SPIT MK I/II and over boost
 

Hi,

I recently noticed that in the Spit, we can un-lock the throttle and make available higher boost than rated.

- Why does'nt it affect Spit 1 ?
- Why can we run constantly at max boost (2650 rev per sec) without any issue with the engine ?

TX

some call it a feature, others a bug.

You have to wait for the next patch and hope it is fixed.

Boost doesn't function on Mk1 and Mk1a. A few claim it does but I reckon it's a placebo effect. I recall a post where the Boost figure was extracted from the FM and it adds 0.002 sq/in = zilch!

Quote "Another important difference between the Bf109E and the Spitfire Mk.IA lay in the supercharger design. The early Merlin engines were equipped with gear-driven single-speed, single-stage units. The supercharger had to be throttles back at low altitude to avoid over-boosting the engine. As altitude increased, more and more of the supercharger capability was used and engine horsepower continued to increase until critical altitude was reached, after which power fell off rapidly"

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.co...s-Spitfire-MkI

The biggest issue in the sim is radiators have no damage effect.

Hopefully that a lot of issues hill be fixed in the patch. :)

This is wrong. Early Spitfire I were equipped with a fixed datum and later Spitfire I were equipped with a variable datum type boost control. Both limited the boost to +6.25 and therefore prevented over-boosting. +6.25 and 2600 PRM is "Climb power" which is allowed for 30 minutes.

Initially the boost control cut-out simply disabled the boost control to allow any boost up to around +17 at low level. Though the use of higher boost than +6.25 was only allowed when 100 octane fuel was used. (This is stated in a 1938 manual btw.!)

In 1940 when 100 octane fuel became available for operational squadrons the boost control cut-out was modified to disable the boost control but still limit the boost to +12 which was then allowed as emergency power for 5 minutes.

Reference: AP 1590B Merlin II and III Aero-Engines (October 1938, reprint October 1939).

As i have read elsewhere about the "Boost" the game should give Spits 100 octane fuel and 12lbs boost to be historically correct but has n't, will the next patch sort this issue ?

You are claiming that all Spits in 1940 use 100 Octane and 12 lb boost?

Spit boost in COD is not working. What for the patch when check speeds.

Show me that the ones in 11 group weren't, during BoB.

I've read plenty of evidence that plenty were, but of course, i can't show that all important document they all were or weren't, which would finally end this debate one way or the other, because it may never existed.

However, it would be just as useful if someone could put up evidence that spits in 11 group weren't using 100 octane fuel during the BoB. Not squadrons that were on rotation out of 11 group, or in squadrons based in other groups.

I haven't seen any of that.

Oh no ... another year of BS :(

you guys are really pushing us out of any flight Sim.

I don't fly RoF anymore and now shoot CoD only occasionally as there is no interest to fight those floating Spit MkIIa.

Great spirit!

Blah blah blah.

Its a fact that plenty of spits and hurris were running around on 12lbs boost.

Just as its pretty apparent that the 109's are under modelled and nerfed too.

What most people want, myself included is the sim to be accurate on both sides, something its not at the moment for either.

A fact ? Really ? lol

And concerning the 109 learn your eng syllabus you'll see that you can do nearly all of what is in the book.

But I am not the kind of guys that think that cruising at max speed is absolutely essential in any serious sim ;).

Fruit bat,

The BoB was several months of improvements with the Merlins. Better engines and better fuel. To say that 1940s Spits used 12 boosts is good look at history.

CoDs Spits boosts are just wrong. I spend a lot of time in the Spit in ATAT online and the Spits are faster then the 109s at low Altitudes. Spits can outrun and dogfight the 109s but, they are very difficult to kill then.

Again, hopefully the patch will fix them.

Fruit back,

I'm too slow to right. I like your lost post.

I would like to see with the Spit 1/1a with 9 boost and 87 gas. Spit II with 100 octain and 12 boost. Even better, about 8 Spits for several for 1940 months.

I'm not saying that all spits used 100 octane, as this is obviously not the case, from the fuel totals used by the RAF for 100 octane and 87 octane during the battle, but with all the pilot accounts and squadron opps reports that relate to usage during BoB, to say that non of them were is also foolish. Its even more foolish to assume that 11 group did not have priority.

As to whether the spit mk11a goes to fast on 100 octane, thats not something that i know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me, It all depends on which particular spit test you choose to use, and what particular configuration it was in equipment etc.... Which leads me to agree that at the moment Spits boost/speeds in combination are wrong at the moment to.

@Tomcat VIP, my German is non existent, so i can only go on the data that people have posted here that seems to show that the 109 is to slow down low, not to mention that non of the planes can reach there ceilings, but i guess thats OK to you.

as to your line,

"But I am not the kind of guys that think that cruising at max speed is absolutely essential in any serious sim"

wow, without your insight, i just don't think i could of managed to fly online for so many years.... Oh wait......

I would like to see a situation when the fuel can be selected between 87 octane and 100 octane for all models and also the different German fuels (B4 and C3 is it?) for 109's by the mission builder, and then limited server side, and performance adjusted from that, but hey ho.

But then i guess if we're dreaming add to that the fact that a spit at the end of the battle was heavier than at the start and therefore slower to, due to all the extras bolted on, bullet proof screen etc...

I've seen some pics of BoB with C3 109s but, I think it was rare.

(I was hurt for a long time and I am trying it post again. Sometimes my post dont make a lot of sense. :rolleyes: )

The 109E sitting in the crash scene in the hanger at Duxford was a C3 machine.

I'm sorry too hear that, over the years i've read many posts by you regarding the Fw190 which were essential reading lurking over at Cwos and at ubi, hope things are better,

~S~

I think we need to apply some common sense here. 100 octane was apparently used but there are serious doubts that it was used in each squadron and each Spit. It seems there is no data available that proofe that all Spits flew with 100 octane fuel.

If - what I personally believe to be likely - there had been Spits that flew with 100 octane fuel and others not it should be obvious that we never can achieve the same mix of variants in the simulation (online at least). So what should be done?

We should think about what is desirable for us as simmers as the whole community. I do not have the answer to that but would like to ask following questions:

- should we implement the 100 octane spit types as default even if it is quite probable that not all had this feature?

- Should we procede then also in the same manner with all the other planes in the game that is to go for the high performance variant of it even if we do not know in which number they've seen action?

- If we had the numbers which should be the threshold to decide that the default plane should be the better performing one?

(I presume that nobody here would really support the application of a certain logic in a one-sided manner that is only go for the highest performance variant for one particular side)

These questions are not rhetoric. I think we should ask ourselves this because I think it would be a fundamental decision that would be taken by the devs.

C3 109s were scarcer than chickens with teeth.

The following Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons are known to have used 100 octane fuel before or during the BoB:

1, 17, 19, 41, 43, 54, 56, 64, 65, 66, 72, 73, 74, 79, 85, 87, 92, 141, 145, 151, 152, 222, 229, 234, 245, 249, 264, 303, 602, 603, 605, 609, 610, 611, 616

These squadrons were stationed at the following airfields at sometime during the BoB.


11 Group

RAF Biggin Hill

- RAF Gravesend
- RAF West Malling

RAF Debden

- RAF Martlesham Heath

RAF Hornchurch

- RAF Hawkinge
- RAF Manston
- RAF Gravesend
- RAF Rochford

RAF Kenley

- RAF Croydon

RAF Northolt

- RAF Hendon

RAF North Weald

- RAF Martlesham
- RAF Stapleford

RAF Tangmere

- RAF Westhampnett
- RAF Ford - Bristol Blenheim
- RAF Thorney Island - Bristol Blenheim
- Lee on Solent, RN airfield
- Gosport, RN airfield

Not sure which Sector airfield these were assigned to but as all the sector airfields had 100 octane fuel, so these to would need a stock of 100 octane fuel.

RAF Detling
RAF Eastchurch
RAF Lympne

In 10 Group, 5 of the 6 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel.

In 12 Group, 7 of the 8 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel.

In 13 Group, 7 of the 10 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel. Of the 3 that possible didn't have stocks of 100 octane fuel, one was based in the Shetland Is. and the other in the Orkney Is.

It is not version with Db601N engine?

Molders unit used E4/Ns with 96 octane starting 7 September. 96 octane was in "short supply". (JG26 War Diary, Caldwell)

I don't thing that 109s should be used game. Maybe a E4/N or E7 model for late BoB?

More pilots should use Bf109e1. A large percentage of BoB pilots used them.

(Just my opinion)

Agreed and oft posted, especially before we actually got the E1.

Needs to be set by mission builders server side more, but you know what online is like, everyone wants the latest/best.

Its why il2 online for so long was Fw190D9's ans 109K4's vs La7's and Spit25lbs.

History is an interesting side note......

The way i would prefer it is to be able to set fuel parameters for the flyables, quite similar to loadouts, and then make the whole lot possible to be enforced by the server.

Regardless of what we choose to fly, giving us the ability to run overboosted power settings in every case is as unrealistic as running a full belt of DeWilde or minen shells and it's one of the rare cases where historically accurate also means better for playability.

It would be really cool if loadouts and type of fuel for each airbase with a spawn point could be enforced server side.

Failing that, we could do with modified copies of the same flyable in a new slot. So for example, we would end up with a 100 octane Spit and an 87 octane spit in the aircraft selection menu, where the 100 oct version would be a mere copy of the 87 oct 3d model with a few numbers altered in the FM files, ie it's not that much work and it also allows the mission designer to limit the amount of high power versions. Similar for the axis side and then we'd be set.

This would also allow people who script dynamic missions to spice things up a bit. For example, if you fail to protect your convoys (RAF) or fuel supply trains (LW), a script could lower the amount of high powered versions simultaneously available based on friendly ground target losses, thus reflecting a shortage of high grade fuel.

I guess we'll see how it's handled once the FM revisions take hold, but either solution i would be ok with. The first method would be slightly preferable for me, because then we might be able to load different grades of fuel in different tanks (just like it was done on the Blenheims for long range sorties, 87 octane in the inner tanks and 100 octane in the outer tanks).

I claim that only some of the Bf109's had propellers in the BoB. Prove that they all did by showing me evidence that every one of them did.

?

I do not this that all 109 used the same propeller. :confused:

I was being sarcastic.

The point is that there are quite a few on here who have an agenda which appears to be based around making it easier for them to score kills online rather than historical accuracy. There is a huge amount of evidence showing that the RAF had and used 100 octane for it's fighter force from May 1940 yet people are still arguing otherwise.
We have a saying in the English speaking World. "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and moves like a duck then it's probably a duck". This means that we have a load of evidence so it's probably true, this isn't a court of law where absolute proof of everything is needed.

IL2 1946 FM was ruined by Luftwaffe drivers attacking the Spitfire FM and bigging up their own FM. I am terribly worried that the same will happen again. Presently, pre-patch, the 109 has HUGE advantages and yet we still hear whining about a handful of Spitfire IIa's online. I dread to think what whining is due to come when the Spitfire become at least equal to the 109 and the 109 DM is implemented - I fear that they may complain so hard they actually spoil history.

Here's a snippet of evidence from the time. Britain was on the brink, do you honestly think we weren't using this fuel to try and win with it?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...tocks-1940.jpg

I don't either tbh. And about 1946 being 'ruined'. This is what I mean:

Check the data on this page for performance.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the Spitfire outperforms the 109 on the graphs. Now take a look at the same aircraft in IL2 compare UP2.01 (maybe there's a later version, I gave it up). You'll see the 109's outperform the IX Spitfires.

I'm not biased toward the RAF, I've been ground down over the years. I want the FM's and DM's to be correct and let the pieces fall where they may. If the same happens again I've already decided to confront it or the whiners will turn a sim into a game and I'll put it in the bin.

This is a pretty dumb argument, guys. First of all, higher octane number doesn't actually DO anything unless your engine is boosted high enough. A lot of people think that adding 100 octane fuel instead of 87 octane will magically make their aircraft perform better.

That is false.

But regardless of this fact, in game there should be a spitfire with 100 octane, and a spitfire with 87 octane. There should be 109s with C3 and B4. There should be spits with +9 and +12 lbs boost. etc etc etc.

Then the mission builders can decide what is appropriate.

Osprey,

I think I am wrighting poorly. :(

I am only interested in the history. I am not arguening that Spits and Hurris in BoB used 100 octain and +12 boost. Me question was did all Spits and Hurris use 100 oct. I think that many 87 oct where used early in the battle and more 100 oct were used as the battle progresed.

I will be happy to fly with the work red of blue plane. If I see a Spit that getting short changed I will whine it FM thread.

(What IL-2 Mod are you talking about?)

To digress,

There is a certain irony about the 109's performance vs Spitfires compared to the Fw190's in il21946. Guess the 109 has more louder whiners!

I presume your familiar with the SpitV and Spit IX tests vs the FW. The acceleration part is most illuminating, i can post if you've never seen it.

I do find it frustrating myself where people focus on red or blue, i want them all to be accurate, even if it does mean such as in 1942 the 190 was leap years ahead of the spit. I want to Simulate the Rl experiences, good or bad, the ebb and flow of development. Not just to fly around in the best plane all the time.

Merlins from 87 oct to 100 oct as small modification?

I don't understand your argument. You are saying that it doesn't do anything unless the engine is modified to use the higher grade, which it was. So we agree.

I bothered with some screenies to show what I meant with 1946 though.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...v109gspeed.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...v109gclimb.jpg

This is what IL2 compare has it at
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...reSpitv109.png
Please tell me IL2 compare doesn't actually work.

modifications needed can be found here,

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

Indeed. The acceleration and climb rate difference is remarkable. Having seen the Flugwerk 190 climb @ Duxford with my own eyes, well, that was stunning!
I don't think you got too many whiners on FW though because, frankly, if you follow some simple rules the 190 is a doddle. I flew it in 1946 a lot and found it 'unchallenging' ;)

Exactly. Instead of having constant argumentation on the forums and taking up valuable development time just formalizing the decision, the developer would be better off just giving us the available variants (same 3d model and DM, slightly altered FM, so it shouldn't be a terrible amount of work) and let us decide how to use them while they focus on something else.
This not only saves time in the long run for a small initial time investment on their part, it also makes the sim more accurate and complete.

Then, if i don't like the variants used in a certain server i just fly on a different server, everyone is happy and the avenue of communication to the developer team is decluttered for discussion of other features, etc.

I don't want to fly the best aircraft all the time either, even if it's a good one that i like i will often fly it in a regime where it's at a disadvantage: when i was flying 190s back in IL2 '46 i was mostly taking on high flying 51s and 47s in Antons (instead of Doras), not bouncing Spits that crawled on the deck ;)

I think most people here are like that, they fly not only for the win but for the overall experience and just want an accurate ride, no matter how overpowered or underpowered it was in comparison to its contemporaries. Let's just have the "tools" to recreate air combat scenarios accurately and then each one of us can decide what to with them, instead of one group trying to shoe-horn a different group within their preference limits. Options are always good to have :cool:

I don't think we agree. Do you even know what the octane number measures? I'll give you a hint: It's not related to the energy density of the fuel. If you had an engine that was designed for 87 octane and put 100 octane in it instead, nothing would happen. 100 octane fuel does not give you more power or fuel efficiency than 87 octane does.

What does any of this have to do with 1946? Are you trying to show that the G-2 was overmodeled? Congratulations! Nobody's ever suggested that was the case before!

Why would I do that? AFAIK you're the only one who's mentioned IL2 compare.

Hi. You wrote that there is a big difference in the reality vs "compare" graphs. It's true, but remember that these original graphs are not flying the 109 full power! The difference between 1:35 ata (Steig-und Kampfleistung) and 1:45 ata (start-und notleistung) is 150-200 PS, which is approx. 15-20% extra power. This is true for DB601 and 605 too.

The point is the following: If you use 87 octane fuel you are not allowed to apply a higher boost than +6.25, if 100 octane fuel is used the maximum allowed boost is +12.

Thus 100 octane fuel doesn't give you more power directly, however it allows you to apply more boost - which will give you more power.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know why on the most biased spit dweeb's home-made graphs the performance tests are cheery picked in such way that that it would show the most poorer performing 109s tested against the best performing Spits tested, and omitting the poorer performing Spits and better performing 109s. Come on, the credibility of that site's fan articles have been discussed in lenght already.

The 109G-2 was imho one of the most accurately modelled aircraft in the old Il-2. And it did historically outperform the early Mark IXFs with the Merlin 61, up to about 8000 meter.

That does not surprise me at all, your opinion that is.:lol:

[QUOTE=41Sqn_Stormcrow;375412]I think we need to apply some common sense here. 100 octane was apparently used but there are serious doubts that it was used in each squadron and each Spit. It seems there is no data available that proofe that all Spits flew with 100 octane fuel.

Agreed.

I think the answer is definietely yes. Server hosts and mission builders can decide their take on the level of availability of the fuel.

I think the answer to these question is also a definiete yes, otherwise it would be quite clear that some fanboys are just craving for the "bestest" versions of each plane for their side, while trying to deny the other side from the same.

I for one would consider for example Bf 110C / 601N, ie. C3 types a neccessary addition (since about half the Zestorer units were flying these during the battle, its a plane that was important but not represented yet), and as for a C3 109 probably the Bf 109E-7/N would be a good choice. Its the first mass produced 601N variant, would be absolutely useful for later (Afrika, Med, Balkans, Barbarossa) maps, and it could represent well the earliest examples, since performance was the same.

Well people will just have to measure it's weight against your opinion's weight, m8. :p

see bold text

Its just your list, and its selective, it doesn't even show 1/3 of the airfields the Fighter command used during the Battle.

There were over 50 such airfields. The complete list can be found in one of the earlier threads.

You simply picked the ones that have evidence of 100 octane fuel supply, and pretended they are the only airfields used. In short, you lied.

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

Even as comprehensive as that list is, its still not the full picture, as often a squadron that was based at a sector airfield would often have a flight operating during the day from a satellite.

For example, whilst 54 squadron was based at Hornchurch, at first light a flight would often fly down to Manston, and operate there for the day, flying back at dusk.

Still its an impressive guide as to roughly who was where roughly when.

An observation, it would be even more complete if it added the there rotation out dates as well, and if the dates were more accurate.

For example, with 54 squadron, there date's based at Hornchurch would be,

Spring - may 30th
4th june - 24th june
25th June - 31st July (Rochford & Manston, Satellites of Hornchurch)
8th aug - 3rd sept.


Which by the way don't tally with your dates, mine are from there own ops book, where are yours from?

You missed Debden which had 100 octane since Sept 1939.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...octanefuel.jpg

How many of those airfields you have listed in 10, 12 and 13 Group are on the CLoD map?

Exactly, and I even spelled that out for him in the reply which he then quoted. Wierd.

Juts to remind the expert here that the Spit I/II (especially the II) hve UFO flight model for now.

They can run away if you dive on them
Past you at 450 and turn 180 to engage the fight that you want to deny running flat out straight
Turn indefinitely at 90 bank angle
Hve a nose up attitude that will make shy a dolphin in a marine park (yuck yuck)
ETc.. etc..

Let's start at the beginning. 100 octane fuel was not candies FC give away to Fighter pilots !

Hi, they were simply copied over from the RAF.mod site. I guess some differences are possible.

Yes, this is true. But you can't just "apply more boost" unless the engine has specifically been designed to allow it. If your engine only has enough compression ratio to make use of 87 octane you will need to make modifications.

Yeah but it was couched in a bunch of nonsense about 1946 and il2compare that I really couldn't care less about so I probably only half-read your reply.

But you quoted it. And now you're saying it's nonsense but you only half read it....probably.

Make up your mind CD, don't comment on it if you haven't followed the context.

I use HSFX5 IL-2 as well as CoD. HSFX5 Compare looks pretty good. Spit 1 looks like 87 oct and Spit IIa looks like 100 oct. There is a early Hurri 1 with 87 oct and a later Hurri 1 +12 oct. HSFX5 is a not nonsense.

This is what I was trying to say before, 1940 should have different versions for 87 oct amd 100 oct. Hopefully CoD will have Spits and Hurris with several versions. You can't just say that all 1940 Spit and Hurris used 100 oct, and you can't say that all used 87 oct.

Not very smart of the British to not use 100 octane fuel when they had so much of it in an region where it was definitely required.

The only concern should be the RAF bases that are on the CloD map.

Below full throttle height every supercharged engine has more boost available than allowed. The problem is to prevent the pilot from applying more boost than allowed by mistake. The boost control does that. The Merlin engine has a provision to disable the boost control (so called boost control cut-out).

Sure, but this isn't because of the fuel. That's all I'm saying.

The reason higher boosts aren't allowed is because the fuel will ignite prematurely, usually before top dead centre and at best this saps your available power. At worst it will wreck the engine.

So, in one single thread we have three separate topics:

1) availability or lack of 100 octane fuel during the BoB
2) IL2 compare
3) engineering discussions

:-P

This topic always generates wild discussions, but the one thing i can gather from whatever's been posted thus far is:

"nobody can convince me either way"

I think the best way is to have all versions available and then it's up to the mission designer to do the research and decide what to use. If i'm building a campaign and the squad i use was on a satellite field that day with 87 octane fuel only, i'll use the low power version of the flyable in the mission. If the next day they had moved back to their main base with 100 octane supplies, i'll use the high power flyables for the next mission. And so on and so forth for the aircraft of both sides (eg, the high power 110s).

I really don't see what the rest of the fuss is all about. We want accuracy, it's also up to us. It's not a case of the developer making a decision and forcing it on everyone and every scenario, especially when there are scenarios that would require having the other version of the flyable as well.

And even if everyone used their best fuel all the time in real life, we still need the low octane versions for a very simple reason. When the community or the developers release a dynamic campaign, it would be a great feature to have lack of supplies be reflected on the aircraft we fly: you let those 111s bomb your fuel dump in the previous mission and blow up your ammo shed, you're flying with 87 octane and half the amount of machine gun rounds in the next mission.

But i guess that's too imaginative and gameplay-enhancing, when we can just spend our time trying to force everyone to subscribe to and accept a single version of events instead :-P

I'd say it's better to lighten up a bit and think outside the narrow confines of each one's favorite cockpit for a change ;)

Here we go again! I suggest you fly behind Mk.MrX in his BF - he doesn't seem to have problems with any of the Allied ac despite the fact he considers the Spit Mk2 has having an unfair advantage. Unfortunately it did if you read LW pilot accounts - but I guess they are wrong too as is every other piece of evidence posted.


I have been cutting my teeth on the Bfs - nice WEP - and you can engage it continually - a bit like the boost on the SpitMk2 that you are always complaining about. Adolph Galland had very high respect for the Spits....I wonder why when I read your posts.

I would invite anyone that flys blue to fly a Mk. I RAF aircraft, doesn't matter which one, for a month, and then get back to me about how "undermodeled" the Bf 109 E4 is.

But then this is a dream, because it will not allow them to pad their stats for an entire month...

:rolleyes:

Dude, facts are facts. Numbers don't lie.

edit: never mind.

This thread reminds me of why I hate this community.

What numbers is my question.

So far I have seen NO qualitative testing of any of the aircraft currently in the sim. All I read are "pilots" reports and recollections after flying the sim, and as we all know, you can't trust those.

:cool:

I did, and ended up like a pitching idiot, that my 109 just runs away, negative rolls back to France, until help or whatever arrives lol, speaking about SpitI and Ia.

As usual outnumberd and BnZ by fancy 109`s against MKI, (dont get me rong, I found this funny too, when flying 109`s) my switch to Spitfires, was simple the challenge to fly against fast good climbing and strong armed 109`s.

With a slow and not good climbing Spit (Hurries pull away just easy, never knew that the Hurrie is faster then a SpitIa)with a nice neg-cutout on the engine (but Luthier forgot to add the redouts), plus the fancy 303cal. (I am not saying the 303cal is rong, its clear it is not a 50cal.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On the otherhand, I flew SpitII aswell now, against good 109 people, and you perform the 109 tactic on 109`s, outrun, outclimb, BnZ, re-engage, when situation is allowing. And finally you get bad comments, from the enemys point of view.

I blame Luthier and his team, for this kind of storys....

;)

If the FM and Realism were as accurate as some want it then I doubt the vast majority would enjoy it.

Does anyone really want to fly 8 sorties a day and maybe get credit for 8 or 9 kills over a four month period? There have to be compromises and the result is arguments regards these.

Its primarilly a game for entertainmnet value with simulation properties - there to enjoy wether as part of a group or solo flyer!

As for the Spit Mk2....absolutely true, the best FM in the game and the others porked in some way, which explains why a lot of MP flyers don't select it even when available - for fair play, the challenge or prefer the Rotol Hurri or Mk1's.

Hi all,

First of all I will direct these first lines towards the moderators and apologize if this reply isnt seen as on topic, if not please delete it and I will open a new thread if found necessary :)


All the years I have been part of the WWII community (and that`s alot of years), these threads do pop up from time to time and alot of heart are brougt into it and do end up in alot of fire, insults, accusations and that
worries me.

Historical correctness regarding 100% octan fuel during the Battle Of Britain have been discussed
on WWII flightsim forums years back, as long I have been part of it (included FM`s as a result of 100% octan). The importance
in my own beliefs is/are not important for me to communicate out. Why? Simply because it will not change anything.

I do not post alot on forums and for a reason - I usually find, what Im looking for :-) and keeping away from FM threads and the like simply because it`s not my job to convince others with opposite beliefs. Why? Se above :).

The only thing that counts is, what the dev team have on print and researched, however it does not, guarantee a 100% correct sim. Why?
Because it have to reach out to alot of interest marked vice, both historical, game play and balance of game play.



Im an historical freak regarding Battle Of Britain and followed all topics on this and other forums (mostly other forums as Im new on this one).
I have seen 3rd party involvment, with no sim interest, what so ever, delever very interesting things forward to the community to help out abit and maby share some light. Through the years I have been doing my own research, both
from threads from this and other forums, through other channels aswell through the years (from a historical perspective)
and that`s why Im firm in my own belief, what`s historical correct or not.


The word "Sim" is very dear to us all, or most of us and to the devs aswell I hope :). A sim to me is a product that
stay true to history as possible useing code (not everything is possible), especially, when covering a period like
the Battle Of Britain or all other periods for that matter. Can it be done? Yes it can - most important though, what will the consequences be if done,
that way? I will not answer that question for you, simply because the answer have to come from within youself and most important
what do I gain from it? Will it satisfie my style of play? Will my personal goals suffer from it? Hmm could be if
yes to last two question. I do not know if the dev team have the correct figures or not - or close to correct and
use them in future development updates (Im still talking about 100% octan). Would it be easy to test the community
and read the effects of it? Yes absolutely. Place one or two planes in the game as close as possible
number vice and se the reaction from the community (two will give a better result) and no harm done the FM can be changed.

Will this change history? Lol no it wont - it will change the game. Uuuups "GAME" or "SIM" It`s not my intention
with these words to hurt anyones feelings, especially the dev team and cant blame them if something have to be left out
or added to let the game/sim shine in it`s own light and give it it`s own special place in the history of WWII simulation. I
will say this though, that I have the right to call this a game aslong as "True to life aircraft" (from the CLoD website)
is not represented. If this put a smile on some dev faces I understand well - IM smileing myself AND do understand if
steps have to be taken to balance gameplay so peace be with you :)

The insults, accusations and words used in these threads AND not to forget, direct personal insults on non native speaking
english forum members is disgusting, total out of line. The arrogance I have seen some forum members use, to deliberately provoke
others to stay away from or continue a meaningful and positive debate on topic, may remotely be seen as an act of manipulation attend and distortion.
These individuals are easy to spot and known to the community and moderators and do not bring anything. As a result of this. I have found it necessary
for the first time during all those years, I have been part of the WWII sim community - been forced to add these people to my ignore list. I did this simply
because it`s the only way to enjoy the read of many, many interesting post on this forum. Im not proud of it - I se it as the only way to enjoy this forum.

I do apologize if some of this I have written here can be too much. It`s not my intention to step on anyones toes, but sometimes even I need to let off
some steam and thoughts.

Regarding the 100 octan fuel and my beliefs previously mentioned above, do not have any importans at all because it`s in the hands of the devs. They are
the ones, who will get the direction on where this sim will go (yearh I used the word sim this time) loool 50%-50% :P. Same goes for me being a blue or red flyer,
not important at all. I will reveal that I fly online mostly and offline to test things out, mostly planes and can be time consumeing.

My best wishes for CLoD, the devs and this forum and it`s members for 2012

Kind Regards
Svend

I must admit, I've was wondering why you had so much angst, it was very personal wasn't it..... Perhaps you need a holiday.

Guys, please don't get personal. Not everyone can subscribe to the same opinion and not everyone has the same sources or values each source equally.

Let's ask to have both high and low octane versions and then we can use whatever we like in our missions, without infringing on the ability of others to do the same.

I try not to point fingers, but in this case both "camps" are so evenly matched in doing this that i think no harm will come from it, everybody's guilty of this behaviour to an extent. What behaviour? The "It's not good enough for me if i get the tools to recreate what i think is historically correct. I want these to be the only tools available so everyone else will do what i think is right, so that i never run the risk of flying in an unfavorable environment when going online and messing up my gameplay enjoyment factor, sense of achievement or precious online K/D stats" kind of behaviour.

Let's be serious for a moment and understand that

a) whatever the case may have been during BoB, the scope of the series is not just BoB, so we will end up needing both high and low octane versions (battle of France/phoney war/low countries anyone?) and
b) both blue and red are currently missing their high performance rides (eg, about half the 110 fleet was running DB601N engines by the time of BoB and in certain regimes of flight this made them faster than the RAF fighters)

The pendulum swings both ways really. Let's ask the developers to get the missing variants which are not even new flyables (same 3d models with a few numbers changed in their FM really) and be done with it, so we can both start using them according to what each one thinks is historically correct and move on to the next bit that needs attention ;)

If you are looking for realistic missions, the satellite field would also have 100 octane fuel.

The squadron would be armed and fueled with 100 octane fuel fly out the satellite field very early in the morning and have their tanks topped up with 87 octane. They then would take off on an intercept mission. Some of the pilots would report rough running engines during combat but run OK while returning to base.

Upon returning to the satellite field the a/c would be rearmed and 87 octane fuel put in the tanks. They are scrambled on another intercept mission and the controller tells them Buster. The throttles are pushed full forward. Before they can reach any altitude, kaboom, kaboom, kaboom one after another 12 Merlins blow up and the squadron are now gliders looking for a place to crash land.

Not a very realistic scenario you presented.

I don't know exactly how it was in the BoB, it was just an example (and in such a case, the pilots would be smart enough to use 87 octane power settings and their mechanics would warn them). What i'm really saying is, since we can't reach a consensus let's have both options and then each mission designer/server host can decide on their own and we can decide if we fly there.

Solves the issue pretty much ;)

That is the problem.

In the heat of the moment, tired and on an adrenalin high with their life on the line, you expect the pilots to remember they can't use full throttle?

Using 87 octane fuel on the CloD map is gaming the game.

There isn't a single documented example of a BofB Spit or Hurricane that flew a combat sortie with 87 octane fuel.

Only the "Deutchland uber alles" types continue to claim that 87 octane was used by Spits and Hurricanes during the BofB.

This is exactly why I've been flying the Spit a lot online. In fact I've hardly flown the 109 lately and I'm a huge 109 fan. The reason is that the CEM is more complex and challenging in the Spit. You can fly the 109 on full throttle all day and engage WEP whenever you want without a risk.

The Spit really struggles against the 109 and especially if you have to climb to meet them, you end up just cooking the engine. It's not fair as the 109 pilots don't have to worry about their engines unless they are negligent with the prop pitch in a dive.

It's true there is just not enough love from the devs for the Spit. I want the 109 drivers who fly full throttle to be punished too. It's just not realistic caning your engine for the entire mission.!

I agree. Those guys using cte Boost in the 109 shld be toasted with a randomly occurring big explosion that let them cool down in the bottom of the channel the time they think how bad it is to game the sim !

Where is James and the MI6 ? !!

The DB601N was mentioned, so some history......


Timeline:

24.05.1940: GL announces that 1000 DB601N engines are to be produced until 01.01.1940. (??1941)

31.05.1940: Of the 1000 engines, 350 engines have to be considered reserve engines. Thus, only the series production Me 109F can be equipped with the engine. An introduction into Me 110 production at a later date is to be considered.

07.06.1940: New program shows Me 109 and Me 110 equipped with DB601N.

12.07.1940: Generalstab decides that the existing DB601N engines are for now to be installed in the Me 110 exclusively.

19.07.1940: The currently available DB601N engines are required for conversion of the Me 110 in front-line operations. This means an end to further conversions of the Me 109 (of which so far, one group has been converted). The Me 109F series retains the DB601N engine. New-production Me 110 retain the DB601A as before.

26.07.1940: Generalstab opposes further conversions of Me 110 aircraft to DB601N engines except for the groups currently under conversion.

09.08.1940: For the conversion of a total of 3 groups of Me 110 and the already completed conversion of one group Me 109, a monthly total of 70 engines is required for 30 replacement aircraft Me 110, 10 replacement aircraft Me 109. An additional 30 engines are allocated for the reserve engine pool. As currently 280 engines are used in operations, this equates a 10 % reserve.

30.08.1940: It is requested from LC 3 to built a reserve of 45 engines (September), 35 (October), then 30 engines each month until a total of 180 engines is reached.

27.09.1940: Chef Generalstab decided to sustain 4 groups of Me 110 with N engines. 40 of DB601N engines are ear-marked for the reserve pool for these groups. The remaining engines are to go into the reserve pool (1/3) and into Me 109 (2/3).

18.10.1940: It is impossible at the time to convert more than the one existing Bf 109E group to DB601N, and it's not expected to be possible before 01.12.1940. Currently the DB601N engines go to: 1) new production Friedrichs, 2) new production Me 110 to sustain the existing four groups, 3) into 40 new production Emils to sustain the existing one group, 4) into the reserve engine pool for 1 - 3.

26.10.1940: Until the end of October, 1100 - 1200 DB601N engines were delivered. They are installed in the four existing Me 110 groups and the single existing Me 109 group, some reconnaissance aircraft of the Aufklärungsgruppe Ob. d. L., plus 130 reserve engine pool. The rest of the engines went into Me 109F and Me 110 production. The production of DB601N-engined Me 110s is to be channelled into night fighters, for which a constant strength of 120 is demanded.

06.11.1940: Generalstab requests more Me 109 with DB601N-engines. In order to free the required engines, the Generalstab accepts that two month's worth of Me 110 production are delivered with DB601A exclusively (November and December production). The engines thus freed are to go to 1) remaining Bf 109E production, 2) III./ZG 26 Erprb.Gr 210. II./ZG 26 and II./ZG 76 are given low priority or have to swap their engines for DB601A if required.

22.01.1941: The Leitender Chef-Ingenieur has considered the fuel situation and suggest to possibly convert the Me 110 to DB601A engines. The Generalstab lists the operational aircraft with DB601N engine by 01.01.1940 as follows:

Me 109E-1: 16
Me 109E-3: 1
Me 109E-4: 59
Me 109E-6: 1
Me 109E-7: 34
Me 109E-8: 2
Me 109F-1: 5

Me 110C-1: 4
Me 110C-4: 40
Me 110C-5: 12
Me 110C-7: 14
Me 110D-0: 18
Me 110D-2: 20
Me 110D-3: 8
Me 110E-1: 176
Me 110E-2: 14

He 111P: 8
Do 215: 68

(Apparently, the fuel situation made it difficult to keep the DB601N in operation, and at least Me 110 production was ordered to go back to the DB601A predominantly while the DB601N was phased out in favour of the DB601E.)

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...?showtopic=515

Couple of graphs on Lw a/c:

http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/x...er_numbers.jpg

http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/x...er_numbers.jpg

Sollstärke = authorised strength
Iststärke = actual strength
Einsatzbereit = operational

source: Klee

All i'm trying to say is let's have the tools that will allow each one of us to fly according to what they think is correct, or even (heavens, no!) more enjoyable to them.

However, it seems that there's a few people so entrenched in their efforts to make everyone fly "their way" that i'm just wasting my breath :-P

All the charts, combat reports and official documents? Useful and interesting, but they should be moved to the realm of "mission designer's considerations".

In terms of sim design and features, it should support both high and low octane FMs, because we will NEED them in case of dynamic campaigns (some community members are actively engaged in this) coming in the not too distant future.

You know, the kind of campaigns that don't play out exactly like things went back in 1940. The kind of campaigns where a sustained bombing offensive might result in one team not having enough 100 octane fuel. How then will we simulate it, if all we have is 100 octane FMs for each single flyable?

Please, try to think beyond getting that one extra kill on a DF server because "Lolz, i has 100 octane! I'm fast and furious!" and start seeing the big picture :rolleyes:

We need both high and low octane FMs, for both sides.

If you want to 'game the game', go right ahead. :) There was no lack of 100 fuel and if the bases requiring 100 fuel didn't have 100 fuel they wouldn't have 87 fuel either.

100 fuel doesn't do anything for the Hurricane and Spitfire over a certain height.

If historical scenarios are required, then the info is of importance. It is not about getting those extra kills. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I fly red and blue. My kill death ratio is about 5/1. The Spit is easer to dog fight in a 1 on 1 scenario and is good for defense. Its also got excellent visibility, so unless I'm fixated on a target there is no chance of being jumped. The 109 is better as hit and run and flying with a wingman. I find it harder to hit a target and need the extra ammo. The visibility is poor as there is no way to check 6 with out turning. I'll fly any model of 109 as they're almost identical.
Red and blue are well matched once I learned to fly each AC. As for the Spit-2 I avoid it like the plague. It out classes everything. As a blue pilot I'll only engage with advantage and disengage if I failed to damage the Spit on the first pass or if the pilot appears to be a rookie. I will not fly it as I don't like the advantage.

The Spit-2 is a trouble maker.

I'm talking about a dynamic campaign with a supply system, where bombing the enemy's resources has a tangible effect in their ability to fight back. How are you going to work with that if the sim can't simulate aircraft flying with low octane fuel?

If we knew what was correct i'd still say include both variants for this reason and also, for battle of France scenarios.

Even so, it's pretty clear there's no consensus on what was historically correct but each "camp" keeps pushing in the hope that their version of events will be chosen and modeled in the sim. Well, this way the only thing that will happen is having half the people overjoyed and half disappointed, instead of a situation where both could be happy with what they have.

If considerations such as these are your definition of gaming the game then be my guest, we'll agree to disagree. I mean, we can't expect the entire sim to play out exactly like the real thing did down to individual engagements, where would the fun be in that? I'd rather we had the tools to create all possible scenarios, so that we can study different aspects of the actual events.

What if the LW didn't have enough E-4s because they had lost too many early on? What if RAf was short on 100 octane fuel? What if LW kept pounding the airfields, after dropping those radar towers? It's like having your own time machine/history lab right on your desktop and gives an even better appreciation of the real events.

The sim can do such things now that we have scripting (there are community members working on dynamic campaigns that feature supply tracking). It's a shame to miss out on all this because of near-sightedness and it's a bit egoistic to try to deprive others of enjoying such features. I mean, it's like i come out and say "hey, i know my CEM well enough, i suggest CEM can't be disabled because it's gaming the game" :rolleyes:

+1 on 100 octane supplies.

We aren't the only forum to have discussions on this and I found a very interesting post on another forum whch replaces the usual speculation with some documented facts. I'm not going to reproduce them here, you can read them at this forum post.....
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...tml#post542367
and another containing combat reports from as early as May 1940 with many, particularly the Hurricane Squadrons, before the Bob 'started' in July 1940.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...tml#post542707

Like our own forum the Thread contains some vociferous posts against the idea and claims that the BoB was fought largely using 87 octane fuels although the main protagonist doesn't seem to offer contemporary data or reports. The posts in the links do contain such contemporary reports and some reflective reports written only a few years later indicating that Fighter Command was moved to 100 Octane fuel from March 1940, either through field mods or the delivery of new aircraft already converted. Its also unthinkable in the face of imminent attack that, with the 100 octane fuel reserves available, the whole of Fighter Command could not have been supported or would not have been converted. If there had been any division between 87 and 100 octane the aircraft requiring the highest performance would have taken preference and is perhaps why Bomber Command wasn't converted until 1941.


The Thread itself is begun by a poster who also refers to the work of Dr Gavin Bailey which supports the argument that 100 octane was readily available from Britain's own resources by the time of the BoB and not just dependent on US supplies (this is an argument sometimes used to suggest that the RAF couldn't have had the necessary supplies for the BoB). His book is mentioned here...
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...1/394.abstract

Blackdog, you and others, can do your 'what ifs' (I have nothing against them and would be intersting) but the fact is 100 octane was NOT in short supply. Even before the BoB started 8800 tons of 100 fuel was issued in May, 5700 tons in June and 8700 tons in July. Do you know how many gallons that is? (for rough calculation, 300gal per ton or enough to fill the tanks of 3 squadrons of Spitfires per ton)

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

No clear no consensus on what was historically correct? Open your eyes and mind as proofs have been shown. The only negative voices are those that want to castrate the RAF fighters and these voices have been crying the same tune for years.

Yes klem and even back in the day on the Ubi Il-2 board as well.

What is interesting is the main protagonist, who is in denial of the widespread use of 100 fuel during the BoB, put forward very minimal proof for 1.98ata boosted Bf109K-4s. This was only an own typed order, not an original document, which has been modified over time.

Thats a great stat Al Schlageter!

**************

drewpee,

I like the Spit 1s and the 109E1s but, by favorite is any version of Hurri! Stability is the answer. :) When radiators are fixed, CoD will be a whole realistic sim.

The prob with the kind of comment you hve posted Schlag is that you think that history is your and we are the bad guys.

We are not here to CASTRATE ?!:!! the RAF. We love the RAF as much as you seems to do. Just keep in mind that adulation is way out of purpose when it come to deal with history. You need to step down and look at the overall pic you'"ll see that the three is not the forest and things are more complicated.

Anyhow it will be nice if you and alike stop posting this insulting comments. The 1940 RAF does not belong to you no matter how loud you say it over our faces.

Thx in advance

Apparently the "Deutschland über alles" types have their evil twins in the "Britannia rule the waves" types. :roll:

I have to agree with BlackDog - some people don't discuss, they try to run over their discussion partners like a steamroller in order to put their particular idea about history over everyone else. And people wonder why some of us prefer offline? http://board.b1gmail.com/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

I quite like the idea of your what ifs, but i'd rather have the history first, and that means spit mk1a and hurri on 100 octane, as a huge amount of proof has been shown already (only the blind or unwilling dispute).

Then we can have the what ifs.

I know where you can get crying towels at a great discount.

Which is precisely what I was talking about. You want to be taken seriously? Then start acting like a responsible adult capable of serious discussion instead of slinging mud at everyone who's interested in discussion instead of "Because I say so" type statements.

I challenge anyone to produce any source stating that any BofB Hurricane or Spitfire flew even a single combat sortie with 87 octane fuel. This isn't about promoting one side or the other, but is all about historical accuracy.

Abundant evidence has been produced showing that there was more than enough 100 octane fuel available for all front line Fighter Command squadrons, but if 87 octane was used along with 100 octane, then there should be references to it in memoirs, pilot combat reports and historical accounts, and yet no such evidence has ever been produced.

It is time for those who claim that 87 octane was used by front-line RAF FC units during the BofB to produce positive evidence for their claims, or to retract those claims.

Yaaaawn.

After years of trying to dig up everything in the archieve and still not a single paper saying that 100 octane replaced existing 87 octane in all Squadrons/Stations has been found. Not one paper. I'd say it's a sign. We had the same drama about 150 grade fuel years ago.

There's not one paper noting anything the like, and the people who were desperate to find some are extremely careful to only show snippets of the relevant papers. Some has even went as far manipulating the evidence. Time and time again they have been asked to share the fiels publicly, but they refuse, and keep posting the same papers that says selected units have been supplied, and nothing more.

Then it usually takes a bizarre turn, and since they can't prove what they want to be true, and getting frustrated, given the complete absence of supporting evidence, suddenly everyone else has to prove they are wrong.

It always reminds me of this classic scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc

+100 !!!! Seadog

Must be fun, registering several handles just to reply to yourself on a discussion board. :D

LOL BarbI. All you produced was your typed words (changed multiple times) for 1.98ata for the Bf109K-4. The rest of your proofs are just fanciful speculation. What has been shown for 100 fuel is more than enough proof that 11 Group and the bordering units in 10 and 12 Groups were using 100 fuel using your criteria of proof for 1.98ata.

Stop judging other people by your own actions.

Relevance?

Very interesting links Klem, wanted to say thanks for posting them

I am not asking for evidence that 100 octane replaced 87 octane in all front line fighter squadrons, instead, all I am asking is for evidence that even a single combat sortie was ever made by RAF FC Spitfires or Hurricanes using 87 octane during the BofB.

Abundant evidence exists for hundred octane fuel use by RAF FC, during operational sorties, but none has ever been produced showing 87 octane use by a single front line BofB RAF FC Spitfire or Hurricane sortie.

Kurfurst, it is time for you to put up or shut up.