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

[whoarmongar]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Note pls that I hve no problem regarding the competentcies of Mr Lovesey who ever he was

Unbelievable !

My thanks to the esteemed self styled tomcatvip.

Clearly Mr Lovesey was simply an ignorant self opinionated anonymous trol too fond of his own voice, trying to impress others with his own brand of "knowledge" merely to stoke his own ego.

I shall place him on my ignore list immediatly, clearly he hasnt got a clue what hes talking about.

What a jerk.

[lane]

In keeping with the thread's title topic, the following documents are essential reading for the sim developers or anyone wishing to understand the performance of the Hurricane I during the Battle of Britain.















Pilot's Notes, Merlin II, III and IV, 4th Edition, April 1940, page 6.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by whoarmongar

Unbelievable !

My thanks to the esteemed self styled tomcatvip.

Clearly Mr Lovesey was simply an ignorant self opinionated anonymous trol too fond of his own voice, trying to impress others with his own brand of "knowledge" merely to stoke his own ego.

I shall place him on my ignore list immediatly, clearly he hasnt got a clue what hes talking about.

What a jerk.

Wew... are you turning rogue ?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by whoarmongar

Clearly Mr Lovesey was simply an ignorant self opinionated anonymous trol too fond of his own voice, trying to impress others with his own brand of "knowledge" merely to stoke his own ego.

I would say that noting that Lovesey was on Rolls-Royce's payroll sums it up very nicely. I am sure he was a skilled engineer and all, but obviously R-R was interested in publishing PR articles. The article about carburetors is a fine example, apparantly R-R was trying convince everyone that icing, negative-G cut-outs, worse fuel economy, backfires and so on were actually good to have in an engine.

Whats surprise me though that unlike today, the editors of Flight at the time clearly had the courage to put some distance between them and PR articles, regardless of their paper's interests in advertisement fees. I am not sure they would have the same backbone today.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I would say that noting that Lovesey was on Rolls-Royce's payroll sums it up very nicely. I am sure he was a skilled engineer and all, but obviously R-R was interested in publishing PR articles....the editors of Flight at the time clearly had the courage to put some distance between them and PR articles, regardless of their paper's interests in advertisement fees. I am not sure they would have the same backbone today.

BTW - The source for Lovesy "Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Volume 18, Issue 7. London, MCB UP Ltd., July 1946."

So I guess that means that while Tomcat thinks Flight is a load of P R crap, apart from the articles he favours, Barbi knows that they are better than that and more reliable than Cyril Lovesy, who was just putting out propaganda for R-R.

This is the same person who believes in a so far non-existent February 1941 memo, issued, supposedly, by Lord Beaverbrook of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, which says to the non-existent Australian Military Commission in London that stocks of 100 Octane were so perilous that Fighter Command had to revert back to 87; which just happens to be contradicted by this paper, issued by Lord Beaverbrook, head of MAP in October 1940

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

100 Octane Fuel. Completion of the Thornton Plant. Memorandum by Minister of Aircraft Production.

1940 Oct 30

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...AB+67%2F8%2F81

They even thought about cancelling the construction of a new plant in October 1940. Looks like there was plenty of 100 octane fuel available.

Hmmm, which one can be believed?

[Kurfürst]

Well I tend to think you compensate for you lack of reading comprehension skills with a considerable amount of wishful thinking, but that's just my opinion.

At the same time, its such a pity that your theory about universal use of 100 octane by RAF FC lacks any documentary evidence that you manage to work up yourself when other people are not entirely convinced by R-R's ' load of P R crap' as you put it. Its a curious thing though that knowledge man on R-R's payroll were spending time on these PR articles about the disadvantages of direct fuel injection, and how less displacement is better, everyone went to direct fuel injection eventually, and R-R was working hard to finish the Griffon with a displacement similar to the DB and Hispano-Suiza engines.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Well I tend to think you compensate for you lack of reading comprehension skills with a considerable amount of wishful thinking, but that's just my opinion.

Do you know how to spot the person who is wrong, but for some reason is unable to admit it?

It's easy, look for the person that has to resort to name calling (perfect example quoted above)

Why you ask?

Simple they do this to take the focus of the fact that they are wrong by trying to get the person or persons they are replying to to respond in kind (call them names) and turn the thread into a mud slinging match and hopefully get it locked.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Well I tend to think you compensate for you lack of reading comprehension skills with a considerable amount of wishful thinking, but that's just my opinion.

At the same time, its such a pity that your theory about universal use of 100 octane by RAF FC lacks any documentary evidence that you manage to work up yourself when other people are not entirely convinced by R-R's ' load of P R crap' as you put it. Its a curious thing though that knowledge man on R-R's payroll were spending time on these PR articles about the disadvantages of direct fuel injection, and how less displacement is better, everyone went to direct fuel injection eventually, and R-R was working hard to finish the Griffon with a displacement similar to the DB and Hispano-Suiza engines.

Speaking of documentary evidence, have you got any at all, on anything? For instance that page of the Beaverbrook paper that you thought you might have.

Or any comments on the War Cabinet who clearly didn't decide to stop the roll out of 100 Octane as per the paper that the Australian Records cannot find?

[Kurfürst]

[QUOTE=Glider;394576]

Or any comments on the War Cabinet who clearly didn't decide to stop the roll out of 100 Octane

Source please.

[Glider]

[QUOTE=Kurfürst;394577]

Originally Posted by Glider

Source please.

I admit, I laughed out loud when I saw this.
The minutes of the War Cabinet, the minutes that are on line (all of them), the ones I gave you the file number to look up.

The same War Cabinet that Pips insisted stopped the roll out in May, that decided to make 87 octane the primary fuel.

Tragically for your case, the minutes don't mention these decisions at all.

As sources go, I would suggest that the official minutes of the War Cabinet are a pretty good source to prove or disprove that statement of Pips

PS I am still waiting for your comments about how the fuel reserves went up from May to August without any tankers getting through.

PPS I can confirm that the original paper papers from the War Cabinet are the same as the on line ones. I went through the originals before they were made avaialble on line