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

[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)?

[Kurfürst]

Pretty much agree on all your points.

Anyway I've always said that both 87 and 100 octane versions would be nice to be implented in the sim. As you noted, having two versions is better for all. It allows for dynamic campaigns, it does not restrict the hands of mission designers or server hosts to decide what versions of planes they want to have in. It allows OPTIONs.

The only loosers are the small group who wants to set their version of history to all in stone, and having only the bestest planes to fly for one side. And its a miniscule group compared to the entire group.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Petrol rationing in Australia during the Second World War

[TomcatViP]

Well at least, what we hve shown lately with our research in th Au archives is that :

- there was 100 oct fuel ordered and delivered
- This fuel was used ONLY to be blended with old stock of 74 octane fuel to create adequate 87, 90 or 95 octane fuel
- The stoichiometry of the blend is defined in the archive
- To be blended adequately, some specified additives where requested and delivered by the oil companies
- There was no plane in Australian air force that needed a single drop of pure 100 octane fuel as of feb 1941

What we also learned is that the cost of 100oct fuel was stated after some negotiations at 18 cents a gallon

my 1/9th gallon (of 100octane of course)

[Osprey]

@Kurfurst. I believe you could learn from the "Russells Teapot" argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I'm not interested in the flaky Australian argument anymore since it appears far too unconvincing and more importantly, irrelevant. It matters not even if, as you suggest, that the UK wouldn't give the Australians any 100 octane because they were short. That is not evidence that the RAF didn't have enough to use themselves.

We can use simple logic to decide the truth here. I ask you, do you deny any of these 4 points listed?

1. That the RAF used fuel.
2. Every flight recorded a combat report (provided the pilot returned).
3. That the fuel type or boost to indicate the type was frequently mentioned in combat reports throughout the BoB.
4. That 87 is never ever mentioned and 100 was in every case.

Therefore the entire RAF MUST have used 100 in in combat and no other type. It really is that straightforward. What I do not find straightforward are your reasons for objection. Please, what are they?

[NZtyphoon]

From KF in another post: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...rst#post378110

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.

"...I have only seen a summary on a board..." Kf has not actually seen the original, but it is guaranteed to be 100 percent accurate.

'Nuff said.

[Kurfürst]

Credibility can add tons to the weight of a man's words.

I have no reason not to trust Pips account. He had no take or special interest in the matter, just shared his research's result.

On a different note, may I ask why you keep changing your login handles?

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Osprey

@Kurfurst. I believe you could learn from the "Russells Teapot" argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I'm not interested in the flaky Australian argument anymore since it appears far too unconvincing and more importantly, irrelevant. It matters not even if, as you suggest, that the UK wouldn't give the Australians any 100 octane because they were short. That is not evidence that the RAF didn't have enough to use themselves.

We can use simple logic to decide the truth here. I ask you, do you deny any of these 4 points listed?

1. That the RAF used fuel.
2. Every flight recorded a combat report (provided the pilot returned).
3. That the fuel type or boost to indicate the type was frequently mentioned in combat reports throughout the BoB.
4. That 87 is never ever mentioned and 100 was in every case.

Therefore the entire RAF MUST have used 100 in in combat and no other type. It really is that straightforward. What I do not find straightforward are your reasons for objection. Please, what are they?

Like i said, i want both versions in the sim but ok, i'll bite and play devil's advocate here just for the sake of showing you guys what i get from the whole discussing here. Lets go ahead and take each numbered point one by one, shall we?

1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Correct, the operative word being "frequently". Which could mean it was a differing practice (to be mentioned in the first place) but widespread enough (to be mentioned frequently).
4. Correct. Which could mean 87 wasn't mentioned because it was the default, while 100 was mentioned because for one it was the exception to the rule and secondly, extra boost warranted extra inspections by the mechanics.

I'm not arguing either case, this is just an example to show everyone here how flaky the whole thing appears to an outside observer, no matter which side of the argument one tends to support.

I just think no side has provided any undisputed facts: i see a lot of credible sources in this thread but far too often a lot of them are conflicting, with no real means to discern which i should "believe more". I'm not convinced either way and that's why (as well as the dynamic campaign considerations) i advocate the presence of both types for all aircraft that use higher grade fuel during the BoB.

I remember seeing similar evidence about half the 110 units being also equipped with better fuel and higher rated engines. I want to have both versions, no matter if its a Spit or Hurri or 110. Forgive me when i say that i doubt some of the most invested posters in this thread would do the same, as i have a suspicion that many who support 100 octane Spits would denounce DB601N-equipped 110s and vice versa.

Let's have options is all i'm saying

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Forgive me when i say that i doubt some of the most invested posters in this thread would do the same, as i have a suspicion that many who support 100 octane Spits would denounce DB601N-equipped 110s and vice versa.

So absolutely wrong.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Forgive me when i say that i doubt some of the most invested posters in this thread would do the same, as i have a suspicion that many who support 100 octane Spits would denounce DB601N-equipped 110s and vice versa.

Most certainly not. If it was there then I want it. I think I speak for all RAF types when I say that they want accuracy and let the chips fall where they may. I fly Hurricanes, I am already expecting the 109 to have a big advantage on me, but I shall fight on because I want it how it was.