![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I don't understand your post really Kurfurst. It pretty much backs up a lot of the RAF tests only without the detail - it's more of a confidence report for pilots in combat.
Furthermore, as Kwaitek correctly pointed out, it was vs a 2 stage prop Spitfire on 87 octane and this wasn't a BoB aircraft. Granted, the Rotol prop fitted to the 109E may affect performance but it is a CSP so I'd doubt it makes a marked difference. Finally, I have a faith problem with the items you post because you appear so damned biased towards blue anyway and frequently rebuff good information to the contrary, so I cannot trust your opinion I'm afraid. Sorry about that, in England we call it "The boy who cried wolf". Sadly the effect of this may well lead to bias in the sim in order to appease the complainers and the likes of Kwaitek and I really don't want that. I don't care if the Spitfire was hopeless IRL vs the 109, I just care that the sim best replicates RL performance and history. Last edited by Osprey; 05-28-2011 at 12:57 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You don't? But I thought its obvious. I was a bit tongue and cheek as I believe they call it in England. Point is, that the both teams on both times of the Channel was a bit dissing about enemy equipement because its not like theirs, so it must be inferior. British (too stable for a fighter) and German comments (far too unstable for a firing platform) on control characteristics are esp. revealing.
Quote:
And, why would they do that, if not for other reason then to test it in the condition they found it to be operated by the British? BTW there were certainly Spitfires flying with 2 pitch screws and on 87 octane during the BoB, though it eventually all changed. Quote:
![]()
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200 Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415 Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org ![]() |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Let me be quite clear. I'm not interested in bigging up the Spitfire, I just want a sim as close to how it was as possible. I don't think you share that agenda and unfortunately it is types like you who will batter 1C and spoil it. This report, which I consider rather unscientific, is pre-BoB because all fighting Spits had CSP and 100 octane for the BoB. Perhaps it would be easier for you to prove to us that this tested Spitfire was using 100 octane? Even if it were the report does say that it has a two stage prop and that's enough for us to know that it has inferior performance. 100 octane and a CSP makes the Spitfire a different animal. That is the animal the 109's faced, not the example you cited. Last edited by Osprey; 05-28-2011 at 07:55 PM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[edited]
12lb is pushing the donkey too far. Just like stating a Merlin was producing 1.3K HP We can all agree abt 12lb as Emergency (it regards devs to found a sense of wht emergency use could be in the sim and server to add this or not to their options) 1300+HP stop the joke right there. Enough of revisionism !! ![]() Last edited by TomcatViP; 05-29-2011 at 10:07 AM. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I was a beta tester of the origianal Il-2. Ever since I am following this series, and contributed to it with work and date, as well as testing. And you? As for the FM models, I don't really care who's bigging up. All I do is providing the historical data from my collection, for free, and the devs do whatever they want with it. Hopefully what they will do with it is modelling the planes as accurately as possible after every country's own specs, if these are available, rather than according to foreign testing papers of often semi-functioning, crashlanded junks. Fanboys of course won't be happy it with in any time, they will want only the "bestest" versions and forget the realities life, like you do. Quote:
As for the all of them had the best stuff etc. I consider it wishful thinking and without evidence. As far as CSPs go we know that they just started to be retrofitted at start of the battle, and the process wasn't about finished until mid-August, so yes, you could definietely meet up with two-pitch in July 1940, early in the battle. As for 100 octane, it was done to death. No evidence or documentation was ever presented by anyone, that would specifically say that all aircraft are using 100 octane, or even all aircraft are planned to use 100 octane. All we know is that the original early 1939 plans called for 16 fighter and 2 blenheim bomber sqns. to be provided with 100 octane by September 1940.The high octane stuff was introduced to select fighter (and some Blenheim bomber) stations in spring of 1940, from which it follows that not all had it. We also have evidence that further conversion of units was stopped in May 1940 due to concerns of overseas supply, especially as the Germans were sinking tankers at an alarming rate, and all 100 octane came from overseas; we also know that the conversion continued, and was finished later in the automn. We also know that about 2/3s to 3/4 of the avgas consumed in the BoB was 87 octane. We also know that there's evidence for about 1/3 of the fighter stations for 100 octane used, predominantly Sector stations and in 11 Group. Everything else is just a wet dream at the currently available evidence. So I am patiently waiting for someone to post a primary document that would say that all Squadrons are using 100 octane. Until that happens, I consider it wishful and baseless, and contradicted by evidence. As for the Rechlin tested Spitfire. You claimed that all Spits had 100 octane. Would it not be strange for the Germans, to capture a plane with 100 octane fuel in its tanks, and then test it with something else than 100 octane fuel, when they had plenty of supply of that, both captured stocks and their own production of high grade C-3 fuel..? Of course, they may have operated it on 87 octane, but that would only make sense if the plane they captured also had 87 octane in its tanks when it was captured.. Quote:
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200 Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415 Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org ![]() |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
This shld hve some influence on the way they fighted and it's easy to see how they applied those recommendations in combat report. On the contrary comments of the type : "I start climbing to evade him" or " I give chase to this 109 knowing that my plane was faster on deck" ... I never read anything like this untill the MkIX came out. Quote:
Good post Kurf. I hope we will see more like this |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
luftwhining and reDluving apart, thnaks for the posts both Kurfurst and Osprey. A very nice read.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() This document shows that by May 1940 all fighter command squadrons had recieved 100 octane fuel. Bomber Command had to wai till 1941 to be fully converted ![]() 100 octane conversions 611 squadron - 21/3/40 ![]() 74 Squadron ![]() 602 Sqadron ![]() North Weald ![]() 111 Squadron ![]() Al Deere using +12 over Dunkirk - May 1940 ![]() Order for 100 octane fuel in 1938 ![]() I've also looked for Combat reports from May - July 1940 that mention +12lb I counted 30 different squadrons that have combat reports from that time frame and used +12lb boost. The germans tested the Spitfire Mk1 with thier own fuel at Rechlin. This lead to slightly decreased performance and unreliable performance data. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Again, very nice findings
This debate is getting quite interesting |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
interestingly he gave chase to both Me110 using emergency power (12LB).
![]() |
![]() |
|
|