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

[Ernst]

I am watching the posts. My personal conclusion is:

For sure the 100 octane was present. But to me there is no evidence that the all fighters used 100 octane. How many is difficult to say.

If i was the developer i ll model the 100 octane, 87 octane, and C-3 for the Germans and let the mapmakers decide.

Obviously 100 octane was not a panacea and not one of the main reasons for the Luftwaffe failure. The battle was fierce and the acs were very well matched. RAF loses were great even with the 109s and Luftwaffe operating in the limits of its logistics and radius. In other scenarios the Spits were not so succesfull.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Ernst

I am watching the posts. My personal conclusion is:

For sure the 100 octane was present. But to me there is no evidence that the all fighters used 100 octane. How many is difficult to say.

If i was the developer i ll model the 100 octane, 87 octane, and C-3 for the Germans and let the mapmakers decide.

Obviously 100 octane was not a panacea and not one of the main reasons for the Luftwaffe failure. The battle was fierce and the acs were very well matched. RAF loses were great even with the 109s and Luftwaffe operating in the limits of its logistics and radius. In other scenarios the Spits were not so succesfull.

It's not difficult to say, there are dozens of papers posted here listing operational squadrons.

I'm going to take a wild stab at this and suggest that you fly Luftwaffe. I'm guessing this based on your request for C3 (which frankly I have very limited knowledge of, other than, I gather, a tiny minority of aircraft were trying it out). Therefore I conclude that you would consider it to your advantage to have underperforming RAF to fight online. Fine, enjoy it. But if you could take off the flying hat and put on the historian hat, for a moment, and evaluate the documents posted (AND I MEAN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS) then you should be able to deduce that the RAF had it and used it on the front line for all fighting squadrons.

Fortunately I make maps for our server so I'll make sure that 100 is available if 1C can get around to finishing what they started.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

It's not difficult to say, there are dozens of papers posted here listing operational squadrons.

I'm going to take a wild stab at this and suggest that you fly Luftwaffe. I'm guessing this based on your request for C3 (which frankly I have very limited knowledge of, other than, I gather, a tiny minority of aircraft were trying it out). Therefore I conclude that you would consider it to your advantage to have underperforming RAF to fight online. Fine, enjoy it. But if you could take off the flying hat and put on the historian hat, for a moment, and evaluate the documents posted (AND I MEAN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS) then you should be able to deduce that the RAF had it and used it on the front line for all fighting squadrons.

Fortunately I make maps for our server so I'll make sure that 100 is available if 1C can get around to finishing what they started.

Yes i fly the Luftwaffe. And even with this 100 octane is possible to perform very good against any Spitfire since i would fly within the performance envelope of the 109. Above the 5000m the 100 octane advantage was lost. I simply have to fly in my terms and fly higher were the 109 was better. And engage and disengage at high speeds.

One of the articles posted above to prove the 100 octane use also says that since the most of the air fighting in BoB was above the 4000m the 100 octane were not a panacea, and any advantage were minimized or lost.

Put what UFO do you want in you server they ll go earth in flames. My pleasure will be higher in disapointing the overconfident spitfire pilots. The 109s difficulties acctualy is because the pilots are trying to counter the spits lower than 4000m or even in deck.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Yes i fly the Luftwaffe. And even with this 100 octane is possible to perform very good against any Spitfire since i would fly within the performance envelope of the 109. Above the 5000m the 100 octane advantage was lost. I simply have to fly in my terms and fly higher were the 109 was better. And engage and disengage at high speeds.

This is very true, the 100 octane fuel, even if modelled correctly (whatever that means) in the sim will not cause any revolution in flying, it certainly won't make RAF crates fly like rockets. I find this thread most amusing in many ways and I appreciate the mix of hilarious humour of certain Hungarian posters, and useful information.

Originally Posted by Ernst

Put what UFO do you want in you server they ll go earth in flames. My pleasure will be higher in disapointing the overconfident spitfire pilots. The 109s difficulties acctualy is because the pilots are trying to counter the spits lower than 4000m or even in deck.

This part I can't agree with I am afraid. In the sim as it is, the 109 is very much superior to any Mk.I RAF fighter in terms of speed and especially climb rate, which is most useful in dogfight. Even as a good RAF pilot you would be struggling against well flown Emils. Once he goes vertical he can do whatever he likes with you and you will have to make him make some mistake in order to succeed. Especially so down low. If you get higher up though, cards are turning around 15-16k and above that you've got good chance of outflying the 109. That's why I believe many 109 pilots prefer to counter the RAF on low altitudes and keep doing so with great success. Things are quite different higher up provided you know what you're doing.

There won't be no dissapointment if I get shot down as a Spitfire Mk.Ia pilot as I know I am pulling the shorter straw with my a/c performance and I must compensate with skill and often with luck in order to succeed. I assure you that with your tactics as you describe it, any skilled RAF pilot would not let himself shot down so easily unless outnumbered by several 109s and I certainly would like to see myself going 'down in flames' when I meet you up in 20k where I usually loiter. You'd be lucky to make it back to France in one piece (probably saving yourself in a dive with quite a few .303 vent holes). Same situation in 5000k, I'd be lucky to make it home.

I understand though what you're point is - it's the tactics in the first place and with that I agree.

[Glider]

The interesting thing is that when flying in the BOB, I prefer the 109.

However as we all know, the unique situation in this period, is that seldom in air combat have the two planes been so well matched. Each has its advantages and its disadvantages but victory normally goes to the pilot who grabs the opportunity and / or has the tactical advantage.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Robo.

This part I can't agree with I am afraid. In the sim as it is, the 109 is very much superior to any Mk.I RAF fighter in terms of speed and especially climb rate, which is most useful in dogfight. Especially so down low. If you get higher up though, cards are turning around 15-16k and above that you've got good chance of outflying the 109. That's why I believe many 109 pilots prefer to counter the RAF on low altitudes and keep doing so with great success. Things are quite different higher up provided you know what you're doing.

Granted the 100 Octane was used at lower altitudes, but read what this November 1939 paper says about the speed advantage it confers; 28/34 mph up to 10,000 feet (para 8.) Before people go on about "its only for five minutes" how long does the average combat take? 30 seconds to 1 minute at the most? - even a few mph at the right time can make a big difference. Added to this was the CS propeller fitted to all frontline RAF fighters by early August, which improved climb performance at all altitudes, and the differences between the 109 and Spitfire are not that great.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

(...)and the differences between the 109 and Spitfire are not that great.

I understand, my comment was purely regarding the in-game performance as it is at this moment.

Anyway, thanks very much for the information, your research is appreciated, I bet I am not alone here reading these documents with interest. Cheers for that NZ (and others, too!)

[Crumpp]

1) Was 100 octane fuel available to Fighter Command? Yes

Was 100/150 grade available to FC? Yes

2) Was there enough 100 octane fuel available to cover all sorties flown by Fighter Command during the battle? Yes

Was there enough 100/150 grade to cover all sorties flown? Yes

(It is called strategic reserves...)

We all know what happened when the same group of people started using the logic on that one.

Can anyone explain what happened to all that fuel if only half of FCs frontline fighters were allowed to use it?

Sure, some of consumed fuel was used in aircraft and all of it issued to the fields operating those aircraft. It appears that we have 16 squadrons on 31 July 1940 and we still have 16 squadrons by September.

You take a very very simplistic view. You do realize that in December 1944, the USAAF in Europe, had 4 billion barrels of aviation gasoline issued out and some 12 billion in reserve.

The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

Until then, it appears the RAF is simply building up the logistical base required to support the eventual change to 100 grade.

I will scan those Order of Battle charts from the RAF today.