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

[CWMV]

But really, where are your facts?

I have to say they have done a great job of presenting a lot of evidence, circumstantial though much of it may be, in support of their case.

For me the final straw was the pilots themselves writing about using 12lbs and "pulling the tit."
I highly doubt that these men are liars, though most of veterans are prone to exaggeration.

With the lack of definitive evidence, such as a list of which units used how much of what type of fuel each week in the BoB, I think it is fair to say that these aircraft should be modeled for 12lbs given the circumstantial evidence here and the pilots accounts.
Hell we even had one in IL2 for Pete's sake!

EDIT: Come on! Your really reaching with that last post! Lol!
Ive seen people court marshaled/UCMJ'd, and violation of a tech manual was never one of the serious charges. Ancillary at best.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Estabilishment is not strength, it is only what is presently authorized or projected.

You are confusing a projection with what is one hand.

Prove it with documentary evidence; show us ignoramus' that this meant that there was no 100 octane fuel in France in May 1940.

- in fact provide documentation that proves anything you say:

Provide documentation that the RAF used hardly any 100 Octane fuel throughout 1940.

Provide documentation proving that 56,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel consumed between July and October 1940 was not "consumed" but was in fact put back into reserves without being consumed.

Provide documentation that the RAF authorised 16 squadrons only to use 100 octane fuel and provide documentation to prove when this happened, apart from using a pre-war planning paper as a crutch for your lame theories.

Provide documentation showing how the RAF ensured that only individual aircraft within squadrons were allowed to use 100 Octane fuel, and provide documentation showing how this was done.

Provide documentation showing that the RAF did not use 100 Octane fuel during the Battle of France.

Provide documentation showing that the RAF used 87 Octane fuel for its frontline Merlin engined fighters during the Battle of Britain.

Provide documentation that the RAF stuck to its pre-war target of reserves of 800,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel no matter what.

Provide documentation proving that it took 2 1/2 years from the start of WW2 for the Rolls-Royce Merlin II & III series to be approved and modified for 100 Octane and +12 lbs boost.

Provide documentation proving that Rolls-Royce had not already modified and tested Merlin engines to use 100 Octane fuel between 1938 and 1939.

Provide documentation that historians such as A A Rubbra, who helped design the Merlin and Alec Harvey-Bailey who had access to Rolls-Royce records were wrong when they wrote that the Merlin II and III were using 100 octane fuel in early 1940. I presume you categorise them as enthusiastic amateurs?

Because you know that you're right and everybody else is wrong you should have all of the evidence you need at hand and ready to post asap.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Estabilishment is not strength, it is only what is presently authorized or projected.

You are confusing a projection with what is one hand.

Wrong
A present establishment of X is what you currently have.
An Authorised establishment of X, is what you theoretically should have or are authorised to have.

[Al Schlageter]

Well I am glad to see you guys are finally coming around to seeing Eugene's 'song and dance' routine (get 'busted' on a subject and change the subject).

He will NEVER admit he is wrong.

As for him being a Green Beret (ie SF), they need pencil pushers as well.

[CWMV]

Well lane, you win.
I didn't think much of it, considering the partisan nature of the debate.
Your post though seems definitive.
Good job. Heres hoping its implemented.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Well lane, you win.
I didn't think much of it, considering the partisan nature of the debate.
Your post though seems definitive.
Good job. Heres hoping its implemented.

The "partisan nature of the debate" comes entirely from the fact that people such as lane and Glider have gone to considerable time, effort and expense to provide evidence that the RAF used 100 octane fuel for its frontline fighters throughout the Battle of Britain, while the naysayers, chiefly Kurfurst and Crumpp, have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever for their argument that the RAF used the fuel for a small, select portion.

In the meantime Crumpp in particular has driven the thread with lots of bluster and smokescreens while evading evidence and awkward direct questions asking him to provide documentation to prove his "case" - whatever the hell it is, because his story keeps changing - or disprove the case for 100 octane.