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

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

No engineer looked at a part on the assembly line that would destroy the engine and said "keep churning em out boys!! We can win the war with our airplanes that won't fly".

What they actually said was "we don't know what is causing the engines to break appart mid air, until we find the problem you're just going to have to deal with it.. Test pilots lost thier lives because of this, testing factory fresh Spitfires.

Alex Henshaw said about the "Skew Gear problem" that you strangley ignored
"In any other situation this problem would have grounded the fleet, but because of the circumstances they couldn't. It was war and we just got on with it" He knew that at any moment he was testing Spitfires there was a chance it would happen to him. It did on 11 occasions. What happened happened.

Now you're telling me you know more about it than he does.

That sums you up.

Anyway it's irrelevant, the 87 octane reference is there because they used it for OTU's, so they had to put it in the notes, apparently it's the law.

So what's your main argument about the non use of 100 oct in frontline squadrons during the BoB?

EDIT: Sorry to those who thought this thread had died... I'm not going away. Go and read one of raaaids threads instead

[JtD]

I'm still very interested in seeing proof for use of 87 octane fuel in operational units. I'll keep checking the topic as long as it is alive.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

As for for the "engine parts" conforming during operation, that is normal for all engines. In fact it is called the "break in"!!

No engineer looked at a part on the assembly line that would destroy the engine and said "keep churning em out boys!! We can win the war with our airplanes that won't fly".

This just proves your ignorance. Please go and google the Packard-Merlin seizure problem on Spitfires. You'll find out that what you said didn't happen, did, exactly, they kept churning them out. Or google the sudden loss of Magnetos problem, same thing, kept building them with the fault until they located the fault, seems like it was almost Standard Operating Procedure..

The piston problem resulted in a full engine failiure, not some 'bent within acceptable amounts" push rods.

Jeez there's even a painting of it happening showing Henshaw bailing out of a Spitfire... A painting..

You apply modern standards to WW2 situations, without even bothering to look to see what actually happened.