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

[Osprey]

Firstly, I want to thank Glider, NZTyphoon, Banks and Lane for coming in here to lance this historical boil. I have no problem with Kurfurst having an opinion but what alarms me is when it may affect other's opinions on history due to his agenda driven bias. It's all very well being on this forum but it actually disgusts me that this man sees fit to edit Wikipedia with his theories which are at odds with the painstakingly researched work of proper historians who seek the real answers, agenda free. I found it annoying enough that he wishes to pad his online stats by trying to negatively influence the flight model of his online enemy, that affects the hobby I enjoy enough - but to deliberately doctor popular information websites to suit his agenda is a disgrace.

@Tomcat, regarding your fighter question. The RAAF didn't operate in the Battle of Britain, only some Australian pilots did along with Kiwi pilots such as Al Deere. They made their own way to the UK and joined the RAF flying the same aircraft in British squadrons. The point being made here though is nothing to do with what the RAAF used, but the fact that the Australian government did not deal with the UK government in order to obtain their fuel and that this is contrary to Kurfursts long standing opinion which he will not move from and tells everybody that he can that it's the truth.

What you are seeing from Kurfurst is very bad science who clearly has an agenda which is contrary to finding out the truth. He can draw you as many graphs as he likes but the bottom line is that he's having strong evidence shoved in front of him and is still arguing about it. Did you know that 99% of people in prison are not guilty? It's the same mentality.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

+1

[NZtyphoon]

Okay, for Tomcat's convenience, let's break it down.

1)Since about 2004, Kurfurst has held up the "Pips" memo as being an exemplar of accurate information regarding the supply of 100 Octane fuel to the RAF.

2) Whenever asked to show the original document, or at least provide solid evidence that it exists, on this and in other forums, KF has fobbed people off, and told them to find the document themselves, or contact Pip and ask him, or travel to Australia, often with insults and sneers.

3) When people like Glider have contacted the Australian War Memorial Archives to find the document, and have been told it cannot be found, KF has almost invariably resorted to calling the inquirer a liar.

Enough of history:

(KF #400, p. 40) So disprove the statement of Pips. Since you like to misrepresent other's position, I put it forward to you in its originality:

This is from a researcher, researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives, from a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance. It was a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report titled Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War.

The reason why it is included amongst AWM papers is because the Australian Government at that time was protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

1) The reason for the "Pips" memo supposedly being in the AWM Archives is because it was copied to "the Australian Military Commission". No such Commission existed. On that basis alone, this Pips memo is a fabrication.

2) Beaverbrook apparently used the memo, supposedly from Rolls-Royce, to explain to the "Australian Military Commission" the reasons why Australia was still being supplied with 87 Octane fuel, rather than the 100 Octane it wanted: "The Australian Government was protesting vigoriously..."

3) At no time was the Australian Government accountable to the British regarding supplies of aviation fuel of any grade. The Australian Government got its fuel supplies directly from the oil companies, after negotiating directly with the oil companies. Beaverbrook had absolutely no say in the matter, nor could he influence the process in any way. There is an Official Australian War History and, far more importantly, a whole swag of documents discovered by 41Sqn_Banks, which proves this.


4) It doesn't matter what grades of fuel were being requested by the Australians - fact was they were getting all that was needed, and their requirements changed according to the types of engines being mooted for the Catalinas, Hudsons and other types ordered from the Americans.

Nuff said? It is pathetic that KF who has a deal of intelligence (?), has wasted so much of other people's time and energy on such a sham. If you want to continue to defend KF, be my guest.

[Al Schlageter]

Well said Osprey and NZtyphoon.

[Bounder!]

Simply put, as I understand it from reading the various threads on this forum plus the threads on ww2aircraft.net linked by Klem on page 9 of the Spit MK I/II thread, RAF fighter command's Spitfires and Hurricanes flew combat sorties using 100 Octane fuel during the Battle of Britain - there is ample and overwhelming evidence for this backed up by references linked; there has been no evidence provided backed up by a reference for the use of 87 Octane fuel by Spitfires or Hurricanes during BoB. So simply put, in a combat flight sim of BoB, Spitfire and Hurricanes should be modeled using 100 Octane fuel.

[Crumpp]

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.

That is really the best summation of this whole argument.

There is not enough evidence for it to be decided with facts, only on opinion.

Reminds me of the 100/150 grade fiasco.....how many "tons" of that horse pucky was thrown around as proof of widespread adoption in gamer world.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is really the best summation of this whole argument.

There is not enough evidence for it to be decided with facts, only on opinion.

Reminds me of the 100/150 grade fiasco.....how many "tons" of that horse pucky was thrown around as proof of widespread adoption in gamer world.

If you have any evidence that 87 octane was used in combat I would be very interested to see it. Kurfurst whole approach is to never supply any evidence to support his view but to nitpick at any evidence that is offerred the other way, magnify it and blow it up out of proportion.

So it would be nice to see someone prove that 87 octane was used in combat. Hundreds of books and pieces have been written on the battle. Many personal accounts have been published. It would be nice to find one, just one that says 87 octane was used, or even frustration at not having 100 octane available.

I have stated many times that the case for the use of 100 octane is a strong one but not a perfect one. However there is no evidence of any kind that says 87 octane was used in combat.

Instead of shouting from the sidelines it would be nice to see someone who supports the belief that 87 was octane was used in combat, to back up those shouts.

For instance, did Kurfurst ever get capt doggles included onto the thread that was supposed to support his case. If not did he even copy the details of the exchange and make them available to him. Penny to a pound says he didn't.

I have put up with a number of insults from Kurfurst and Captdoggles (who has gone very quiet) but just supplied documents to support my case being honest and admitting the case wasn't perfect. Now its time for Kurfurst and others who believe 87 octane was used to support their belief with something substantial

To put it another way, its time they put up or shut up

[JG52Uther]

Enough with the personal attacks. Discuss, disagree etc, but personal attacks are unacceptable.

[Talisman]

Originally Posted by Bounder!

Simply put, as I understand it from reading the various threads on this forum plus the threads on ww2aircraft.net linked by Klem on page 9 of the Spit MK I/II thread, RAF fighter command's Spitfires and Hurricanes flew combat sorties using 100 Octane fuel during the Battle of Britain - there is ample and overwhelming evidence for this backed up by references linked; there has been no evidence provided backed up by a reference for the use of 87 Octane fuel by Spitfires or Hurricanes during BoB. So simply put, in a combat flight sim of BoB, Spitfire and Hurricanes should be modeled using 100 Octane fuel.

Well said Bounder. Is there anyone out there that would disagree with Bounder?

Bounder, I respectfully suggest that you could be accused of applying intelligent, reasonable logic; however, such thinking is not acceptable to a 100 Octane denier.

The burden of proof in a UK criminal court is “beyond all reasonable doubt”. Given the evidence, I believe that RAF Fighter Command would be found guilty of premeditated and wide spread use of 100 Octane fuel by a jury of 12 good citizens of sound mind. LOL. Moreover, in a civil court, with the burden of proof being “on the balance of probability” the RAF would have been locked up long ago!

Happy landings,

Talisman

[Blackdog_kt]

I can understand a passionate discussion guys, but keep the emotions in check if it starts to get too personal.

I've had reported posts about namecalling and personal attacks in this thread, so i urge everyone to go back 3-4 pages and see if they have any in their posts and then edit them out before the moderating team has to step in and issue infractions.

On the matter at hand, the best way to solve this debate is to model both versions. It's not like they are useless to have: in a dynamic campaign (either offline or online) there will be cases where 100 octane supplies will be low due to enemy action.

For people that want an exact day-to-day recreation of BoB then yes, the most widespread version is the only one they will need.

However, there's a large amount of users who are interested in a dynamic campaign. That definitely needs both versions, because otherwise there's no real incentive to go after the opponent's fuel supply, essentially cutting off a pretty vital part of strategic bombing objectives and throwing it out of the picture.

Better yet, each one can use what they want offline or fly on the servers that use what they prefer when going online, instead of trying to convince each other in the hopes their favorite ride will be better.

I really don't get why we should restrict everyone to a single way of doing things, especially when both fuel types actually existed in the first place.

Like i said, many people want things in the sim to be exactly like they were in the 40s. Many however want the conditions to be the same, but they also want the ability to change the outcomes somewhat. Bomb the enemy's supplies of 100 octane to make their fighters intercept you with more difficulty, so you can then move on to bombing other targets with reduced casualties and so on. It's a whole extra layer of interesting tactical considerations that would be a must for any dynamic mission environment.

Having only 87 oct or 100 oct is not conducive to that. So why should these players be limited in their enjoyment of the product when the first group has nothing to lose by the inclusion of both versions (they can simply choose which version to fly)?