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

[Crumpp]

a direct correlation.

Crumpp says:
When the information manual reflects 100 Octane, then all operational aircraft of the type can use it.

The January 1942 Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes clearly states in Notes on the Merlin engine that 100 Octane is for all operational units and all others will use 87 Octane.

The July 1940 Notes on the Merlin Engine only list 87 Octane operating limits and make no mention at all of 100 Octane. That is not to say 100 Octane was not in use. It was and the manual itself but not under the Notes on the Merlin engine references it "IF" the plane is equipped for it and "IF" the fuel is available.

"IF" would not even be in the manual "IF" all operational units were using the fuel in July 1940.

Any airframe using the fuel was doing so on a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine. The airframe serial number Operating Notes issued would reflect 100 Octane's use in that specific aircraft and once it becomes the standard fuel for the type, the General Information on the type Operating Notes will reflect that change.

[CWMV]

Ok, but your working off of an assumption here. Its not direct evidence.
Pilot's from the BoF saying that they used 12lbs is direct.

Now for the aircraft in game to be modeled for 12 lbs we don't need to determine that every single plane in fighter command was using 100 octane, only that it was in widespread use.
And that is what we apparently have here.
Your using the lack of documentation here as evidence that the planes didn't use this fuel. That's not the case, it just means you don't have the doc's.
Do you have anything that says they were still using 87 for the majority of aircraft?

[bongodriver]

Crumpp....are you serious? you tried to explain this using an analogy of 2 different nations needing reassurance that aircraft were 'safe' to fly over each others countries, bearing in mind said aircraft are loaded with guns and ammo and bombs to drop/fire on said counrties, military aircraft are practically exempt from civillian regulations....if they weren't we'd all be going to war in cessnas and airbuses.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The January 1942 Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes clearly states in Notes on the Merlin engine that 100 Octane is for all operational units and all others will use 87 Octane.

The July 1940 Notes on the Merlin Engine only list 87 Octane operating limits and make no mention at all of 100 Octane. That is not to say 100 Octane was not in use. It was and the manual itself but not under the Notes on the Merlin engine references it "IF" the plane is equipped for it and "IF" the fuel is available.

"IF" would not even be in the manual "IF" all operational units were using the fuel in July 1940.

Any airframe using the fuel was doing so on a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine. The airframe serial number Operating Notes issued would reflect 100 Octane's use in that specific aircraft and once it becomes the standard fuel for the type, the General Information on the type Operating Notes will reflect that change.

Once again Crumpp is blowing smoke:

The reason why the Pilot's Notes used the operating limits for 87 Octane has already been explained three times, but completely ignored by Crumpp. Pilot's Notes were modified using supplementary slips issued with the Pilot's Notes issued to the pilot by the unit to which he was sent.

This statement "Any airframe using the fuel was doing so on a special issuance Notes on the Merlin Engine." is pure speculation on Crumpps part with no evidence whatsoever.

Provide documentary evidence that RAF pilots in frontline fighter squadrons were not allowed to use 100 Octane during the Battle of Britain.

Provide documentary evidence stating that RAF frontline fighter pilots were told not to use +12 lbs boost during the Battle of Britain.

Provide documentary evidence that RAF frontline fighter aircraft went into action using 87 Octane fuel.

Provide documentary evidence that the RAF restricted the issue and consumption of 100 octane fuel to selected squadrons.

All Crumpp has wasted the last 40 something pages on is speculation, and nothing else. He has not provided a single solitary piece of evidence bearing out any of his beliefs.

[bongodriver]

I thought he showed a scan of a generic extract from a modern light single aircraf POH.

[robtek]

After following this thread with growing disinterest i believe the conclusion, without any personal opinions, should be:

As there is lots of evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel by operational fighter units before and during the BoB this can be taken as a fact.

However that isn't the proof that all operational units did actually use 100 octane fuel only.

The use of 87 octane fuel wasn't documented, as it wasn't special, only diversions from the norm are remarkable.

That means that the use of 87 octane fuel by operational fighter units can't be generally ruled out for lack of proof, even if the evidences indicate otherwise.

Imo, of course.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by robtek

After following this thread with growing disinterest i believe the conclusion, without any personal opinions, should be:

As there is lots of evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel by operational fighter units before and during the BoB this can be taken as a fact.

However that isn't the proof that all operational units did actually use 100 octane fuel only.

The use of 87 octane fuel wasn't documented, as it wasn't special, only diversions from the norm are remarkable.

That means that the use of 87 octane fuel by operational fighter units can't be generally ruled out for lack of proof, even if the evidences indicate otherwise.

Imo, of course.

This is true, and the whole debate would be null and void if there was an option for fuel types, but instead the red side is left with the lowest denominator......why?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by robtek

After following this thread with growing disinterest i believe the conclusion, without any personal opinions, should be:

As there is lots of evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel by operational fighter units before and during the BoB this can be taken as a fact.

However that isn't the proof that all operational units did actually use 100 octane fuel only.

The use of 87 octane fuel wasn't documented, as it wasn't special, only diversions from the norm are remarkable.

That means that the use of 87 octane fuel by operational fighter units can't be generally ruled out for lack of proof, even if the evidences indicate otherwise.

Imo, of course.

That's a very good summary. I agree completely, nothing needs to be added.

[bongodriver]

can't be generally ruled out for lack of proof, even if the evidences indicate otherwise.

So what are we looking at here? a lack of proof that 87 octane was/wasn't used, and evidence showing 100 octane was.

Hmmm....so 87 octane use is dubious at best, 100 octane is clearly in evidence.......I know lets instate the use of 87 octane as fact.

[robtek]

What use is your last post, bongodriver?

Clearly only a CoD-developer can answer your question, and i'd be really surprised to find one wandering in this part of the forum.