PDA

View Full Version : Only 20 E4/N were ever built.



KansasCS
Mar-17-2016, 07:46
I did not know that.

Seems like were are constantly flying all of them on a friday night ;)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants#E-4

hnbdgr
Mar-17-2016, 09:33
Yes the numbers were lower then E4 standard. Though wiki says "15 E-4/N and 20 E-4/BN". Also I'm no expert, but I think additional ones might have simply been field upgrades. Ideally there would be an in-game mechanic restricting E4/n to a limited number of planes, not sure if it's possible to achieve.

Also, one has to understand what is in game is not an exact representation of the configurations that existed. For instance some E4's were fitted with 601A, others with the more powerful 601Aa. In game we have 601A in E3/E4 and 601Aa in E3/b E4/b etc.

GERMANWOLF
Mar-17-2016, 09:35
lol,only 20 units....

ZG15_robtek
Mar-17-2016, 09:35
better you read slower next time :-P

there were 15 E4N and 20 E4BN build according to that page. :-)
Also there is written that the only difference from E4N to E7N was the optional 300l droptank on the E7.:devilish:
The conclusion is that a E7N without the tank is practically a E4N, and there were hundreds of E7N build.:)

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-17-2016, 15:47
It's up to the mission builders to put in the appropriate ratio of aircraft of a particular type in their mission.

TF just builds the aircraft which were present at the time of the BoB.

There was an entire Gruppe of 109's equipped with the E-3N, E-4N, E-7N during the time period of the BoB... that is approx. 30-40 aircraft. (III/JG-26 "Schlageter", commanded by Adolf Galland)

Theoretically the N engined aircraft on a given map could be as high as 40, but if the mission builder is instead building an appropriate 'ratio' between types, they would be small percentage. (given there were approx. 750 109's available of all types) Many of the Jagdfliegers were flying E-1's, especially early in the battle. In addition, most of the E-4's flown during the BoB didn't have auto prop pitch... it was only introduced in a few aircraft and it had many mechanical issues. We have the E-4 with auto because a lot of new players are incapable of flying the 109 without auto pitch. In TF 5.0 we will introduce an E-4 without auto pitch.

There were also limits to the numbers of Spit IIA's available during the BoB. By the end of the battle there were 5 Squadrons, or approx. 60 aircraft available. But the first Squadron did not see action till the later part of August and they were introduced at a rate of approx. 1 per week during September.

And also, there were obviously limits to the numbers of Spitfires available overall... with approx. 3/5's of RAF Fighter Command being Hurricanes. Missions should restrict the numbers of Spitfires, but it would upset a lot of players.

One thing which happens, which should never happen... Mission builders have 87 octane versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane on maps... NONE, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH... Spitfires and Hurricanes flew using 87 octane during the BoB... they ALL used 100 octane.

Thanks :salute:

I have yet to see a mission built which compels players to fly a historical ratio of aircraft. ;)

SoW Reddog
Mar-17-2016, 19:47
I have yet to see a mission built which compels players to fly a historical ratio of aircraft. ;)

Lol.

philstyle
Mar-17-2016, 19:48
I have yet to see a mission built whch compels players to fly a historical ratio of aircraft. ;)

So, not taking into account the entire Storm of War server.. which has exactly that?

Folks; if you want historical ratios of aircraft, there are plenty of online environments which do just that, from SoW's persistent environment, to the campaigns run by ACG. But it goes both ways, on these kinds of servers - if E4/Ns are restricted then so are Spitfires 2as.. and the ratios of spitfires to hurricanes. So be careful what you wish for.

ATAG_Freya
Mar-17-2016, 20:38
There have been some missions on ATAG servers that limit the numbers of E4N's and spit IIs for.. a couple years now, actually. I suppose its personal preference when it comes to building - mine is such that I like to make most plane types available to those who want them, especially the 87oct 'things'. It's all for fun! A 24/7 server open to everyone should have all the planes IMHO, for new fliers to try out, and old fliers to...try out. :D For the campaign style servers I love the fact that it is historically balanced, as its how it should be. All good, all around!

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-17-2016, 20:50
There have been some missions on ATAG servers that limit the numbers of E4N's and spit IIs for.. a couple years now, actually. I suppose its personal preference when it comes to building - mine is such that I like to make most plane types available to those who want them, especially the 87oct 'things'. It's all for fun! A 24/7 server open to everyone should have all the planes IMHO, for new fliers to try out, and old fliers to...try out. :D For the campaign style servers I love the fact that it is historically balanced, as its how it should be. All good, all around!

But do you think it is appropriate to have the 87 octane types available closer to the front and more accessible than the 100 octane types? Doesn't seem correct to me. A mission builder who does that is pushing an ahistorical choice on the players.

Put the 87 octane types in the back fields if you want to give players the option to fly them... but don't force a player to go to the back fields to get the historically correct aircraft when they should be available on the front lines. (putting the Hurri 100 octane types on the front lines to limit the Spits flying is a valid choice)

Rant off. :D

philstyle
Mar-18-2016, 04:24
There have been some missions on ATAG servers that limit the numbers of E4N's and spit IIs for.. a couple years now, actually. I suppose its personal preference when it comes to building - mine is such that I like to make most plane types available to those who want them, especially the 87oct 'things'. It's all for fun! A 24/7 server open to everyone should have all the planes IMHO, for new fliers to try out, and old fliers to...try out. :D For the campaign style servers I love the fact that it is historically balanced, as its how it should be. All good, all around!

Yes, I thought there had been such missions on ATAG too. Back in the "early" days I thought someone had written some missions for ATAG with limited stock of certain aircraft. Might have been Salmo? I think someone had missions that restricted the number of spawn-able aircraft of each type based on the ratios of what was already airborne. was a very smart little piece of mission design... or did I dream this?

Without knowing for sure, I think some 87 Octane *might* have been used by the BEF-supporting squadrons in France prior to Dunkirk... but maybe not. If there is any place for the 87 octane that would be it I expect. But the map doesn't really suit it, with most of Holland being cut off.

KansasCS
Mar-18-2016, 08:26
Wow. never guessed I would spark such a lively debate!
I didn't mean to plant criticism towards historical accuracy on the ATAG missions.
I was just astounded to see only 20 E4/Ns were ever produced.
Yes, the E7/N is the same with a droptank, but we don't have those in Clod right now.

I for one am glad that ATAG doesn't always follow the historical accuracy to the letter.
It makes for more interesting scenarios. This is after all, supposed to be fun. And the utter lack of german high altitude capabilities would spoil that a bit, IMO.
Heck, that one map where you only have E3s and red spawns in Dunkirk is quite the challenge and not a favourite for blue :D

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-18-2016, 16:55
Yes, I thought there had been such missions on ATAG too. Back in the "early" days I thought someone had written some missions for ATAG with limited stock of certain aircraft. Might have been Salmo? I think someone had missions that restricted the number of spawn-able aircraft of each type based on the ratios of what was already airborne. was a very smart little piece of mission design... or did I dream this?

Without knowing for sure, I think some 87 Octane *might* have been used by the BEF-supporting squadrons in France prior to Dunkirk... but maybe not. If there is any place for the 87 octane that would be it I expect. But the map doesn't really suit it, with most of Holland being cut off.

RAF used 87 octane gas for their aircraft in France up to approx. April 1st 1940... by the time of the Blitzkrieg, they were using 100 octane. Fighter Command switched to 100 entirely by the end of March in Britain... with the exception of a few Gladiator Squadrons based in Wales or other locations where they did not see action. First use of 100 octane was as early as November of 1939.

Talisman
Mar-21-2016, 06:04
The aircraft ratio thing can get a bit tricky. The ratio of Hurricanes and Spits is usually in peoples minds, but then what about the ratio of LW fighters to LW bombers, RAF fighters to RAF bomber, Italian aircraft to LW aircraft, bf 110 fighters to bf 109 fighters, RAF fighters to LW fighters, 109 fighters to 109 bomber versions, etc, etc, etc. By the time all ratio aspects are taken into account on a limited 60 to 100 player server there may be 0.75 Spit II and 0.01 Bf 109 E4N, LOL (please note I have not seriously worked this out).

I suppose we have to work with what is reasonably practicable, representative and enjoyable for both sides of the map; so, lots to argue over there then, LOL. Ill feeling can definitely creep in amongst players if a map has an unhistorical bias to one side or the other. If map bias is not intentional it usually gets fixed to a degree, if bias is intentional the map maker can claim that it is not supposed to be historical, its a sandbox thing, etc, etc, and we have to lump it.

Happy landings,

Talisman

P.S. Big thank you to all map makers who make every attempt to produce historical maps for our enjoyment with as little bias as is reasonably practicable.

ZG15_robtek
Mar-21-2016, 12:52
But do you think it is appropriate to have the 87 octane types available closer to the front and more accessible than the 100 octane types? Doesn't seem correct to me. A mission builder who does that is pushing an ahistorical choice on the players.

Put the 87 octane types in the back fields if you want to give players the option to fly them... but don't force a player to go to the back fields to get the historically correct aircraft when they should be available on the front lines. (putting the Hurri 100 octane types on the front lines to limit the Spits flying is a valid choice)

Rant off. :D

The reason for that is that the players, which want the high performance plane should fly "more historically correct" i.e. climb to altitude before entering the fight.
The players who want to start and enter the near low furball are more likely than not, not able to use the extra power in a significant way. ;D

Talisman
Mar-21-2016, 13:11
The reason for that is that the players, which want the high performance plane should fly "more historically correct" i.e. climb to altitude before entering the fight.
The players who want to start and enter the near low furball are more likely than not, not able to use the extra power in a significant way. ;D

Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick and misunderstand you, but it appears you want to tell people how they should fly, seem to be giving off a superior attitude and are not really addressing the point.

Happy landings,

Talisman

KansasCS
Mar-22-2016, 19:22
A, it was probably a joke

B, even if it were so, it is the mission builders right.
Where is the malice in giving incentive to fly high in s 100oct spit?



Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

KansasCS
Mar-24-2016, 07:14
Found this very interesting link (http://www.kurfurst.org/)!

ATAG_Lolsav
Mar-24-2016, 12:11
Found this very interesting link (http://www.kurfurst.org/)!

The one who maintains the site is aware of CLOD and ATAG. Heres a example of one interaction : link (http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8483)

ZG15_robtek
Mar-24-2016, 17:31
Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick and misunderstand you, but it appears you want to tell people how they should fly, seem to be giving off a superior attitude and are not really addressing the point.

Happy landings,

Talisman

I do believe you got me wrong here, i just wanted to post one possible mindset of the mission builder, saw it often enough in the old IL2.

I dont want to tell how everybody should fly, but: if I were a mission builder, making a mission calling for reenacting flying, I would motivate the pilots any way I can to do just this.

Talisman
Mar-26-2016, 11:52
I do believe you got me wrong here, i just wanted to post one possible mindset of the mission builder, saw it often enough in the old IL2.

I dont want to tell how everybody should fly, but: if I were a mission builder, making a mission calling for reenacting flying, I would motivate the pilots any way I can to do just this.

Copy that Robtek. In the integrity of map makers we trust!
Personally, I like to fly the more historical maps with historically common versions of aircraft types, because they are usually the ones that made history. If I feel that a map maker is trying to make it more difficult to fly a more historically common version of an aircraft type and is trying to lead me to favour an obsolete versions of an aircraft type, or is giving me a penalty for flying a more historically common version of an aircraft type, I am naturally going to feel resentment. In such a case I have to ask myself the question, why would a map maker want to influence me to fly an historically obsolete version of an aircraft type that did not make combat history, over a more common version that did make combat history; especially if my opponents are not expected to fly an historically obsolete version of an aircraft type.

Happy landings,

Talisman

ZG15_robtek
Mar-26-2016, 17:51
Copy that Robtek. In the integrity of map makers we trust!
Personally, I like to fly the more historical maps with historically common versions of aircraft types, because they are usually the ones that made history. If I feel that a map maker is trying to make it more difficult to fly a more historically common version of an aircraft type and is trying to lead me to favour an obsolete versions of an aircraft type, or is giving me a penalty for flying a more historically common version of an aircraft type, I am naturally going to feel resentment. In such a case I have to ask myself the question, why would a map maker want to influence me to fly an historically obsolete version of an aircraft type that did not make combat history, over a more common version that did make combat history; especially if my opponents are not expected to fly an historically obsolete version of an aircraft type.

Happy landings,

Talisman

In this case iI believe the map maker would have E-1 at the "close to the action" airfields and E-3 and E-4 at the more distant fields, except: the action is expected over England, then the Jerrys would have to fly some distance from any field.

In most cases, and this is valid anytime and anywhere, a imagined bad intend, is just a misunderstanding and not intended.

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-04-2016, 09:17
Well the title is technically correct but kinda misleading.

The "only 20 E-4/N built" statement is technically correct but only for the "fresh" or newly built ("Neubau" in German) factory production E-4/N. Comperatively few E-4/Ns were ordered from factory lines, since as of July 1940 it was decided that 110s should have priority for the available 601N engines, and by the time this decision changed in late 1940, the E-7 already replaced the E-4 on the production lines. However it is not the same meaning "as there were only 20 E-4/Ns ever", since for example by the end of 1940 we have reports 54 pieces Bf 109E-4/N in operations (and 112 various types of Emils with 601N overall). It just means that 20 E-4s were produced with the N engine from the go in the factories.

Now, how could there be 54 E-4/Ns with the units (with a number of them surely have been lost in the meantime, if supposedly only 20 of them existed (plus 15 E-4/BN)...?

This is simply because most of the /N types were conversions and rebuilds of the existing and already built 601A powered E-4 models (a simple engine swap) or even other variants that were brought up in the meantime to E-4 standards that were already in operation and were accepted by the Luftwaffe in their previous state and thus were officially not "new production" and therefore they may or may not have changed their official dataplate. So even E-1s and E-3s existed with 601N yet you won't find one of them in reports on how many Emils orders the factories have completed in a given quarter. However as said at first 110s had priority for the 601N and were quite common in fact (roughly 50% of all 110s had 601N), the first "factory" Emils in mass numbers with the 601N did not really came until the last batches of a few hundreds E-7/Ns, which were the "running out" batches of the Emil before the F took its place.


Speaking in Spitfire terms, its like ignoring those that were converted from an earlier Mark to a new one later (like in the case of many IXs or XIIs).

On the Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on the 22nd January 1941, the Generalstab pointed out the following figures on the number of 'active' DB 601N installed, referring to reports from the units on 1st of January, thus giving us a good picture on the number of Bf 109E-../N types in frontline serviceon the 1st of January :

in Bf 109s
Bf 109E-1 : 16 pcs,
Bf 109E-3 : 1 pc,
Bf 109E-4 : 54 pcs,
Bf 109E-6 : 1 pc,
Bf 109E-7 : 34 pcs,
Bf 109E-8 : 2pcs.
Bf 109F-1 : 5 pcs.

Total 112 Bf 109E with DB 601N present in service, plus 5 Bf 109F.

in Bf 110s
Bf 110C-1 : 4 pcs,
Bf 110C-4 : 40 pcs,
Bf 110C-5 : 12,
Bf 110C-7 : 14 pcs,
Bf 110D-0 : 18 pcs,
Bf 110D-2 : 20 pcs,
Bf 110D-3 : 8 pcs,
BF 110E-1 : 176 pcs,
Bf 110E-2 : 14 pcs.

Total : 306 engines, ie. 153 Bf 110s with DB 601N present in service.

in Misc. types
He 111P : 8 pcs,
Do 215 : 68 pcs.

Anyway as far as rare/common types are concerned, the E-/N rests amongst the shelves with the E-7 and the Spitfire Mark II - realtively rare types used in about a Wing strenght in the summer of 1940 but became commonplace by 1941.

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-04-2016, 09:28
It's up to the mission builders to put in the appropriate ratio of aircraft of a particular type in their mission.

TF just builds the aircraft which were present at the time of the BoB.

There was an entire Gruppe of 109's equipped with the E-3N, E-4N, E-7N during the time period of the BoB... that is approx. 30-40 aircraft. (III/JG-26 "Schlageter", commanded by Adolf Galland)

Theoretically the N engined aircraft on a given map could be as high as 40, but if the mission builder is instead building an appropriate 'ratio' between types, they would be small percentage. (given there were approx. 750 109's available of all types) Many of the Jagdfliegers were flying E-1's, especially early in the battle.

It depends on the time frame. The summer of 1940, 40 sounds about right, later in 1940 its more like 110 or about 1/6 of the 109s. Otherwise the ratio was about 30% E-1s, 10% E-3s (and decreasing becomeing E-4), 40% E-4 and about 10-10% E-x/N and E-7.


In addition, most of the E-4's flown during the BoB didn't have auto prop pitch... it was only introduced in a few aircraft and it had many mechanical issues. We have the E-4 with auto because a lot of new players are incapable of flying the 109 without auto pitch. In TF 5.0 we will introduce an E-4 without auto pitch.

Nope, thats completely incorrect since the automatic propellor pitch was introduced already in service well before (November 1939) the E-4 production started (cca spring 1940). E-4 without automatic propellor pitch thus does sound like fantasy land to me just like the various fantasy planes "derated and fully rated" /N types presence.


One thing which happens, which should never happen... Mission builders have 87 octane versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane on maps... NONE, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH... Spitfires and Hurricanes flew using 87 octane during the BoB... they ALL used 100 octane.

This thesis has been repeated enthusiastically for some time but was never proven. :)

Gromit
Apr-05-2016, 05:20
Give it a rest Kurfurst there is an abundance of documentation showing the use of 100octane, this has been done to death!

I'm not going to waste my time debating this , just scroll down to the bottom of this page, there's more than enough proof there-- http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html and this is in France , corroborated by many memoirs-- http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/bushell.html

philstyle
Apr-05-2016, 09:22
Give it a rest Kurfurst there is an abundance of documentation showing the use of 100octane, this has been done to death!

I'm not going to waste my time debating this , just scroll down to the bottom of this page, there's more than enough proof there-- http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html and this is in France , corroborated by many memoirs-- http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/bushell.html


Kurfurst is well aware of that page, and he is right, no one has "proven" 100% that all RAF fighter were 100% 100 Octane for the duration of the BoB.

To me it seems that the argument posed by one side is "show me proof that a squadron was NOT using the 100 octane", to which the other side says "show me proof that ALL of them were".

There is also the ongoing reference to "15 squadrons" which were mentioned in an Air Ministry paper, converting to 100 Octane. One side of the debate claims that ONLY 15 squadrons are mentioned, and therefore we only have proof for 15 squadrons, we must assume the rest could have been using 87 octane. The other side says that the 15 were just the first 15 to be converted, and that all the others followed soon after.

As you can see, the burden of proof is being placed on the "other" side of the debate by both sides. The debate never ends, because the two sides cannot agree on what would constitute proof either way.

There is a definitive solution to this debate, which I started working on over a year ago. But I stopped my data collection becasue I assumed the issue had gone cold. I might have just been given the kick to continue that.. if I can dig out my old spreadsheet!

9./JG26_Brigg
Apr-05-2016, 09:34
Get it out Phil, I love a good spreadsheet.

philstyle
Apr-05-2016, 11:36
Get it out Phil, I love a good spreadsheet.

Well, I am unable to find the sheet I had....
However I have not forgotten the methodology I used, so I have started this little project again... watch this space - LOL

ATAG_Colander
Apr-05-2016, 11:41
A bit off topic but..

Can you imagine being able to travel back in time and going to those airfields to inquiry about the fuel octanes? How long would you last out of jail? :)

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-05-2016, 16:54
Kurfurst is well aware of that page, and he is right, no one has "proven" 100% that all RAF fighter were 100% 100 Octane for the duration of the BoB.

To me it seems that the argument posed by one side is "show me proof that a squadron was NOT using the 100 octane", to which the other side says "show me proof that ALL of them were".

There is also the ongoing reference to "15 squadrons" which were mentioned in an Air Ministry paper, converting to 100 Octane. One side of the debate claims that ONLY 15 squadrons are mentioned, and therefore we only have proof for 15 squadrons, we must assume the rest could have been using 87 octane. The other side says that the 15 were just the first 15 to be converted, and that all the others followed soon after.

FINALLY someone who actually understands the core of the debate is...!


As you can see, the burden of proof is being placed on the "other" side of the debate by both sides. The debate never ends, because the two sides cannot agree on what would constitute proof either way.

More or less so, although usually the side who claims something to be positively true is under the burden of proof. Simply because you cannot prove a negative. If I say the tooth fairy exists, the burden of proof is on me, not you to prove that it doesn't exist.

Moreover what we have is a rather absurd and extreme claim, that is, a thousand of RAF fighter using 87 octane on Monday but come Tuesday and they are all the sudden, not one exception, is using 100 octane. Curiously there is no trace of that all-altering decision in the paper trail either.

Now, what is not in debate and as far as I go, never was, is that 100 octane was used by a significant number of fighter and bomber squadrons in the period (btw did you notice that nobody screams treason or defends to death that ALL bombers must have been using 100 octane and 100 octane only)...? This much was known since ages and was told by books from the 1960s, so there is absolutely no news in that, because there are hints about it all over the place, the exact scale and speed of the transition is however, unknown.


There is a definitive solution to this debate, which I started working on over a year ago. But I stopped my data collection becasue I assumed the issue had gone cold. I might have just been given the kick to continue that.. if I can dig out my old spreadsheet!

What we can do is to speculate based on insufficient evidence till the cows come home. Certainly there are some who would gave their arm and leg if they could finally find something definite to prove that 100 octane was the one and only fuel used by fighter command yet cannot come up with it for... well lets see, 15 years or so - and I assume its not for the lack of searching for it. We can speculate on what some rather uncertainly worded old docs exactly mean under "the Squadrons concerned" (a part which, curiously, have gone missing from the qoutes on certain websites ;) ) or we can speculate about a pilot here or there mentioning using the special boost but since the Squadrons, planes, and pilots were continuously rotated, is rather difficult and would yield uncertain results.

Fuel deliveries and status at stations and squadrons would explain the matter a lot more and oddly, none of these tend to so up. I see two likely explanations: they are impossible to find or haven't survived (which seems quite unlikely), or that they do not show the clear and absolute truth what their searchers would like them to show but some rather.... fuzzy and "confusing" reality.

ATAG_Colander
Apr-05-2016, 17:16
The most dramatic benefit of the earliest Houdry units was in the production of 100-octane aviation gasoline, just before the outbreak of World War II. The Houdry plants provided a better gasoline for blending with scarce high-octane components, as well as by-products that could be converted by other processes to make more high-octane fractions. The increased performance meant that Allied planes were better than Axis planes by a factor of 15 percent to 30 percent in engine power for take-off and climbing; 25 percent in payload; 10 percent in maximum speed; and 12 percent in operational altitude. In the first six months of 1940, at the time of the Battle of Britain, 1.1 million barrels per month of 100-octane aviation gasoline was shipped to the Allies. Houdry plants produced 90 percent of this catalytically-cracked gasoline during the first two years of the war.


http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/houdry.html

If this is true, at least they had enough 100 oct fuel

JG51_dab
Apr-05-2016, 17:30
A bit off topic but..

Can you imagine being able to travel back in time and going to those airfields to inquiry about the fuel octanes? How long would you last out of jail? :)

I imagine the crazy house would be more likely. Can you imagine the look on their faces if you told them you worked on a virtual flight simulator for a bunch of weekend computer flight jocks.

9./JG26_Brigg
Apr-05-2016, 18:57
the raf definitely had 100oct during the BOB as I remember one of the pilots in the book Ten Fighter Boys telling the story about when he filled his motorbike with it, that you had to be carefull to not get it on the paintwork as it would turn it green inlike normal fuel.

philstyle
Apr-06-2016, 02:38
the raf definitely had 100oct during the BOB as I remember one of the pilots in the book Ten Fighter Boys telling the story about when he filled his motorbike with it, that you had to be carefull to not get it on the paintwork as it would turn it green inlike normal fuel.

Nobody doubts that 100 Octane fuel was in use.
There is absolultely no requirement to find the "missing link" to show that there was 100 Octane fuel in RAF fighters.

What remains un-proven (that is, completely, fool-proof unproven) is the following hsypothesis:
"ALL RAF fighters were converted to 100 octane prior to the commencement of the BoB"

I am personally convinced that all RAF fighter squdrons WERE fully converted to 100 octane prior to the BoB.
However, I will also admit that I cannot prove this 100%, beyond any doubt. I can only currently infer it from a very large mass of supporting data, and, so far, the absence of any contradicting data (no one has yet shown that any RAF fighter squadron was using 87 octane during the BoB either....**)
However, that weight of evidence is NOT enough to 100% confirm the hypothesis.

** For the record I understand that this hypothesis is also NOT proven:
"The was at least one RAF Hurricane or Spitfire which used 87 Octane operationally during the Battle of Britain"

Gromit
Apr-06-2016, 05:03
Quite what is the relevance of this however is a mystery, it's plainly obvious the front line squadrons in 11 and 12 group were running 100 octane, common sense logistics as aircraft were rotated through different air stations would mean you had the same fuel available, I know for a fact that RAF Kirton in Lindsey (an airfield used to rotate resting squadrons) only had fuel storage for one type of fuel, I was based there in the 80's with 16 AD Rgt and we had to have new fuel storage installed for the conversion to diesel from petrol for Military vehicles.

Talisman
Apr-06-2016, 10:06
Nobody doubts that 100 Octane fuel was in use.
There is absolultely no requirement to find the "missing link" to show that there was 100 Octane fuel in RAF fighters.

What remains un-proven (that is, completely, fool-proof unproven) is the following hsypothesis:
"ALL RAF fighters were converted to 100 octane prior to the commencement of the BoB"

I am personally convinced that all RAF fighter squdrons WERE fully converted to 100 octane prior to the BoB.
However, I will also admit that I cannot prove this 100%, beyond any doubt. I can only currently infer it from a very large mass of supporting data, and, so far, the absence of any contradicting data (no one has yet shown that any RAF fighter squadron was using 87 octane during the BoB either....**)
However, that weight of evidence is NOT enough to 100% confirm the hypothesis.

** For the record I understand that this hypothesis is also NOT proven:
"The was at least one RAF Hurricane or Spitfire which used 87 Octane operationally during the Battle of Britain"

Phil,

The front line fighter sqns had the 100 Octane fuel as a matter of urgency (the odd back water aircraft may have run on 87, but front line fighting units is what matters). It is all in the documentation and files, they just need to be read properly with attention given to the individual letters and meeting minute references. I have read the actual historic sequence of secret files from the wartime myself (minutes of meetings and letters). I have actually used and administered such files myself in my career in more modern times, so I was very familiar with their reference structure and organisation.

I have lost count of the history books that have stated the change over to 100 Octane for the battle and also personal pilot accounts of illegally using this 100 Octane fuel in cars, bikes and even cigarette lighters! Even bombers and Defiants were using it. With Fighter Command fighting for its life and air superiority over the front line does anyone really think that the vast stocks of 100 Octane were not used when RR and others were moving heaven and earth, albeit in secret, to give the RAF an edge.

With all the evidence that is available it is rather silly and churlish of anyone to be what I call a BoB 100 Octane denier. To hold out for one piece of paper to say that categorically every single fighter in existence at that time was using the fuel is just rather daft IMHO. Even if such a piece of paper existed it could probably be proved wrong if there was just one damaged fighter being used on the ground for pilots to sit in at a training unit, LOL. The bottom line is that for our purposes in CloD we do not need a piece of paper to say that 100% of RAF fighters used 100 Octane fuel as there is already enough evidence to reasonably provide 100 Octane fuel to the RAF airfields and fighter aircraft on the CloD map.

P.S.

I was talking to an elderly chap and his wife while I was on holiday last year and we got on to the topic of motorbikes. Out of the blue he then mentioned how he put 100 Octane fuel in his motorbike over the BoB. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up, as I had not realised he had even been in the RAF, let alone a pilot. Then I got even more envious when his wife told me that when they got married after the war they flew out on honeymoon in a Sunderland flying boat!

Any way, don't raise to the bait from these 100 Octane deniers. Some people still think man has not really actually landed on the moon (perhaps I should not have mentioned that as it will probably start someone off, LOL).

Happy landings,

Talisman

9./JG26_Brigg
Apr-06-2016, 10:15
Quite what is the relevance of this however is a mystery, it's plainly obvious the front line squadrons in 11 and 12 group were running 100 octane, common sense logistics as aircraft were rotated through different air stations would mean you had the same fuel available, I know for a fact that RAF Kirton in Lindsey (an airfield used to rotate resting squadrons) only had fuel storage for one type of fuel, I was based there in the 80's with 16 AD Rgt and we had to have new fuel storage installed for the conversion to diesel from petrol for Military vehicles.

What a small world Gromit, I went to Huntcliff school and lived in waddingham at that time.

Maybe that's one area to explore to settle this debate, look at what fuel storage airfields had and what they could store

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-06-2016, 10:19
"100 octane deniers." So 100 octane use in BoB is now elevated to some religious belief, that is a matter of faith, that cannot be denied, an obscure and sacred secret that's message is hidden between the lines so that only true believers may find it - instead of some secondary importance technical niche of the operations..? The wording certainly suggest the former case.

Thing I noticed, that its usually the same people who go into great length, without any evidence of course about that

a) ABSOLUTELY ALL RAF aircraft were operating 100 octane fuel
b) ABSOLUTELY NO or just very FEW Luftwaffe aircraft (see also "only 20 E-4/N" claim) were operating on 100 octane fuel.

I guess the idea is upholding the legend that one side had certain items of magical properties in possession, and thus perhaps even favored by the Gods who choose them provided them the said items helping them to triumph over their foe, which is the usual recipe of telling any classic myth or legend, that is loosely based on actual events. Given that the whole Battle of Britain story is one such national legend just like the Odyssey, the almost religious belief in something that cannot be rationally explained or proven forces the mind to resolve this cognitive dissonance (see: "you just have to read it right") by simply ignoring any conflicting data set.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/100octaneMar1939web.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/BoB%20Stuff/100octaneMar1939web.jpg.html)
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/100-87issues-FC_sorties_duringBoB.png (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/BoB%20Stuff/100-87issues-FC_sorties_duringBoB.png.html)

Gromit
Apr-06-2016, 11:23
Kurfurst, I suggest you look at the date of that letter, things changed considerably by the beginning of 1940 and that letter is in march 1939, many changes were instigated as the crisis deepened including aircraft and engine production and expansion of fighter command, that letter proves one thing, that was the plan six months before Germany invaded Poland , you seem to be of the opinion once a meeting is held that's it it's set in stone, I think you need to consider your clutching at straws!

Secondly no one is saying all RAF fighters were using 100 octane they are saying the Squadrons involved in the battle were, Whirlwinds certainly were not using 100 octane but neither were they in the group 11 and 12 sectors, aircraft in OTU's used 87octane as did most bomber, coastal command and transport aircraft, so your argument is a rather straw man approach by ignoring the fact fighter command was just one cog in the wheel, I ask why you are so obsessed with proving what exactly?, 100 octane or no the Luftwaffe still lost!

Read the combat reports of using 12 lbs boost and compare them to what squadrons were where if your so positive your correct, because your convincing no one!

ATAG_Colander
Apr-06-2016, 11:40
Folks, let's try to keep the discussion generic as opposed to personal.

Gromit
Apr-06-2016, 11:44
Yep, fair comment.

Talisman
Apr-06-2016, 14:22
"100 octane deniers." So 100 octane use in BoB is now elevated to some religious belief, that is a matter of faith, that cannot be denied, an obscure and sacred secret that's message is hidden between the lines so that only true believers may find it - instead of some secondary importance technical niche of the operations..? The wording certainly suggest the former case.

Thing I noticed, that its usually the same people who go into great length, without any evidence of course about that

a) ABSOLUTELY ALL RAF aircraft were operating 100 octane fuel
b) ABSOLUTELY NO or just very FEW Luftwaffe aircraft (see also "only 20 E-4/N" claim) were operating on 100 octane fuel.

I guess the idea is upholding the legend that one side had certain items of magical properties in possession, and thus perhaps even favored by the Gods who choose them provided them the said items helping them to triumph over their foe, which is the usual recipe of telling any classic myth or legend, that is loosely based on actual events. Given that the whole Battle of Britain story is one such national legend just like the Odyssey, the almost religious belief in something that cannot be rationally explained or proven forces the mind to resolve this cognitive dissonance (see: "you just have to read it right") by simply ignoring any conflicting data set.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/100octaneMar1939web.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/BoB%20Stuff/100octaneMar1939web.jpg.html)
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BoB%20Stuff/100-87issues-FC_sorties_duringBoB.png (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/BoB%20Stuff/100-87issues-FC_sorties_duringBoB.png.html)

Oh dear, I fear someone might be exaggerating and a bit over the top judging by the above. If you feel somewhat vulnerable and on the defensive concerning the title of the thread, I suppose it could be seen as a good idea to raise a smoke screen, cause a diversion and change the subject to something else other than the e4n. Is that what you have done do you think?
Anyway, the subject that you would appear to have changed the thread to is rather interesting but, as someone else has already said, you have set up a 'straw man' argument on the 100 Octane topic, which is another diversionary tactic. Just to clarify the 'straw man' thing please allow me to give a couple of examples:

strawman

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

A previous posting on this thread has already given you and other readers links to numerous documents for study, including documents that supersede the date on the one you have provided. I cannot help but feel that just by providing one official document from 1939 you are being somewhat disingenuous in your representation of the 100 Octane topic. For example, you show one letter in isolation and do not show, refer or even hint at the many pages of correspondence and other evidence that come on later. It is like taking a single early piece of correspondence out of a secret file of 100 enclosures (normally the maximum number of enclosures before a fresh file is opened under the same reference, as the original gets too large to handle and send from department to department) and then presenting that 1 document, from a file of up to 99 later documents, as the full and up-to-date state of affairs. I am sure you would agree that that to do such a thing would not present a true state of up-to-date affairs on the topic to any reader. I am not sure in my mind that you are really treating the 100 Octane issue with any degree of serious study or reasonable approach.

A long time ago when I first became interested in the flight sim world I used to read a lot of forums and threads to learn about my new hobby. At the beginning I used to read some of the things people posted and think that certain people talked with informed authority, genuine passion for all aircraft and honesty; then, after a while I realised that perhaps I was wrong and that some did and some most certainly did not. Perhaps you would agree with me that it is up to each reader to sort the wheat out from the chaff themselves and that it is advisable for any relatively new readers of our flight sim forums to do some of their own research, if and when possible, rather than read and believe only what we would like to believe from a single forum thread.

P.S. I note that the graph you show appears to be your own work without reference to source documents.

Happy landings,

Talisman

ATAG_Colander
Apr-06-2016, 15:08
Reiterating my self

Folks, let's try to keep the discussion generic as opposed to personal.


We will lock this thread if needed before it starts getting ugly.

7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER
Apr-11-2016, 17:27
Kurfurst is well aware of that page, and he is right, no one has "proven" 100% that all RAF fighter were 100% 100 Octane for the duration of the BoB.

To me it seems that the argument posed by one side is "show me proof that a squadron was NOT using the 100 octane", to which the other side says "show me proof that ALL of them were".

There is also the ongoing reference to "15 squadrons" which were mentioned in an Air Ministry paper, converting to 100 Octane. One side of the debate claims that ONLY 15 squadrons are mentioned, and therefore we only have proof for 15 squadrons, we must assume the rest could have been using 87 octane. The other side says that the 15 were just the first 15 to be converted, and that all the others followed soon after.

As you can see, the burden of proof is being placed on the "other" side of the debate by both sides. The debate never ends, because the two sides cannot agree on what would constitute proof either way.

There is a definitive solution to this debate, which I started working on over a year ago. But I stopped my data collection becasue I assumed the issue had gone cold. I might have just been given the kick to continue that.. if I can dig out my old spreadsheet!



It's only a circular debate if you don't understand military logistics.

It's too much of a PITA having different fuels going to different squadrons. I think the conversion would have been as short as it took to burn the remaining 87......


I see a a lot of armchair generals who forget to consider the logistics.

tgif
Jun-17-2016, 06:01
that houdry article was very interesting .My brother worked for the Sunoco company for years . it was basically closed a few years ago and the company is a pipeline company now. I worked at the Pew Estate for a long time building homes on the old estate . The owner of the Sun oil company was pretty innovative in business . He visited Canada once while hunting and heard about the tar sands and bought tar sand land when no one wanted it . He worked to develope extraction methods but it took a long time to get the process worked out . I don't think Sunoco made money off of it but . its been done now. . Lots of environmental issues but still a valuable development . Mr Houdry was one heck of an Engineer I must say. high Octane Fuel, Synthetic Rubber stock Catalytic converters. that guy was no slouch . I don't know about E4 production but this was really a interesting discussion

JimmyBlonde
Jun-17-2016, 08:50
Ok it's a bit of a meme plane but hey, at least it's not a Ho.229.

BOO
Jun-17-2016, 10:38
This does make me smile. Not especially this thread the the oft trolled out line "he only killed me/evaded me cos hes in a E4N/Spit IIa" or "thats over modelled" etc. Then you read the screen to see who was flying the offending AC and see names that make you think "i dont think that it was the ONLY reason mate..."

In short whats going to do for me quicker...a pilot with 10 hours on Clod in an E4N or the likes of Karaya, Groove, Grommit or Dave in a Hurricane, G50 or 109E1 or E3 (or Tinkicker in a bofors gun ).

Multiplaying is never perfect - there are many pilots in here with more combat hours experience that the war had actually been running by that point and thats beyond the control of the mission builders (who i think do a great job at keeping things balanced) So its never going to be a historically accurate experience in the truest sense. I know the thread didn't start as off making any great point but to some of the subsequent posters (and the injured parties reading this thread in the hope of easing their pain) I would say that there is little point in feeling hard done by or thinking the game is somehow diminished or unbalanced because of one or two comparatively minor facts (and honestly how accurate is YOUR ammo loadout and convergence for the period) when there is an whole herd of big fat expteren elephants in the room each with more combat experience than Die Hard AND Rambo 1,2,3 and 4! put together.

Happily the vast majority of these "experten" also give a good deal of time in teaching mortals like what i am about life and (virtual) death thus allowing everyone the chance to get the most out of CLOD most of the time. And thats more than a fair balance i think.

Regards

BOO

JimmyBlonde
Jun-17-2016, 10:59
there are many pilots in here with more combat hours

No, there are not. CloD isn't even remotely comparable to combat, it simulates some of the physics problems, that is all.

BOO
Jun-17-2016, 11:26
No, there are not. CloD isn't even remotely comparable to combat, it simulates some of the physics problems, that is all.

Obviously

to amend - there are pilots on here with more CLOD combat experience......

SoW Reddog
Jun-17-2016, 13:09
If there's no advantage to these aircraft why do we religiously see servers full of N and B model 109s??

vranac
Jun-17-2016, 14:28
There is a small difference between Spit Ia 100oct and Spit II. The difference between Me 109E1/E3/E4 and E4N is noticeable. I was fighting a lot against 109E4N's in a 109E4 on AX.

Simply, a 109E4N is allowing too many mistakes, I could dig out multiple tracks that are showing a 109E4N pilot stalling in front of me, I go above to avoid a crash, he can't recover for ten or twenty seconds and you can't catch him after he recovered.
I'll repeat again for all of the 109 jockeys, you'll never learn to fly a 109 properly in a 109E4N. A vanilla 109 is more than enough to defeat any Spit and you don't need an altitude advantage to do that, an equal energy state is enough. Another advantage that you have is that you can almost always leave the fight if doesn't go well for you. A Spit pilot doesn't have that opportunity.

I'll just add, to be fair a 109 is harder to master and it's harder to shoot in a 109 ( and to get into a position to shoot). But to master a Spit to fly it at the edge is also hard.

Vlerkies
Jun-17-2016, 14:42
So much 109 love in the air these days.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58T0NlhNweA

:thumbsup:

BOO
Jun-17-2016, 16:20
If there's no advantage to these aircraft why do we religiously see servers full of N and B model 109s??


im not saying there aint no advantage - im saying some pilots could fly a brick and still be better than me. and, in my humble onion, those pilots who do fly E4Ns either fall to to my guns cos they aint better or dont cos they ARE better than me. The model makes no difference to my skill set. It may to yours. But not to mine. Thats all.


Regards BOO

Diamondaxe
Jun-24-2016, 20:54
Im happyto see the ratio of 110's to 109's produced was very high....this has changed my mindbsignificantly on this debate...i would love to see fewer spits and more hurricanes. More 110's!!! My vote is to create only maps with historically accurate ratios.

JimmyBlonde
Jun-24-2016, 22:15
People like their meme plane and I can see why but what mystifies me is how a system specifically developed to increase compression at high altitude can be used so recklessly at higher (low altitude) atmospheric pressures without fear of catastrophic failure. In fact there should be no benefit in using it below 25,000ft at all since all you are doing is introducing a dangerously volatile gas into the combustion process to produce a level of compression that the engine can already achieve without it. Pushing the engine beyond it's limits in this manner should result in the same perilous outcome that anyone who's ever been to a drag strip, and seen the pistons of a NOs boosted engine exit the crank-case at high velocity, will be familiar with.

The 100 Oct Spit seems a little more credible in its' modelling (But far too prevalent in its' presence, since delivery of these fuel supplies would have to have been vetted by RAF Farnborough, Rolls Royce etc and would be naturally prioritized to units specifically requiring better high altitude performance like 10 Group who had time to climb during the battle or in later war scenarios where the Luftwaffe were conducting nuisance raids at 30-35,000ft over London. Frankly I wouldn't expect to see much 100 octane in 11 Group at all until September 1940). The extra compression afforded by 100 octane fuel forces more conservative throttle settings until the aircraft reaches higher altitudes where the extra compression afforded to the engine by use of said fuel produces higher than usual levels of compression that allow the engine to reach optimal operating parameters at higher altitude. (100 octane should also significantly increase engine service life since it is cleaner but that doesn't concern us, especially not me since I can hardly expect to use the same Spitfire more than once. :( )

Tl;dr: Overboost is for high flying, not a get out of jail free card.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Jun-25-2016, 01:32
People like their meme plane and I can see why but what mystifies me is how a system specifically developed to increase compression at high altitude can be used so recklessly at higher (low altitude) atmospheric pressures without fear of catastrophic failure. In fact there should be no benefit in using it below 25,000ft at all since all you are doing is introducing a dangerously volatile gas into the combustion process to produce a level of compression that the engine can already achieve without it. Pushing the engine beyond it's limits in this manner should result in the same perilous outcome that anyone who's ever been to a drag strip, and seen the pistons of a NOs boosted engine exit the crank-case at high velocity, will be familiar with.

The 100 Oct Spit seems a little more credible in its' modelling (But far too prevalent in its' presence, since delivery of these fuel supplies would have to have been vetted by RAF Farnborough, Rolls Royce etc and would be naturally prioritized to units specifically requiring better high altitude performance like 10 Group who had time to climb during the battle or in later war scenarios where the Luftwaffe were conducting nuisance raids at 30-35,000ft over London. Frankly I wouldn't expect to see much 100 octane in 11 Group at all until September 1940). The extra compression afforded by 100 octane fuel forces more conservative throttle settings until the aircraft reaches higher altitudes where the extra compression afforded to the engine by use of said fuel produces higher than usual levels of compression that allow the engine to reach optimal operating parameters at higher altitude. (100 octane should also significantly increase engine service life since it is cleaner but that doesn't concern us, especially not me since I can hardly expect to use the same Spitfire more than once. :( )

Tl;dr: Overboost is for high flying, not a get out of jail free card.

You clearly don't understand the characteristics of the Merlin III supercharged engine.

The supercharger in the Merlin III was only capable of producing +12 boost to approx. 9000 ft of altitude. The supercharger could not spin fast enough to compress a volume of air sufficient to produce that level of boost above that altitude. The Merlin III's supercharger at maximum rpms could only produce +6.25 boost at its full throttle height of 16,250 ft. (and only when Ram effects are considered, otherwise the critical altitude is 15,500 ft) There is no benefit to performance by using a higher octane fuel unless you have a supercharger capable of generating the high boost levels which require a fuel with better anti-detonation characteristics.

All the gains in performance were under 16,250 ft... and full performance as mentioned, could not be achieved over 9000 ft.

This is why Merlin development basically consisted of enlarged and improved single stage, or two speed/two stage superchargers being added to the basic Merlin block. Displacement, compression ratio and other aspects did not significantly change. The requirement was for superchargers which could a) spin faster, b) which had larger vanes, thereby which could compress more air, c) which had two stages, (ie. a second supercharger piggybacked on the first one) so again, more air could be compressed.

Re. NOS systems: If we introduce these, using the systems at lower altitudes will result in dramatic increases in engine heat and the rapid destruction of the aircraft's engine.

AKA_Knutsac
Jun-25-2016, 08:23
Buzzsaw,

OT, but thanks for this...

"There is no benefit to performance by using a higher octane fuel unless you have a supercharger capable of generating the high boost levels which require a fuel with better anti-detonation characteristics."

There's much confusion out there as to what "octane rating" actually means (i.e. measure of a fuel's anti-detonation character, and not it's energy content or "cleanliness").

~S~

AKA Knutsac

JimmyBlonde
Jun-25-2016, 16:51
There is no benefit to performance by using a higher octane fuel unless you have a supercharger capable of generating the high boost levels which require a fuel with better anti-detonation characteristics.

Engines work differently in your opinionated fantasy land but over here in mine every car I've ever driven ran better with premium (100 oct) gasoline than with regular leaded or unleaded (85 oct) and none of them needed a supercharger or a Merlin III powerplant.

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-25-2016, 17:30
Folks, let's keep this discussion civil, please.

Vlerkies
Jun-25-2016, 18:03
http://i.imgur.com/6zsU5jS.jpg

:getaway:

JimmyBlonde
Jun-25-2016, 18:17
That was an attempt at self depricating humour Snapper. Tongue in cheek, no offense intended.

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-25-2016, 18:31
That was an attempt at self depricating humour Snapper. Tongue in cheek, no offense intended.

:doh: Roger that, J-B.

Cheers!

:)

Gromit
Jun-26-2016, 05:53
Engines work differently in your opinionated fantasy land but over here in mine every car I've ever driven ran better with premium (100 oct) gasoline than with regular leaded or unleaded (85 oct) and none of them needed a supercharger or a Merlin III powerplant.

Only guessing but I don't think they had ECU controlled ignition and multi point fuel injection with Lambda sensors on WW2 aircraft, Sticking 5 star petrol in your 1976 Rover P6 didn't make it go any better as the ignition was not adapted to take advantage of the increased advance curve, now of course if you tuned the ignition to suit, then you had an improvement, and funnily enough that's pretty much what they did in WW2!

So just changing the fuel won't suddenly improve performance, however putting a lower octane in an engine with the ignition set for 100 was a recipe for a set of burnt valves and piston crowns!

JimmyBlonde
Jun-26-2016, 18:49
Grommit, for one example I used it in a '76 2 door Corolla and again in an old Datsun SSS. It was good to run half a tank through the motor occasionally to clean out any deposits in the cylinders and clear the carby. I wouldn't run it on premium all the time though, just occasionally, but when I did run a tank through it I certainly found that my right foot wasn't pressing down to the boards nearly as much as when I ran on standard unleaded.

The only motors I've ever run full tanks through were a straight 6 with EFI and all the electronic jiggery pokery and a supercharged V-8 since they were both more strongly built. I had a friend with a twin turbo 6 that he wouldn't allow anything else into and that never had any problems that didn't arise from the usual wear and tear, he even ran it on avgas a few times just for laughs and it went like the clappers.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Jun-26-2016, 23:39
Grommit, for one example I used it in a '76 2 door Corolla and again in an old Datsun SSS. It was good to run half a tank through the motor occasionally to clean out any deposits in the cylinders and clear the carby. I wouldn't run it on premium all the time though, just occasionally, but when I did run a tank through it I certainly found that my right foot wasn't pressing down to the boards nearly as much as when I ran on standard unleaded.

The only motors I've ever run full tanks through were a straight 6 with EFI and all the electronic jiggery pokery and a supercharged V-8 since they were both more strongly built. I had a friend with a twin turbo 6 that he wouldn't allow anything else into and that never had any problems that didn't arise from the usual wear and tear, he even ran it on avgas a few times just for laughs and it went like the clappers.

Your answer to why you got better performance is in your post.

You had deposits in your combustion chambers... ie. your compression ratio would be higher than stock... because those deposits occupy space. And a higher compression ratio would mean the standard lower octane fuel would not function as well as if the combustion chambers were clean.

In addition, deposits in the combustion chamber heat up after a few minutes of combustion to the point they become red-hot... that can cause pre-ignition and detonation.

Both of these effects would be reduced when using higher octane fuel... higher octane would be less likely to detonate due to the higher compression ratio and the red hot deposits.

You got better performance from a higher octane fuel because your engine was not running at normal specs and in fact was performing worse than stock.... so you had to compensate for the poor condition it was in.

If your engine was in good condition, you'd see no benefit to running a higher octane fuel.

JimmyBlonde
Jun-27-2016, 00:41
If your engine was in good condition, you'd see no benefit to running a higher octane fuel.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that score.

Gromit
Jun-27-2016, 04:31
The higher octane allows you to bring the ignition point forward in the firing stroke without detonation, what's happening is you are compressing the gas as it is actually starting to expand with combustion, resulting in greater cylinder pressure and more force pushing the piston down, the higher octane does not create more pressure it controls the combustion and delays the onset of detonation, if you ever modified older engines you would recall changing bob weights in a distributor to change the advance to suit the modifications, so putting a higher octane fuel in an old engine is not going to produce more power unless you adjust the ignition curve to suit it, in fact it can lead to plug fouling, or as may be your case to overcome an already malfunctioning engine as Buzz points out.

Modern engines use lambda sensors to read the oxygen levels in the exhaust, this allows it to recognise which fuel is combusting and the ECU then changes the ignition map to suit the fuel, my BMW Z4 3.0 makes full power on 98 ron if I put 95 in it its up to 10% down on it's 231bhp output, but putting 100 in it will make no difference as the ECU does not have a map to suit, in the old WW2 engines there was nothing remotely as sophisticated so the change from 87 to 100 octane required the ignition to be adjusted to achieve the greater advance and power output that results and that explains why you could not put 87 octane in a converted aircraft as the ignition timing would cause detonation with the lower octane fuel.

Octane is not a power output rating it's a detonation resistance rating.

VO101_Kurfurst
Jun-27-2016, 06:28
Gromit nailed it.

Internal combustion engines simply burn fuel to generate power (and at a very low effiency rate, as most of the potential energy just turns into heat), and there is a roughly fixed amount of energy (power) in a given amount of fuel. And Octane rating (anti detonation rating) does not change the amount of energy a bit. In fact alcohol fuel, that have better detonation resistance than benzine aviation fuels have a higher "octane" rating than avgas, but they produce less energy when burning, giving you less power with an alcohol fuel per volume than benzine.

So to produce more energy (power), you simply have to throw more fuel at the engine (or you can increase its efficiency, but won't go into that). Since the best air to fuel ratio of burning is also fairly fixed, so also have to supply linearly more air to make that burning possible, otherwise you are just exhausting more unburnt fuel and get not power benefit.

As a rough guide, same amount of fuel burnt - same amount of power can be produced. Want 20% more power? Use 20% more fuel and air! Want to cram 20% more fuel and air into the same engine volume (cylinder) - compress the stuff more and use 20% higher manifold pressure!

Its because you have fixed sized firing chambers (cylinders, i.e. engine swept volume ) in a given engine (unless you completely re-design the engine), the only way to force the required amount of air into a given sized engine is to compress the air more (i.e. higher manifold pressures), so that more fuel and air can be crammed into the same space. Higher pressures of mean higher chance of self-detonation (a violent mini explosion instead of steady burning of the fuel, and this will damage the engine components, as there is far more stress involved) Here is where octane rating comes into play, it simply resist the increased pressure more.

Its also why the Germans (French and Russians) did not rely so much on higher manifold pressures and did not require higher octane fuels. Their engines were of higher displacement, and cramming the same amount of fuel and air in a 20% larger volume engine can be done at lower manifold pressure, and thus comes with lower peak pressures and need 20% less detonation resistance (~octane rating), too.

You design your fuels for the specific engines you burn them in, and not vica versa.

JimmyBlonde
Jun-27-2016, 18:06
But what I'm saying is that engines are only built to withstand a particular pressure. Putting different fuel in them doesn't mean you can run at higher manifold pressure, it doesn't change the characteristics of the alloy or the seals, you need a new engine that is meant to run at higher pressure for that. If you put higher octane fuel in an engine then, yes, you can run at higher pressure without detonation but you can't magically exceed the design limits. What I was saying originally is that because you can now run safely at higher compression you are now able to fly higher since the engine can now generate adequate power in thinner atmosphere without detonation and I would call that an engine that performs better than one that can't.

VO101_Kurfurst
Jun-28-2016, 04:12
Manifold pressure isn't a factor at all. What are we dealing with, 1.5-2.5 atmospheres of pressure at most? I have my car's tires pumped to 2.5 bar pressure, and its made of thin rubber...

Of course if you mean the mechanical stresses on the engine components because of increased power, you are right. Everything has to be properly sized for increased power, compression and revs/min, increasing revs being the most demanding mechanically. Hence why practically all engines were limited by the strenght and expected lifespan of the compontents - connecting rods, bearings, pistons, crankshaft etc., and sufficient lubrication and cooling capacity must be provided as well.

Its usually these factors that limit clearing higher power outputs, not providing enough manifold pressure or the fuel's knocking resistance... these latter can be more easily solved.

JimmyBlonde
Jun-28-2016, 05:54
Manifold pressure isn't a factor at all. etc etc

If that was so I could fly my Spitfire to the moon, just like in Doctor Who. That would be awesome.

Gromit
Jul-01-2016, 06:06
This threads old hat now anyway, since the blues have realised what an uber plane the E3/4B is, the poor old N barely gets a look in!

Vlerkies
Jul-01-2016, 07:12
I will still fly my E1 in the fast lane, with my middle finger extended out the side window, while I succumb to third degree burns. :D

:)

Gromit
Jul-01-2016, 07:53
Vlerkies, your ability in the E1 is second to none, just have pity on the poor souls who have to hide behind the overpowered B to mask their inadequacies :devilish:

Just joking, nothing I like more than downing superior flight models whether I'm blue or red! :salute:

TURK_Enlem
Jul-01-2016, 08:47
1. Any pilot who has no Parkinson’s are eligible to fly with Spitfires.

2. The condition in the Article one, does not apply for Hurricane pilots.

:devilish:

Gromit
Jul-01-2016, 08:51
1. Any pilot who has no Parkinson’s are eligible to fly with Spitfires.

2. The condition in the Article one, does not apply for Hurricane pilots.

:devilish:

Actually it's compulsory for Hurricane pilots! :-P

Vlerkies
Jul-01-2016, 12:23
Vlerkies, your ability in the E1 is second to none, just have pity on the poor souls who have to hide behind the overpowered B to mask their inadequacies :devilish:

Just joking, nothing I like more than downing superior flight models whether I'm blue or red! :salute:

Lol, thanks, but my best skill of late is placing myself smack bang dead straight and level in front on enemy sights.:doh:
Lots better than me out there in that crate.
I'm with you on the underdog front though, exponentially more satisfying to eek out a few kills using tactics rather than brawn. Hope when TF5 arrives mission builders will still find space for the earlier birds.


If that was so I could fly my Spitfire to the moon, just like in Doctor Who. That would be awesome.
Buzz mentioned this earlier quite a bit (post#55). The problem at alt comes in providing the necessary air for ignition for the engine to work optimally, whatever that optimal setting is, the higher you go the harder this is to achieve.
The supercharger type and its efficiency or ability to perform at alt dictates the performance there. Everything else follows suit.