if the 109K4 is a 1.98ata version(C3 + MW50) it should outperform the La7, and Spit16 by easy!! Since is dont do this, i guess its the 1.98ata (no MW50) version, which actually have similar results like the 1.8ata (B4 + MW50) version.
Just what standard are you using when you state
"one outperforms the other" here? Our Bf109K-4 already outperforms both the Spit16 and the La-7 in many ways.
Deck-alt speed issues may be the source of skepticism as there are a variety of reports that rate the speed of the K-4 w/C3+MW50 as being considerably faster than as portrayed in Aces High, but the maximum speed of 452mph is a clear indicator in which engine/fuel configuration our K-4 uses, not to mention there has been a consensus in existance for as long as I can remember, that deduced the identity of our G-10/K-4 as being equipped with a DB605DCM.
P-38L at 75" = Me-109K at 1.98 ata plus nitrous oxide
There's no such thing as a "Me109K at 1.98ata plus nitrous oxide". Nor is the boost system equipped on the 109s and 190s anything 'special'. The methanol-water injection system is a standard, mandatory piece of equipment that is standardized and equipped on all 109s after the G-14.
What gets to me are the people who think, "The 1.98 ata Me-109 should not be perked, but a 66" P-38L should be." The 66" rating for the P-38L was not only extensively used, but was official. The 1.98 ata rating for the 109, on the other hand, was only used on a handful of ships.
The 66" rating was never "cleared", nor was it in anyway "official".
The circumstantial evidence concerning it's extensive use has a somewhat broad basis, and assumptions that the ("few remaining", if I may add) P-38s in the ETO in late 1944 are clearly very likely to have been using higher boost ratings. However, as Bodie himself states;
But, meantime get this single fact: Allison Engineering qualified the F-30 engine WER at 1,725 bhp at 3200 rpm. However, the USAAF NEVER authorized that rating, with ATSC preferring to stick with a 3000 rpm limitation. These engines were in Lockheed P-38L, F-5G and P-38M airplanes. Aircraft installation, maintenance, rigging, supercharger performance, propeller performance, etc. all affected individulal engine and airplane performance. And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated.
The consensus of many would-be researchers seems to be that the above passage is trying to say the 8thAF were 'illegally' using the unsanctioned boost pressures on their planes as a field mod. Bodie, ofcourse, won't go as far as to clearly verify the fieldsmen were defying the orders from the top.
On the other hand, both the DB605DBM and DB605DCM configurations on the Bf109K-4 were in every sense a truly "official" configuration of the plane which was cleared for use in standard squadron service. The rarity of the DB605DCM configuration comes from the fact that the C3 grade fuel was largely required for the Fw190s, which was absolutely necessary for flight, unlike the Me109s which can use standard 87octane B4 grade fuel as well. They were losing the war, the fuel supply wasn't enought. The C3 went to the 190Ds, not to the most of the K-4s.
There is a very, very excellent discussion concerning the existance of these "late P-38Ls" in the IL2 forums, with the participants of both sides coming up with equally interesting and convincing evidence:
P-38L 'late' - the new fantasy plane? ...
HTC sticks to the principle of what we fans call the "official standard". HT has never elaborated just what this is, nor acknowledged the actual existance of such a policy, but over the years us AH gamers have come to believe that this principle is roughly something like;
1. The planes are modelled according to the most representative of official data set, inclduing official flight tests of
sanctioned/standard plane configurations and pilots manuals.
2. When a non-primary, or secondary evidence states a different performance figure coming from a 1) controversial source, 2) individual pilots anecdote, 3) a plane with modified and arbitrary configurations that was never officially sanctioned, the differences are NOT reconciled. There is no 'compromise' in figures. Only the official data set is used, and the rest is dropped.
3. When a certain plane has a multiple set of differing 'official figures', the one most represantative of its major career as a fighter aircraft may be used. For instance if a certain plane is introduced in early 1944. and then its standard performance was increased only in the last few months of the war, then the performance figures during its introduction would be preferred over the figures during the last months of the war.
4. The reason behind the 'official standard' policy is that dabbling into controversial or unclear, unconfirmed data may start a chain reaction of skeptical performance figures being introduced into the game. When one group of planes starts using dubious, anecdotal figures for their planes, there is no basis to stop other planes from using strange figures as well. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
The problem is that HTC doesn't necessarily strictly adhere to these principles, which is often a source of confusion. Or sometimes, the plane modelled in AH might have multiple aspects of different configurations that even identifying the exact configuration itself seems to be difficult. A prime example of these two problems would be the Bf109K-4. In other cases, such as the P-38s, there exists a considerable amount of evidence the P-38s did use higher boosts, and yet there is not a single piece of official document that states the P-38s were ever cleared to use the 66" / 1725hp / 3200rpm configuration. However the case of the P-38 clearly falls under the 3rd perceived rule as mentioned above.
Personally, I believe the higher boost ratings should be included in the game as a perked option, and such measures should be standardized with all planes (for example our Bf109F-4 using 1.42ata, should be derated to 1.30, and the 1.42ata should be given as a perked option). But this is this, that is that. Benny's argument that the 66"/75" P-38L should be introduced on grounds of 'officiality' is clearly wrong.
