Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-29-2011, 05:46 PM
winny winny is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
Because I already answered that. Squadrons were rotating between Stations.

I don't understand why them rotating would make any difference. I thought that once an engine had been converted to 100 that was what they put in it, regardless of where it was stationed? Why paint 100's onto them if it didn't matter what fuel you put in?



No, you have claimed that all Squadrons were using 100 octane fuel during the Battle. You pointed to a paper that said the opposite. And then you say at least least 30 squadrons were using 100 octane, because you found combat reports. You then asked me to explain me this, despite that I already did. OK I retract the all - I stand by the fact that I can find reference to 100 octane use in at least 30 squadrons before August 1940, happy? Didn't think so.

It is you who is changing his position all the time, not me. As far as it goes, you've made two positive claims

a, All FC Sqns were using 100 octane fuel, and nothing else OK, prove me wrong.
b, Rechlin trials did not use 100 octane fuel - OK prove me wrong

The burden of proof is on you. You could prove neither. Therefore, they are unproven, insufficiently supported by documentation which was my point.
That of course does not mean that a considerably number of RAF fighters did not use 100 octane fuel - they did.

The fanboyism part starts where somebody starts to ask for only the best variants to be represented, and start to claim something extreme that all the sudden the 'poorer' variants was not used at all. I'm not interested in fanboys, at all.
I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards. So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-29-2011, 06:28 PM
pupo162 pupo162 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winny View Post
I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards. So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?

In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?
I think what kurfurst is trying to say is that german had both 87 and 100 fuel. So if they captured a British spittie, they WOULD tested it with the same fuel it was being used on it, not a different one. SO basicly if you say "they all had 100 gallon" then the captured one HAD to had 100 gallon. if the captured was 87 then that means not all of the spitis were 100 gallon, and there were 87.

thats what i got out if it.

jkeep up the discussion, its keeping me from studying math all day
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-29-2011, 06:32 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pupo162 View Post
I think what kurfurst is trying to say is that german had both 87 and 100 fuel. So if they captured a British spittie, they WOULD tested it with the same fuel it was being used on it, not a different one. SO basicly if you say "they all had 100 gallon" then the captured one HAD to had 100 gallon. if the captured was 87 then that means not all of the spitis were 100 gallon, and there were 87.

thats what i got out if it.

jkeep up the discussion, its keeping me from studying math all day
Yeah I guess you just explained my position much better than I was capable of..
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-29-2011, 06:31 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
I don't understand why them rotating would make any difference.
I already explained. See A and B station, X and Y Squadron. In short it makes assessing the number of Squadrons using 100 oct at the same time difficult. But not impossible.

Quote:
I thought that once an engine had been converted to 100 that was what they put in it, regardless of where it was stationed?
The engine mod only made it available to take advantage of higher boost. It did not cut you off from using 87 octane in the future.

To my best knowledge the 100 octane engine mod. simply changed the way how the automatic boost cutout worked. Before the mod. it was a switch for "manual override for automatic boost limit", meaning you could select whatever boost (even overboost) and after the mod it was a "+12 lbs instead of 6 1/4 automatic boost limit". It didn't make 87 octane incompatible with the engine, but of course you shouldn't use the +12 boost in this condition.

Quote:
Why paint 100's onto them if it didn't matter what fuel you put in?
Because they do that in every air force. I believe you will find that they continued to paint 100 on them, just not on the side of the cowling, but on the top, with dark letters (like in the Il2 skin).

Quote:
OK I retract the all - I stand by the fact that I can find reference to 100 octane use in at least 30 squadrons before August 1940, happy? Didn't think so.
Yes, happy. I have no problem acknowledging that there were a significant number of Squadrons using 100 octane and had improved performance. There's is no lack of evidence for that. I just don't believe it realistic that all of them suddenly switched overnight. There is contradictionary evidence.

Quote:
It is you who is changing his position all the time, not me. As far as it goes, you've made two positive claims

a, All FC Sqns were using 100 octane fuel, and nothing else OK, prove me wrong.
b, Rechlin trials did not use 100 octane fuel - OK prove me wrong
Sorry, you made these claims... I don't have to prove them wrong. It just doesn't work that way that if you make a claim, and I can't or won't prove it wrong, you're right.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Quote:
Originally Posted by winny View Post
I'm not changing my position, my position is that I think you're biased and wrong and that you palm off burden of proof onto me and ignore it when it applies to you, double standards.

So where is your proof that the Rechlin tests were carried out with 100 octane?
I said that they - at Rechlin - were perfectly capable of carrying out with 100 octane. They were. The Germans were using 100 octane fuel in their own planes (fighters, heavy fighters, bombers), both their own type and captutre, during the Battle. So what would keep them from using the same fuels in captured enemy aircraft..?

I also said that this would be logical, IF they captured the aircraft with 100 octane. If I find a Spit filled with 100 octane, and would want to try out what it is capable of so that my pilots could fight it better, why would I create conditions that give me a false view and put me into a disadvantage..? Sorry, the guys at Rechlin were not stupid, just like their collegues in Russia, Uk, US, they were amongst some of the finest engineers and pilots of the world.

This was in response to your categoric statement that the Rechlin tests were NOT carried out with 100 octane. Frankly I believe this is just said all the time because the E-Stelle Rechlin did not paint so positive picture of the aircraft, so people want to dismiss it.

[QUOTE]In fact I'm not even sure what you're main argument is. Can you sum it up?/QUOTE]

Sure, though I think I did above. I don't believe, due to lack of any kind of positive evidence to such claims, and due to the evidence that contradicts it, that every and all FC Sqn was running solely on 100 octane fuel. I believe some stations (Sqns) were supplied with 100 octane, and some with 87 octane, as the decision makers were - rightly - concerned about the flow of supplies, and the consequences if those supplies were cut off. I also believe that as the Battle progressed, more Squadrons were using 100 octane.

It would also makes sense. I have NEVER seen in all my studies of WW2 air forces that things just changed all the sudden, that they would introduce a new type of aircraft and it would immidiately replace the old ones, or fuel, for that matter. Its unrealistic.

I also understand that this is a claim put forward typically by RAF fanboys (not meaning you) who want to fly only the best variant, so they could argue it was the *only* variant around, that's the only variant that should be present on ie. Dogfight servers. Personally, I don't have a stake in it, because I don't fly on those servers for years BTW. Nor do I care of the variant present - the way I fight, it doesn't matter what plane I dive on and attack with great speed advantage.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.