P-38L with higher boost

[Bronk]

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

[Kweassa]

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.

[Krusty]

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.

[Benny Moore]

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.

[Krusty]

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.

[Benny Moore]

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.

[Krusty]

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.

[Benny Moore]

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.

[Krusty]

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.

[Kweassa]

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.

[Krusty]

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.

[Kweassa]

Unbelievable.

 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.

[Debonair]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
another unsatisfied krustipedia end user:eek:

[Krusty]

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.

[Ack-Ack]

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