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

[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.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Seadog

I have repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence of even a single Spitfire/Hurricane 87 octane operational squadron combat sortie during the BofB. This should be an easy task if, as you contend, the majority of RAF FC Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons were using 87 Octane fuel.

So I'll issue the challenge again and again, until you answer it or admit that your contention is unsupported by the historical record.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

Still waiting...

[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

[Osprey]

So what we've established is that the 2 100 octane whiners here who can't see what everybody else sees don't even fly IL2 COD. So why are you here? Bugger off and leave us alone, it's none of your business.

PS, Kurfurst, if you could read I explained why I didn't vote for it.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

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

Yes, of course. I was comparing the main forces in the Battle - Luftwaffe and RAF. Italian presence was marginal, but it's cool we've got them in the game. E-7s were as common as Mk.Ib Spitfires in the actual Battle. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see them all in the sim. I am sure the devis will have this version ready for BoM (both E-7 and F variants I would guess) and having them in Channel scenario is very likely imho... I don't really know what the numbers were and I don't care all that much + it would only lead to further arguements.

[NZtyphoon]

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.

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.

On a side note I have the book Luftwaffe Fighters and Fighter-Bombers Over Norway which includes a section on a Bf 109E-7 W.Nr. 3523 "Red 6" of 5./JG5 which was rescued from a Russian lake in 2003. (pages 61-63)

This was manufactured as an E-1 by Arado and was taken into Luftwaffe service on 27 September 1939; in August 1940 it was converted into an E-7. In mid 1941 it was overhauled and became an E-7/Trop, complete with the RLM 78/79 paint scheme before being shipped to Norway in early 1942 and serving in JG5. On 4 April the cooling system was damaged in combat with a Russian Hurricane IIC from 2 GIAP and Red 6 force landed on a frozen lake - from which it was rescued and still exists,

at Chino.

(The commentary by Brett Green is misleading.)

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

On a side note I have the book Luftwaffe Fighters and Fighter-Bombers Over Norway which includes a section on a Bf 109E-7 W.Nr. 3523 "Red 6" of 5./JG5 which was rescued from a Russian lake in 2003. ...

Interesting video. Was an adventurous journey
Thanks for sharing.

[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.)

[winny]

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.

It's actually a little later I think.. 1st SpitII was delivered to 601 Sqn. on 22nd August. There were 195 of them by the end of October. As there were 22 Spitfire squadrons by then, it's the majority of Spitfires in service at the end of the battle. (roughly 22 x 12 = Total operational Spitfires = 264-ish) FC total operational Fighters including Hurricanes peaked at 764.

I'd have to sit down and work out the deliveries for more accurate figures, this is ball park.