Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[Crumpp]

We still disputing the words for "selected units" to convert by counting fuel stockpiles??

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

We still disputing the words for "selected units" to convert by counting fuel stockpiles??

No Eugene. I know you have difficulties at times but the counting of stockpiles is to show that there was no shortage of 100 fuel despite what Australia, Pips and Barbi say.

[lane]

Chart below from: A.C. Lovely, Development of the Rolls-Royce Merlin from 1939 to 1945, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Volume 18 Issue 7, July, 1946 (pp. 218 - 226)
Or alternately here.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

No Eugene. I know you have difficulties at times but the counting of stockpiles is to show that there was no shortage of 100 fuel despite what Australia, Pips and Barbi say.

Exactally

[Talisman]

So we have a 100 Octane denier here and there. To deny something against all the evidence is a human thing. It happens and we have to accept that. Someone who has committed a crime will often deny it, even though they know they are guilty. People even deny huge world events, despite the evidence, like the holocaust in WWII. I suppose that, sometimes, the denier might like the attention they can draw to themselves or they just have fun making mischief, or have a particular agenda. Anyway, I would like to leave the 100 Octane denier’s to one side for a moment, as they will not change their view even if taken back in a time machine. The point I would like to raise is why have the developers of CloD not included the Battle of Britain historically correct Spitfire and Hurricane to the 100 Octane modified specification? Was it a calculated decision and if so, why? Was it a genuine mistake? Was it just too hard to do? Do they intend not to provide a 100 Octane Hurricane in the BoM sequel so thought they would not bother with it in BoB? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Perhaps if any developers are reading this they might care to respond? Is 100 Octane to be ignored? What a shame if it is ignored. I would not like to see aviation history and any other aircraft, red or blue, treated this way in a flight sim.

[TomcatViP]

Tali,

with all my respect you might hve been too far inadvertantly.

Pls edit your post.

[lane]

Originally Posted by Talisman

So we have a 100 Octane denier here and there. To deny something against all the evidence is a human thing. It happens and we have to accept that. Someone who has committed a crime will often deny it, even though they know they are guilty. People even deny huge world events, despite the evidence, like the holocaust in WWII. I suppose that, sometimes, the denier might like the attention they can draw to themselves or they just have fun making mischief, or have a particular agenda. Anyway, I would like to leave the 100 Octane denier’s to one side for a moment, as they will not change their view even if taken back in a time machine. The point I would like to raise is why have the developers of CloD not included the Battle of Britain historically correct Spitfire and Hurricane to the 100 Octane modified specification? Was it a calculated decision and if so, why? Was it a genuine mistake? Was it just too hard to do? Do they intend not to provide a 100 Octane Hurricane in the BoM sequel so thought they would not bother with it in BoB? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Perhaps if any developers are reading this they might care to respond? Is 100 Octane to be ignored? What a shame if it is ignored. I would not like to see aviation history and any other aircraft, red or blue, treated this way in a flight sim.

Absolutely beautifully written and brilliant post Talisman! Salute!

[Crumpp]

the counting of stockpiles

Yeah the same folks with the same "evidence" and agenda also used the same method of looking at stockpiles to "prove" 100/150 grade fuel was the "standard" fuel of the RAF.

All so that people's favorite WWII computer game-shape could be altered to give them an advantage. Nothing at all to do with serious historical research, just gamers wishing.

The truth and the history of 100/150 grade use turned out to be vastly different from what was presented despite the fact England did have significant stockpiles of the fuel in anticipation of widespread use that never occurred.

Nobody has denied that 100 grade was used during the BoB. The extent is what is in question. The only direct evidence from the RAF of the extent of usage we have states quite clearly "selected" units and "those units involved".

That is the simple facts. Everything else is speculation.

I don't know and unlike some do not pretend to know the answer. I just know what the RAF documentation says on its use.

I also know I use 100 grade fuel every time I fly and that is all that matters to me!! I certainly wish it was cheaper though.

Maybe you can find some stockpiles, somewhere?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Yeah the same folks with the same "evidence" and agenda also used the same method of looking at stockpiles to "prove" 100/150 grade fuel was the "standard" fuel of the RAF.

All so that people's favorite WWII computer game-shape could be altered to give them an advantage. Nothing at all to do with serious historical research, just gamers wishing.

The truth and the history of 100/150 grade use turned out to be vastly different from what was presented despite the fact England did have significant stockpiles of the fuel in anticipation of widespread use that never occurred.

Nobody has denied that 100 grade was used during the BoB. The extent is what is in question. The only direct evidence from the RAF of the extent of usage we have states quite clearly "selected" units and "those units involved".

That is the simple facts. Everything else is speculation.

I don't know and unlike some do not pretend to know the answer. I just know what the RAF documentation says on its use.

I also know I use 100 grade fuel every time I fly and that is all that matters to me!! I certainly wish it was cheaper though.

Maybe you can find some stockpiles, somewhere?

I cannot comment on the 100/150 debate, just what's happened in this thread:

Historical research rarely comes up with 100% proof that such and such an event happened, why such and such an event happened, or how events unfolded. It is generally accepted, for example, that the Roman legions of Varus were destroyed by Arminius' German forces in 9 AD, in the so-called Teutoburg Forest, because of far more fragmentary evidence than that provided here. The big mystery for nearly 2,000 years was where was the battle site? It wasn't until 1987 that archaeologists brought up evidence that the battle site was nowhere near the forest.

The weight of evidence provided in this thread is more than enough to show that 100 octane fuel was in use by more than Barbi's ""selected" units:

Those who believe that only a select group of units used 100 octane fuel have not come up with any evidence that 87 octane fuel was still being used in combat by front-line Fighter Command units during the B of B (Blenheim nightfighter units, which were still using Mk Is, were still using 87 Octane).

The main document which lies behind most of this, the "Pips memo" has not even been seen by the main protagonist, just a summary by Pips on another forum, yet Barbi pins 100% faith on this unseen document, the discussion of which is on a locked, membership only thread on another forum. Another member of this forum who now has access, says that Pip himself had doubts about its veracity. Such "evidence" is of questionable value.