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

[JtD]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

AP 1590B Vol. I, A.L. 4

This is the specification of 100 octane fuel in November 1940. I've never seen this anywhere else, everywhere else (even in the same manual) it's simply called 100 octane fuel.

I've also seen this in later manuals, just found it again in a late 1942 Pegasus engine manual. It still carries the same provisional specification, which illustrates how meaningless this is.

I've also attached two examples of how pilot notes were kept up to date in practice. Hand written, if necessary.

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Not quite, this has a great deal to do with the game because +12lbs boost has not been modelled for Spitfire Is and IIs of the B of B.

I replied to schlageter who said that the 100 octane discussion had nothing to do with the game

[Seadog]

Crumpp/Kurfurst:

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

Yes, it's my time and I decide how I use it.

I just wished this 100 octane thing would have been discussed in a separate thread because all the other data is now drowned in this discussion turning in circles like if the 100 octane issue was the only issue on plane performance in CloD. This thread is about BoB fighters and not only RAF fighters. Perhaps a mod can rename this thread so that it allows other readers to avoid to open this thread about BoB figher performance in the hope to see some new stuff instead of the x-th round in the 100 octane discussion.

[NZtyphoon]

Understood; this thread should have ended long ago, but there are some who are so obsessed with disregarding all of the evidence presented by people like Glider and lane who at the very lest have gone to the time, trouble and considerable expense of trawling through the NA and finding and using genuine late '30s early '40s documentation to back up their statements.

Kurfurst (who says he has very little interest in the RAF)'s "evidence" that the RAF used 100 octane fuel in a small minority of its frontline fighters is based on:

* a set of papers that he has not seen or read for himself; these were "summarised" in a posting in a discussion on another forum several years ago, during which the person ("Pips" who is a sometime member of this forum) who introduced these papers admitted that they were probably deceptive.

* an extremely legalistic interpretation of a single, pre-war RAF planning paper, which was transcribed from a meeting held in May 1939, and repeated by Morgan and Shacklady.

Otherwise noting, nada - zip - Kurfurst also repeatedly claims that he does not have to present any evidence to support his claims - yeah right.

Meantime Crumpp has been very busy brewing up their his cockeyed theories and a whole lot of speculative nonsense based on modern FAA regulations or whatever else he can think up.

Too right it's about time this thread come to a natural end.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Yes, it's my time and I decide how I use it.

I just wished this 100 octane thing would have been discussed in a separate thread because all the other data is now drowned in this discussion turning in circles like if the 100 octane issue was the only issue on plane performance in CloD. This thread is about BoB fighters and not only RAF fighters. Perhaps a mod can rename this thread so that it allows other readers to avoid to open this thread about BoB figher performance in the hope to see some new stuff instead of the x-th round in the 100 octane discussion.

All the other data was posted in the first few posts. With Barbi's Post #24, the thread became a 100 octane discussion thread.

[Crumpp]

The Operating Notes are definative and Notes on the Merlin Engine will reflect the changes in the Flight Information Manual version.

If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine do not specify 100 Octane for all operational units then the transition in Fighter Command was not complete. If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine does not mention 100 Octane fuel then it was not the most common fuel.

What do you think all those pilots transitioning from Bomber and Coastal Command would be studying?

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.

[Crumpp]

Meantime Crumpp has been very busy brewing up their his cockeyed theories and a whole lot of speculative nonsense based on modern FAA regulations or whatever else he can think up.

The convention is not modern. It has been in place and relatively unchanged since airplanes first started crossing international borders.

Perhaps some research on Aviation Legislation and Aviation Law would help you to gain a more factual outlook.

[Crumpp]

The Paris Convention and most aviaiton law is based upon the British example. The United Kingdom was the first country to enact these regulations and in 1919, the convention adopted them internationally.

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 the Aeronautical Commission (a legal subcommittee) drafted the first set of international aviation laws, The International Air Navigation Convention. The laws were patterned after British aviation laws and dealt with both concrete and abstract principles.

Great Britain, in 1909, was the first nation to address the possibility of government control of aviation manufacturing and aviation transportation. British laws became a reality when the first successful cross-channel flight in 1909 jeopardized Britain’s national security. That year, under British encouragement, the first International Conference in Paris was held. During the conference a host of aviation problems, from the sovereignty of airspace to the spread of contagious diseases, were debated. While no laws were enacted, it was apparent that aviation law was soon to become a reality.

Then in 1917 Great Britain formed the Civil Aerial Transportation Committee to organize growing civil and commercial air traffic trade. The Committee suggested that the government regulate all forms of British aviation, both nationally and internationally. The creation of the committee was an important gesture; it signaled Britain’s intent to transform its military strength from naval to air power, and instigate European aviation reform. The European community of nations was not far behind the British, for it was realized that aviation had become a force to be reckoned with in the final phase of World War I.

Even though the United States was a world power, its government had no impact on the code drafted by Aviation Mission; apparently the United States did not desire to be involved in any law-making other than its own.

http://specialcollections.wichita.ed...8/92-18-A.HTML

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The Operating Notes are definative and Notes on the Merlin Engine will reflect the changes in the Flight Information Manual version.

If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine do not specify 100 Octane for all operational units then the transition in Fighter Command was not complete. If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine does not mention 100 Octane fuel then it was not the most common fuel.

What do you think all those pilots transitioning from Bomber and Coastal Command would be studying?

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.