Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please. (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=31797)

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 429030)

So essentially Crumpp has been trying to tell us - over several threads and in interminable detail - that logistically the RAF was not able to provide sufficient 100 octane fuel to allow all frontline, single-engined fighters to operate using the fuel, yet was able to ensure an adequate supply of fighters, both through the factories and through the CRO/ASU repair organisations.

I would think that an organisation which had the logistical genius to plan pre-war for high production rates, and set up proper repair facilities in wartime, also had the nouse to provide all of its frontline units with the best available fuel, contrary to Crumpp's stated beliefs.

http://i.imgur.com/SwoW0.png

And your point Mr Doggles?

If you have nothing to add but insult, please don't post. It is one thing to strongly disagree with each other, but it's another to take it personal and carry personal issues over to every other topic possible. It will just serve to get interesting topics spoiled, destroyed and locked and members banned. It's annoying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 429091)

And your point Mr Doggles?

That guy in the graphic? That's you and whoever else keep slagging the 100 octane issue and the ad hominem attacks, especially after the other thread's been locked. Please just stop.

This thread is about the incorrect modeling of 12lb boost in CloD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles (Post 429149)

... and the ad hominem attacks ...

It's really not necessary to keep taking swings at each other. NZTyphoon isn't adding anything of value, he's just trying to stir up the argument again, like the guy in the pic I posted.

You've just said "It's really not necessary to keep taking swings at each other" and then with the following sentence took a swing......shakes head mystified......

Still, I'm very happy to keep this thread just about the incorrect modelling of 100 octane fuel, which is incorrect of course.

Well, I'm hoping the next patch will render all these discussions moot, in addition to addressing the 109 shortcomings as well.

More evidence:

Quote:

...I do not believe that it is generally recognised how much this
superiority would have been affected had not the decision been
taken to base aircraft engine design on the use of 100-octane
fuel instead of the pre-war standard grade of 87-octane rating.
In fact, it was only a few months before the Battle of Britain
that all fighters were changed over from 87- to 100-octane
fuel, a change which enabled the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine
of that period to be operated at an increased supercharger
pressure which immediately gave an extra 200 h.p. or more.
Subsequent engine developments made possible by the use of
100-octane instead of 87-octane fuel have since permitted a
truly phenomenal increase in the power of the original engine
without any change in its basic size or capacity.
It is very interesting to refer back to the records of serious
discussions which took place only a year or two before the war
when certain authorities expressed the very gravest misgivings
at the proposal to design engines to require a '' theoretical type
of fuel" (i.e., 100 octane), which they feared would not be
available in adequate quantity in time of war, since we were
mainly dependent on America for its supply. Fortunately for
Britain, the majority of those directly concerned took a different
view, and I might quote a rather prophetic statement made by
an Air Ministry official at a Royal Aeronautical Society meeting
in February, 1937, who, in referring to the advent of
100 octane, said: " Let there be no doubt, however, that
petroleum technologists and fuel research workers now have
the opportunity to provide by their efforts an advance in aircraft
engine development, with its effect on air power, which
the engine designer by himself cannot hope to offer by any
other means."
May I conclude by also quoting a reply reported to have
been made recently in the U.S.A. by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, M.P.,
Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and
Power, in answer to the question: " Do you think 100 octane
was the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain in 1940 ? "
To which Mr. Lloyd replied: " I think we would not have won
the Battle of Britain without 100 octane—but we DID have
the 100 octane."
Nevertheless, let us not forget that between the fuel and the
airscrew there are also many other links in the chain, any one
of which, had it failed, could have vitally affected the issue,
while all the technical superiority in the world would, of course,
have been of no avail at all without the efficient training, skill,
and courage in combat of the Battle of Britain pilots.

Flight Magazine, Jan 06 1944
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200044.html

87 Octane was not used by RAF FC in frontline squadrons during the BofB.

Quote:

87 Octane was not used by RAF FC in frontline squadrons during the BofB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82_xzHcAQgo

Why is it proof?

Some guy says these aliens exist!! It must be true.