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

[Kurfürst]

Gee Jeff, you really have sooo many more important issues in your life, eh?

I note though that you are very silent about that falsified 'quote' from Payton-Smith you have inserted into that article I mentioned.

I can't be bothered to go into lenghts about your latest rant, but its suffice to say that you have been deeply involved in degrading articles on Wikipedia. You have been especially bent on degrading articles about the Bf 109 and Fw 190, for whatever reason, I guess its some sort of sick way to express your admiration to the Spitfire.

Your "contributions" are largely limited to the passion of deleting and falsifying information in that article. You seem to be hell bent on inserting false climb rates and engine ratings for the 109K, deleting referenced specs for the G-10 , removing references to Mine shells use in the Battle of Britain , repeatedly removing references to German 100 octane production with the pretext that they are 'almost impossible to access' and so on.

Who do you think you are kidding? Its all too obvious from the above edits what your agenda is, and that you have nothing better to do with your life than this petty for of existence. As for the block on wikipedia, I recall you had a buddy there with, let's just say, an interesting psychological profile, who was going after my edits, kept removing them, just like he did get into conflict with every other editor. He was, much like yourself, a student in his early 20s having nothing better to do with his life than to edit wikipedia all day, and getting his daily satisfaction from it. He was blocked repeatedly for his behaviour, and eventually normal interaction with others was just too much to him and he quit. As for me, I was simply blocked by an admin who has a record of going after German editors and seeked an excuse to do so, despite the fact that all my edits were constructive. It doesn't really matter, because I have already brought up all the articles I wanted to sufficiently good level that not much work is needed there.

Anyone who has edited wiki fully knows that it has its share of frustrated nutjobs who lead a miserable life and try to be someone on the internet. They have all the day for scheming and 'wikipolitics', because having the last word there is their life's only satisfaction and purpose. NZTyphoon/Minorhistorian's day are basically spent like this - he amuses himself as some sort of ultimate expert, deciding over the validity other people's contributions, posting ridiculus warnings on their talk page about 'disruptive' edits, stalking them, and reporting them to the administrators if he can't have his way. He pretty much does the same here, as he only registrered to this discussion board to stalk me because of his earlier frustrations he couldn't yet work out for himself, and he goes on for a hundred posts frothing about me and more recently Crumpp just to get a response. I guess its the peak of his day when he finally gets one.

I am sorry to say but I can't be bothered about it.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Anyone who has edited wiki fully knows that it has its share of frustrated nutjobs who lead a miserable life and try to be someone on the internet.

[28_Condor]

Well, since Wikipedia is not reliable ...

I searched on google scholar and found dozens of pages just the same opinion: the RAF used 100 octane at the beginning of the Battle of Britain.

Scientific knowledge is built upon scientific consensus.

Please, someone show me a literature review that contradicts the dogma of the 100 octane in the RAF ...

Here are some of the references that I gathered in google academic (only those with full text or intelligible):

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...0808battle.pdf

http://portal.acs.org/preview/appman...rl_var=region1

http://books.google.com.br/books?hl=...ritain&f=false

http://web.mit.edu/~bmich/Public/16....A-6946-976.pdf

http://212.24.128.164/data/veda-a-vy...ry.pdf#page=77

This issue impacts the credibility of CLOD as a simulator and should be treated based on more extensive research.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Gee Jeff, you really have sooo many more important issues in your life, eh?

I note though that you are very silent about that falsified 'quote' from Payton-Smith you have inserted into that article I mentioned.

I can't be bothered to go into lenghts about your latest rant, but its suffice to say that you have been deeply involved in degrading articles on Wikipedia. You have been especially bent on degrading articles about the Bf 109 and Fw 190, for whatever reason, I guess its some sort of sick way to express your admiration to the Spitfire.

Your "contributions" are largely limited to the passion of deleting and falsifying information in that article. You seem to be hell bent on inserting false climb rates and engine ratings for the 109K, deleting referenced specs for the G-10 , removing references to Mine shells use in the Battle of Britain , repeatedly removing references to German 100 octane production with the pretext that they are 'almost impossible to access' and so on.

Who do you think you are kidding? Its all too obvious from the above edits what your agenda is, and that you have nothing better to do with your life than this petty for of existence. As for the block on wikipedia, I recall you had a buddy there with, let's just say, an interesting psychological profile, who was going after my edits, kept removing them, just like he did get into conflict with every other editor. He was, much like yourself, a student in his early 20s having nothing better to do with his life than to edit wikipedia all day, and getting his daily satisfaction from it. He was blocked repeatedly for his behaviour, and eventually normal interaction with others was just too much to him and he quit. As for me, I was simply blocked by an admin who has a record of going after German editors and seeked an excuse to do so, despite the fact that all my edits were constructive. It doesn't really matter, because I have already brought up all the articles I wanted to sufficiently good level that not much work is needed there.

Anyone who has edited wiki fully knows that it has its share of frustrated nutjobs who lead a miserable life and try to be someone on the internet. They have all the day for scheming and 'wikipolitics', because having the last word there is their life's only satisfaction and purpose. NZTyphoon/Minorhistorian's day are basically spent like this - he amuses himself as some sort of ultimate expert, deciding over the validity other people's contributions, posting ridiculus warnings on their talk page about 'disruptive' edits, stalking them, and reporting them to the administrators if he can't have his way. He pretty much does the same here, as he only registrered to this discussion board to stalk me because of his earlier frustrations he couldn't yet work out for himself, and he goes on for a hundred posts frothing about me and more recently Crumpp just to get a response. I guess its the peak of his day when he finally gets one. I

I am sorry to say but I can't be bothered about it.

Congratulations! I've been on the Internet since '94 and this is the single most hypocritical post I have ever seen.

Every single point you made can be levelled at you. X10

Edit: and the absence of any form of argument other than personal attacks is also noted.
Oh and don't kid yourself - people aren't stalking you, they are stalking the facts

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

Every single point you made can be levelled at you. X10

Which is why I called his previous posting, a reflective posting.

[Al Schlageter]

Barbi goes on these berserker rants when he gets pwnd.

Eugene disappears from a thread to escape admitting he is wrong.

[Kurfürst]

Well its always refreshing to hear some mature arguments gentlemen. Please do carry on.

Dear Condor,

I will look into the papers you have provided, though in my opinion not much new is surfacing in the thread, some people just like to repeat themselves. As others have correctly observed, this thread long took a demented course ever since some people graced us with their enduring presence. Most of us, and I dare to say correctly, already drawn the conclusion that the amount of Stations/Squadrons operating on 100 octane fuel cannot be ascertained - although its well known and undoubted for 70 years that it was used - we lack sufficient evidence to form an educated opinion about its extent.

[Glider]

Well that is a slight change on your position. On another forum you believed that it was a Pips posting ie approx 145 fighters, which was enough for about 7 squadrons with a few in reserve

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Well that is a slight change on your position. On another forum you believed that it was a Pips posting ie approx 145 fighters, which was enough for about 7 squadrons with a few in reserve

I fear that you have not yet quite understood my position.

Pips noted that in May 1940 the British decided to stop the roll out of 100 octane and limit it to apprx. 25% of the force.

We of course know from the papers in AVIA 282 that in May 1940 the British indeed noted that they have supplied 100 octane to select fighter stations and a number of bomber stations.

Pips also noted that later when the supply situation eased they decided to continue with the changeover. Pips noted that the changeover was completed by the late autumn.

We also know from the same AVIA papers that it was not until early August 1940 the British finally decided to authorize 100 octane use for all operational aircraft. Of course it was just that, an authorization. The actual steps took some time.

From the fuel consumption and issue papers we know that 87 octane was the primary fuel, and 100 octane issues only increased towards late September 1940.

[28_Condor]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Dear Condor,

I will look into the papers you have provided, though in my opinion not much new is surfacing in the thread, some people just like to repeat themselves. As others have correctly observed, this thread long took a demented course ever since some people graced us with their enduring presence. Most of us, and I dare to say correctly, already drawn the conclusion that the amount of Stations/Squadrons operating on 100 octane fuel cannot be ascertained - although its well known and undoubted for 70 years that it was used - we lack sufficient evidence to form an educated opinion about its extent.

Unfortunately I did not have access to the stuff paid for, but these seem more clearly explained the use of 100-octane:

The paper covers over fifty years of aviation gasoline development, beginning with a description of the Wright brothers’ 12 horsepower engine and their use of below 40 octane gasoline. Early investigations of the detonation phenomenon are described and the means developed to suppress knock by improving fuel quality. Why the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine of the RAF Spitfire was found to require a special 100 octane fuel for the Battle of Britain is explained.

But even "the amount of Stations/Squadrons operating on 100 octane fuel cannot be ascertained" the amount of fuel existed:

The most dramatic benefit of the earliest Houdry units was in the production of 100-octane aviation gasoline, just before the outbreak of World War II. The Houdry plants provided a better gasoline for blending with scarce high-octane components, as well as by-products that could be converted by other processes to make more high-octane fractions. The increased performance meant that Allied planes were better than Axis planes by a factor of 15 percent to 30 percent in engine power for take-off and climbing; 25 percent in payload; 10 percent in maximum speed; and 12 percent in operational altitude. In the first six months of 1940, at the time of the Battle of Britain, 1.1 million barrels per month of 100-octane aviation gasoline was shipped to the Allies. Houdry plants produced 90 percent of this catalytically cracked gasoline during the first two years of the war.

If that amount was really enough there is no reason to suppose that the british would not use it in yours fighters.