Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Problem is, the burden of proof is on you. Which is why just about anybody with a brain is unconvinced of your claims and have noted that your documentation is way insufficient to make the conclusions you are trying to make.

This as you know is rubbish. If you and I were to each submit a research paper on our opposing views I would be able to quote a mass of published works from different historians, participants in the battle, official papers, prime sources of data, publications from engineers, combat reports, station reports and others to support my case.
You would be limited in the extreame. Little more than an over emphasised minute from one meeting, an operating manual for an engine that had been out of production some time before the BOB and not a lot more

Now I agree that doesn't automatically mean that I am right, but the burden of proof is on you to support your case with facts not theories.

I have said many times that the case for is a strong one not a perfect one but its a heck of a lot better than he case that you have

[Osprey]

Kurfurst must be very envious of the massive supporting evidence of 100 octane use by FC. Funny how he doesn't need even a fraction of this level of direct evidence and records to convinced himself that the Germans were using 100 octane though. One photo of a destroyed 109 is enough for him and it unquestionable from then on - Germany must have had it in abundance and were using it from day 1.

What a fanboy.

And Crumpp, I reckon he only passes tests and exams because he grinds down the examining board. Probably failed his PPL but battered them into passing him because they had actual lives - it's like Chinese water torture.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Kurfurst must be very envious of the massive supporting evidence of 100 octane use by FC. Funny how he doesn't need even a fraction of this level of direct evidence and records to convinced himself that the Germans were using 100 octane though. One photo of a destroyed 109 is enough for him and it unquestionable from then on - Germany must have had it in abundance and were using it from day 1.

Sadly for you the use of 100 octane by the German fighters from the start of the Battle is documented in far greater detail than in the case of RAF Fighter Command. We know the exact dates, the exact units using the fuel, we have detailed records of German High Command meetings detailing these as well as British reports of captured fuel samples, photograph of downed aircraft and so on. We even know the exact amount of aircraft using the fuel at some date.

The envy and denial is all yours.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Osprey

.....One photo of a destroyed 109 is enough for him and it unquestionable from then on - Germany must have had it in abundance and were using it from day 1.

What a fanboy.......

With such ridiculing, wrong statements you don't improve your image!!

He has never said or written what you have posted.

That 109 is proof that c3 fuel was used in frontline squadrons, as the number of mounted DB601N engines on Bf109 and Bf110 is evidence for it.

Though only a lesser part of all fighters used it.

I say it again, it is proofed that many british fighters used 100 octane, there is only evidence that ALL did use it.

There possibly will never be a PROOF that 100% of all fighters of the FC used 100 octane during the BoB, so this discussion is becoming more and more futile.

For CoD the implementation of duplicate models with slightly different FM shouldn't be that hard, i assume, so that the mission builders and server operators can create their version of the BoB / BoF / CB.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by robtek

There possibly will never be a PROOF that 100% of all fighters of the FC used 100 octane during the BoB, so this discussion is becoming more and more futile.

But only because no matter how often evidence is produced there will always be someone who says "ah! But you don't have a document showing that the out of commission aircraft that was being scrapped for parts wasn't leaking 87 octane rather than 100!"

[bongodriver]

When evidence becomes practically overwhealming it is as good as proof, the real futility is the resistance being put up against 100 octane fuel, this thread is 'not' about the LW use of 100 octane it is about the fact that right now the fuel modelled for the RAF is incorrect and more to the point the performance even for that fuel is incorrect, it really does seem there is only scope for single fuel types in game therefore the most prevalent ones should be modelled, in the case of the LW that is 'not' 100 octane and in th case of the RAF it is 100 octane.

[robtek]

But the evidence isn't overwhelming, there is lots of evidence for single flights, but where is i.e. the collection of reports from a single AC from ALL active fighter squadrons on a given day during the BoB, documenting the use of 100 octane on that day, that would be overwhelming evidence.

The evidenc is so far only indicating that there is a strong possibility that ALL used it.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by robtek

But the evidence isn't overwhelming, there is lots of evidence for single flights, but where is i.e. the collection of reports from a single AC from ALL active fighter squadrons on a given day during the BoB, documenting the use of 100 octane on that day, that would be overwhelming evidence.

The evidenc is so far only indicating that there is a strong possibility that ALL used it.

No, it's overwhelming.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Osprey

No, it's overwhelming.

It will be interesting when 1C gets around to modeling late war a/c with robtek's logic with regards to the 1.98ata Bf109K-4.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

This as you know is rubbish. If you and I were to each submit a research paper on our opposing views I would be able to quote a mass of published works from different historians, participants in the battle, official papers, prime sources of data, publications from engineers, combat reports, station reports and others to support my case.

You would be limited in the extreame. Little more than an over emphasised minute from one meeting, an operating manual for an engine that had been out of production some time before the BOB and not a lot more

You see that's your problem. You desperately try to support a fantasy by spamming a lot of irrevelant papers that do not even support your case, while all I need to is to produce about 5 papers which clearly support my case.

Now I agree that doesn't automatically mean that I am right, but the burden of proof is on you to support your case with facts not theories.

There's no theory here but facts. Fact is that the RAF originally meant to support a limited number of fighter Squadrons, fact is that the only paper available shows they did convert a limited number of fighter Squadrons by May 1940, fact is that full clearance was not given until August and fact is that fuel issues show the majority of the fuel issued during the Battle was 87 octane, fact is that evidence of 100 octane use only exist for about 1/3 of the Fighter stations, and even many of those only towards the end of the Battle.

I have said many times that the case for is a strong one not a perfect one but its a heck of a lot better than he case that you have

Despite that perception of yours most people here handle your theory with a great deal of scepticism.