SPIT MK I/II and over boost - Page 9

Blackdog_kt · #81 01-08-2012, 09:16 PM

All i'm trying to say is let's have the tools that will allow each one of us to fly according to what they think is correct, or even (heavens, no!) more enjoyable to them.

However, it seems that there's a few people so entrenched in their efforts to make everyone fly "their way" that i'm just wasting my breath

All the charts, combat reports and official documents? Useful and interesting, but they should be moved to the realm of "mission designer's considerations".

In terms of sim design and features, it should support both high and low octane FMs, because we will NEED them in case of dynamic campaigns (some community members are actively engaged in this) coming in the not too distant future.

You know, the kind of campaigns that don't play out exactly like things went back in 1940. The kind of campaigns where a sustained bombing offensive might result in one team not having enough 100 octane fuel. How then will we simulate it, if all we have is 100 octane FMs for each single flyable?

Please, try to think beyond getting that one extra kill on a DF server because "Lolz, i has 100 octane! I'm fast and furious!" and start seeing the big picture

We need both high and low octane FMs, for both sides.

Al Schlageter · #82 01-08-2012, 10:03 PM

If you want to 'game the game', go right ahead.

There was no lack of 100 fuel and if the bases requiring 100 fuel didn't have 100 fuel they wouldn't have 87 fuel either.

100 fuel doesn't do anything for the Hurricane and Spitfire over a certain height.

If historical scenarios are required, then the info is of importance. It is not about getting those extra kills.

drewpee · #83 01-09-2012, 07:41 AM

I fly red and blue. My kill death ratio is about 5/1. The Spit is easer to dog fight in a 1 on 1 scenario and is good for defense. Its also got excellent visibility, so unless I'm fixated on a target there is no chance of being jumped. The 109 is better as hit and run and flying with a wingman. I find it harder to hit a target and need the extra ammo. The visibility is poor as there is no way to check 6 with out turning. I'll fly any model of 109 as they're almost identical.
Red and blue are well matched once I learned to fly each AC. As for the Spit-2 I avoid it like the plague. It out classes everything. As a blue pilot I'll only engage with advantage and disengage if I failed to damage the Spit on the first pass or if the pilot appears to be a rookie. I will not fly it as I don't like the advantage.

The Spit-2 is a trouble maker.

Blackdog_kt · #84 01-09-2012, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

If you want to 'game the game', go right ahead.

There was no lack of 100 fuel and if the bases requiring 100 fuel didn't have 100 fuel they wouldn't have 87 fuel either.

100 fuel doesn't do anything for the Hurricane and Spitfire over a certain height.

If historical scenarios are required, then the info is of importance. It is not about getting those extra kills.

I'm talking about a dynamic campaign with a supply system, where bombing the enemy's resources has a tangible effect in their ability to fight back. How are you going to work with that if the sim can't simulate aircraft flying with low octane fuel?

If we knew what was correct i'd still say include both variants for this reason and also, for battle of France scenarios.

Even so, it's pretty clear there's no consensus on what was historically correct but each "camp" keeps pushing in the hope that their version of events will be chosen and modeled in the sim. Well, this way the only thing that will happen is having half the people overjoyed and half disappointed, instead of a situation where both could be happy with what they have.

If considerations such as these are your definition of gaming the game then be my guest, we'll agree to disagree. I mean, we can't expect the entire sim to play out exactly like the real thing did down to individual engagements, where would the fun be in that? I'd rather we had the tools to create all possible scenarios, so that we can study different aspects of the actual events.

What if the LW didn't have enough E-4s because they had lost too many early on? What if RAf was short on 100 octane fuel? What if LW kept pounding the airfields, after dropping those radar towers? It's like having your own time machine/history lab right on your desktop and gives an even better appreciation of the real events.

The sim can do such things now that we have scripting (there are community members working on dynamic campaigns that feature supply tracking). It's a shame to miss out on all this because of near-sightedness and it's a bit egoistic to try to deprive others of enjoying such features. I mean, it's like i come out and say "hey, i know my CEM well enough, i suggest CEM can't be disabled because it's gaming the game"

klem · #85 01-09-2012, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

If you want to 'game the game', go right ahead.

There was no lack of 100 fuel and if the bases requiring 100 fuel didn't have 100 fuel they wouldn't have 87 fuel either.

100 fuel doesn't do anything for the Hurricane and Spitfire over a certain height.

If historical scenarios are required, then the info is of importance. It is not about getting those extra kills.

+1 on 100 octane supplies.

We aren't the only forum to have discussions on this and I found a very interesting post on another forum whch replaces the usual speculation with some documented facts. I'm not going to reproduce them here, you can read them at this forum post.....
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...tml#post542367
and another containing combat reports from as early as May 1940 with many, particularly the Hurricane Squadrons, before the Bob 'started' in July 1940.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...tml#post542707

Like our own forum the Thread contains some vociferous posts against the idea and claims that the BoB was fought largely using 87 octane fuels although the main protagonist doesn't seem to offer contemporary data or reports. The posts in the links do contain such contemporary reports and some reflective reports written only a few years later indicating that Fighter Command was moved to 100 Octane fuel from March 1940, either through field mods or the delivery of new aircraft already converted. Its also unthinkable in the face of imminent attack that, with the 100 octane fuel reserves available, the whole of Fighter Command could not have been supported or would not have been converted. If there had been any division between 87 and 100 octane the aircraft requiring the highest performance would have taken preference and is perhaps why Bomber Command wasn't converted until 1941.

The Thread itself is begun by a poster who also refers to the work of Dr Gavin Bailey which supports the argument that 100 octane was readily available from Britain's own resources by the time of the BoB and not just dependent on US supplies (this is an argument sometimes used to suggest that the RAF couldn't have had the necessary supplies for the BoB). His book is mentioned here...
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...1/394.abstract

Al Schlageter · #86 01-09-2012, 03:43 PM

Blackdog, you and others, can do your 'what ifs' (I have nothing against them and would be intersting) but the fact is 100 octane was NOT in short supply. Even before the BoB started 8800 tons of 100 fuel was issued in May, 5700 tons in June and 8700 tons in July. Do you know how many gallons that is? (for rough calculation, 300gal per ton or enough to fill the tanks of 3 squadrons of Spitfires per ton)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-100octane.jpg

No clear no consensus on what was historically correct? Open your eyes and mind as proofs have been shown. The only negative voices are those that want to castrate the RAF fighters and these voices have been crying the same tune for years.

Yes klem and even back in the day on the Ubi Il-2 board as well.

What is interesting is the main protagonist, who is in denial of the widespread use of 100 fuel during the BoB, put forward very minimal proof for 1.98ata boosted Bf109K-4s. This was only an own typed order, not an original document, which has been modified over time.

Faustnik · #87 01-09-2012, 04:08 PM

Thats a great stat Al Schlageter!

**************

drewpee,

I like the Spit 1s and the 109E1s but, by favorite is any version of Hurri! Stability is the answer.

When radiators are fixed, CoD will be a whole realistic sim.

TomcatViP · #88 01-09-2012, 04:17 PM

The prob with the kind of comment you hve posted Schlag is that you think that history is your and we are the bad guys.

We are not here to CASTRATE ?!:!! the RAF. We love the RAF as much as you seems to do. Just keep in mind that adulation is way out of purpose when it come to deal with history. You need to step down and look at the overall pic you'"ll see that the three is not the forest and things are more complicated.

Anyhow it will be nice if you and alike stop posting this insulting comments. The 1940 RAF does not belong to you no matter how loud you say it over our faces.

Thx in advance

csThor · #89 01-09-2012, 04:34 PM

Apparently the "Deutschland über alles" types have their evil twins in the "Britannia rule the waves" types.

I have to agree with BlackDog - some people don't discuss, they try to run over their discussion partners like a steamroller in order to put their particular idea about history over everyone else. And people wonder why some of us prefer offline?

fruitbat · #90 01-09-2012, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I'm talking about a dynamic campaign with a supply system, where bombing the enemy's resources has a tangible effect in their ability to fight back. How are you going to work with that if the sim can't simulate aircraft flying with low octane fuel?

If we knew what was correct i'd still say include both variants for this reason and also, for battle of France scenarios.

Even so, it's pretty clear there's no consensus on what was historically correct but each "camp" keeps pushing in the hope that their version of events will be chosen and modeled in the sim. Well, this way the only thing that will happen is having half the people overjoyed and half disappointed, instead of a situation where both could be happy with what they have.

If considerations such as these are your definition of gaming the game then be my guest, we'll agree to disagree. I mean, we can't expect the entire sim to play out exactly like the real thing did down to individual engagements, where would the fun be in that? I'd rather we had the tools to create all possible scenarios, so that we can study different aspects of the actual events.

What if the LW didn't have enough E-4s because they had lost too many early on? What if RAf was short on 100 octane fuel? What if LW kept pounding the airfields, after dropping those radar towers? It's like having your own time machine/history lab right on your desktop and gives an even better appreciation of the real events.

The sim can do such things now that we have scripting (there are community members working on dynamic campaigns that feature supply tracking). It's a shame to miss out on all this because of near-sightedness and it's a bit egoistic to try to deprive others of enjoying such features. I mean, it's like i come out and say "hey, i know my CEM well enough, i suggest CEM can't be disabled because it's gaming the game"

I quite like the idea of your what ifs, but i'd rather have the history first, and that means spit mk1a and hurri on 100 octane, as a huge amount of proof has been shown already (only the blind or unwilling dispute).

Then we can have the what ifs.