Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Evidence is no proof? That means any evidence can be dismissed out of hand, regardless of how solid it is. How do you work that one out?

If that's true, I can prove the moon is made out of cheese; the evidence is lacking because when the Apollo astronauts landed with samples of moon cheese they were immediately turned into toasted cheese sandwiches and eaten by hungry NASA staff, and the reports were then fudged and rocks were substituted.

Now, you can provide evidence in the form of moon rocks and scientific reports and I can dismiss the evidence because I didn't actually travel to the moon with the astronauts and watch them pick up the rocks, nor did I see the scientific reports being processed. So the fact is the moon is made out of cheese and my belief in that is scientific because I am not precluding the possibility, however remote it may seem; in fact there's even a web page showing that the moon is made of cheese and that's evidence in itself. It's a brilliant concept because I can prove anything I like!

The problem is only seeing black and white, believe me.

Black and white scenarios are so rare in real life, i really doubt anybody here has experienced one.

To think in black and white makes only shure you are NOT 100% right.

Evidence is only proof if it removes any doubt.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

Evidence is only proof if it removes any doubt.

Meaning absolutely nothing can be proven, no matter how much evidence is presented, because there will always be doubt in someone's mind. All this is is a very convenient out from using ones brains, or for those who refuse to believe any evidence, no matter how compelling.

And for me, that clinches it: the moon is made out of cheese and there's nothing anyone can show me that will remove any doubt. NASA plotted to keep this important information from the public and Neil Armstrong ate the evidence.

[Kurfürst]

Robtek, I find the argue with fanatics is a waste of time. You can't fix their head.

[ATAG_Snapper]

It's already been pointed out that common sense has to apply here. There was high turnover of fighter aircraft during the BoB by all squadrons -- combat, accidents, engine/airframe wear & tear. There was no shortage of replacement aircraft. It stands to reason the replacement aircraft were factory-new and using 100 octane.

The airfields did NOT have two sets of fuel bowsers driving about the dispersal area looking to see who took 87 or 100 octane. There was a war on, fergawdsakes!!!!

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

The airfields did NOT have two sets of fuel bowsers driving about the dispersal area looking to see who took 87 or 100 octane. There was a war on, fergawdsakes!!!!

This is a valid point, it would stand to reason that in the mayhem that would be fixing aircraft and high turnaround during raids that the organisation that would be necessary to ensure no 100 octane got in the non-modified engines would have been remarked on by some source.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

This is a valid point, it would stand to reason that in the mayhem that would be fixing aircraft and high turnaround during raids that the organisation that would be necessary to ensure no 100 octane got in the non-modified engines would have been remarked on by some source.

Very likely, but I'm not going to spend these fine Spring mornings searching through dusty tomes to check! LOL

A question, though. In motor vehicles it doesn't really matter if you put 89 or 91 (or even 94 like we can get locally in Ontario) octane gas in a vehicle rated for 87 octane. You're just wasting money on the higher octane gas since you'll see no performance benefit, but the higher octane won't damage your 87-rated engine. Would this apply to Merlin engines rated at 87 octane that received a fill up of 100 octane?

If there were no harm (or benefit) that would come of this, I could see at the start of the Battle of Britain some of the older Spits & Hurries receiving 100 octane out on the field.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Very likely, but I'm not going to spend these fine Spring mornings searching through dusty tomes to check! LOL

A question, though. In motor vehicles it doesn't really matter if you put 89 or 91 (or even 94 like we can get locally in Ontario) octane gas in a vehicle rated for 87 octane. You're just wasting money on the higher octane gas since you'll see no performance benefit, but the higher octane won't damage your 87-rated engine. Would this apply to Merlin engines rated at 87 octane that received a fill up of 100 octane?

If there were no harm (or benefit) that would come of this, I could see at the start of the Battle of Britain some of the older Spits & Hurries receiving 100 octane out on the field.

The answer is also certainly yes, unless some extra complication occure - spark plugs may foul from deposits because the different chemical composition of different grade fuel, for example, as happened with 150 grade. But overall this seems unlikely, at least the papers I have show the Germans too were running some of their Ju 88s - which's engine was designed for 87 octane - on their own 100 octane fuel. So the practice for it was there, on both sides.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Robtek, I find the argue with fanatics is a waste of time. You can't fix their head.

Priceless

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Robtek, I find the argue with fanatics is a waste of time. You can't fix their head.

I think this is my new sig.