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

[JtD]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

Hard to say for me if the Hurricanes had their props replaced with CSP's before the changeover to 100 octane fuel was done. Imho, a CSP Hurricane with 87 octane fuel would be unhistorical and doesn't need to be modelled. Effort would better go elsewhere.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by JtD

Hard to say for me if the Hurricanes had their props replaced with CSP's before the changeover to 100 octane fuel was done. Imho, a CSP Hurricane with 87 octane fuel would be unhistorical and doesn't need to be modelled. Effort would better go elsewhere.

Don't forget that there were some Spitfire and Hurricane (?) that were equipped with Rotol propellers well before the DH props were modified to CSP.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by JtD

Hard to say for me if the Hurricanes had their props replaced with CSP's before the changeover to 100 octane fuel was done. Imho, a CSP Hurricane with 87 octane fuel would be unhistorical and doesn't need to be modelled. Effort would better go elsewhere.

Well I'd agree there, but what about a Hurricane with the 2-stage De Havilland prop for Battle of France scenarios?

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I have a question to all major participants of this thread. When I ask it, I want you to please bear in mind that I am not trolling and do not have an agenda against anyone (except perhaps Osprey... that selective quoting a few pages back really destroyed any credibility you might have had).

Why is it important?

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

Well, there should definatly be 100 octane, as all the evidence from pilots etc shows in this thread. As to 87 octane, no actual evidence has shown one operational flight using that fuel during bob, despite the endless arguments

I guess they would be nice to simulate 1939 though.

Still i think most people would settle for both, not holding my breath that we will see 100 octane spit1's and hurris though.

[winny]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I have a question to all major participants of this thread. When I ask it, I want you to please bear in mind that I am not trolling and do not have an agenda against anyone (except perhaps Osprey... that selective quoting a few pages back really destroyed any credibility you might have had).

Why is it important?

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

I feel it's important for me personally to make a stand, purley from a historical point of view. As far as Cliffs goes, you're right, have both variants. Problem solved.

This is more about 1 mans personal crusade to change history, it just happens to have moved to here. Maybe it's not the 'right' place to do it.

All you need to do is Google "100 octane fighter command" and the same person shows up, name calling, character assasinating, arguing, cherry picking and obviously has an agenda that has nothing to do with history.

My problem with this is the motivation. If it's historic then it's opposite to his obvious bias. Kufurst is basically saying that the RAF performed better during the BoB, as they managed to repel the LW using mainly 87 octane. If I was just some RAF fanboy then surley I'd quite happily accept that.

My problem lies in the fact that his motivation must be related to Simulations. It's the only reason I can think of for repeatedly arguing that 87 was the main fuel (remember that he's invested a lot of his time into a 109 site).

It's the manipulation of history to achieve this that I personally am standing up against.

The accepted view is that fighter command converted in the Spring of 1940.
I challange anyone to find me a book on the subject of the BoB that states otherwise. Yet K keeps on with his repeated attempts to challange this. I have yet to see one really convincing piece of contemporary evidence.

This isn't about Cliffs for me, at the end of the day it's just a game. (I own a copy but am unable to play it on my current set up)

Nobody has to read this thread, there's always the circular argument about fanboy/whiners going on in the main forum to keep you entertained

I'm actually quite proud that a few individuals of this much crticised 'community' feel the same way I do.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Logistics are critical but they do not answer operational questions.

The only way to answer an operational question is with operational documentation. In this case, the document which details the operation of the aircraft is the Operating Notes. The portion that is a legal document connected to the airworthiness of the aircraft will reflect the latest authorization for the type.

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

Nothing more needs to be said until you find an earlier dated version of the Operating Notes that specify all operational units.

In this case, the document which details the operation of the aircraft is the Operating Notes. The portion that is a legal document connected to the airworthiness of the aircraft will reflect the latest authorization for the type

This is where we differ. It my belief that if I have an official document that says that 100 octane was intalled at a station or that it was in use in a combat report then it was by definition, in use, at that station or in that squadron.
If your manual is dated later, then all that proves is that your manual is later. It doesn't mean that the fuel wasn't used until the date of the manual

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by lane

That's interesting. Can you please share a scan if possible and convenient? Thanks.

[lane]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Thanks 41Sqn_Banks!

[NZtyphoon]

24 September 1938:

Sir, I am directed to inform you that in order to improve the take off performance of Spitfire aircraft, the use of 100 octane fuel by squadrons equipped with this type has been approved.

2. Improvement in the take off performance of Hurricanes will be obtained by the use of C.P airscrews but there will be a period of some months before this modification will be introduced...

The report goes on to explain that 100 octane was useful as a means of improving take off power, particularly with the Hurricane on some airfields, and the operational limits in Merlin engines would have to be strictly observed. This is evidence that the adoption of 100 octane was well underway nearly a year before the war started albeit its use was temporarily restricted as a measure to improve take off performance; this was also before increased boost pressures were adopted.

[41Sqn_Banks]

The Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III from January 1939 fit that time frame and are an good indicator for the restrictions at that time.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1334682385