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

[Crumpp]

Which leaves us with the logistical questions which you have so far avoided.

Logistics are critical but they do not answer operational questions.

The only way to answer an operational question is with operational documentation. In this case, the document which details the operation of the aircraft is the Operating Notes. The portion that is a legal document connected to the airworthiness of the aircraft will reflect the latest authorization for the type.

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

Nothing more needs to be said until you find an earlier dated version of the Operating Notes that specify all operational units.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

Agreed. The Pilot's Notes don't support it, however they also doesn't speak against it. They simply don't tell anything about how widespread the use was.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Agreed. The Pilot's Notes don't support it, however they also doesn't speak against it. They simply don't tell anything about how widespread the use was.

There have been hundreds of magazine articles, books, memoirs, journal articles, pilot reports, combat reports...etc, etc. I've read dozens and not one has mentioned the use of 87 octane during combat sorties. 87 octane is a big lie, it is THE BIG LIE perpetrated by people who have an agenda to promote Luftwaffe superiority.

Kurfurst/Crump can't stand the fact that the RAF had massive stocks of 100 octane fuel and converted all their front line fighters to it prior to the battle, while the Luftwaffe didn't. It's that simple.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Kurfurst/Crump can't stand the fact that the RAF had massive stocks of 100 octane fuel and converted all their front line fighters to it prior to the battle,

I whole heartily agree with the first part, but disagree with the second part.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The statement "all Fighter Command was using 100 Octane July 1940" is not backed up by the facts.

The statement "100 Octane was used during the Battle of Britain" is correct and backed up by the facts.

It was certainly well over the 16 squadron you claim.

[CaptainDoggles]

I have a question to all major participants of this thread. When I ask it, I want you to please bear in mind that I am not trolling and do not have an agenda against anyone (except perhaps Osprey... that selective quoting a few pages back really destroyed any credibility you might have had).

Why is it important?

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

[bongodriver]

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

octane rating choice should be available yes, particularily for mission builders, regarding online it is unlikely anyone would choose anything other than 100 octane.

Why is it important?.....mainly because this is meant to be a BOB simulator and therefore it should accurately represent the state of affairs at the time and not a game for some people to act out an 'alternate version of history' fantasy.

Osprey makes one selective quote and his credibility is destroyed, Kurfurst can dedicate his entire online existense to selective quoting and bias and people take him seriously?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

octane rating choice should be available yes, particularily for mission builders, regarding online it is unlikely anyone would choose anything other than 100 octane.

Assuming they're available. What if someone wants to do a Battle of France scenario?

Why is it important?.....mainly because this is meant to be a BOB simulator and therefore it should accurately represent the state of affairs at the time and not a game for some people to act out an 'alternate version of history' fantasy.

An accurate BOB sim would have 87 and 100 octane variants available. Your beef ought to be with mission designers, it seems.

Osprey makes one selective quote and his credibility is destroyed, Kurfurst can dedicate his entire online existense to selective quoting and bias and people take him seriously?

I haven't said a single thing about Kurfurst in my previous post. The fact that Kurfurst edits wikipedia etc etc doesn't magically mean Osprey is exempt from criticism. That was a pretty blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

Hard to say for me if the Hurricanes had their props replaced with CSP's before the changeover to 100 octane fuel was done. Imho, a CSP Hurricane with 87 octane fuel would be unhistorical and doesn't need to be modelled. Effort would better go elsewhere.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by JtD

Hard to say for me if the Hurricanes had their props replaced with CSP's before the changeover to 100 octane fuel was done. Imho, a CSP Hurricane with 87 octane fuel would be unhistorical and doesn't need to be modelled. Effort would better go elsewhere.

Don't forget that there were some Spitfire and Hurricane (?) that were equipped with Rotol propellers well before the DH props were modified to CSP.