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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Robo.

This part I can't agree with I am afraid. In the sim as it is, the 109 is very much superior to any Mk.I RAF fighter in terms of speed and especially climb rate, which is most useful in dogfight. Especially so down low. If you get higher up though, cards are turning around 15-16k and above that you've got good chance of outflying the 109. That's why I believe many 109 pilots prefer to counter the RAF on low altitudes and keep doing so with great success. Things are quite different higher up provided you know what you're doing.

Granted the 100 Octane was used at lower altitudes, but read what this November 1939 paper says about the speed advantage it confers; 28/34 mph up to 10,000 feet (para 8.) Before people go on about "its only for five minutes" how long does the average combat take? 30 seconds to 1 minute at the most? - even a few mph at the right time can make a big difference. Added to this was the CS propeller fitted to all frontline RAF fighters by early August, which improved climb performance at all altitudes, and the differences between the 109 and Spitfire are not that great.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

(...)and the differences between the 109 and Spitfire are not that great.

I understand, my comment was purely regarding the in-game performance as it is at this moment.

Anyway, thanks very much for the information, your research is appreciated, I bet I am not alone here reading these documents with interest. Cheers for that NZ (and others, too!)

[Crumpp]

1) Was 100 octane fuel available to Fighter Command? Yes

Was 100/150 grade available to FC? Yes

2) Was there enough 100 octane fuel available to cover all sorties flown by Fighter Command during the battle? Yes

Was there enough 100/150 grade to cover all sorties flown? Yes

(It is called strategic reserves...)

We all know what happened when the same group of people started using the logic on that one.

Can anyone explain what happened to all that fuel if only half of FCs frontline fighters were allowed to use it?

Sure, some of consumed fuel was used in aircraft and all of it issued to the fields operating those aircraft. It appears that we have 16 squadrons on 31 July 1940 and we still have 16 squadrons by September.

You take a very very simplistic view. You do realize that in December 1944, the USAAF in Europe, had 4 billion barrels of aviation gasoline issued out and some 12 billion in reserve.

The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

Until then, it appears the RAF is simply building up the logistical base required to support the eventual change to 100 grade.

I will scan those Order of Battle charts from the RAF today.

[Crumpp]

Can we see the rest of that document Glider?

[Glider]

You can have anything that I have but which document in particular are you looking for, I posted a number of different ones. If its the Order of Battle I have posted this on posting 746

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Was 100/150 grade available to FC? Yes
The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

And you refuse to to understand that 87 fuel was used by other RAF Commands besides FC.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Was there enough 100/150 grade to cover all sorties flown? Yes

1)We all know what happened when the same group of people started using the logic on that one.

2)The next thing you seem to refuse to deal with is 87 grade remains the predominate fuel in the RAF until September 1940. Only then do we see 100 grade beginning to equal 87 grade. That corresponding rise in consumption very much agrees with Morgan and Shacklady.

1)Prove the first statement ie: I want to see the thread that you keep trumpeting as proof that 100/150 grade was not used.

2) If you're too obtuse to understand that "Other Grades" (not just 87 Octane) were used by Bomber Command, Coastal Command, etc which used big aircraft with large fuel tanks - eg Wellington 750 gallons - that's your pigeon. It is a lame argument, but then all of your arguments are lame.

[Glider]

The heat is rising again and I believe that people need to calm down and the best way is for some simple questions to be asked and to get some replies.

The latest focus of conversation is the fuel that was used.

We know that Bomber Command did approx 10,600 combat sorties during the BOB (data from Bomber Command Diary page 91, period 26 June to 13 October) plus a lot of training flights number unknown. I don't pretend to know the size of the tanks on Bomber Command aircraft but can safely assume that they are a lot bigger than a SE fighter.

Crump
The question I have is simple, do you agree that they would have used 87 octane until late August / September when they were allowed to use 100 Octane as per the paper I posted?

Edit
For the period 10 May to 25th June BC undertook approx 5,100 sorties

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Glider

The heat is rising again

The latest focus of conversation is the fuel that was used.

We know that Bomber Command did approx 10,600 combat sorties during the BOB (data from Bomber Command Diary page 91, period 26 June to 13 October) plus a lot of training flights number unknown. I don't pretend to know the size of the tanks on Bomber Command aircraft but can safely assume that they are a lot bigger than a SE fighter.

Crump
The question I have is simple, do you agree that they would have used 87 octane until late August / September when they were allowed to use 100 Octane as per the paper I posted?

Edit
For the period 10 May to 25th June BC undertook approx 5,100 sorties

The heat is rising again because we have had exactly this same "conversation" before. Crumpp has had people take the time to explain very carefully where his reasoning is flawed, yet he is parroting exactly the same stuff again as though he hasn't bothered absorbing anything that's been presented. Why should any of us waste any more time on this inanity?

Anyway the only info I can find on the fuel capacity of British bombers/Coastal Command aircraft is:
Vickers-Armstrong Wellington = 750 imp gallons Whitley, probably similar; Hampden about the same as Blenheim?

Short Sunderland = 2,550 imp gal

And I still want the the url for the thread on 100/150 grade fuel, and not just Crumpp/Barbi's interpretation.

[Crumpp]

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...=1#post3217673

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...=1#post3358320

Senior Intelligence Officer of 126 (RCAF) Spitfire Wing, 2 TAF, noted in his daily operational summary on 20 April 1945 after the crashes of two Spitfires; "The incidents followed a number of engine problems that were attributed to the introduction of 150-grade fuel in early February. Pilots mistrusted it, and were no doubt relieved when the AF brass decided to revert to 130-grade. The vast majority of pilots, I'm sure, were beginning to wonder if the additional seven pounds of boost they got from 150-grade fuel were worth the price being paid."[11]

-Berger, Monty and Street, Brian Jeffrey.Invasion Without Tears. Toronto, Canada: Random House, 1994 (1st ed) ISBN 0-394-22277-6