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

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Just one 87 octane sortie...and you can't provide evidence for even that. How pathetic..

Since it has been stated that there was a shortage of 100 fuel, I would like to see some references to a/c staying on the ground due to this shortage, like what happened in Germany late war.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Since it has been stated that there was a shortage of 100 fuel, I would like to see some references to a/c staying on the ground due to this shortage, like what happened in Germany late war.

Personally I would like to see any evidence of :-
a) a shortage of fuel
b) of 16 squadrons
c) of which squadrons or bases
d) why this isn't mentioned in any official document, book, history
e) of the process in delivering the fuel
f) when the rest of FC were transfered to 100 octane

in fact anything Crumpp and Kururst claim

[Crumpp]

Glider,

Why don't you state exactly what it is in your mind that you think I am claiming, first?

This is what I have said and is backed up by the facts:

In July of 1940, 100 Octane fuel was not the standard fuel of Fighter Command.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider,

Why don't you state exactly what it is in your mind that you think I am claiming, first?

This is what I have said and is backed up by the facts:

In July of 1940, 100 Octane fuel was not the standard fuel of Fighter Command.

What facts would those be?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider,

Why don't you state exactly what it is in your mind that you think I am claiming, first?

This is what I have said and is backed up by the facts:

In July of 1940, 100 Octane fuel was not the standard fuel of Fighter Command.

Do you really need someone to explain to you what you have been claiming for several pages? Your story keeps changing so much that not even you can keep track of what you have been claiming...

[Crumpp]

You should go back and re-read the thread without your emotional involvement.

It is a fact that in July of 1940, 87 Octane fuel was Fighter Commands standard fuel. They were definitely in the process of adopting 100 Octane and had begun operating aircraft that could only use 100 Octane like the Spitfire Mk II.

The Operating Notes are the primary source for flying the aircraft.

Notes on the Merlin Engine are by the Air Ministry, RAF, and convention a legal document that defines the airworthy limitations of the aircraft.

The Operating Notes are equivalent to a Flight Information Manual and will reflect the airworthy limitations of the type certificate.

That is how it works. It is that simple and elegant. The hatred of me for pointing that out is irrational and immature. Maybe some of you should consider getting out and socializing more?

Bottom line, there is no need to construct great leaps of logic built around circumstantial evidence. Especially when that evidence is misinterpreted such as using Estabilishments as proof of quantity on hand.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is a fact that in July of 1940, 87 Octane fuel was Fighter Commands standard fuel.

That's a claim, not a fact. For dozens of pages now several posters have been asking for proof, which you so far have not provided.

[Crumpp]

That's a claim, not a fact.

It is a fact, JtD. 100 Octane does not have a specification yet on the logistical documents posted but 87 Octane is a specified fuel.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You should go back and re-read the thread without your emotional involvement.

It is a fact that in July of 1940, 87 Octane fuel was Fighter Commands standard fuel. They were definitely in the process of adopting 100 Octane and had begun operating aircraft that could only use 100 Octane like the Spitfire Mk II.

The Operating Notes are the primary source for flying the aircraft.

Notes on the Merlin Engine are by the Air Ministry, RAF, and convention a legal document that defines the airworthy limitations of the aircraft.

The Operating Notes are equivalent to a Flight Information Manual and will reflect the airworthy limitations of the type certificate.

That is how it works. It is that simple and elegant. The hatred of me for pointing that out is irrational and immature. Maybe some of you should consider getting out and socializing more?

Bottom line, there is no need to construct great leaps of logic built around circumstantial evidence. Especially when that evidence is misinterpreted such as using Estabilishments as proof of quantity on hand.

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.

[Seadog]

Crumpp/Kurfurst:

All you have to do is show us proof that RAF FC during the BofB flew at least one, operational squadron, Hurricane/Spitfire 87 octane combat sortie. Just one...

You have presented your thesis and now we want proof.