SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by IvanK

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

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.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by IvanK

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

It is not version with Db601N engine?

[Faustnik]

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)

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Faustnik

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......

[Blackdog_kt]

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).

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Faustnik

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

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.

[Faustnik]

Originally Posted by Osprey

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.

[Osprey]

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?

[Osprey]

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.

[CaptainDoggles]

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.