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

[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 ?

[Al Schlageter]

During June 1937 a Merlin II, mounted in a Horsley, began a 400-hr flight endurance test at Farnborough, and a specially rated "racing" engine was developed from it with a view to installation in the special Speed Spitfire, with which an attack on the world's speed record was contemplated. The engine used was a Merlin III, which differed from the Merlin II in having a standardized de Havilland/Rotol airscrew shaft and dual accessory-drive. It was taken from stock and was fitted with strengthened pistons, gudgeon-pins and connecting rods to withstand the extra load. "The power output of the standard engine," writes Harold Nockolds, "was 1,030 b.h.p. at 3,000 r.p.m. at 10,250ft with plus 6i lb boost. "Solely by opening the throttle, raising the supercharger pressure, and using fuel of a higher octane," he goes on [the petrol normally used at that time was 87 octane], "the engine was made to develop no less than 2,160 b.h.p. at 3,200 r.p.m. with the supercharger giving 27 Ib/sq in boost. This was a phenomenal performance, for it meant that a power to- weight ratio of 0.621 lb per horsepower had been achieved — a considerable improvement on the 0.71 lb per horsepower of the 1931 R engine.
"This tremendous output, which was admittedly only attained for a short period, nevertheless gave ample proof of the inherent possibilities of the Merlin. But Elliott and Hives were perhaps even more satisfied with a 15-hr endurance run at 1,800 b.h.p., 3,200 r.p.m. and 22 lb boost accomplished during the development period. After this they felt perfectly satisfied that the Merlin would be capable of meeting all the demands that might be made of it. How right they were!"

15 hours at 22lb boost in 1937!!!

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

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

Alfred Cyril Lovesey CBE, AFRAeS, was an English engineer who was a key figure in the development of the Rolls-Royce Merlin aero engine.

Now what were you saying Tomcat.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

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

But you say Flight Journal is a respected international publication.

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

[TomcatViP]

Where all this cleverness and fine written irony are gone Schlag?

At war, truth can follow strange path, especially for such a strategical items like the Merlin.

Note pls that I hve no problem regarding the competentcies of Mr Lovesey who ever he was but hve some issues with a scanned doc only available on the website where it was extracted.

Every others sources claim very differents data regarding boost, date and HP.

I think that the Flight article is a good abstract and a far more reliable source per se.