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

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Osprey

It is your opinion, not a fact, and you are in a minority of 1. Even Kurfurst doesn't support you.

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.

Originally Posted by Osprey

Note that Kurfurst has made his counter move to powerful Spitfires by trying to get a late and rare 109 included into the BoB which pretty much demonstrates that his agenda is stat-padding all along.

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.

Originally Posted by Osprey

Good luck to him, I wouldn't deny anything to the Luftwaffe that was there all along, although as a mission maker for our server I wouldn't include it without regulation...http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200

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

[Osprey]

I'm waiting for his smoke and mirrors after that one Winny.

I suspect he won't be on for a while though because the 190 owner is not happy with his waxing.

"Is that 3 coats of wax Biff?"
"Yes sir Mr McFly, 3 coats as you said"
"Now now Biff, are you sure? You're not lying to me are you?"
"Err....maybe it was 2, I'll just get started on the 3rd coat now Mr McFly"
"Ahh Biff, what a character!"

[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.

[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.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

It is your opinion, not a fact, and you are in a minority of 1. Even Kurfurst doesn't support you.

Note that Kurfurst has made his counter move to powerful Spitfires by trying to get a late and rare 109 included into the BoB which pretty much demonstrates that his agenda is stat-padding all along. Good luck to him, I wouldn't deny anything to the Luftwaffe that was there all along, although as a mission maker for our server I wouldn't include it without regulation.....

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200

Yawn. I simply gathered the material I have posted here a year ago, the reason I put it up on bugtracker is because you have turned my attention to it. BTW, did you vote for 100 octane 109s and 110s yet? You know, for the sake of historical accuracy you say to be devoted to. I am sure if you want historical accuracy for the RAF, you would not danger your credibility by not supporting the same historical accuracy for the LW.

Stat padding? Last I flew online was some six years ago... Besides the normal 109s are just as good as 100 octane Spits. Its mainly about the 110s as those were the main types running on 100 octane, about half of them were running on it. The 109s had only one Gruppe initially - though thats about the same number as the not-so-common Spit IIs, which already have modelled. The Moscow map will probably have the E-7/N modelled anyways.

ps. I would be more delighted to see a flyable Wellington, which was the main British bomber and a nice counterpart for the 111, or a Hampden modelled.

[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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

ps. I would be more delighted to see a flyable Wellington, which was the main British bomber and a nice counterpart for the 111, or a Hampden modelled.

For once I agree with you 100%

[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.