SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[ElAurens]

It's called the "big lie" Osprey.

Repeat the same misinformantion often enough, and loud enough, and it will eventually be accepted as truth.

At least on gamer forums like this.

On real historical aviation forums this kind of behavior usually results in being laughed off the forum, or an outright ban.

Right Issy?

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Blakduk

As for the tone on that forum- it's a marked contrast to the personal insults that get thrown around here.

It used to be like here, until they banned Kurfurst for the same as what he tries to do here. (I am not joking)

[ElAurens]

See my above post.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

research in Australia found a paper that clearly noted RAF FC had not managed to fully convert until November 1940;

Would this be that paper what Glider asked you to produce and you couldn't? That others made efforts through their records office contacts on your behalf and found nothing?

@ElAl, yup, got it.

The important thing is we get this message across to the development team though, if that happens I couldn't give a rat about what Kurfurst and co believe.

[winny]

There's tons of circunstancial evidence that the RAF converted the Spitfires and Hurricanes. Loads of it.

A couple of things to also think about..

1. The modification to the boost cut out control that was needed was (AFAIK) one way, once done it meant you couldn't put 87 octane into a converted Merlin
(This is my understanding of it, correct me if you know better )

2. At the time of the changeover the RAF painted '100' next to the fuel filler cap to ensure that the correct fuel was put in. I have literally hundreds of photographs of BoB Spitfires and I have yet to find a photograph taken during the BoB that shows a Spitfire or Hurricane with this feature, which suggests to me that the need to differentiate between the 2 types of fuel was no longer there, ie. all converted.

Also several RAF pilots state in their memoirs that the conversion took place 'just before' the BoB proper, Tim Viggors, Pete Brothers, Al Deere are recent ones I've read.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I think the some RAF fliers are done with that Thor. What we see now is a reaction because the last series was spoiled by individuals with an agenda and the devs bent over. This time, with more detail and with the same old hands more educated in terms of flying and historical knowledge, we see the Spit drivers stand up because they don't want it to happen again. Already we have some calling the Spitfire a UFO - these people can go to hell. I notice that these types never seem to mention the horrendous DM of the 109 though, for example.

I think I speak for practically all of the RAF jockeys when I say that I want accuracy even at the expense of the RAF, I hate to see this very vocal minority do the rest of us such a dis-service.

What are these types going to do when the DM is patched? They'll piss and moan rather than realise that they aren't super-pilots and need to fly a different way.

See it this way: Back in the Il-2 days Oleg Maddox was accused of having no patriotism for making german aircraft too good vs the soviet types by the russian communities while he was accused of making the soviet types too good and the germans too bad by the germans. Oh and he was also accused of being a "damned commie" by the US community and of not having the slightest idea about history by the RAF fans because some types never made it into the game. So if everyone complained there must have been something right with the game ...

I think it is a bit far fetched to say that the RAF types are modeled the way they are because of the lobbying of a few loud people. That gives them much more influence than they really have. But ...
It's one thing to vehemently defend the evidence or documents which point to the RAF using 100 octane fuel for its fighter squadrons (which I, as a LW-centered player with an avid interest in military history agree with). But I have also seen several discussions being more or less successfully derailed by the same outspoken RAF fans once the subject of german performance, and especially the question of the DB 601N equipped types, was mentioned. People may have their personal interests, that's fine and normal, but it must absolutely not lead to them wearing blinders and red/blue-tinted glasses which doesn't allow them to be impartial anymore. Being a fan is one thing, being a fanatic is another.

[whoarmongar]

I have read loadsa memoirs from BoB pilots and have NEVER read anywhere in any of them about a pilot complaining along the lines of "Ran into a bunch of 109s/110s and couldnt catch them because we were using crappy low octane fuel".
I think if any BoB fighter squadrons in 11 group had been forced to use the low octane juice there would of been a stampede of squadron leaders knocking at fighter commands door complaining, and if that had happened and the prime minister (who had a full understanding of the importance of the BoB) had heard about it heads would have rolled.

Arghhh I really didnt want to get into this troltrap,I wish I hadnt posted but when someone is wrong on the internet you cant let them get away with it can you .

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Would this be that paper what Glider asked you to produce and you couldn't?

Yes the very same I was referring to, although the full story goes that I have referred Glider to the findings of an Australian guy going under the handle Pips who posted the summary of this paper several years ago on butch's board. BTW Neil Stirling was also participating, but he keeps dead silent about this paper on his site propagating 100 octane use.

Now, despite being perfectly aware that he needs to contact this Australian guy, Glider kept b!tching to me about producing the paper, of which I have only seen a summary on a board. I kept telling him to contact Pips and ask him.

Instead, Glider kept asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

Then I gave Glider the URL to the discussion where this was posted. At first he claimed "he could not find the alleged discussion", then went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

After a while Glider gave up this tactic of dismissing the paper, and claimed he contacted the Australian archieves, but the Archive said they've never heard about it, and again went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

That others made efforts through their records office contacts on your behalf and found nothing?

Lastly, Glider reproduced the email reply of the Australian archive staff, who in reality replied to Glider's vaguely worded email (somewhere along the lines 'gimme the paper of 100 octane') that given such inaduquate reference that he gave, its not possible to find it and he should supply accurate and precise reference so they would try to dig it up.

You may have already guess that after that Glider went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australi, having seen but a summary of the paper on a discussion board and giving him all details I've known about, a to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

At that point I believe it's understandable that I came to the conclusion that, for entirely subjective reasons, it may not be possible to have a fruitful and rational discussion on the matter with Glider.

Then you came into the picture and told your (half-)story, and so I've told mine, and now people can make up their minds about you, Glider, and the concept of credibility.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

On real historical aviation forums this kind of behavior usually results in being laughed off the forum, or an outright ban.

Right Issy?

Right. And that's is why I was never banned from a real historical aviation forum, and that is why you have been never been a member of one, or have the slightest idea how a discussion would look like between people with real interest in combat aviation and an open mind, regardless of nationality.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Seadog

So you admit you can't produce evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB RAF FC Hurricane and Spitfire using 87 octane.

No, I didn't. And as others have pointed out, if you want to prove that RAF fighters ran on nothing but 100 octane, you should bring the evidence for it, not asking me to disprove your unsupported theory.