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

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The whole 'no proof that the standard fuel was kept being used' is a red herring by those who cannot provide evidence that every unit has changed over to 100 octane, simple as that. They can't prove their thesis, so they want others to disprove it. It's a weird, reversed logic.

Suppose I come up with an idea that there is a second, smaller sun in the Sol system, hiding behind the Sun all the time so we cannot see it. I can't prove it of course, but unless you prove its not there, I declare its very existence cannot be denied, due to the 'overwhelming' amount of evidence.

That is one of the most pathetic attempts at an argument I think I've ever seen.

There is PROOF of use of 100 octane in this very thread. It's now up to you to prove that 87 was also in use, not just because you say it is, but because, like us you present some proof.

You're basically doing the internet equivelent of sticking your fingers in your ears an 'la la la-ing'

How can the burden lie soley with one side of the discussion and not the other.

So, like I keep saying to Crumpp, present your case and stop trying to wriggle out of it with meaningless words.

Show me what makes an educated person like you think that 87 octane was in widespread use by FC during the BoB. Next post.

[JtD]

If 87 octane was still in use, proof should be easy to find. Can you find a dated picture of a Hurricane being refuelled with 87 octane fuel? I've seen such a picture for 100 octane fuel. Can you find a squadron record that documents changeover to 100 octane fuel in October 1940? I've seen such a document for April 1940.

Can you find a statement "not all operational fighter squadrons are using 100 octane fuel" in any document of that time?

I've been looking for exactly that, for some time now, and the more I look, the more I agree with Mr. Williams that all operational squadrons did indeed use 100 octane fuel. There simply is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL against that claim. This has also been confirmed in this topic by several people who appear to know more about the period than I do, while no-one objecting this conclusion as presented actual, factual evidence.

I'll keep on checking this topic for as long as it is going on, eventually, proof for 87 octane usage might pop up and I'll have learned something.

[robtek]

Absence of evidence is no proof.

I am really worried about people with black and white thinking, they are really prone to err.

[bongodriver]

So what you are saying is that all the evidence pointing to the use of 100 octane is actually damaging to the case? in fact it would have been better to not have any and claim it's absence as a lack of proof to it's contrary?

[JtD]

Originally Posted by robtek

Absence of evidence is no proof.

Au contraire! Half the truths we know are based on absence of evidence for the contrary. If you can't provide a single bit of evidence for a theory, it is considered wrong. Doesn't matter if it concerns orange ravens, a second sun or 87 octane fuel.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by JtD

Au contraire! Half the truths we know are based on absence of evidence for the contrary. If you can't provide a single bit of evidence for a theory, it is considered wrong. Doesn't matter if it concerns orange ravens, a second sun or 87 octane fuel.

Well, we do know 87 octane was standard for Fighter Command at the start of the war and we know that by May 1940 only select Units of fighter command converted to 100 octane.

I'll let you guess what the rest of the Units kept operating on.

[JtD]

I'll leave the guessing to you, I'm interested in knowing.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Well, we do know 87 octane was standard for Fighter Command at the start of the war and we know that by May 1940 only select Units of fighter command converted to 100 octane.

I'll let you guess what the rest of the Units kept operating on.

We're not talking about May 1940. We're talking about the Battle of Britain.
So July, August, September. And we're not guessing.

So once again. Present you own argument and stop nit picking our's.

With some documents, circumstantial evidence, whatever it is that you've got that makes you so convinced that 87 octane was in widespread use by fighter command during the battle of Britain. Just saying that it was is a pathetic way to try and prove that what you say is correct. It's not like we're alone in our opinion. There are plenty of authors on the subject who agree with the argument that the conversion happened in the spring of 1940. If you want to change the general consensus then I'm afraid that "because kurfurst says so" isn't going to do it. It does however highlight what a closed mind you have.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

We're not talking about May 1940. We're talking about the Battle of Britain.
So July, August, September. And we're not guessing.

So once again. Present you own argument and stop nit picking our's.

With some documents, circumstantial evidence, whatever it is that you've got that makes you so convinced that 87 octane was in widespread use by fighter command during the battle of Britain.

Well here it is. It clearly says that 100 octane is only issued to select fighter stations, and this is how it stayed, given the lack of evidence to the contrary.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Well, we do know 87 octane was standard for Fighter Command at the start of the war and we know that by May 1940 only select Units of fighter command converted to 100 octane.

I'll let you guess what the rest of the Units kept operating on.

I am still wondering how many squadrons is the number you consider to be selected. Is it the 16 squadrons as per Crumpp or is it the 145 aircraft as per pips.