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

[Crumpp]

So, what's a 'standard day' in England Crump?

Pretty much the same as everywhere else for low altitude and subsonic aerodynamics.....

For a standard reference, a concept called a standard day is used. In aviation, everything is relatedto standard day conditions at sea level, which are 29.92 in-Hg (1013.2 mb) and 15°C (59°F). Inthe lower atmosphere, and thus for most aviation applications, a 1000 foot increase in altitude willresult in a pressure decrease of approximately 1 in-Hg (34 mb) and a temperature decrease of 2°C(3.5 °F). These values are the standard day pressure and temperature lapse rates.

http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-303/P-3030021.htm

There you go again confusing modern day process in the USA with that of wartime Britain in 1940.

There is thing called the Paris Convention of 1919. It is what gives British Aircraft the authority to fly in other countries, including the USA.

What it says in summary, we will all do things the same way regarding airplanes and meet the same standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Par...ention_of_1919

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Pretty much the same as everywhere else for low altitude and subsonic aerodynamics.....



http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-303/P-3030021.htm




There is thing called the Paris Convention of 1919. It is what gives British Aircraft the authority to fly in other countries, including the USA.

What it says in summary, we will all do things the same way regarding airplanes and meet the same standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Par...ention_of_1919

Osprey,

It is a fact the January 1942 Pilots Operating Notes for the Spitfire Mk Ia stating 100 Octane is for ALL OPERATIONAL UNITS. That fact is a very damning piece of evidence for any argument all operational units converted at any date before January 1940.

It is a huge "fly in the oinment" to the crowd claiming Fighter Command converted in the Spring 1940. People in this thread have bought into a position based on logistical documentation and not on operational documentation.

The Operating Notes are operational documentation and the logistical documentation showing the fuel supply at the airfields confirms Morgan and Shacklady's research of around 16 squadrons sometime in September 1940.

The argument the document combines fuel at the airfields from 1938 until June 1940 does not hold up to scrutiney. Why?

The process for manufacturing 100 Octane gasoline cheaply and in quantity only existed for one year in 1938.

The first full-scale commercial catalytic cracker for the selective conversion of crude petroleum to gasoline went on stream at the Marcus Hook Refinery in 1937.

http://www.nacatsoc.org/history.asp?HistoryID=30

Before catalytic cracking, making 100 Octane fuel was possible only in small quantities and it was very expensive to manufacture.

In 1936 the United States decided to adopt 100 Octane. The Aeronautics Branch of the Department of Commerce, NACA, and Department of Defense laid out a ten year plan to convert all aviation to 100 Octane fuels. The first to convert would be the USAAF and their experience would be used to convert all Civil Aviation. Before any of that could begin, the first priority was finding a way to make 100 Octane cheaply and in quantity. That was not a possibility until 1937.

I highly doubt the Air Ministry had 100 Octane fuels in any substantial quantity in 1938.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is a huge "fly in the oinment" to the crowd claiming Fighter Command converted in the Spring 1940.

As is all the operational squadron records posted that say otherwise to your position that you keep ignoring.

I trust them not you, someone who can't even distinguish modern day peace time rules and regs with that of a war in 1940.

[Crumpp]

I don't want to further encourage your behaviour by responding

Please both of you drop the attacks on each other and just discuss the facts. Acting immaturely does not add credibility to anyone.

[Crumpp]

As is all the operational squadron records posted that say otherwise to your position that you keep ignoring.

Fruitbat,

I have not ignored any evidence at all. Re-read those squadron logs, please. The technical order specifies aircraft will be converted on their schedules Service Inspections. When that conversion is complete, by convention it will be a logbook entry. Most importantly, if they are actually using the fuel that will also be a specific logbook entry by convention. It will plainly state they are using 100 Octane. Not only will their aircraft be logged as converted, it will be logged they are actually using the fuel.

A single entry of aircraft being converted does not mean they are running around using 100 Octane fuel, only that the aircraft is capable of using it if available and authorized. When my aircraft was converted to use auto fuel, it too got a logbook entry noting it was Supplemental Type Certificated for auto fuel. The aircraft was properly placarded too. That does not mean autofuel is in my fuel tanks!!

It just means the airplane has the capability to use it.

It is the exact same thing with the conversion to 100 Octane. You just can't put the fuel in the tanks and fly off. The airplane has to be placarded, major changes done to the engine, and the proper knowledge given to the pilots as well those that maintain the aircraft. Why, because it is the law and that law conforms to international aviation convention that has been in place since 1919.

The conversion was done on a schedule at the annual Service Inspection. That is what gave the manufacturer time to make the cylinder heads and logistics to distribute them. Once the Operational conversion was ready to adopt 100 Octane fuel, new Operating Notes would be published reflecting that change as we see in January 1941. There is some lag time. I would bet the RAF began conversion in June 1940 and fully converted sometime in December or November, 1940 before the wartime British end dates for the Battle of Britian. That is why you find references to the RAF converting during the battle.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Fruitbat,

I have not ignored any evidence at all. Re-read those squadron logs, please. The technical order specifies aircraft will be converted on their schedules Service Inspections. When that conversion is complete, by law it will be a logbook entry.

That does not mean they are running around using 100 Octane fuel, only that the aircraft is capable of using it if available. When my aircraft was converted to use auto fuel, it too got a logbook entry noting it was Supplemental Type Certificated for auto fuel. The aircraft was properly placarded too. That does not mean autofuel is in my fuel tanks!!

It just means the airplane has the capability to use it.

It is the exact same thing with the conversion to 100 Octane. You just can't put the fuel in the tanks and fly off. The airplane has to be placarded, major changes done to the engine, and the proper knowledge given to the pilots as well those that maintain the aircraft.

That was done on a schedule at the annual Service Inspection. That is what gave the manufacturer time to make the cylinder heads and logistics to distribute them. Once the conversion was ready, new Operating Notes would be published reflecting that change as we see in January 1941. There is some lag time. I would bet the RAF converted sometime in December or November, 1940 before the wartime British end dates for the Battle of Britian. That is why you find references to the RAF converting during the battle.

So what about the combat reports that show the use of +12 boost, which was only allowed in when 100 octane fuel was used?

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

So what about the combat reports that show the use of +12 boost, which was only allowed in when 100 octane fuel was used?

exactly.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

So what about the combat reports that show the use of +12 boost, which was only allowed in when 100 octane fuel was used?

"If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, flies like a duck......then, by gawd, it IS a duck." A 100-octane duck!

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is a huge "fly in the ointment" to the crowd claiming Fighter Command converted in the Spring 1940. People in this thread have bought into a position based on logistical documentation and not on operational documentation.

The trouble for you is that this is a fly in your ointment.

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

I would have mentioned 'crowd' but I don't think "Crump & Kurfurst" constitutes one lol

Frankly, you and your bumpal can say whatever you like - the game is over, and in the end not only have you lost but you've lost credibility too. You mug lmao

[Crumpp]

The trouble for you is that this is a fly in your ointment.

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

I would have mentioned 'crowd' but I don't think "Crump & Kurfurst" constitutes one lol

Frankly, you and your bumpal can say whatever you like - the game is over, and in the end not only have you lost but you've lost credibility too. You mug lmao

Who cares??

I don't play Cliffs of Dover. I only went to graduate school for aeronautical sciences, own/operate aircraft, and restore WWII fighters. My interest is purely personal without any stake in your game.

That is why I ignore you unless something peaks my interest.

You guys paid for a game and IMHO, the developers should give you what you want to enjoy it. If facts were opinion and the majority opinion mattered; we would not have things like civil rights law.