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

I think we can fairly assume that 100 octane was used by at least a couple of squadrons in BoB in sufficient numbers to justify the addition of a 100 octane spit as an additional plane.

So that's for the wishes.

What I understand though is that the devs clearly said there won't be new planes for Cliffs of Dover so I have doubts that we will see it. As implementing an additional 100 octane Spit is the same work as modifying the existing one it won't matter imho.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I think we can fairly assume that 100 octane was used by at least a couple of squadrons in BoB in sufficient numbers to justify the addition of a 100 octane spit as an additional plane.

lol.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I think we can fairly assume that 100 octane was used by at least a couple of squadrons in BoB in sufficient numbers to justify the addition of a 100 octane spit as an additional plane.

So that's for the wishes.

Based on the information presented in this thread alone I think it is safe to say it was far more than a couple!

Unlike the K4 fletner tab issue that Kurfust team trys promote and say all K4s had based on one picture of an assembly line of G models and an drawing of a K4 scribbled on a napkin.. When there are more than a half dozens of pictures of actul K4s with no fletner tabs.

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

What I understand though is that the devs clearly said there won't be new planes for Cliffs of Dover so I have doubts that we will see it. As implementing an additional 100 octane Spit is the same work as modifying the existing one it won't matter imho.

True, but the next sequal is the russian front, and the ruskies bought alot of spits from the Uk, so the devs could add this plane at that time. Not that it would be used on the russian front, but the current UK map will be part of the sequal, thus giving the mission makers a chance to make BoB missions in the comming sequal with 100 oct spits and hurries

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Based on the information presented in this thread alone I think it is safe to say it was far more than a couple!

May be so - I just retained from the discussion that 100 octane was used - and I got bored of the discussion if it was all or some squadrons - which would not change a bit of what I think

If the 100 octane was used on a regular basis it should be present. I wish to retain the 87 octaine spit because we might want to create pre BoB scenarii in the future (Dunkirque for instance) and it would be a shame to eliminate the 87 octane spit from the game which would prevent any historical mission for pre BoB scenarii.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

May be so - I just retained from the discussion that 100 octane was used - and I got bored of the discussion if it was all or some squadrons - which would not change a bit of what I think

I like you feel there is enough proof that it was used.. As I noted I think the only argument left is how widly it was used.. Which is where I left it, but since you decided to add the qualifier of 'a couple' I felt the need to point out that based on all the info presented here in this thread 'I' think it is safe to say it is 'far' more than a couple.. How far? Who knows and who really cares wrt to CoD and the comming sequal! I think most of the adults here would agree that there is enough proof to justify the addition of a 100 oct variant at some point, be it the next sequal or later.. For me the sooner the better

[Al Schlageter]

Even worse than the flettner tab is the 1.98ata boost for the K-4. Next to nil, nada, zilch documentation compared to what has been put forward for 100 octane fuel. The fantasy speculation even carrying over to the G-10s

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Even worse than the flettner tab is the 1.98ata boost for the K-4. Next to nil, nada, zilch documentation compared to what has been put forward for 100 octane fuel. The fantasy speculation even carrying over to the G-10s

Agreed

Which only highlights the hypocrisy in the 'proof required' by those (some) arguing against the addition of a 100 oct variant.