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

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

Yes, there are 100 oct. Spitfires, it's fact. Would be unfair if you can't fly with them. The debate is always with the numbers (iirc the wall of texts ) but I think this is irrelevant, when it should be decide to exist in the game or not.



Of course he did, and i support this. But I dont understand you. You was one of the loudest "we need historically accuracy" member here. So, this lasts untill the RAF get the upgades? These types are exist in BoB? Yes, the E-7 enters service in the same month (!) than Spit IIa (Aug '40). The 109's field modifications made impossible to know, how many upgraded aircraft fight in the BOB. Much old version upgraded to E-7 during the battle. I think the principle should the same as the 100 octane fuel.



I assume you don't plan to limit the numbers of Spit I, Spit II, Hurricane (allowed twice the number of Hurri than Spit?)

I've not opposed it at all Tom. This is a long story and my comment is more related to Kurfursts reaction, I have nothing against the LW.

We run the server ACG, Air Combat Group, and we have historical missions running. It is early but the more accuracy we can commit to our server the better, so yes, that includes a 2:1 Hurricane:Spitfire ratio by force when we are able to. Our RAF Wing operates 2 Hurricane squadrons and 1 Spitfire squadron so we already fit the ratio.
We also operate a Luftwaffe arm and are pushing to grow this group. It is not in our interests to have any type of bias.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...67&postcount=5

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I've not opposed it at all Tom.

Ok, I understand. I also hope the new missions will be more interesting because of the new performance (on all servers). And i hope, will be more BoF missions too, not only the boring channel fight

What annoys me a bit, the mood of the forum - if you ask something for RAF, you are a patriot, a Hero, who fight for the historically accuracy. If you ask something for LW, you are -at least- Luftwhiner, who just too stupid to fight well with his "superior" a/c. :/

Originally Posted by Osprey

It is not in our interests to have any type of bias.

So... where is your +1 vote then?

[Crumpp]

Actually you mean January 1942, at a time where there was not a single operational squadron operating the Spitfire I.

Yes it was January 1942. That does not change the fact the transition to 100 Octane is clearly documented in Operating Notes. The transition was not complete in July1940 and is not factual to claim "ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS" in fighter command were using the fuel.

The Operating Notes even transition to 100 Octane Only in later editions of the Hurricane Notes.

Why? Operating Notes are republished periodically and capture all major changes. FACT

It also does not change the fact you cannot look at logisitical documents to prove operational history. If you want to know how to operate the aircraft look at the Operating Notes and not Strategic Fuel Reserves!!!

The transition is clearly outlined in those notes. If the operating limitations (paragraph 1) do not specify "ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS-100 OCTANE" or "100 OCTANE ONLY" then 87 Octane was the predominate fuel on the airfields. It is that simple.

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1942. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

Osprey says?:
It is your opinion, not a fact

It is not my opinion. It is a fact. It is how aviation publications work by convention.

There was no pool of converted units - all of the RAF's FC squadrons were active.

Prove it. Look through the logs and those units using the fuel will specifically state they are using the fuel, not just converted.

So far you have two squadrons I have seen before July 1940.

So I post the original documents which show they did have large stocks

The documents do not show they have large stocks. Go back and read my post. They show the RAF does not have a substantial amount of 100 Octane in 1939.

They wanted 800,000 tons on hand at that time and they only have ~1/8th of that.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Even in June 1940, 100 Octane has not eclipsed 87 Octane as the predominate fuel. The Pilots Operating Instructions would have published with the latest data. This is reflected in Table II as no significant quantities of 100 Octane exist at the airfields.

If the technical instructions were published in March then that gives them 4 months until the update is published.

The Operating Notes still list 6 1/2lbs as the 5 minute all out emergency setting for the engine as the most common configuration.

The limiting operational conditions does not make any mention at all of 100 Octane.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Yes it was January 1942. That does not change the fact the transition to 100 Octane is clearly documented in Operating Notes. The transition was not complete in July1940 and is not factual to claim "ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS" in fighter command were using the fuel.

The Operating Notes even transition to 100 Octane Only in later editions of the Hurricane Notes.

Why? Operating Notes are republished periodically and capture all major changes. FACT

It also does not change the fact you cannot look at logisitical documents to prove operational history. If you want to know how to operate the aircraft look at the Operating Notes and not Strategic Fuel Reserves!!!

It is not my opinion. It is a fact. It is how aviation publications work by convention.

The documents do not show they have large stocks. Go back and read my post. They show the RAF does not have a substantial amount of 100 Octane in 1939.

They wanted 800,000 tons on hand at that time and they only have ~1/8th of that.

All this proves is that Crumpp has become increasingly closed minded and obsessed with his own interpretations of the very limited evidence he has presented:

Crumpp has completely ignored what the "Pilot's Notes General - 1st edition", which was also issued to all pilots, says about operating limits in the Pilot's Notes:*

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

And the explanation for this is given in Pilot's Notes General (1st Edition 1941, not the 2nd Edition).

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1334727256
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1334727263*

We know that the Merlin II and III was designed for 87 octane and therefore the operational limits are always given for 87 octane.

However, over 70 years later Crumpp knows better: because HIS pilot's notes don't mention 100 Octane, that makes them definitive proof that the RAF wasn't using much 100 octane at all. "Why? Operating Notes are republished periodically and capture all major changes. FACT"

But that wasn't standard Air Ministry practice during the 1940s: When the notes were printed they kept the standard rating the engine was designed for, as shown in "Pilot's Notes General' - when the Pilot's Notes were issued any amendments were included as gummed slips which were pasted in the relevant section or paragraph of the notes, and the additions noted by the pilot on the amendment list printed either on the inner front cover, or on the first two pages and, in some cases, on the inner back cover.

Any subsequent reprints sometimes kept the original publishing date, but the previously pasted in sections were incorporated into the Notes and the amendments were then described in a note on the left upper section of the relevant page eg:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...4&d=1334674718 "Revised May 1941: Amended by A.L.No.37"

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1334723739 "January 1942 Issued with A.L.No.24/H"

Look at the front inner flyleaves in the Spitfire V notes and see the table of amendments, then note that some amendments have been ticked. Scroll down to page 4 note top L/H corner "issued with A.L. No. 16/7", which is ticked in the amendments section.

The Spitfire I Pilots manual in its original state, without amendments, specified the original operating limits using 87 Octane fuel, for which the Merlin II and III series were designed - if it had been issued to an operational squadron amendment slips for the new operating limits would have been issued with the book, then pasted in and noted by the pilot - the January 1942 notes incorporate these amendments, but it still says 87 Octane for "Other units" such as OTUs; chances are Crumpp's notes were either issued to an OTU or were never issued to any unit and never amended.

I have in my hand an original set of Pilot's Notes for the Corsair I-IV A.P. 2351A, B, C & D which has the printing date of August 1944, yet amendments were added as supplementary slips in March 1945 and April 1946.

Now this was explained ages ago by 41Sqn_Banks but has since been completely ignored by Crumpp.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You misunderstand what I wrote. A.P. 1590B/J.2-W is incorporated into the June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes.

1) He still hasn't shown the relevant pages to the June 1940 Pilot's Notes, which according to Crumpp, incorporate the modifications shown in A.P. 1590B/J.2-W;

2) He has not shown us the front and inner covers of his "June 1940" Spitfire Pilot's Notes showing whether they incorporate the addendums which were issued modifying the notes to the latest standards - we don't even know if his notes are original or a photocopied facsimile which came from here.

On another note: On the one hand he says strategic reserves aren't important, then in his last sentence he says "They show the RAF does not have a substantial amount of 100 Octane in 1939."

Except that the RAF issued an inconvenient little document in November 1939 approving the conversion of and use of Merlins for 12 lbs boost and "There are adequate reserves for the purpose". Which, of course, is completely ignored.

*(Note: The Pilot's Notes General 2nd Edition, printed April 1943, no longer incorporates the proviso about fuel types because the matter was no longer relevant by 1943.)

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

So... where is your +1 vote then?

I generally will only vote for something I know to be absolutely true otherwise I will stay clear. It's not that I don't agree or believe but rather I do not know. I don't blindly vote for RAF items either.

If you are after historical mapping rather than mid-channel furballs then have a go in our server (Air Combat Group). It currently runs the events from August 12th (plus some small random patrols everywhere to keep interest and surprises up) with AI on both sides so you can escort in the 109.

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

What annoys me a bit, the mood of the forum - if you ask something for RAF, you are a patriot, a Hero, who fight for the historically accuracy. If you ask something for LW, you are -at least- Luftwhiner, who just too stupid to fight well with his "superior" a/c. :/

I think you can put this problem down to a small minority (ie Kurfurst) who set a bad example for you. But honestly, the likes of yourself are respected as knowing what you are talking about without bias so items you raise would not be disputed. The problem is that word you use, "superior". This minority seem to believe it and believe the propaganda of the time, they don't like losing to aircraft they think are inferior, so they argue to get what they need to help them. It's a distorted view.

[Glider]

I know this is going to sound very obvious but I have always believed that pilots notes were there to help the pilot avoid crashing the aircraft, not an historical document showing the roll out of things like fuel.

Now I know why most of my flying experience was in Gliders, none of the smelly stuff that can catch fire.

It is a fact the RAF did not complete conversion to 100 Octane until around January 1942. That is evident in the Operating Notes.

This is total bull, I would love to see you prove it, why not March 1942, or even have a punt at 1943. Why not 1944 as I know there was a shortage of 100 Octane just before the Invasion, maybe they converted some squadrons back to 87 Octane, they didn't, but what the heck, there is more logic for such a move as there was a shortage then.

Its worth remembering that you still haven't shown us the pilots notes for the Spit I you were quoting as being June 1940. So why on earth should we believe that it was as late as 1942

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

What annoys me a bit, the mood of the forum - if you ask something for RAF, you are a patriot, a Hero, who fight for the historically accuracy. If you ask something for LW, you are -at least- Luftwhiner, who just too stupid to fight well with his "superior" a/c. :/

I don't think that's the case really, you can see pretty much same amount of bias and agenda on both sides, unfortunately.

As for Battle of Britain - that's what we've got in the sim, summer 1940. I voted in favour of the newer 109E-7 imemdiately btw. But Osprey is right - this is a bit beyond what we see as actual Battle of Britain. Also, this thread is about the aircraft we've already got in the sim (and they do represent the typical liveries of BoB era) and their inaccurate performance - mainly due to 100 octane fuel used widely in the RAF in this era (summer '40) is nonexistent in the sim. If they ever model early post-BoB scenario with E-7s that would be awesome, Hurricanes Mk.IIs, E-7s, then Mk.Vb all the way to the Fw 190.

[Kurfürst]

E-7 entered service in the second half of August 1940. 186 were delivered by the end of October, 1940.

Basically the same case as the Spitfire II.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

E-7 entered service in the second half of August 1940. 186 were delivered by the end of October, 1940.

Basically the same case as the Spitfire II.

Oh yes I am aware of that. Spitfire Mk.II was actually ready a bit sooner (early June 1940) than E-7 or Hurricane Mk.II (late August / September and thereofre being quite rare). I guess that's why the Mk.II Spits are present in the game - rare but still quite typical in BoB skies. The other two were absolutely marginal for BoB but important at the later stage. I hope to see them all modelled one day.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Oh yes I am aware of that. Spitfire Mk.II was actually ready a bit sooner (early June 1940) than E-7 or Hurricane Mk.II (late August / September and thereofre being quite rare). I guess that's why the Mk.II Spits are present in the game - rare but still quite typical in BoB skies. The other two were absolutely marginal for BoB but important at the later stage. I hope to see them all modelled one day.

I'm sure, much more E-7 fought in the BoB than G.50