of the non-operational flying for operational squadrons, particularly for squadrons flying into and out of Manston due to its exposed nature on the coast I suppose.

Hi, Kurfurst the page you linked showing 54 squadron on training flights was during one of the times they were posted north to Catterick on a rest period.

54 squadron had 3 rest periods north, once after Dunkirk, once in june and once end of july/start of aug if memory serves me right.

Catterick was not an operational base during BoB, being well up north, one can only speculate at what fuel was being used there.

It would seem logical that 100 octane was not really needed there....

Isooctane is a specific chemical isomer. It was used as a reference fuel by Ricardo when he produced the Octane scale. The other reference fuel was n-Heptane.

So
0 octane = 100% n-Heptane
50 octane = 50% n-Heptane + 50% iso-octane
100 octane = 100% iso-octane

Fuels are evaluated by testing them on a variable compression ratio engine and then mixing a reference fuel to match their performance.

Note that this scale cannot measure any fuel outside of the range 0-100 octane. There is quite a lot of casual incorrect use of the octane scale for values >100, but this is simply incorrect.

A different scale (Performance number) is used to rate fuels superior to 100 octane; the performance number being the ratio of the power produced by the reference fuel running on the test engine without detonation to that produced by 100 octane running on the test engine.

This naturally varies as a function of mixture strength, so for example modern 100 LL will give approximately 100/130 performance number (weak/rich), whilst late war purple fuel could give 115/145 Performance number.

Care must be taken when comparing fuels to check exactly which rating scale is in use; the power output achievable from a fuel is not necessarily a linear function of its octane number, so you can't make a direct comparison between an octane number and a performance number. Additionally, there were several different test procedures in use which would produce different results from identical fuels (ie MON, RON etc).

Production fuels were not made in a chemistry lab by mixing individual chemical isomers together; this would have been impractical. The Germans were somewhat closer to this approach with their use of Fischer-Tropsch derived synthetic oils, but even then they didn't go to the lengths of blending up their fuels isomer by isomer, because it just wouldn't be worth the effort. About the closest that anybody has ever come to this kind of "chemistry lab" approach was JP-7 for the SR-71, and that was phenomenally expensive stuff...

Instead, production fuels were made by distillation of crude and the judicious use of additives such as TEL. AFAIK, 100 octane used a slightly different distillation range from 87, and there may have been some catalytic processing (eg cracking etc) to improve yields, but without making direct reference to a contemporary reference on the subject I couldn't be certain off the top of my head.

However, I'm pretty certain that the main difference between 87 octane and 100 octane was the amount of TEL used. This would have been a variable, because different wells produce different crudes which will produce different products at the refinery, so the amount of TEL required to meet the 100 octane standard would have been varied from batch to batch. Even today, the specification therefore just includes an upper limit for TEL content.

To get an idea of just how many chemicals are actually contained in real fuel, you can read the safety sheet.

In any case, if you don't clean the tanks when swapping from 87 octane to 100 octane then you'll end up with a mixture which will have some undetermined intermediate octane rating. Running at +12 on this mixture is not the same as running at +12 on 100 octane, and might cause pre-ignition or detonation.

It would therefore be advisable to flush the fuel system thoroughly with 100 octane before embarking on +12 running, and the obvious way to do that without taking the whole aeroplane & engine to bits would just be to ground run through say a tank full of 100 octane. Then you can be pretty certain that all the 87 octane is out of the system and it should be safe to start testing at +12.

You would then probably conduct a few minutes of running at high boost to ensure that the boost control cutout was really delivering +12.

Thanks for the info Viper...possibly a bit of a Chinese whispers effect going on there as to how the fuel was mixed, then. :o

Hi, where I can find on internet ''operation record book '' like 54° sq?

At http://www.oldrafrecords.com/, posted a few pages back in the topic. ;-)

Thanks a lot Kurfürst :)

Exactly. No screaming rubbish about bias to one flavour. I too am only interested in historical accuracy. What worries me is that in the long run the FM'S will get sodomised in oder to balance online dogfights. No, I want a planeset that performs as it did, even if it means I die a lot.

I agree. There was no so much difference in E3-E7. In fact the only true variant could be the E3 with the options added on the field making it a E4 or E7 for historians. When factories added a particular kit it made it a E4/7 but those were more factory tunned.

Jus to add my 2 cents (speaking in € of course) the 601N eng was so only marginaly fitted to the 109 during the BoB that I can see its introduction in CoD just as an AI upgrade for unit commender (what it was in fact).

If anyone could infirm/confirm the following : the E3 Jabo unit might hve been the units lucky enough to get some of those engines.

Anyway dealing with the story of the DB601N, man hve to remind the political aspect of Nazi Germany at war and the influence of key individuals on any strategical assets. Note that this is exactly were the RAF beat the Nazi Luftwaffe and had much more success than France in the fight, not in the 200+lb Spitfire or Hurricane Mark XXX :rolleyes:

Ya gota admit, you can't fail the mans logic here. I'm pro data but where the data is grey you use logic and this is logical.

Now, can 1C make a plane that matches the data intended, what ever that may be? It seems to me the CoD FM engine is running so buggy it's not possible to dial that accuracy in yet?

Let's wait and see what they are cooking right now. Luthier announced that they will do some plane performance adaptions and FM modifications in one of their next patches.

Currently I think the whole discussion on FM is a bit into the empty anyhow as we already know that the FM is wrong since RL ceilings can be reached by no a/c in game right now.

I don't adventure into guessing why even though I have some theories.

But I do appreciate the effort of actually collecting historical data. But if you do so please add the sources. This is vital if you want your data to have some credibility (no offence meant).

This is totally BS. I can't believe to hve to read this.

The fact that two third of the Vics were scored by courageous pilots tht had to fight in the inferior Hurri prove this fact. Britain wons due to it's superior Strategical & tactical thinking, inspired personnels, luck (?) and the poor level of strategical thinking of the opposing Nazi leaders. In other word Britain in 1940 put the demonstration that a Democratic regime with some rationalized organisation could defeat the most militarized regime the world had ever seen.

This are facts written with gold and bloods in the history pages

I suggest you to read HurriVs109 a rather complete collection of Pilots account during BoB with fear, the lack of sleep, the chattering lead and the horrifics agonies of pilots roasted alive and the tiny cans of their aluminium cockpit. Those men deserve more respect than you silly phrasing suggesting that it was a piece of cake.

If you are lazy enough for not re-enacting the BoB in the way it was, there is some lower settings available for you.

I got close in the latest patch, did not test before now so others will have to chime in with previous performance specs.

Latest Patch

Just climbed the latest patch Hurricane I with no CEM and managed to reach a ceiling of 30,000ft (RoC of 100 ftm) using 3000rpm.

Seems a little light on performance in climb test, data indicated rated climb was @ 2600rpm and was 400fpm @ 30kft. So whilst I did almost reach the RL ceiling I had to use more power ie. 3000rpm.

My data on the Hurricane is limited, looks like a rated max of ~32kft? seems to me like boost was a bit low generally, at higher rpm this should be higher alt rated, for others to resolve I guess.