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

[Glider]

I need to do some work that will take me until Wed Morning, don't take this a a sign of going away I will respond in detail to any questions when I am back.

However, to make no misunderstanding you believe that Pips posting with no documents is a valid source and you believe that they are accurate.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Vengeanze

Do you guys ever fly?

20 years on and off in Gliders, 8 years RN as an Airframes and Engines engineer and P2 time in a small number of powered aircraft from Chipmunks to Hunters.

But I suspect that isn't what you meant.

[Vengeanze]

Originally Posted by Glider

20 years on and off in Gliders, 8 years RN as an Airframes and Engines engineer and P2 time in a small number of powered aircraft from Chipmunks to Hunters.

But I suspect that isn't what you meant.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

You sound like a religious fanatic, Seadog.. do you think that repeating the same and always having the last word is convincing? Let me tell you, it isn't.

"No one has presented a shred of evidence that even one RAFFC operational Merlin engined fighter squadron used anything but 100% 100 octane during the Battle of Britain."

You keep producing documents from well before the BofB, yet you can't produce a single document showing that even one operational Merlin engined fighter squadron was using 87 octane during the battle. There are literally hundreds of books that cover this subject, thousands of magazine, newspaper and journal articles, and yet not one states that a BofB Merlin engined fighter squadron used 87 octane operationally, yet despite this lack of evidence you persist with missionary zeal to try to win converts...and your behaviour is the mark of the true fanatic.

[Crumpp]

Thanks for that (and I do mean it) the problem is that the last paper is dated December 1939 and the others are pre war.

The Summary of the Seventh meeting is dated 18 May 1940.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The Summary of the Seventh meeting is dated 18 May 1940.

I have to agree that your eyesight is spot on.

Kurfursts posting 176 was timed at 1.26pm, my reply posting 177 was timed at 1.41pm, Kurfursts posting 176 was amended at 1.44pm. I noticed the change and made another posting 178 to cater for the additional documents at 1.55pm
The postings crossed something Kurfurst noted in his posting 179 when commented ‘I did add a couple of others in the meantime.’

I hope that clarifies the position, just a co incidence.

I did send you a PM earlier about the references to sides in a posting that I didn’t understand. Can I ask you to clarify that for me please, in case I have misunderstood something.

Thanking you in advance

[Blackdog_kt]

As a by-stander in this with no real gameplay gains from the final verdict (i will fly pretty much everything, both sides of the sim), the way the whole thing reads to me is:


1) Fuel was the "property" of stations/airfields, not specific units.

2) Critical airfields received supplies of 100 octane fuel.

3) Units rotated between different airfields as operational needs dictated.

4) When a certain unit happened to operate from a field with 100 octane supplies they would use it, when operating from another field they would not.

5) This also explains why there are a lot of combat reports from different units mentioning the use of +12lbs boost.

I certainly can't believe they would be moving all their fuel supply with them whenever they changed stations

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

4) When a certain unit happened to operate from a field with 100 octane supplies they would use it, when operating from another field they would not.

5) This also explains why there are a lot of combat reports from different units mentioning the use of +12lbs boost.

I certainly can't believe they would be moving all their fuel supply with them whenever they changed stations

Why are there no reports, memoirs, articles about RAFFC pilots complaining about the lack of 100 octane fuel for their squadron, station, etc? If some stations have 100 octane and others not, it would have created real problems for pilots landing at alternate bases to refuel, since they would be forced to put 87 octane in aircraft modded for 12lb boost, yet no mention of such problems has ever been recorded.

The idea that RAFFC fought the battle with mixed 87/100 octane Merlin engined squadrons is wrong, and is not supported by the historical record. The battle was fought with 100octane only.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Why are there no ....

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Seadog

If some stations have 100 octane and others not, it would have created real problems for pilots landing at alternate bases to refuel, since they would be forced to put 87 octane in aircraft modded for 12lb boost, yet no mention of such problems has ever been recorded.

Because it wouldn't pose any technical problem, the plane would operate on +6.25 boost, and the boost cutout would not be used. In fact the Spitfire II manual from June 1940 notes exactly that, +6.25 boost limit on 87 octane, and +12 "When using 100 octane" or something along these lines.

Otherwise, you are like a broken record.