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

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

If the aircraft in service were most commonly using 100 Octane, those limits would be the ones listed under the limiting Operating Conditions of the Pilots Operating Notes.

That is how it works.

The 87 Octane limiting operating conditions are published as the predominate operating limits of the aircraft in June 1940. References to 100 Octane are minor footnotes denoting specialized circumstances that are not the common configuration.

So how do you know it worked that way? Source please.

Here is evidence that it didn't work that way:

Hurricane I "operational limitations" May 1941 (thanks Klem):

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...4&d=1334674718
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1334674727

Spitfire I "operational limitations" January 1942 (I'm sure someone has a better copy of this)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1334723739
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...6&d=1334723745

Merlin II, II and V "operational limitations" November 1940

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...7&d=1334724557
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1334724563
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...9&d=1334724569

In all of these publications 100 octane fuel and +12 is only a "minor footnote" and the "All out" limit is given as +6 1/4.

[41Sqn_Banks]

And the explanation for this is given in Pilot's Notes General (1st Edition 1941, not the 2nd Edition).

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1334727256
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1334727263

We know that the Merlin II and III was designed for 87 octane and therefore the operational limits are always given for 87 octane.

[lane]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

So how do you know it worked that way? Source please.

Here is evidence that it didn't work that way:

Hurricane I "operational limitations" May 1941 (thanks Klem):

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...4&d=1334674718
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1334674727

Spitfire I "operational limitations" January 1942 (I'm sure someone has a better copy of this)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1334723739
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...6&d=1334723745

Merlin II, II and V "operational limitations" November 1940

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...7&d=1334724557
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1334724563
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...9&d=1334724569

In all of these publications 100 octane fuel and +12 is only a "minor footnote" and the "All out" limit is given as +6 1/4.

Nice 41Sqn_Banks, thanks for sharing

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I have read those Banks. You misunderstand what I wrote. A.P. 1590B/J.2-W is incorporated into the June 1940 Pilots Operating Notes.

Okay, so how about showing the pages incorporating A.P. 1590B/J.2-W, plus the front cover, inner cover and fly leaves confirming the date of publication?

[Crumpp]

Spitfire I "operational limitations" January 1942

The change jumps right out at you. Go compare the operating limits page I posted from June 1940 with the page from January 1942.

You should see it plain as day. If you don't I will point it out to you later.

Why do you think they republished the Operating notes in January 1942? The Spitfire Mk I was not the latest Spitfire Mark at that time. However, 100 Octane was common by that date and required a republication of the notes.

[Osprey]

Face it Crump, even Kurfurst has realised that 100 was in full use - he lost the argument and disappeared. You remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting the war on some island right up to the 1970's.



Chaps, there's a bug raised about the boost on the bugtracker that I need to update so I will grab this latest stuff for it so it can finally be implemented into the sim.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Face it Crump, even Kurfurst has realised that 100 was in full use - he lost the argument and disappeared.

Funny part is five or so years ago these two were viewed as the end all be all souce of info at the ubi and other forums!

Back then only a few people saw through thier biased smoke screens

Thus I can not tell you how happy it makes me to see so many more people comming to the same conclusion!

S!

[Osprey]

If you have not voted chaps, then you need to.

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

I would appreciate one of the well written and thorough performance explanations on the bug report please to cover each type we have in the sim. Luthier will need it.

Sod Crump, we have the issue raised to the mods, issue the coups-de-grace via the Bugtracker

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The change jumps right out at you. Go compare the operating limits page I posted from June 1940 with the page from January 1942.

You should see it plain as day. If you don't I will point it out to you later.

Why do you think they republished the Operating notes in January 1942? The Spitfire Mk I was not the latest Spitfire Mark at that time. However, 100 Octane was common by that date and required a republication of the notes.

So even with 100 octane fuel being the common fuel in January 1942, the "All out" limit remained +6 1/4. So obviously there is no relation between introduction of 100 octane fuel and the fact that the "All out" limit remained +6 1/4.

Fact is that the June 1940 manual already included all information needed by the pilot for the use of 100 octane and +12 boost:
- The use of 87 octane and 100 octane fuel is allowed (see Section 1 "Fuel", I will provide the page later)
- The boost-control cut-out allows to obtain +12 boost
- The use of the boost-control cut-out is allowed in emergency cases for short periods and when 100 octane is used

The fact that the January 1942 manual introduces an additional limitation of the fuel for operational and training units doesn't outweigh the fact that there not a single line in the June 1940 manual that would prevent the use of 100 octane fuel of whole Fighter Command in June 1940.
It doesn't proof that they did, but it doesn't proof that they didn't - which is your claim.