Rubbish, Blacksix quite clearly promised it ;)

Thank you for the update team :)

Maybe youre right....must have been another one of my Oleg dreams :grin:

Well, if my wife says: "It's Friday, don't you want to come and have a glass of wine in the sofa instead of sitting there in front of the computer?", I could interpret that as a question - or a non negotiable order? ;) Good night! :)

Goodnight...and errmm......enjoy ;)

It was possible (but not common) to fill Spitfire Mk.II's Merlin XII with 87 octane fuel, hence the brackets.

That is not a speculation but a known and well documented fact. I suggest you get more information (other that those available to anyone online) before you offer your services to 1c. ;) No offence ment, just a frank observation. You are, of course, totally right about assuming that higher octanes allowed higher boosts, but you happen to be wrong here as for Merlin development history and few important details that give a bigger picture. I found it quite amusing as you, an expert in BoB fighter performance, came over to a2a with that post. :grin: You surely don't lack confidence.

Of course, 100 octane fuel was necessary to achieve the +12lbs. boost in BCC-O setting on both Merlin III and Merlin XII, but the actual nominal rating has not changed to +9lbs on Merlin III. That was purely later mark Merlin (XII) with different coolant and various modifications (or improvements over Merlin III) that allowed higher boost, not the higher octane fuel itself.

Early Merlins as such were able producing much higher MFPs, but the nominal ratings were considered safe by the manufacturer and MoD and they were certainly +6.25lbs for Merlin III no matter what fuel you poured in it. The document you present confused you because there was certain time when the Merlin III has been further developed (as it was always the case with RR) and only later became Merlin XII.

I think I have to put it in bold:
Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game

maybe and bold and bigger:
Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game


Rarely has one sentence meant so much as this sentence!

Rarely have I seen so much whinning (actually I am lying, I have seen a lot of whinning here and in the Ubi-zoo and the "octane fuel" saga is is no more spectacular than the "FW190 gunsight view limitation", nor the "ammo belt loads", nor etc. etc. etc...ROFL)!

It becomes obvious that the Spit and Hurri pilots are getting so much annoyed having their sensitive parts kicked by the Bf109 that are looking for every possibility to say "Luthier, my plane was historicaly faster than it is in the game" maybe it was the octane fuel, maybe it was the landing gear wheels inflated with nitrogen instead of air...

Gents just get used to it:
#1. The flight model is not there where it should be.

#2. The Bf109s owned the air at that period (historicaly correct, if you do not believe me (and you shouldn't) watch the documentaries posted in the forum and the comments of the RAF pilots!). Yes! You won the battle of Britan! Because the Bf109s had to fly besides the bombers. In CoD they do not have to, and you feel the impact.

#3. Get used to appreciate the guy's work (Blacksix) and enjoy the moment that we get timely accurate updates and stop overtaking this thread with more questions to him than he can give answers!


~S~

PS. I am waiting for the day the Spitfire will run with 120octane fuel (or anything that makes it faster than my Bf109). Then, I will bring up the technical papers up to prove that the size of the turbine in my Bf109-E4 was larger than the one modelled by the 1C team therefore the 1,2ata (turbine pressure) gives a much lower performance than the one my engine in real life would bring... And since I am sure they never modelled the size of the turbine exactly (why should they) I am sure to be on the winning side ;)
Crazy world...

Disclaimer: I accept that my post may be deleted, re-phrased, moved out of this thread as per the will of the admins. I just felt I had to vent off some frustration because of this mess :D

Negative GRAthos, I hope the actual performance ratio of RAF Fighters (Mk.Is) to the 109s remains the same, e.g. Emils will stay faster, better climbing etc.
I mean if RAF gets 100 octane performance and Emils will perform better as they should do. No one is expecting the Hurricane to outperfrom the Emil. ;)

I am not annoyed by RAF performance, I quite enjoy it as it is and I hope we can get them all even closer to what they were (fuel is just one part of that), that's all.

I have the Merlin III engine manual (AP 1590B) updated for the use of 100 octane fuel. Amendment List No. 4 to AIR PUBLICATION 1590B includes a completely new page with "Performance" and "Limiting operational conditions" that is dated November, 1940 and gives nominal ratings with +6.25 lb. per sq. in.
I'm confident that these new pages from November 1940 wouldn't state outdated values. So I'm convinced that there was no rated power of +9 lb. per sq. in. on a regular Merlin III engine (without modifications to bring it to Merlin XII standard).

The infamous +9 boost document is useless without knowing the source. It is Page 40 of a larger document. At least we need to have the other pages to bring it into the correct context. It even could be a typo (III instead of XII).

Looks cool..

Battle of Moscow is looking good,but considering I bought Clod a B oB sim I couldnot careless,please fix what I paid for which is a Battle of Britain sim.