Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 1K3 on February 02, 2007, 09:58:08 PM
-
P-38Ls ran higher boost in combat (~70 Hg). Most 38s in combat used higher settings that what Allison company specified.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
....Where do you draw the line?
Mcr :aok:aok:aok:aok:cool::cool::cool::O:O :O
-
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.
-
This would enable rooks to pick from 35k instead of the normal 25k. Could be trouble :-p.
-
109 K4 at 1.90 ata?
Yes I would :t
-
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.
-
wow
-
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
-
You misunderstand me. I am in no way under the impression that IL-2's portrayal of the boost situation is any more accurate than its flight model. I used it as an example where the game backed up my own calculations, as well as those of Kweassa. Kweassa, although disagreeing with me on the majority of the subject, did come to the independent conclusion that if you raise the power on both the P-38 and the Me-109 equally, the P-38 fares better. If you do the mathematics, you will see this.
In all actuality, the IL-2 boost situation is indeed wrong - but it's wrong to the detriment of the United States ships, not slanted towards them. They use lower than the highest approved boosts (64" as opposed to 66" cleared by the U.S.A.A.F., though not in the Pilots Manual) for the United States fighers, but they use the highest boost an Me-109 ever used. Therefore, my example was intended to show that although the boosts in IL-2 are slanted against the U.S. airplanes, they still do better versus their historically rated opponents than the "officially" rated birds in that game.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
In all actuality, the IL-2 boost situation is indeed wrong - but it's wrong to the detriment of the United States ships, not slanted towards them. They use lower than the highest approved boosts (64" as opposed to 66" cleared by the U.S.A.A.F., though not in the Pilots Manual) for the United States fighers, but they use the highest boost an Me-109 ever used. Therefore, my example was intended to show that although the boosts in IL-2 are slanted against the U.S. airplanes, they still do better versus their historically rated opponents than the "officially" rated birds in that game.
Irrelevant because the FM is shady.
Bronk
-
My point now is that I wasn't "cherry-picking" data, but was providing an example. I agree that it's not to be taken as gospel because the IL-2 flight model is dodgy, but I wouldn't call it irrelevant as it reflects my calculations as well as those of Kweassa (who made a case against the P-38).
Originally posted by Kweassa
* Two Allisons at war emergency rating of 1,600hp to a plane with 17,500lbs combat weight = 0.18hp/lbs
* Two Allisons at war emergency rating generalized at 2,000hp to a plane with 17,500lbs combat weight = 0.23hp/lbs
27% exaggeration in thrust:weight ratio in favor of the P-38L
* Single Daimler-Benz engine at war emergency rating of 1,800hp to a plane with 7,000lbs combat weight = 0.25hp/lbs
* Single Daimler-Benz engine at war emergency rating generalized at 2,000hp to a plane with 7,000lbs combat weight = 0.28hp/lbs
12% exaggeration in thrust:weight ratio in favor of the Bf109G-14
While I sincerely doubt you've actually calcualted this far, by dragging in field modification and unauthorized numbers for engine ratings at the 2,000hp figure for both planes you've neutered a 40% advantage in hp/lbs in favor of the 109, to a mere 20%. Basically, the larger the volume of exaggeration in available engine power, the smaller the gape between the P-38 and the 109 becomes.
P.S. Contrary to what Kweassa said, the combat weight of the P-38L is not 17,500 lb. It's approximately 16,500 lb. Still, if you recalculate, the argument still holds; the P-38 does better against the Me-109 when the boosts are raised equally on both. The same is true of the P-51 and P-47 (and, I imagine, all heavy aircraft).
-
Oh, there is one more thing. Right now, in Aces High, the P-38L and the Me-109K are very evenly matched. The P-38 is running at 60" Hg. MAP, which puts out 1,600 horsepower, and the 109 is running at 1.8 ata, which is 1,850 horsepower. Now if we raise the P-38's rating to the officially cleared (though not in the Pilots Manual) 66", we get about 1,750 horsepower on the P-38. Now, imagine how much better the P-38 would perform than the Me-109 in the game, under those conditions - and it's still running a lower rating.
Of course, then the Me-109 could be raised to 1.98 ata, which does 2,000 hp. But then the P-38 could be similarly raised to 75", which also yields about 2,000 horsepower. Since the 1,600 hp. P-38 does well against the 1,850 hp. Messerschmitt in Aces High, and since Kweassa and I both independently calculated that the P-38 does better versus the Me-109 the higher the boosts go, then I think it's safe to say that a 2000 hp. P-38 would do very well against a 2,000 hp. Me-109. And 2000 horsepower isn't even the highest rating I've heard of a P-38L using in combat.
-
109K performs better than the P38L in game now. If it had 20mm instead of 30mm it would probably see a lot more use. 109K out accelerates and outclimbs the P38, and is a real pain when you come across someone that can actually fly it.
-
Still, as it is I'd call P-38L versus Me-109K nearly a fair fight. But you're right, and that is all the more reason to allow at least a 64" P-38 (1725 hp.). It would be preferable to have the 66" rating (~1750 hp.); 75 inches of pressure (~2000 hp.) would be very nice, but I think that, unlike 66", 75" was never officially cleared (though pilots certainly used it anyway). While I have seen a document stating that 75" Hg. MAP was succesfully tested and would "probably" be officially cleared, the highest rating that I've seen a U.S.A.A.F. document actually clearing is 66 inches. Moreover, the lower two power ratings are the only ones which have surviving test data, as far as I know.
-
As of right now the 109g14 is CLOSER match to 38L.
-
If you think the 109K and the P38L are even fights, you don't fly either of them well enough to realize this isn't so.
The 109K is faster, accelerates way better, climbs almost 2x as well, turns very nicely, and as mentioned if it had a 20mm gun 90% of all 109 pilots would fly it.
The P38 only has flaps, granted even those are USuberflappen (TM), so if the speed slows down enough it can out-turn the 109K, but otherwise it's stuck with a simple rope-a-dope or loop-then-HO-shot.
The 38 does well in AH, don't get me wrong. But most of the time I'm in one I get in behind a con while he's busy on somebody else. There's very few "fair fights" (i.e. dueling rules) and if I were in one I'd think "oh crap this is going to be ugly".
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The P38 only has flaps, granted even those are USuberflappen (TM)
Yes, they're called Fowler flaps.
-
snip snip
Originally posted by Krusty
climbs almost 2x as well...
The P38 only has flaps, so if the speed slows down enough it can out-turn the 109K, but otherwise it's stuck with a simple rope-a-dope or loop-then-HO-shot...
But most of the time I'm in one I get in behind a con while he's busy on somebody else...
If you think the 109K and the P38L are even fights, you don't fly either of them well enough to realize this isn't so.
There's an old saying that comes to mind involving a pot and a kettle. I suggest you take the same advice you offered someone else in another thread regarding the Jug and apply it to the big Lockheed. Your understanding of its capabilities seems to be somewhat lacking.
Not saying the 109K isn't an excellent performer or that it doesn't have certain advantages it can exploit, but the 38 has angles it can work as well. They're close enough that it comes down to the pilots, as it does so often.
-
I support the idea.
Perk points is a nifty inhibitor tool and a simple solution to limiting its impact on the MA.
Give the 'default' performing P-38 as free, and then add in higher boost settings as perked option. This price will be modified from its base value according to coutnry numbers and pilot skill(using K/D).
The base cost can be about 10 perks. If your country has a large numerical advantage, the price will inflate upto some 15~17perks, and if you have a K/D of over 2.0, your K/D will be directly multiplied to the modified perk cost.
So, if you're flying with the horde and is given a 1.5 perk modifier value for perked planes, and you yourself is an excellent pilot of 4.0 K/D, if you want to fly 70" P-38L you will have to pay 10 x 1.5 x 4 = 60 perks.
Sure, the vets may have thousands of perks in their hold. But frankly, vets will always win whether they fly a P-38L at 70" Hg, or a XP-38. A handful of vets is hardly an impacting factor in the MA.
The only groupd of people that really matter is the average pilots, and perk prices over 20 points is definately not a price low enough to fly uber planes en masse. It will keep the numbers of 150octane pilots in check.
-
One thing - a lot of those high ratings were run on ordinary 130/100 fuel. I don't know about the higher ones, like 70" Hg., but at least 66" was run with the ordinary American and British fuel available at the time.
-
Originally posted by DblTrubl
snip snip
There's an old saying that comes to mind involving a pot and a kettle. I suggest you take the same advice you offered someone else in another thread regarding the Jug and apply it to the big Lockheed. Your understanding of its capabilities seems to be somewhat lacking.
Not saying the 109K isn't an excellent performer or that it doesn't have certain advantages it can exploit, but the 38 has angles it can work as well. They're close enough that it comes down to the pilots, as it does so often.
I've flown the 38 enough to know it can do a lot. I've seen others fly it far better than myself as well. Don't get me wrong, I got more kills in the 38G than any other plane last tour (67 out of 300-something total). However, most of these involve tight spiral loops in the vertical (whether that's up or down) and usually need to be slow enough to require (or allow, depends on how you look at it) the use of flaps. Most of them are overshoot moves, or cut-the-merge moves.
On the other hand, if I could actually HIT with the crappy 30mm gun on the K-4 I'd be able to own a P38 in one. I've beat 38s before in lesser 109s with 20mm guns, and suspect the G-2 would make a good matchup, despite being a mid 1942 design.
The only real reason the P38 wins is because when it gets a shot it kills with a single hit. The 109K can get 5 shots and blow them all before landing a lucky hit on the 6th shot.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
... the 109 is running at 1.8 ata, which is 1,850 horsepower. Now if we raise the P-38's rating to the officially cleared (though not in the Pilots Manual) 66", we get about 1,750 horsepower on the P-38. Now, imagine how much better the P-38 would perform than the Me-109 in the game, under those conditions - and it's still running a lower rating.
Of course, then the Me-109 could be raised to 1.98 ata, which does 2,000 hp. But then the P-38 could be similarly raised to 75", which also yields about 2,000 horsepower. ... I think it's safe to say that a 2000 hp. P-38 would do very well against a 2,000 hp. Me-109.
I must make a retraction; I hear from multiple sources in another thread that we already have the 1.98 ata Messerschmitt. In that case, the Kurfurst is just about maxed out on power, while the P-38L is running on just about the lowest rating it ever ran. Bring on the higher horsepower for the Lightning, and the Hundertneun fliers shall weep!
-
78" Allison (http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/md/galleries/040406-w-baskbl/md12-lg.jpg) yech
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
I must make a retraction; I hear from multiple sources in another thread that we already have the 1.98 ata Messerschmitt. In that case, the Kurfurst is just about maxed out on power, while the P-38L is running on just about the lowest rating it ever ran. Bring on the higher horsepower for the Lightning, and the Hundertneun fliers shall weep!
Far as I know it's 1.8 . But I'll try and confirm that.
Bronk
-
Far as I know it's 1.8 . But I'll try and confirm that.
Like mentioned in my own thread, AH has some planes showing discrepancies in instrument readings and actual performance. The boost pressure guage on our AH2 is 'maxed out' at 1.80 ata, so there's no telling if it is really doing more than 1.80 or more than that.
However, the performance figures on AH charts indicate our K-4 is using a DB605DCM, which was also the same for our old AH1 G-10. The max speed tops out 452mph at 22~23k, an indicator of 1.98ata using C3 grade fuel + MW50.
A 1.80ata K-4 on B4 fuel + MW50 should be doing around 440~445mph.
I'm a LW fanboy, but that don't mean I tell lies. The LW planes have run on HTC's generosity for a long time. No reason the Ami planes RAF shouldn't be treated the same.
-
One of Kurfy's many posts...
"Maximum speed was the same at either 1.8 or 1.98ata, ie. the power would remain the same at rated alt because of the supercharger limiting the altitude of extra boost below. With 1.98ata, only the perfromance below 6000-7500m was improved."
The same discussion confirmed the G10 we used to have used 1.8ata, and the K-4 we have now has identical deck speeds and top speeds to the G10 of old.
EDIT: Kind of like 100octane in the spit1. Makes a big difference, but only below FTH.
EDIT: Oh, and Kurfy's been posting stats since the beginning that 1.98ata was used on DB605D engines, not just DB605DCM.
-
However, Kurfurst (A.K.A. Isegrim) is known to be a proven and accomplished liar. I've seen him say "Airplane A never used fuel B" in one argument and, on the same day, say "Airplane A did use fuel B" in another. He'd admit that the 109 had high stick forces, yet later claim that there was no stick force problem on the 109. When confronted, he'd say "I never said that," and when quoted for proof, he'd disappear for a while. I'm sorry, but I won't believe a single thing that guy says about anything. If you were wise, you would do the same.
-
Doesn't matter if you think he's a liar. He had some points. I don't agree with how he put his arguments together (poor poor arguments!) but he got the finer details right [edit: I need to add "in some cases" right here], because he pulled them from other sources.
The 1.98ata required c3 fuel instead of b4. C3 was about 95 octane, and b4 was about 87. Similar to the Spit1 we used to have going from 87 octane to 100 octane. He says it would only increase performance below FTH, and top speed would remain the same, and we have the same thing on our spit1, FTH is the same but performance below this would greatly increase.
What he says about this, specifically, adds up. We've got a 1.8ata K-4 in aces high.
-
I don't know either way on the 109K, but I know he was full of crap about the United States ships. Not a thread on higher horsepower ratings for the American fighters could go by without Isegrim coming in and flatly stating that 150/100 fuel was never available to the U.S. in Europe (false), 150/100 fuel was required for higher ratings than given in the Pilots Manuals (quite false), and that no American fighter used those ratings in combat (also very false), or similar statements. He never once posted any sort of proof, just filled pages with falsehood in order to cause strife and muck up the works. I've never seen someone who so wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. He didn't want people to find out how things really were, he only cared about his game.
It's a shame, too, because he did know a lot of good stuff about the Me-109. It's just that he was so dishonest that one never could know what was truth and what was a deliberate lie. As I said, one day he'd claim one thing and the next another. It wasn't new revelation on his part, either; it always changed, chameleon-like, to mesh with his latest argument.
-
Supposedly (and even Kev admitted kurfy often had good info, just piss-poor interpretation), kurfurst posted the info about 1.8 vs 1.98 speeds:
Just to see what`s the fuss all about... 1.8ata K-4 vs. 1.98ata K-4.
SL speeds :
595 kph vs. 607 kph
SL climb :
22 m/sec vs 24.5 m/sec...
Basically, the effect of higher boost disappears for speed over 6000m, and for climb over 5000m, as the higher boost can be maintained for relatively lower altitudes by the supercharger.
The K-4 we have now does 368 on the deck, which is close to 595kph. If it had 1.98ata we'd be doing about 380mph on the deck, but we don't.
-
Has Hitech made any statement one way or the other? It seems that this could clear things up quickly. I wouldn't mind if the Me-109K got its highest rating (although it was a minority) as long as the American ships also got theirs. Even if we only had the highest offically cleared ratings, it would be a big improvement.
-
Before the 109s were redone they used inches of MAP like US planes. In the same thread somebody did the math and converted the old instrument reading to 1.8ata. So it's not just an instrument showing a wrong reading.
It's consistent. It adds up. All the evidence seems to support it. Dunno why everybody's saying we've got 1.98ata all of a sudden.
-
It's consistent. It adds up. All the evidence seems to support it. Dunno why everybody's saying we've got 1.98ata all of a sudden.
That's because we've been talking about the old G-10 and laying down the facts in these forums since way back, before you've even started this game.
It has been established (and confirmed, IIRC) that our Aces High Bf109G-10, was in fact a K-4 in disguise, and the only reason Pyro had it in the game was he wanted a stand-in K-4 that could use a 20mm cannon. Therefore, our G-10 was a G-10 using theoretical specs of a 109 using DB605D + C3 +MW50. There are no documents in existance that ever proves that such a G-10 ever existed. The performance is purely theoretical and thus, it was duly modelled under K-4 standards. That's why it was doing 452mph top speed - a speed no documented G-10 ever attained.
The historical K-4s using DB605DCM, ran under 1.98ata, authorized for only a handful of Gruppen, and that's the basis for claiming our AH K-4 performance falls under 1.98 standard.
And if you want the documents of K-4 running at 1.80ata, just google it and you'll find it. The difference in top speed is about 10mph, but there is still a difference.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
That's because we've been talking about the old G-10 and laying down the facts in these forums since way back, before you've even started this game.
It has been established (and confirmed, IIRC) that our Aces High Bf109G-10, was in fact a K-4 in disguise, and the only reason Pyro had it in the game was he wanted a stand-in K-4 that could use a 20mm cannon. Therefore, our G-10 was a G-10 using theoretical specs of a 109 using DB605D + C3 +MW50. There are no documents in existance that ever proves that such a G-10 ever existed. The performance is purely theoretical and thus, it was duly modelled under K-4 standards. That's why it was doing 452mph top speed - a speed no documented G-10 ever attained.
The historical K-4s using DB605DCM, ran under 1.98ata, authorized for only a handful of Gruppen, and that's the basis for claiming our AH K-4 performance falls under 1.98 standard.
And if you want the documents of K-4 running at 1.80ata, just google it and you'll find it. The difference in top speed is about 10mph, but there is still a difference.
First of all, I've been here since AH1 was in beta, thank you very much. Second of all, almost all folks that have been here for over a year and have enough interest to at least look at the 109s in the hangar have read that our old G-10 was based on K-4 performance. Forget saying "it was a G-10 with a DB605D engine" -- it was a K-4 with G-10 weapons options, and this was openly admitted.
P.S. They tested G-10s with 1.98ata (somebody nailed Kurfy on this, one of his "test" squadrons of "k-4s" was really G-10s, kurfy got that point wrong), so they had the same engine and had the same boost and MW50.
So, forget G-10. It was G-10 only in name. Focus on just K-4.
" The historical K-4s using DB605DCM, ran under 1.98ata, authorized for only a handful of Gruppen, and that's the basis for claiming our AH K-4 performance falls under 1.98 standard."
Taking that by itself... okay wait a second. Who says we've got a DCM? They also ran 605DBs (which ran off B4) and also ran the 605DCs (which ran off C3), and other than the spark plugs it was often the same engine. Either 605DB or 605DC can hit 1.8ata. Both made the same horsepower at 1.8ata with MW50.
So why are you saying we've got a 1.98ata? Speed? Hell the G-14 had a range of speed for it. The G-10s had such varying quality and engines available that they had a wide range of top speeds. The BEST of the best (the best of all options for the G-10) would still be over 20mph slower than the K-4.
So with the K-4 we have now, using sea level speeds for 1.8ata (very close to what we have now) and sea level speeds for 1.98ata (over 10mph faster than what we have now) it's more likely to believe we have a no-flaws version of the 1.8ata K-4.
Trust me I've been reading the arguments for ages. I have no doubt we currently have the 1.8ata K-4 (and have always had it, since day 1). The MAP was converted to ata and it came out as 1.8ata, so the old "G10" was at this engine rating. The new instruments measure ata, and they say quite clearly 1.8ata. The performance matches 1.8.
Then also going by the conclusion I made about the top speeds being identical, and where only performance below FTH would increase, and you can't just use top speed to say "we have a 1.98ata" -- because it'd be the same in either craft.
EDIT: I'm not opening an old argument. I don't care if we get 1.98ata in the K-4, because it's all but useless with the single gun option. I'm arguing against the idea that we have (currently) a 1.98ata modeled in Aces High.
-
Unbelievable. :rolleyes:
I'll tell you what. Remind me to stay out of any thread you would actively participate, because it reeks of futility of actually trying to talk with someone who butts in every discussion in every single one of these forums with a negative slant according to one's own expert opinion.
Or better yet, ask HTC to make one of your own forums named "Krusty's Opinion on Everything", I'm sure you can tromp down everyone there.
ps) A little hint.
If you've been here since AH1 beta, then there's no way you did not catch how the G-10 discussions revolved around the DB605DCM. Go search the A/V forums and all that you've missed is right there.
Besides, I'm calling the "since AH1 beta" a bluff. I've been at these boards nearly 10 years, and you've certainly not shown face until it was sometime after AH was firmly established. Either that, or you've hidden your charmingly nosy personality at the boards for over 5 years time that no one else has realized you've even existed, until you became the forum police that suppresses every new idea thought of by everyone.
So until then, I'll humbly keep my mouth shut and stop the argument, unless you're willing to state how I'm not supposed to keep my mouth according to your policing rules.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
another unsatisfied krustipedia end user:eek:
-
My what a rancid personal attack kweassa. Fact is you're the FIRST to ever argue we already have 1.98ata. Doesn't seem to really make sense. [Edit: like I said, listing the top speed doesn't matter because it was the same for 1.8 and 1.98, same with 87/100 octane spit1 issue)]
Also, as for the personal attack, I'm not slinking to your level, but anybody that's been here from the start knows the forums have been reset many many times over the years. Forums changed format, changed location, and every time you had to create a new account. I've also had so many in-game IDs I can't remember half of them. Doesn't mean I haven't been here.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The only real reason the P38 wins is because when it gets a shot it kills with a single hit. The 109K can get 5 shots and blow them all before landing a lucky hit on the 6th shot.
No offense but that statement is just incorrect.
ack-ack
-
Fair enough, it was an exaggeration, but if the 109K-4 had a 20mm gun I'd have little trouble getting P38 kills in it (compared to now, with 30mm only).
As for "kills with 1 hit" maybe I'm just really lucky, but almost every hit I land with a 38 is solid, hitting pilot or crippling the aircraft's ability to fight back.