Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-25-2012, 03:36 PM
CaptainDoggles's Avatar
CaptainDoggles CaptainDoggles is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles View Post
... and the ad hominem attacks ...
It's really not necessary to keep taking swings at each other. NZTyphoon isn't adding anything of value, he's just trying to stir up the argument again, like the guy in the pic I posted.
  #2  
Old 05-25-2012, 03:47 PM
fruitbat's Avatar
fruitbat fruitbat is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S E England
Posts: 1,065
Default

You've just said "It's really not necessary to keep taking swings at each other" and then with the following sentence took a swing......shakes head mystified......

Still, I'm very happy to keep this thread just about the incorrect modelling of 100 octane fuel, which is incorrect of course.

Last edited by fruitbat; 05-25-2012 at 03:49 PM.
  #3  
Old 05-25-2012, 04:29 PM
ATAG_Snapper's Avatar
ATAG_Snapper ATAG_Snapper is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,286
Default

Well, I'm hoping the next patch will render all these discussions moot, in addition to addressing the 109 shortcomings as well.
__________________
  #4  
Old 05-25-2012, 06:51 PM
Seadog Seadog is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 226
Default

More evidence:

Quote:
...I do not believe that it is generally recognised how much this
superiority would have been affected had not the decision been
taken to base aircraft engine design on the use of 100-octane
fuel instead of the pre-war standard grade of 87-octane rating.
In fact, it was only a few months before the Battle of Britain
that all fighters were changed over from 87- to 100-octane
fuel, a change which enabled the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine
of that period to be operated at an increased supercharger
pressure which immediately gave an extra 200 h.p. or more.

Subsequent engine developments made possible by the use of
100-octane instead of 87-octane fuel have since permitted a
truly phenomenal increase in the power of the original engine
without any change in its basic size or capacity.
It is very interesting to refer back to the records of serious
discussions which took place only a year or two before the war
when certain authorities expressed the very gravest misgivings
at the proposal to design engines to require a '' theoretical type
of fuel" (i.e., 100 octane), which they feared would not be
available in adequate quantity in time of war, since we were
mainly dependent on America for its supply. Fortunately for
Britain, the majority of those directly concerned took a different
view, and I might quote a rather prophetic statement made by
an Air Ministry official at a Royal Aeronautical Society meeting
in February, 1937, who, in referring to the advent of
100 octane, said: " Let there be no doubt, however, that
petroleum technologists and fuel research workers now have
the opportunity to provide by their efforts an advance in aircraft
engine development, with its effect on air power, which
the engine designer by himself cannot hope to offer by any
other means."
May I conclude by also quoting a reply reported to have
been made recently in the U.S.A. by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, M.P.,
Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and
Power, in answer to the question: " Do you think 100 octane
was the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain in 1940 ? "
To which Mr. Lloyd replied: " I think we would not have won
the Battle of Britain without 100 octane—but we DID have
the 100 octane."

Nevertheless, let us not forget that between the fuel and the
airscrew there are also many other links in the chain, any one
of which, had it failed, could have vitally affected the issue,
while all the technical superiority in the world would, of course,
have been of no avail at all without the efficient training, skill,
and courage in combat of the Battle of Britain pilots.


Flight Magazine, Jan 06 1944
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200044.html
87 Octane was not used by RAF FC in frontline squadrons during the BofB.
  #5  
Old 05-25-2012, 07:46 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
87 Octane was not used by RAF FC in frontline squadrons during the BofB.




Why is it proof?

Some guy says these aliens exist!! It must be true.
  #6  
Old 05-25-2012, 07:50 PM
bongodriver's Avatar
bongodriver bongodriver is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,546
Default

OMG Crumpp has turned into raaaid.......
__________________


Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition
  #7  
Old 05-25-2012, 08:58 PM
Glider Glider is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 441
Default

[QUOTE=Crumpp;429244Why is it proof?

Some guy says these aliens exist!! It must be true.[/QUOTE]

Some guy says that the RAF used 87 octane on ops in the BOB with the same level of evidence. Is he the same guy?
  #8  
Old 05-25-2012, 10:21 PM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

All sorts of things can be proven to be true even if there isn't any evidence to prove it - the reasoning goes that the evidence hasn't been found yet, or its a plot by ***** (add secret organisation here) to hide the truth from the great unwashed. For example, did anyone know that Hitler was a British Secret Agent???!!! And wait, there's MORE - Osama Bin Laden was an American Agent!!!!!!!!

Therefore, FC must have used 87 octane for the majority of its frontline, single engined fighters during the B of B because the evidence is out there...somewhere...
  #9  
Old 06-02-2012, 11:07 AM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider View Post
Some guy says that the RAF used 87 octane on ops in the BOB with the same level of evidence. Is he the same guy?
David,

Have you found evidence that all Fighter Command Squadrons were using 100 octane fuel yet?

Do you still propose that thesis?
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
  #10  
Old 05-25-2012, 10:30 PM
Seadog Seadog is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post

Some guy says these aliens exist!! It must be true.
I'm sure that you believe in them, but regarding 87 octane and RAF FC during the BofB, you have yet to provide even a shred of evidence for your contention.
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.