Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

My documentation has been posted a number of times and is supported by the on average 10,000 tons of fuel consumed each month. In short the 10,000 tons was used by FC and I believe that FC and No 2 Group were converted by the end of May. I have said a number of times its a strong not a perfect case, an honest statement.

If Kurfurst would like to explain how 10,000 tons were used each month, if not by FC then I would be interested to know who did.

Indeed I would be interested to know how much of FC he believes were using 100 Octane in the Period Fen to Aug 1940

David you continue to evade to answer the question posed.

Earlier this thread you have seem to have changed your position and due to your lasting silence on the matter it is increasingly likely that you have simple made up a falsehood about a supposed Fighter Command change-over to 100 octane fuel in July 1940.

You have made a very specific claim for a very specific date.

What documentary evidence can you offer to this alleged switchover, David?

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by kurfürst

adam you continue to evade to answer the question posed.

fixed

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

David you continue to evade to answer the question posed.

Earlier this thread you have seem to have changed your position and due to your lasting silence on the matter it is increasingly likely that you have simple made up a falsehood about a supposed Fighter Command change-over to 100 octane fuel in July 1940.

You have made a very specific claim for a very specific date.

What documentary evidence can you offer to this alleged switchover, David?

The words I used were

However there is no evidence that 87 octane was used for combat missions after the switchover during the BOB from July onwards.

There is no evidence for 87 octane being used in combat for June either however I have worked n the roll out of IT systems across scores of establishments for HMG and inevitably there is at least one site where the there is a delay for one reason or another. So I was leaving June free in case of such a delay, no more no less. Its what Programme Managers call Contingency

Which leaves the small matter outstanding such as, to what extent do you believe 100 Octane was used by the RAF in the BOB from Feb to Aug 1940

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

However there is no evidence that 87 octane was used for combat missions after the switchover during the BOB from July onwards.

There is no evidence for 87 octane being used in combat for June either

And how on Earth is this proof to complete changeover to 100 octane, which is what you claim?

The vast majority of those who have participated in these discussions readily understand that the evidence is insufficient to make categorical conclusions about the sole use of this or that fuel. You simply tend to jump one logical step.

Which leaves the small matter outstanding such as, to what extent do you believe 100 Octane was used by the RAF in the BOB from Feb to Aug 1940

My position was made clear 14 months ago on the matter in the thread you have participated, despite this you continuously claim that my position is unclear.

Since you have refuse to spend the time (apprx. 1 minute search) required to understand my position I make it clear to you again. You can read it again on this page:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=20110&page=5

Note that the current level of evidence shows 8 out of 19 Sector Airfields and 9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields using 100 octane fuel. Also note that many of these stations only show sign of 100 octane use in August or later and not before.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Note that the current level of evidence shows 8 out of 19 Sector Airfields and 9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields using 100 octane fuel. Also note that many of these stations only show sign of 100 octane use in August or later and not before.

Are you serious?

[bongodriver]

Guys......we need to give up on Crumpp and Kurfurst....let them have their fantasy, only the devs need to be aware of the obvious truth or else COD is just going to be a complete 'what if' for the LW fantasists.

[Kwiatek]

I am full of admiration for those who have the strength and desire to keep sterile discussions with such people

[Kurfürst]

It seems you are applying for membership in ROLC, Kwiatek.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

It seems you are applying for membership in ROLC, Kwiatek.

Well i think i have not such skill and time for these

Maby beacuse over these i definitly prefer to do these:



or these

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

And how on Earth is this proof to complete changeover to 100 octane, which is what you claim?.

You have seen it, we disagree on it but you have seen it.

.

My position was made clear 14 months ago on the matter in the thread you have participated, despite this you continuously claim that my position is unclear.

Since you have refuse to spend the time (apprx. 1 minute search) required to understand my position I make it clear to you again. You can read it again on this page:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=20110&page=5

Note that the current level of evidence shows 8 out of 19 Sector Airfields and 9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields using 100 octane fuel. Also note that many of these stations only show sign of 100 octane use in August or later and not before.

Many thanks, that wasn't too painful was it