Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel.

Don't even go there Barbi

[Flanker35M]

S!

Zapatista. It is still the man behind the stick pushing the plane to it's limits. Not everyone is capable for any reason(insert here) to fly a plane to the documented numbers no matter how. That is a fact. If you really want a game with plane speeds set in stone then try Aces High. Not a single plane goes a notch faster than documented values, nor climbs or turns better. All is hardcoded. Because AH and CoD are GAMES and there will always be complaint/debate/whinery on them as they are just a representation of something, not the real deal. Not a single game models systems EXACTLY as they work in real life as there are too many variables included. We get an average or estimate only that can be handled by our hardware.

You say 100oct gives 15% more speed. Looking at curves yes it does at 12lbs power setting, but this is not the 100% time setting you use. How much does the speed increase at NORMAL parameters, the real 100% power setting from 87oct for example? Spitfire at 6,25lbs on 100 or 87oct vs Bf109E at WEP or 1.31ata? Should be clear to distinguish emergency/overboost from normal parameters that can be used at all times, not only for a limited time. By all means please make the game historically accurate within it's inevitable constraits of being a game, but do not expect down to last digit accuracy.

If we can get something within let's say 5-15km/h I am more than happy as you can lose the same speed with inproper trim or power/mixture/whatever setting. What is more important that the FM itself is good enough to being able to handle more complex things in a reasonably resource friendly way. I remember Oleg saying at beginning of CoD announcements: You want more fidelity on things. Sure you will get that but do not expect it to be easy on the hardware. Remember that? So I think devs are having a hard time tweaking this game to be both playable and accurate enough. I think you can agree on that. This is not the copy/paste FM original IL-2 had

So let's just hope the patch addresses right things and the rest we can test and report for further tweaking. Until then we should at least try refrain from mud sling contests I apologize for jumping the gun.

[camber]

Hmm, I am worried as the next MP guy about how ATAG will make a MP server post-patch that is balanced enough for both red and blue to want to populate it. When I fly there is rarely more than 10 people on, I tried flying around 20 000 feet on red, I listened to educational podcasts at the same time to compensate for the problem I never saw anyone else up there. Ever.

But just to add to the angst, aren't beta patches optional? Last time you could download the betas and still fly online alongside the unpatched. So a red with the beta will be enjoying the increased FPS but gazing jealously at the unpatched uber-retro-Hurricane dancing above him. Blues will be freaked out wondering what kind of Hurricane just appeared co-alt

Perhaps to get some kind of playable (I know, dirty word for co-opers ) MP ATAG could go counterfactual. The whole stock of 100 octane was accidently destroyed by Barnes Wallis in a secret failed experiment, which also manages to suck the Castle Brommich shadow Spitfire factory into a singularity (after only 10 Spit IIs were made). Barbarossa starts a lot earlier, there is only one squadron of E4s available (led by Galland) on the Western front. Italy steps up and clouds of improved G50s swarm across the channel to take on the 87 Octane Spit 1s and Hurricanes, while the E4s smoke cigars above and confidently await the limited Spit IIs.

camber

[fruitbat]

well, i guess i'll just keep on playing il2 and HSFX, and wait for Moscow, apart from the odd bimble.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by pstyle

Actually, not too far off and I'm a red-mostly pilot.

Black 6's Figure for "the patch" - as I read them:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 350 mph (563 km/h)
@3000m / 9,850ft: 303 mph (489 km/h)

Figures from the weblinks posted:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 355 mph
@3000m / 9,850ft: 320-355 mph (depending on fuel 87/100)

So the patch is 1.4% on the low side at 6000m (I can live with that)
And the patch is 5% on the slow side at 3000m if you're assuming 87 octane, but a more significant 14% on the slow side if you're using 100 octane

I'd like to see sea-level Flight model information for the above, but it seems to me the model is very close to the 87 octane fuelled spit 1a. VERY CLOSE. And I am now happy to accept that.

The real question is - will/should they model 100 octane?

its like a perpetual ground hog day here

extensive information has been provided on this issue this from various sources in the last year in this forum, it is CONCLUSIVE AND BEYOND ANY DOUBT that hurricanes and spitfires had 100% octane fuel available, and just by your own quoted figures that would give them at least a 14% speed disadvantage

to quote but a few sources

Gavin Bailey concluded that "The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year." (ref 33). As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock. (ref 34)

and

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". (ref 35) The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons. (ref 36)

and

Jeffrey Quill recalled: It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb. (ref 37)

and ........Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the R.A.F. By July 11th, 1940, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, twenty-one days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stock available on October 10th, 1940, was 666,000 tons. Oil reserves were 34,000 tons. (ref 38.)

source: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

there is no excuse for still allowing these types of errors in CoD !!

[Kurfürst]

It's always interesting to compare the actual sources with the way they are 'represented' on Mike William's website. Often text is 'rephrased' and relevant parts go 'missing'.

Originally Posted by zapatista

its like a perpetual ground hog day here

extensive information has been provided on this issue this from various sources in the last year in this forum, it is CONCLUSIVE AND BEYOND ANY DOUBT that hurricanes and spitfires had 100% octane fuel available, and just by your own quoted figures that would give them at least a 14% speed disadvantage

to quote but a few sources

The actual text in this source goes as:

'By the time war broke out, the available stocks of aviation fuel had risen to 153,000 tons of 100-octane and 323,000 tons of other grades (mostly 87-octane).35 The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year.36 The available stock of 100-octane fuel at this point was about 220,000 tons. Actual use of the fuel began after 18 May 1940, when the fighter stations selected for the changeover had completed their deliveries of 100-octane and had consumed their existing stocks of 87-octane. While this was immediately before the intensive air combat associated with the Dunkirk evacuation, where Fighter Command units first directly engaged the Luftwaffe, this can only be regarded as a fortunate coincidence which was contingent upon much earlier decisions to establish, store and distribute sufficient supplies of 100-octane fuel.37

and

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". (ref 35) The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons. (ref 36)

Note the very different phrasing used in the original paper.

It does not say that "Spitfire and Hurricane units had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel"

It says: "satisfaction was expressed that the Units concerned had now been stocked with the neccesary 100 octane fuel".



I will let the dear readers draw their own conclusions.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I will let the dear readers draw their own conclusions.

The interesting thing, is that you have never said what your definition of Units Concerned is.

My belief is that its the fighter units that had not already been converted as we know that a lot had already been converted with use starting in February as supported by the first combat reports and station reports.
We know that Fighter Units in France were using it by May, we know the units in Norway were using it. We know that before May the method of role out changes from using the 87 Octane in the station tanks and replacing it with 100 octane to actively taking it from the stations and replacing it. It also supports the reference to restocking as mentioned in the minutes. That I believe supports the view that Units Concerned where those that hadn't already converted

I know and understand that you disagree with this but you have never said what you believe 'Units Concerned' to be. Is it the 25% of fighter command as per Pips, is it the 16 Squadrons as believed by Pips or is it something else?

Why after May is there no mention of any further role out of 100 Octane at all, anywhere, ever.
If the theory of a reduced number of squadrons is true then when were the rest converted, or were they?

Your evidence depends on a view of one document and twisiting it to your point, not looking at the big picture and the other evidence that supports a view.

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by Glider

The interesting thing, is that you have never said what your definition of Units Concerned is

We need the notes of meeting six.
The agenda item from meeting 7 is following up an issue identified in meeting six, item two.

[addman]

On a side note, it's funny (and/or sad) how the discussions literally explodes around the topic of Spits/Hurries/109 FM's whilst really crippled planes like he G.50 (which is now closer to historical data) never gets neither flak or praise from the majority of the community members. Just a few of us enthusiasts of the lesser flown plane(s) have spoken up but in a constructive and helpful tone with minimal whining.

Remember, the G.50 is a flying brick , after roughly 3000 meters of altitude that thing sinks like a brick, 3000 meters! After 3000 meters is when the engine should start to perform better not degrade in to a 100 hp cessna engine. Also, getting it up to 350 km/h TAS in level flight is not easy when it should be doing around 400 km/h. Still, I and many others have flown the darned thing with love and without whining and I consider myself biased when it comes to the G.50. After telling the devs many times over it needs fixing and after supplying them with docs it is finally fixed, yaaay, I would still fly it happily even if they didn't fix it and struggle with it. Play with the cards given to you, stop whining.

The way some people behave and whine about the FM's tells me everything about them and why they are so "interested" in getting their favorite aircraft "fixed". I'm 100% for historical accuracy but I think most FM whiners have higher prioritized concerns, competitive edge online.

P.S Imagine if the Hurricane or Spit would degrade in to a barely flying brick after 3000 meters, would it even be possible to predict the magnitude of outcry on the forums then?

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by addman

On a side note, it's funny (and/or sad) how the discussions literally explodes around the topic of Spits/Hurries/109 FM's whilst really crippled planes like he G.50 (which is now closer to historical data) never gets neither flak or praise from the majority of the community members.

since when has the G50 been in any way relevant to the outcome to the battle of brittain ?

it isnt and it wasnt

the reason the performance of the 109's, spitfires and hurricanes (and to a lesser extent the 110) is so important is because they were the main fighter aircraft involved, and the outcome of the conflict largely depends on the balance of those aircraft

with the current performance of competing fighter planes being so unrealistic, the outcome would have been rather different