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

[Osprey]

lol, you only need read the first part, Kurfurst is quoting Dr Gavin Bailey as his source

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=161

But here's what Dr Bailey had to say about Kurfurst in September 2009.

"Kurfurst, this seems to be the third occasion when you have attempted to use my work to support a conclusion on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain which I have explicitly rejected. You have been asked, repeatedly, to desist. You cannot claim to be unaware of my views on the matter, having been confronted by them on a previous occasion when I challenged you on the misuse of my work on the forums of www.ww2aircraft.net.
Note my comments there on 31 January 2009.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...bob-16305.html
...nothing in my work either can or should be used by people attempting to argue that 100-octane fuel was not in widespread use in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. That position is contradicted by a mass of original evidence cited in my work (and elsewhere). The next time anyody attempts to produce carefully-selected references from my work to contradict the historical use of 100-octane fuel by the RAF in the Battle of Britain, please refer them back to my original article which if nothing else should provide them with sufficient primary source evidence to disabuse them of that notion.
I also refer you to my post of 7 February 2009, which concludes;
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...b-16305-4.html
My thesis, if this requires further clarification after my original posting on this forum, is that 100-octane fuel was supplied from a diversity of sources within and outside the US (in contrast to the received wisdom), but also was in widespread use during the Battle of Britain, as a mass of incontravertable primary source evidence demonstrates (in conformity with the received wisdom). Yes, you have quoted one decision mentioned in my article about the planned use of 100-octane fuel in selected squadrons in 1939. However you then ignore the text and references which then indicate that this decision was overtaken by others. Highlighting that first decision without exploring the subsequent changes to it is either mistaken or dishonest. If you cite my work again, I would ask you to make it clear that I have explictly and publically disagreed with your revisionist appreciaton of the use of 100-octane in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain.
Your apparent need to misrepresent and distort the works of others discredits your thesis out of hand. Your apparent willingness to repeat this misrepresentation and distortion after being challenged by the author of that work themselves does you even less credit.
Gavin Bailey"

[41Sqn_Banks]

I don't think further discrediting is needed, this will only get the thread locked and it doesn't provide any new information/proof/evidence on the subject.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Dr Bailey on Kurfurst

Your apparent need to misrepresent and distort the works of others discredits your thesis out of hand. Your apparent willingness to repeat this misrepresentation and distortion after being challenged by the author of that work themselves does you even less credit.