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

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

All he has been asked to do is supply the one paper which isn't a huge request. After all it does form the basis of his position.

David, I think I told you about 8 times by know where did I learn about these papers, I gave you the refernce, the link to thread. The papers were found by Pips, in Australia. I know I really have to repeat this to you to sink in, but I am not Pips, nor do I live in Australia. So either ask Pips - who you can easily connect, I gave you his contact, for some reason you choose not to.. hmmm - or travel to Australia yourself.

So, may I ask why are you pretending to all these fine people there that you do not know all of the above?

Personally, I have no reason not to believe that Pips summary of the documents are honest and accurate.

As for the straight bit, he stays polite until backed into a corner then the insults come think and fast.

Oh, I am certain you'd like to push me into a corner, but Dave, you have to grow up to the task first. You have put forward a thesis, which so far you could not support with anything.
And I do not mean how you interpret them, because it takes quite a bit of imaginatory power to fill in the gaps, and these gaps can be filled both ways.

For example, you claim the December 1939 mentioning of Stations is a definiete order of these stations to be supplied, even though nobody seem to have approved the request (it may have been, but it is pure guesswork to say so).

You also claim that "certain" was either a typo (which is clearly against the trail of papers, I already pointed tihs out, actually only one paper does not use the limiting word, but it does on the previous page which you do not post..)

You also claim that two previous claims would be true, the 21 or so Stationed mentioned were equipped with 100 octane, and in your understanding, that what the 18 May 1940 paper say. But you still owe us an explanation how did this 20-odd station become 60-odd stations between May and July 1940. You do not even give guesswork how. You simply say it happened. When, how, you do not care. It must have happened.

I am afraid it is you who is cornered, not me. You see, everyone is asking you, not me, to put some substance in your claims. I guess everyone is a bit tired of of guy who registered on this board with an agenda and an axe to grind, and ever since does not doing anything but running in circles, and posting the same papers, even after just about everybody told him his interpretation of the papers is more than a bit wishful. After all, it is you who wave about a paper that says certain Squadrons are to convert, and say that means they all converted.

You have promised to do so, so we are eager to see your papers if you manage it to NA, and I hope we all learn from it. All I am asking is to support to papers.

If your papers prove your thesis, I do not doubt that anyone, including me, would express any doubts. But I have some experience with these type of discussions, every time someone fanatically wanted something extreme about such stuff to be true, ie. every single fighter suddenly getting a huge boost of power due to some unique exotic fuel overnight, which was only available to that side etc. etc. usually hit the brick wall and bounced back painfully. Just ask "lane" about how "all of Fighter command" converted to 150 grade fuel in 1944, +25 lbs XIVs he is chasing for twelve years, oh and BTW, why is the Monty Berger quote is missing from the end of his 150 grade article.

I think I was accused three times of being a lliar, one of holding information back and two of misrepreseting the facts when all I did was supply original documentation

No, you were told doing that because you were doing exactly that. You came here with an axe to grind, and insults to shot at me, and I think I was patient with you long enough. If I was thinking that you were holding back papers, I am sorry for that, but you were pretending long enough that you did went into the archieves and took shots of those papers yourself. It appears this is not the case, I guess "lane" throw a couple of papers/bones out of the whole to you. Knowing "lane" a bit, I guess you are up to a surprise or two when you look at the file in its completeness.

I do not think I wish to waste much time on this until you live up to your word and support the papers which establish the basis of your thesis. I await with an open mind.

In any case, thanks for your efforts and time in advance, also in the name of this community if I may, I guess many will like to read the decisions in these meetings between December 1939 and October 1940 in their completeness.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

Yes really. He's pretty hard to please.

Comes with my trade I guess...

I think kurfurst will take it in the spirit it was meant, we've been straight with each other in the past. Even if we disagree.

Oh, have no worries about that, I know you're an honest chap.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

David, I think I told you about 8 times by know where did I learn about these papers, I gave you the refernce, the link to thread. The papers were found by Pips, in Australia. I know I really have to repeat this to you to sink in, but I am not Pips, nor do I live in Australia. So either ask Pips - who you can easily connect, I gave you his contact, for some reason you choose not to.. hmmm - or travel to Australia yourself.

So, may I ask why are you pretending to all these fine people there that you do not know all of the above?

Personally, I have no reason to believe that Pips summary of the documents are honest and accurate.

People have contacted the Australian Archives about the Pips papers and the AA have had no success in producing these papers for viewing.

So, if you have no reason to believe that Pips summary of these Australian papers are honest and accurate, then why do you continue to use them?

Winny, Barbi is only hard to please when the subject of discussion is the British and the Spitfire. Unfortunately, when it comes to Nazi Germany and the 109, any thing will do to become an absolute factual truth.

And I do not mean how you interpret them, because it takes quite a bit of imaginatory power to fill in the gaps, and these gaps can be filled both ways.

That is hilarious Barbi. You definitely have quite a bit of imaginary power when it comes to the K-4 and 1.98ata boost. You should give up being a lawyer and become a comedian.

[Kurfürst]

What is your purpose in life?

Because if this is it, I guess its a most severe form of punishment in itself, and I don't have to lift a finger, just leave you be as you are.

[Seadog]

We're still waiting for proof that even one RAFFC Merlin engined fighter squadron used 87 octane operationally during the BofB.

[winny]

Don't get me wrong, I get annoyed by Kurfurst, sometimes very annoyed.

Deflection is an art form, Kurfurst's a master.

There are forums all over the place with threads about this subject and Kurfurst is present in all of them.

The subject gets bogged down in the supply issue, it's a red herring.

The whole argument seems to hinge on the 'select or certain stations'
There is no definite definition of certain stations so again it's a red herring.

If the question is 'Were the RAF using 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain' the answer is a definite yes. It's just how many.

To go back to the 1938 doccument, written at a time when Britain were in the process of rearmament, not war, is another deflection.

To say that that doccument is relevant to a battle that took place 2 years later, under a different government is wrong. Unless a doccument is post the invasion of Poland then its frankly irrelevant.

Nobody expected the war to start in 39. Most were gearing up for 42.

I can prove to anyone that up to 30 squadrons used 100 octane during The battle.
At the very least 4 at dunkirk
At the very least another 6 in June. That's 30% of the total number of FC sqns at the time (around 330 operational Hurricanes and Spitfires).

Kurfurst has never quantified his argument. No numbers for squadrons.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by winny

I can prove to anyone that up to 30 squadrons used 100 octane during The battle.
At the very least 4 at dunkirk
At the very least another 6 in June. That's 30% of the total number of FC sqns at the time (around 330 operational Hurricanes and Spitfires).

Kurfurst has never quantified his argument. No numbers for squadrons.

RAFFC had 34 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on July 08 with 6 Blenheim and 2 Defiant squadrons, and 61 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on Nov 03, with 6 Blenheim and 3 Defiant squadrons. So 30 (I assume you mean Hurricane/Spitfire) represents from ~90 to ~50% of all operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

The subject gets bogged down in the supply issue, it's a red herring.

.

Its interesting as I see the supply as being the key issue. If the RAF had a shortage of supply then there is logic in limiting the roll out and concentrating the supplies where you need them most say 11 and 12 group. However if there isn't a shortage, then there is no logic in limiting the numbers.

The changes to the engine were small and could easily been doe on the stations, yet the performance gain was very significant. So it isn't a technical or manufacture issue, its down to supply.

Without a shortage of fuel there is no logic to holding the supplies back. Indeed this is probably the one thing that I agree with re Pips posting, its centred on supply. I just disagree with his assumption that there was a shortage.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Seadog

RAFFC had 34 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on July 08 with 6 Blenheim and 2 Defiant squadrons, and 61 operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons on Nov 03, with 6 Blenheim and 3 Defiant squadrons. So 30 (I assume you mean Hurricane/Spitfire) represents from ~90 to ~50% of all operational Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons.

I did mean Hurri/Spit and I was using the 4 + 6 = 10 Squadrons by June.
Or a third of the Hurri/Spit squadrons at the time.

I'm starting with a low number. It's a definite which is more than I've seen for the other side of the argument.

I've found combat reports that back this up, and as Pilots had to record use of 12lb I think there must be more.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

I did mean Hurri/Spit and I was using the 4 + 6 = 10 Squadrons by June.
Or a third of the Hurri/Spit squadrons at the time.

I'm starting with a low number. It's a definite which is more than I've seen for the other side of the argument.

I've found combat reports that back this up, and as Pilots had to record use of 12lb I think there must be more.

Its interesting that Pips and Kurfurst believe that the number was 25% of FC and 125 aircraft in May

I have 10 Hurricane squadrons and 3 Spitfire squadrons with combat reports in May alone.

Hurricane 85, 1, 73, 79, 87, 151, 56, 17, 229 and 245 squadrons
Spitfire, 74, 54 and 19 squadrons

Links
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html