Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-09-2012, 10:10 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Relevance?
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-10-2012, 12:07 AM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
Relevance?
The double standard you have. Minimal, actually next to nothing, when it concerns your beloved Bf109 of nazi Germany and evidence to the nth degree when it comes to anything to do with the British.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-10-2012, 08:05 AM
klem's Avatar
klem klem is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,653
Default

I really don't understand the desperate need to deny that most, and probably all, fighter command aircraft were using 100 octane fuel during the BoB. There is more than enough evidence to show that the change to 100 had been authorised well before the BoB, there were more than enough stockpiles, the conversion process was simple enough by RAF servicing standards of the time and it was in widespread use from combat and Squadron reports.

It would have been ridiculous for the RAF, with all the stocks available, to have only transferred some units to 100. Why would they do that when they were at war and expecting invasion? The only delaying mechanism would have been the mechanical modification of engines which was simple enough and carried out during servicing. New engines were delivered already converted. It would have been more ridiculous to suggest it wasn't available to the units facing most of the fighting and not very sensible, with the rotation of Squadrons with their aircraft, not to organise the support of 100 octane for those aircraft while on rotation.

I suspect that some people either want to unhistorically 'castrate' the RAF as someone suggested or they are just Trolling.

Regarding Blackdog's ideas for missions, I have no problem with representing fuel shortages following bombing of production plants etc but that is a seperate issue. It never happened to the point that fuel bacame a problem but a 'what if' is fine by me, that's what missions are built for, it isn't all re-enactment.
__________________
klem
56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds"
http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/



ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU
Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-10-2012, 08:23 AM
csThor csThor is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: somewhere in Germany
Posts: 1,213
Default

Please note that I have not made a statement towards or against the subject of 100 octane fuel. I simply said the style of some posters here kills any meaningful discussion of any type and creates more bad blood. Just to make that absolutely clear.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-10-2012, 09:55 AM
TomcatViP TomcatViP is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klem View Post
I really don't understand the desperate need to deny that most, and probably all, fighter command aircraft were using 100 octane fuel during the BoB. There is more than enough evidence to show that the change to 100 had been authorised well before the BoB, there were more than enough stockpiles, the conversion process was simple enough by RAF servicing standards of the time and it was in widespread use from combat and Squadron reports.

It would have been ridiculous for the RAF, with all the stocks available, to have only transferred some units to 100. Why would they do that when they were at war and expecting invasion? The only delaying mechanism would have been the mechanical modification of engines which was simple enough and carried out during servicing. New engines were delivered already converted. It would have been more ridiculous to suggest it wasn't available to the units facing most of the fighting and not very sensible, with the rotation of Squadrons with their aircraft, not to organise the support of 100 octane for those aircraft while on rotation.

I suspect that some people either want to unhistorically 'castrate' the RAF as someone suggested or they are just Trolling.

Regarding Blackdog's ideas for missions, I have no problem with representing fuel shortages following bombing of production plants etc but that is a seperate issue. It never happened to the point that fuel bacame a problem but a 'what if' is fine by me, that's what missions are built for, it isn't all re-enactment.
Yeah easy. Simple. Quick. And all that in the middle of a ragging war when bomber units where painfully in needs of more power for take off as their aircraft were fitted with the absolute essential war-weary equipments they lacked before. And Hurricane units (the most numerous aircraft) were fighting hard the gap btw their mount and the fast flying germans bombers.

It makes no sense Klem. No a single notch of it. It's an illusion for late grown child tht prbably started somehow reading two line in an history books.

I love the Mayas civilization but I am not convincing myself Steve Job and the NASA were their creation

Guess why the 21st century RAF can't introduce a new fighter without so much pain ?

IMHO : You'd better help the devs to fix the Spit FM toward some realism at least. I am sure that they would then be happy (and with some financial interest too) to give you your boosted Merlin on Spitfire

Last edited by TomcatViP; 01-10-2012 at 10:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-10-2012, 10:25 AM
Blakduk Blakduk is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 175
Default

Klem- i've just gone through that forum thread you posted the link to http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html
I'd say that nails it- credit must go to MikeWilliams and Glider for their research efforts- the weight of evidence clearly affirms the fact that 100 octane fuel was widely used by RAF fighter command since early summer 1940.

As for the tone on that forum- it's a marked contrast to the personal insults that get thrown around here.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-10-2012, 10:32 AM
Bounder! Bounder! is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakduk View Post
Klem- i've just gone through that forum thread you posted the link to http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html
I'd say that nails it- credit must go to MikeWilliams and Glider for their research efforts- the weight of evidence clearly affirms the fact that 100 octane fuel was widely used by RAF fighter command since early summer 1940.

As for the tone on that forum- it's a marked contrast to the personal insults that get thrown around here.

+1 couldn't agree more. Hats off to the guys researching and posting links to their sources.

Last edited by Bounder!; 01-10-2012 at 10:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-10-2012, 01:00 PM
svend svend is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 24
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by bounder! View Post
+1 couldn't agree more. Hats off to the guys researching and posting links to their sources.
+100
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-10-2012, 05:43 PM
Osprey's Avatar
Osprey Osprey is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 1,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakduk View Post
As for the tone on that forum- it's a marked contrast to the personal insults that get thrown around here.
It used to be like here, until they banned Kurfurst for the same as what he tries to do here. (I am not joking)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-10-2012, 05:44 PM
ElAurens's Avatar
ElAurens ElAurens is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Great Black Swamp of Ohio
Posts: 2,185
Default

See my above post.
__________________


Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943.
~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.