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

[robtek]

After following this thread with growing disinterest i believe the conclusion, without any personal opinions, should be:

As there is lots of evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel by operational fighter units before and during the BoB this can be taken as a fact.

However that isn't the proof that all operational units did actually use 100 octane fuel only.

The use of 87 octane fuel wasn't documented, as it wasn't special, only diversions from the norm are remarkable.

That means that the use of 87 octane fuel by operational fighter units can't be generally ruled out for lack of proof, even if the evidences indicate otherwise.

Imo, of course.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by robtek

After following this thread with growing disinterest i believe the conclusion, without any personal opinions, should be:

As there is lots of evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel by operational fighter units before and during the BoB this can be taken as a fact.

However that isn't the proof that all operational units did actually use 100 octane fuel only.

The use of 87 octane fuel wasn't documented, as it wasn't special, only diversions from the norm are remarkable.

That means that the use of 87 octane fuel by operational fighter units can't be generally ruled out for lack of proof, even if the evidences indicate otherwise.

Imo, of course.

This is true, and the whole debate would be null and void if there was an option for fuel types, but instead the red side is left with the lowest denominator......why?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by robtek

After following this thread with growing disinterest i believe the conclusion, without any personal opinions, should be:

As there is lots of evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel by operational fighter units before and during the BoB this can be taken as a fact.

However that isn't the proof that all operational units did actually use 100 octane fuel only.

The use of 87 octane fuel wasn't documented, as it wasn't special, only diversions from the norm are remarkable.

That means that the use of 87 octane fuel by operational fighter units can't be generally ruled out for lack of proof, even if the evidences indicate otherwise.

Imo, of course.

That's a very good summary. I agree completely, nothing needs to be added.

[bongodriver]

can't be generally ruled out for lack of proof, even if the evidences indicate otherwise.

So what are we looking at here? a lack of proof that 87 octane was/wasn't used, and evidence showing 100 octane was.

Hmmm....so 87 octane use is dubious at best, 100 octane is clearly in evidence.......I know lets instate the use of 87 octane as fact.

[robtek]

What use is your last post, bongodriver?

Clearly only a CoD-developer can answer your question, and i'd be really surprised to find one wandering in this part of the forum.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by robtek

What use is your last post, bongodriver?

Clearly only a CoD-developer can answer your question, and i'd be really surprised to find one wandering in this part of the forum.

What use?....pretty much the same as yours, an oppinion based on the evidence provided, hopefully this issue will become compelling enough as proof to the majority of users that there has been a serious omission and would bring their support to it.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

So what are we looking at here? a lack of proof that 87 octane was/wasn't used, and evidence showing 100 octane was.

Hmmm....so 87 octane use is dubious at best, 100 octane is clearly in evidence.......I know lets instate the use of 87 octane as fact.

The problem is that before early 1940 every and all Fighter units were using 87 octane as standard. Now we know a fair number of units has switched over to 100 octane by the automn, but we do not have any shred of evidence that all have changed over.

I wonder why a unit, that operated on 87 octane in 1939 and kept operating at 87 octane through most of 1940 would mention anywhere that yes, the standard 87 octane fuel is still in use, just like yesterday.

The whole 'no proof that the standard fuel was kept being used' is a red herring by those who cannot provide evidence that every unit has changed over to 100 octane, simple as that. They can't prove their thesis, so they want others to disprove it. It's a weird, reversed logic.

Suppose I come up with an idea that there is a second, smaller sun in the Sol system, hiding behind the Sun all the time so we cannot see it. I can't prove it of course, but unless you prove its not there, I declare its very existence cannot be denied, due to the 'overwhelming' amount of evidence.

Anyway, the whole 100 octane stuff is going on for years and not a single shread of clear evidence has been found for its exclusive use by fighter squadrons. Of course it may exist still, but given such has been found for so many years, I seriously doubt the case. And the whole debate reminds me of this:

http://youtu.be/_w5JqQLqqTc

[bongodriver]

Wow.....may I ask....are you a lawyer?

because only a lawyer could possibly get away with convincingly theorising a second sun using that logic.

like OJ Simpson, he knows he did it, everybody knows he did it....but a Lawyer made sure he got away with it.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The whole 'no proof that the standard fuel was kept being used' is a red herring by those who cannot provide evidence that every unit has changed over to 100 octane, simple as that. They can't prove their thesis, so they want others to disprove it. It's a weird, reversed logic.

Suppose I come up with an idea that there is a second, smaller sun in the Sol system, hiding behind the Sun all the time so we cannot see it. I can't prove it of course, but unless you prove its not there, I declare its very existence cannot be denied, due to the 'overwhelming' amount of evidence.

That is one of the most pathetic attempts at an argument I think I've ever seen.

There is PROOF of use of 100 octane in this very thread. It's now up to you to prove that 87 was also in use, not just because you say it is, but because, like us you present some proof.

You're basically doing the internet equivelent of sticking your fingers in your ears an 'la la la-ing'

How can the burden lie soley with one side of the discussion and not the other.

So, like I keep saying to Crumpp, present your case and stop trying to wriggle out of it with meaningless words.

Show me what makes an educated person like you think that 87 octane was in widespread use by FC during the BoB. Next post.

[JtD]

If 87 octane was still in use, proof should be easy to find. Can you find a dated picture of a Hurricane being refuelled with 87 octane fuel? I've seen such a picture for 100 octane fuel. Can you find a squadron record that documents changeover to 100 octane fuel in October 1940? I've seen such a document for April 1940.

Can you find a statement "not all operational fighter squadrons are using 100 octane fuel" in any document of that time?

I've been looking for exactly that, for some time now, and the more I look, the more I agree with Mr. Williams that all operational squadrons did indeed use 100 octane fuel. There simply is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL against that claim. This has also been confirmed in this topic by several people who appear to know more about the period than I do, while no-one objecting this conclusion as presented actual, factual evidence.

I'll keep on checking this topic for as long as it is going on, eventually, proof for 87 octane usage might pop up and I'll have learned something.