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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

You shld write comics. You will hve an huge success.

It has been alrdy explained and can be found in many documents.

I myself illustrated this meaning right her ein this thread by linking to a 1954 FLIGHT articles detailing the evolution of teh Merlin eng during the war with details of wich octane was used.

There is also a second article of FLIGHT that I linked about a respective study of a He111 engine and the Merlin where teh author explained that the Brits eng discovered that the remaining trace of fuel found inside the studied German engine showed that the LW probably was using a fuel withe better octane grade than what RAF used at the time.The article clearly says that it was 92 octane in the German bomber.

More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel.

Here is a modern example with Turbo Tech (no power eng needed to drive the compression process) : http://wn.com/octane_rating?orderby=..._time=all_time

As I hve alrdy says I don't know what to write more. What 's for sure is that I am loosing my time at a ... 100% rate !

Yes Mr Tomcat, I'm sure you're convinced in your own mind that you're right, so there's no point in discussing the matter any further with you is there? Meantime, your Flat Earth Society friends are waiting for you to make your maiden speech to the Venerable Coven of Witches and I believe your pet ostrich has buried its head in sand - again.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Yes Mr Tomcat, I'm sure you're convinced in your own mind that you're right, so there's no point in discussing the matter any further with you is there? Meantime, your Flat Earth Society friends are waiting for you to make your maiden speech to the Venerable Coven of Witches and I believe your pet ostrich has buried its head in sand - again.

Get some fresh air NZT.

Did someone at least watch the Impreza example ?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Get some fresh air NZT.

Did someone at least watch the Impreza example ?

Can you provide the exact link, your previous link just showed a search result and pointed to a video called "Octane Rating - Explained", didn't find something on the Impreza.

[TomcatViP]

updated (see above)

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

More over I hve a thousand times explained and showed that there is no sense to believe that 100 octane will provide a tremendous augmentation of pow in an eng that was not specifically built for that fuel.

So why do the instructions for the mods to the engine for the use of 100 octane fuel not mention anything about beefing up the engine? Just maybe it is because beefing up the engine wasn't required as it was already strong enough.

Even you gospel, FLIGHT, says the early Merlin was ran at 22lb boost.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

So why do the instructions for the mods to the engine for the use of 100 octane fuel not mention anything about beefing up the engine? Just maybe it is because beefing up the engine wasn't required as it was already strong enough.

Even you gospel, FLIGHT, says the early Merlin was ran at 22lb boost.

It's not my "gospel". I am just reading some of the source you guys hve provided and extract contradictory arguments.


If they didn't mention that beefing up the eng was necessary, isn't it more logical to think that it's due to the fact that no 100 oct was actually used as a prime source of fuel ?

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

It's not my "gospel". I am just reading some of the source you guys hve provided and extract contradictory arguments.


If they didn't mention that beefing up the eng was necessary, isn't it more logical to think that it's due to the fact that no 100 oct was actually used as a prime source of fuel ?

And you write off others as propaganda.

Except their is much proof that 100 octane was used.

[Osprey]

Mr Tomcat. Don't you think it a bit unfair that others need to provide 100% conclusive proof that their arguments are to be believed, yet all you need to provide is a 13 years after the event magazine article to be believed yourself?

It's not only unreasonable and arrogant, but also frustrating and insulting to those that spend their time on here trying to explain their findings to you. If you are not prepared to listen anyway, because to be honest that is the way it looks to the observer, then just say so now and save everybody the effort. You are being impolite, one would think somebody in the teaching profession would realise that.

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

You shld write comics. You will hve an huge success.

It has been alrdy explained and can be found in many documents.

I myself illustrated this meaning right her ein this thread by linking to a 1954 FLIGHT articles detailing the evolution of teh Merlin eng during the war with details of wich octane was used.

As I pointed out also previously in this thread, that article only comments on normal pre-war octane use (1937) not octane use during the war

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Bounder!

As I pointed out also previously in this thread, that article only comments on pre-war octane use (1937) not octane use during the war

false

You'd need to really read it actually

@Osp : for a bunch of guys tht are drawing disgusting parallel lines btw arguing abt the real use of that fuel with neo-nazi activism I think you shld drop out that virgin attitude. Does not fit.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=483

I am only interested by the truth. The only think I believed in is that RAF proved actually itself superior to the LW strategically and by employing better tactics.

I am not harri potter, I don't believe in charms and incantatory self convincing sentences.