Quote:
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
Quote:
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?
