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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-03-2012, 09:44 PM
41Sqn_Stormcrow
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well then I'd say: wrong thread! This is about comparing ingame plane data to RL data.
  #2  
Old 05-04-2012, 02:47 PM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow View Post
Well then I'd say: wrong thread! This is about comparing ingame plane data to RL data.
Not quite, this has a great deal to do with the game because +12lbs boost has not been modelled for Spitfire Is and IIs of the B of B.

Why Crumpp has such a beef about this subject is anyone's guess because he doesn't play. Basically he has a bee in his bonnet that he, with his VAST experience in American modern civil aviation, knows far more about "how things are done in aviation" than all those amateurish, but enthusiastic, non-aviator aviation historians (such as Dr Alfred Price) who have, inconveniently, found so much evidence that 100 Octane fuel was in use in all frontline fighter squadrons during the battle.

He has plagued this thread with unproven theories as to why the RAF only allowed 16 squadrons to play with the fuel in "intensive operational trials", there was also his idea that somehow 52,000 tons of 100 octane fuel wasn't actually consumed July-October it just disappeared back into reserves as some type of administrative glitch that only he could understand, then there was a huge amount of quibbling over Pilot's Notes and what he thought they meant etc etc...ultimately wasting everybody's time, but especially his own.
  #3  
Old 05-04-2012, 06:57 PM
41Sqn_Stormcrow
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NZtyphoon View Post
Not quite, this has a great deal to do with the game because +12lbs boost has not been modelled for Spitfire Is and IIs of the B of B.
I replied to schlageter who said that the 100 octane discussion had nothing to do with the game
  #4  
Old 05-04-2012, 11:37 PM
41Sqn_Stormcrow
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes, it's my time and I decide how I use it.

I just wished this 100 octane thing would have been discussed in a separate thread because all the other data is now drowned in this discussion turning in circles like if the 100 octane issue was the only issue on plane performance in CloD. This thread is about BoB fighters and not only RAF fighters. Perhaps a mod can rename this thread so that it allows other readers to avoid to open this thread about BoB figher performance in the hope to see some new stuff instead of the x-th round in the 100 octane discussion.
  #5  
Old 05-05-2012, 01:06 AM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Understood; this thread should have ended long ago, but there are some who are so obsessed with disregarding all of the evidence presented by people like Glider and lane who at the very lest have gone to the time, trouble and considerable expense of trawling through the NA and finding and using genuine late '30s early '40s documentation to back up their statements.

Kurfurst (who says he has very little interest in the RAF)'s "evidence" that the RAF used 100 octane fuel in a small minority of its frontline fighters is based on:

* a set of papers that he has not seen or read for himself; these were "summarised" in a posting in a discussion on another forum several years ago, during which the person ("Pips" who is a sometime member of this forum) who introduced these papers admitted that they were probably deceptive.

* an extremely legalistic interpretation of a single, pre-war RAF planning paper, which was transcribed from a meeting held in May 1939, and repeated by Morgan and Shacklady.

Otherwise noting, nada - zip - Kurfurst also repeatedly claims that he does not have to present any evidence to support his claims - yeah right.

Meantime Crumpp has been very busy brewing up their his cockeyed theories and a whole lot of speculative nonsense based on modern FAA regulations or whatever else he can think up.

Too right it's about time this thread come to a natural end.
  #6  
Old 05-05-2012, 02:28 AM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow View Post
Yes, it's my time and I decide how I use it.

I just wished this 100 octane thing would have been discussed in a separate thread because all the other data is now drowned in this discussion turning in circles like if the 100 octane issue was the only issue on plane performance in CloD. This thread is about BoB fighters and not only RAF fighters. Perhaps a mod can rename this thread so that it allows other readers to avoid to open this thread about BoB figher performance in the hope to see some new stuff instead of the x-th round in the 100 octane discussion.
All the other data was posted in the first few posts. With Barbi's Post #24, the thread became a 100 octane discussion thread.
  #7  
Old 05-05-2012, 05:50 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

The Operating Notes are definative and Notes on the Merlin Engine will reflect the changes in the Flight Information Manual version.

If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine do not specify 100 Octane for all operational units then the transition in Fighter Command was not complete. If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine does not mention 100 Octane fuel then it was not the most common fuel.

What do you think all those pilots transitioning from Bomber and Coastal Command would be studying?

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.
  #8  
Old 05-05-2012, 05:53 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Meantime Crumpp has been very busy brewing up their his cockeyed theories and a whole lot of speculative nonsense based on modern FAA regulations or whatever else he can think up.
The convention is not modern. It has been in place and relatively unchanged since airplanes first started crossing international borders.

Perhaps some research on Aviation Legislation and Aviation Law would help you to gain a more factual outlook.
  #9  
Old 05-05-2012, 07:16 PM
Seadog Seadog is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
The Operating Notes are definative and Notes on the Merlin Engine will reflect the changes in the Flight Information Manual version.

If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine do not specify 100 Octane for all operational units then the transition in Fighter Command was not complete. If Operating Notes on the Merlin Engine does not mention 100 Octane fuel then it was not the most common fuel.

What do you think all those pilots transitioning from Bomber and Coastal Command would be studying?

You can date the transition by the Operating Notes, they are the primary source for technical changes to the aircraft.
All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.
Closed Thread


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 11:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.