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

[Flanker35M]

S!

S-Foils and all that was funny Banks. Good one! I agree on the benefits of the fuel, but it seems many think it will be the I-Win button when it is not. After all it is the pilot, not the plane. CoD has the chance to be THE game when fixed and still waiting for that. Meanwhile have to settle what we have now I shoot down some and I get shot down..part of the game No hard feelings as this is a hobby in my scarse past time.

[Osprey]

Flanker, you are blue biased, it's really clear in your attitude. How can one claim to be impartial yet call one aircraft an insulting nickname? Please stop doing that.

[addman]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

I wonder why you guys outright deny rotation of squadrons. That is mentioned even in memoirs of Johnnie Johnson, Geoffrey Wellum etc. that squadrons were pulled back for resting, refitting, training for new planes etc. Pilots were too tired to fight and losses did cut the effectiveness of a squadron. Are you so obsessed with this 100 Octane Crusade that you fail to see the trees from the wood? This same rotation was used throughout the war by Allies and even today rotation is a principle used by armed forces.

What will be next you guys want? Luthier slaps in 100 Octane to all Sissies and Hurricanes. Next you start the crusade that it was not 5min clearance for maximum boost but indefinite time and engines suffered no damage even some exceeded it? With the kiddyplay CEM we have now 100 Octane and 5min limit will be abused to hell and back, like the 25lbs boost Sissyfire Mk.IX in IL-2 1946. CEM is a joke and simplistic at the moment.

You call names like Eugie and Barbi and still sit on your high horse to be the High Priests of Truth? You fall in to the same pit like everyone and pat eachother in the back in a circle for this. This thread could have been a VERY INFORMATIONAL one without this mud being slung and stubborn dug in attitudes seen. None of you know EXACTLY what happened or how things were no matter how many documents you scan. There is more than just a few scans seen here. I bet none of you would have the time to go through the archives in such manner that you would know in detail what happened. Now merely scratching the surface.

And bottom line is that Luthier does not need to put in to CoD this 100 Octane at all. Just changes the FM and voilá..you got it. Small text in GUI to tell which version you fly. And the crowd cheers. But it does not turn your planes into some magic X-Wings I fly offline for different testing purposes BOTH red and blue planes, online mainly blue as I have done so since I started flying online 1997. So do not pull the blue bias on me This is a GAME after all.

That's correct, if you are getting shot down a lot today you will get shot down a lot tomorrow too even if you have rocket fuel in your tanks.

*runs for cover from the incoming bombardment*

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by addman

That's correct, if you are getting shot down a lot today you will get shot down a lot tomorrow too even if you have rocket fuel in your tanks.

*runs for cover from the incoming bombardment*

And this guy and his buddies accuse me of hit-n-run troll tatics just to stir up trouble.. Got to love the double standards..

Anyway, adults are trying to have a discussion here.. that has nothing to do with how many times you get shot down in the game.. please take your net elseware

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!
You call names like Eugie and Barbi and still sit on your high horse to be the High Priests of Truth? You fall in to the same pit like everyone and pat eachother in the back in a circle for this. This thread could have been a VERY INFORMATIONAL one without this mud being slung and stubborn dug in attitudes seen. None of you know EXACTLY what happened or how things were no matter how many documents you scan. There is more than just a few scans seen here. I bet none of you would have the time to go through the archives in such manner that you would know in detail what happened. Now merely scratching the surface.

No-one is claiming to know EXACTLY what happened, and if you bother to read things properly instead of merely skimming through you will see that. What is important is the weight of evidence which shows that it is more than likely that FC used 100 Octane fuel for all daylight, frontline Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant sorties flown throughout the B of B.

If you knew anything at all about historical research - not just the kind of stuff dreamed up on many internet sites - you would know that finding 100% iron-clad evidence for anything is well nigh impossible, and most genuine historians understand that, and do their research accordingly.

The fact is that those who have very little evidence against the use of 100 octane fuel have spent the best part of this thread disputing, sneering at, and ridiculing every single scrap of evidence presented by people like Glider and lane, who have actually spent hours trawling through thousands of documents, usually at a great deal of expense. They have also spent a great deal of time sneering at, attacking and ridiculing Glider and lane and anyone else they happen to disagree with. So, accuse people of "sitting on a high horse" all you like - if you have been subjected to the same treatment, by these same people, over several websites, for years, you would probably be on a high horse as well.

As for your last little sneer? Have you ever bothered spending hours trawling through archives? Or is this just a little smart-alec throwaway line designed to make you feel good about yourself?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

The fact is that those who have very little evidence against the use of 100 octane fuel have spent the best part of this thread disputing, sneering at, and ridiculing every single scrap of evidence presented by people like Glider and lane, who have actually spent hours trawling through thousands of documents, usually at a great deal of expense.

If the less than a handful (three or so) of 100 octane nay-sayers were consistent with their 'standards' of proof..

I could cut them some slack

But, as it turns out they are not

On that note, If you want to see something real funny.. As in Kurfurst dropping his standards of proof to nil

Ask Kurfurst about flettner tab usage on the 109K-4 ailerons..

A few years back he was on a campaign to have Oleg change the 109K-4 FM to include flettner tabs on the ailerons..

His so called proof for doing so was based on a couple of pictures of mostly drawings not actual planes

And 'that' was enough proof as far as Kurfurst was concerned to change the 109K-4 FM.

Even though there are dozens and dozens of WWII pictures of actual 109K-4s shown without flettner tabs, and even though there is a famous WWII German test pilot report stating all the problems associated with flettner tabs

Mater of fact.. I think this was one of the reason he got banned from wiki