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

[robtek]

Absence of evidence is no proof.

I am really worried about people with black and white thinking, they are really prone to err.

[bongodriver]

So what you are saying is that all the evidence pointing to the use of 100 octane is actually damaging to the case? in fact it would have been better to not have any and claim it's absence as a lack of proof to it's contrary?

[JtD]

Originally Posted by robtek

Absence of evidence is no proof.

Au contraire! Half the truths we know are based on absence of evidence for the contrary. If you can't provide a single bit of evidence for a theory, it is considered wrong. Doesn't matter if it concerns orange ravens, a second sun or 87 octane fuel.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by JtD

Au contraire! Half the truths we know are based on absence of evidence for the contrary. If you can't provide a single bit of evidence for a theory, it is considered wrong. Doesn't matter if it concerns orange ravens, a second sun or 87 octane fuel.

Well, we do know 87 octane was standard for Fighter Command at the start of the war and we know that by May 1940 only select Units of fighter command converted to 100 octane.

I'll let you guess what the rest of the Units kept operating on.

[JtD]

I'll leave the guessing to you, I'm interested in knowing.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Well, we do know 87 octane was standard for Fighter Command at the start of the war and we know that by May 1940 only select Units of fighter command converted to 100 octane.

I'll let you guess what the rest of the Units kept operating on.

We're not talking about May 1940. We're talking about the Battle of Britain.
So July, August, September. And we're not guessing.

So once again. Present you own argument and stop nit picking our's.

With some documents, circumstantial evidence, whatever it is that you've got that makes you so convinced that 87 octane was in widespread use by fighter command during the battle of Britain. Just saying that it was is a pathetic way to try and prove that what you say is correct. It's not like we're alone in our opinion. There are plenty of authors on the subject who agree with the argument that the conversion happened in the spring of 1940. If you want to change the general consensus then I'm afraid that "because kurfurst says so" isn't going to do it. It does however highlight what a closed mind you have.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

We're not talking about May 1940. We're talking about the Battle of Britain.
So July, August, September. And we're not guessing.

So once again. Present you own argument and stop nit picking our's.

With some documents, circumstantial evidence, whatever it is that you've got that makes you so convinced that 87 octane was in widespread use by fighter command during the battle of Britain.

Well here it is. It clearly says that 100 octane is only issued to select fighter stations, and this is how it stayed, given the lack of evidence to the contrary.

[JtD]

Disappointing.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by JtD

Disappointing.

Empty blabber...

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Well here it is. It clearly says that 100 octane is only issued to select fighter stations, and this is how it stayed, given the lack of evidence to the contrary.

So a very contemporary graphic (I'm sure this technology is post 1940's)....in low resolution is all you need for evidence?

what is the source of that graphic? what is the source of info used to produce that graphic? does that information have a date to refference?