SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[svend]

Originally Posted by bounder!

+1 couldn't agree more. Hats off to the guys researching and posting links to their sources.

+100

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by klem

...from the same wishful thinking that dogged Hermann Goering...

Pls Klem edit your post. Hugely discomforting to read.

"The late grown child" was nothing as an insult.

Moreover I didn't say that there wasn't 100 oct. I say that there is no link that the FC was converted and it does not make any sense in an air defense campaign.

Let's take the biofuel swap of modern aircraft engine. It makes sense to test and add the use as a strategical resource for short high intensity conflict. That's why all major airforce today want to show others they have that possibility. Does it means that the USAF will convert its fleet of F15/16/22 to BioFuel ? Yeah as much as they want starving soldier on the battlefront...

You've got to get an eye on the purpose of an application. From time to time of course, there is no thinkable application for a reasonable mind.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Moreover I didn't say that there wasn't 100 oct. I say that there is no link that the FC was converted and it does not make any sense in an air defense campaign.

lol.

[svend]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP
Moreover I didn't say that there wasn't 100 oct. I say that there is no link that the FC was converted and it does not make any sense in an air defense campaign.

[klem]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Pls Klem edit your post. Hugely discomforting to read.

"The late grown child" was nothing as an insult.

Moreover I didn't say that there wasn't 100 oct. I say that there is no link that the FC was converted and it does not make any sense in an air defense campaign.

Let's take the biofuel swap of modern aircraft engine. It makes sense to test and add the use as a strategical resource for short high intensity conflict. That's why all major airforce today want to show others they have that possibility. Does it means that the USAF will convert its fleet of F15/16/22 to BioFuel ? Yeah as much as they want starving soldier on the battlefront...

You've got to get an eye on the purpose of an application. From time to time of course, there is no thinkable application for a reasonable mind.

TomcatVIP perhaps there is a language problem here.

My previous post was a response to the way your post read. You seemed to be saying that the RAF did not have had 100 octane in wide use in FC and in your last post you say there was no link that it was converted but there are many links to show it was. You also say that it does not make sense to use it in an air defense campaign but what better time than when fighting for your life?

Your modern comparison with the biofuel example has no relevance in this argument. The RAF wasn't interested in showing it could use 100 octane for any propaganda or political purpose or as a standby fuel. It needed it, it had it and it used it. The "purpose of the application" was survival not merely a demonstration of capability.

I sincerely don't understand why a 'reasonable mind' cannot accept the documented evidence of the time showing widespread use. However, let me offer a suggestion. Let us suppose that not ALL of FC was converted for the BoB. Do you seriously believe that the fighter stations in the South East of England, facing almost all of the combat flying, would not have been equipped with 100 octane fuel when so much was available and the conversion process was fairly simple? If you want to say that the stations in Northern England may not have had 100 octane I am happy not to argue that point because they do not exist in CoD.

btw I am sorry if my reference to Hermann Goering was discomforting but it was precisely wishful thinking and ignoring or not gathering accurate intelligence that led to his poor conduct of the campaign. I felt it was a reasonable and relevant comparison with the views that wish to ignore documented evidence. Perhaps I should just say "believe what you like, we have 100 octane" (or we should have).

Anyway, if you still hold to your views and I still hold to mine there's no point in carrying on the discussion. I wish you well.

[fruitbat]

I wouldn't bother to much Klem, i pretty sure some of the people here are members of this,

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Well its rather simple...

So you admit you can't produce evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB RAF FC Hurricane and Spitfire using 87 octane.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Seadog

So you admit you can't produce evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB RAF FC Hurricane and Spitfire using 87 octane.

Same as you can't PROVE that there wasn't one.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by robtek

Same as you can't PROVE that there wasn't one.

Then why is there abundant evidence showing widespread use of 100 octane, and literally dozens of memoirs and histories showing the use of 100 octane, and many individual combat reports showing the use of 100 octane? Why are there no memoirs or squadron level or individual combat reports stating the use of 87 octane fuel?

I can't prove something that didn't happen, and there is NO evidence showing 87 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties during the BofB.

There is evidence for widespread 100 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane BofB combat sorties , but no evidence of Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties using 87 octane.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by csThor

Which is precisely what I was talking about. You want to be taken seriously? Then start acting like a responsible adult capable of serious discussion instead of slinging mud at everyone who's interested in discussion instead of "Because I say so" type statements.

I think the some RAF fliers are done with that Thor. What we see now is a reaction because the last series was spoiled by individuals with an agenda and the devs bent over. This time, with more detail and with the same old hands more educated in terms of flying and historical knowledge, we see the Spit drivers stand up because they don't want it to happen again. Already we have some calling the Spitfire a UFO - these people can go to hell. I notice that these types never seem to mention the horrendous DM of the 109 though, for example.

I think I speak for practically all of the RAF jockeys when I say that I want accuracy even at the expense of the RAF, I hate to see this very vocal minority do the rest of us such a dis-service.

What are these types going to do when the DM is patched? They'll piss and moan rather than realise that they aren't super-pilots and need to fly a different way.