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

[madrebel]

i'm saying 1/4 use doesn't justify making all spits and hurris run at 9lbs of boost especially with no specifics. how much of that high grade fuel was used by PR spitfires? how much if any was used by bomber command? how much was used in hurricanes? how much in spits?

i dont have a number for 601N equipped 109s. i know is they first started showing up in late september in Es iirc with a handful of F1s showing up in october/november. all the Fs had 601ns.

the argument is just as valid as the raf argument. the significant majority of raf flights used 87 octane same as the germans. if you're going to give a minority fit for the raf give it to the germans too.

[IvanK]

"all i'm saying is if there is 100 octane gifted to the brits i want C3 fuel in my E3(4/7)/N as i can dig up as much evidence that it was in fact used by some JGs as anyone has shown me for the RaF. "

Ok start digging and put it up here so we can all learn and benefit.

[winny]

It's my understanding that a conversion was needed to the engine to enable it to run on 100 octane. They even painted little '100' s on the engine cowling so that 87 wasn't put in by mistake. By May 1940 all Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant Sqaudrons had been converted.

Here's what Jeffrey Quill said about 100 octane.

"It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb."

Have no idea what this means for CoD though..

[MACADEMIC]

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.

At least the MKI seems to get pretty close. 260 mph IAS @18500 = 353 mph TAS. http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html

MAC

[Biggs]

Originally Posted by MACADEMIC

At least the MKI seems to get pretty close. 260 mph IAS @18500 = 353 mph TAS. http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html

MAC

yeah well I went back and tried to recreate those results again at 18,400ft... could only get the mkI up to just a hair over 245 IAS and the mkIa only 240 IAS at 18,500ft.

all my tests Ive been running have been at full boost (gate pushed forward) and at full coarse pitch. The boost drops from +6.5lb to +4.5lbs at altitude. I fly with CEM on and the overheat option off.

it seems like the planes are a bit too slow.. but their boost levels are too low as well so that seems to have something to do with it.

they should all be around 270- 275 IAS at that alt.

Im gonna keep testing too see if its not "pilot error"

[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.

[JG14_Jagr]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

A quarter of all RAF fuel consumption and the capability of every fighter to use this fuel adds up to a lot of fighter sorties. I'm not suggesting it be a blanket application, but it certainly ought to be an option.

For now, model the basics, the most common lunch pail aircraft that were the yeoman.. we can model the 15th variation that had 4 produced and saw service for 3 hours before the battle officially ended later..

Everyone always starts screaming because they want the highest performing variant and every advantage.. The game is 72 hours old and there are many more issues to deal with before this becomes the priority.. at this point we don't even have accurate means to analyse the data and speeds.. going by Altimeters and Speedometers that are nothing more than a graphical portion of a GUI isn't wise..

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by JG14_Jagr

For now, model the basics, the most common lunch pail aircraft that were the yeoman.. we can model the 15th variation that had 4 produced and saw service for 3 hours before the battle officially ended later..

Oh, I give up if that's the sense of proportion that people have. Apparently just over a quarter of all RAF fuel consumption being 100 octane from July-August (which means Fighter Command 10, 11, 12 and 13 Groups, all of Bomber Command and all of Coastal Command) no longer even leads to the conservative conclusion that the approximately 20 squadrons at a time stationed in 11 Group Fighter Command stations used it *at least*. Not like that's important since they're the stations that nearly all of the missions shipped with the game are concerned with of course.

Probably bombers and the handful of PRU Spitfires used it all. That would be totally logical during the defense against a large-scale bombing campaign. Oh, hell, in fact they probably filled up Sunderlands with it. Also, apparently widespread usage = the 15th variation that had 4 produced and saw service for 3 hours before the battle officially ended later.

I'm already confused enough about why we don't have a 109 E-1 and E-4, and why the 110C-4 doesn't use the FF/M, and why certain RAF aircraft that should don't appear to have CSUs, at the moment we basically have a Battle of France simulator without the fixed wooden props on some RAF aircraft, but now people are getting weird about something that should definitely be modelled in RAF aircraft in exactly the same way as any of the other features above.

[Reaper leader]

Tuck claimed he used +12 LBS as early as in May over Dunkirk !

They are biasing out the game again, twisting history to make this a game and not a sim, sad !

Regards

[DC338]

Lets look at consumption: 10,000 tons of 100 octane spirit used per month in june and august.

10,000 tons = 10,160,000 Kilograms of Spirit due imperial tons.

Hawker Hurricane fuel Capacity 441 L = Approx 320 kg of fuel (SG of 0.72) I used the hurri becasue it carries 60L more than Spitfire.

So 10,000 tons of would provide 31750 full tanks of fuel for a hurricane. That would account for 1040 full tanks per day for hurricane for the 61 days of june and august. Make your own mind up if it is enough. I think it is enough to provide all front line fighter squadrons involved with 100 octane.