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

[klem]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

It's an exposition for the Paris airshow. RR put on show the must advanced items they had with war in perspective - e.g look at my bad looking Merlin that will eat your saucage's 109.

The mot ridiculous at this game were arguabily the french with their twin engined single cranckshaft 2000hp marvel that history has shown how irealistic this formula was (the very 1st french act of sabotage of the German war machine ?)

they also explain the line after that Maximum means maximum theoritical power !!!



It's a record breaker plane ! No reception flight, training, long formation flight etc... You can't draw a comparaison... C'mon tell me you are jocking !

This is just another example of TC trying to side track answers to his own question because he can't win. It doesn't matter what the purpose of the engine/aircraft demonstrations were, we were answering TCs statement:-
"More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel."

The posts that followed show that tremendous increase in power was possible - read the posts and references - and NZt's posts and references show that the engine was demonstrated to be strong enough to deliver the increased power.

We have arrived at Trolling and I've had enough of this thread.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by klem

This is just another example of TC trying to side track answers to his own question because he can't win. It doesn't matter what the purpose of the engine/aircraft demonstrations were, we were answering TCs statement:-
"More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel."

The posts that followed show that tremendous increase in power was possible - read the posts and references - and NZt's posts and references show that the engine was demonstrated to be strong enough to deliver the increased power.

We have arrived at Trolling and I've had enough of this thread.

Insulting contents once again.

The major problem with you is that you are seeing others here with the narrow pencil of your "open minded" attitude.

It's not a matter of wining or loosing. I am not here arguing with you to be part of history. I am not an historian. I just don't trust your hair raising theory and I am still waiting to be convinced out from what I hve read so far. Simple like that.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I just don't trust your hair raising theory and I am still waiting to be convinced out from what I hve read so far. Simple like that.

So what do we need to provide to convince you?
- A combat report from a pilot that use +12 boost on a Merlin II/III?
- A flight test?
- A quote from a manual?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

So what do we need to provide to convince you?
- A combat report from a pilot that use +12 boost on a Merlin II/III?
- A flight test?
- A quote from a manual?

We don't need to provide any evidence to Mr Tomcat because Mr Tomcat has no interest in being convinced - Klem is right, this is just trolling and arguing for the sake of it, otherwise why post inane comments like:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

calm down little jedi

If not to inflame a response?

He claims to know better than A C Lovesey, chief engineer of Rolls-Royce, or W.G. Dudek and D. R. Winans (excerpt from AIAA Paper No. 69-779, Milestones in Aviation Fuels, Esso Research and Engineering Company, New York 1969.) who are respected authorities on the properties of aviation and other types of fuel, or simply ridicules any information he finds uncomfortable, and pushes the same circular arguments, posting very little evidence to back them up. I have better things to do than waste time trying to convince Mr Tomcat - this "ignore" setting is a handy device which I will now use...ahhh, bliss!

[lane]

Dr. Alfred Price, Spitfire Mark I/II Aces 1939-41, (Osprey Publishing, 1996), p. 19.

[Al Schlageter]

Pips on the AHF has confirmed that he is the Pips from AAW.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...?f=69&t=187113

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Pips on the AHF has confirmed that he is the Pips from AAW.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...?f=69&t=187113

Maybe the Pips here in this forum http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/member.php?u=3927 is also the same person.