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

[lane]

Air Commodore F. R. Banks, I Kept No Diary , Airlife Publications, Shrewsburg, 1978, Appendix II Fuel, pp 234-236







"With the coming of war, Banks entered the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve as a junior officer, being sent to work at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) at Boscombe Down, and with his previous work attracting the attention of Lord Beaverbrook, Banks was accredited as a 'troubleshooter' and given special powers. After a while, Banks was promoted to Air Commodore and was made successively, 'Director General of Engine Production', and 'Director of Engine Research and Development'.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

And note the dates: March 1940 and April 1940, respectively for the A.P.1590B
notes on the Merlin II & III and the Pilot's Notes.



And will sim pilots have to note the use of overboost in the engine's log book?

Nothing to do with this. My question is: Acctualy the pilots in the sim just fly with maximun power settings all the time and are not worried with engine safe. Even now with CEM the pilots could fly this way, the just have to maintain radiator and oil fully open.

[Ernst]

I mean the developers could program some weathering variable as function of how the pilot use their aircraft. The value of this variable could affect the aircraft in the next sorties and the risk of a malfunction will be higher. This has minor use in normal servers but in online wars with limited aircraft like adw or il2.org.ru this would make sense. The server program can as example numerate the disposable aircraft between 1 to n and at each sortie the weathering ll actualize for each one. The next pilot who picks that ac have higher chance to have problems etc. The commander of each squad can select some of this acs to go maintenance (then they become indisponible fot use for some time etc) reducing the weather variable. Do You understand what i am saying?

Actually in adw if you broke your ac you ll not have another until the high command send more to you. And this could last much time. My suggestion is that the developers include some feature where in an online war each pilot ll fly the same plane for many sorties and how they use the ac in the actual sortie ll influence the ac behaviour in the next. Just this... Obviously some have easier maintenance and are more rough for bad field conditions. One advantages of the 109 was the less maintenance time and cheaper to fix.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Nothing to do with this. My question is: Acctualy the pilots in the sim just fly with maximun power settings all the time and are not worried with engine safe. Even now with CEM the pilots could fly this way, the just have to maintain radiator and oil fully open.

Totally tongue in cheek, but I know what you mean...the limit for +12 Boost was set at 5 minutes: on a Spitfire the throttle lever was gated with a thin wire which the pilot pushed forward through to gain maximum boost; the boost cut-out control was mounted on the side of the throttle assembly. (see attachment 1: attachment 2; power curve for Merlin III courtesy http://www.spitfireperformance.com) As the Pilot's notes show the pilot had to report the use of +12 and a note was added to the engine's log book.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

This is what Pips said about what he found when asked: "were the British deceiving to the Australians?"



So even Pips has his doubts about the factual truth of what he found.

(It seems that the one accusing others of being selective is himself being selective.) tut tut

There is certainly evidence that this was a deception for British stocks of 100 octane fuel was:

30th September 1939 - 153,000 tons
27th February 1940 - 220,000 tons
31st May 1940 - 294,000 tons
11th July 1940 - 343,000 tons
31st August 1940 - 404,000 tons
10th October 1940 - 424,000 tons
30th November 1940 - 440,000 tons

I think its worth remembering that consumption in May-July averaged 10,000 tons a month. So imports between 1 June and 31 August must have been approx 140,000 tons (stocks plus consumption) and consumption was about 21.5% of imports.

By the same token on the 11th July pretty much the peak of the fightng the UK had a stockpile of just under 3 years.

Pips and Kurfurst may believe this is a shortage, if it is, I wish my bank balance had this kind of shortage.

[NZtyphoon]

Looking at the weekly issues of 100 Octane. There seemed to be a lull in FC operations in the week prior to the invasion of France, and then the fuel issued jumps to 3,600 tons, starting May 23, as BEF and home-based fighter units, and Blenheim units were intensifying operations. Because these amounts of 100 Octane fuel was being issued it can be safely assumed that there was no drastic need to go back to 87 Octane fuel, as the Pips memo alleges. Naturally 87 Octane issues increased as all of the RAF Commands intensified their operations.

ie: Bomber Command
Coastal Command
Army Co-Operation Command

[lane]

Originally Posted by Glider

I think its worth remembering that consumption in May-July averaged 10,000 tons a month. So imports between 1 June and 31 August must have been approx 140,000 tons (stocks plus consumption) and consumption was about 21.5% of imports. By the same token on the 11th July pretty much the peak of the fightng the UK had a stockpile of just under 3 years.

That's very interesting. Thank you Glider for taking the time to sort through the numbers and put them in perspective.

[Crumpp]

We still disputing the words for "selected units" to convert by counting fuel stockpiles??

[lane]

Originally Posted by Glider

I know that and I thank you for your posting, but it cannot be questioned that central to the Pips position is that there was a shortage. All I am asking is for Kurfurst to provide any evidence, that any part of the UK government, any department, considered there to be a shortage of 100 octane for FC, at any time during the BOB.

There are a raft of papers to the contrary and I could add a load more to your posting but I am not asking Kurfurst for that, I am just asking him to provide one paper, just one, that says there was a shortage.

It shouldn't be that difficult, hundreds of papers, books, articles, personal memories, histories have been written about the battle. There must be one that agrees with him.

Hi Glider:

I greatly appreciate the efforts you've made and the documents you have shared regarding the Battle of Britain and 100 octane fuel. As for the other business, it may be advisable to keep in mind the insight and wisdom found in camber's post 448. I believe you've adequately addressed the alleged shortage in your post 475 above.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

We still disputing the words for "selected units" to convert by counting fuel stockpiles??

No Eugene. I know you have difficulties at times but the counting of stockpiles is to show that there was no shortage of 100 fuel despite what Australia, Pips and Barbi say.