Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

The double standard you have. Minimal, actually next to nothing, when it concerns your beloved Bf109 of nazi Germany and evidence to the nth degree when it comes to anything to do with the British.

I really don't understand the desperate need to deny that most, and probably all, fighter command aircraft were using 100 octane fuel during the BoB. There is more than enough evidence to show that the change to 100 had been authorised well before the BoB, there were more than enough stockpiles, the conversion process was simple enough by RAF servicing standards of the time and it was in widespread use from combat and Squadron reports.

It would have been ridiculous for the RAF, with all the stocks available, to have only transferred some units to 100. Why would they do that when they were at war and expecting invasion? The only delaying mechanism would have been the mechanical modification of engines which was simple enough and carried out during servicing. New engines were delivered already converted. It would have been more ridiculous to suggest it wasn't available to the units facing most of the fighting and not very sensible, with the rotation of Squadrons with their aircraft, not to organise the support of 100 octane for those aircraft while on rotation.

I suspect that some people either want to unhistorically 'castrate' the RAF as someone suggested or they are just Trolling.

Regarding Blackdog's ideas for missions, I have no problem with representing fuel shortages following bombing of production plants etc but that is a seperate issue. It never happened to the point that fuel bacame a problem but a 'what if' is fine by me, that's what missions are built for, it isn't all re-enactment.

Please note that I have not made a statement towards or against the subject of 100 octane fuel. I simply said the style of some posters here kills any meaningful discussion of any type and creates more bad blood. Just to make that absolutely clear.

Yeah easy. Simple. Quick. And all that in the middle of a ragging war when bomber units where painfully in needs of more power for take off as their aircraft were fitted with the absolute essential war-weary equipments they lacked before. And Hurricane units (the most numerous aircraft) were fighting hard the gap btw their mount and the fast flying germans bombers.

It makes no sense Klem. No a single notch of it. It's an illusion for late grown child tht prbably started somehow reading two line in an history books.

I love the Mayas civilization but I am not convincing myself Steve Job and the NASA were their creation

Guess why the 21st century RAF can't introduce a new fighter without so much pain ?

IMHO : You'd better help the devs to fix the Spit FM toward some realism at least. I am sure that they would then be happy (and with some financial interest too) to give you your boosted Merlin on Spitfire

Klem- i've just gone through that forum thread you posted the link to http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html
I'd say that nails it- credit must go to MikeWilliams and Glider for their research efforts- the weight of evidence clearly affirms the fact that 100 octane fuel was widely used by RAF fighter command since early summer 1940.

As for the tone on that forum- it's a marked contrast to the personal insults that get thrown around here.

+1 couldn't agree more. Hats off to the guys researching and posting links to their sources.

Unfortunately I do not show any double standards, and have never claimed anything in excess of the available evidence seen here in detail http://www.kurfurst.org/, which you seem to consider minimal and next to nothing, even though 360 000 pageloads tends to disagree with your assessment.

You seem to be desperate to give some meaning to your life by randombly kidnapping threads will all sorts of your unrelated and incoherent hysterics like 1,98ata on late 109s, a question that I am afraid has been decisively set straight long ago.

Well its rather simple, I would have believed even with a blindfold one would easily get it. The standard fuel in the RAF was 87 octane, and from around March 1940 we have a British document saying that 100 octane fuel replaced it in select fighter stations. No, it doesn't say all, it specifically says: "the fighter stations concerned".

That seems crystal clear I am afraid.

And, despite literally years spent desperately by some to find something to the contrary, there's an utter inability to produce a primary source even hinting universal use; Spitfire manuals from the summer of 1940 still continue to mention both 87 and 100 octane ratings, the fuel consumption figures of the RAF clearly show that 2/3s of the avgas consumption was 87 octane, research in Australia found a paper that clearly noted RAF FC had not managed to fully convert until November 1940; the utmost Spitfire authorites has noted the fears of 100 octane supply due to tanker losses and the U-boot threats.

Most of us find it difficult to ignore all of that, unlike you. And just because you continue to use loud rhetorics in otherwise hollow and childish posts, its not gonna change.

Which part of 87 octane being the standard fuel in the RAF FC prior the spring of 1940 and that afterwards select fighter stations were receiving 100 octane fuel were you unable to decode?

I don't take orders from you I am afraid. ;)

I'll stick to the written sources of the time rather than the wishful thinking of todays gamers.

You do the ground crews and engineering personnel a great dis-service when you suggest they couldn't manage it 'in the middle of a ragging war'. Perhaps you are judging them by more casual peacetime standards.

If you can't make even a notch of sense from the reports you have been shown I can only assume you are suffering from the same wishful thinking that dogged Hermann Goering.

Like some other anti-100 posters you choose not to believe the evidence of the time that is presented. I can't change that and I'm not going to bother trying any more.

btw, if your 'late grown child' was a reference to me you couldn't be more wrong.