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

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Osprey

@Kurfurst. I believe you could learn from the "Russells Teapot" argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I'm not interested in the flaky Australian argument anymore since it appears far too unconvincing and more importantly, irrelevant. It matters not even if, as you suggest, that the UK wouldn't give the Australians any 100 octane because they were short. That is not evidence that the RAF didn't have enough to use themselves.

We can use simple logic to decide the truth here. I ask you, do you deny any of these 4 points listed?

1. That the RAF used fuel.
2. Every flight recorded a combat report (provided the pilot returned).
3. That the fuel type or boost to indicate the type was frequently mentioned in combat reports throughout the BoB.
4. That 87 is never ever mentioned and 100 was in every case.

Therefore the entire RAF MUST have used 100 in in combat and no other type. It really is that straightforward. What I do not find straightforward are your reasons for objection. Please, what are they?

Like i said, i want both versions in the sim but ok, i'll bite and play devil's advocate here just for the sake of showing you guys what i get from the whole discussing here. Lets go ahead and take each numbered point one by one, shall we?

1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Correct, the operative word being "frequently". Which could mean it was a differing practice (to be mentioned in the first place) but widespread enough (to be mentioned frequently).
4. Correct. Which could mean 87 wasn't mentioned because it was the default, while 100 was mentioned because for one it was the exception to the rule and secondly, extra boost warranted extra inspections by the mechanics.

I'm not arguing either case, this is just an example to show everyone here how flaky the whole thing appears to an outside observer, no matter which side of the argument one tends to support.

I just think no side has provided any undisputed facts: i see a lot of credible sources in this thread but far too often a lot of them are conflicting, with no real means to discern which i should "believe more". I'm not convinced either way and that's why (as well as the dynamic campaign considerations) i advocate the presence of both types for all aircraft that use higher grade fuel during the BoB.

I remember seeing similar evidence about half the 110 units being also equipped with better fuel and higher rated engines. I want to have both versions, no matter if its a Spit or Hurri or 110. Forgive me when i say that i doubt some of the most invested posters in this thread would do the same, as i have a suspicion that many who support 100 octane Spits would denounce DB601N-equipped 110s and vice versa.

Let's have options is all i'm saying

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Forgive me when i say that i doubt some of the most invested posters in this thread would do the same, as i have a suspicion that many who support 100 octane Spits would denounce DB601N-equipped 110s and vice versa.

So absolutely wrong.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Forgive me when i say that i doubt some of the most invested posters in this thread would do the same, as i have a suspicion that many who support 100 octane Spits would denounce DB601N-equipped 110s and vice versa.

Most certainly not. If it was there then I want it. I think I speak for all RAF types when I say that they want accuracy and let the chips fall where they may. I fly Hurricanes, I am already expecting the 109 to have a big advantage on me, but I shall fight on because I want it how it was.

[lane]

Alec Harvey-Bailey, The Merlin in Perspective, (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Derby, 1983)


"Alec Harvey-Bailey was in charge of Merlin engine defect investigation during WWII. In addition to examination of damaged engines, his role also involved development of engineering improvements and repairs. Harvey-Bailey made numerous visits to active squadrons and even flew aircraft when it was necessary to become familiar with particular problems."



Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.

[Al Schlageter]

Tomcat please note the engines

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Tomcat please note the engines

And note the dates: March 1940 and April 1940, respectively for the A.P.1590B
notes on the Merlin II & III and the Pilot's Notes.

Will the sim implement the bonus and the onus of such feature obligating pilots to use it wisely?

And will sim pilots have to note the use of overboost in the engine's log book?

[lane]

Air Commodore F. R. Banks, I Kept No Diary , Airlife Publications, Shrewsburg, 1978, Appendix II Fuel, pp 234-236







"With the coming of war, Banks entered the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve as a junior officer, being sent to work at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) at Boscombe Down, and with his previous work attracting the attention of Lord Beaverbrook, Banks was accredited as a 'troubleshooter' and given special powers. After a while, Banks was promoted to Air Commodore and was made successively, 'Director General of Engine Production', and 'Director of Engine Research and Development'.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

And note the dates: March 1940 and April 1940, respectively for the A.P.1590B
notes on the Merlin II & III and the Pilot's Notes.



And will sim pilots have to note the use of overboost in the engine's log book?

Nothing to do with this. My question is: Acctualy the pilots in the sim just fly with maximun power settings all the time and are not worried with engine safe. Even now with CEM the pilots could fly this way, the just have to maintain radiator and oil fully open.

[Ernst]

I mean the developers could program some weathering variable as function of how the pilot use their aircraft. The value of this variable could affect the aircraft in the next sorties and the risk of a malfunction will be higher. This has minor use in normal servers but in online wars with limited aircraft like adw or il2.org.ru this would make sense. The server program can as example numerate the disposable aircraft between 1 to n and at each sortie the weathering ll actualize for each one. The next pilot who picks that ac have higher chance to have problems etc. The commander of each squad can select some of this acs to go maintenance (then they become indisponible fot use for some time etc) reducing the weather variable. Do You understand what i am saying?

Actually in adw if you broke your ac you ll not have another until the high command send more to you. And this could last much time. My suggestion is that the developers include some feature where in an online war each pilot ll fly the same plane for many sorties and how they use the ac in the actual sortie ll influence the ac behaviour in the next. Just this... Obviously some have easier maintenance and are more rough for bad field conditions. One advantages of the 109 was the less maintenance time and cheaper to fix.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Nothing to do with this. My question is: Acctualy the pilots in the sim just fly with maximun power settings all the time and are not worried with engine safe. Even now with CEM the pilots could fly this way, the just have to maintain radiator and oil fully open.

Totally tongue in cheek, but I know what you mean...the limit for +12 Boost was set at 5 minutes: on a Spitfire the throttle lever was gated with a thin wire which the pilot pushed forward through to gain maximum boost; the boost cut-out control was mounted on the side of the throttle assembly. (see attachment 1: attachment 2; power curve for Merlin III courtesy http://www.spitfireperformance.com) As the Pilot's notes show the pilot had to report the use of +12 and a note was added to the engine's log book.