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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

Every single point you made can be levelled at you. X10

Which is why I called his previous posting, a reflective posting.

[Al Schlageter]

Barbi goes on these berserker rants when he gets pwnd.

Eugene disappears from a thread to escape admitting he is wrong.

[Kurfürst]

Well its always refreshing to hear some mature arguments gentlemen. Please do carry on.

Dear Condor,

I will look into the papers you have provided, though in my opinion not much new is surfacing in the thread, some people just like to repeat themselves. As others have correctly observed, this thread long took a demented course ever since some people graced us with their enduring presence. Most of us, and I dare to say correctly, already drawn the conclusion that the amount of Stations/Squadrons operating on 100 octane fuel cannot be ascertained - although its well known and undoubted for 70 years that it was used - we lack sufficient evidence to form an educated opinion about its extent.

[28_Condor]

Well, since Wikipedia is not reliable ...

I searched on google scholar and found dozens of pages just the same opinion: the RAF used 100 octane at the beginning of the Battle of Britain.

Scientific knowledge is built upon scientific consensus.

Please, someone show me a literature review that contradicts the dogma of the 100 octane in the RAF ...

Here are some of the references that I gathered in google academic (only those with full text or intelligible):

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...0808battle.pdf

http://portal.acs.org/preview/appman...rl_var=region1

http://books.google.com.br/books?hl=...ritain&f=false

http://web.mit.edu/~bmich/Public/16....A-6946-976.pdf

http://212.24.128.164/data/veda-a-vy...ry.pdf#page=77

This issue impacts the credibility of CLOD as a simulator and should be treated based on more extensive research.