109 e3b against spitfire II

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Fighter pilot don't give a damn about octane ratings except to get more power. One way to get more power (at least on the Merlin) is to run the engine on a higher octane fuel and increase the boost pressure....

Its not true. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. DB 601 A-1, DB 601 Aa, DB 601 N, later DB 601 E (for F), DB 605 engine family (for G-K). All were stronger than the previous type, without it that they would use the 100 octane C3 fuel instead of the 87 octane B4 ones. Of course, if they use C3 fuel, MW30, MW50, or GM1 system, the strength of the engine is growing rather yet. But purely visible, that it is possible to make stronger engine, using the same fuel (B4):

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Yes there is a primary source that refutes the secondary source you posted, Seadog.

The seventh conference on 18 May 1940 clearly states that certain units in Fighter Command will make the switch.

and the accepted dates for the BofB are July 10 to Oct 30, 1940.

[Crumpp]

Seadog,

18 May 1940 is only 6 weeks from the start of the Battle of Britain.

The language in that primary source document refers to "certain units" and not "ALL" units.

Very importance difference.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Seadog,

18 May 1940 is only 6 weeks from the start of the Battle of Britain.

The language in that primary source document refers to "certain units" and not "ALL" units.

Very importance difference.

The German Army defeated France in 6 weeks...6 weeks is a long time.

RAFFC had many units which did not require 100 octane, such as OTU and a few squadrons of Gladiators. In any event, again all the evidence points to RAFFC operational Merlin engined squadrons using 100% 100 octane. There isn't a single source that states that an operational Merlin engined fighter squadron was using anything else.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Asking for more power is exactly the same as asking for higher octane fuel. ( I didn't have to wait long for the "we don't need no stinking 100 octane fuel" claims from the Lufters... )

No it's not. An engine of a sufficiently bigger displacement running "normal" fuel with the appropriate boost values will still outperform an engine with a lower displacement. If they have similar displacement a smaller engine running 100 octane could reach or even surpass the HP of a bigger one running 87 octane, but a sufficiently bigger displacement would ensure superior performance even when running fuel of a lesser octane rating.

And that's without even taking into account other things like supercharger design and gearing and propeller design, things which affect not only the powerband of the engine but also the appropriate altitudes where the extra power can be better used.

What i'm trying to say is that asking for engines with more HP can mean a combination of many different things. When you are discounting them all and pretend its only the octane rating that matters you are just simplifying for the sake of pushing a personal viewpoint without having to come up with the supporting proof: "they asked for more power, so they should surely mean a better octane rating".

I'm all for Spits and Hurricanes getting their 100 octane and constant speed prop variants. Keep the current ones for battle of France scenarios (i mean we already have much of the map so why lose the ability to create such missions) and let's also add the proper battle of Britain variants.

I'm also in favor of having a 50% chance (or whatever the appropriate percentage was) of spawning with DB601N engines on your 110, which you make absolutely no mention off in any of your arguments. I've given you the benefit of doubt until now but you're gradually exhausting that reserve.

No offence meant and i'm not saying you're just pushing for a gameplay advantage for your favorite ride because i'm not the kind of fool that will pretend to know what's in another person's mind. What i'm saying is that you sure sound like that more and more as time goes by, i just don't have a way to confirm it, which makes me averse to getting convinced out of a matter of principle. I guess this goes for many others as well.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

1)What i'm trying to say is that asking for engines with more HP can mean a combination of many different things. When you are discounting them all and pretend its only the octane rating that matters you are just simplifying for the sake of pushing a personal viewpoint without having to come up with the supporting proof: "they asked for more power, so they should surely mean a better octane rating".

I'm all for Spits and Hurricanes getting their 100 octane and constant speed prop variants. Keep the current ones for battle of France scenarios (i mean we already have much of the map so why lose the ability to create such missions) and let's also add the proper battle of Britain variants.

2)I'm also in favor of having a 50% chance (or whatever the appropriate percentage was) of spawning with DB601N engines on your 110, which you make absolutely no mention off in any of your arguments. I've given you the benefit of doubt until now but you're gradually exhausting that reserve.

3)No offence meant and i'm not saying you're just pushing for a gameplay advantage for your favorite ride because i'm not the kind of fool that will pretend to know what's in another person's mind. What i'm saying is that you sure sound like that more and more as time goes by, i just don't have a way to confirm it, which makes me averse to getting convinced out of a matter of principle. I guess this goes for many others as well.

1) Again, pilots wanted more power. In the Merlin III, 30% more power was available through a simple mod, that could be done in an afternoon using fuel that was readily available. RAF pilots had been aware of this for several years, and they got a full transition to 100 octane prior to the BofB, indeed many France based Hurricane squadrons used it during the BofF. I don't and haven't discounted other options, but raising displacement, for example, invariably means greater weight and greater frontal area, something that pilots don't want.

2) see my post #71:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...1&postcount=71
By all means, include all historical engine and aircraft variants.

3) No, I am pushing for a game that sims RL. In RL Merlin III aircraft have access to much higher power at low altitude. At high altitude these advantages dwindle and the Me109 has many advantages, and this will force the Me109 pilots to fly as per RL, IE, stay high, and fight in the vertical. Dogfighting Hurricanes at low altitude is not a great idea. The RAFFC made a rapid transition to 100 octane engines and CS props and it was a much tougher proposition than the Luftwaffe had been led to believe, but thats how it was.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Seadog

I don't and haven't discounted other options, but raising displacement, for example, invariably means greater weight and greater frontal area, something that pilots don't want.

Compared to that theory, German DB 601 was same size as weight as single stage Merlin, 605 actually lighter then two staged Merlin, while the French 35-liter class Hispano Suize V12s were considerably lighter than both.

The only practical way a smaller displacement engine can keep up with larger ones is by heavy supercharging, but that does not comes free, superchargers and their systems add weight, and so does decreasing fuel effiency: more fuel need to be carried for same range.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Compared to that theory, German DB 601 was same size as weight as single stage Merlin, 605 actually lighter then two staged Merlin, while the French 35-liter class Hispano Suize V12s were considerably lighter than both.

The only practical way a smaller displacement engine can keep up with larger ones is by heavy supercharging, but that does not comes free, superchargers and their systems add weight, and so does decreasing fuel effiency: more fuel need to be carried for same range.

They are similar, but the Merlin is a bit lighter:


from Flight, April 16 1942.
The net dry weight of the DB601N is stated in the article to be 1400lbs, but OTOH, Merlin engines were being run at much higher boost pressures when this article was written and thus greater power.

A Merlin III/XII/45 net dry weight = 1375/1420/1385lb

The article states that the DB601N had greater frontal area:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200807.html
and an article on the Merlin XX:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200449.html

[Crumpp]

Check the math on that document....

1430lbs / 1175hp = 1.21 lb/hp not 1.13lb/hp....

The Merlin has the same power to weight at the DB601.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Check the math on that document....

1430lbs / 1175hp = 1.21 lb/hp not 1.13lb/hp....

The Merlin has the same power to weight at the DB601.

It actually states 1450 lbs but also 1240hp at 2850rpm @ 10,000ft (two values given for the Merlin XX)

However, the DB601N power is WEP. The equivalent figure for a Merlin XX would be 1485hp at 14lb/3000rpm @ 6000ft and 1490hp at 16lb/3000rpm @ 12500 ft and 1280hp at 3000rpm/12lb @ TO, at least in 1942 but the TO figure is applicable to 1940 as well.