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

[Osprey]

@Flanker, I try not to use Luftwhiner but it's different because it focus's on a type of person who flies exclusive blue and complains in order to gain game advantage. Kurfurst is a Luftwhiner. Sissyfire is directed at the aircraft ergo the pilots choice of ride. All he need do is have some success in what was a very successful aircraft of the time, and this has no reflection on personality, he need not complain about the enemy ever to gain that tag. This is why it's just a plain insult, because it is not earned or deserved. You say it's because of the 25lber but you apply it to all Spitfires.

You should remember that it was common for German pilots who had been shot down by Hurricanes to claim it was a Spitfire, such was their respect for what was an excellent machine.

[Al Schlageter]

Guys don't let Eugene sidetrack you. This is his SOP to deflect the conversation away from a specific subject, in this case the 16 squadrons that only used 100 fuel during the BoB. Ignore what ever he says until he produces the 16 squadron numbers. Then we can concentrate on his next wrong statement > there wasn't enough 100 octane fuel.

[Blakduk]

This thread has gotten away from the topic that initially drew my attention to it.
On this topic I am not so much interested in how the game's flight models are set up- i'm much more concerned with the distortion of history that has previously won the day.

There is abundant evidence that the RAF Fighter Command was using 100 octane as their standard fuel in early 1940, before the outbreak of the Battle of Britain- that evidence has been obtained by an impressive amount of work by a few posters here on this forum and others. There is no evidence to the contrary, only rumors and misguided beliefs that border on delusions.

With regard to flight models- that is another topic entirely that should be separate from this thread.
BTW- i tend to fly blue a lot lately as people online have figured out how to win flying red and are tending to crowd onto the red bandwagon

[KG26_Alpha]

Due to reported posts


Ok fellas can we please keep the ego's and name calling out of the thread and try to have an adult discussion regarding the topic please.

This is the only warning there will be.

That applies to all of you.

Have fun

[Osprey]

Can somebody please update the bugtracker with the 100 octane boost issue please

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/projects/cod

This needs to encompass the boost needle animation, the increase in power and all the other FM effects such as limits, temperatures etc.

I would recommend that 41Banks does it, he is an admin on the bugtracker and knows all about the discussions in this thread.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Can somebody please update the bugtracker with the 100 octane boost issue please

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/projects/cod

This needs to encompass the boost needle animation, the increase in power and all the other FM effects such as limits, temperatures etc.

I would recommend that 41Banks does it, he is an admin on the bugtracker and knows all about the discussions in this thread.

I would not recommend that..

First off it is not a bug by definition..
Second it will just give the biased hand full of 100 octane nay sayers another place to repeat their dribble

I see this issue as more of a historic information update.. Where we provide the information to the people who can actually change things.. That is to say, even if you were able to change the minds of the hand full of 100 octane nay sayers, they have no say let alone any power to change anything. Basically you don't need them so best to stop wasting time talking to them, or worse yet arguing with them! The only people who mater here is Luither and his team.. And based on past experience (P38 ROC increase) if you take the time to do the leg work and provide them the info, they will make the change if the change can be made. Therefore I would not post any request for change in the open forum, just gives the biased nay sayers an excuse to chime in. The best thing to do is submit it to Luither via a PM or email! You guys have already done all the leg work! All that is left is to organize the info, stick a bow on it and give it to Luither

[Crumpp]

who's built up a resistance to evidence

There is no resistance to evidence. I just don't call random clippings of documents out of context combined with assumption evidence.

Let me give you an example. We still heavily research the airplanes we restore to get them right. I have Hans Sanders flight reports, BMW's initial, endurance, and Rechlin's test flights, the operational test squadrons, the time frame the motor was tested, an emergency order from BMW directing the engine to be modified and the new boost pressure to be use AT ONCE, the Chief Technical Officer of the Luftwaffe war diary entries clarifying the new boost was just a straight manifold pressure increase without the use of any ADS and it would be operationally approved in February 1945 for the BMW801D2 to use 1.8ata.

You know, I am still not ready to say it happened. Wanting and doing are too different things. I deal with real airplanes and it takes time to enact some very simple changes. Couple of years ago, an AD came out on Cessna 310 circuit breakers. This isn't a special circuit breaker, just replacing the outdated design with a modern standard aviation circuit breaker. Planes were down for months and the FDSO was writing extensions left and right so people could fly. The demand had simply exceeded the ability to make the breakers. Of course, in times of national emergency it will go quicker but still won't be simply "poofed" into existence.

You are talking about running the engine at 3 times its original design maximum capacity. Really guy? You think just changing the fuel did that?

You think they did that without extensive testing to ensure they did not lose all of their aircraft? You think they just said, "Great!! everybody use this right now all at once!!" Who cares about logistics or technical mumbo jumbo....

I don't think so.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

There is no resistance to evidence. I just don't call random clippings of documents out of context combined with assumption evidence.

No, you take just one pre-war document discussing 16 Squadrons by September 1940, and stick to that no matter what.

*Please name the 16 Squadrons, and describe the logistical arrangements the RAF made to ensure that only 16 Squadrons of fighters were supplied with the fuel, with your documented evidence please.

*Please explain how it was possible for only 16 squadrons to fly operational trials on 100 octane, yet 62,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel was issued, with 51,000 tons of it being consumed while only about 15,000 tons was needed to fly all defensive frontline sorties flown between July and 6 October 1940 - and provide some documented evidence please.

*In a previous post you made a claim that reserves of 100 Octane would have sunk to "unrealistically low levels" had the RAF used 100 Octane for all defensive sorties flown during the Battle of Britain. You have not yet provided any documentary evidence for this, plus you have ignored the fact that reserves of other grades of fuel progressively sunk well below the levels of those for 100 Octane fuel throughout 1940.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You are talking about running the engine at 3 times its original design maximum capacity.

So you think the Merlin was designed to run at about 400 hp? Unfortunately the Merlin II and III were designed for much higher power than that - in fact the Merlin was tested and approved for +12lb boost by November 1939 and the Merlin XII for 12½ lbs boost with no ill effects (attach 1)

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You think they did that without extensive testing to ensure they did not lose all of their aircraft? You think they just said, "Great!! everybody use this right now all at once!!" Who cares about logistics or technical mumbo jumbo....

I don't think so.

Nope, that's just your assertion - you completely ignore the fact that testing of the Merlin on 100 Octane fuel and +12lbs boost was completed in November 1939. You also ignore the fact that the same document observes that there were adequate reserves of 100 Octane available to allow the conversion of all Hurricanes and Spitfires to use +12 boost. (attach 1);

*You completely ignore the fact that squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes had converted to 100 Octane by February 1940;

*You completely ignore the fact that Hurricane Squadrons of the BEF in France, as well as home based units used 100 Octane in combat in May 1940. Bearing this in mind please explain why the RAF decided to continue to use 16 Squadrons for "operational testing purposes only" until at least September, and please provide documented evidence for this assertion. Then, once again, please explain how these 16 Squadrons - and some Blenheim units - between them consumed 52,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in three months while doing "operational testing".

*You are the one asserting that all the RAF was interested in doing throughout the Battle of Britain was making operational trials of 100 Octane, so kindly provide some documentary evidence for this claim; and please don't bother using a pre-war document, nor the fact that Morgan and Shacklady cite the document - all that proves is that the country was not yet at war and facing full scale air attack.

Until you provide some evidence you can stop dissing all the evidence presented by Glider, lane et al as " random clippings of documents combined with assumption", because the only thing you have presented is assumption, assertions and surmises - based on modern, civilian peacetime practices, which you seem to think is a reflection of what happened in 1940, while a nation was undergoing full scale attack - with absolutely no evidence to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

There is no resistance to evidence. I just don't call random clippings of documents out of context combined with assumption evidence.

.

I have asked you a couple of times once in the forum and once in a PM to let me know which document you are referring to as being out of context and I would do everything I can to ensure that you get everything I have. I even offered to get you a full copy of the paper you have concerns about

To date you haven't told me which ones you are referring too just that you are getting your own.

What I do ask, is that you stop running down the papers that I have posted until you can prove that they are out of context or in any way misleading.

If they are then I will apologise to one and all and leave this forum for good. However if they are not miseading or out of context then I expect you to apologise for this accusation.
If you cannot support your theory that the RAF only had 16 squadrons of fighters using 100 Octane at any one time then I expect you to withdraw that theory and apologise for wasting everyones time. Is that fair enough?

I repeat that I believe my case to be a strong case not a perfect one, but I have at least supplied a number of documents covering, all aspects of the case. Which is a lot more than can be said for the 16 squadron theory

[Al Schlageter]

Glider and NZt have made good posts so there is nothing to add.

I would still like to know which 16 squadrons were the only squadrons to use 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel. To help with the selection of these 16 squadrons the following are the Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons that participated in the BoB:

Hurricane
No. 1 (Canwpore) Squadron RAF JX (squadron code)
No. 3 Squadron RAF OQ
No. 17 Squadron RAF YB
No. 32 Squadron RAF GZ
No. 43 (China-British) Squadron RAF FT
No. 46 (Uganda) Squadron RAF PO
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron RAF US
No. 73 Squadron RAF TP
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron RAF NV
No. 85 Squadron RAF VY
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron RAF LK
No. 111 Squadron RAF JU
No. 145 Squadron RAF SO
No. 151 Squadron RAF DZ
No. 213 (Ceylon) Squadron RAF AK
No. 229 Squadron RAF RE
No. 232 Squadron RAF EF
No. 238 Squadron RAF VK
No. 242 (Canadian) Squadron RAF LE
No. 245 (Northern Rhodesia) Squadron RAF DX
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron RAF GN
No. 253 (Hyderabad) Squadron RAF SW
No. 257 (Burma) Squadron RAF DT ALERT
No. 263 (Fellowship of the Bellows) Squadron RAF HE
No. 501 (County of Gloucester) Squadron AuxAF SD
No. 504 (City of Nottingham) Squadron AuxAF TM
No. 601 (County of London) Squadron AuxAF UF
No. 605 (County of Warwick) Squadron AuxAF UP
No. 607 (County of Durham) Squadron AuxAF AF
No. 615 (County of Surrey) Squadron AuxAF KW
No. 1 (401) Squadron RCAF (Canadian) YO
302 (City of Poznan) Squadron (Polish) WX
303 (Warsaw - Kosciuszko) Squadron (Polish) RF
No. 310 (Czechoslovak) Squadron (Czech) NN
No. 312 (Czechoslovak) Squadron (Czech) DU

Spitfire
No. 19 Squadron RAF QV (squadron code)
No. 41 Squadron RAF EB
No. 54 Squadron RAF KL
No. 64 Squadron RAF SH
No. 65 (East India) Squadron RAF YT
No. 66 Squadron RAF LZ
No. 72 (Basutoland) Squadron RAF RN
No. 74 Squadron RAF ZP
No. 92 (East India) Squadron RAF QJ
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron RAF UM
No. 222 (Natal) Squadron RAF ZD
No. 234 (Madras Presidency) Squadron RAF AZ
No. 266 (Rhodesia) Squadron RAF UO
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron AuxAF LO
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron AuxAF XT
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron AuxAF PR
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron AuxAF DW
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron AuxAF FY
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron AuxAF QJ