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

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

You shld write comics. You will hve an huge success.

It has been alrdy explained and can be found in many documents.

I myself illustrated this meaning right her ein this thread by linking to a 1954 FLIGHT articles detailing the evolution of teh Merlin eng during the war with details of wich octane was used.

As I pointed out also previously in this thread, that article only comments on normal pre-war octane use (1937) not octane use during the war

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Bounder!

As I pointed out also previously in this thread, that article only comments on pre-war octane use (1937) not octane use during the war

false

You'd need to really read it actually

@Osp : for a bunch of guys tht are drawing disgusting parallel lines btw arguing abt the real use of that fuel with neo-nazi activism I think you shld drop out that virgin attitude. Does not fit.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=483

I am only interested by the truth. The only think I believed in is that RAF proved actually itself superior to the LW strategically and by employing better tactics.

I am not harri potter, I don't believe in charms and incantatory self convincing sentences.

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

You'd need to really read it actually

I have read the article, maybe I’m being especially thick (and that may very well be the case ), I cannot see the statement that 87 octane fuel was the fuel normally used by the Spitfire or Hurricane during combat in the Battle of Britain.

There is a quote in that paper, which you used before, that states that "the petrol normally used at that time was 87 Octane" however the time it is referring to is 1937.

[winny]

I'm amazed at the resistance to 100 octane usage from some members on here.

The circumstancial evidence is overwhelming.

I have loads of pilots memoirs from the BoB era and at lots of them mention putting 100 octane fuel in their cars, before, during and after the BoB.
It doesn't sound like they were very carefull about saving 100 octane because it was in short supply.

All RAF pilots who mention 100 octane say it was introduced just before the main battle, without exception. They have no reason to lie about this. They don't need to rewrite history, everyone knows what happened. There would be plenty of references to 'if we had 100 octane fuel we could have...' (much like all the references to cannons.. ie 'If we had cannons we would have..'). I have never seen a single reference made by an RAF pilot about the lack of 100 octane during the BoB. (I have at least 250 seperate accounts from the period.).

Or how about a dated photograph? Whilst the conversion was taking place, as someone here has already mentioned, the ground crew painted '100' onto the cowling of the converted aircraft. Find me a photograph from June 1940 onwards where this marking is visable. I can't find one. The reason? Because the conversion process had finished and there was no need to differentiate between the 2 types of fuel.

So like the others on here, I'd like to see a single account from somebody who was there that mentions a shortage/restriction re 100 oct during the battle.

[klem]

I think afer 55 pages this thread has run its course. Time to lock it down so we don't waste any more time on it.

[Osprey]

If only we were insulting Tomcat, but we're not. Perhaps we should.

[TomcatViP]

Better on an internet forum than face to face ... obviously. Did I get it right ?