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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Robo.

This part I can't agree with I am afraid. In the sim as it is, the 109 is very much superior to any Mk.I RAF fighter in terms of speed and especially climb rate, which is most useful in dogfight. Especially so down low. If you get higher up though, cards are turning around 15-16k and above that you've got good chance of outflying the 109. That's why I believe many 109 pilots prefer to counter the RAF on low altitudes and keep doing so with great success. Things are quite different higher up provided you know what you're doing.

Granted the 100 Octane was used at lower altitudes, but read what this November 1939 paper says about the speed advantage it confers; 28/34 mph up to 10,000 feet (para 8.) Before people go on about "its only for five minutes" how long does the average combat take? 30 seconds to 1 minute at the most? - even a few mph at the right time can make a big difference. Added to this was the CS propeller fitted to all frontline RAF fighters by early August, which improved climb performance at all altitudes, and the differences between the 109 and Spitfire are not that great.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

1) It's rather dishonest to constantly try to misrepresent other people's positions, for lack of proof on your own point.

2) You dismiss 2 by the arguement that you have not seen the papers yourself, called a researcher a liar and a fraud, yet I have asked perhaps a hundred times to see the meeting file in its completeness, and not the cropped version you deem fitting to share. You never answered that, and refused to show the whole file to anyone even if its not a problematic at all. You stick to showing only select papers from it. I think it speaks for itself.

3, Morgan and Shacklady. You dismiss them for god-knows-what reason.

5, Actual consumption figures of 87 and 100 octane fuel between May 1940 - November 1940 which all show that 87 octane was dominant fuel used until October 1940, and issues oddly increased when Fighter Command activies. You dismiss that claiming that it refers to fuel consumed by other commands, but supplied again no evidence.

So present your evidence or just don't expect me to be bothered by this ruckus.

1) Dr Gavin Bailey thinks the same. He has invited Kurfürst to email him http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/ to discuss the matter.

2) Kurfürst has not seen the Pips papers, which were presented eight years ago as a summary in a members only forum, so the thread and the discussion surrounding Pips' "evidence" is not readily available. As Captain Doggles noted Pips himself admitted that they might have been misleading. For Kurfürst to pin 100% faith on papers he has not seen then demand 100% proof from others is a bit rich to say the least.

3) Morgan and Shacklady's claims about heavy tanker losses do not stack up. Cabinet papers show 1,157 tankers arriving in Britain September 1939 - November 1940. 78 tankers were sunk in the same time period.

5) And what exactly did other Commands use for fuel? An absurd claim to make in light of the fact that Bomber Command, for example, was engaged in intensive operations against invasion preparations - coincidentally, when Sealion was called off on September 17 and the invasion fleet began to disperse fuel consumption of Other Grades (not 87 Octane) tapered off as well. The fuel capacity of a Wellington, for example was 750 imp gallons; for Coastal Command a Sunderland needed 2,552 imp gal. Does this help explain why other grades of fuel were dominant?

Kurfürst has presented no evidence but continues to demand others present theirs then, when more than enough evidence is presented, continues to whine about small details or simply restates his original position as gospel.

[lane]

Originally Posted by Glider

This might help. This is the RAF Order of Battle as reported to FC at 09.00 on the 13th July giving squadrons, bases and the operational status, I only hope you can read them. These are the original reports posted to FC as held in the NA

Nice document Glider. Thanks for sharing!

[NZtyphoon]

Question: How much fuel was needed to fly all defensive sorties flown by FC during the battle? (revised - previous posting included Hooton Sep 23-29: 4,825 defensive sorties, which are already included in James' figures)

The Battle of Britain T.C.G. James: 51,364 sorties, day & night July 10 - Sept 30: Hooton’s Eagle in Flames Sep 30 – Oct 6: 1,782 defensive sorties.

Total = 53,146 sorties to October 6

1 imperial gallon of 100 Octane = 7.1 pounds ("Oil" by D.J Peyton-Smith the official British war history on the oil and petroleum industry during WW2 page xvii "Note on Weights and Measures"):

1 ton of 100 octane = 2,240 lbs divided by 7.1 = 315.5 imp gal

Fuel Capacities:

Defiant I = 97 imp gal
Hurricane I = 90 imp gal
Spitfire I & II = 84 imp gal
Total 271 imp gal

divided by 3 = 90.3 imp gal

315.5 divided by 90.3 = 3.5 fuel loads per ton of fuel

53,146 divided by 3.5
Answer: 15,184 tons of fuel

total 100 Octane fuel issued between July 11 and October 31 = 62,000 tons:

fuel consumed = 51,000 tons - 16,563 tons = 35,816 tons available for other purposes.

The only engines cleared to use 100 Octane fuel were Merlin II, II, X(? Flight 1938 article), XII and Bristol Mercury XV.

1) Was 100 octane fuel available to Fighter Command? Yes

2) Was there enough 100 octane fuel available to cover all sorties flown by Fighter Command during the battle? Yes

3) Was enough 100 Octane fuel distributed and used throughout the battle to allow Fighter Command to fly all 53,146 sorties from July to 6 October? Yes, with more than enough left over to allow Blenheim IVs of Bomber Command and Coastal Command to operate, and more than enough to allow for secondary duties.

Can anyone explain what happened to all that fuel if only half of FCs frontline fighters were allowed to use it?

[winny]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Can anyone explain what happened to all that fuel if only half of FCs frontline fighters were allowed to use it?

I knew the Fighter pilots were putting in their cars, I just didn't realise how much!

Or maybe they were drinking it?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

(...)and the differences between the 109 and Spitfire are not that great.

I understand, my comment was purely regarding the in-game performance as it is at this moment.

Anyway, thanks very much for the information, your research is appreciated, I bet I am not alone here reading these documents with interest. Cheers for that NZ (and others, too!)

[Crumpp]

1) Was 100 octane fuel available to Fighter Command? Yes

Was 100/150 grade available to FC? Yes

2) Was there enough 100 octane fuel available to cover all sorties flown by Fighter Command during the battle? Yes

Was there enough 100/150 grade to cover all sorties flown? Yes

(It is called strategic reserves...)

We all know what happened when the same group of people started using the logic on that one.

Can anyone explain what happened to all that fuel if only half of FCs frontline fighters were allowed to use it?

Sure, some of consumed fuel was used in aircraft and all of it issued to the fields operating those aircraft. It appears that we have 16 squadrons on 31 July 1940 and we still have 16 squadrons by September.

You take a very very simplistic view. You do realize that in December 1944, the USAAF in Europe, had 4 billion barrels of aviation gasoline issued out and some 12 billion in reserve.

The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

Until then, it appears the RAF is simply building up the logistical base required to support the eventual change to 100 grade.

I will scan those Order of Battle charts from the RAF today.

[Crumpp]

Can we see the rest of that document Glider?

[Glider]

You can have anything that I have but which document in particular are you looking for, I posted a number of different ones. If its the Order of Battle I have posted this on posting 746

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Was 100/150 grade available to FC? Yes
The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

And you refuse to to understand that 87 fuel was used by other RAF Commands besides FC.