![]() |
|
|||||||
| FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I guess that puts back your 'credibility' to the shelf it belongs. You were known for manipulating sources long ago on Wikipedia (if anyone doubts it see Minor's latest falsifying attempts on 109 related articles on Wiki), and you have carried this over to this board. You have also lied when you have stated that the LW fuel reserves were lower than those of the RAF; again, according to the very sources you have posted, the LW aviation fuel reserves stood at around 680,000 tons, compared to about the 600,000 tons contained in Britain. The interesting part is how much more aviation fuel the Germans consumed compared to the British in the period - 80 to 100 000 tons per month. ![]() BTW, you were claiming before and swore to the heavens that you will ignore me. Not a man of your word, are you?
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200 Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415 Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Last edited by Kurfürst; 05-07-2012 at 08:49 AM. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
If this is true then someone needs to explain how 2 squadrons of Blenhiems were split between 4 stations of No 2 Group that were 100% stocked with 100 octane.
That same person needs to explain why if the basic premise was that 5/6ths of the fuel at the other No 2 Group bases was 100 Octane, why should they only use the 1/6th that was 87 octane for operations. Finally that same person may want to explain to everyone why when he knows about these documents doesn't he ever, ever mention them. And as an aside, that same person might want to let us know what his version of Select is and how he supports it? |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Not withstanding that the Blenheim squadrons shared bases with fighter squadrons. Brian Kingcombe talks of his friendship and rapport 92 had with the Blenheim crews (610?) they shared with, how they helped turn the fighters around between sorties etc.
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Which leaves us with the logistical questions which you have so far avoided. You have requently said that logistics are critical, something I agree, so I would expect you to have put some effort into looking at the logistical questions your theory raises. To do otherwise as you have said, is to be amaturish and lower the tone of the thread. Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases For the roll out to FC we know a) Who made the decision b) That testing was complete in 1939 c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE d) How it was to be rolled out e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA For the 16 FC squadrons + 2 Bomber squadrons a) We don't know who made the decision to continue with this program once war started b) We don't know that phase IV testing was on going in 1940 c) We don't know which squadrons or which stations were supposed to have the 100 Octane d) We don't know how it was to be rolled out e) If this theory is correct, We don't know when the rest of FC had 100 Octane issued f) We do know that the limit of 2 squadrons of Bombers mentioned in this paper was disregarded, which must question why the fighter limit is supposed to be maintained None of these is supported by original papers. The best that can be said is that they depend on wild interpretations of some documents while ignoring others As I said at the start the case for 100% roll out isn't perfect, but its a lot stronger than the case for 16 Fighter squadrons and 2 bomber squadrons PS I don't expect a reply to these questions but it highlights that you cannot support your theory and whilst you may disagree with what I put forward, I do at least try to support my belief with documents not theories. ----------------------------------------------------- Last edited by Glider; 05-07-2012 at 02:44 PM. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
@ Kurfurst, here we go again with the "lie" thing. It's such a give away as to your mindset.
Oh, and on the subject of credibility.. You have to be joking, right? Wikipedia... You've got the cheek to accuse someone else of doing exactly what you've been banned from wiki for doing? Hypocrite. Stick to facts. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
So I guess the only real question is, since the patch has come out is the Spitfire and Hurricane performance in the sim closer to their real life non-virtual selves?
I'ld like to do some tests, but since the patch has been released I'm getting launcher errors! Just reinstalling the sim to se if it makes any difference. Cheers! |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sadly no, even on 87 octane figures the Spits are 50 MPH too slow at sea level and no better at altitude, haven't really tested the hurri.
__________________
Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
I just came across the Blenheim IV Pilot's Notes from September 1939 and according to this the outer fuel tanks are restricted to 100 octane fuel and inner fuel tanks to 87 octane fuel.
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Paragraph 8 on the March 1939 paper (your favourite) makes the 16 + 2 squadrons by September 1940 conditional, based on supply. You can call people "liar" all you like - the only one lying is your good self. Last edited by NZtyphoon; 05-07-2012 at 10:56 AM. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|