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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

It was a standard use in RR to give the power of an engine without the charger fitted as the methods used to calculate the true corresponding power at alt from a bench test ran on the ground were not reliable (source RR - already mentioned by myself somewhere in the thread).

Evidence please?

[TomcatViP]

Browse back the thread. I hve alrdy discussed this point and listed the source (RR history book).

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Browse back the thread. I hve alrdy discussed this point and listed the source (RR history book).

These are your posts in this thread: #157:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Frankly I don't understand what are those ppl hijacking a game forum

#205;

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wrong. See my post above and data pasted bellow. You need to take into account the s/c !

#206:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A Spit from Toyota's Burnaston plant ?

#245:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I don't understand the spit lover that are arguing for 100oct when the Spit FM makes her Zip Zapping the air like a cartoon rubber ball

#294:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Some of the last comments tells a lot abt what are the seriousness of some on this discussion. I don't want to be personal but I nearly spit of my coffee reading that some are seriously thinking that the Spit was like a X-wing fighters in BoB skies.

#296:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I am not sure it can works like that. For example I hve bought RoF with enthusiasm as soon as it was released and can't play it anymore.... There is no default FM left anywhere on any server !

#301:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wouldn't it be more relevant to ask in a less biased manner how many conversion were done before August 40 ?

#303:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Hopefully Holmes had more a Cartesian thinking ! ???!!!

#315:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

really ?
20000 post of the same "piece of evidence" does not makes it a demonstrated fact. We are still waiting for some cross references.

#322:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A 100° British lager ?

#365:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Guys the 100 oct justified itself whenn it comes to hve low alt extra power (short time) or increased fuel efficiency at low revs. That's why you see that kind of usage on the Blenheim.

#381:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

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

#383:

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

#387:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

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

#392:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wew... are you turning rogue ?

#408:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Oh Yeah it's a great document. And thx for that. But what is buzzing me as hell is why are you so one sided in your citation

#411:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Ok fair enough for the fighters. But with so many RAAF personnel flying Hurries and SPits in ENgland, any 100 oct probable requirement would hve been listed.

#412; #427; #434, #437,#457,#461, #467, #484, #496, #501, #515, #523, #525, #526, #529, #534, #537, #540, #542, #544, #549, #553, #555, #558, #580

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

It was a standard use in RR to give the power of an engine without the charger fitted as the methods used to calculate the true corresponding power at alt from a bench test ran on the ground were not reliable (source RR - already mentioned by myself somewhere in the thread).

Nowhere, until this last one, is there any mention by you in this thread, or any other I can find, that R-R tested engines without superchargers, nor have you presented any evidence:

So, where is your evidence that R-R routinely tested engines without superchargers?

[Glider]

The Meteor Tank engine was basically a Merlin without a supercharger. It worked well and was used for many years post war on the Centurion and shows how robust the basic Merlin was.

However that clearly came after the aero engine merlin.

[NZtyphoon]

The Merlin tested in the Hurricane ran for 8 1/2 hours on 100 Octane fuel at 12 pounds boost, but the test was terminated after 49.5 hours by a glycol leak into one cylinder. The document goes on to note that this problem was rectified by modifying the cylinder head joints, a modification which was retrofitted to earlier Merlins and would have been incorporated into later Merlins. ( paras 4 & 6)

"It will be noted from the Service reports that an approximate increase in speed, due to the use of emergency 12 lbs. boost, of 28/34 m.p.h. is obtained depending on the altitude flown up to 10,000 feet." (para 8.)

This most likely applys to both the Hurricane and Spitfire. Gleed, below, 19 May 1940, notes an increase of 30 mph for his Hurricane.

"The modifications to the boost control cut out to limit the maximum boost to 12 lbs. sq. in are simple and in hand (otherwise full throttle would give about 17 lbs. sq. in.)" para 9.

[Osprey]

I thought Kurfurst had "only a passing interest" in the RAF?

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I thought Kurfurst had "only a passing interest" in the RAF?

He does until the mediocre aircraft of the RAF put the boot to his uber Luftwaffe. I don't understand his objection to 100 octane fueled Spitfires and Hurricanes during the BoB as this give him a good excuse for the failure/defeat of the Luftwaffe in achieving air superiority over southern England. As it now stands, it was inferior fighters which did the job.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

He does until the mediocre aircraft of the RAF put the boot to his uber Luftwaffe. I don't understand his objection to 100 octane fueled Spitfires and Hurricanes during the BoB as this give him a good excuse for the failure/defeat of the Luftwaffe in achieving air superiority over southern England. As it now stands, it was inferior fighters which did the job.

However its an error admit that the Luftwaffe failure was due to the superiority of the Spitifire. I already commented but i ll do it again. How many 109s in percentage of the ones lost were lost simply by lack of fuel instead being shot down?

I am most sure than this number is far from insignificant. I ll be not surprise if a large number of German fighter simply did not come home because fuel and not because they were shot down.

The spitfire were not so succesfull against the 109s in other theaters. At mediterranean and Afrika the allied resources are bigger. And the RAF suffered heavy loses in Afrika and Malta. The failure of the Luftwaffe in this scenarios was mainly because they were outnumbered and low of fuel. And they performed very well. And the spitfire was there.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Ernst

The failure of the Luftwaffe in this scenarios was mainly because they were outnumbered and low of fuel. And they performed very well. And the spitfire was there.

Eugene will argue til the cows come home and the moon turns blue that the Luftwaffe was not outnumbered.

How many 109s in percentage of the ones lost were lost simply by lack of fuel instead being shot down?

Luftwaffe Losses in the Battle of Britain
(July-October 1940)

Data from “The Narrow Margin”, cleaned up by Robert Herrick
http://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/See..._LW_Losses.htm

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Ernst

However its an error admit that the Luftwaffe failure was due to the superiority of the Spitifire. I already commented but i ll do it again. How many 109s in percentage of the ones lost were lost simply by lack of fuel instead being shot down?

A fair point I admit. However when discussing the losses the RAF had in 1941 its an equal point how many were lost due to running out of fuel? I do know that a whole squadron of the early Mk IX's were lost due to lack of fuel , no doubt others were as well.
There is a difference here. I am not trying to put the blame on the lack of fuel.

The spitfire were not so succesfull against the 109s in other theaters. At mediterranean and Afrika the allied resources are bigger. And the RAF suffered heavy loses in Afrika and Malta. The failure of the Luftwaffe in this scenarios was mainly because they were outnumbered and low of fuel. And they performed very well. And the spitfire was there.

There is no doubt that the 109 performed well over Africa but, when the Spits arrived even in small numbers the change in the air war was palbable. To pretend that the 109 was outnumbered by Spitfires over Malta is pushing it more than a little.

Taking todays date in 1942.
Combat 1 3 x Ju88 approached with fighter escort, 4 x Spits and 7 x Hurricane intercepted. No details of the numbers in the escort but 12 x Me109 mentioned in one combat report
Combat 2 3 x Ju88 and 7 x Me109 intercepted by 4 Spits
Combat 3 3 x Ju88 with 6 x Me109 and a cover of 19 x Me109, 6 x Spit and 8 x Hurricane intercepted