SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[Blackdog_kt]

Guys, please don't get personal. Not everyone can subscribe to the same opinion and not everyone has the same sources or values each source equally.

Let's ask to have both high and low octane versions and then we can use whatever we like in our missions, without infringing on the ability of others to do the same.

I try not to point fingers, but in this case both "camps" are so evenly matched in doing this that i think no harm will come from it, everybody's guilty of this behaviour to an extent. What behaviour? The "It's not good enough for me if i get the tools to recreate what i think is historically correct. I want these to be the only tools available so everyone else will do what i think is right, so that i never run the risk of flying in an unfavorable environment when going online and messing up my gameplay enjoyment factor, sense of achievement or precious online K/D stats" kind of behaviour.

Let's be serious for a moment and understand that

a) whatever the case may have been during BoB, the scope of the series is not just BoB, so we will end up needing both high and low octane versions (battle of France/phoney war/low countries anyone?) and
b) both blue and red are currently missing their high performance rides (eg, about half the 110 fleet was running DB601N engines by the time of BoB and in certain regimes of flight this made them faster than the RAF fighters)

The pendulum swings both ways really. Let's ask the developers to get the missing variants which are not even new flyables (same 3d models with a few numbers changed in their FM really) and be done with it, so we can both start using them according to what each one thinks is historically correct and move on to the next bit that needs attention

[svend]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Guys, please don't get personal. Not everyone can subscribe to the same opinion and not everyone has the same sources or values each source equally.

That`s absolute correct. Values each source equally is aboute evaluete and take the time to do so and not, what do I gain from it.

Let's ask to have both high and low octane versions and then we can use whatever we like in our missions, without infringing on the ability of others to do the same.

Agree

I try not to point fingers, but in this case both "camps" are so evenly matched in doing this that i think no harm will come from it, everybody's guilty of this behaviour to an extent. What behaviour? The "It's not good enough for me if i get the tools to recreate what i think is historically correct. I want these to be the only tools available so everyone else will do what i think is right, so that i never run the risk of flying in an unfavorable environment when going online and messing up my gameplay enjoyment factor, sense of achievement or precious online K/D stats" kind of behaviour.

Agree

Let's be serious for a moment and understand that

a) whatever the case may have been during BoB, the scope of the series is not just BoB, so we will end up needing both high and low octane versions (battle of France/phoney war/low countries anyone?) and
b) both blue and red are currently missing their high performance rides (eg, about half the 110 fleet was running DB601N engines by the time of BoB and in certain regimes of flight this made them faster than the RAF fighters)

The pendulum swings both ways really. Let's ask the developers to get the missing variants which are not even new flyables (same 3d models with a few numbers changed in their FM really) and be done with it, so we can both start using them according to what each one thinks is historically correct and move on to the next bit that needs attention

Agree

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I think the best way is to have all versions available and then it's up to the mission designer to do the research and decide what to use. If i'm building a campaign and the squad i use was on a satellite field that day with 87 octane fuel only, i'll use the low power version of the flyable in the mission. If the next day they had moved back to their main base with 100 octane supplies, i'll use the high power flyables for the next mission. And so on and so forth for the aircraft of both sides (eg, the high power 110s).

If you are looking for realistic missions, the satellite field would also have 100 octane fuel.

The squadron would be armed and fueled with 100 octane fuel fly out the satellite field very early in the morning and have their tanks topped up with 87 octane. They then would take off on an intercept mission. Some of the pilots would report rough running engines during combat but run OK while returning to base.

Upon returning to the satellite field the a/c would be rearmed and 87 octane fuel put in the tanks. They are scrambled on another intercept mission and the controller tells them Buster. The throttles are pushed full forward. Before they can reach any altitude, kaboom, kaboom, kaboom one after another 12 Merlins blow up and the squadron are now gliders looking for a place to crash land.

Not a very realistic scenario you presented.

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't know exactly how it was in the BoB, it was just an example (and in such a case, the pilots would be smart enough to use 87 octane power settings and their mechanics would warn them). What i'm really saying is, since we can't reach a consensus let's have both options and then each mission designer/server host can decide on their own and we can decide if we fly there.

Solves the issue pretty much

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I don't know exactly how it was in the BoB, it was just an example (and in such a case, the pilots would be smart enough to use 87 octane power settings and their mechanics would warn them). What i'm really saying is, since we can't reach a consensus let's have both options and then each mission designer/server host can decide on their own and we can decide if we fly there.

Solves the issue pretty much

That is the problem.

In the heat of the moment, tired and on an adrenalin high with their life on the line, you expect the pilots to remember they can't use full throttle?

Using 87 octane fuel on the CloD map is gaming the game.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I think we need to apply some common sense here. 100 octane was apparently used but there are serious doubts that it was used in each squadron and each Spit. It seems there is no data available that proofe that all Spits flew with 100 octane fuel.

There isn't a single documented example of a BofB Spit or Hurricane that flew a combat sortie with 87 octane fuel.

Only the "Deutchland uber alles" types continue to claim that 87 octane was used by Spits and Hurricanes during the BofB.

[xnomad]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I would invite anyone that flys blue to fly a Mk. I RAF aircraft, doesn't matter which one, for a month, and then get back to me about how "undermodeled" the Bf 109 E4 is.

But then this is a dream, because it will not allow them to pad their stats for an entire month...

This is exactly why I've been flying the Spit a lot online. In fact I've hardly flown the 109 lately and I'm a huge 109 fan. The reason is that the CEM is more complex and challenging in the Spit. You can fly the 109 on full throttle all day and engage WEP whenever you want without a risk.

The Spit really struggles against the 109 and especially if you have to climb to meet them, you end up just cooking the engine. It's not fair as the 109 pilots don't have to worry about their engines unless they are negligent with the prop pitch in a dive.

It's true there is just not enough love from the devs for the Spit. I want the 109 drivers who fly full throttle to be punished too. It's just not realistic caning your engine for the entire mission.!

[TomcatViP]

I agree. Those guys using cte Boost in the 109 shld be toasted with a randomly occurring big explosion that let them cool down in the bottom of the channel the time they think how bad it is to game the sim !

Where is James and the MI6 ? !!

[Al Schlageter]

The DB601N was mentioned, so some history......


Timeline:

24.05.1940: GL announces that 1000 DB601N engines are to be produced until 01.01.1940. (??1941)

31.05.1940: Of the 1000 engines, 350 engines have to be considered reserve engines. Thus, only the series production Me 109F can be equipped with the engine. An introduction into Me 110 production at a later date is to be considered.

07.06.1940: New program shows Me 109 and Me 110 equipped with DB601N.

12.07.1940: Generalstab decides that the existing DB601N engines are for now to be installed in the Me 110 exclusively.

19.07.1940: The currently available DB601N engines are required for conversion of the Me 110 in front-line operations. This means an end to further conversions of the Me 109 (of which so far, one group has been converted). The Me 109F series retains the DB601N engine. New-production Me 110 retain the DB601A as before.

26.07.1940: Generalstab opposes further conversions of Me 110 aircraft to DB601N engines except for the groups currently under conversion.

09.08.1940: For the conversion of a total of 3 groups of Me 110 and the already completed conversion of one group Me 109, a monthly total of 70 engines is required for 30 replacement aircraft Me 110, 10 replacement aircraft Me 109. An additional 30 engines are allocated for the reserve engine pool. As currently 280 engines are used in operations, this equates a 10 % reserve.

30.08.1940: It is requested from LC 3 to built a reserve of 45 engines (September), 35 (October), then 30 engines each month until a total of 180 engines is reached.

27.09.1940: Chef Generalstab decided to sustain 4 groups of Me 110 with N engines. 40 of DB601N engines are ear-marked for the reserve pool for these groups. The remaining engines are to go into the reserve pool (1/3) and into Me 109 (2/3).

18.10.1940: It is impossible at the time to convert more than the one existing Bf 109E group to DB601N, and it's not expected to be possible before 01.12.1940. Currently the DB601N engines go to: 1) new production Friedrichs, 2) new production Me 110 to sustain the existing four groups, 3) into 40 new production Emils to sustain the existing one group, 4) into the reserve engine pool for 1 - 3.

26.10.1940: Until the end of October, 1100 - 1200 DB601N engines were delivered. They are installed in the four existing Me 110 groups and the single existing Me 109 group, some reconnaissance aircraft of the Aufklärungsgruppe Ob. d. L., plus 130 reserve engine pool. The rest of the engines went into Me 109F and Me 110 production. The production of DB601N-engined Me 110s is to be channelled into night fighters, for which a constant strength of 120 is demanded.

06.11.1940: Generalstab requests more Me 109 with DB601N-engines. In order to free the required engines, the Generalstab accepts that two month's worth of Me 110 production are delivered with DB601A exclusively (November and December production). The engines thus freed are to go to 1) remaining Bf 109E production, 2) III./ZG 26 Erprb.Gr 210. II./ZG 26 and II./ZG 76 are given low priority or have to swap their engines for DB601A if required.

22.01.1941: The Leitender Chef-Ingenieur has considered the fuel situation and suggest to possibly convert the Me 110 to DB601A engines. The Generalstab lists the operational aircraft with DB601N engine by 01.01.1940 as follows:

Me 109E-1: 16
Me 109E-3: 1
Me 109E-4: 59
Me 109E-6: 1
Me 109E-7: 34
Me 109E-8: 2
Me 109F-1: 5

Me 110C-1: 4
Me 110C-4: 40
Me 110C-5: 12
Me 110C-7: 14
Me 110D-0: 18
Me 110D-2: 20
Me 110D-3: 8
Me 110E-1: 176
Me 110E-2: 14

He 111P: 8
Do 215: 68

(Apparently, the fuel situation made it difficult to keep the DB601N in operation, and at least Me 110 production was ordered to go back to the DB601A predominantly while the DB601N was phased out in favour of the DB601E.)

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...?showtopic=515

[Al Schlageter]

Couple of graphs on Lw a/c:





Sollstärke = authorised strength
Iststärke = actual strength
Einsatzbereit = operational

source: Klee