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

[phoenix1963]

There is a point where interesting theories meet reality.
The secondary historians say 100 octane fuel was an important factor, the primary sources say 100 octane was used.
I suggest the people still peddling this theory use their skills for something more productive for us COD flyers.

56RAF_phoenix

[Blackdog_kt]

I really hope that when the SDK gets released we'll get both 87 and 100 octane versions of the flyables and then it will be the server admin's job to choose what they will use in each mission, rendering this whole debate moot.

Because let's face it, apart from the historical accuracy of things, a lot of the gnashing of teeth on both sides of the argument simply boils down to "i want my plane to be better than yours at the sim's primary design level so i'll always have an advantage".

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Because let's face it, apart from the historical accuracy of things, a lot of the gnashing of teeth on both sides of the argument simply boils down to "i want my plane to be better than yours at the sim's primary design level so i'll always have an advantage".

I can think of one for which that is true for but for myself and some other it is about historical accuracy.

[Osprey]

Same here Al. I get my ego boosted by rocking on stage with my band. Stat whoring in a CFS doesn't do it for me.

[TomcatViP]

In 1954, flight made a retrospective of RR engines history.

Obviously, as an aero specialised magazine, they took much care in detailling every versions of the merlin with dates, fuel, boost level, SHP, planes in wich they were fitted and service users.

A fairly good read : http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%201286.html

For those who wants to understand the differences btw the direct injected engines and its carburated conterpart, here is another detailled account :
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200562.html

You don't hve to be an engineer to read this or hve any PhD. Just relax, take a tasty (soft) drink and let your mind be enlighten by history written by those that really went trought.

~S!

PS: shld I made a special thread of this?

[NZtyphoon]

Yep, the 1954 article is a good overview of the development of R-R engines. A more specific article on the development of the Merlin can be found here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...in-lovesey.pdf

and more general pages on 100 octane

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0octane%20fuel

and the Blenheim

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0octane%20fuel

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Yep, the 1954 article is a good overview of the development of R-R engines. A more specific article on the development of the Merlin can be found here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...in-lovesey.pdf

A document outsourced from nowhere with a very specific account of history and so contradictory with - for example - the doc I linked from Flight Journal an internationaly respected publication : humm

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

and more general pages on 100 octane

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0octane%20fuel

A document writed in a civil publication right when war was ranging .... Humm Humm

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

and the Blenheim
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0octane%20fuel

this one is not too bad but still a civil publication explaining in 1939 why the enemy shld take seriously hence fear the mighty Blenheim


Well you guessed that I am even more ... less convinced. Even more as in their respective history, Flight didn't quote those pages from their own magazine when they did on the other points.

30lb yeah really with 300 hour of endurance ?!

and what next, the Brit first detonated a nuke INSIDE a Merlin engine when the US were still craking nuts in the French Ardennes ?