SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

No, I didn't. And as others have pointed out, if you want to prove that RAF fighters ran on nothing but 100 octane, you should bring the evidence for it, not asking me to disprove your unsupported theory.

if you want to prove that RAF fighters ran on a mix of 87 and 100 octane, you should bring the evidence for it....

Round and round we go..

So can you give me a definite number of 87 octane fighters used by the British between June and November 1940? To prove your theory.

No, you can't. So you're in exactly the same situation as the people you're asking evidence from. Except that you're being hypocritical. your theory is exactly that, a theory.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Seadog

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.

There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

The compromise solution might be that the overwhelming majority did use 100 oct.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by robtek

There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

The compromise solution might be that the overwhelming majority did use 100 oct.

Agreed.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by robtek

There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

The compromise solution might be that the overwhelming majority did use 100 oct.

I think people will be more than happy with this, because then the mission builders can decide, and people can vote with there feet.

So we need a hurri and a spit mk 1 with 100 octane fuel as well, as the 87 octane versions we already have.

Everybody happy?

[Blakduk]

No, not happy at all.

All the evidence indicates that 100 octane fuel was ubiquitous in Fighter command during the Battle of Britain. The only 'evidence' to the contrary is one unverified document that allegedly existed at some time in an archive in Australia, that now cannot be retrieved. There is unfortunately no copy of it anywhere and repeated requests by members of other forums to be shown evidence confirming the existence of this document have come to nought.

The British had determined to use 100 octane fuel in aeroplanes in 1938 (despite the technological hurdles confronting them in refining the stuff). Sufficient advances in techonology were achieved such that by later 1939 the decision was made to standardise Fighter Command's fuel to 100 octane. Conversion took place throughout the early part of 1940, to the extent that it was considered standard by March/April 1940. By July 1940, when the BoB was beginning, it was a done deal.
Conversion for the remainder of the RAF (bomber and coastal command) was ordered in late 1940 but not completed until early 1941.

To insist on placating a person who has a contrary belief despite the lack of supporting evidence for their view is pure folly.

As Geoffery Lloyd, the minister for 'Fuel and Power' in 1940 later said in answer to a question put to him in 1944 'Do you think 100 octane was the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain in 1940?', he replied 'I think we would not have won the battle of britain without 100 octane- but we did have 100 octane'.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by robtek

There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

The compromise solution might be that the overwhelming majority did use 100 oct.

There is a black and white dicotomy:

White: There is evidence for numerous combat sorties by BofB Hurricanes and Spitfires using 100 octane fuel.

Black: There is NO evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB Hurricane or Spitfire using 87 octane fuel.

There is NO grey zone, because if there was, there would be evidence for combat sorties with 87 octane fuel along with 100 octane fuel.

Theory: 100 octane was used exclusively by front-line RAF FC Hurricanes and Spitfires during the BofB.

Theory predicts that combat reports would be uncovered showing 100 octane use. These reports exist and have been brought to light; the theory correctly predicts the evidence.

Theory: 87 and 100 octane was used by front-line RAF FC Hurricanes and Spitfires during the BofB.

Theory predicts that combat reports would be uncovered showing 87 octane use. These reports do not exist, and none have ever been published.
The theory fails the evidence test.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Right Issy?

WOW.. That brings back memories!

[fruitbat]

As long as there's a 100 octane spit mk 1 and hurri in game, i'm happy, which even the most vociferous naysayers admit were there in some numbers.

As to whether they all were or whatever, the nay sayers won't change there mind, but it will be irrelevant, and they can argue till the cows come home for all i care.

Mission builders can build as they see fit.

As long as we get the 100 octane spit and hurri.

[Blakduk]

My issue is not really about the game in this discussion- if the game developers want to even up the competition between red and blue by compromising elements that's their call. I'll still play it.
Want i dont want to see happen is people altering historical facts.

As Captain Rum said in Blackadder when challenged about not having a crew a aboard his ship:
Blackadder- 'I was under the impression that it was common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew'
Rum:- 'Opinion is divided on the subject'.
Edmund: 'Oh, really?'
Rum: 'Yes. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn't'

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Blakduk

Want i dont want to see happen is people altering historical facts.

People have been doing that since history began.

I like you see all the evidence thats been presented to show only one thing, but there are some here that won't change there mind for whatever reason.

However, since even the most vocal naysayers admit that there was hurris and Spit mk1s using 100 octane fuel in some reasonable numbers, they need to be in the game period.

As long as the devs get that, the rest is just immaterial to me, people believe strange things, after all some people still believe the earth is flat....