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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Browse back the thread. I hve alrdy discussed this point and listed the source (RR history book).

These are your posts in this thread: #157:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Frankly I don't understand what are those ppl hijacking a game forum

#205;

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wrong. See my post above and data pasted bellow. You need to take into account the s/c !

#206:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A Spit from Toyota's Burnaston plant ?

#245:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I don't understand the spit lover that are arguing for 100oct when the Spit FM makes her Zip Zapping the air like a cartoon rubber ball

#294:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Some of the last comments tells a lot abt what are the seriousness of some on this discussion. I don't want to be personal but I nearly spit of my coffee reading that some are seriously thinking that the Spit was like a X-wing fighters in BoB skies.

#296:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I am not sure it can works like that. For example I hve bought RoF with enthusiasm as soon as it was released and can't play it anymore.... There is no default FM left anywhere on any server !

#301:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wouldn't it be more relevant to ask in a less biased manner how many conversion were done before August 40 ?

#303:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Hopefully Holmes had more a Cartesian thinking ! ???!!!

#315:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

really ?
20000 post of the same "piece of evidence" does not makes it a demonstrated fact. We are still waiting for some cross references.

#322:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A 100° British lager ?

#365:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Guys the 100 oct justified itself whenn it comes to hve low alt extra power (short time) or increased fuel efficiency at low revs. That's why you see that kind of usage on the Blenheim.

#381:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A fairly good read : http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%201286.html

#383:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A document outsourced from nowhere with a very specific account of history and so contradictory with - for example - the doc I linked from Flight Journal an internationaly respected publication : humm and what next, the Brit first detonated a nuke INSIDE a Merlin engine when the US were still craking nuts in the French Ardennes ?

#387:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Where all this cleverness and fine written irony are gone Schlag?

#392:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wew... are you turning rogue ?

#408:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Oh Yeah it's a great document. And thx for that. But what is buzzing me as hell is why are you so one sided in your citation

#411:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Ok fair enough for the fighters. But with so many RAAF personnel flying Hurries and SPits in ENgland, any 100 oct probable requirement would hve been listed.

#412; #427; #434, #437,#457,#461, #467, #484, #496, #501, #515, #523, #525, #526, #529, #534, #537, #540, #542, #544, #549, #553, #555, #558, #580

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

It was a standard use in RR to give the power of an engine without the charger fitted as the methods used to calculate the true corresponding power at alt from a bench test ran on the ground were not reliable (source RR - already mentioned by myself somewhere in the thread).

Nowhere, until this last one, is there any mention by you in this thread, or any other I can find, that R-R tested engines without superchargers, nor have you presented any evidence:

So, where is your evidence that R-R routinely tested engines without superchargers?

[Glider]

The Meteor Tank engine was basically a Merlin without a supercharger. It worked well and was used for many years post war on the Centurion and shows how robust the basic Merlin was.

However that clearly came after the aero engine merlin.

[TomcatViP]

post #205 give you a tip

Vip2000 also did use teh same book (in fact bought it after reading his post)

Impressive work btw but now I guess that you are some kind of antic cyclopes to get a so selective sense of reading.
:rolleyes

@Glider : I am not talking abt a production engine. For what I understand those were for test and performances check only.

end of post #593

[Glider]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

)

@Glider : I am not talking abt a production engine. For what I understand those were for test and performances check only.

end of post #593

I know, but I also know that you didn't provide any documentation, papers, test reports, anything in fact, to support your statement.
I looked for what I could find and supplied it, all we ask is that you do the same or is that not fair?.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Ernst

However its an error admit that the Luftwaffe failure was due to the superiority of the Spitifire. I already commented but i ll do it again. How many 109s in percentage of the ones lost were lost simply by lack of fuel instead being shot down?

A fair point I admit. However when discussing the losses the RAF had in 1941 its an equal point how many were lost due to running out of fuel? I do know that a whole squadron of the early Mk IX's were lost due to lack of fuel , no doubt others were as well.
There is a difference here. I am not trying to put the blame on the lack of fuel.

The spitfire were not so succesfull against the 109s in other theaters. At mediterranean and Afrika the allied resources are bigger. And the RAF suffered heavy loses in Afrika and Malta. The failure of the Luftwaffe in this scenarios was mainly because they were outnumbered and low of fuel. And they performed very well. And the spitfire was there.

There is no doubt that the 109 performed well over Africa but, when the Spits arrived even in small numbers the change in the air war was palbable. To pretend that the 109 was outnumbered by Spitfires over Malta is pushing it more than a little.

Taking todays date in 1942.
Combat 1 3 x Ju88 approached with fighter escort, 4 x Spits and 7 x Hurricane intercepted. No details of the numbers in the escort but 12 x Me109 mentioned in one combat report
Combat 2 3 x Ju88 and 7 x Me109 intercepted by 4 Spits
Combat 3 3 x Ju88 with 6 x Me109 and a cover of 19 x Me109, 6 x Spit and 8 x Hurricane intercepted

[NZtyphoon]

Fair enough I missed #205; here's #205

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wrong. See my post above and data pasted bellow. You need to take into account the s/c !

MerlinXX !

ALT(ft) SHP BHP (diff correspond to the power used to drive the supercharger)
15K 1267 1048
20K 1298 1073
20K+ 1362 1126
25K 1162 960
30K 945 778
35K 700 568


More over the subsequent Merlin (the XX) developed to give more power to the Hurri (what the RaF felt was more a need) was limited to 9lb at 20Kft but 12lb in T.O/Emergency


I think that you are confounding higher grade and NOS and don't forget all the cooling prob with the Merlin in the RAFFC's fighters

Quitely again as I hve said it does not fit any logics.

~S!

This is a post about the Merlin XX, which is a completely different engine from the III, using a two-speed supercharger which drew more power than the single-stage single speed unit of the III:
otherwise there is No evidence provided that R-R routinely tested its engines without superchargers, No documentation, No mention of a History of Rolls-Royce.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

There is no weak case.

There is quite a bit of raw speculation that attempts to bedazzle folks into thinking a specific way.

For example, you speculate all over the map about FC, BC, Invasion of France, and everything else under the sun like it is a fact in the post below:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=476


It is not, it is YOUR interpretation.

Morgan and Shacklady say something completely different which also fits the information in the document you posted on weekly issues.

That is the RAF built up a strategic reserve and it was not until September 1940 that 16 squadrons from Fighter Command converted to 100 octane.

If you believe that the RAF only used 16 squadrons of fighters with 100 Octane until Sept 1940, then you need to explain why we have over 30 squadrons mentioning it in combat reports.
If you believe that this was achieved by only 16 squadrons using it at any one time then you need to prove it.
If you beleive that a pre war plan stayed in force for 12 months without any change then ask yourself this question. Can you find any pre war plan, on any topic, in relation to any combat arm, of any nation that continued without alteration once the fighting started. Find one, this isn't it because we know that Blenhiem units were equipped with 100 octane in France alone and that was more than 2 squadrons.

Not only do I think Morgan and Shacklady's research was more through and grounded than yours, it is a fact that every military required such a reserve.

I cetainly agree that a reserve is needed and the RAF had a three and a half year reserve of 100 Octane. There was no shortage of fuel at any time in the BOB. If you think there was a shortage, prove it. The only shortage I found was in May 1944 before the invasion.
Its also worth remembering that if there had been a shortage the UK had the ability to produce its own and decided not to because of cost and that it wasn't needed.

I repeat that all the facts that I have posted on this have come from the official records in the National Archives. If that isn't good enough for you then tell me what is.

All I am asking is for you or someone else to supply any evidence to support your theory, just one on any point, not every point, just one of your choosing.

[NZtyphoon]

But Kf has supplied evidence that RAF plans changed; note the comment on reserves of 100 octane fuel being adequate.

[Glider]

I know that and thats the beauty of the situation. To prove his case he will have to disprove the one piece of evidence that he supplied

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Fair enough I missed #205 because it was so tedious reading all of your nonsense over again; here's #205


This is a post about the Merlin XX, which is a completely different engine from the III, using a two-speed supercharger which drew more power than the single-stage single speed unit of the III:
otherwise there is No evidence provided that R-R routinely tested its engines without superchargers, No documentation, No mention of a History of Rolls-Royce.

I quoted the exact title of the book elsewhere (sry not with me as for now). It's one of the RR heritage trust. It's a study extracted from RR sources and internal documentation.

As I said, this small book written in 1941 explain why RR had to create new methods to predict the perf of a S/C Engine at alt due to the divergences of predicted perf and the real ones achieved during flight test. The authors were the very same guys conducting the work at the time.

It is also explained how the US was slightly in advance in that way. But also why RR conducted that work as improvement were still on demands.

The base engine to conduct this work was the NEW MerlinXX flight tested in a Hurricane II.

There is a lot of interesting curves that I hve re-used in my post (but no scan). Most notably no perf test was seen using the 12lb boost when top performance was the very base of that work

The book itself is cheap (10 to 20$ ?) and can be ordered simply via amazon if I do remind well. I had to wait 1 or 2 month to get a new print out of the roll. You may read (or ask ?) Viper2000 posts with whom I heard first abt that book.

~S