Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-09-2012, 09:25 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seadog View Post
I challenge anyone to produce any source stating that any BofB Hurricane or Spitfire flew even a single combat sortie with 87 octane fuel.
Yaaaawn.

After years of trying to dig up everything in the archieve and still not a single paper saying that 100 octane replaced existing 87 octane in all Squadrons/Stations has been found. Not one paper. I'd say it's a sign. We had the same drama about 150 grade fuel years ago.

There's not one paper noting anything the like, and the people who were desperate to find some are extremely careful to only show snippets of the relevant papers. Some has even went as far manipulating the evidence. Time and time again they have been asked to share the fiels publicly, but they refuse, and keep posting the same papers that says selected units have been supplied, and nothing more.

Then it usually takes a bizarre turn, and since they can't prove what they want to be true, and getting frustrated, given the complete absence of supporting evidence, suddenly everyone else has to prove they are wrong.

It always reminds me of this classic scene.

__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-09-2012, 11:50 PM
Seadog Seadog is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
Yaaaawn.

After years of trying to dig up everything in the archieve and still not a single paper saying that 100 octane replaced existing 87 octane in all Squadrons/Stations has been found.
I am not asking for evidence that 100 octane replaced 87 octane in all front line fighter squadrons, instead, all I am asking is for evidence that even a single combat sortie was ever made by RAF FC Spitfires or Hurricanes using 87 octane during the BofB.

Abundant evidence exists for hundred octane fuel use by RAF FC, during operational sorties, but none has ever been produced showing 87 octane use by a single front line BofB RAF FC Spitfire or Hurricane sortie.

Kurfurst, it is time for you to put up or shut up.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-10-2012, 12:01 AM
CaptainDoggles's Avatar
CaptainDoggles CaptainDoggles is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,198
Default

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-10-2012, 11:58 AM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seadog View Post
I am not asking for evidence that 100 octane replaced 87 octane in all front line fighter squadrons, instead, all I am asking is for evidence that even a single combat sortie was ever made by RAF FC Spitfires or Hurricanes using 87 octane during the BofB.
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.

Quote:
Abundant evidence exists for hundred octane fuel use by RAF FC, during operational sorties, but none has ever been produced showing 87 octane use by a single front line BofB RAF FC Spitfire or Hurricane sortie.
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?

Quote:
Kurfurst, it is time for you to put up or shut up.
I don't take orders from you I am afraid.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org

Last edited by Kurfürst; 01-10-2012 at 12:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-10-2012, 05:01 PM
Seadog Seadog is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
Well its rather simple...
So you admit you can't produce evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB RAF FC Hurricane and Spitfire using 87 octane.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-10-2012, 05:08 PM
robtek's Avatar
robtek robtek is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seadog View Post
So you admit you can't produce evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB RAF FC Hurricane and Spitfire using 87 octane.
Same as you can't PROVE that there wasn't one.
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-10-2012, 05:31 PM
Seadog Seadog is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robtek View Post
Same as you can't PROVE that there wasn't one.

Then why is there abundant evidence showing widespread use of 100 octane, and literally dozens of memoirs and histories showing the use of 100 octane, and many individual combat reports showing the use of 100 octane? Why are there no memoirs or squadron level or individual combat reports stating the use of 87 octane fuel?

I can't prove something that didn't happen, and there is NO evidence showing 87 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties during the BofB.

There is evidence for widespread 100 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane BofB combat sorties , but no evidence of Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties using 87 octane.

Last edited by Seadog; 01-10-2012 at 05:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-10-2012, 08:41 PM
robtek's Avatar
robtek robtek is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seadog View Post
Then why is there abundant evidence showing widespread use of 100 octane, and literally dozens of memoirs and histories showing the use of 100 octane, and many individual combat reports showing the use of 100 octane? Why are there no memoirs or squadron level or individual combat reports stating the use of 87 octane fuel?

I can't prove something that didn't happen, and there is NO evidence showing 87 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties during the BofB.

There is evidence for widespread 100 octane fuel use during Spitfire or Hurricane BofB combat sorties , but no evidence of Spitfire or Hurricane combat sorties using 87 octane.
There is no black and white!

There is evidence that selected squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is NO evidence that ALL squadrons where supported with 100 oct.

There is a grey zone, or maybe schroeders cat, which isn't, and can't be, defined.

The compromise solution might be that the overwhelming majority did use 100 oct.
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-10-2012, 07:53 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seadog View Post
So you admit you can't produce evidence for even a single combat sortie by a BofB RAF FC Hurricane and Spitfire using 87 octane.
No, I didn't. And as others have pointed out, if you want to prove that RAF fighters ran on nothing but 100 octane, you should bring the evidence for it, not asking me to disprove your unsupported theory.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-10-2012, 08:33 PM
winny winny is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
No, I didn't. And as others have pointed out, if you want to prove that RAF fighters ran on nothing but 100 octane, you should bring the evidence for it, not asking me to disprove your unsupported theory.
if you want to prove that RAF fighters ran on a mix of 87 and 100 octane, you should bring the evidence for it....

Round and round we go..

So can you give me a definite number of 87 octane fighters used by the British between June and November 1940? To prove your theory.

No, you can't. So you're in exactly the same situation as the people you're asking evidence from. Except that you're being hypocritical. your theory is exactly that, a theory.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.