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

[Seadog]

We're still waiting for proof that even one RAFFC Merlin engined fighter squadron used 87 octane operationally during the BofB.

[winny]

Don't get me wrong, I get annoyed by Kurfurst, sometimes very annoyed.

Deflection is an art form, Kurfurst's a master.

There are forums all over the place with threads about this subject and Kurfurst is present in all of them.

The subject gets bogged down in the supply issue, it's a red herring.

The whole argument seems to hinge on the 'select or certain stations'
There is no definite definition of certain stations so again it's a red herring.

If the question is 'Were the RAF using 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain' the answer is a definite yes. It's just how many.

To go back to the 1938 doccument, written at a time when Britain were in the process of rearmament, not war, is another deflection.

To say that that doccument is relevant to a battle that took place 2 years later, under a different government is wrong. Unless a doccument is post the invasion of Poland then its frankly irrelevant.

Nobody expected the war to start in 39. Most were gearing up for 42.

I can prove to anyone that up to 30 squadrons used 100 octane during The battle.
At the very least 4 at dunkirk
At the very least another 6 in June. That's 30% of the total number of FC sqns at the time (around 330 operational Hurricanes and Spitfires).

Kurfurst has never quantified his argument. No numbers for squadrons.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by winny

I can prove to anyone that up to 30 squadrons used 100 octane during The battle.
At the very least 4 at dunkirk
At the very least another 6 in June. That's 30% of the total number of FC sqns at the time (around 330 operational Hurricanes and Spitfires).

Kurfurst has never quantified his argument. No numbers for squadrons.

RAFFC had 34 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on July 08 with 6 Blenheim and 2 Defiant squadrons, and 61 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on Nov 03, with 6 Blenheim and 3 Defiant squadrons. So 30 (I assume you mean Hurricane/Spitfire) represents from ~90 to ~50% of all operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Seadog

RAFFC had 34 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on July 08 with 6 Blenheim and 2 Defiant squadrons, and 61 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on Nov 03, with 6 Blenheim and 3 Defiant squadrons. So 30 (I assume you mean Hurricane/Spitfire) represents from ~90 to ~50% of all operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons.

I did mean Hurri/Spit and I was using the 4 + 6 = 10 Squadrons by June.
Or a third of the Hurri/Spit squadrons at the time.

I'm starting with a low number. It's a definite which is more than I've seen for the other side of the argument.

I've found combat reports that back this up, and as Pilots had to record use of 12lb I think there must be more.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

I did mean Hurri/Spit and I was using the 4 + 6 = 10 Squadrons by June.
Or a third of the Hurri/Spit squadrons at the time.

I'm starting with a low number. It's a definite which is more than I've seen for the other side of the argument.

I've found combat reports that back this up, and as Pilots had to record use of 12lb I think there must be more.

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

[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..

[Viper2000]

Originally Posted by winny

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..

They would probably thank you to include their hyphen.

AFAIK there would be no problem associated with running a Merlin on 87 octane post conversion provided that the appropriate boost limits were respected.

However, just filling up with 100 octane afterwards doesn't then cut the mustard as you'd have to clean the fuel system out. Otherwise you'd be running on a mixture which might be say 95 octane, potentially causing trouble at +12.

Therefore, I don't think people would make a habit of switching from one grade to another.

[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 )

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

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).

Absolutely agree with the above. There's no doubt a significant number - how many, we do not know - Mark Is and IIs, and Hurricanes were running on 100 octane with the associated boost levels. There's a need for a Spitfire MK.I with CSP and CSP+100 as you say. Mission designers and server admins will then decide which will be used based on the evidence found on whether the home station was historically supplied with the fuel or not.
In contrast Glider's position is that the basic Spitfire MK.I with CSP should be not modelled at all, so that nobody would have choice to make up his mind wheater 100 octane was in universal use or not. Glider himself will have the right to make that decision instead of them and the developers.

I doubt it is about balance; after all, we have the Mark II which is already running on 100 octane and with a performance that is virtually identical to Mark Is with 100 octane. The problem is the FM has simulation-wide issues, and presently the 109E are not runing at historical performance levels. I do not think a 109F is needed for "balance", after all the basic 109E with 601A had very similiar performance as the 100 octane RAF birds, and we do not even have 601N powered Emils or similar 110 Ceasars.

Overall, however, I do not think this thread warrants more discussion on the subject, as the current evidence level is simply lacking. We will see if Glider or others can shed light on the issue based on hard evidence in the archives. Otherwise, its just neverending talk, talk, talk..