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

[winny]

Originally Posted by Glider

Its interesting as I see the supply as being the key issue. If the RAF had a shortage of supply then there is logic in limiting the roll out and concentrating the supplies where you need them most say 11 and 12 group. However if there isn't a shortage, then there is no logic in limiting the numbers.

The changes to the engine were small and could easily been doe on the stations, yet the performance gain was very significant. So it isn't a technical or manufacture issue, its down to supply.

Without a shortage of fuel there is no logic to holding the supplies back. Indeed this is probably the one thing that I agree with re Pips posting, its centred on supply. I just disagree with his assumption that there was a shortage.

I agree that it was a crucial point at the time.
I just think it's being used to hide behind. The records are vague and it's the point Kur keeps coming back to.

All the other forums threads seem to get stuck at the supply issue.

So, let's by-pass it and go to evidence of 100 octane use in battle. Easier to prove.

Unless someone finds the 'holy grail' doccument regarding supply/conversion this supply debate is just going to keep looping around.


It's interesting to note that all of the early doccuments say that the conversion would not happen till they had enough supplies.
There is no doubt the conversion started before The BoB, so logically someone must have decided that there was enough 100 octane or they wouldn't have done it.

I still think Squadron operations log books and combat reports are the key to this one.

We don't need to prove that the conversion happened, because it did.
We don't need to prove that the stocks of 100 octane were adequate, because someone made the decision at the time that there was enough, or the conversion wouldn't have happened.

We just need to prove widespread use in combat. That's what it's all about.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Glider

Its interesting that Pips and Kurfurst believe that the number was 25% of FC and 125 aircraft in May

I have 10 Hurricane squadrons and 3 Spitfire squadrons with combat reports in May alone.

Hurricane 85, 1, 73, 79, 87, 151, 56, 17, 229 and 245 squadrons
Spitfire, 74, 54 and 19 squadrons

Links
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

It's getting better
10 squadrons in May is equal to a third of the operational FC fighter (Hurri/Spit) squadrons at the time. I'll have a look and see what stations they were all flying out of.

I made some brief enquiries at the national archive, they have over 1600 combat reports from the BoB. The answer to this must be in them, given that RAF pilots HAD to report any 12lb boost usage it would be pretty easy to see when and where the conversions happened.

I'm seriosly considering hiring a researcher at the archive to dig them out...

EDIT: I've also decided to get in touch with Rolls Royce at Derby to see if they have anything on wether or not a converted 100oct Merlin would run on 87 oct. The reason is that a lot of Squadrons used 2 stations. One where they stayed overnight and a forward base. If the conversion meant that a merlin wouldn't run on 87 then that would mean both stations would have to have had 100 oct, meaning more stations, more fuel, etc..

[ZaltysZ]

As talks begin to wander towards personals things, I want to point out one thing. This thread was created for discussions about inaccuracies between FM and RL data, however later it took the course of debating if planes present in game are suitable for BoB period.

Although Kurfurst doesn't agree that all Spitfires MK.I were on 100 octane, I think he won't disagree that Spitfire MK.I on 100 octane were not such rare and exotic breed (ala I-185, Mig-3U and so on), which would not be worth to be modeled. I think both sides would agree that we need 2 additional Spitfire MK.I models: CSP and CSP+100 octane. This is what is required from devs now. Everything else (debates about how much 100 octane were available) would be more helpful for mission designers and not to devs (somehow I don't think they would invest much time correcting campaigns).

[winny]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

As talks begin to wander towards personals things, I want to point out one thing. This thread was created for discussions about inaccuracies between FM and RL data, however later it took the course of debating if planes present in game are suitable for BoB period.

Although Kurfurst doesn't agree that all Spitfires MK.I were on 100 octane, I think he won't disagree that Spitfire MK.I on 100 octane were not such rare and exotic breed (ala I-185, Mig-3U and so on), which would not be worth to be modeled. I think both sides would agree that we need 2 additional Spitfire MK.I models: CSP and CSP+100 octane. This is what is required from devs now. Everything else (debates about how much 100 octane were available) would be more helpful for mission designers and not to devs (somehow I don't think they would invest much time correcting campaigns).

You're right, and personally I think that the Devs won't include the 100 octane Spit untill they've included the 109-F, simply for balance.
There would be too much flak.

I doubt if this discussion will sway them, they have their own ideas I'm sure.

This is really about ending the whole 'it shouldn't be there because...' argument. I think it's relevant and I aslo find it interesting (that's because I've nothing better to do )

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

You're right, and personally I think that the Devs won't include the 100 octane Spit untill they've included the 109-F, simply for balance.
There would be too much flak.

I doubt if this discussion will sway them, they have their own ideas I'm sure.

This is really about ending the whole 'it shouldn't be there because...' argument. I think it's relevant and I aslo find it interesting (that's because I've nothing better to do )

I might regret this but why on earth would they include the 109F? I believe that around a half dozen were sent to the front as a trial. You might as well say can we have Spit II with 20mm

[winny]

Originally Posted by Glider

I might regret this but why on earth would they include the 109F? I believe that around a half dozen were sent to the front as a trial. You might as well say can we have Spit II with 20mm

Because it's going to start to move forwards, I seem to recall the Devs saying that a 109-F was in the pipeline.

I'm looking from the MP side of things here, not the BoB. There will be more flyables, but it's a game, and developers balance games.

Maybe the 100 oct Mk I is so much better than a 109-E that they had to leave it out. , people have already complained that the Spit is too good, imagine what it would be like if the 100 oct was in there.. Mutiny

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by winny

You're right, and personally I think that the Devs won't include the 100 octane Spit untill they've included the 109-F, simply for balance.
There would be too much flak.

I doubt if this discussion will sway them, they have their own ideas I'm sure.

This is really about ending the whole 'it shouldn't be there because...' argument. I think it's relevant and I aslo find it interesting (that's because I've nothing better to do )

I think, if the balance would be the purpose, would be before E-4/N, E-7/N (these fit this period historically, no need new 3d modell), than F. Who flies on a German side, it does not understand it, why they are not those developments, with what the German aircrafts were equipped already under the BOB? Is this Balance too?

[Sven]

I thought the ingame variant was already 100 octane performance wise, but only the dial indicates a too low value of boost. Or did I miss something again?

[Al Schlageter]

As Barbi puts much much stock in what Oliver Lefebvre says, this is what he said on the DB601N engines:

Wastel are you sure about the E-7/N for 41 ? AFAIR my delivery data show a much lower amount of E-7 with the DB601N. While the E-7 was planned for use with the DB601N, the installation of this engien was quite troublesome on the Emil and few were actually fitted with it.

I'll try to come up with my numbers if the documents have not already been packed away...

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...=515&hl=db601n

[csThor]

With the Bf 109 E you can't really take delivery numbers for the DB 601N engined crates. Most of them were re-engined after some time (even some E-1s).