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

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

The question I ask is this:-
When you know with an absolute certainty, that the quote you are making is wrong and misleading, why do you keep mentioning it as part of your evidence?

What I know with an absolute certainty is that there is a Spitfire I manual and a Spitfire II manual, both from June-July 1940 and both specify both 87 octane and 100 octane limits.

I also know for certainty that you have an idiotic thesis why to dismiss yet another source which is clearly dated June 1940 and notes what limits apply 'when 100 octane fuel is used' and not 87.

Guess what, I just do not give credit to neither this idiotic thesis of yours, neither the other which says that when British papers say select fighter squadrons, it's 'a typo', nor the one which says its not a typo but it was reveresed later, nor the one which says the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had was from captured British stock, nor the one which says that no Spitfire or Hurricane had two pitch propeller in the Battle of Britain and so on.

Guess what, you simply have no credibility left in my eye.

Unless of course you believe it to be true and that the RAF had Mk II spits in July 1940 with 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG which is what your pilots notes say.

Of course they had. Look up Spitfire the history, on page 60 in my edition :

"P9504... still had four of the original Browning MG mountings in the wings. It was used to test a trial installation of two Hispano cannon and four Browning guns... within days a second Spitfire, X4257 had a wing built from scratch, with the new armament and service trials begun on 20 August. Five days later R6761, 6770,6889,6904 and 6919 were withdrawn from No.19 and modified to the same standards. etc.."

P9504 was a Mark I, the first produced a/c with 4 x 7.7 + 2 x 20mm, first flight 30 April 1940.

People are free to look at these links, and if you do not reply with an explanation may well make their own mind up as to why.

Boooh, more childish threats reminding me of dire consequences. Had it crossed your mind that I usually do not reply to your posts because I find them a waste of time, being illogical, wishful and of no consequence, clinging fanatically to an idea you cannot prove at all?

How about just taking Crumpp's advice which seem to be the majority view here anyway - admitting that we (you) simply do not know the exact details (yet) and have really no solid idea how many Squadrons were employing 100 octane fuel?