![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Relevance?
__________________
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
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
The double standard you have. Minimal, actually next to nothing, when it concerns your beloved Bf109 of nazi Germany and evidence to the nth degree when it comes to anything to do with the British.
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
I really don't understand the desperate need to deny that most, and probably all, fighter command aircraft were using 100 octane fuel during the BoB. There is more than enough evidence to show that the change to 100 had been authorised well before the BoB, there were more than enough stockpiles, the conversion process was simple enough by RAF servicing standards of the time and it was in widespread use from combat and Squadron reports.
It would have been ridiculous for the RAF, with all the stocks available, to have only transferred some units to 100. Why would they do that when they were at war and expecting invasion? The only delaying mechanism would have been the mechanical modification of engines which was simple enough and carried out during servicing. New engines were delivered already converted. It would have been more ridiculous to suggest it wasn't available to the units facing most of the fighting and not very sensible, with the rotation of Squadrons with their aircraft, not to organise the support of 100 octane for those aircraft while on rotation. I suspect that some people either want to unhistorically 'castrate' the RAF as someone suggested or they are just Trolling. Regarding Blackdog's ideas for missions, I have no problem with representing fuel shortages following bombing of production plants etc but that is a seperate issue. It never happened to the point that fuel bacame a problem but a 'what if' is fine by me, that's what missions are built for, it isn't all re-enactment.
__________________
klem 56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds" http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/ ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Please note that I have not made a statement towards or against the subject of 100 octane fuel. I simply said the style of some posters here kills any meaningful discussion of any type and creates more bad blood. Just to make that absolutely clear.
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It makes no sense Klem. No a single notch of it. It's an illusion for late grown child tht prbably started somehow reading two line in an history books. I love the Mayas civilization but I am not convincing myself Steve Job and the NASA were their creation Guess why the 21st century RAF can't introduce a new fighter without so much pain ? IMHO : You'd better help the devs to fix the Spit FM toward some realism at least. I am sure that they would then be happy (and with some financial interest too) to give you your boosted Merlin on Spitfire Last edited by TomcatViP; 01-10-2012 at 10:06 AM. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Klem- i've just gone through that forum thread you posted the link to http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html
I'd say that nails it- credit must go to MikeWilliams and Glider for their research efforts- the weight of evidence clearly affirms the fact that 100 octane fuel was widely used by RAF fighter command since early summer 1940. As for the tone on that forum- it's a marked contrast to the personal insults that get thrown around here. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
+1 couldn't agree more. Hats off to the guys researching and posting links to their sources. Last edited by Bounder!; 01-10-2012 at 10:36 AM. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
+100
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
It used to be like here, until they banned Kurfurst for the same as what he tries to do here. (I am not joking)
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
See my above post.
__________________
![]() Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
![]() |
|
|