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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Browse back the thread. I hve alrdy discussed this point and listed the source (RR history book).

These are your posts in this thread: #157:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Frankly I don't understand what are those ppl hijacking a game forum

#205;

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wrong. See my post above and data pasted bellow. You need to take into account the s/c !

#206:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A Spit from Toyota's Burnaston plant ?

#245:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I don't understand the spit lover that are arguing for 100oct when the Spit FM makes her Zip Zapping the air like a cartoon rubber ball

#294:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Some of the last comments tells a lot abt what are the seriousness of some on this discussion. I don't want to be personal but I nearly spit of my coffee reading that some are seriously thinking that the Spit was like a X-wing fighters in BoB skies.

#296:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I am not sure it can works like that. For example I hve bought RoF with enthusiasm as soon as it was released and can't play it anymore.... There is no default FM left anywhere on any server !

#301:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wouldn't it be more relevant to ask in a less biased manner how many conversion were done before August 40 ?

#303:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Hopefully Holmes had more a Cartesian thinking ! ???!!!

#315:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

really ?
20000 post of the same "piece of evidence" does not makes it a demonstrated fact. We are still waiting for some cross references.

#322:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A 100° British lager ?

#365:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Guys the 100 oct justified itself whenn it comes to hve low alt extra power (short time) or increased fuel efficiency at low revs. That's why you see that kind of usage on the Blenheim.

#381:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A fairly good read : http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%201286.html

#383:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A document outsourced from nowhere with a very specific account of history and so contradictory with - for example - the doc I linked from Flight Journal an internationaly respected publication : humm and what next, the Brit first detonated a nuke INSIDE a Merlin engine when the US were still craking nuts in the French Ardennes ?

#387:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Where all this cleverness and fine written irony are gone Schlag?

#392:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wew... are you turning rogue ?

#408:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Oh Yeah it's a great document. And thx for that. But what is buzzing me as hell is why are you so one sided in your citation

#411:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Ok fair enough for the fighters. But with so many RAAF personnel flying Hurries and SPits in ENgland, any 100 oct probable requirement would hve been listed.

#412; #427; #434, #437,#457,#461, #467, #484, #496, #501, #515, #523, #525, #526, #529, #534, #537, #540, #542, #544, #549, #553, #555, #558, #580

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

It was a standard use in RR to give the power of an engine without the charger fitted as the methods used to calculate the true corresponding power at alt from a bench test ran on the ground were not reliable (source RR - already mentioned by myself somewhere in the thread).

Nowhere, until this last one, is there any mention by you in this thread, or any other I can find, that R-R tested engines without superchargers, nor have you presented any evidence:

So, where is your evidence that R-R routinely tested engines without superchargers?