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

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Bounder!

You made broad statements claiming principally that 100 Octane fuel was not used by RAF fighter command during the Battle of Britain and to do this you used the article in Flight and listed quotes to support your argument. No where in that document is this stated at all i.e hat 100 Octane fuel was not used during BoB.

If it was not used no one will tell that it has not seen any use... C'mon ! DO you see flying car in the street ? What would you think if someone will tell you 70 years latter that car were flying as there is no proof of the contrary and that no one at the time as wrote that cars were not flying (for the future generations : I AM WRITING THIS IN THE EARLY 2012 AND CAN TESTIFY THAT NO CARS ARE FLYING AT THIS STAGE !) ?

humm remind me a movie with some monkeys, Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt

Originally Posted by Bounder!

The article covers the start of Royals Royce and goes on to discuss the development of the Merlin engine. What I gather from your posts is that you are basing your argument that, when the Merlin II and III engines where first tested they used 87 Octane fuel, I have no problem with that. You are then saying that when the Merlin XX engine was introduced later in 1941 it ran on 100 Octane fuel, again I have no problem with that.

I didn't say that - I said that the article write that once used with 100oct MkXX had a boost level of 9lb (what is confirmed by some source alrdy posted). Pls re-read the article

Originally Posted by Bounder!

The problem I have with your argument is that it assumes Merin II or III engines could not or were not be modified to run on 100 Octane fuel – this is not stated in the article and is contrary to all the evidence posted in this thread and historical accounts showing that Spitfires and Hurricanes were converted to 100 Octane fuel before the Battle of Britain.

If it was the case, RR would have asked this to be included in that article and FLIGHT would have been proud to put that fact in their story.

Originally Posted by Bounder!

But if we can only have one variant per model, then it should in my opinion be the 100 Octane variant since all the evidence supports 100 Octane fuel use in BoB.

That's an adventurous conclusion !

If they didn't make any mention of such "conversions" it's not because they wanted to hide it to the future WWII simmer of the early 21st century but perhaps because there was no such usage.

In the Au archive we have alrdy seen that 100 octane fuel was used to be blended with old stock of 74 octane fuel to produce 87, 90 or even 95 octane fuel.

Last but not least, when used in the MkVIII engine, the 100 octane fuel was not producing tremendous amount of extra power (1010 vs 1080).

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Forgive me when i say that i doubt some of the most invested posters in this thread would do the same, as i have a suspicion that many who support 100 octane Spits would denounce DB601N-equipped 110s and vice versa.

Most certainly not. If it was there then I want it. I think I speak for all RAF types when I say that they want accuracy and let the chips fall where they may. I fly Hurricanes, I am already expecting the 109 to have a big advantage on me, but I shall fight on because I want it how it was.

[lane]

Alec Harvey-Bailey, The Merlin in Perspective, (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Derby, 1983)


"Alec Harvey-Bailey was in charge of Merlin engine defect investigation during WWII. In addition to examination of damaged engines, his role also involved development of engineering improvements and repairs. Harvey-Bailey made numerous visits to active squadrons and even flew aircraft when it was necessary to become familiar with particular problems."



Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.

[Al Schlageter]

Tomcat please note the engines

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

If it was not used no one will tell that it has not seen any use... C'mon ! DO you see flying car in the street ? What would you think if someone will tell you 70 years latter that car were flying as there is no proof of the contrary and that no one at the time as wrote that cars were not flying (for the future generations : I AM WRITING THIS IN THE EARLY 2012 AND CAN TESTIFY THAT NO CARS ARE FLYING AT THIS STAGE !) ?
humm remind me a movie with some monkeys, Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt

[NZtyphoon]

Through all his palaver KF is admitting he has not seen the Pips document himself, nor has anyone who has access to the all about warfare forum, so the preamble should read:

"This is from a researcher, researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives, from a purported document, allegedly copied to the so-called "Australian Military Commission" in England in February 1941, allegedly by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook, allegedly outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance. It was purported to be a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report allegedly titled "Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War;" although this has not yet been found in any of the Australian archives contacted.

The reason why it is allegedly included amongst AWM papers is because the Australian Government at that time was supposedly protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF; although no corroberating evidence to support this has been found. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all allegedly quoted parts from the report."

All the rest is smoke and mirrors by KF; plain fact is he pins 100% faith on a set of documents he has not seen or read, based on a short summary found on a forum, and Pips, who posted the material, has doubts about its veracity. Interesting

[TomcatViP]

[Ernst]

1. The emergency use of the higher boost pressures up to 12 lbs./sq.in is now permitted for short periods by operation of the modified control cut-out.

12. The use, in an emergency, of this boost pressure is a definitive overload condition ...

Will the sim implement the bonus and the onus of such feature obligating pilots to use it wisely?

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

No Kurfurst. You are not even an honest man. What would make you happy is if everyone agreed with your rhetoric wholeheartedly, that 100 octane was never used. This way you could be a bigger ace online.
Over time you have been forced into changing that view to admit it was used by at least some, but that is a battle lost as part of a wider war.

Let me put this other prosecutive angle on your theory for you (I made up a new word). You believe in the 109, you see it as superior and dislike the thought that it was matched, or worse, bettered. So you seek to discredit your foe as much as you can and display an enormous bias to the impartial viewer. Let us say that you are wholly correct and the 109 was as superior as you make out - in that case can you explain how the Luftwaffe was so decisively beaten? I can draw a conclusion given the superiority of the 109 in your world that the Luftwaffe pilots must've been rubbish. It can't be tactics, the RAF were hugely outnumbered and only had 300 Spitfires out of the 900 fighters, and the tactics only changed when Goering started to panic.

So what is your agenda? Are you just a bad virtual pilot or something?

I am sure that the Spitfire was little better than 109 in some aspects. But they were very well matched. The luftwaffe failure was not by the spitfire superiority as a fighter or tactics. But for many reasons.

Of the total of the 109s lost how many were lost simply because they did not come home due lack of fuel and not by being shot down? I will not be surprise if something more than 20% or 30% were lost this way.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Tomcat please note the engines

And note the dates: March 1940 and April 1940, respectively for the A.P.1590B
notes on the Merlin II & III and the Pilot's Notes.

Will the sim implement the bonus and the onus of such feature obligating pilots to use it wisely?

And will sim pilots have to note the use of overboost in the engine's log book?