P-38L with higher boost

[1K3]

P-38Ls ran higher boost in combat (~70 Hg).  Most 38s in combat used higher settings that what Allison company specified.

[Raptor]

Lockheed went around and showed ground crews how to get higher performance out of the P38L engines. Perhaps it could be used to expand the "Perked Ord" plan?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by 1K3
P-38Ls ran higher boost in combat (~70 Hg).  Most 38s in combat used higher settings that what Allison company specified.

No, actually, Allison and Lockheed specified higher settings, but the USAAF/USAAC did not accept those settings. Yes, Lockheed took their people and some Allison people into the field, and showed the crews how to turn the engines up. However, opening the door to "field modifications" is opening "Pandora's Box".

This has been discussed at length, and proof of the settings given. Sure, as a P-38 flyer, I'd love to have a 70"+ boost P-38L that actually had a tops speed of around 442MPH as Bodie stated. But the next thing you'd have is P-47's at 80"+, and the same for P-51's. Where do you draw the line?

[Benny Moore]

The neat thing is, even if you raise the boosts on all countries' aircraft equally, the higher they go, the better the American ships fare versus their opponents.  That's why it's so important that they have their real ratings.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The problem is that there isn't evidence to raise them all equally, and that will lead to a mess no one will want to deal with. Further, there is little combat above about 15K in AH anyway.

Like I said, I'd love to see it, even if it made the P-38L a light perk plane (it shouldn't), but HTC is not going to open Pandora's Box. As much as I'd like to see it, I'm not sure I blame HTC for not doing it.

[Benny Moore]

I see where you're coming from, but the extra power would help down low more than anything.  More power doesn't just mean better top speed, it means better climb, acceleration, and turn.  It would help the United States ships to do better versus some of their opponents as they did historically.

Sometime fly a P-51D in a dogfight then immediately fly a P-51B.  You'll be amazed at the difference.  Imagine the P-51D being to the P-51B what the P-51B is currently to the P-51D.  And we'd have a P-47D that isn't completely helpless on the deck versus the majority of its opponents.  I really don't see how it would be "unfair" to give all of the aircraft their actually used ratings.  The United States ships get the short end of the stick using "official" ratings, since American fighters often used higher than official numbers (while some countries often used lower than factory specifications).

[Bronk]

Yea can you  imagine the whine of a Mk XVI at 25 lbs, or a Mk XIV at 21?
How about a KI 84 running on 150 octane?
109 K4 at 1.90 ata?

You wouldn't want to see that trust me.


Bronk

[Benny Moore]

I see your point also, but I would like you to note that, unlike your examples of Me-109 and Ki-84, the higher boosts (especially the mid-level 66" rating for the P-38L, which was approved by the U.S.A.A.F., and the 72" rating for the P-51D) on American airplanes were quite common.  Also, the higher the boosts are, the better the U.S. ships fare against their opponents, even if they're raised equally amongst countries (which should not be the case, as the highest U.S. pressures used seem to have been higher than those of other countries).

For an example, in the IL-2 series, the Me-109K and the P-38L running at their "official boosts" (1.8 ata and 60", respectively) are fairly evenly matched.  The Me-109K at 1.98 ata and the P-38L at 64 Hg. MAP are slightly less evenly matched, but they're still in the same ballpark.  Now, 64 inches is very conservative; an official memorandum has been found authorizing 66, and 70 and above are also well-known.  Imagine a 72 or 75 inch P-38L.  You can have the Me-109K at 1.98, I'm still going to be blowing past!

Ironically, I would probably have to ban the highest rated American ships (75" P-38L, et cetera) as it simply wouldn't be fair to the other aircraft.

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
....Where do you draw the line?

Mcr :aok:aok:aok:cool::O

[1K3]

Check out the the thread that Kweassa made, I think it's a great idea!
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198125

Based on his idea, it would be great to pay perks for better fuel-grade/engine settings and ordinance/weapons.


It would be nice to pay perks for...

1. +70Hg boosted P-38Ls.
2. +25 boosted Spit XVIs
3. +21 boosted Spitfire XIVs
4. A Ki-84 doing 420 mph using 150 octane fuel
5. An Fw 190A-8 that produced 2080hp in full war emergency power
6. An Me 262 that can carry 24x R4M rockets and bombs.

[bzek74]

This would enable rooks to pick from 35k instead of the normal 25k. Could be trouble :-p.

[killnu]

109 K4 at 1.90 ata?

Yes I would

[Krusty]

Uh, Benny, you can't say "US planes would benefit more if all were boosted evenly" by comparing the over-boosted versions on IL2 flight sims. IL2's flight model is regarded by a large group of people as a very inaccurate flight model. Even just general climb/zoom, E-retention, drag, flaps, spins, ALL of it.

The only thing IL2 has is a damage model, and even then I think that's overly complex (as you can unload 2000 rounds of 7mm into a single small fighter and never bring it down, you can hit the same fighter over and over with 30mm or 37mm rounds and still not bring it down until 5-7 rounds, when U.S. bombers can have their entire tails shot off in 3 rounds historically).

So please don't say "it's like this in IL2, it'd be the same here" --- because it wouldn't be the same here. Nothing about this flight model even remotely resembles IL2, not in the dynamics of play, and not in the way any individual aircraft flies or fights.

[devil956]

wow

[Bronk]

From another thread.

Originally posted by Benny Moore
The IL-2 series is a joke.  It does not have a dynamic stall model as Aces High II does.  In IL-2, either you're flying or you're spinning.  There's no in between, and you cannot stall any airplane without dropping a wing (except for the airplanes with slats, because somehow slats magically prevent that).  Since we have United States Army Air Force training videos still easily available today, we can know how various warplanes should stall.  For example, the P-51B should have a wing drop tendency even with power off, but the P-47 should not, and the P-38 should have no wing drop tendency in any stall unless the gear is down or external stores are loaded, disrupting the airflow.  But IL-2 doesn't figure any of that stuff, according to them all airplanes drop a wing when they stall and, if held in the stall, will always spin.

Actually, I must make a slight retraction; after having enough data shoved down their throat (about half a dozen good sources) they finally changed in one of the later patches the P-38's power off stall.  This kept it from dropping a wing.  How did they do this?  They simply lowered the effectiveness of the elevator with power off so that the airplane is unable to pull a high enough angle of attack to actually stall.  The stall model is still drastically wrong (as proved by the P-38's power on stall, which still results in a spin every time).

The folks over at Maddox don't feel that stalls are important.  The player base largely agrees, judging from the heated attacks on me when I pointed out the problems with the stall model.  Proof via videos certainly didn't help, nor did the opinions of me and many others who have stalled real airplanes.  IL-2 is a joke through and through, and the stalls are only the largest problem.  I wasn't very impressed with X-Plane, either, although that was certainly better than IL-2.  Really, Aces High is by far the closest thing I've seen, judging by my real stick time and from the videos we have of World War Two fighters stalling.

Compared to.

Originally posted by Benny Moore
I see your point also, but I would like you to note that, unlike your examples of Me-109 and Ki-84, the higher boosts (especially the mid-level 66" rating for the P-38L, which was approved by the U.S.A.A.F., and the 72" rating for the P-51D) on American airplanes were quite common.  Also, the higher the boosts are, the better the U.S. ships fare against their opponents, even if they're raised equally amongst countries (which should not be the case, as the highest U.S. pressures used seem to have been higher than those of other countries).

For an example, in the IL-2 series, the Me-109K and the P-38L running at their "official boosts" (1.8 ata and 60", respectively) are fairly evenly matched.  The Me-109K at 1.98 ata and the P-38L at 64 Hg. MAP are slightly less evenly matched, but they're still in the same ballpark.  Now, 64 inches is very conservative; an official memorandum has been found authorizing 66, and 70 and above are also well-known.  Imagine a 72 or 75 inch P-38L.  You can have the Me-109K at 1.98, I'm still going to be blowing past!

Ironically, I would probably have to ban the highest rated American ships (75" P-38L, et cetera) as it simply wouldn't be fair to the other aircraft.

Benny you are cherry picking data to back up what you think.
I strongly recommend a change of course.

You cant have it both ways. Either IL2 is a good representation or its not.
That said, AH is better or its not.

Now please don't nit pick that its a different topic.  It's still about the flight model.



The Il2 series is notorious for caving to the agenda driven .
The people who spam the most anecdotal evidence get what they want.

HT doesn't thats why it's also much better game/sim.

Bronk