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

[5./JG27.Farber]

Is this 869 posts about 100 Octane fuel?

I have only one thing to say. More of a question if you will.

If these results were gathered about how fast an aircraft goes, would that data not already include the 100 octane fuel? As it is well known most RAF fighters flew on it is it not already included in the data?

[Osprey]

Yes indeed Farber. The fuel gave an increase in performance up to FTH and we want that modeled. If it's modeled with 87 then the Spitfire will be slower than the 109 below 16 kft, which wasn't true when 12lbs was used and thus the reason this is on post 1 zillion is because a couple of people want a slower Spitfire in game than what was represented in the BoB.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
There is a graph on spitfireperformance.com which shows a considerable advantage but I would like to see more official data than the one displayed before I could be sure about that. This is the one they have vs the E-1 plus other data, some of it official.






roll rate


Dive acceleration is not here but combat reports all state that the 109 got away comfortably. Steep climbing turns are the opposite in game as IRL where the 109 should stall first on a 120mph climbing turn.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Osprey, english is not my first language so some posts can sound harsh. What I meant with working with planes is that I bet most people here have only been in a Cessna or an airliner, seen planes in an airshow etc. Very few actually fly planes or maintain and work with the inner parts of a plane or with their weapons systems, depot level repairs and maintenance etc. When you do that and are in contact daily with real fighter jocks the flaws and limitations of a simulator/game become more and more obvious. So there it is: Game.

Spitfire was a great plane but IMO a bit over glorified. It did not win the BoB or WW2 alone, Hurricane did the grunt of the work in BoB for example. In other theatres it fared like any other fighter, but it suffered from same as Bf109: short range. It had it's vices too Sissyfire came from the idiotically modelled 25lbs Mk.IX which everyone and their aunt/granny/uncle flew and touted it being historical. The Spitfire is still a graceful sight, but for me the Bf109 has a sweet spot always.

Osprey, you contradict yourself a bit. You say the Sissyfire will be the "world of pain" for blue. Is that the only plane that will be checked by Luthier? Flying blue is a challenge and with the comment "world of pain" you just confirmed it How about later when the Fw190A's whack the Sissyfire Mk.Vb silly? The tables turn later with Mk.IX to more even etc. The circle goes on and on. So there is no "world of pain", just adaptation to the changing situation And when you learn to fly blue against the reds flying red is a breeze. Agree?

So after all..this is a game we enjoy to play. That's it. Sure creates heated debates but still we play. And tactics work in this game in most situations as the features(FM/DM/CEM etc.) of the game make it possible.

Well, over with this. I think all just want a game that is as accurate as possible within the constraints of our hardware and software.

[Osprey]

Fair enough Flanker. Regarding your point though I don't think it compares tbh. I don't see how a modern pilot flying Eurofighter fly-by-wire and using BVR systems has anything remotely similar to the fighters of 1940. In actual fact things are moving closer to 'games' anyway with pilotless drones flown from California in Iraq and Afghanistan. The comparison is pointless, we have what we have.

Regarding the Spitfire and glory, this has nothing to do with facts which is what we are dealing with. What has the fuel discussion in this thread got to do with whether somebody wrote a book, told a story or made a film about the Spitfire and it's endevours? We are dealing with facts, not romantic fiction. I would argue that the 109 has the problem with glory because (a) so few survived and so much data was destroyed as Germany lost, and (b) it was all a part of German propaganda to state how Germany had such an amazing machine. Some people live this romance and cannot understand how Germany lost with such a superior fighter, they big it up way way too much imho.
All I can say about the Spitfire is that it was an excellent short range local supremacy fighter which was extremely versatile.

The BoB could've been won without the Hurricane, but not without the Spitfire.


PS, I flew 190A for years in '46, P-51, P-40 mainly. The USL makes squadrons fly allied and axis so you will fly all. I have no preference but accurate representation.

PPS, I can't understand why you carry over the 25lber insult into CoD. It's not here, and it wasn't in the list in Spits v 109s nor Warclouds either anyway.

~S~

[Crumpp]

The point is: If a squadron used 100 octane fuel in 11 Group and also in 13 Group this mean a) either 100 octane fuel was used in 11 and 13 Group

Again, I don't know the answer and neither does anyone else in this thread.

I am sure the RAF would want data on continuous operational use. That is the whole purpose of operational trials. It would make sense to have some of the 16 squadrons that converted use the fuel continuously.

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Again, I don't know the answer and neither does anyone else in this thread.

I am sure the RAF would want data on continuous operational use. That is the whole purpose of operational trials. It would make sense to have some of the 16 squadrons that converted use the fuel continuously.

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.

Another song and dance routine.

How much 100 fuel did the RAF use during the BoB?

How much reserve stock of 100 fuel did the RAF have at the end of the BoB?

We are all still waiting for you to name these 16 squadrons that used 100 fuel.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Another song and dance routine.

How much 100 fuel did the RAF use during the BoB?

How much reserve stock of 100 fuel did the RAF have at the end of the BoB?

We are all still waiting for you to name these 16 squadrons that used 100 fuel.

Forget it - Crumpp is a waste of time; the boy just wants to believe want he wants to believe. But, then again, let's pursue that line of thinking...

Interestingly, reserves of "Other Grades" of aviation spirit got progressively lower than those of 100 octane fuel throughout 1940 -
May 1940: 294,000 tons of 100 Octane v 298,000 tons "Other Grades";
August: 404,000 tons 100 octane v 230,000 tons "Other Grades";
November:440,000 tons v 257,000 tons "Other Grades".

Were one to follow Crumpp's entirely "logic" the RAF wasn't using "Other Grades" of fuel either, except on operational trials, lest those reserves got below "believable levels" - take the Crumpp logic far enough and the RAF wasn't using any fuel...sort that one out

If we take Crumpp's logic another way those 16 Squadrons (aircraft type(s) not specified) consumed 51,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in "operational trials" between July and end of October 1940. So, assuming the 16 squadrons were a mix of Hurricane and Spitfire units:

1 gal 100 Octane= 7.1 lbs: 1 ton = 2,240 lbs divided by 7.1 = 315.5 gal of fuel per ton.

Hurricane = 90 Gal
Spitfire= 84 gal
Average= 87 gal

315.5 divided by 87 gal = 3.6 fuel loads per ton of fuel: 51,000 tons consumed X 3.6 = 183,600 sorties flown during operational trials! = 11,475 sorties by each of the 16 Squadrons. But Wait There's More! According to Crumpp only some of the 16 squadrons would have used 100 octane continuously

[Flanker35M]

S!

Osprey, the fighter pilots can judge how a plane behaves, jet or not. Not sure how RAF or others train but here they have to fly against propellor/turbo prop planes to simulate a slower target that still can pose a threat if it gets guns on you even for a short time.

My main point was the plane itself though, be it WW2 or modern plane, it has systems/subsystems and a structure. When you work with them on a daily basis you get a fairly good idea how for example damage would affect the plane or a system. This leads to the DM we have that has oddities, or should we say features, which boils down to the fact our home computer systems simply are not capable of calculating what would happen. Instead we have something like "X happens to Y part commence action Z" or at worst case hitpoint pools on areas. Have even 1 point left and it will not break or affect plane behaviour.

An example. Finns bought from RAF Hurricanes 1939-40. The Brits themselves told during evaluations that planes in service lost 10-20mph from their speed fairly quickly due wear/tear and fatigue, especially those Hurricanes that still had fabric covered wings. Those wings caused problems to Finns as well, they "ballooned" in a dive and at least one plane was lost due the fabric was torn off. So restrictions had to be set for their dive speeds. Just an example.

In game we do not have wear/tear or fatigue that cumulates. Still the same old "Refly with a factory fresh plane". So if this could be modelled in some believeable way then CEM and how you fly would become much more important. Now it is not. Just balls to the walls, fiddle a bit here and there and good to go. Again..a GAME.

I flew red quite a bit in old IL-2 in different occasions. So was not stuck to blue only. Main ride was still the biggest underdog Bf109G-6 Early without the 30mm. Blue pilots are called Luftwhiners, Luftwaffles etc. so Sissyfire will stick

But thanks you for a good reply Osprey, appreciate that

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.

Believable to whom? You?

You have a reserve tank on your own aircraft. So let us say that you are flying along and run out of fuel in the main tank and you're over the sea somewhere. According to your logic you will decide not to switch over and use it because a reserve is a reserve after all, it's not to be used.

I 'believe' that the UK would've used up every drop if they had to. I 'believe' that all engines were converted in the event that Germany invaded and we had to throw the lot at them from the other groups. It wouldn't make sense to keep converting back and forth.

[Osprey]

@Flanker, I try not to use Luftwhiner but it's different because it focus's on a type of person who flies exclusive blue and complains in order to gain game advantage. Kurfurst is a Luftwhiner. Sissyfire is directed at the aircraft ergo the pilots choice of ride. All he need do is have some success in what was a very successful aircraft of the time, and this has no reflection on personality, he need not complain about the enemy ever to gain that tag. This is why it's just a plain insult, because it is not earned or deserved. You say it's because of the 25lber but you apply it to all Spitfires.

You should remember that it was common for German pilots who had been shot down by Hurricanes to claim it was a Spitfire, such was their respect for what was an excellent machine.