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

[Kurfürst]

What is your purpose in life?

Because if this is it, I guess its a most severe form of punishment in itself, and I don't have to lift a finger, just leave you be as you are.

[Seadog]

We're still waiting for proof that even one RAFFC Merlin engined fighter squadron used 87 octane operationally during the BofB.

[winny]

Don't get me wrong, I get annoyed by Kurfurst, sometimes very annoyed.

Deflection is an art form, Kurfurst's a master.

There are forums all over the place with threads about this subject and Kurfurst is present in all of them.

The subject gets bogged down in the supply issue, it's a red herring.

The whole argument seems to hinge on the 'select or certain stations'
There is no definite definition of certain stations so again it's a red herring.

If the question is 'Were the RAF using 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain' the answer is a definite yes. It's just how many.

To go back to the 1938 doccument, written at a time when Britain were in the process of rearmament, not war, is another deflection.

To say that that doccument is relevant to a battle that took place 2 years later, under a different government is wrong. Unless a doccument is post the invasion of Poland then its frankly irrelevant.

Nobody expected the war to start in 39. Most were gearing up for 42.

I can prove to anyone that up to 30 squadrons used 100 octane during The battle.
At the very least 4 at dunkirk
At the very least another 6 in June. That's 30% of the total number of FC sqns at the time (around 330 operational Hurricanes and Spitfires).

Kurfurst has never quantified his argument. No numbers for squadrons.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by winny

I can prove to anyone that up to 30 squadrons used 100 octane during The battle.
At the very least 4 at dunkirk
At the very least another 6 in June. That's 30% of the total number of FC sqns at the time (around 330 operational Hurricanes and Spitfires).

Kurfurst has never quantified his argument. No numbers for squadrons.

RAFFC had 34 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on July 08 with 6 Blenheim and 2 Defiant squadrons, and 61 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on Nov 03, with 6 Blenheim and 3 Defiant squadrons. So 30 (I assume you mean Hurricane/Spitfire) represents from ~90 to ~50% of all operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Seadog

RAFFC had 34 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on July 08 with 6 Blenheim and 2 Defiant squadrons, and 61 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on Nov 03, with 6 Blenheim and 3 Defiant squadrons. So 30 (I assume you mean Hurricane/Spitfire) represents from ~90 to ~50% of all operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons.

I did mean Hurri/Spit and I was using the 4 + 6 = 10 Squadrons by June.
Or a third of the Hurri/Spit squadrons at the time.

I'm starting with a low number. It's a definite which is more than I've seen for the other side of the argument.

I've found combat reports that back this up, and as Pilots had to record use of 12lb I think there must be more.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

I did mean Hurri/Spit and I was using the 4 + 6 = 10 Squadrons by June.
Or a third of the Hurri/Spit squadrons at the time.

I'm starting with a low number. It's a definite which is more than I've seen for the other side of the argument.

I've found combat reports that back this up, and as Pilots had to record use of 12lb I think there must be more.

Its interesting that Pips and Kurfurst believe that the number was 25% of FC and 125 aircraft in May

I have 10 Hurricane squadrons and 3 Spitfire squadrons with combat reports in May alone.

Hurricane 85, 1, 73, 79, 87, 151, 56, 17, 229 and 245 squadrons
Spitfire, 74, 54 and 19 squadrons

Links
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

[winny]

Originally Posted by Glider

Its interesting that Pips and Kurfurst believe that the number was 25% of FC and 125 aircraft in May

I have 10 Hurricane squadrons and 3 Spitfire squadrons with combat reports in May alone.

Hurricane 85, 1, 73, 79, 87, 151, 56, 17, 229 and 245 squadrons
Spitfire, 74, 54 and 19 squadrons

Links
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

It's getting better
10 squadrons in May is equal to a third of the operational FC fighter (Hurri/Spit) squadrons at the time. I'll have a look and see what stations they were all flying out of.

I made some brief enquiries at the national archive, they have over 1600 combat reports from the BoB. The answer to this must be in them, given that RAF pilots HAD to report any 12lb boost usage it would be pretty easy to see when and where the conversions happened.

I'm seriosly considering hiring a researcher at the archive to dig them out...

EDIT: I've also decided to get in touch with Rolls Royce at Derby to see if they have anything on wether or not a converted 100oct Merlin would run on 87 oct. The reason is that a lot of Squadrons used 2 stations. One where they stayed overnight and a forward base. If the conversion meant that a merlin wouldn't run on 87 then that would mean both stations would have to have had 100 oct, meaning more stations, more fuel, etc..

[ZaltysZ]

As talks begin to wander towards personals things, I want to point out one thing. This thread was created for discussions about inaccuracies between FM and RL data, however later it took the course of debating if planes present in game are suitable for BoB period.

Although Kurfurst doesn't agree that all Spitfires MK.I were on 100 octane, I think he won't disagree that Spitfire MK.I on 100 octane were not such rare and exotic breed (ala I-185, Mig-3U and so on), which would not be worth to be modeled. I think both sides would agree that we need 2 additional Spitfire MK.I models: CSP and CSP+100 octane. This is what is required from devs now. Everything else (debates about how much 100 octane were available) would be more helpful for mission designers and not to devs (somehow I don't think they would invest much time correcting campaigns).

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

The subject gets bogged down in the supply issue, it's a red herring.

.

Its interesting as I see the supply as being the key issue. If the RAF had a shortage of supply then there is logic in limiting the roll out and concentrating the supplies where you need them most say 11 and 12 group. However if there isn't a shortage, then there is no logic in limiting the numbers.

The changes to the engine were small and could easily been doe on the stations, yet the performance gain was very significant. So it isn't a technical or manufacture issue, its down to supply.

Without a shortage of fuel there is no logic to holding the supplies back. Indeed this is probably the one thing that I agree with re Pips posting, its centred on supply. I just disagree with his assumption that there was a shortage.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Glider

Its interesting as I see the supply as being the key issue. If the RAF had a shortage of supply then there is logic in limiting the roll out and concentrating the supplies where you need them most say 11 and 12 group. However if there isn't a shortage, then there is no logic in limiting the numbers.

The changes to the engine were small and could easily been doe on the stations, yet the performance gain was very significant. So it isn't a technical or manufacture issue, its down to supply.

Without a shortage of fuel there is no logic to holding the supplies back. Indeed this is probably the one thing that I agree with re Pips posting, its centred on supply. I just disagree with his assumption that there was a shortage.

I agree that it was a crucial point at the time.
I just think it's being used to hide behind. The records are vague and it's the point Kur keeps coming back to.

All the other forums threads seem to get stuck at the supply issue.

So, let's by-pass it and go to evidence of 100 octane use in battle. Easier to prove.

Unless someone finds the 'holy grail' doccument regarding supply/conversion this supply debate is just going to keep looping around.


It's interesting to note that all of the early doccuments say that the conversion would not happen till they had enough supplies.
There is no doubt the conversion started before The BoB, so logically someone must have decided that there was enough 100 octane or they wouldn't have done it.

I still think Squadron operations log books and combat reports are the key to this one.

We don't need to prove that the conversion happened, because it did.
We don't need to prove that the stocks of 100 octane were adequate, because someone made the decision at the time that there was enough, or the conversion wouldn't have happened.

We just need to prove widespread use in combat. That's what it's all about.