Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
@Kurfurst. I believe you could learn from the "Russells Teapot" argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I'm not interested in the flaky Australian argument anymore since it appears far too unconvincing and more importantly, irrelevant. It matters not even if, as you suggest, that the UK wouldn't give the Australians any 100 octane because they were short. That is not evidence that the RAF didn't have enough to use themselves.
We can use simple logic to decide the truth here. I ask you, do you deny any of these 4 points listed?
1. That the RAF used fuel.
2. Every flight recorded a combat report (provided the pilot returned).
3. That the fuel type or boost to indicate the type was frequently mentioned in combat reports throughout the BoB.
4. That 87 is never ever mentioned and 100 was in every case.
Therefore the entire RAF MUST have used 100 in in combat and no other type. It really is that straightforward. What I do not find straightforward are your reasons for objection. Please, what are they? |
Like i said, i want both versions in the sim but ok, i'll bite and play devil's advocate here just for the sake of showing you guys what i get from the whole discussing here. Lets go ahead and take each numbered point one by one, shall we?
1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Correct, the operative word being "frequently". Which
could mean it was a differing practice (to be mentioned in the first place) but widespread enough (to be mentioned frequently).
4. Correct. Which
could mean 87 wasn't mentioned because it was the default, while 100 was mentioned because for one it was the exception to the rule and secondly, extra boost warranted extra inspections by the mechanics.
I'm not arguing either case, this is just an example to show everyone here how flaky the whole thing appears to an outside observer, no matter which side of the argument one tends to support.
I just think no side has provided any undisputed facts: i see a lot of credible sources in this thread but far too often a lot of them are conflicting, with no real means to discern which i should "believe more". I'm not convinced either way and that's why (as well as the dynamic campaign considerations) i advocate the presence of both types for all aircraft that use higher grade fuel during the BoB.
I remember seeing similar evidence about half the 110 units being also equipped with better fuel and higher rated engines. I want to have both versions, no matter if its a Spit or Hurri or 110. Forgive me when i say that i doubt some of the most invested posters in this thread would do the same, as i have a suspicion that many who support 100 octane Spits would denounce DB601N-equipped 110s and vice versa.
Let's have
options is all i'm saying
