Accurate by whose standards? Ok let's see how it goes when Crumpp starts the apparent topic on the 109.

Well, according to the docs that Lane posted, the A&AEE's standards.

I'll be just as active in that thread as I am in this one. See you there.

Ah pseodo-righteousness, yes it's a public forum, I asked Crumpp some questions on his claims, I see no need to go to PM for that.

I have asked nothing of Crumpp that is off topic, I merely want some answers to questions on his topic, so please kindly reffrain from speaking to me and I won't bother you, yes I have a feeling the Mods will be getting plenty of requests for clean ups and complaints about users, it seems to be the MO with Crumpps thugs.

Goodluck!

I highly recomend you don't hold your breath waiting on that one! ;)

Would you mind pointing out where those standards show clearly how dangerous and what a 'death trap' the Spitfire allegedly is?

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever

Have you forgotten all the 100 octane threads?

It will be from the other side of the fence tho.;)

But it has been promised, this one has been done to death, Spitfire debates are getting boring, I wan't to get into the guts of the 109 anyway...it's everyones favourite.;)

No I haven't. Those threads were monumentally stupid from all perspectives.

There should be 87- and 100-octane aircraft in game. We have those now, so I feel the issue is moot and not worth discussing unless it's to correct the performance. But words cannot describe how much I just don't care if it was 100% or 0% of the RAF that was on 100 octane.

I never said it was dangerous, or a death trap, and neither do the A&AEE's conclusions.