Understood; this thread should have ended long ago, but there are some who are so obsessed with disregarding all of the evidence presented by people like Glider and lane who at the very lest have gone to the time, trouble and considerable expense of trawling through the NA and finding and using genuine late '30s early '40s documentation to back up their statements.
Kurfurst (who says he has very little interest in the RAF)'s "evidence" that the RAF used 100 octane fuel in a small minority of its frontline fighters is based on:
* a set of papers that he has not seen or read for himself; these were "summarised" in a posting in a discussion on another forum several years ago, during which the person ("Pips" who is a sometime member of this forum) who introduced these papers admitted that they were probably deceptive.
* an extremely legalistic interpretation of a single, pre-war RAF planning paper, which was transcribed from a meeting held in May 1939, and repeated by Morgan and Shacklady.
Otherwise noting, nada - zip - Kurfurst also repeatedly claims that he does not have to present any evidence to support his claims - yeah right.
Meantime Crumpp has been very busy brewing up their his cockeyed theories and a whole lot of speculative nonsense based on modern FAA regulations or whatever else he can think up.
Too right it's about time this thread come to a natural end.
|