Here's my thing: It just seems like an incredible waste of time and energy to argue about whether ALL or MOST or SOME of Fighter Command was on 100 Octane. I mean.... why is that figure important? Why is it important to know if all or some of fighter command was on 100 octane?

The sim should have both aircraft available IMO. Shouldn't we all be arguing for that?

If the CloD map included the whole of the British Isles then 87 and 100 fuel should be available. Since the CloD map is basically 11 Group only 100 fuel should be available.

There was quite a few Hurricane squadrons in France using 100 fuel. (posted in this thread)

There have been hundreds of magazine articles, books, memoirs, journal articles, pilot reports, combat reports...etc, etc. I've read dozens and not one has mentioned the use of 87 octane during combat sorties. 87 octane is a big lie, it is THE BIG LIE perpetrated by people who have an agenda to promote Luftwaffe superiority.

Kurfurst/Crump can't stand the fact that the RAF had massive stocks of 100 octane fuel and converted all their front line fighters to it prior to the battle, while the Luftwaffe didn't. It's that simple.

In this case, the document which details the operation of the aircraft is the Operating Notes. The portion that is a legal document connected to the airworthiness of the aircraft will reflect the latest authorization for the type

This is where we differ. It my belief that if I have an official document that says that 100 octane was intalled at a station or that it was in use in a combat report then it was by definition, in use, at that station or in that squadron.
If your manual is dated later, then all that proves is that your manual is later. It doesn't mean that the fuel wasn't used until the date of the manual

The real waste of time and energy is from those arguing that 100 octane should not be availabe, of course I would settle for seeing both fuels.
can't you see the reason for this debate is to get 100 octane included?

I feel it's important for me personally to make a stand, purley from a historical point of view. As far as Cliffs goes, you're right, have both variants. Problem solved.

This is more about 1 mans personal crusade to change history, it just happens to have moved to here. Maybe it's not the 'right' place to do it.

All you need to do is Google "100 octane fighter command" and the same person shows up, name calling, character assasinating, arguing, cherry picking and obviously has an agenda that has nothing to do with history.

My problem with this is the motivation. If it's historic then it's opposite to his obvious bias. Kufurst is basically saying that the RAF performed better during the BoB, as they managed to repel the LW using mainly 87 octane. If I was just some RAF fanboy then surley I'd quite happily accept that.

My problem lies in the fact that his motivation must be related to Simulations. It's the only reason I can think of for repeatedly arguing that 87 was the main fuel (remember that he's invested a lot of his time into a 109 site).

It's the manipulation of history to achieve this that I personally am standing up against.

The accepted view is that fighter command converted in the Spring of 1940.
I challange anyone to find me a book on the subject of the BoB that states otherwise. Yet K keeps on with his repeated attempts to challange this. I have yet to see one really convincing piece of contemporary evidence.

This isn't about Cliffs for me, at the end of the day it's just a game. (I own a copy but am unable to play it on my current set up)

Nobody has to read this thread, there's always the circular argument about fanboy/whiners going on in the main forum to keep you entertained :)

I'm actually quite proud that a few individuals of this much crticised 'community' feel the same way I do.

I whole heartily agree with the first part, but disagree with the second part.

That's exactly where the effort could go.

Honestly and truly I really can't. The reason for this 160-page thread appears to be proving each other wrong.

yeah...that too :).....I mean no it's not, youre wrong.