Agreed

Which only highlights the hypocrisy in the 'proof required' by those (some) arguing against the addition of a 100 oct variant.

I asked you for what proof you have to support your claims, and you came up with nothing. Since then, you're only hanging around to throw out insults and red herrings, just look at the ten last posts you made here. Imo, no one is assassinating your character, your character committed suicide many, many pages ago. I guess some are desecrating the corpse, I wonder what made them this mad at you.

I kindly ask you to stop lying and re-read the thread from the beginning.

Amazing really, in discussions about the battle of Britain the Luftwhiners claim the US won it for the Brits because they sent us 100 octane and in the same breath deny we ever used it.........confused?

I like the 'if' part of the reply. Kurfursts view is that the RAF did use 100 octane in France to defend France, but the RAF may not have used it to defend the UK.

A novel thought I admit.

Well if you could come up with some supporting evidence for the theory that the the RAF used 87 octane in the BOB it would be welcome.

If that was the case surely there would be reports of performance during battle of France and how it compared once supply was restricted during battle of Britain? I haven't seen any comments on this marked change in aircraft performance and how the RAF was suddenly on a back foot.

Ok

I locked this thread last week for the same reason its gone full circle once again with insults.

You can draw you own conclusions to suit your own opinions from the data provided in this thread already,
further discussion is pointless.

It will remain closed permanently.




.