Spit1a > SpitII

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by winny

I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards. So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?

I think what kurfurst is trying to say is that german had both 87 and 100 fuel. So if they captured a British spittie, they WOULD tested it with the same fuel it was being used on it, not a different one. SO basicly if you say "they all had 100 gallon" then the captured one HAD to had 100 gallon. if the captured was 87 then that means not all of the spitis were 100 gallon, and there were 87.

thats what i got out if it.

jkeep up the discussion, its keeping me from studying math all day

[Kurfürst]

I don't understand why them rotating would make any difference.

I already explained. See A and B station, X and Y Squadron. In short it makes assessing the number of Squadrons using 100 oct at the same time difficult. But not impossible.

I thought that once an engine had been converted to 100 that was what they put in it, regardless of where it was stationed?

The engine mod only made it available to take advantage of higher boost. It did not cut you off from using 87 octane in the future.

To my best knowledge the 100 octane engine mod. simply changed the way how the automatic boost cutout worked. Before the mod. it was a switch for "manual override for automatic boost limit", meaning you could select whatever boost (even overboost) and after the mod it was a "+12 lbs instead of 6 1/4 automatic boost limit". It didn't make 87 octane incompatible with the engine, but of course you shouldn't use the +12 boost in this condition.

Why paint 100's onto them if it didn't matter what fuel you put in?

Because they do that in every air force. I believe you will find that they continued to paint 100 on them, just not on the side of the cowling, but on the top, with dark letters (like in the Il2 skin).

OK I retract the all - I stand by the fact that I can find reference to 100 octane use in at least 30 squadrons before August 1940, happy? Didn't think so.

Yes, happy. I have no problem acknowledging that there were a significant number of Squadrons using 100 octane and had improved performance. There's is no lack of evidence for that. I just don't believe it realistic that all of them suddenly switched overnight. There is contradictionary evidence.

It is you who is changing his position all the time, not me. As far as it goes, you've made two positive claims

a, All FC Sqns were using 100 octane fuel, and nothing else OK, prove me wrong.
b, Rechlin trials did not use 100 octane fuel - OK prove me wrong

Sorry, you made these claims... I don't have to prove them wrong. It just doesn't work that way that if you make a claim, and I can't or won't prove it wrong, you're right.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Originally Posted by winny

I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards.

So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

I said that they - at Rechlin - were perfectly capable of carrying out with 100 octane. They were. The Germans were using 100 octane fuel in their own planes (fighters, heavy fighters, bombers), both their own type and captutre, during the Battle. So what would keep them from using the same fuels in captured enemy aircraft..?

I also said that this would be logical, IF they captured the aircraft with 100 octane. If I find a Spit filled with 100 octane, and would want to try out what it is capable of so that my pilots could fight it better, why would I create conditions that give me a false view and put me into a disadvantage..? Sorry, the guys at Rechlin were not stupid, just like their collegues in Russia, Uk, US, they were amongst some of the finest engineers and pilots of the world.

This was in response to your categoric statement that the Rechlin tests were NOT carried out with 100 octane. Frankly I believe this is just said all the time because the E-Stelle Rechlin did not paint so positive picture of the aircraft, so people want to dismiss it.

[QUOTE]In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?/QUOTE]

Sure, though I think I did above. I don't believe, due to lack of any kind of positive evidence to such claims, and due to the evidence that contradicts it, that every and all FC Sqn was running solely on 100 octane fuel. I believe some stations (Sqns) were supplied with 100 octane, and some with 87 octane, as the decision makers were - rightly - concerned about the flow of supplies, and the consequences if those supplies were cut off. I also believe that as the Battle progressed, more Squadrons were using 100 octane.

It would also makes sense. I have NEVER seen in all my studies of WW2 air forces that things just changed all the sudden, that they would introduce a new type of aircraft and it would immidiately replace the old ones, or fuel, for that matter. Its unrealistic.

I also understand that this is a claim put forward typically by RAF fanboys (not meaning you) who want to fly only the best variant, so they could argue it was the *only* variant around, that's the only variant that should be present on ie. Dogfight servers. Personally, I don't have a stake in it, because I don't fly on those servers for years BTW. Nor do I care of the variant present - the way I fight, it doesn't matter what plane I dive on and attack with great speed advantage.

[TomcatViP]

Intersesting reading.

At least I found here again what I hve read for years in UK/US books and not such upside down history account. I guess I am not the only one here with such a feeling.

Regarding the merlin power, may I suggest we give enough details giving perf to determine if the it was a static test run or an in flight measure (typically corrected to 10kft with RAE formula).

Engine data in RAF at the time depict performances WITHOUT Supercharger or being corrected with pre-war formula (hence the the extra 15/30% power) - RR heritage trust / The perf of aero eng / pg 5.


This illustrate why with all the raw data that are now available on the web (but with sometime questionable sources) giving any interpretations or deductions without taking into account years of research from historians is somewhat hazardous.

Usually it ends up like this : all before me was wrong listen what I have to say... Man shld be cautious when entering such a buffer zone

I have in mind that latter analysis in war corrected the early data with the new state of the Art resulting in the normal linear improvement curves we have all in mind of teh Marlin during WWII.

Interestingly I found the related article in Wiki really good. Have a look !

[lane]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Intersesting reading.

At least I found here again what I hve read for years in UK/US books and not such upside down history account. I guess I am not the only one here with such a feeling.

Regarding the merlin power, may I suggest we give enough details giving perf to determine if the it was a static test run or an in flight measure (typically corrected to 10kft with RAE formula).

Engine data in RAF at the time depict performances WITHOUT Supercharger or being corrected with pre-war formula (hence the the extra 15/30% power) - RR heritage trust / The perf of aero eng / pg 5.


This illustrate why with all the raw data that are now available on the web (but with sometime questionable sources) giving any interpretations or deductions without taking into account years of research from historians is somewhat hazardous.

Usually it ends up like this : all before me was wrong listen what I have to say... Man shld be cautious when entering such a buffer zone

I have in mind that latter analysis in war corrected the early data with the new state of the Art resulting in the normal linear improvement curves we have all in mind of teh Marlin during WWII.

Interestingly I found the related article in Wiki really good. Have a look !

Perhaps you are looking for conspiracies that aren’t there? Have a closer look at Hooker, Reed and Yarker's The Performance of a Supercharged Aero Engine, first published in March 1941. I believe you are barking up the wrong tree See attached for an example of calculated versus tested & measured engine power.

Also see Bailey's The Merlin in Perspective first published in 1983 by the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust. Bailey worked for Rolls for over 40 years and has some knowledge of the subject. See relevant pages attached.

[Ze-Jamz]

RAFfanboys and luftwiners...

Gota love em

oh wait..i started this

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

RAFfanboys and luftwiners...

Gota love em

oh wait..i started this

so... we meet again....

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by pupo162

so... we meet again....

[whoarmongar]

BLAH, blah, blah,

ENOUGH for Gods sake.

All I can say is.

Do you really think, with Britain in a crucial battle for its life and existence, a fact fully recognised by its political leadership and the leadership of fighter command and having made strenuous efforts to get high octane fuel it would then deny that very fuel to the crucial fighter units in eleven and twelve group ? Well do you really ?

To be honest I have no axe to grind here, I really couldnt care if the flight models are correct, I dont even care very much if the spit has the wrong prop, fuel, performance.Or if the 109 is the wrong model, wrong speed or poor prop control or that the blenny struggles to make it off the runway let alone to France and back.

To be honest this game is neither fish nor fowl,
It clearly isnt a proper sim, how could it be ? It cant even get the most basic issues like fuel mix or aircraft ceiling correct
It clearly isnt a game, the campaign gameplay and missions are terrible, the multiplayer is poor.

The sound of you all argueing with real life data for this game is pathetic really
Venturi effects, drag coefficients,air compressability,fuel octane etc etc etc it has no meaning, I very much doubt this game models any of it.
For example I always fly at 22000 feet in a spit canopy open for better view,
I suffer no aerodynamic loss, no wind noise or buffeting, no adverse effects whatsoever. I always use lean mix in a spit coz the engine runs better even for take off, if I switch to lean the engine revs pick up, rich mix is not of any use whatsoever, so much for being a sim.

So cite your sources,gather your eye witness accounts, collate your historical documents, do your web searches to prove that your particular viewpoint is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It means nothing I doubt the devs even look on this site, I very much doubt any of your arguements will have any effect whatsoever on the future development of this game.

[winny]

Originally Posted by whoarmongar

BLAH, blah, blah,

ENOUGH for Gods sake.

All I can say is.

Do you really think, with Britain in a crucial battle for its life and existence, a fact fully recognised by its political leadership and the leadership of fighter command and having made strenuous efforts to get high octane fuel it would then deny that very fuel to the crucial fighter units in eleven and twelve group ? Well do you really ?

To be honest I have no axe to grind here, I really couldnt care if the flight models are correct, I dont even care very much if the spit has the wrong prop, fuel, performance.Or if the 109 is the wrong model, wrong speed or poor prop control or that the blenny struggles to make it off the runway let alone to France and back.

To be honest this game is neither fish nor fowl,
It clearly isnt a proper sim, how could it be ? It cant even get the most basic issues like fuel mix or aircraft ceiling correct
It clearly isnt a game, the campaign gameplay and missions are terrible, the multiplayer is poor.

The sound of you all argueing with real life data for this game is pathetic really
Venturi effects, drag coefficients,air compressability,fuel octane etc etc etc it has no meaning, I very much doubt this game models any of it.
For example I always fly at 22000 feet in a spit canopy open for better view,
I suffer no aerodynamic loss, no wind noise or buffeting, no adverse effects whatsoever. I always use lean mix in a spit coz the engine runs better even for take off, if I switch to lean the engine revs pick up, rich mix is not of any use whatsoever, so much for being a sim.

So cite your sources,gather your eye witness accounts, collate your historical documents, do your web searches to prove that your particular viewpoint is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It means nothing I doubt the devs even look on this site, I very much doubt any of your arguements will have any effect whatsoever on the future development of this game.

Awesome, thanks for that I'll take your advice and shut up then, I really really don't want to upset you more than you are already.

No more chatting XXXX about 109's and Spits because CoD is broken.
Whoarmonger has spoken.

How I pass my time has **** all to do with you.

[Danelov]

Yes, that´s right. Finally is only a game. If the idea is to find and flight a good Spitifire with good aerodynamics, taking in count all the variables, try FS2004 and FSX. There are very good stuff there and quite well simulated. And also as option, if you are not happy , the flight models can be edit and changed.Parameters like, power, prop type, engine gear ratio, props diameter, power absorved, coefficients, drag, fuel,fuel pressure, oil pressure, etc,etc.