[Osprey]

Klem, he's seen all of that but he just isn't interested. Tom's post is interesting, I will have to read more on the top speeds since I am quite surprised that the 109E-1 is marked @ 302mph vs the Spitfire 283mph. I know it's @SL but that is rather a lot.

I'll answer all in one post if you can stomach it

Originally Posted by csThor

...I think it is a bit far fetched to say that the RAF types are modeled the way they are because of the lobbying of a few loud people. That gives them much more influence than they really have. But ...
It's one thing to vehemently defend the evidence or documents which point to the RAF using 100 octane fuel for its fighter squadrons (which I, as a LW-centered player with an avid interest in military history agree with). But I have also seen several discussions being more or less successfully derailed by the same outspoken RAF fans once the subject of german performance, and especially the question of the DB 601N equipped types, was mentioned. People may have their personal interests, that's fine and normal, but it must absolutely not lead to them wearing blinders and red/blue-tinted glasses which doesn't allow them to be impartial anymore. Being a fan is one thing, being a fanatic is another.

I oppose all types who argue this. I don't get involved in the DB601 argument because I don't know anything about it. Show this evidence and I'm sure you'd get support from the likes of Klem, Al Sch... etc and myself here.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Yes the very same I was referring to, although the full story goes that I have referred Glider to the findings of an Australian guy going under the handle Pips who posted the summary of this paper several years ago on butch's board. BTW Neil Stirling was also participating, but he keeps dead silent about this paper on his site propagating 100 octane use.

Now, despite being perfectly aware that he needs to contact this Australian guy, Glider kept b!tching to me about producing the paper, of which I have only seen a summary on a board. I kept telling him to contact Pips and ask him.

Instead, Glider kept asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

Then I gave Glider the URL to the discussion where this was posted. At first he claimed "he could not find the alleged discussion", then went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

After a while Glider gave up this tactic of dismissing the paper, and claimed he contacted the Australian archieves, but the Archive said they've never heard about it, and again went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australia to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.



Lastly, Glider reproduced the email reply of the Australian archive staff, who in reality replied to Glider's vaguely worded email (somewhere along the lines 'gimme the paper of 100 octane') that given such inaduquate reference that he gave, its not possible to find it and he should supply accurate and precise reference so they would try to dig it up.

You may have already guess that after that Glider went back asking me, living 10 000 miles from Australi, having seen but a summary of the paper on a discussion board and giving him all details I've known about, a to produce the paper found by an Australian, in Australia.

At that point I believe it's understandable that I came to the conclusion that, for entirely subjective reasons, it may not be possible to have a fruitful and rational discussion on the matter with Glider.

Then you came into the picture and told your (half-)story, and so I've told mine, and now people can make up their minds about you, Glider, and the concept of credibility.

Just to understand you then. You are dismissing a multitude of documents which have been produced in various forms from the time in favour of a single one which you cannot produce on the basis that the person who didn't believe it but tried to get it, couldn't, and neither could you?
Seriously Kurfurst, do you not see the gaping hole in your argument? I'm not kidding when I say this but continuing with logic like this generally ends up with the propagator being called a lunatic. Is it just really because you are unable to accept that you are wrong or is there some other reason? You can't use the same protocol which courts of law use, there is no innocent until proven guilty, it's perfectly acceptable to use circumstancial evidence if there is enough of it.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Hmm, Spitfires being undermodelled. Interesting.

Klem, may I ask you to try something.

Pick a Spitfire II.
Bank it 90 degrees.
Pull back the stick fully forward.

Come back here and share your observations about it.

What exactly will this prove? That the Spitfire out-turns the 109? It does.



I'm presently reading "A Willingness to Die" by Brian Kingcome, his memoirs. He was a frontline BoB Spitfire pilot for 92 Squadron @ Hornchurch. Last night I read, on page 123, chapter 5, "The Phoney War and The Real Thing" he writes "slowly we reverted almost to a peacetime routine, time of year and sunset permitting, we usually ended our day with a beer or so in the mess before setting out on a pub crawl, pooling our petrol coupons or occasionally filching the odd gallon of 100 octane aviation fuel from the bowsers at dispersal.". This was during the phoney war, BEFORE the German invasion of France.