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

[Glider]

If this is true then someone needs to explain how 2 squadrons of Blenhiems were split between 4 stations of No 2 Group that were 100% stocked with 100 octane.
That same person needs to explain why if the basic premise was that 5/6ths of the fuel at the other No 2 Group bases was 100 Octane, why should they only use the 1/6th that was 87 octane for operations.
Finally that same person may want to explain to everyone why when he knows about these documents doesn't he ever, ever mention them.

And as an aside, that same person might want to let us know what his version of Select is and how he supports it?

[Osprey]

Not withstanding that the Blenheim squadrons shared bases with fighter squadrons. Brian Kingcombe talks of his friendship and rapport 92 had with the Blenheim crews (610?) they shared with, how they helped turn the fighters around between sorties etc.

[Crumpp]

Units concerned -

Means someone is not concerned, in otherwords it refers to a select group.

concerned - involved in or affected by or having a claim to or share in; "a memorandum to those concerned"; "an enterprise in which three men are concerned"; "factors concerned in the rise and fall of epidemics"; "the interested parties met to discuss the business"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/concerned

Paragraph 8 on the March 1939 paper (your favourite) makes the 16 + 2 squadrons by September 1940 conditional, based on supply.

And here we have the units concerned......

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Paragraph 8 on the March 1939 paper (your favourite) makes the 16 + 2 squadrons by September 1940 conditional, based on supply.
And here we have the units concerned......

Once again ignoring the later documents that contradict your theory


Which leaves us with the logistical questions which you have so far avoided. You have requently said that logistics are critical, something I agree, so I would expect you to have put some effort into looking at the logistical questions your theory raises. To do otherwise as you have said, is to be amaturish and lower the tone of the thread.

Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

For the 16 FC squadrons + 2 Bomber squadrons
a) We don't know who made the decision to continue with this program once war started
b) We don't know that phase IV testing was on going in 1940
c) We don't know which squadrons or which stations were supposed to have the 100 Octane
d) We don't know how it was to be rolled out
e) If this theory is correct, We don't know when the rest of FC had 100 Octane issued
f) We do know that the limit of 2 squadrons of Bombers mentioned in this paper was disregarded, which must question why the fighter limit is supposed to be maintained
None of these is supported by original papers. The best that can be said is that they depend on wild interpretations of some documents while ignoring others

As I said at the start the case for 100% roll out isn't perfect, but its a lot stronger than the case for 16 Fighter squadrons and 2 bomber squadrons


PS I don't expect a reply to these questions but it highlights that you cannot support your theory and whilst you may disagree with what I put forward, I do at least try to support my belief with documents not theories.
-----------------------------------------------------

[winny]

@ Kurfurst, here we go again with the "lie" thing. It's such a give away as to your mindset.

Oh, and on the subject of credibility.. You have to be joking, right?

Wikipedia... You've got the cheek to accuse someone else of doing exactly what you've been banned from wiki for doing? Hypocrite.

Stick to facts.

[Skoshi Tiger]

So I guess the only real question is, since the patch has come out is the Spitfire and Hurricane performance in the sim closer to their real life non-virtual selves?

I'ld like to do some tests, but since the patch has been released I'm getting launcher errors! )

Just reinstalling the sim to se if it makes any difference.

Cheers!

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

So I guess the only real question is, since the patch has come out is the Spitfire and Hurricane performance in the sim closer to their real life non-virtual selves?

I'ld like to do some tests, but since the patch has been released I'm getting launcher errors! )

Just reinstalling the sim to se if it makes any difference.

Cheers!

Sadly no, even on 87 octane figures the Spits are 50 MPH too slow at sea level and no better at altitude, haven't really tested the hurri.

[41Sqn_Banks]

I just came across the Blenheim IV Pilot's Notes from September 1939 and according to this the outer fuel tanks are restricted to 100 octane fuel and inner fuel tanks to 87 octane fuel.

[lane]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

I just came across the Blenheim IV Pilot's Notes from September 1939 and according to this the outer fuel tanks are restricted to 100 octane fuel and inner fuel tanks to 87 octane fuel.

Hi 41Sqn_Banks,

That's interesting. Can you please share a scan if possible and convenient? Thanks. The following document from April 1940 would seem then to be in agreement with the September 1939 Blenheim IV Pilot's Notes: