Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[CWMV]

I personally don't buy into the 100 octane argument, for the simple reason that neither side has been able to act like G.D. adults with the data. Every time its brought up both sides, blue and red pilots, fly off the handle and act worse than children-so you know what, for me default to 87.

Regardless of that, this kinda sucks. I'm a 109 driver, for now and for all time, but that doesn't mean I want to see everyone else cut off at the knees. I'm sure most of the blue pilots feel the same way.
Sadly the charts really don't match even 87 octane. I found that really hard to believe until I checked. Even Wiki has the MkI doing about 591kph at 18K feet...not in that graph. And that's just the first place I looked. I'm sure further searching would yield similar results.

Do I believe that the 109 was the best fighter of the period in question? Without a doubt. But I know that the Spit was a really, REALLY close second.
If these graphs are going to really be what we see in game, that will not be the case at all.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by pstyle

Actually, not too far off and I'm a red-mostly pilot.

Black 6's Figure for "the patch" - as I read them:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 350 mph (563 km/h)
@3000m / 9,850ft: 303 mph (489 km/h)

Figures from the weblinks posted:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 355 mph
@3000m / 9,850ft: 320-355 mph (depending on fuel 87/100)

So the patch is 1.4% on the low side at 6000m (I can live with that)
And the patch is 5% on the slow side at 3000m if you're assuming 87 octane, but a more significant 14% on the slow side if you're using 100 octane

I'd like to see sea-level Flight model information for the above, but it seems to me the model is very close to the 87 octane fuelled spit 1a. VERY CLOSE. And I am now happy to accept that.

The real question is - will/should they model 100 octane?

its like a perpetual ground hog day here

extensive information has been provided on this issue this from various sources in the last year in this forum, it is CONCLUSIVE AND BEYOND ANY DOUBT that hurricanes and spitfires had 100% octane fuel available, and just by your own quoted figures that would give them at least a 14% speed disadvantage

to quote but a few sources

Gavin Bailey concluded that "The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year." (ref 33). As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock. (ref 34)

and

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". (ref 35) The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons. (ref 36)

and

Jeffrey Quill recalled: It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb. (ref 37)

and ........Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the R.A.F. By July 11th, 1940, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, twenty-one days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stock available on October 10th, 1940, was 666,000 tons. Oil reserves were 34,000 tons. (ref 38.)

source: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

there is no excuse for still allowing these types of errors in CoD !!

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel.

you have been shown to be so unreliable and deliberately misleading in the past on numerous occasions, that anything you say on the ww2 era aircraft is meaningless

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Seriously, based on the availabe combat reports etc., such a list of "100octanened" fighter stations was put together a long time and many post ago. I see a lot of stations of 11 Group w/o 100 octane. See: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...8&postcount=43

you are yet again being deliberately misleading and misrepresent facts, to suit your own personal agenda, not really surprising given your track record in that regard

that list made by TheGrunch in that post is simply a list of direct reports from certain pilots in some specific squadrons stating they were using 100 octane fuel (which is entirely normal, since we already know it was being supplied extensively during that period). and a significant number of the pilots refer to it because compared to pre-BoB performance it is an important issue for most of them

what that list does NOT say is that there is somewhere an equal list of reports from all other 50% of squadrons and pilots that they were using 87 octane ! i challenge you directly here, and either put up or shut up ! you now go and try to provide proof of this misleading information you are trying to peddle here !! (no, and german war propaganda does not count). find it from brittish wartime sources (or extensive analyses from fuel samples taken by germans from many downed or captured brittish aircraft of that era), quote it directly, and give your specific sources. you cant , i know you cant, because it doesnt exist (except in the fictional reality you live in )

numerous other posters in this forum, including me providing several in this thread, have on the other hand already provided our information that directly indicates 100 octane fuel was available to most fighter squadrons FROM THE START OF BoB, and that if any pilots didnt have it at one point or another THEY WOULD BE THE EXCEPTION. your deliberate misrepresentation and misleading posts do not change that or magically alter history !

get it ? the absence of direct quotes of 100 octane in the other 50% of squadrons he didnt list (provided by TheGrunch) is NOT evidence of the use of 87 octane fuel in the rest of them, simple really ? but of course comprehending it requires you to be intellectually honest and deal with known historical facts in a logical and impartial manner

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by zapatista

what a load of bollocks !

where have you ever read/heard anything like that about the historical BoB ? do you really think that allied command told their fighters "dont fly below 6000 meters guys, or the very superior performing 109's will make mince meat of you" or "let all bomber formations get through if they fly below 6000 meters, because we'd like to save your planes for later in the war and we'll try and avoid you engaging the 109's" ? you'r making poor excuses for major technical errors/bugs in the game and suggesting "gaming the game" is somehow a solution

the whole point of a SIMULATION of anything that claims to be a ww2 plane sim is that it should as close as possible SIMULATE the performance relationship between those main fighter aircraft. to willfully handicap the red side and then pretend "its the pilot that matters, not the plane" is a load of nonsense.

Relax! I'm on your side. I'm just tired of the whole thing. I've moved past the 'anger' stage of this whole debate and moved into 'acceptance'.

There is very little Battle of Britain in this Battle of Britain simulator. I was hoping it would get there. I'm now completely convinced that 1C guys are pretty much just tired of the whole debacle and are anxious to just move on.

After this patch is released, I'm pretty sure they're going to be full steam ahead on Battle of Moscow. I can't see them releasing another big patch for Cliffs of Dover before that game is out and they can marry the two titles together somehow.

So what we have after this patch is pretty much what we're going to have until the next game. I'm pretty much convinced of it. So we accept that this isn't a real Battle of Britain simulator and just get on with it. The game is still fun! With a patch that fixes the crashing (fingers crossed) it'll be even more fun. We might even be able to stage some real Battle of Britain type campaigns. But I'm sure that 1C is done with this theatre. I don't want to be sure, but I am.

So as much as I want to be optimistic and fired up about making changes to correct errorsand whatnot, I just can't see it happening. The direction that they've taken with the FM adjustments seem to suggest there's no interest in modelling the RAF aircraft with the same degree of fidelity as the German stuff. Possibly because they really honestly don't care that much about them. After all, the German planes are the ones that matter for Battle of Moscow, not the RAF ones.

It's our tough luck. And so, to deal with it, we have to make and use tactics that suit the aircraft we have, not the one we want. I'm pretty sure that the Blue players aren't using historical tactics for the most part. Why should we?

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by zapatista

you have been shown to be so unreliable and deliberately misleading in the past on numerous occasions, that anything you say on the ww2 era aircraft is meaningless

And you have demonstrated at every possible opportunity that you are willing to go to any length to push an agenda.
Regardless of weather your right or wrong you come off sounding like a tool. You, and the people like you that go SO over the top when it comes to certain issues, discredit whatever point it is your trying to sell.
Christ, take a break eh? Calm down, go get laid or SOMETHING!

For the record, NZtyphoon actually did apologize and explained that he had a somewhat personal stake in the argument, but at least he recognized that things have gotten a little bit out of control.

Seriously Zap, if you want people to listen, be a little less zealous and let the fact speak for themselves.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Zapatista, please calm down. You are crying like a kid with a lollipop pulled out of mouth. Do you really think ANY player of this GAME want it to be handicapped in any way, be it their favorite plane or not. I for sure don't. But by judging your outburst it seems you need every single thing that would give an I-WIN button over the German planes and psuhing that agenda with foam spewing. Really does not help it as said above. Slam the facts on the table and the devs figure the rest. Not a single "thread hundred+ pages of foaming about an agenda" will help.

And even the game would simulate every single plane down to last rivet there would be someone to whine because they do not get same performance for some reason. So after all it is the pilot not the machine After the patch is released will for sure do tests either offline or if enough people are interested online to gather data how things have changed rather than foaming here before the damn patch is even out.

[ATAG_Bliss]

You guys can argue back and forth about the performance of the FMs but just remember this, when the patch comes out I'm going up in a G50 and going to shoot you all down

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

You guys can argue back and forth about the performance of the FMs but just remember this, when the patch comes out I'm going up in a G50 and going to shoot you all down

What....the UBER - G50???? LOL

[CWMV]

Not this guy. I just want it to work offline!