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

[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?

[Osprey]

Your first sentence makes no sense to me. But, may I ask why you avoid answering questions which destroy your argument? If you cannot answer without resorting to character assassination then you are defeated.

[klem]

What the hell do Australian Fuel Supplies in 1940 have to do with the Battle of Britain?

Are we seriously to believe that the British Government's reluctance to assist in the supply of 100 octane fuel to Australia, at a time when there was no war in the Australian region, was an indication that they didn't have enough for the RAF in Europe where there was a war raging? "Here you go Australia, we actually need it more than you do at the moment because we're trying to survive but we're nice guys so we'll take a chance ..."

The British 100 octane fuel position in 1940 is explained in many documents, links etc already posted. And if there was any doubt about sufficient supplies for the entire RAF does anyone seriously imagine that the key front line defence units (fighter squadrons) would have had to make do with anything less than the best that was available?

Oh, wait. We've already had that discussion.

I don't care if 87 octane aircraft are modelled as long as 100 octane types are too. Both fuels were available during the BoB. Beyond that, take it up with the mission builders.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Where is your evidence that this material actually exists? You have not viewed the material itself - Your words, not mine.

You are quoting material from another forum the thread of which which - conveniently - is no longer accessible: http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...0&st=0&start=0

So either ask Pips - who you can easily connect, I gave you his contact

(http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=20110&page=28)

So, you do have a contact for Mr Pip but cannot provide the material you so strenuously defend?

Have you actually searched for the papers yourself? You keep telling others to do so, but have not bothered to do some basic research of your own?

If you are so right about them, I would have thought you would have long ago jumped at the chance to present them and prove everyone else wrong - you know, embarrass the naysayers. Why haven't you?

It's easy enough to start a search, just go onto http://www.awm.gov.au/database/ go down to "Official Records" which puts you onto http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/using/search/ - The AWM and NAA use the same search engine. Type in the title, or keywords if you don't have the official archive numbers...

Alternatively you can go onto this page http://www.awm.gov.au/contact/ and directly ask a question http://awm.altarama.com/reft100.aspx?key=research

Its easy - no long trips to Australia needed, and anyone here can do it.

[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