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

[Biggs]

From my own testing of the Spitfires, my only issues are with the mkI variants in the game...

after repeated tries I was only able to reach the top speeds (@18500ft) of:
260 IAS with the mkI
220 IAS with the mkIa

they should both be at or around the 365 TAS mark (its a few MPH higher or lower depending on the plane, prop,engine II or II and fuel octane 87 or 100)

Also the mkIa (which should be using a DH 5/29 or 5/30 bracket CSP) should have a better rate of climb than the mkI which used the older 2-pitch De Havilland prop.

[Blue Scorpion]

Originally Posted by Biggs

From my own testing of the Spitfires, my only issues are with the mkI variants in the game...

after repeated tries I was only able to reach the top speeds (@18500ft) of:
260 IAS with the mkI
220 IAS with the mkIa

they should both be at or around the 365 TAS mark (its a few MPH higher or lower depending on the plane, prop,engine II or II and fuel octane 87 or 100)

Also the mkIa (which should be using a DH 5/29 or 5/30 bracket CSP) should have a better rate of climb than the mkI which used the older 2-pitch De Havilland prop.

I was going to post my own conclusions, which are based on similar data from www.spitfireperformance.com that the spitfire as modelled in COD is considerably underpowered, and that turn rate for the Hurri appears off too.Sadly, an overzealous mod banned my account while I was in the process of typing a lengthy post on the subject and it disappeared into the ether when I hit submit.

Britain and the Commonwealth pilots at the Battle of Britain as seriously outnumbered as they were, 640 fighters facing 2600 Luftwaffe aircraft, where able to do what they did because of the relative performance of the machines involved, access to 100-octane fuel, combined with the advantage proffered by radar. Failure to portray the difference in performance is a huge disservice to everyone that was involved during that conflict regardless of the side they served.

As another poster pointed out, this has nothing to do with hating anyone; it is about accurate portrayal of the subject, THE single most important factor for any title that calls its self a simulation.

[fireship4]

I don't like to respond to a post and contribute to overall bickering (when it is better to stay on subject), but:

If I were a game developer, I would never cater to this segment of the playerbase.

If you were a sim developer? Or if you were a developer in general? If you mean the former then it doesn't really make sense as that is what a simulator is about (normally), and the playerbase of a simulator often has a large proportion of people who want it to reflect reality.

I think people shouldn't be complaining when people dispute facts and figures here (especially when backed up), for a lot of people it is very important.

[sod16]

Originally Posted by Tanner

This crap is so tiresome. If I were a game developer, I would never cater to this segment of the playerbase. My advice? If you can find a better WWII Combat Flight Sim, go play it; otherwise, shut up and be happy that you have anything to play at all.

You seem to misunderstand the gaming industry as a entity.
They work for US, not the other way round. We pay them to create a video game. If they do not put what WE want then they do not get PAID. These people are allowed to complain no matter how unneeded it is. They will eventually read it all.

If there was a better WW2 combat sim, then MADDOX games would lose money if they where not an*l about the realism.

When I become a game developer, I will listen to EVERY fan I have. Things only get better when you listen.

[madrebel]

ive never seen anyone deffinitively prove when and how many spitfire quadrons were operational with 100 octane fuel. sure it was there and used but when was it first introduced and how many squadrons used it?

further, the brits weren't the only ones with better fuel. 109s and 110s both were using C3 about halfway through as well. anything with a /N suffix was using C3 and 2700RPMs for 5 minute WEP.

oh and the spitfires didnt have variable flaps.

[IvanK]

Go and look in WWII aircraft performance.com and Spitfire Testing.com. There are heaps of documents on 100 Octane fuel and when it was in service etc. In short during BOB all operational fighters were running 100 octane fuel.

Seek and ye shall find.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by IvanK

In short during BOB all operational fighters were running 100 octane fuel.

Seek and ye shall find.

Frankly this was discussed a zillion times, but despite years of research, there's still no positive evidence that 'all operational fighters' were running on 100 octane. It simply appears to be wishful thinking from a few fanatic fans of the aircraft. WWII aircraft performance.com does list a large number of papers, unfortunately none of them state that all fighters are to or currently using 100 octane fuel. There's no doubt that a signficant number of Spitfires and Hurricanes were running on this fuel, this has been known since the 1960s, so nothing new here, but as to how many, or what percentage, nobody so far can tell for a fact.

The issue is further clouded by the fact that fighter stations (around 50 or so were used during the Battle), and not fighter units were supplied physically with fuel drums.. and the fighter units tended to change their bases every now and then, to be replaced by an another unit. If say, Squadron A, flying from Station X (which had 100 octane present), transferred to Station Z (which did not have 100 octane present but regular 87 octane) and its place was taken by Squadron B in mid-August which until then was flying from Station Z, then you would have Combat Reports from both Squadron A and B using 100 octane, but the reality was that one of them used it in the first half of the month, and the other during the second half of the month..

The closest evidence is a 18th May meeting record, which is still far off from that, as it states farily clearly that the changeover effected select units.

The paper - Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee, 7th meeting memo - says (direct quote):

"... satisfaction was expressed at the fact that the Units concerned had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel"

There's a reason why the articles you refer to tend to be dismissed - there seem to be always a case of subtle manipulation of the original papers. Take example the reference to this same meeting mentioned above at the wwiiaircraftperformance.org site, which interprets it as the following:

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel".

Note how this reference to "the Units concerned" suddenly becomes "Spitfire and Hurricane units" in the text of the article; the original suggest that an unknown number (perhaps few, perhaps many), but definietely not all (otherwise why the distinction, if ALL units would be concerned?)

Unfortunately, the wwiiaircraftperformance.org article suddenly goes silent after what has happened after 18 May 1940. That's is unfortunate, because I saw the authors of said article discussing the same subject with an Australian researcher, who has informed them of the following at butch2k's board:

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

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

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

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

Given that large quantities were not available until late August, the volume of usage/week of 87 Octane must be far higher than that quoted for 100 Octane. So to put things into perspective that why I asked for a comparison.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Frankly this was discussed a zillion times, but despite years of research, there's still no positive evidence that 'all operational fighters' were running on 100 octane. It simply appears to be wishful thinking from a few fanatic fans of the aircraft. WWII aircraft performance.com does list a large number of papers, unfortunately none of them state that all fighters are to or currently using 100 octane fuel. There's no doubt that a signficant number of Spitfires and Hurricanes were running on this fuel, this has been known since the 1960s, so nothing new here, but as to how many, or what percentage, nobody so far can tell for a fact.

The issue is further clouded by the fact that fighter stations (around 50 or so were used during the Battle), and not fighter units were supplied physically with fuel drums.. and the fighter units tended to change their bases every now and then, to be replaced by an another unit. If say, Squadron A, flying from Station X (which had 100 octane present), transferred to Station Z (which did not have 100 octane present but regular 87 octane) and its place was taken by Squadron B in mid-August which until then was flying from Station Z, then you would have Combat Reports from both Squadron A and B using 100 octane, but the reality was that one of them used it in the first half of the month, and the other during the second half of the month..

The closest evidence is a 18th May meeting record, which is still far off from that, as it states farily clearly that the changeover effected select units.

The paper - Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee, 7th meeting memo - says (direct quote):

"... satisfaction was expressed at the fact that the Units concerned had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel"

There's a reason why the articles you refer to tend to be dismissed - there seem to be always a case of subtle manipulation of the original papers. Take example the reference to this same meeting mentioned above at the wwiiaircraftperformance.org site, which interprets it as the following:

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel".

Note how this reference to "the Units concerned" suddenly becomes "Spitfire and Hurricane units" in the text of the article; the original suggest that an unknown number (perhaps few, perhaps many), but definietely not all (otherwise why the distinction, if ALL units would be concerned?)

Unfortunately, the wwiiaircraftperformance.org article suddenly goes silent after what has happened after 18 May 1940. That's is unfortunate, because I saw the authors of said article discussing the same subject with an Australian researcher, who has informed them of the following at butch2k's board:

This has all been dealt with on another board in great detail with published authors weighing in with their facts, and you Kurfurst were banned on those boards for putting forward false information and refusing to back up your claims with actual documents and data.

You have no credibility in any kind of educated community, your opinions on this issue have been discredited completely.

All the original documents and accounts clearly point to the fact the RAF Fighter force during the Battle of Britain were converted to use of 100 octane fuel in all Fighter Stations in Groups 10, 11 and 12.

Your attempts to claim 100 Octane was not available was competely proven false in the two threads on the WWII aircraft forums.

The main poster in the threads who deals with every point at the beginning of the two threads, 'Glider' is the nickname of Gavin Bailey, a published author, who has written in detail on the subject, an article of his was published in the THE ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW, a well respected journal which only accepts papers and articles from those with impeccable credentials. Article is here:

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...1/394.abstract

Mike Williams, who manages the WWII Aircraft site, was also a participant in the thread.

Here are the links to the two threads, if members of this board take the time to read through them the conclusion is obvious.

#1

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...bob-16305.html

#2

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html


Why you Kurfurst, continue to put forward your clearly false claims is a mystery to those who have studied this issue in depth.

[JG14_Jagr]

Originally Posted by Blue Scorpion

Britain and the Commonwealth pilots at the Battle of Britain as seriously outnumbered as they were, 640 fighters facing 2600 Luftwaffe aircraft, where able to do what they did because of the relative performance of the machines involved, access to 100-octane fuel, combined with the advantage proffered by radar. Failure to portray the difference in performance is a huge disservice to everyone that was involved during that conflict regardless of the side they served.

Lets keep everything within the bounds of reality.. 2600 is the total LW airfleet deployed for the BoB. If you want to play with numbers, 600 Hurricanes and 357 Spitfires were lost... the Lw lost 533 109's.. so obviously the 109 is 2X as good right????

The relative performance of the Spitfire and 109E were more or less comparable. Neither had a decisive advantage that was enough to overcome engagement circumstances or pilot skill. Each had strong and weak points they would try to exploit.. Saying that because the RAF planes should be modelled to perform better because they won is ludicrous.

Model the planes as accurately as possible based on the data. Leave the anecdotal analysis out of the picture entirely. The circumstances of the combat had a FAR greater effect on the fighter on fighter combat than the relative performance.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Blue Scorpion

I
Britain and the Commonwealth pilots at the Battle of Britain as seriously outnumbered as they were, 640 fighters facing 2600 Luftwaffe aircraft, where able to do what they did because of the relative performance of the machines involved, access to 100-octane fuel, combined with the advantage proffered by radar. Failure to portray the difference in performance is a huge disservice to everyone that was involved during that conflict regardless of the side they served.

This is totally BS. I can't believe to hve to read this.

The fact that two third of the Vics were scored by courageous pilots tht had to fight in the inferior Hurri prove this fact. Britain wons due to it's superior Strategical & tactical thinking, inspired personnels, luck (?) and the poor level of strategical thinking of the opposing Nazi leaders. In other word Britain in 1940 put the demonstration that a Democratic regime with some rationalized organisation could defeat the most militarized regime the world had ever seen.

This are facts written with gold and bloods in the history pages

I suggest you to read HurriVs109 a rather complete collection of Pilots account during BoB with fear, the lack of sleep, the chattering lead and the horrifics agonies of pilots roasted alive and the tiny cans of their aluminium cockpit. Those men deserve more respect than you silly phrasing suggesting that it was a piece of cake.

If you are lazy enough for not re-enacting the BoB in the way it was, there is some lower settings available for you.