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

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

The version Kurfurst has
http://www.plane-design.com/document...e%20Manual.pdf

The Version I am referring to
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...uals-9050.html

I dunno what you talk about mate, this one you kindly attribute to me is a Mark Niner... and this isn't the one I talk about.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I dunno what you talk about mate, this one you kindly attribute to me is a Mark Niner... and this isn't the one I talk about.

Whoops the correct manual

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf

The following is the link to where you identified the notes you were using as being the Zeno Notes

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...a-20108-8.html

Post numbers 108, 112, 116

[Bobb4]

Okay lets' cut a long story short, if only for game purposes. What is modelled in Clod, 87 Octane or 100 Octane?
Is this just a debate between intellectuals with different viewpoints or a game breaker?
I struggle to find the relevance if it is not game related and if it is why have the developers not weighed in?
If it is just two standpoints then to each his own but if it materially affects game play the I want 100 Octane fuel to be an option at least and let the mission designer decide on it’s historical merit

[Viper2000]

Originally Posted by Bobb4

Okay lets' cut a long story short, if only for game purposes. What is modelled in Clod, 87 Octane or 100 Octane?

That depends how you look at it.

Instrument indications say that we have 87 octane boost limits, and strange behaviour of the boost control cutout.

Speeds and rates of climb are somewhat equivocal. Last time I checked, the Spitfire II was too fast and had strange full throttle heights, but boost topped out at about +8.

TBH it might be more reasonable to just say that there appear to be issues with the models rather than to try to pin this down to a fuel standard, because really we don't know enough about the assumptions underlying the FM, nor do we have the test technology (device link autopilot etc) to speak with the same certainty about CoD that we could talk about IL2/1946.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Bobb4

Okay lets' cut a long story short, if only for game purposes. What is modelled in Clod, 87 Octane or 100 Octane?
Is this just a debate between intellectuals with different viewpoints or a game breaker?
I struggle to find the relevance if it is not game related and if it is why have the developers not weighed in?
If it is just two standpoints then to each his own but if it materially affects game play the I want 100 Octane fuel to be an option at least and let the mission designer decide on it’s historical merit

It seems that 87 octane is being used in the FMs, but to many people, including myself, a game like this is only of interest if it simulates RL performance. If it doesn't simulate RL performance, it is just another arcade game, of no more interest than Star Wars.

[Bobb4]

Originally Posted by Seadog

It seems that 87 octane is being used in the FMs, but to many people, including myself, a game like this is only of interest if it simulates RL performance. If it doesn't simulate RL performance, it is just another arcade game, of no more interest than Star Wars.

100% agree with you. But can someone quote in game stats supporting this. It is all good and well this entire theoretical debate goes on but if the developers are not being told X should actually be Y and Y should include input from Z...
Nothing will ever be changed. I doubt whether a Russian developer is going to wade through 20 to 30 pages of a thread to figure out what the end result is.
I am 100% for 100 Octane but the developers need it in a simplified form and with documents to back up why the change needs to be made.
They could maybe just introduce field-modified 100 Octane Spitfire 1’s and 1a ‘s and have the Spitfire 2 already with 100 Octane as an example. Again this will leave the choice to the purists when mission building.
I doubt even Kurfürst can argue against that.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Bobb4

100% agree with you. But can someone quote in game stats supporting this. It is all good and well this entire theoretical debate goes on but if the developers are not being told X should actually be Y and Y should include input from Z...
Nothing will ever be changed. I doubt whether a Russian developer is going to wade through 20 to 30 pages of a thread to figure out what the end result is.
I am 100% for 100 Octane but the developers need it in a simplified form and with documents to back up why the change needs to be made.
They could maybe just introduce field-modified 100 Octane Spitfire 1’s and 1a ‘s and have the Spitfire 2 already with 100 Octane as an example. Again this will leave the choice to the purists when mission building.
I doubt even Kurfürst can argue against that.

Ok but then can we hve a <CFS friendly> and a <COD as advertised> buttons added as well


I don't understand the spit lover that are arguing for 100oct when the Spit FM makes her Zip Zapping the air like a cartoon rubber ball

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Whoops the correct manual

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf

Thanks. It says July 1940, Spitfire IIA and IIB manual, and

"Fuel: 100 octane (the reduced limitations for use with 87 octane are shown in the brackets)"

Also this, for Spitfire I from same timeframe I believe:

"When using 100 octane.." And above it limiations we know for being for 87 octane.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Thanks. It says July 1940, Spitfire IIA and IIB manual, and

"Fuel: 100 octane (the reduced limitations for use with 87 octane are shown in the brackets)"

I know it does, it also says 20mm cannon

[Seadog]

Pilot's Notes were issued but then revised constantly, so an issue date of July 1940 does not mean that all the info therein dates to July 1940, but in any event, even if it does, publishing the 87 octane limits are still prudent, since an aircraft may land at a training field, or even a civil airport and be forced to fuel up with 87 octane. Additionally, OTU aircraft may have run on 87 Octane and hence the info would still be needed, and overseas 100 octane was still scarce, and the writers could not know where an aircraft might be operating.

The fact remains that there are no published reports stating that Hurricane/Spitfires used anything but 100 octane during the BofB.

My friend has a car with a HO engine, and it requires 100 octane fuel, but the owners manual contains info regarding lower octane fuel use and prudent operating cautions.