![]() |
#851
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
So just to sum up the outstanding questions which are outstanding with you 1) Have you any evidence to support the 16 squadron idea 2) If you believe that it was a rotational issue so only 16 squadrons were using 100 octane at any one time, is there anything to support your theory 3) I am not that interested in your OOB as I posted one from the official archives which clearly showed more than 16 squadrons in the front line 10, 11, 12 Group at any one time. I am confident that if your supported your views then you would have posted them in double quick time So I must repeat you may have your belief but you do not have any facts, none at all. I believe the following to be the source that you are using, if you have more than that then please let us know because they are not in this thread:- Last edited by Glider; 04-02-2012 at 09:50 PM. |
#852
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I see Eugene is doing his usual song and dance routine evading answering direct questions.
He knows he is wrong about only 16 squadrons but as he is never wrong, he won't admit he is wrong. If he was so sure of only 16 squadrons, then why hasn't he given their numbers. Which 16 squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were using 100 fuel in September Eugene? Which squadrons (Spitfires and Hurricanes) were still using 87 fuel in September Eugene? We won't get an answer, as like Barbi, he expects others to do his research and then won't believe the research of others when presented. |
#853
|
||||
|
||||
![]() ![]() ![]() I have them for every few weeks over the course of the entire battle. The facts are the RAF maintained a rather vigorous rotation schedule. Last edited by Crumpp; 04-02-2012 at 11:07 PM. |
#854
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#855
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nope, you just ignore the stuff you have no answers for, because you have no evidence to back up your fervent beliefs, just like your pal Barbi. So, you want to ignore people who have legitimate questions you won't answer? You're on my ignore list, because you just ain't worth bothering with.
![]() Last edited by NZtyphoon; 04-02-2012 at 11:59 PM. |
#856
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#857
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That is the core of the issue and one that would bury this rotation theory.
Its interesting as we know from papers that Drem had 100 octane and that Drem is a satallite station of Turnhouse which means that Turnhouse had 100 octane. Take that a stage further, it means that on the 30 Sept Drem in Scotland had 3 squadrons and 2 flights using 100 Octane i.e. a fifth of the RAF supply of 100 Octane was in Scotland Last edited by Glider; 04-03-2012 at 06:32 AM. |
#858
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
41 Squadron definitely had 100 octane fuel while operating from Catterick in 19 June 1940, 11 August and 15 August. They also had 100 octane fuel while operating from Hornchurch and satellite Manston at the dates between.
In June they frequently operated from satellite station Hartlepool. |
#859
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ![]() ![]() |
#860
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The point is: If a squadron used 100 octane fuel in 11 Group and also in 13 Group this mean a) either 100 octane fuel was used in 11 and 13 Group b) or the fuel was transferred together with the squadron (which is of course very unlikely) Case a) and the reported use 100 octane fuel in at least 30 squadrons proofs that the "16 squadron" limit was not effective. Quote:
It's a gaming convention to use the real-life limitation as a trigger for engine damage, this has nothing to do with the negative effects in real-life. Quote:
Quote:
It may not add s-foil servomotors, lasers and a droid but at least it installs a warp drive, photon torpedoes and a Vulcan science officer ![]() |
![]() |
|
|