Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 289078)

The Spit II and Bf-110 are the only ones getting historical performance at the moment (even though the 110 is modeled with the weaker engine variant when many were fitted with the better BD601Ns, it gets more or less correct performance for the engines it uses) ,almost everything else is slower than it should.

That should easily answer you question, Spit Mk.II is probably the best all around performer in the sim for now, until the rest of the FMs are adjusted and we get Mk.I variants with constant speed props.

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz (Post 289213)

I understand that but how much difference in RL which obviously will/should be in game was the performance between Spit1a to the SpitII ..................

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz (Post 289213)

I understand that but how much difference in RL which obviously will/should be in game was the performance between Spit1a to the SpitII and also do we know how much in game the is 109 underpowered?

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 289762)

I like this bit :D

Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
June 1940
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304
Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109.

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 289762)

I like this bit :D

Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
June 1940
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304
Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 289827)

Meanwhile on the other side of the Channel.... ;)



From : Kr.-Fernschr.Ob.d.L.,Führ.Stab Ia Nr.8092/40 g.K. (II)
(only to Lfl.3)

Subject : Comparison flight between Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss.



In the following the performance- and air combat comparison that has been performed
at the E-Stelle Rechlin between Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C and the captured enemy fighters
Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss shall be brought to acknowledgement. The results of
the comparison are to be announced immediately to all Jagd- and Zerstörer units under
command, to guarantee the appropriate air combat behavior in the engagements on the
basis of technical conditions.

The Bf 109 E type clearly outperforms all foreign planes:

Speed: the Spitfire is at 0 m by ca. 20 km/h, at 4 km by ca. 10 km/h, Hurricane and
Curtiss at 0 and 4 km altitude by ca. 60 km/h. A similar superiority of the Bf 109 E
exists in the climb performance as well. Climb times to 4 km:
Bf 109 E 4.4 min, Spitfire 5 min, Hurricane 5.6 min, Curtiss 5.2 min.

The plane Bf 110 C is speed-wise inferior to the Spitfire, superior to the Curtiss
and Hurricane. Regarding the climb performance is the Curtiss equal at ground level,
up to 4 km superior then inferior. Hurricane is inferior up to altitude 2 km, then
superior up to 6.5 km. Spitfire is equal at ground level, otherwise superior.

The best climb for Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C is achieved with shallow climb angle
and higher speeds than at the enemy fighters. It is wrong to climb away steep or climb
behind an enemy fighter with the same angle.

Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

For this the following suggestions are given:

The Spitfire and partly the Hurricane have two-pitch propellers.
Climbing away with the Bf 109 and Bf 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or
even higher speeds of about 280 – 300 km/h. On aircraft with two-pitch propellers with
low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, and on the other
hand with high blade angle high boost pressure – therefore in other words, performance loss.

On sudden push forward on stick to below, the carburetor of the enemy fighters cuts out
due to the negative acceleration. This [evasive] measure is also recommended.

The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109.
Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire
load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and
significantly disturb the aiming.

In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German
planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator
stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known
shooting-technique disadvantages.



Lfl.Kdo.3/Führ.Abt./Ia. op 1
Nr. 3951/40 g.Kdos.
signed, K o l l e r
F.d.R.

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz (Post 289829)

The Devs may need to look at this..Whos next?

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 289832)

The Italians...? >D

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 290148)

Here are full above flight test:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_tri...ls/Morgan.html

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 290136)

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109."

Both British and German flight test showed that Spitfire and Hurrciane could outturn 109, also Spitfire with CS propeller and 100 octan fuel was faster (at low to medium alts).

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 290169)

I don't understand your post really Kurfurst.

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 290169)

Furthermore, as Kwaitek correctly pointed out, it was vs a 2 stage prop Spitfire on 87 octane and this wasn't a BoB aircraft.

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 290169)

I don't understand your post really Kurfurst. It pretty much backs up a lot of the RAF tests only without the detail - it's more of a confidence report for pilots in combat.
Furthermore, as Kwaitek correctly pointed out, it was vs a 2 stage prop Spitfire on 87 octane and this wasn't a BoB aircraft. Granted, the Rotol prop fitted to the 109E may affect performance but it is a CSP so I'd doubt it makes a marked difference.
Finally, I have a faith problem with the items you post because you appear so damned biased towards blue anyway and frequently rebuff good information to the contrary, so I cannot trust your opinion I'm afraid. Sorry about that, in England we call it "The boy who cried wolf". Sadly the effect of this may well lead to bias in the sim in order to appease the complainers and the likes of Kwaitek and I really don't want that. I don't care if the Spitfire was hopeless IRL vs the 109, I just care that the sim best replicates RL performance and history.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 290182)

You don't? But I thought its obvious. I was a bit tongue and cheek as I believe they call it in England. Point is, that the both teams on both times of the Channel was a bit dissing about enemy equipement because its not like theirs, so it must be inferior. British (too stable for a fighter) and German comments (far too unstable for a firing platform) on control characteristics are esp. revealing.



Where do you get that the Germans tested the Spitfire on 87 octane?
And, why would they do that, if not for other reason then to test it in the condition they found it to be operated by the British?

BTW there were certainly Spitfires flying with 2 pitch screws and on 87 octane during the BoB, though it eventually all changed.

NP with that m8, you are from England, and you don't like guys are not biased towards England. Perfectly understandable. ;)

Originally Posted by heloguy (Post 290195)

This is a little silly. Kurfurst just has an affinity for the German aircraft. It's not about Red vs. Blue. I haven't seen anything posted on his website that's questionable, although admittedly I haven't read it all.

At any rate, I think he would be the first to say that aircraft performance in game should be affected in a very limited manner, if at all, by accounts like these. Performance should be dictated by viable sources, ie manufacturer's documents, and replicated as best as possible in game.

Comparisons do little to give hard numbers. There is no way for anyone to reproduce every time the results in either one of those tests. We aren't provided with enough information on atmospheric conditions, engine settings in all regimes, and on top of that, the aircraft aren't being flown by the pilots that have trained to fly and fight in them. As an example, most 109 pilots knew about the aileron snatching. Personally, I wouldn't have tried to turn that tight unless I was evading, or just being overzealous in trying to get a kill. It isn't an indication of the Spitfire being completely superior to the 109 or vice versa.

In fact, the problem with these comparisons is that they fuel the idea that, even if by all accounts it's said that these aircraft were evenly matched, well then surely the (insert your aircraft here) was still 5 or 10 kmh faster, could turn tighter, and climb 200-700 fpm faster. That's just the way it was. ;)

Evenly matched also doesn't mean that they had the exact same numbers in every category. It only means that they were close in most categories, and in the ones that were different, it took the skill of the pilot to exploit these advantages to their fullest, and not let himself be drawn to expose his machine's own weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 289284)

In real life, there was no appreciable performance difference between the Spit I and II,.........

..........the Spit II's Merlin had a marginally higher altitude performance, and a consequence, worse low altitude performance. .

Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 290298)

Lol.

One that put it 3000 feet above the 109. Ask Ulrich Steinhilper if it was marginal.

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 290286)

Let me be quite clear. I'm not interested in bigging up the Spitfire, I just want a sim as close to how it was as possible. I don't think you share that agenda and unfortunately it is types like you who will batter 1C and spoil it.

Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 290298)

Lol.

One that put it 3000 feet above the 109. Ask Ulrich Steinhilper if it was marginal.

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 290296)

The pilot was trained for the 109 first, he didn't just get in it. Besides, these are test pilots, not just any pilot. We can only go by the information we have available just as the pilots did in real life in 1940, in this case they are formal tests by RAE. What else are we going to use?

Originally Posted by heloguy (Post 290350)

All I'm saying is that documents with actual performance numbers should be those that are used for FMs, not comparisons that say Plane A is better than Plane B in this maneuver. There's nothing scientific about that.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 290338)

OK, let me be clear too.

The Rechlin paper, which was forwarded to all German fighter units was - IMHO rather useful - a tactical advice for fighter pilots based on the available information and strenghts and weaknesses of enemy types derived from testing. It should be useful in the game against the same type of aircraft, ie. 2 pitch Spits and Hurris, but some other advice is valid for improved types, too.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 290338)

As for the all of them had the best stuff etc. I consider it wishful thinking and without evidence. As far as CSPs go we know that they just started to be retrofitted at start of the battle, and the process wasn't about finished until mid-August, so yes, you could definietely meet up with two-pitch in July 1940, early in the battle. As for 100 octane, it was done to death. No evidence or documentation was ever presented by anyone, that would specifically say that all aircraft are using 100 octane, or even all aircraft are planned to use 100 octane. All we know is that the original early 1939 plans called for 16 fighter and 2 blenheim bomber sqns. to be provided with 100 octane by September 1940.The high octane stuff was introduced to select fighter (and some Blenheim bomber) stations in spring of 1940, from which it follows that not all had it. We also have evidence that further conversion of units was stopped in May 1940 due to concerns of overseas supply, especially as the Germans were sinking tankers at an alarming rate, and all 100 octane came from overseas; we also know that the conversion continued, and was finished later in the automn. We also know that about 2/3s to 3/4 of the avgas consumed in the BoB was 87 octane. We also know that there's evidence for about 1/3 of the fighter stations for 100 octane used, predominantly Sector stations and in 11 Group. Everything else is just a wet dream at the currently available evidence.

As for the Rechlin tested Spitfire. You claimed that all Spits had 100 octane. Would it not be strange for the Germans, to capture a plane with 100 octane fuel in its tanks, and then test it with something else than 100 octane fuel, when they had plenty of supply of that, both captured stocks and their own production of high grade C-3 fuel..?
Of course, they may have operated it on 87 octane, but that would only make sense if the plane they captured also had 87 octane in its tanks when it was captured..

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 290338)

OK, let me be clear too.


As for 100 octane, it was done to death. No evidence or documentation was ever presented by anyone, that would specifically say that all aircraft are using 100 octane, or even all aircraft are planned to use 100 octane. All we know is that the original early 1939 plans called for 16 fighter and 2 blenheim bomber sqns. to be provided with 100 octane by September 1940.The high octane stuff was introduced to select fighter (and some Blenheim bomber) stations in spring of 1940, from which it follows that not all had it. We also have evidence that further conversion of units was stopped in May 1940 due to concerns of overseas supply, especially as the Germans were sinking tankers at an alarming rate, and all 100 octane came from overseas; we also know that the conversion continued, and was finished later in the automn. We also know that about 2/3s to 3/4 of the avgas consumed in the BoB was 87 octane. We also know that there's evidence for about 1/3 of the fighter stations for 100 octane used, predominantly Sector stations and in 11 Group. Everything else is just a wet dream at the currently available evidence.

So I am patiently waiting for someone to post a primary document that would say that all Squadrons are using 100 octane. Until that happens, I consider it wishful and baseless, and contradicted by evidence.

As for the Rechlin tested Spitfire. You claimed that all Spits had 100 octane. Would it not be strange for the Germans, to capture a plane with 100 octane fuel in its tanks, and then test it with something else than 100 octane fuel, when they had plenty of supply of that, both captured stocks and their own production of high grade C-3 fuel..?
Of course, they may have operated it on 87 octane, but that would only make sense if the plane they captured also had 87 octane in its tanks when it was captured..



Yup.



So, how come the Germans captured one in such condition.. if it did not exist, as you say? :)

Originally Posted by winny (Post 290470)

This document shows that by May 1940 all fighter command squadrons had recieved 100 octane fuel. Bomber Command had to wai till 1941 to be fully converted
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-100octane.jpg

Originally Posted by TheGrunch (Post 250639)

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

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 250748)

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

Originally Posted by TomcatViP (Post 290481)

interestingly he gave chase to both Me110 using emergency power (12LB). ;)

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 290487)

Nope, it says the "The Units concerned" are now stocked. It means some, but now all. Otherwise the distinction is about the 'units concerned' makes no sense.
Probably the same 16+2 Squadrons that were discussed earlier.

The units concerned are all frontline Spitfire and Hurricane units.

And, if you read the preceeding documents, not just the ones you find on the site, you will notice that bomber units concerned (3 stations) had priority.



That's nice and valid evidence for about half a dozen Squadrons out of about 50-60 participating the Battle.

I counted 30 squadrons combat reports that mention +12lb between May and July , how do you explain that?


The problem is that it was fighter stations that were stocked with fuel, not "Squadrons". A Squadron is just a bunch of men and planes. It can't store fuel. Airfields and Stations can.

As usual you apprear to be focusing on symantics, playing with words.


Now as it goes a number of Stations were supplied with high octane fuel. The Squadrons stationed there could use it. But the Squadrons themselves continously rotated amongst stations, so its difficult to say how many Squadrons had access to it at a time. You appear to have no problem making assumptions from this, why can't I?

For example, No 41 Sqn was at Catterick in May, but transferred to Hornchurch on 28 May, then back to Catterick on 8 June, then again back to Hornchurch on the 25 July, then beck to Catterick again until 2 September, and then again Hornchurch. OK, what's your point? A lot of stations were supplied with smaller ammounts of 100 octane because they understood that not every Aircraft would return to it's own base to refuel.


Besides the use of 100 octane fuel appears to be already covered by an Australian researcher. We had a discussion about it a good while ago on Butch2k's board.

This is from a researcher, researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives, from a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance. It was a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report titled Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War.

The reason why it is included amongst AWM papers was because the Australian Government at that time was protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

"The first bulk shipment of 100 octane fuel had arrived in Britain in June 1939 from the Esso refinery in Aruba. This and subsequent tanker shipments from Aruba, Curacao and the USA were stockpiled while the RAF continued to operate on 87 octane petrol. Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.

Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.

The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940. OK so the first Middle east (Iraq?) was 12th August, what about all the 100 Octane we got from America in '38, '39' '40?



Source for the type of fuel used in Rechlin please. Oh, wait - Mike William's lying article in which he simply made this up, amongst a dozen other things..?
Can you prove this? And no I didn't get the info from Mike Williams. You're reaction 'Lying article' says more about this..

Besides the Germans had access to captured British/French 100 octane (unimportant - it was all American import) which on occasion they even used in their own aircraft to add salt into the Dunkeque wound, and their own 100 octane fuel of course which I believe at this point was actually better than British 100 octane.

Originally Posted by winny (Post 290499)

The units concerned are all frontline Spitfire and Hurricane units.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 290523)

Again, a wild assumption - and one that is based on merely that _you_ haven't seen something, and this MUST mean something you would like to be true.
It's an assumption based on the fact that I can't find a picture of a '100' marked spitfire dated any later than July 1940. It's not something I would 'like' to be true, I don't operate like that. I'm coming at this from an unbiased approach.




Again, assumptions and oversimplifications.. I suggest you read the previous thread, where fuel requirements for non-operational flights, engine manufacturers were discussed in detail.

No, I suggest that you tell me how they could use 27,000,000 gallons of 100 octane fuel during BoB. Hasn't one of your arguments been that they had limited supply, now you're saying they didn't?

Originally Posted by winny (Post 290537)

I noticed you made no remark about the fact that I can find combat reports from May-july 1940 that show at least 30 squadrons were using 100 octane.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 290549)

Because I already answered that. Squadrons were rotating between Stations.

I don't understand why them rotating would make any difference. I thought that once an engine had been converted to 100 that was what they put in it, regardless of where it was stationed? Why paint 100's onto them if it didn't matter what fuel you put in?



No, you have claimed that all Squadrons were using 100 octane fuel during the Battle. You pointed to a paper that said the opposite. And then you say at least least 30 squadrons were using 100 octane, because you found combat reports. You then asked me to explain me this, despite that I already did. OK I retract the all - I stand by the fact that I can find reference to 100 octane use in at least 30 squadrons before August 1940, happy? Didn't think so.

It is you who is changing his position all the time, not me. As far as it goes, you've made two positive claims

a, All FC Sqns were using 100 octane fuel, and nothing else OK, prove me wrong.
b, Rechlin trials did not use 100 octane fuel - OK prove me wrong

The burden of proof is on you. You could prove neither. Therefore, they are unproven, insufficiently supported by documentation which was my point.
That of course does not mean that a considerably number of RAF fighters did not use 100 octane fuel - they did.

The fanboyism part starts where somebody starts to ask for only the best variants to be represented, and start to claim something extreme that all the sudden the 'poorer' variants was not used at all. I'm not interested in fanboys, at all.

Originally Posted by winny (Post 290563)

I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards. So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?

Originally Posted by winny (Post 290563)

I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards.

So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

Originally Posted by pupo162 (Post 290580)

I think what kurfurst is trying to say is that german had both 87 and 100 fuel. So if they captured a British spittie, they WOULD tested it with the same fuel it was being used on it, not a different one. SO basicly if you say "they all had 100 gallon" then the captured one HAD to had 100 gallon. if the captured was 87 then that means not all of the spitis were 100 gallon, and there were 87.

thats what i got out if it.

jkeep up the discussion, its keeping me from studying math all day :grin:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP (Post 290532)

Intersesting reading.

At least I found here again what I hve read for years in UK/US books and not such upside down history account. I guess I am not the only one here with such a feeling.

Regarding the merlin power, may I suggest we give enough details giving perf to determine if the it was a static test run or an in flight measure (typically corrected to 10kft with RAE formula).

Engine data in RAF at the time depict performances WITHOUT Supercharger or being corrected with pre-war formula (hence the the extra 15/30% power) - RR heritage trust / The perf of aero eng / pg 5.


This illustrate why with all the raw data that are now available on the web (but with sometime questionable sources) giving any interpretations or deductions without taking into account years of research from historians is somewhat hazardous.

Usually it ends up like this : all before me was wrong listen what I have to say... Man shld be cautious when entering such a buffer zone

I have in mind that latter analysis in war corrected the early data with the new state of the Art resulting in the normal linear improvement curves we have all in mind of teh Marlin during WWII.

Interestingly I found the related article in Wiki really good. Have a look !

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz (Post 290593)

RAFfanboys and luftwiners...

Gota love em

oh wait..i started this

Originally Posted by pupo162 (Post 290594)

so... we meet again.... :P

Originally Posted by cheesehawk (Post 290553)

Osprey,

Side note, I don't know where it states in the German reference that the Spit was on 87 octane, surely the Germans had it available, just not in quantity. At this point of the war, weren't the Germans still importing fuel from Russia, and using stocks captures from France (i.e. French and British fuels)?

Originally Posted by whoarmongar (Post 290604)

BLAH, blah, blah,

ENOUGH for Gods sake.

All I can say is.

Do you really think, with Britain in a crucial battle for its life and existence, a fact fully recognised by its political leadership and the leadership of fighter command and having made strenuous efforts to get high octane fuel it would then deny that very fuel to the crucial fighter units in eleven and twelve group ? Well do you really ?

To be honest I have no axe to grind here, I really couldnt care if the flight models are correct, I dont even care very much if the spit has the wrong prop, fuel, performance.Or if the 109 is the wrong model, wrong speed or poor prop control or that the blenny struggles to make it off the runway let alone to France and back.

To be honest this game is neither fish nor fowl,
It clearly isnt a proper sim, how could it be ? It cant even get the most basic issues like fuel mix or aircraft ceiling correct
It clearly isnt a game, the campaign gameplay and missions are terrible, the multiplayer is poor.

The sound of you all argueing with real life data for this game is pathetic really
Venturi effects, drag coefficients,air compressability,fuel octane etc etc etc it has no meaning, I very much doubt this game models any of it.
For example I always fly at 22000 feet in a spit canopy open for better view,
I suffer no aerodynamic loss, no wind noise or buffeting, no adverse effects whatsoever. I always use lean mix in a spit coz the engine runs better even for take off, if I switch to lean the engine revs pick up, rich mix is not of any use whatsoever, so much for being a sim.

So cite your sources,gather your eye witness accounts, collate your historical documents, do your web searches to prove that your particular viewpoint is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It means nothing I doubt the devs even look on this site, I very much doubt any of your arguements will have any effect whatsoever on the future development of this game.

Originally Posted by Danelov (Post 290888)

This one is really great and very well done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsgEiJoBxX0

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz (Post 290905)

Superb detail..

They say that this has the 87Octane fuel in yet isnt that a Mk4 or 5 shown in the external view? Im sure it has Hispanos

Originally Posted by Kongo-Otto (Post 290851)

100 octane fuel used during the BOB?
Ah yes, i did read about that at an other forum, very interesting read indeed.

Originally Posted by winny (Post 290912)

Which bit of the vid? Looks like a Mk1 to me.

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz (Post 290927)

Look towards the end when its in an external view..

Mk1's didnt have cannons

Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 290941)

a very limited few did.

search for 19 squadron.

had major problems with jamming though.

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz (Post 290927)

Look towards the end when its in an external view..

Mk1's didnt have cannons

Originally Posted by winny (Post 290873)

I've seen this line on a website for Trimpel Oil refinery

By May 1940, reconnaissance Spitfires had begun flying combat missions using the 100 octane fuel. By 31 July 1940, there were 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using the 100 octane fuel.

There's no reference to where they got the 384 in 19 squadrons from.

Originally Posted by winny (Post 290873)

I've seen this line on a website for Trimpel Oil refinery

By May 1940, reconnaissance Spitfires had begun flying combat missions using the 100 octane fuel. By 31 July 1940, there were 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using the 100 octane fuel.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 291037)

Interesting page on Heysham, thanks for sharing.



I would say its simple guesswork that it was used in all aircraft.


Probably the simplest for would be get a full copy of AVIA 10/282 from Kew, as it would put all doubts to rest I believe.

Originally Posted by winny (Post 291044)

Like I said earlier, I'm not biased, I just like a good discussion and I like to come at things from a slightly different angle..

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 291059)

I love to hear this, and you can be sure I am interested in the same. That's why I do not bother to answer to poster who are not.. and that's why I keep responding to you. There's always something to learn IMHO!

Now, it may be me, but the thing is that I always like to get statements based on solid evidence.

Same thing with the Luftwaffe in the BoB - you won't find me saying that all of the LW was flying on 100 octane fuel, even though I could present such evidence that would make it seem as much that everything from 109s to 110s and even 88 flew on the thing... I know perfectly well that there was but a wing of 109, a couple of more wings of 110s, and the 100 octane fuel found in a Ju 88 tank was probably a matter of simplier logistics or a shared airfield with a 100 octane unit...



Its the archival refernce to the file held at the British National Archives in Kew, which contains the meetings relevant to the decisions behind the use of 100 octane in the Battle of Brtiain. Some (in fact: all) papers I've seen from I've already posted in the thread.

AVIA 10/282 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: meetings 1-25

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...ID=4223197&j=1

AVIA 10/283 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: fuel-oil requirements

should be also interesting.

I believe you can take copies with a digital camera for free, though you might need to pre-register. I'd believe the contents of this file pretty much settle the issue for good. All the decisions should be recorded in it, so either it says they converted all fighters and supplied fuel to them or not...

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 291059)

I love to hear this, and you can be sure I am interested in the same. That's why I do not bother to answer to poster who are not.. and that's why I keep responding to you. There's always something to learn IMHO!

Now, it may be me, but the thing is that I always like to get statements based on solid evidence.

Same thing with the Luftwaffe in the BoB - you won't find me saying that all of the LW was flying on 100 octane fuel, even though I could present such evidence that would make it seem as much that everything from 109s to 110s and even 88 flew on the thing... I know perfectly well that there was but a wing of 109, a couple of more wings of 110s, and the 100 octane fuel found in a Ju 88 tank was probably a matter of simplier logistics or a shared airfield with a 100 octane unit...



Its the archival refernce to the file held at the British National Archives in Kew, which contains the meetings relevant to the decisions behind the use of 100 octane in the Battle of Brtiain. Some (in fact: all) papers I've seen from I've already posted in the thread.

AVIA 10/282 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: meetings 1-25

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...ID=4223197&j=1

AVIA 10/283 Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee: fuel-oil requirements

should be also interesting.

I believe you can take copies with a digital camera for free, though you might need to pre-register. I'd believe the contents of this file pretty much settle the issue for good. All the decisions should be recorded in it, so either it says they converted all fighters and supplied fuel to them or not...

Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 290914)

haha kurfurst pawned again on 100 octane fuel.

Rules for arguing with kurfurst.

You have to show absolute proof, he can interpret what he wants and it becomes fact (in his mind anyway).

Its to funny.

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 290600)

And disscussion about how many squadrons used 100 Octan fuel during BOB is pointless to me. WE know that many squadron used 100 Octan fuel during BOB expecially these most importants sectors squadrons. So both version were used during BOB.

So to be fair we should have 2 or 3 version of Spitfire MK1 and Hurricane MK1 - with 2 stage prop pitch and 6 1/2lbs (pre BOB version without pilot armour and armoured windshield), 2 stage prop pitch at 12 lbs (early BOB version) and CS propeller at 12 lbs.

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz (Post 290981)

Its a spitfire MkII with cannons. thats all i need to know..

Originally Posted by Danelov (Post 290621)

Yes, that´s right. Finally is only a game.

Originally Posted by EAF331 Starfire (Post 291367)

And it should come with a probability rutine. So that the cannons should jam the correct amont of times :grin:

Originally Posted by cheesehawk (Post 291261)

Ok, still learning stuff from everyone here, and I have a question...

I see lots of people reference those graphs in different posts. Are those original graphs by the test crews during ww2? The sharpness and colors used seem a bit "odd" for historical documents from that era.

If not, do they have the raw data they extrapolated those graphs from? It seems mighty familiar to the IL-2 Compare, that's not coming out of data from the game is it?

Originally Posted by winny (Post 291076)

Thanks for the link, I'll get in touch with Kew and see what the score is..

Originally Posted by EAF331 Starfire (Post 291367)

And it should come with a probability rutine. So that the cannons should jam the correct amont of times :grin:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 291557)

One can try his luck with Morgan and Shacklady's serial number listings, perhaps somthing turns up.

Originally Posted by winny (Post 291600)

Just a quick note, I have Shacklady and Morgans Spitfire the History.

The only ref to a captured Mk 1 is N3277

234 sqn
Reported shot down over Isle of White 15th April 1940
(Actually forced landing in Cherbourg)
Later had DB engine fitted.

So it probably had The Rotol CS as the De Hav wasn't introduced till July.
Definitley a Merlin III. If it was 100 octane it would have been one of the early conversions.

Poking around the web a bit it would seem that this is the Rechlin MK1.

Just need to find out what it's service history was now!

Originally Posted by ICDP (Post 291620)

Just a heads up, the dates are wrong, the 15th April 1940 is the date it was delivered to 234 squadron. According to these links N3277 was shot down on 15th August 1940, this would put this particular Spitfire MkI as an almost definate BoB era 100 Octane variant.

An Image is available here. If you look at the cowling you can see some white stenciling, it should read DTD 100 OCT. It was painted here to remind ground crew what fuel to use.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/4871667320/

Production details for N3277.

http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/p003.htm

N3277 listed as lost on 15th August 1940.

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co....Aug-losses.htm

Info on the Pilot, PO Richard Hardy

http://www.thesoutheastecho.co.uk/Pilots/Hardy_R.htm

Originally Posted by winny (Post 291632)

You are absolutley right.. I hate the way it's laid out in "The History"

As it is in the book..

N3277 485 FF 5-01-40 MU 15-01-40 243s 15-4-40 reported shot down nr IoW, Was dam and f/ld in cherbourg france, 15-8-40 P/O Hardy PoW a/c had daimler benz engine fitted.

So it was converted to 100 oct, thanks.

Just an aside, reading through all the serial numbers is quite sobering..
I usually just find a particular a/c but when you just read line after line of P/O 'Smith' etc kld, FTR and so on for page after page it brings it home to me some how.

Anyway thanks again.

Originally Posted by ICDP (Post 291662)

No problem.

So if N3277 was captured on the 15th of August 1940, it couldn't be the one used in the tests Kurfurst quoted, which were carried out on the 10th August 1940.

Originally Posted by ICDP (Post 291620)

An Image is available here. If you look at the cowling you can see some white stenciling, it should read DTD 100 OCT. It was painted here to remind ground crew what fuel to use.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/4871667320/

Originally Posted by winny (Post 291632)

As it is in the book..

N3277 485 FF 5-01-40 MU 15-01-40 243s 15-4-40 reported shot down nr IoW, Was dam and f/ld in cherbourg france, 15-8-40 P/O Hardy PoW a/c had daimler benz engine fitted.

Originally Posted by winny (Post 291811)

Ok, So if the Rechlin tests were definitley on 10th August then it can't have been any of these Spits. All were captured later than then.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 291813)

Just a note, the telex message (from LW HQ) is dated 9 August, and it informs various Luftflotten about the results of the trials and gives tactical tips to troops, but the the trials were very likely to have been conducted some time before that, as it has to be written down, and go through some levels before sent out.

When Rechlin actually did the tests, that's a good question.

Originally Posted by Kongo-Otto (Post 291741)

Originally Posted by winny (Post 292096)

It's your area so I'm hoping you'll (Kurfurst) dig something up. I know practically nothing about Rechlin or what they did.