DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion

[Kurfürst]

Development of the Rolls-Royce Merlin from 1939 to 1945

 

A Lecture Delivered by Mr. A. C. Lovesey to the de Havilland Aircraft Company Technical Department in November, 1945.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-lovesey.pdf

 

Page 223 says:

 

"The first operational use of this fuel was against the flying bombs in the middle of 1944. Subsequently the whole of A.D.G.B. Was put on this fuel. Later it was used by the Second Tactical Air Force during and after the invasion of the Continent."

 

This is evidence to show that the whole of Air Defence Great Britain was using 150 grade fuel, including all its Spitfire Mk IX squadrons, before D-Day.

 

Uhm. The first V-1 strikes came after D-Day, Lovesey claims that the whole of ADGB was put on this fuel following D-Day.

 

Secondly, the answer is pretty simple to the 'all Spitfire IX Squadrons of ADGB', since from the detailed primary sources we know that only two of the ADGB Spit IX Squadrons (1 & 165) were using 150 grade for operational trials, the rest being Tempest, XIV and Mustang III squadrons, all heavily involved in V-1 chasing.

 

The 'whole of ADGB', even if true could be rathermisleading since there were very few units left in the ADGB by D-DAY as practically all of the operational Spitfire IX Squadrons were transferred to the 2nd TAF just before D-DAY and were flying on standard 100/130. Even ADGB reverted to 100/130 in the autumn when the V-1 strikes stopped with Allied advance in France. There was quite a bit ruckus about this, with Brits complaining about why practically all their limited supply 'British' 150 grade fighter fuel is used by the 'Muricans in the 8th AAF fighters and not British fighters. (Truth to be told, they never complained about gazillions of tons of 'Murican produced 100/130 grade that run the Spitfires and Lancesters, supplied via Lend-Lease).

 

A.D.G.B took part in D-Day operations and also flew sorties on the continent.

 

I have yet to see an occasion in 1944 when IX used 150 grade and +25 lbs in combat against Luftwaffe manned aircraft. This is a bit problematic you see, because they used this overboost precisely because the V-1 threat demanded it. When the V-1 threat stopped, and they could use these high performance fighters over the Continent, they reverted to 100/130 grade fuel for logistic reasons: supply was limited to begin with, and no aircraft fueled in Britain with 100/150 grade could refuel with it on the continent, as there was only 100/130 available.

 

2nd TAF used 150 grade fuel, including in its Spitfire Mk IX squadrons.

 

Yes, the 2nd TAF used 150 grade fuel, including in its Spitfire Mk IX Squdrons, but only from around February-March 1945. Not quite Normandy, not even 1944, is it..?

 

Therefore, I submit that a 25lbs boost Spit Mk IX would not be out of place on the upcoming DCS Normandy Map.

 

On the contrary, its totally out of place of Normandy and 1944. You are asking for a boost that was never used in Normandy by Spitfires, and was used only for operational testing and briefly for V-1 chasing by a mere two Squadrons out of 30-40.

[MiloMorai]

On the contrary, its totally out of place of Normandy and 1944. You are asking for a boost that was never used in Normandy by Spitfires, and was used only for operational testing and briefly for V-1 chasing by a mere two Squadrons out of 30-40.

 

D-9s and K-4s are absolutely out of place in Normandy.:music_whistling:

[Esac_mirmidon]

And in Nevada. And in the Caucasus.

 

So?

 

Will we stop to fly it?

[MiloMorai]

Got that from Mike Williams site? Because he calculated the "consumed quantities" from requirements set in 5/44. I wonder what kind of maths that is. So any data to back this up? Besides, how does the 150 grade fuel consumption of NW Europe prove the use of it by the whole of ADGB in 44? Sure 2nd TAF was flying on 150 grade in 45.. I just dont believe in the numbers, because US data shows production bottlenecks.

 

No calculation. Actual U.S.A.A.F 8th and R.A.F ADGB consumption:- from documents in POWE 33/990 33/991 33/992 33/985 held at the National Archive, London.

[Krupi]

Well for a start let's not get into what should not be in Normandy as the K-4 wasn't really there either lol

[Esac_mirmidon]

+1 Krupi.

[rel4y]

You mean these ones? Well these are exactly the projections I was talking about, where are the consumptions?

 

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C202866

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C202861

 

Let me show why it is important to differentiate between projection, production and consumption. Here is a chart for 130 octane fuel, recommended target level being projection. There is also big factor which causes discrepancy in production and consumption and that is logistics. How do you get all this stuff to where its really needed. It is well known that supply lines make or break a military at war.

Edited May 11, 2016 by rel4y

[Krupi]

FYI both 2TAF and the ADGB were present in Normandy for operation overlord and operation crossbow

[Krupi]

Let me show why it is important to differentiate between projection, production and consumption. Here is a chart for 130 octane fuel, recommended target level being projection. There is also big factor which causes discrepancy in production and consumption and that is logistics. How do you get all this stuff to where its really needed. It is well known that supply lines make or break a military at war.

 

Logistics weren't a big problem for ADGB, that only became a problem when they had to travel deeper into European hence the decision to revert them back to 130/18lbs. However the 150 fuel was then used by 2TAF and logistics would have been a problem hence the delay from authorization of the 25lbs use in November and the modifications that only started in January 45.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Krupi

[Kurfürst]

Entertaining fantasies about these imaginary Normandy +25 lbs Spits, but we are still getting the historically relevant +18 one. You may do wise to come to terms with that. Why re-discuss the same nonsense over and over again?

Edited May 11, 2016 by Kurfürst

[Krupi]

This is the crux of the problem.

 

There is evidence of the use of 25lbs Spits on the continent from the start of 45.

 

The K4 had ~850 delivered by the end of November.

 

The D9 had been delivered however in December and very few were fitted with MW50 boost.

 

However you argue that we can't have a 25lbs Spit, get real guys.

[Krupi]

Entertaining fantasies about these imaginary Normandy +25 lbs Spits, but we are still getting the historically relevant +18 one. You may do wise to come to terms with that. Why re-discuss the same nonsense over and over again?

 

The D9 and K4 WERE NOT IN NORMANDY EITHER so your point is moot.

 

Further more ADGB were active in Normandy so a rare sight or not at least 25lbs could have been involved unlike the D9/K4

Edited May 11, 2016 by Krupi

[rel4y]

Logistics weren't a big problem for ADGB, that only became a problem when they had to travel deeper into European hence the decision to revert them back to 130/18lbs. However the 150 fuel was then used by 2TAF and logistics would have been a problem hence the delay from authorization of the 25lbs use in November and the modifications that only started in January 45.

 

So they were pumping war demand of crude oil out of the rocks in Scottland? And that did not need to go through refinery to be enriched with aromatic hydrocarbons and scarce high octane additives? These additives that the US had problems acquiring on the world market at that time?

[Krupi]

So they were pumping war demand of crude oil out of the rocks in Scottland? And that did not need to go through refinery to be enriched with aromatic hydrocarbons and scarce high octane additives? These additives that the US had problems acquiring on the world market at that time?

 

That is production not transport logistics.

 

From the figures I have seen in terms of 150 production they didn't have much issues, they were manufacturing a steady amount in 1944

[rel4y]

That is production not transport logistics.

 

From the figures I have seen in terms of 150 production they didn't have much issues, they were manufacturing a steady amount in 1944

 

So acquiring and transport of materials to a refinery is not logistics? :huh: What are you saying kid?! I am out of this nonsense.

[Krupi]

If you start talking about issues with fuel production 'child' then we could also start talking about how the luftwaffe basically had no fuel from late 1944 to the end of the war.

 

I was talking about logistics of getting fuel to the front line, you were talking about the logistics of fuel manufacturer 'kid' which really is not relevant to this topic.

[Kurfürst]

This is the crux of the problem.

 

There is evidence of the use of 25lbs Spits on the continent from the start of 45.

 

The K4 had ~850 delivered by the end of November.

 

The D9 had been delivered however in December and very few were fitted with MW50 boost.

 

However you argue that we can't have a 25lbs Spit, get real guys.

 

Adding more nonsense to this thread only serves to further nullify your credibility. Support your claims with something of substance and then we can start to take it seriously.

[Krupi]

Adding more nonsense to this thread only serves to further nullify your credibility. Support your claims with something of substance and then we can start to take it seriously.

 

Haha that is brilliant coming from the most biased person I have ever come across online, I can find your misinformation spread over the Internet how many sites have you been banned from now?

 

However please care to point out my nonsense, nothing I wrote is incorrect they all come from various sources both on the Internet and from various books from luftwaffe pilots etc...

[Zunzun]

The D9 and K4 WERE NOT IN NORMANDY EITHER so your point is moot.

 

Further more ADGB were active in Normandy so a rare sight or not at least 25lbs could have been involved unlike the D9/K4

 

 

That is the point. So much weight on the fact that there is not evidence of combat sorties in Normandy from units using 25lbs when there weren't any k4 nor D9 fighting there. More over, they weren't even commissioned at that point.

Nor that I consider the 25lb units a 44 representative plane at all. But hardly can we consider neither D9 nor K4 if we compared its numbers to the other versions (of 190 and 109) that fought during the "whole" of 1944.

Obviously the fact is that k4 and D9 are here in DCS (for varied reasons). All good and well. But then, and considering that Normandy map is not going to be historical with the units we will have (well, strictly speaking only the spit IX at 18lb will be historical in Normandy) then I do not see the fuzz about using 25lbs spits because, in all, there were roughly only 3-4 months delay in introduction between D9 and K4 and them.

Again, as I think we all can agree that having a perfect historically plane-set and front line situation is not what we really want (most of the allies ground pounding only and hardly seeing an enemy air plane and most of the axis pilots heavily outnumbered, absent in many of the front lines and without enough fuel to launch a sortie in many occasions) then having a non perfect but well balanced plane-set would be a good option.

Even if I think that a spit IX at 18lbs will be very competitive and i will very happy with it I also consider that cherry picking only determined historical facts to justify one plane-set is not right either.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Zunzun
Grammatical corrections

[Talisman_VR]

Thanks for lecturing me but I can google people myself. Now were does it say Alfred Cyril Lovesey is the author of the article? Looks to me like a write up of a journalist. It does say the article is based on one of his lectures in 11/45, the journal was published in 6/46.

 

rel4y,

 

I don't know what to say to you. Other than the title says "A Lecture Delivered by Mr. A. C. Lovesey to the de Havilland Aircraft Company Technical Department in November, 1945."

That means it is his lecture as delivered in 45 and later printed in the journal in 46. If you read the lecture you can see it is in his words, not a journalist. There is no mention of any journalist. This aviation journal regularly printed peoples lectures. It is something that specialist journals do, they print lectures that have been delivered by eminent people. If English is not your first language then I can understand that perhaps you have not realised this is Mr A. C. Lovesey's actual lecture, in his words, in print form.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[NineLine]

Haha that is brilliant coming from the most biased person I have ever come across online, I can find your misinformation spread over the Internet how many sites have you been banned from now?

 

However please care to point out my nonsense, nothing I wrote is incorrect they all come from various sources both on the Internet and from various books from luftwaffe pilots etc...

 

 

Do I really need to remind you guys again?

[KansasCS]

Side question here before you people can get back to this wonderfully lively debate:

 

What is the actual Performance increase from the 25pound boost over the 18pound?

Is there a comparison diagram someone could link me to?

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[RoflSeal]

Side question here before you people can get back to this wonderfully lively debate:

 

What is the actual Performance increase from the 25pound boost over the 18pound?

Is there a comparison diagram someone could link me to?

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

 

About 400hp difference max

 

[KansasCS]

What am I looking at? (What is M/S gear?)

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[KansasCS]

Also, I'd like to see concrete Speed/rate of climb over altitude charts.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk