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

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by winny

You're right, and personally I think that the Devs won't include the 100 octane Spit untill they've included the 109-F, simply for balance.
There would be too much flak.

I doubt if this discussion will sway them, they have their own ideas I'm sure.

This is really about ending the whole 'it shouldn't be there because...' argument. I think it's relevant and I aslo find it interesting (that's because I've nothing better to do )

I think, if the balance would be the purpose, would be before E-4/N, E-7/N (these fit this period historically, no need new 3d modell), than F. Who flies on a German side, it does not understand it, why they are not those developments, with what the German aircrafts were equipped already under the BOB? Is this Balance too?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

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).

Absolutely agree with the above. There's no doubt a significant number - how many, we do not know - Mark Is and IIs, and Hurricanes were running on 100 octane with the associated boost levels. There's a need for a Spitfire MK.I with CSP and CSP+100 as you say. Mission designers and server admins will then decide which will be used based on the evidence found on whether the home station was historically supplied with the fuel or not.
In contrast Glider's position is that the basic Spitfire MK.I with CSP should be not modelled at all, so that nobody would have choice to make up his mind wheater 100 octane was in universal use or not. Glider himself will have the right to make that decision instead of them and the developers.

I doubt it is about balance; after all, we have the Mark II which is already running on 100 octane and with a performance that is virtually identical to Mark Is with 100 octane. The problem is the FM has simulation-wide issues, and presently the 109E are not runing at historical performance levels. I do not think a 109F is needed for "balance", after all the basic 109E with 601A had very similiar performance as the 100 octane RAF birds, and we do not even have 601N powered Emils or similar 110 Ceasars.

Overall, however, I do not think this thread warrants more discussion on the subject, as the current evidence level is simply lacking. We will see if Glider or others can shed light on the issue based on hard evidence in the archives. Otherwise, its just neverending talk, talk, talk..

[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.