Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Robo.

...... There is no question that this is what they had in the fueltanks since Dunkirque. Yes, 87 octane fuel has been used but is irellevant to what we have in the game - 11th group, summer 1940, frontline fighters facing Luftwaffe. No 87 octane fuel in this case. 100%-ly.

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by robtek

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

And it's never been disproved that the Luftwaffe weren't using HP brown sauce sachets in their MG's either. You are using the exact argument that religious people use about god - "Prove he doesn't exist". The thing is you cannot provide evidence for something that is not there, you can only say it is not there because there is no evidence.

Imagine if our courts worked like this - "We have no evidence that you were at the murder scene so we cannot rule out that you weren't there - Guilty". It's nonsense Robtek i'm afraid.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by robtek

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

it's not about wether 87 octane use can be disproved, it's about only evidence for 100 octane exists and common sense.

[Crumpp]

You are using the exact argument that religious people use about go

Do you guys actually believe yourselves when you say stuff like this??



We are not talking some abstract concept.

An airplane must use a specified fuel. Dtd 230 was 87 Octane.

What was the service specification for 100 Octane? You know, the non-provisional one?

[bongodriver]

An airplane must use a specified fuel. Dtd 230 was 87 Octane.

Precisely.......so when they filled Blenheims with 87 'and' 100 octane the fuel was specified.....besides wasn't 100 octane DTD 224?

[Osprey]

It would take a little common sense to understand the logic I demonstrated. I'm not interested in your red tape based argument, it's complete nonsense.

[Crumpp]

besides wasn't 100 octane DTD 224?

Yes, the provisional specification that does not appear anywhere else.


On the otherhand, DTD 230 is commonly referenced both in the Operating Notes and Air Ministry.

Common sense dictates.....

[Crumpp]

I'm not interested in your red tape based argument, it's complete nonsense.

It is no not nearly as nonsensical as the argument that Fighter Command was not using the specified fuel listed in the Operating Notes as well as the fuel that was the major type on the airfields.

Your argument is based on the disbelief that convention does not exist in aircraft so they are not strictly regulated and everything is implicit in their operation.

[bongodriver]

To be honest 100 octane never seemed to get an official DTD number (unless you can lay your hands on a source)

But considering 100 octane was in use by civil operators in Britain before 1939...even found an article from 1937 discussing the use of diesel engines to replace 100 octane burning petrol engines, and by 1940 there were already plans on making fuels of more than 100 octane widely available then yes common sense would dictate that by the outbreak of war 87 octane was already relegated to secondary use while being phased out.

heres some stuff I found while researching, just thought some was interesting reading.

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...1/394.abstract

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg00226.html

[bongodriver]

Couple more..

p.s. ignore the second image, it has no relevance, I attached it by mistake.