PDA

View Full Version : P-38



Pages : [1] 2

ZG77_OzZ
04-04-2004, 10:08 AM
Per Pilots of this planeand the japans pilots who flew against them.

ZG77_OzZ
04-04-2004, 10:08 AM
Per Pilots of this planeand the japans pilots who flew against them.

ZG77_OzZ
04-04-2004, 10:22 AM
Well thisis fun write it all in word but can not cut and past.. great.....

ZG77_OzZ
04-04-2004, 10:30 AM
Per Pilots of this plane and japans pilots that flew against it, this planes guns and the way it flys is not even close.

Jeff ethell father,Col Ervun Ethell,wrote this "most people thought the P-38 was too big to turn well with the 109 or the 190, but that was not the case: it could dogfight with the best of them
Ther are severl quots about how the p-38 would pull away and out climb dive so on and the guns are all over the place to on this plane.
It needs to be tweeked.
The p-38 was able to out dive out climb so on with a zero and the guns, what happin when programing this?

The guns are a joke on this plane, total not true.

This plane was a great plane, I feel this needs to be fixed, but I think it will get blown off.

Ki_Rin
04-04-2004, 01:11 PM
Yes, it's too bad such an inspired design, with the performance to back up its popularity isnt even remotely represented in this otherwise fine game....i have a feeling the 109Z, which itself should NOT be in FB, prabably has a closer envelope to that of the real 38 than does the 38 in FB...I know many ppl get passionate about thier favorite ac, and to find shortcomings about it can be distressing, but personally i accept these, i just want the ac in FB to be as accurate as possible....many are quick to put down these concerns as whining, but not in this case...the 38 seems fundamentally wrong, and to let it continue in its present state reflects none too good on oleg, 1c etc...i cannot imagine how they could have looked at the 38 and said, ok, this ones done, weve finished it...geez, guys, torque on a twin? 17,000lb ac programmed for a 37mm cannon shakin like jerry lee lewis?...and im not sure about the elevators, this compression...only the 38 had this prob? i can dive my 47 past 1000kph (wish i had it tracked, but its not too hard to do, very easy) with no compressibility, no airframes failures, nothing....most other ac also show NO signs of compressibilty at all, except the zeros at high speed, but of course, this is a limitation of its construction, it does not even enter comp for its controls to freeze

crazyivan1970
04-04-2004, 01:15 PM
So, what`s wrong with it? Would be interesting to see comparassion between AEP and some RL data, wouldn`t? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

VF-10_Snacky
04-04-2004, 01:34 PM
I have been researching the P38 and P51 for a couple of weeks now and although I know a drop in the bucket of what there is to learn what I have found is that the P38 is arguably the best fighter of WWII (yes even better than the P51).
I found several sites which talk about the P38 and P51 and based on everything I can find on the internet the P51 and P38 in AEP are undermodelled. The issue with .50 call spread doesn't help the P38 either, but performance on both planes seems "off" according to data on the web. I know Oleg only likes to deal with "numbers" but in the case of the P38 and P51 even the numbers dont lie IMO.
Here are a few links which are of good use and I learned a lot from reading them.
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
http://yarchive.net/mil/p51.html

and some training videos for the P51 and P38. Very good info if you can handle 1940s b&w.
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/main.html

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

ZG77_OzZ
04-04-2004, 01:49 PM
The guns are way off. not correct at all with the merg of bulits.
Out climbs and dives like lighting.

To much typeing cut and pasting would be so much beter.

There is so much commetary from p-38 pilots and jap pilots as well on how the plane flys, data up the wazzoo.

The plane needs to be tweeked.

One guns are all over the place.

Two It should be able to pull away from a zero with any problems , diving and climbing.
This is not the case at all.

ZG77_OzZ
04-04-2004, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_OzZ:
The guns are way off. not correct at all with the merg of bulits.
Out climbs and dives like lighting.

To much typeing cut and pasting would be so much beter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

crazyivan1970
04-04-2004, 01:51 PM
See that yellow arrow to the right of Reply button? It`s a quick reply. You can paste in there, it works.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

ZG77_Nagual
04-04-2004, 01:57 PM
I'll weigh in here too. I think the P38s low speed performance and overall stall characteristics are incorrect. The preponderance of admittedly anectdotal evidence, in the form of pilot accounts, absolutely supports very reasonable low-speed handling. Virtually all accounts from american pilots, and several from excellent german pilots who ran into skilled p38 drivers, support this plane outfighting all german types on the deck. While reports of universal outturning can be disputed - the one common denomenator in nearly all accounts is that the p38 was a very very good - even extraordinary - stall fighter because of it's very benign stall characteristcs - which could be employed as part of dogfighting tactics. Currently, for example - the P39 is a much better low-speed stallfighter. I'm also not sure the compressibility effects we're seeing are modeled correctly - specifically I think they occur at a bit too low speed.

I'd be happy if compressibility was raised a littl - improving high-speed turn and, more importantly - if the overall turn and specifically the low-speed turn - was tuned a bit. This applies mostly to the J - the low speed stuff to the L as well however

Aaron_GT
04-04-2004, 01:58 PM
"I found several sites which talk about the P38 and P51 and based on everything I can find on the internet the P51 and P38 in AEP are undermodelled."

AFAIK Skychimp et al seem fairly happy with
the performance of the P38 and P51, which
is a good sign that they are fairly close. Apart
from some roll issues with the P38 they seem
to be mostly close to specs. Do you have any
specifics on what you think is undermodelled?
The only other issue is the max speed for the
P51D takes a while to attain, maybe a little
too long?

Aaron_GT
04-04-2004, 02:00 PM
"The preponderance of admittedly anectdotal evidence, in the form of pilot accounts, absolutely supports very reasonable low-speed handling."

That might be a limitation of the game
engine with respect to torque, perhaps?
I am not sure what the specific problem is
as the jets have no torque, but maybe there
is just a flag for torque direction and another
for torque existing such that it can't handle
engines working in two different directions?

VF-10_Snacky
04-04-2004, 02:06 PM
Since we all love data here we go. Clearly the P38L should perform better than it does in AEP.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/38TOCL.gif

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-38/38FOIC.gif

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-38/38SEFC.gif

And here is one for the .50 cal spread issue
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-38/38BSC.gif

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

ZG77_Nagual
04-04-2004, 02:36 PM
Supposedly there is some torque effect for example, falling off the top of a stall - due to different angles of attack for the props - but there does seem a weird sort of torque effect in the p38 in game - which I haven't seen explained. I do think the 51 and 47 and p40 are well modeled - as well as the 109s, 190s etc. most planes in fact. But this one seems like it might be missing one of it's strengths. the abrupt departure and very early onset of compressibility does not seem to be supported - I thought the compressibility issue was a function of dive acceleration - getting fast really quickly - I'd expect to see it closer to between 450-550mph indicated.

I do think it's pretty damn good as is however and I'm sure Oleg has sources I've never seen.

VF-10_Snacky
04-04-2004, 03:00 PM
I disagree. The more I test the P38L in AEP vs real world data the more I find different from real world P38L stats and AEP P38L stats. Forexample service ceiling for the P38L is 44,300ft or 13,410m
in AEP the max is 10,500m

Max speed for P38L at 525m is 579kmh
in AEP max speed is 550kmh (50% fuel and no wep loadout)

Rate of climb of the P38L is an alt of 20,000ft or 6095m in 7min.
I was actually able to do this in AEP at 6min. Not sure why since I could not even reach max rated speed at 525m, but I did beat the 7min mark (220kmh @ 15deg AOA for 6min = 6095M)

As with the P51 I think the problem is with low altitude handling and top speed at MSL. The P51 does not suffer from the same performance issues at the P38 in areas like Roll Rate and corner speed, but the P38L is horrible at low speed turning which is opposite of everything reported about the P38. P38s clearly outperformed the P51 when dealing with Japanese fighters. Its ability to outclimb and manuver at slow speeds were its biggest assets. I just dont see this in AEP.
Just to put things in perspective as another poster pointed at the ME109Z outperforms the P38L and it shouldn't. After some other tests it was appearent the ME110 could outperform the poor P38L in AEP.
I know this sounds like another American *****ing and moaning about american fighters, but in the case of the P38L I dont think too many will disagree that the P38L has shortcommings.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

VF-10_Snacky
04-04-2004, 03:02 PM
I have also seen this torque effect which wants to roll the aircraft to the right slightly when there should be no need to trim for torque because of the contra rotating props.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Supposedly there is some torque effect for example, falling off the top of a stall - due to different angles of attack for the props - but there does seem a weird sort of torque effect in the p38 in game - which I haven't seen explained. I do think the 51 and 47 and p40 are well modeled - as well as the 109s, 190s etc. most planes in fact. But this one seems like it might be missing one of it's strengths. the abrupt departure and very early onset of compressibility does not seem to be supported - I thought the compressibility issue was a function of dive acceleration - getting fast really quickly - I'd expect to see it closer to between 450-550mph indicated.

I do think it's pretty damn good as is however and I'm sure Oleg has sources I've never seen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

ZG77_Nagual
04-04-2004, 03:35 PM
Good points all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ZG77_OzZ
04-04-2004, 03:39 PM
Guns on this plane are not right at all.

No way did the Zero ever out climb or dive a p38l at all, not even close..

VW-IceFire
04-04-2004, 03:53 PM
Guns are the only problem for me right now. I can outfight (on the deck I might add) any 109 or 190 driver that I've run into provided that I'm not bounced from behind by everyone else on the server.

P-38 has speed, high speed turning ability, decent roll rate in most cases, and fairly good responsiveness across the board. They can't model out the stall characteristics apparently but you usually can ride most stalls anyways.

Spend about 2 weeks flying P-38's and you'll feel pretty confident in it.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

ZG77_Nagual
04-04-2004, 05:03 PM
Icefire - I gather you're talking about the P38L - which does have excellent handling at intermediate speeds - but is still lacking the low speed handling. I've been concentrating on the J model - I'd like to see even earlier ones for '42

Enofinu
04-04-2004, 05:15 PM
and why doesnt P38 climb better than Zero?? lack off skill?
it sure climbs away from zero, easily.
just stop yelling in each others mouth http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ZG77_OzZ
04-04-2004, 06:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
and why doesnt P38 climb better than Zero?? lack off skill?
it sure climbs away from zero, easily.
just stop yelling in each others mouth http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does not.
Come on there are problems withthis SIM Olgy refuses to address theses issue, Sniper gun men in bombers, tanks that can hit you 5 miles away. Come on dude.
Were is Olgy?

Address this.

You need data, well I can give you tons of data.

So lets here why this is happing right from the man. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Korolov
04-04-2004, 06:49 PM
Only time a Zeke seems to outclimb my P-38 is when I pull a verticle and try to prop hang. Anything can catch a P-38 in a zoom climb - don't know if this is realistic or not, doesn't really matter to me. Gradual, low AoA climbs seem to work the best, sort of a long steady spiral climb works well.

The .50 cal spread is a pretty large issue, but I think Oleg has already made up his mind on that.

Only way that the P-38's torque-less characteristics would be a advantage would be if this simulation actually modeled the massive torque on single engined fighters. As is, every plane in the game has only a fraction of the torque they had modeled, so as a result the P-38 suffers by not having a torqueless advantage.

The P-38 is a capable fighter in the game, but like anything else, it depends a lot on the conditions.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

VF-10_Snacky
04-04-2004, 07:01 PM
Actually the P38 was the best at Zoom Climbing and if you watch the video it will show you.

Also the stall characteristics on the P38 in AEP are off. The P38 was very stable and did not snap roll when stalled.

The P38 could also accelerate faster than anything in the air. I just dont understand how in AEP you can reach 20,000ft in less than 7min, but yet you cant reach max speed in the P38. doesn't make sense to me, but I'm always trying to learn what I can.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

pinche_bolillo
04-04-2004, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf_195th:
I disagree. The more I test the P38L in AEP vs real world data the more I find different from real world P38L stats and AEP P38L stats. Forexample service ceiling for the P38L is 44,300ft or 13,410m
in AEP the max is 10,500m

Max speed for P38L at 525m is 579kmh
in AEP max speed is 550kmh (50% fuel and no wep loadout)

Rate of climb of the P38L is an alt of 20,000ft or 6095m in 7min.
I was actually able to do this in AEP at 6min. Not sure why since I could not even reach max rated speed at 525m, but I did beat the 7min mark (220kmh @ 15deg AOA for 6min = 6095M)

As with the P51 I think the problem is with low altitude handling and top speed at MSL. The P51 does not suffer from the same performance issues at the P38 in areas like Roll Rate and corner speed, but the P38L is horrible at low speed turning which is opposite of everything reported about the P38. P38s clearly outperformed the P51 when dealing with Japanese fighters. Its ability to outclimb and manuver at slow speeds were its biggest assets. I just dont see this in AEP.
Just to put things in perspective as another poster pointed at the ME109Z outperforms the P38L and it shouldn't. After some other tests it was appearent the ME110 could outperform the poor P38L in AEP.
I know this sounds like another American *****ing and moaning about american fighters, but in the case of the P38L I dont think too many will disagree that the P38L has shortcommings.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you do realize that the 7 minute climb figure that is in every popular general reference book is accurate if you are not climbing under full power. 6 min-6.2 minutes to 20,000ft is listed as a full power climb in many books on the P-38, such as The Lockheed P-38 by warren bodie, vees for victory by whitney, and climb rates of 3900-4000fpm initial can be found in many books written specifically on the 38, books such as 38 at war by ethell and christy. these rates of climb are at full weight. the thing that puzzles me is that when you drop the fuel in the 38 to 1/4 and get rid of all the ammo by selecting empty the 38 does not gain much of an increase in climb. strange when you consider your dropping 2500-2600lbs. also you have to climb really hard with the in game 38 and even though at full weight it seems to match the climb somewhat, you cannot do it at the speed in which the real life 38 climbed. 180 mph ias, I think that would be a great plus for that a/c. so that even if another a/c in the game had the same rate of climb since most single engine a/c make their best climb at speeds of around 150 mph ias you could still pull away from the enemy a/c at 25 mph ias. that is at lower altitudes, the higher you go the best climb speed drops slightly, but this is also true for the single engine a/c so that you can still maintain a speed advantage in the 38. there are a few books I have that list an even slightly higher rate of climb stating 6.2 - 23,000ft. I dont even know why I responded to this post. I would gladly pour through my 40 odd books specifically written on the P-38 and units that flew them, but the trend is that the data is just propaganda, the author is not competant, or I am just making this up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ok I will go away now.

Korolov
04-04-2004, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf_195th:
Actually the P38 was the best at Zoom Climbing and if you watch the video it will show you.

Also the stall characteristics on the P38 in AEP are off. The P38 was very stable and did not snap roll when stalled.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd gladly watch that video, IF it wasn't Realplayer. I think I've got it on tape somewhere, anyways.

I don't know if they can change the snapping characteristic, either - seems to be hard coded into the game.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

WhiskeyRiver
04-04-2004, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Supposedly there is some torque effect for example, falling off the top of a stall - due to different angles of attack for the props - but there does seem a weird sort of torque effect in the p38 in game - which I haven't seen explained. I do think the 51 and 47 and p40 are well modeled - as well as the 109s, 190s etc. most planes in fact. But this one seems like it might be missing one of it's strengths. the abrupt departure and very early onset of compressibility does not seem to be supported - I thought the compressibility issue was a function of dive acceleration - getting fast really quickly - I'd expect to see it closer to between 450-550mph indicated.

I do think it's pretty damn good as is however and I'm sure Oleg has sources I've never seen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nagual, Compressibility is caused from shockwaves forming on an aircraft as it approaches Mach 1. Air travels faster over curved sections of the airframe according to Bernoulli's Law. Depending on airfoil and airframe design shockwaves will begin forming before the aircraft actually reaches the speed of sound. Each aircraft encounters compressibility at a different mach number. Since the speed of sound is lower at high altitude it was easier to reach critical mach at higher altitudes; especially for aircraft with good high altitude performance and low critical mach numbers.

The P-38 encountered compressibilty starting at .67 Mach. That's 67 percent of the speed of sound. At sea level .67 mach is over 500 miles per hour (804 kph+). In AEP the P-38 begins losing elevator effectiveness(the first sign of compressibility) at about 675 kph TAS (419 mph). This is wrong. It severely cripples the P-38's dive ability and needs to be fixed.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Aaron_GT
04-05-2004, 03:59 AM
" also you have to climb really hard with the in game 38 and even though at full weight it seems to match the climb somewhat, you cannot do it at the speed in which the real life 38 climbed."

This seems to be the case
for all aircraft, and has
been since the original IL2.
It seems to get the best
climb you need to use climb
speeds a little lower than
the historical ones. Since
it affects everything I
don't see it as an anti P38
bias but as a sim engine
issue, probably related to
cutting down aerodynamic
eguations to run on a basic
pc (plus the AI has a
different FM which must
make it hard to maintain)

Going off topic a little,
maybe FB 1.22 fixed the
P47 roll rate for AI but
player FMs were forgotten?
I wonder if this is testable

WhiskeyRiver
04-05-2004, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf_195th:
I disagree. The more I test the P38L in AEP vs real world data the more I find different from real world P38L stats and AEP P38L stats. Forexample service ceiling for the P38L is 44,300ft or 13,410m
in AEP the max is 10,500m

Max speed for P38L at 525m is 579kmh
in AEP max speed is 550kmh (50% fuel and no wep loadout)

Rate of climb of the P38L is an alt of 20,000ft or 6095m in 7min.
I was actually able to do this in AEP at 6min. Not sure why since I could not even reach max rated speed at 525m, but I did beat the 7min mark (220kmh @ 15deg AOA for 6min = 6095M)

As with the P51 I think the problem is with low altitude handling and top speed at MSL. The P51 does not suffer from the same performance issues at the P38 in areas like Roll Rate and corner speed, but the P38L is horrible at low speed turning which is opposite of everything reported about the P38. P38s clearly outperformed the P51 when dealing with Japanese fighters. Its ability to outclimb and manuver at slow speeds were its biggest assets. I just dont see this in AEP.
Just to put things in perspective as another poster pointed at the ME109Z outperforms the P38L and it shouldn't. After some other tests it was appearent the ME110 could outperform the poor P38L in AEP.
I know this sounds like another American *****ing and moaning about american fighters, but in the case of the P38L I dont think too many will disagree that the P38L has shortcommings.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you do realize that the 7 minute climb figure that is in every popular general reference book is accurate if you are not climbing under full power. 6 min-6.2 minutes to 20,000ft is listed as a full power climb in many books on the P-38, such as The Lockheed P-38 by warren bodie, vees for victory by whitney, and climb rates of 3900-4000fpm initial can be found in many books written specifically on the 38, books such as 38 at war by ethell and christy. these rates of climb are at full weight. the thing that puzzles me is that when you drop the fuel in the 38 to 1/4 and get rid of all the ammo by selecting empty the 38 does not gain much of an increase in climb. strange when you consider your dropping 2500-2600lbs. also you have to climb really hard with the in game 38 and even though at full weight it seems to match the climb somewhat, you cannot do it at the speed in which the real life 38 climbed. 180 mph ias, I think that would be a great plus for that a/c. so that even if another a/c in the game had the same rate of climb since most single engine a/c make their best climb at speeds of around 150 mph ias you could still pull away from the enemy a/c at 25 mph ias. that is at lower altitudes, the higher you go the best climb speed drops slightly, but this is also true for the single engine a/c so that you can still maintain a speed advantage in the 38. there are a few books I have that list an even slightly higher rate of climb stating 6.2 - 23,000ft. I dont even know why I responded to this post. I would gladly pour through my 40 odd books specifically written on the P-38 and units that flew them, but the trend is that the data is just propaganda, the author is not competant, or I am just making this up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ok I will go away now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

7 min to 20,000 feet is the time for full power(54 in/hg @3000 rpm) not War Emergency Power(64 in/hg @3000 rpm. The P-38L at War Emergency Power could reach 20,000 feet in less than 6 minutes. I think the J was a little slower climber since it's engines made about 300 less horsepower at WEP. Climb at full power should be the same since their respective engines make the same power at 54 in/hg.

Oleg has already expresses his *snort* opinion that the P-38 and P-47 were not fighters but ground attack aircraft. He seriously seems to be trying to cripple US aircraft in this game. We can show him data to prove measurable flight performance but what about all the hard to measure stuff like toughness and energy bleed. Thats where the US fighters are gettin screwed. A zero shouldn't be able to stick with a 51, 47, or 38 in a zoom climb or a dive. In FB it will catch you in your zoom or dive and chop you to pieces.

He's a simple science experiment.
Part 1
Go to the store and buy a brick and some foam rubber. cut the foam rubber to the same dimensions as the brick. Throw both straight up into the air at the same speed. Which one goes higher?

Part2
Drop both bricks from the top of a building. Which one hits the ground first?

Light weight can be either an advantage or disadvantage depending on the situation. In FB it is always an advantage.

P-38 Climb chart:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/ClimbChart.html

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

[This message was edited by WhiskeyRiver on Mon April 05 2004 at 04:00 AM.]

Aaron_GT
04-05-2004, 05:17 AM
Ah, yes, I forgot that Oleg
is deliberately trying to
pork all the US planes as he
thinks the best way to make
money is to piss of a large
market segment for no
reason. How silly of me.

With regard to dive,
remember initially excess
power loading is the vital
factor. The P47 doesn't
have a lot left over low
down. Try the dive tests
at high speed and high
altitude where the P47
(as one example) has better
power loading.

ZG77_Nagual
04-05-2004, 08:06 AM
Thanks Whiskeyriver - I pretty much had the picture then. So we should be seeing control stiffness set in 80-100mhp later than we are.
I think the p38 suffered at the hands of those who tested it for short periods of time because it was a complex airplane with a variety of tricks and control options and took awhle to really get a handle on. Throughout the middle range of it's performance envelope I think it's pretty good right now, but there is some tuning needed at the extremes - slow, fast and stall. I can't agree that Oleg has shown bias against the american planes. The mustang is superbly modeled and the P39 is one of the best dogfighters in the game. It would be nice to see the P38 get tweaked but I hope we can all stay away from being demanding or rude.

geetarman
04-05-2004, 08:51 AM
I fly the 38 almost exclusively. I'm no aviation expert, but the plane seems to "mostly" live up to it's reputation. I do see a bit of a speed issue though. Not much.

According to the accounts I've read, 38 pilots in the SWP did not try to turn with the Jap. planes even after getting the "L." Some were taught to try one turn and if a gun solution was not there, to level off and climb. Every account I've read by US pilots in the Pacific noted that the 38 was in real trouble if a Zero (much less a Frank) got on it's tail at low altitude. I think this is fairly well represented in the game.

Same for the earlier 109's. My problem is that if I flew the plane like most pilots did, I wouldn't get any kills online! lol. Too many turning, twisting furballs with Yaks, Zero's, Spits, La's, etc. As a result, to enjoy the game, I dive right in, start turning and usually get shot down!

kalo456
04-05-2004, 10:59 AM
Great posts everybody. There is alot of info to be had in the links some of you posted.

I am really hoping that the P-38 gets fixed. The handling of the aircraft should be augmented. Everything I have ever read states clearly that a P-38 could out-turn a 109 or a 190. That shouldn;t be so hard to fix. Even if you have to fudge it a little in the flight modelling due to the fact contra rotating props can't be modelled, just decrease the turn radius to the point that it is better than the 109's.
The lack of .50 cal hitting power just makes the dispersion issue worse. Quite frankly when I fly on pacific servers and I manage to get shots at Jap planes, it is usually a snapshot. I should be able to burn or cripple most jap planes in this manner but the way the guns are now, I see strikes but don;t get good results. I usually get some hits, but then I can't stay with the jap plane as he maneuvers away.

I wonder why it is that the VVS planes all get great handling and guns and the American and German fighters get non-historical deficiencies. That is not a blanket statement, but it does seem to be the truth in alot of cases. I just hope this gets fixed because I would love to be piloting the P-38 more often. Right now it just doesn;t fly well enough for me to use it often on DF servers. Also, I think on no externals servers, the p-38 would have it's speed and agility offset by the fact that you don;t see too much from the pit. Very easy aircraft to be snuck up on from below at any angle.

Kalo

geetarman
04-05-2004, 11:15 AM
Actually, I think the 38 does better on the full real servers w/o icons and external views than does on the easier ones. If you can gain on the e/a (which you can in most cases due to its speed) you can blast 'em pretty good.

I used to have a problem with the gun spread issue, but as time goes by, I don't think it's crippling to the plane's performance. If you hit the e/a squarely - the 38's guns are very powerful, especially inside 200 meters.

WhiskeyRiver
04-05-2004, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Ah, yes, I forgot that Oleg
is deliberately trying to
pork all the US planes as he
thinks the best way to make
money is to piss of a large
market segment for no
reason. How silly of me.

With regard to dive,
remember initially excess
power loading is the vital
factor. The P47 doesn't
have a lot left over low
down. Try the dive tests
at high speed and high
altitude where the P47
(as one example) has better
power loading.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe not bias. Maybe he's just uninformed. He's posted some crazy stuff. Remember how Delta Wood is stronger than steel. Or how the P-47M was not an improvement over the D. He also posted that the P-38 was little better than the Bf110.

Bias or not, Oleg himself has posted statements that he has a low opinion of some of the US aircraft. It shows in how they are modeled. Also I haven't seen threads about VVS fighters being modeled incorrectly. The only VVS threads are about how they are overmodelled.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

ZG77_Nagual
04-05-2004, 12:01 PM
I too have been flying the p38 (j) mostly since it came out.

Here's what I think: We should articultate clearly and concisely precisely what points are off with the p38 - then document our position

Here are the points I think we've identified

Compression/control stiffness onset too early
Low speed/stall handling too twitchy.

Anybody with solid documentation - which will obviously be more difficult with the stall thing - which is mostly anectdotal - lets put it together. At the very least we'll know Oleg has seen it.

If you have good docs on compressibility - site your sources and email Oleg.
For the stall issue it's probably going to be mostly pilot accounts - but same thing.

Aaron_GT
04-05-2004, 12:37 PM
"Maybe not bias. Maybe he's just uninformed."

He's a qualified aero
engineer and pilot with
combat experience. Yes he's
obviously clueless...

"He's posted some crazy stuff. Remember how Delta Wood is stronger than steel."

You're taking this somewhat
out of context. Wood
laminates can indeed have
greater strength for some
purposes for a given weight,
but not for all types of
stress. Delta wood
is not so ductile for
example. Aluminium is
another matter. It is easier
to mass produce steel
structures, though, if you
have the steel and plants,
so it made perfect sense for
the USA to use that. In the
USSR with shortages of steel
but abundant wood and labour
delta wood made sense.

"He also posted that the P-38 was little better than the Bf110."

In what context? The 110
probably has a poorer
reputation than it deserves.
Also Oleg's English isn't
perfect which doesn't help.

Also received wisdom and
anecdote may not reflect
reality. I am English and
the received wisdom about
BoB when I was growing up
in the 1970s was wrong. The
Spitfire wasn't in fact
better than every US and
German plane combined!

ZG77_Nagual
04-05-2004, 12:48 PM
Really! I thought the brits did everything better!

On this P38 business - I need to get online with it more - but offline it does very well against 8 ace ai zeros with 25% fuel vs me in a J with 50%. 8 109g6s are much more difficult - best I've got there and made it home is 6 of 8 - with the last two damaged and disengaged with the last of my ammo. Offline the shallow climb works well - and the p38 accelerates away from both zeros and 109g6 in a dive. Prior to the advent of the 38 my main mount was the 190 - dora or a5 for the most part. I've been trying the historical tactics offline to see - and it does seem pretty good except for the two primary issues in this thread.

VF-10_Snacky
04-05-2004, 12:58 PM
Listen guys, let's not get into a pissing contest here.
There is some good healthy discussion going on about the P38 and possible issues so lets stay focused on that and leave the "high school BS" for another thread.

It doesn't make any sense to me for Oleg or 1C to be biased toward US aircraft. If that was the case then why even add more and more US aircraft?
The best we can do is discuss what we think are issues and supply data, then hope that Oleg/1C at least takes a look at it and decides from there what to do.
*****ing back and forth only turns what would otherwise be an informative thread into horse pucky and Oleg/1C will never give any attention to it.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

WhiskeyRiver
04-05-2004, 01:03 PM
Nagual, try the "cloverleaf" maneuver and see what happens.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

ZG77_Nagual
04-05-2004, 03:37 PM
Rgr that - I think that's one of the issues. At least I can't do it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seawolf - I agree completely. There's not bias - if anything theres a very strong attempt to avoid bias in favor of hard evidence - which for some things is difficult to find.

I really want to encourage you guys with solid info to pass it on to Oleg - the compressibility stuff should for sure be fairly easy to document - might be useful to see some data on higher speed turn too - right now I don't think you can pull a blackout much above 350 or so - and onset is very slow - this in the J.

All that said the p38 is my current fav.

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Mon April 05 2004 at 02:50 PM.]

VulgarOne
04-05-2004, 03:55 PM
I agree that some fine tuning is necessary to exemplify the qualities inherent in the p38. One tactic used by pilots against 109's was a climbing turn to the right.

As air speed diminished and stall speed was approached if the 109 attempted to follow due to the P factor (torque of the engine) the 109 would flip over and of course fall off the edge of its flight envelope. Simply there was not enough airflow over the wings and or control surfaces to counter act the spinning torque of the engine.

This effect is not apparent in the game. If I am not mistaken, Oleg has stated that the p factor affect is diminished in the game. This is obviously intentional as aircraft do not need to be trimmed up prior to take off, like in real life. This is probably due to wanting easy takeoff's for the newbie and or easy transition from other inaccurate CFS‚'s.

It has also been said that because of the current coding, eliminating and or manipulating the p factor affect in twins that are handed (a left and right engine counter rotating) is not possible.

Due to twins just now being introduced to the game. It is apparent that Oleg never had any intentions of producing twins when the code was initially written. Surprising actually as numerous Russian twins and German twins were used on the eastern front. IL2 seems to cater more to the single engine fighter pilot want to be ace, rather than an all encompassing theater of operations.

Obviously if Oleg has no intentions of introducing the correct p factor effects in singles and if it is not possible to accurately depict the p factor affect on twins. We will never be able to use proper tactics with twin engine aircraft.

The best that can be hoped for is a near do well. This is very unfortunate as it certainly ruins game play. Some have mentioned that a super computer is needed to correctly depict flight qualities in aircraft. This is true to a certain extent, though with our current knowledge of our universe, knowledge is the real limiting factor. The fact that the basic affects of flight have been and are depicted in current flight simulations using current computers readily available to everyone. Shows that the real limiting factor is the programmer and the code he has written.

Unfortunately it is all to apparent that due to the limitations of the coding and the human factor. We may never see twins and or single‚'s depicted correctly in IL2. This is in no way meant to diminish what Oleg and his team have created. It is merely pointing out that hopefully what has been learned will be applied to future developments.

In the mean time. Oleg and crew should attempt to do the best they can in simulating the aircraft as closely as possible. That‚'s about the best we can hope for. I have real flight experience and IL2 has many shortcomings in comparison to real aircraft, yet it is head and shoulders above other CFS‚'s. I am delighted to see that somebody has taken on the challenge of integrating more realistic controls and flight dynamics to the CFS family. Though with new CFS‚'s on the horizon, Oleg better re-double his effort's, as some are hot on his heels. We seriously need severs with the capability to host more players along with a dynamic game play that encompasses strategic goals. Right now it is dogfighting with limited ground attack, gets boring real fast.

Many people are complaining about dispersion. I have found that setting dispersion to 1000m, seems to help. I have no trouble cutting planes in two or slicing wings off. The hardest part is getting a good 1-2 second burst on target. Since the dispersion is so small it is more difficult to hit the target. I am not saying that the dispersion is correct, I am only saying that, I have no problem cutting a plane in two, slicing a wing off, or exploding a plane with a good 1-2 second burst, I believe it is the 20mm causing the most damage. Hitting the target is the key. I have shot planes down then checked gunstat and was surprised to see that 48 rounds downed the plane, when 240+ had been fired. Just how many of the misses were due me missing the target or from dispersion is unknown. The real damage may have been done by the 20mm and not much by the 50.cal.

I have found that killing ground targets is much easier with the p38 guns than the bf110. The reason being is when you put the pipper on target and fire with the p38, the rounds hit the target. The aiming point and the impact point seem to be different with the 110. I am talking about distances of 100m or less, in most cases I am 50m or so away from target when I fire, a very short burst, just a tap. Much of this damage seems to be due to the 20mm in the p38. I have been able to chew apart planes and kill them with 50. Cal at 100-300m, though it is not easy. I have to admit that the 50.cal, do seem to be a bit underpowered in comparison to pilot accounts I have read. Do remember the early p51 only had 4 guns. Don Gentile and other early American aces had no problems downing the tough 109‚'s and FW‚'s. Considering the spread inherent to the wing mounted guns, the p38 should be more deadly as at all distances the spread and or dispersion is considerably less. Concentrated firepower is devastating. Funny how the single and twin defensive guns on aircraft kill me easily, yet with 4 50.cal you have to work at it.

Compression seems to be depicted incorrectly. As mentioned earlier by WhiskeyRiver it is the mach number that determines the onset of compression and loss of elevator authority, and that altitude and or air density plays the significant part in what speed compression becomes apparent. Oleg should be very versed on air density and the effects of compression on various aircraft, perhaps he simply made a mistake with the p38. I have read pilot accounts of the affect of compression on the p47. When at high alt once a certain speed was attained in a dive ( I do not recall the speed at this time ) pulling out was impossible. All a pilot could do was to trim the elevator to the proper setting and wait till it started to bite. I believe it started to pull out at around 15 or 8 thousand feet I simply do not recall what alt at this time. By the time the aircraft was in level flight again it was low enough that the pilot did not feel to comfortable, as all he could do was sit and watch the earth getting closer, as with the correct elevator trim inputted the plane pulled out of the dive by itself. There was nothing else the pilot could do. I have dived in game from above 30 thousand feet in the p47 at full power and never experienced any effect like described by the real pilots.

All real p38 pilots have stated that the p38 had advantages, I would assume that it would have advantages at alt and down low, due to 2 props biting the air and larger wing surface. Also the ability to pull, push and turn using both hands, one would think a pilot would be able to exert more force using both hands and arms not to mention the p factor or lack there of. Both Bong and Maguire were know for doing amazing things with this airplane. Perhaps the ability to evenly use upper body strength allowed them to pull harder than the average Joe with a stick single handed, Bong does not look like a little guy. This contraction of all upper body muscles would also help produce pressure and help blood to stay in the head and withstand g‚'s better. Eric Hartman was a gymnist when he was in school. Perhaps it was not just the aircraft but the physical strength and or make up of the superlative pilots that allowed them to bring out the best in there plane. Perhaps the control wheel in the p38 simply gave the p38 driver an advantage in how much force can be applied to the elevator. How is this factored into the code?

I have not seen some of the advantages attributed to the p38 in game, as it seems to fall off the edge of the envelope like a single engine plane, perhaps a little less snappish. But this may be a limitation in the coding and nothing can be changed. It is difficult to get out of a spin sometimes, which is consistent with what some of the real pilots have said. I have read that you need 15 thousand feet to get out of a spin, though the bit I read did not provide great detail. The one thing all the pilots said was the ease at which they were able to fly on the edge, with out entering an accelerated stall and or a spin. All planes stall and spin, it is that some have more manageable characteristics. It is the manageable characteristics that I think we are looking for. I do not feel that the slow speed handling is up to par, or the slow speed handling is over modeled in the single engine aircraft. I think the later is closer to the truth, specifically so if Oleg diminished the p factor effect in single engine aircraft. There was a competition between a p38 pilot and a spitfire pilot that was well documented, the p38 trounced the spit thoroughly. The p38 pilot used the advantages of the p38. This encounter was at low alt right in front of everyone at the airbase, and of course money was bet on the outcome.

It is clear that the p38 needs some fine tuning to bring it to its full potential. It is good right now, but lacks certain capabilities. In the ETO where more high alt fights were encountered, up until the dive brakes were installed, the one disadvantage besides cooling problems prior to the improved cooling system, was the on set of compression. In the PTO compression was not as much of a concern as most encounters were at a lower alt than the ETO. Fact is in both theaters of operations the aircraft was feared. Pilots were successful and survived. The United States 2 most successful pilots flew the p38. Of course the pilot needed to use the aircraft correctly to be successful and or survive, this is true with all aircraft. I believe that it is safe to say that some advantages the p38 has are not correctly depicted in the game.

I can only hope that Oleg will look at the evidence and make adjustments accordingly.

Vulgar

ZG77_Nagual
04-05-2004, 06:14 PM
I agree Vulgar - though I find much of the time a less than 1 second burst is sufficient. I think the 38 has very effective guns - I also set convergence a ways out - closer for the cannon.

VF-10_Snacky
04-06-2004, 01:36 AM
Been playing around with convergence numbers for the P51 tonight online and for the life of me can't decide on a range. The official P51 manual states 274m or 300ft, but in AEP it seems quite a few rounds are waisted and only a small percentage of hits occur at that range.
Some say set convergence low to 100m and some say set it high to 500m+.
It is taking me literally 1000rds and sometimes my entire ammo load to kill another fighter. It's getting very fustrating because I can outfly my bandit, but I cant shoot him down.
I need help bad.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
04-06-2004, 02:54 AM
Although I don't like the P-38 (the flying tank http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) I can say that hitting enemy planes with this box is easy. I set convergence to 200m in allied fighters and I was able to outturn a BF110 although I had 2 x 500pds Bombs and then as the bf110 climbed away I shot it down.

The compression is annoying, that's for sure but I must say that the P-38 is more a nuisance than a P-51 or a P47 which I got used to....

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

Aaron_GT
04-06-2004, 03:27 AM
" This effect is not apparent in the game. If I am not mistaken, Oleg has stated that the p factor affect is diminished in the game. This is obviously intentional as aircraft do not need to be trimmed up prior to take off, like in real life. This is probably due to wanting easy takeoff's for the newbie and or easy transition from other inaccurate CFS‚'s."

It's more a case of the 109 being overmodelled
than the P38 undermodelled, though. It's odd,
though, since there was huge amounts of torque
in the original IL2 demo. I think Oleg mentioned
that to fix other issues the torque had to be
toned down. I think we have to hope for better
things from BoB - new code base, and more
powerful machines to run it on.

I suspect deficiencies in compressibility
(the P38 had pretty early onset of
compressibility though) might be due to the
heritage of IL2 - IL2s themselves were never
likely to be flying at such high speeds so
perhaps it was compromise made in the physics
model that seemed reasonable at the time (like
the high altitude model).



"Obviously if Oleg has no intentions of introducing the correct p factor effects in singles and if it is not possible to accurately depict the p factor affect on twins."


I suspect he is more interested in looking
at getting BoB under way, and fixing show
stopper bugs (time outs, cheat code, crashes
to desk top, planes not starting at all) before
he looks at things deep in the code that might
be hard to fix but don't stop the game from
running.


"The best that can be hoped for is a near do well. This is very unfortunate as it certainly ruins game play."

I think that's a bit strong. It may detract
from it a bit, but doesn't really totally
ruin it.

"Some have mentioned that a super computer is needed to correctly depict flight qualities in aircraft. This is true to a certain extent,"

To do it in detail from first principles it
is absolutely what is needed.

What might be possible is to create a
parameterised physics model ('table based') and
use a supercomputer to generate the parameters.
Or alternatively you can have a simplified
force model, also parameterised. The former
is what the CFS series does (well, apart from
the supercomputer part!) and the latter is
what Xplane and IL2 do. But it still requires
making a simplified physics model of some sort,
and that is where it becomes an art, not a
science. If you look at Flight Gear you can
choose from several different flight models
each of which models certain aspects better
than others. At this point in computer
development I don't think we can avoid
compromises. From friends who fly real planes
and the MSFS series, there are issues there too,
just different ones (one has a my copy of IL2 -
I'll check on his feelings about the FM maybe).


"though with our current knowledge of our universe, knowledge is the real limiting factor"

I think it is still the creation of the physics
model that will run on a standard PC and then
parameterising it correctly.


"The fact that the basic affects of flight have been and are depicted in current flight simulations using current computers readily available to everyone. Shows that the real limiting factor is the programmer and the code he has written."

Well, it's more the skill of the programmer
to create something that works well given
the limited (compared to the problem at hand)
processing power of the home PC. Plus even
with a really good physics model, bugs WILL
happen. It takes a phenomenal amount of time
to fully debug a system. Oleg and team are
doing remarkably well on this (my wife is
a professional software quality analyst and
did a quick tour of the game and I told her
how many lines of code it has, and she was
impressed how well it works).

BigKahuna_GS
04-06-2004, 07:26 AM
S!

This is a very good and well behaved discussion chaps http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There is no doubt that Oleg is a very intelligent, educated and experienced man. But we all have our cultural experiences and points of view.

This topic reminds me a series of interesting and informative emails with Oleg about the P47 over the last 6 months. Basically Oleg saw the P47 thru Russian & German eyes, their training films and opinons. The trouble with this viewpoint was that it was totally inaccurate as to "how" the US fought with this fighter.

The bottom line was this --- Oleg's words " A heavy fighter CAN NOT compete with a light fighter.

Well I told Oleg he was re-writing history because in fact heavy fighters can compete and win. They utilised the strengths of the P47 to their advantage. The 2 leading US Aces in the ETO (Grabeski & Johnson) 28 & 27 kills respectivly were 47 drivers.

I told Oleg that I had read books about soviet pilots WW2 tactics and in order to understand how a heavy plane can beat a lighter plane he needed to read Gabby Grabeski, R.S Johnson and Hub Zemkes book about strategy and tactics of fighting with the P47.

One manuever seemed to shed some light about the P47. The "vector roll". In Oleg's mind the P47 was sooo unmaneuverable that how could it ever turn with a 109/190. Simple the "vector roll". Well the vector roll is in Shaw's book and RAF Capt.Brown describes it in Fighter vs Fighter. Oleg had read were the "heavier" 190 had used this against lighter russian fighters on the Eastern Front and it kind of put things in perspective a little. You need a fast roll rate to perform a vector roll, the result is we have a better roll rate coming to the P47D-27.


My point in all this is the P38 is a heavy aircraft-----The bottom line was this --- Oleg words " A heavy fighter CAN NOT compete with a light fighter.

Oleg has already told me the 38 was one of the most unmanueverable a/c in WW2.

So the "Clover Leaf" manuever of the P38 might become the like the "vector roll" was to the 47. Get all your facts together because your in for a long haul. Pull out Shaw's definetion of it.

Another thing 38 drivers did was throttle manipulation in turns and rolls. Inside power was reduced to effect a quicker roll rate to that side. Americas Hundred Thousand has 109 pilots talking about being out-turned by a 38.

Remember the 2 overall highest scoring US Aces (Bong & McGuire) 40 & 38 kills were P38 drivers.

___________

During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what theSpitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground.


_______________



As for compressiblity, the only time I read that being a problem for the 38 was at high altitude where the air was thinner.


WR----"The P-38 encountered compressibilty starting at .67 Mach. That's 67 percent of the speed of sound. At sea level .67 mach is over 500 miles per hour (804 kph+). In AEP the P-38 begins losing elevator effectiveness(the first sign of compressibility) at about 675 kph TAS (419 mph). This is wrong. It severely cripples the P-38's dive ability and needs to be fixed."

Great info Whiskey !

______________

pinche_bolillo---I dont even know why I responded to this post. I would gladly pour through my 40 odd books specifically written on the P-38 and units that flew them, but the trend is that the data is just propaganda, the author is not competant, or I am just making this up ok I will go away now.

Plz Plz Plz come back Pinche ! Were going to need all you got on the P38 to effect positive change.


_______________


my opinons on the 38 problems:

1#. compressiblity kills the great dive speed of this fighter. I trim it heavy nose up in order to get some elevator response. Compressiblity should mostly be a high altitude issue. Down where the air is thick it shoudnt really be too much of an issue.

2# Elevator response---was it really that bad? I dont know. But I have to fly the plane around trimmed heavy nose up in the combat area in order to manuever.

3# Roll Rate--thought the L had boosted tabs for faster roll rates. Anybody tested it against the charts?

4# Climb Rate--has it ben tested against specs?

5# Speed--has it been tested against specs?



____________


The .50cals are a whole other issue that hopefully will be resolved soon.


___________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

PzKpfw
04-06-2004, 07:26 AM
P-38 maneuvering:

The P-38 was a delightful aircraft to fly in areobatics because it was stable and no maneuver was restricted except dives past placarded limits. Loops, Immelmans, and rolls were permitted, but extreme care had to be taken in maneuvers requiring a downward recovery because loss of altitude was great.

Pilots were warned not to attempt aerobatics below 10000ft altitude unless they were familiar with how fast the P-38 could lose altitude. The airplane was great for precision maneuvers like loops, aileron rolls, and cuban eights. It was particularly good in vertical maneuvers with fine ability to change vertical direction and had excellent zoom climb characteristics.

As an example, however, of how 1944 service and test pilots rated the P-38L in maneuverability: Of 28 flight evaluators only two rated it good, ten said fair, while the others gave it a poor rateing.

The P-38 was a large heavy fighter not suited for quick "snap" or "slam-bang" maneuvers, and had a particularly slow initial rokl due to high lateral inertia characteristic. The problem was a slow start into a roll and thus an inability to switch quickly from one attitude to another, as in reversing from a turn in one direction to one in the other. As one pilot said "It was disconcerting to have a fighter barreling in on you, crank the wheel over hard, and just have the P-38 sit there, Then, after it slowly rolled the first five or ten degrees of bank it would turn quickly, but the hesitation was sweat-producing".

Many combat losses, particularly in North Africa, were attributed to this creaky initial rate of roll. Power boosted ailerons, introduced the same time as dive recovery flaps, gave the P-38 pilot a lot more "muscle" to improve roll characterristics at high speeds, but did nothing to improve them at low and moderate speeds where maximum roll performance was dependent on full aileron deflection instead of pilot effort.

The P-38, particularly in early versions, could not roll into a dive fast eneough to catch an enemy aircraft diveing down and away to evade, as in a split-S maneuver.

Once rolled into a turn, however, the P-38 could then turn very tightly for such a large fighter, particularly at low altitudes, and was touted when driven by some of its best pilots as able to stay with most any good single engine fighter in turning flight. Reputedly some pilots even utilized differential engine power in turning.

*See: America's Hundred-Thousand pp.159-160.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Kurfurst__
04-06-2004, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf_195th:
The P38 could also accelerate faster than anything in the air.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. The P-38 is a very large plane, very heavy, with huge drag. Power-to-weight ratio is unimpressive. No way it will outaccelerate any lightweight single engined fighter.

Here`s a listing for your of acceleration :


Acceleration, as calculated by Greg Shaw. At SL, at Full Throttle, from 250mph TAS:

in feet/seconds


109 K-4 : 6.85
La-7 : 6.58
190 D-9 : 6.05
109 G-14: 5.59
Spit XIV: 5.55
109 G-10: 5.50
Yak-9U : 5.27
190 A-8 : 4.97
Yak-3 : 4.80
109 G-2 : 4.62
P-47 M-5: 4.49
SpitIXLF: 4.41
109 G-6 : 4.22

P-38J-25: 4.17

F-6F : 4.09
F-4U1D : 4.08
P-47D-25: 3.79
P-51D-25: 3.34

Very good from a twin engine, though.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

BigKahuna_GS
04-06-2004, 07:38 AM
S!


Hey John wasnt the slow initial roll-rate on the ealier models ?

Especially when referring to North Africa.

I have AHT also and that what I get out of it. Also the L model had boosted tabs to initiate a faster roll rate.


_______________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

Tetrapharmakoi
04-06-2004, 07:45 AM
Thanks Kurfurst for reminding to them basic evidences.
I noticed some americans whine because they have the idea that P-51 and P-38 were the best planes of WWII which is absolutely untrue when you speak about performances.
S!

PzKpfw
04-06-2004, 07:59 AM
US Fighter acceleration from an initial condition of 250mph @ SL MP to CP* order by Rank:

Early war useing MIL.HP 250mph @ SL to MP by ranking 1-7:

P-38F:

Mil.HP - 2300
Weight - 15665lbs
Thrust.LB - 2760
Drag.LB - 1640
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 2.30


P-47D:

Mil.HP - 2000
Weight - 13698lbs
Thrust.LB - 2400
Drag.LB - 1485
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 2.15

P-51:

Mil.HP - 1150
Weight - 8800lbs
Thrust.LB - 1380
Drag.LB - 797
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 2.13

P-39D:

Mil.HP - 1150
Weight - 7759lbs
Thrust.LB - 1380
Drag.LB - 871
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 2.11

F4U-1:

Mil.HP - 2000
Weight - 12694lbs
Thrust.LB - 2400
Drag.LB - 1580
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 2.08

F2A-3:

Mil.HP - 1200
Weight - 7339lbs
Thrust.LB - 1440
Drag.LB - 1112
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 1.44

P-40E:

Mil.HP - 1150
Weight - 8700lbs
Thrust.LB - 1380
Drag.LB - 1049
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 1.23

F4F-4:

Mil.HP - 1200
Weight - 7975lbs
Thrust.LB - 1440
Drag.LB - 1163
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 1.12

Late War 250mph @ SL to COMBAT POWER by ranking 1-8:

COMBAT Power:

P-38L:

COM.HP - 3200
Weight - 16880lbs
Thrust.LB - 3840
Drag.LB - 1676
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 4.13

P-47M:

COM.HP - 2800
Weight - 14700lbs
Thrust.LB - 3360
Drag.LB - 1527
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 4.02

P-51D:

COM.HP - 1720
Weight - 10208lbs
Thrust.LB - 2064
Drag.LB - 845
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.85


P-39Q-1:

COM.HP - 1420
Weight - 7570lbs
Thrust.LB - 1704
Drag.LB - 864
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.57

P-63A:

COM.HP - 1500
Weight - 8442lbs
Thrust.LB - 1800
Drag.LB - 926
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.33

F4U-4:

COM.HP - 2380
Weight - 12420lbs
Thrust.LB - 2856
Drag.LB - 1569
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.33

F6F-5:

COM.HP - 2250
Weight - 12740lbs
Thrust.LB - 2700
Drag.LB - 1673
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 2.60

P-40N:

COM.HP - 1360
Weight - 8451lbs
Thrust.LB - 1632
Drag.LB - 1044
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 2.24

As can be seen the P-38F/L were the accel leaders in both catagories, for US production fighters. Ie, the P-38L with Combat power had 1000lbs more thrust then the P-38F, with not much more drag or weight.


*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand p.604

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Wed April 07 2004 at 09:00 AM.]

PzKpfw
04-06-2004, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
S!


Hey John wasnt the slow initial roll-rate on the ealier models ?

Especially when referring to North Africa.

I have AHT also and that what I get out of it. Also the L model had boosted tabs to initiate a faster roll rate.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kahuna the below passage would indicate that P-38 slow to moderate speed roll rate was not adressed:



Power boosted ailerons, introduced the same time as dive recovery flaps, gave the P-38 pilot a lot more "muscle" to improve roll characterristics at high speeds, but did nothing to improve them at low and moderate speeds where maximum roll performance was dependent on full aileron deflection instead of pilot effort.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

WWMaxGunz
04-06-2004, 09:02 AM
Kill counts are not a way to specify the performance of any fighter. There's too many variables to begin to use them or call them significant. They are meaningless to prove anything but exactly what they are, not applicable to any other kind of proof. "Must mean" and "proof" are two different things altogether.


Neal

FA_Maddog
04-06-2004, 09:31 AM
Tetrapharmakoi said:


"Thanks Kurfurst for reminding to them basic evidences.
I noticed some americans whine because they have the idea that P-51 and P-38 were the best planes of WWII which is absolutely untrue when you speak about performances.
S!"

Are you talking about real life or just this game? I would have to agree with you if your just talking about FB, the performances could use some improvement.

Could someone record a track of the P-51 flying max speed of 704km/h @ 7620m at level fight and submit it. I have been having trouble getting it up to speed.

ZG77_Nagual
04-06-2004, 09:34 AM
Tetrapharmakoi - we're not whining here - and I'm certainly not an ameriwhiner - my fav till lately being the 190. This is a pretty civil and well-informed thread by a group interesting in seeing one of the more unusual planes of ww2 rendered as accurately as possible. Why call us whiners?

Personally I think the mustang is one of the best modeled planes in the simm - if the d-27s roll gets fixed and the 38 gets
A: a bit higher compressibility
B: a bit better low speed handling

I'll have no suggestions re american planes.
Now that the 109k is, arguably, the best fighter in the simm (ki84 is right there with it) I'd think you guys could show a little class and help us out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VF-10_Snacky
04-06-2004, 10:04 AM
I am basing this statement according to the P38L training video. Have you watched it yet
??

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf_195th:
The P38 could also accelerate faster than anything in the air.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. The P-38 is a very large plane, very heavy, with huge drag. Power-to-weight ratio is unimpressive. No way it will outaccelerate any lightweight single engined fighter.

Here`s a listing for your of acceleration :


Acceleration, as calculated by Greg Shaw. At SL, at Full Throttle, from 250mph TAS:

in feet/seconds


109 K-4 : 6.85
La-7 : 6.58
190 D-9 : 6.05
109 G-14: 5.59
Spit XIV: 5.55
109 G-10: 5.50
Yak-9U : 5.27
190 A-8 : 4.97
Yak-3 : 4.80
109 G-2 : 4.62
P-47 M-5: 4.49
SpitIXLF: 4.41
109 G-6 : 4.22

P-38J-25: 4.17

F-6F : 4.09
F-4U1D : 4.08
P-47D-25: 3.79
P-51D-25: 3.34

Very good from a twin engine, though.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

VF-10_Snacky
04-06-2004, 10:14 AM
I agree 100%


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Tetrapharmakoi - we're not whining here - and I'm certainly not an ameriwhiner - my fav till lately being the 190. This is a pretty civil and well-informed thread by a group interesting in seeing one of the more unusual planes of ww2 rendered as accurately as possible. Why call us whiners?

Personally I think the mustang is one of the best modeled planes in the simm - if the d-27s roll gets fixed and the 38 gets
A: a bit higher compressibility
B: a bit better low speed handling

I'll have no suggestions re american planes.
Now that the 109k is, arguably, the best fighter in the simm (ki84 is right there with it) I'd think you guys could show a little class and help us out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

BigKahuna_GS
04-06-2004, 10:41 AM
S!


John--"Power boosted ailerons, introduced the same time as dive recovery flaps, gave the P-38 pilot a lot more "muscle" to improve roll characterristics at high speeds, but did nothing to improve them at low and moderate speeds where maximum roll performance was dependent on full aileron deflection instead of pilot effort. "


What are they considering slow to moderate speed?


Anybody know if the P38 elevator response was as bad as it is now ?

____________


From Oleg :

The P38L will be recieving the activation of its Airborne Tail Warning Radar system. Not sure if it will be in the next patch.

The P47D-27 will have the same roll rate as the P47D-30 in the patch. About 85sec/deg roll rate.



_______________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

PzKpfw
04-06-2004, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
S!


What are they considering slow to moderate speed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-38s pre-aileron boost roll rate was 75deg/sec @ 290mph IAS, which fell off rapidly as speed increased. Peak roll rate was 77 deg/sec @ 300mph IAS (4.7sec roll).

*So, at the lower speeds maximum aileron deflection limits roll rate, and at high speeds the pilot's available muscle limits it. Installing an aileron power boost system, as Lockheed did in late models, substantially raised roll rate values on the "down" side of the curve by hydraulically boosting the pilot's muscle a considerable ammount. Unfortunately data on boosted system performance is not available.

See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand p.144

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Aaron_GT
04-06-2004, 11:29 AM
"As can be seen the P-38F/L were the accel leaders in both catagories, for US production fighters. Ie, the P-38L with Combat power had 1000lbs more thrust then the P-38F, with not much more drag or weight."

For some reason US planes seemed to have
rather unspectacular level acceleration. Perhaps
level acceleration isn't actually that important
especially if a high cruise speed can be
efficiently maintained (e.g. P51).

Aaron_GT
04-06-2004, 11:31 AM
"I am basing this statement according to the P38L training video. Have you watched it yet"

Kurfurst is basing it on the figures from
Shaw's book, which seem to be backed up
by those from AHT, so they seem to be pretty
reputable figures.

WhiskeyRiver
04-06-2004, 11:48 AM
The P-38L's aileron boost did not improve low to medium speed roll rates according to previous posts. As it is now the the P-38J rolls faster at low speeds. Shouldn't the J and L roll the same until about 300 mph then the J starts slowing down while the L continues to get faster?

If anyone has a roll chart showing roll rate for both the boosted and unboosted 38's at 50lbs of stick deflection please post it.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Korolov
04-06-2004, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
The P-38L's aileron boost did not improve low to medium speed roll rates according to previous posts. As it is now the the P-38J rolls faster at low speeds. Shouldn't the J and L roll the same until about 300 mph then the J starts slowing down while the L continues to get faster?

If anyone has a roll chart showing roll rate for both the boosted and unboosted 38's at 50lbs of stick deflection please post it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The J does seem to roll faster at lower speeds, but I can guarentee you that the L rolls almost as fast as a Fw-190 at speeds in excess of 500kmh.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

WhiskeyRiver
04-06-2004, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Tetrapharmakoi - we're not whining here - and I'm certainly not an ameriwhiner - my fav till lately being the 190. This is a pretty civil and well-informed thread by a group interesting in seeing one of the more unusual planes of ww2 rendered as accurately as possible. Why call us whiners?

Personally I think the mustang is one of the best modeled planes in the simm - if the d-27s roll gets fixed and the 38 gets
A: a bit higher compressibility
B: a bit better low speed handling

I'll have no suggestions re american planes.
Now that the 109k is, arguably, the best fighter in the simm (ki84 is right there with it) I'd think you guys could show a little class and help us out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And removal of the snap stalls. These shouldn't be happening.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

ZG77_Nagual
04-06-2004, 12:52 PM
right

A: make the compression a little later
B: Improve low speed handling (cloverleaf!)
C: Do away with snap stalls

Sound's like the 38 should just sort of 'fall off' in a stall - then regain etc.

Kurfurst__
04-06-2004, 01:52 PM
I really dont like to be negative and all... but I will.. this really isnt democracy, ie. if enough people vote to make the P-38 better in this or that regard. You would better start digging in the library, get new, more sources, and try to show belivable evidence to Oleg... like handling trials, stall curves etc... oral stories... are just oral stories, for every oral story, 2 others with the exact opposite meaning can be found and so on. A pilot telling the P-38 was "good" or "bad" don`t give any hint to Oleg, it cannot be programmed - not to mention it`s all relative, a pilot flying Hellcats before will tell the stall characteristics are awful; a pilot that flew the Mustang will tell stall is really, really gentle and forgiving..

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/dasboot.jpg
Final shot. Prepeare to fire! Target speed: 0. "Check" Range, 650 meters. "Check" Depth: 4 meters. Torpedo speed: three-zero. Aiming point..forward of after mast.
Tube I., ready? "Tube I. ready!" Tube I....! "Tube I." Fire! "Fire. Torpedo running!"


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below : For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

paradoxbox
04-06-2004, 01:55 PM
On the speed of compression, Lt. Pete Maimone: "But what made it so exciting for me was that I let all of my bombs go at one time which meant I got into a near compressibility [situation] and the control column wouldn‚'t come back. I chopped the throttles; I did everything I could, and finally the thing starts to come up and I skidded over a hill. And the last time I looked at my airspeed indicator it was at 400 and I knew I was still in a dive."

I am curious about those acceleration times. Are those initial acceleration figures or just acceleration period? I know for a fact that the P-38 was the best initial accelerator of the three main USAAF fighters (38, 51, 47). I.E. the P-38 would accelerate away from a P-51 but after 15-20 seconds the P-51 would gradually pass the P-38. Any other info on these figures would be helpful.

I've seen video of a P-38 accelerating away from a P-51 on the ground and in the air, both at full power. Considering the fact that mil thrust for the P-38L also produces several hundred less horsepower than WEP, I don't see how those figures have much relevance to its initial acceleration (The important kind). In combat you use full power. My point being the P-38 at war power settings had better acceleration than a P-51 at war power settings. Not a "pissing contest" but a crude way of showing the acceleration was better. I'll see if I can find the video again. In AEP the 109G6/Late accelerates a LOT faster than the P-38J, so if we are going to use these figures, we know that either the 109 or the P-38 is wrong.

I would like to mention that the J-25 was one of the heaviest but underpowered Lightnings ever produced. It had all the extra weight of hydraulic boost to the ailerons, more electrical gear, etc. The L had a lot more extra War Emergency Horsepower allocated to it. This helped with acceleration.

On roll rate, the P-38's initial roll rate was very poor at low airspeeds especially. With an exception. Pilots versed in fighting with the P-38 would reduce the power of the inboard engine and roll the plane HARD into their turn. Anyone who's seen a P-38 flip over onto its back on engine failure on takeoff understands this concept perfectly. The P-38 could roll exceptionally well at low/medium airspeeds using this technique.

More later..

paradoxbox
04-06-2004, 02:06 PM
Anyone care to explain this? Why would the P-38L be more than 12 KPH SLOWER than the J at WEP! It had over 300 more horsepower and the airframe was virtually the same! Sure, the L was heavier than the J-15, but not THAT much heavier! By the way, this checks out in game as well, not just IL2 comp.

http://paradoxbox.netfirms.com/p38speedswrong.gif

[This message was edited by paradoxbox on Tue April 06 2004 at 01:47 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
04-06-2004, 02:39 PM
Why should the L roll the same as the J at low and medium speed? Hydraulics in the wings don't come free with any roll speed. There's not just the lines but the actuators had to be big enough for the square area to move the ailerons and housing thick enough for that pressure at that size. Enough fluid had to move for the stroke. You can cut one or two parameters but then you add to the other(s). What did the lines run? 150psi? Diameter? Length? System weight? Then compare that to the actuation of the ailerons on the J. Shouldn't it be slower? How much?


Neal

paradoxbox
04-06-2004, 02:47 PM
The P-38J's ailerons would move as fast as you could move the wheel. The only thing hydraulic ailerons did was reduce the amount of force needed to make the actual ailerons move. They did not affect the speed at which they moved. As long as full deflection can be achieved the planes would roll at the same rate at the same speeds.

Although, there should be a very very small difference, because the ailerons were redesigned with the installation of the hydraulic boost system.

PzKpfw
04-06-2004, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paradoxbox:

I am curious about those acceleration times. Are those initial acceleration figures or just acceleration period? I know for a fact that the P-38 was the best initial accelerator of the three main USAAF fighters (38, 51, 47). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The data from AHT posted earlier shows the P-38L had the best initial acceleration useing COMBAT power, out of all production US fighters @ 4.13ft/sec.


The early fighters Ie, P-38F starting from an initial condition of 250mph @ SL then ramming throtles to full MILITARY power (2300hp)

. The later models Ie, P-38L start under the same conditions & push throttles to full COMBAT power (3200hp).

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

paradoxbox
04-06-2004, 04:10 PM
One thing I would REALLY like to know is WHEN WILL THE STALL SPEED BE CORRECTED?

This is SUCH an important issue and it's been TOTALLY incorrectly modelled. It's off by over 20mph in the sim. The flight training video shows the plane stalling flaps up at less than 100mph, and the pilot's manual indicates it won't stall until 69mph with flaps and gear down. But the AEP p38 stalls at 90mph no matter how hard you try or what weight your plane is. What gives?!

VMF513_Sandman
04-06-2004, 05:11 PM
we did a trial run of this scenerio; p-38-L and p-51d20. from 250 indicated and tip to tip, we shoved em full bore. the 51 did match the 38 in the acceleration.
in the climb, the same pony also had the same climb rate as the 38-J.

in a dogfight at low level, the 38 was able to stay locked on even in the sissors. was able to break lock for a couple mins, but couldnt capitalize on it. the J definately is a lethal threat if the driver knows what he's doin.

VF-10_Snacky
04-06-2004, 05:41 PM
I understand, but you didn't answer my question.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"I am basing this statement according to the P38L training video. Have you watched it yet"

Kurfurst is basing it on the figures from
Shaw's book, which seem to be backed up
by those from AHT, so they seem to be pretty
reputable figures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

paradoxbox
04-06-2004, 06:12 PM
A little clarification, the video at zeno's depicts a P-38H, not an L. The H was the best accelerating Lightning produced.

Also, I can verify Sandmans statements. We conducted several tests with the P-38L and P-51D-20

The P51 accelerated just as fast (Very very minor difference) as the P-38 from a 250mph, wingtip to wingtip start at sea level. This does not mesh too well with the data provided above. And it is unfortunate given the fact that just about everyone knows the Lightning was the best accelerating USAAF fighter.

PzKpfw
04-06-2004, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paradoxbox:
A little clarification, the video at zeno's depicts a P-38H, not an L. The H was the best accelerating Lightning produced.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be so Para but the tests were only done with the P-38F & L.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

ZG77_Nagual
04-06-2004, 06:30 PM
Kurfurst - as allways I apprediate your rigor http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The reasons the power boost doesn't effect roll onset have been explained - also facts support the 38 having the best level accel of us fighters.

I hope some among us are gathering whatever evidence we can to support the compression and stall problems -there certainly is alot of anecdotal stuff on the low speed handling. If I were Oleg I'd want us to collate and deliver it to him has concisely as possible with as much sources sited, links whatever. I don't have time to do it and there are posters with alot more knowlege than I. I think Oleg will make changes if we can support them.

multiple sources are key

ZG77_OzZ
04-06-2004, 07:22 PM
So were is the man?

Is this not Oleg Maddox's Ready Room?

So Oleg what do you think?
I think you have enough data to chock a small country NO?

Lets here a patch caoming to fix this issue?

Korolov
04-06-2004, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_OzZ:
So were is the man?

Is this not Oleg Maddox's Ready Room?

So Oleg what do you think?
I think you have enough data to chock a small country NO?

Lets here a patch caoming to fix this issue?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, heres the thing - what issue?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

PzKpfw
04-06-2004, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF513_Sandman:
we did a trial run of this scenerio; p-38-L and p-51d20. from 250 indicated and tip to tip, we shoved em full bore. the 51 did match the 38 in the acceleration.
in the climb, the same pony also had the same climb rate as the 38-J.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If thats the case Sandman, then that needs to be adressed as evident from the above data the P-51D should not initialy be able to keep up with the P-38L at all.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

WWMaxGunz
04-06-2004, 11:48 PM
I'm getting deja-vu! Shouldn't the 190's turn better and go faster as well?

WhiskeyRiver
04-07-2004, 01:43 AM
Found the NACA chart showing the relation between IAS, TAS, Mach number, and Altitude.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1943/naca-wr-l-473/index.cgi?page0009.gif

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Aaron_GT
04-07-2004, 01:51 AM
Seawolf wrote:
"I understand, but you didn't answer my question."

Well I'm not Kurfurst so I can't answer for him!

More relevant though, is the provenance of the
training video, and the information in AHT
and Shaw, and whether the language used can
be given a consistent interpretation. E.g. if
the video says that the P38 accelerates fastest,
is the context in relation to all WW2 fighters
(in which case it would be incorrect) or
with respect to US ones (in which case it would
be correct)?

WhiskeyRiver
04-07-2004, 02:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"I am basing this statement according to the P38L training video. Have you watched it yet"

Kurfurst is basing it on the figures from
Shaw's book, which seem to be backed up
by those from AHT, so they seem to be pretty
reputable figures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg stated in a different thread that AHT is a "buggy" book. His english isn't the greatestbut I think he saying that the figures in AHT are wrong.

I'm trying right now to see if the NACA did any tests comparing twin engine aircraft to single engine aircraft in regards to accleration. I did find one stating that increasing the number of propellor blades is more efficient than increasing individual blade size. i.e. a 4 blade prop is more efficient(give more thrust for a given horsepower) than a 3 blade prop if total prop area remains the same. The report also said that the efficiency difference increased with airspeed. More blades have less of an advantage at high speed and high alt than at low speeds and low alt. I'm guessing that this is why the "paddle blade" prop made such a difference on the P-47's low speed and low alt performance.

I would venture to guess that the more prop area and number of blades you have for a given amount of horsepower the more efficient the installation is. I know that compressibilty limits prop rpm and diameter. It would seem that the solution is to either increase the chord of each individual blade(less efficient) a la P-47 or increase the number of blades (more efficient) a la Spitfir Mk XIV.

Link below.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1938/naca-report-640/

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

VF-10_Snacky
04-07-2004, 04:24 AM
It appears to say faster than any other aircraft which could really mean either or, but I would probably lean toward other US planes as well.

I think expectations were high for the P38 so only time will tell if it turns out a success or not. Oleg and crew could very well tweak it a bit in the patch so I am just going to wait and see what happens.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Seawolf wrote:
"I understand, but you didn't answer my question."

Well I'm not Kurfurst so I can't answer for him!

More relevant though, is the provenance of the
training video, and the information in AHT
and Shaw, and whether the language used can
be given a consistent interpretation. E.g. if
the video says that the P38 accelerates fastest,
is the context in relation to all WW2 fighters
(in which case it would be incorrect) or
with respect to US ones (in which case it would
be correct)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

PzKpfw
04-07-2004, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:


Oleg stated in a different thread that AHT is a "buggy" book. His english isn't the greatestbut I think he saying that the figures in AHT are wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Whiskey he did, problem is we dont know what he was refering to, when he said it, or if he even owns a copy of AHT. Ie, when it was said, we were discussing P-47D-27 roll rates, & stick force useing AHT data (85 deg/sec 50lb stick)& now the roll rate is being corrected in the patch, to 85 deg/sec? IIRC what Kahuna posted.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Wed April 07 2004 at 06:46 AM.]

Aaron_GT
04-07-2004, 08:37 AM
"Yes Whiskey he did, problem is we dont know what he was refering to, when he said it, or if he even owns a copy of AHT."

I'm pretty sure Oleg has says he has it.

3ra_DSLam
04-07-2004, 08:57 AM
I've made some tests with P38L. conditions were:
Starting from the ground, stopped.
Empty loadout
100% fuel.
Radiators fully open.
No turbulences.
About 280IAS climb (reducing from 290 to 270 during climb).
110% power 3000rpm and 60inHG
I made 25.000ft (6000m) in 6:10 minutes that is more or less what it has to do(if I'm wrong correct me please).

The strange thing is that at 100% gauges also read 3000rpm and 60inHG, at all altitudes until 25k ft but it doesen't overheat during the climb. At 110% it overheats at about 4000-5000m. I've reached 25k ft in about 7 minutes with this setting.


I'm going to try climb at 54inHG, that is combat climb.

http://www.sarriacity.net/dslam/imagenes/DSLam2.jpg

[This message was edited by E111_DSLam on Wed April 07 2004 at 08:20 AM.]

[This message was edited by E111_DSLam on Wed April 07 2004 at 08:21 AM.]

3ra_DSLam
04-07-2004, 09:13 AM
Sorry I was absolutely wrong, 25k ft are 7600m(not 6km http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif) and I've done my test up to 20k ft (6000m)! So it should climb in about 5-5:30 minutes!

Also, at 54mmHG I climbed to 20k ft in about 7:30.

http://www.sarriacity.net/dslam/imagenes/DSLam2.jpg

[This message was edited by E111_DSLam on Wed April 07 2004 at 08:25 AM.]

ZG77_Nagual
04-07-2004, 09:20 AM
I think we can pretty much rule out the P38 having the best initial acceleration of any fighter. I'll buy it beats the US crowd but there's no way a p38 could beat something like a Yak3 or K4.

PzKpfw
04-07-2004, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I think we can pretty much rule out the P38 having the best initial acceleration of any fighter. I'll buy it beats the US crowd but there's no way a p38 could beat something like a Yak3 or K4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who claimed the P-38 had better initial accelleration then any other fighter?.

Their is an possible accel problem in regards to the posts of test were the P-51D stayed with the P-38L, as evident from the AHT data, as the L initial acceleration was 4.13fps vs the P-51D's 3.85fps from 250mph @ SL to COMBAT power.

Ie, the below excerpt from Army Air Forces Board, Tactical Employment Trials on the North American P51B-Airplane, USAF Historical Research Document 245.64, 27 December 1944:

With both airplanes in formation at cruising speed in level flight, when full power is applied, the P-38J will pull several hundred feet out in front before the P-51B can reach maximum acceleration and overtake the P-38J.

The P-38 in the tests was an P-38J-5.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

ZG77_Nagual
04-07-2004, 09:43 AM
Somewhere back there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif just wanted to be clear about it. For the original accel tests - what were the fuel loads? The mustang carries alot of fuel and it may be the diff in accel is greater for the mustang at reduced fuel loads. I've emailed oleg about this thread but I don't have the hard data. I do know Oleg is very much willing to change things with the right weight of evidence.

3ra_DSLam
04-07-2004, 09:50 AM
Another test, same conditions as above. time to climb to 25000ft (7620m) at combat power (54inHG in the gauge,84% power): 11:40 minutes. Should be around 9-10 minutes.

PD: Wich is the weight of a lightning with 100% fuel but without ammo, bombs and roquets? I assumed about 8 tons(dunno really) and if it's correct all those numers say that real p38L accelerates/climbs faster than in game.
Salute!

http://www.sarriacity.net/dslam/imagenes/DSLam2.jpg

[This message was edited by E111_DSLam on Wed April 07 2004 at 09:05 AM.]

PzKpfw
04-07-2004, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Somewhere back there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif just wanted to be clear about it. For the original accel tests - what were the fuel loads? The mustang carries alot of fuel and it may be the diff in accel is greater for the mustang at reduced fuel loads. I've emailed oleg about this thread but I don't have the hard data. I do know Oleg is very much willing to change things with the right weight of evidence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nagual, the data is contained in the thread & cited on difrent pages the fastest initial accelerateing US fighter for both early war & late war US production fighters was the P-38 Ie, :


P-38L:

COM.HP - 3200
Weight - 16880lbs
Thrust.LB - 3840
Drag.LB - 1676
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 4.13

P-51D:

COM.HP - 1720
Weight - 10208lbs
Thrust.LB - 2064
Drag.LB - 845
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.85

The Merlin P-51 would overtake the P-38 in acceleration after a few hundred feet as evidenced in my edited post above to you. Both planes had full internal fuel.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Wed April 07 2004 at 09:02 AM.]

PzKpfw
04-07-2004, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by E111_DSLam:
Another test, same conditions as above. time to climb to 25000ft (7620m) at combat power (54inHG in the gauge): 11:40 minutes. Should be around 9-10 minutes.

PD: Wich is the weight of a lightning with 100% fuel but without ammo, bombs and roquets? I assumed about 8 tons(dunno really) and if it's correct all those numers say that real p38L accelerates/climbs faster than in game.
Salute!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-38L was the fastest US climbing production fighter, to see widespread operational service. It could reach 25000ft in 8:00 ot less.

The P-63A & F4U-4 were actualy faster in climb with the P-63A being # 1 but neither saw real service Ie, the P-63 was only used in combat by the VVS & the F4U-4 which was # 2 arrived just as the war ended.

weights on the P-38 the best I can get close to your weight spec is a P-38 basic gross weight of 14100lbs & thats with limited ammo & limited fuel & oil to less then full capacity.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Aaron_GT
04-07-2004, 10:26 AM
Seawolf:
"The P38 could also accelerate faster than anything in the air."

That's where it came from.

ZG77_Nagual
04-07-2004, 12:46 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and bump

WUAF_Co_Hero
04-07-2004, 02:04 PM
Finally there is conclusive data on the 38's shortcomings, and what now? No support or response from Oleg..

Common, at least look at the stuff and let us know what you think http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Aaron_GT
04-07-2004, 03:36 PM
"Finally there is conclusive data on the 38's shortcomings,"

I haven't seen any conclusions at all. Could
someone recap them for me?

Aaron_GT
04-07-2004, 03:46 PM
Ok.. what I have seen so far:

Climb rate - seems about correct?

Roll rate - some debate over relative roll
of some models at low speed. Seems roughly
ok overall, and correct at high speed. Are there
any definitive figures on the differences on
J and L models at lower speed to be sure there
is any error in AEP?

Stall speed - might be a bit too high in AEP.
Is this an issue with the P38, or an endemic
issue for other planes (as if the latter it
might be a game engine issue or general physics
model parameterisation issue - if it is it is
better to flag it as such to Oleg rather than
a P38 issue).

Stall behaviour - might be an issue with
lack of torque from other planes/engine issue
more than anything else, so might not be an
issue with the P38 so much as everything, and
maybe not fixable.

Acceleration relative to P51 - might not be
a P38 issue - could be overmodelling of the
P51. Absolute figures are needed to compare
against the figures posted here before it can
be necessarily said that the P38 is wrong.
One of the problems is that to ensure you
are determining the acceleration at 250 mph,
you have to measure the time taken to accelerate
to only a small amount above 250 mph, so there
are going to be large error bars on this, and
repeated tests required, and it might be as
well to repeat the tests with the P51 as well,
to determine if the official P38 and P51
rates both fall within the error bars. (If one
doesn't there may be a problem with that plane
and it might not be the P38).

Speeds (below 10,000m) - generally about right?
What are people getting in game (at the
relavant power setting) and what should they be?

Gun issue - dealt with in other threads.

ZG77_OzZ
04-07-2004, 03:54 PM
HUH? there is enough data to choke a horse. look at all the posts.

paradoxbox
04-07-2004, 04:24 PM
I can say definately that the flaps/gear down stall speed in a light configuration is off by more than 20mph. It is one of the biggest errors in the P-38 and if nothing else is fixed in this plane, I hope that this is the one that does get the proper attention it deserves.

I can provide pilot manual information for specific stall speeds and weights if anyone needs it.

WWMaxGunz
04-07-2004, 04:33 PM
Wasn't all this sent to Oleg as soon as it was said the P-38 would be done?


Neal

BigKahuna_GS
04-07-2004, 04:48 PM
S!


There should be a difference between compressibility at High Altitude in thin air and Low Altitude in dense air.

The P38 should not compress easily at low altitudes as the controls will work better in the thick air (speed of sound is greater). From everything I read the problem of compressibility was at high altitude---20,000ft (360mph IAS), 30,000ft (290 IAS) and above. Even if the P38 entered compressiblity at high altitude it could regain control-- without dive flaps --in the warmer denser air of low altitude.

In FB/AEP the controls locked at low altitude which is incorrect--the controls came back at low altitude 5-7,000ft

Compresibility was not much an issue with the P38 at low altitude except at maximum dive speeds.

See Dive & Recovery in AHT pg158


___________





The P38 should have THE most gentle stall out of all aircrafts in FB/AEP---its stall recovery should be the best--because the plane was so hard to stall. The P38 was able to perform very high AoA manuevers that no other plane could perform because of the lack of torque.

A one G-stall with a clean aircraft power off or on, resulted in the a/c mushing straight forward--airlerons remained effective. In a high speed stall the plane could be urged around in a " tight in and out of stall turn"

AHT pg163


The cloverleaf was a horizontal maneuver that took advantage of the P-38's
exceptionally gentle stall characteristics. It was a low-speed maneuver. Thepilot would tighten his turn until he actually stalled out, ease off and let the plane unstall itself, then tighten back up into a stall, ease up....
Viewed from above, the pattern the airplane flew through the air looked
something like a cloverleaf, and this simply was used in teaching the maneuver





______________


By an actual P38 pilot:

The initial reluctance of the P-38 to enter a roll was easily
counteracted: throttle back the inside engine briefly as you turn the
wheel, then bring power back up. The plane would snap into a roll so fast
it might knock your head against the canopy.


I have tried differential throttle control to turn or roll -- I see no difference.


Has anyone else tried it ? Then again maybe i am doing it wrong.
______________


Lockeed Charts on Speed, Climb and Roll Rate :


C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\My Pictures


C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\My Pictures


C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\My Pictures



____________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

BigKahuna_GS
04-07-2004, 04:57 PM
S!


Dang, I cant get these Lockheed Charts to show.

What am I doing wrong?


______________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

ZG77_Nagual
04-07-2004, 05:00 PM
dp

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Wed April 07 2004 at 04:12 PM.]

ZG77_Nagual
04-07-2004, 05:01 PM
I've tried the engine/roll trick - it does not work in aep.
Combat pilot accounts are universal regarding the low speed stall/turn.
Likewise, onset of commpressibility is too early down low. these are not relative performance issues but apply directly to the 38 in and of itself.

|CoB|_Spectre
04-07-2004, 06:10 PM
It's a long shot, but I have tried to contact Steve Hinton to see if he can/will help shed any light on this debate. Mr. Hinton has impeccable credentials (director of the Chino, CA Planes of Fame museum and Fighter Rebuilders restoration facility, unlimited class air racer at Reno, test pilot for Glacier Girl, etc.) and would have invaluable insight into realworld handling of the P-38. Unknown is his exposure to the flight sim genre (why should he, when he gets to fly the real thing!). I have no idea if he will get the email or have the time/inclination to respond, but it was worth a shot. I know Oleg, being an engineer, would prefer empirical data, but he did enlist a current Mustang pilot in the development of the flyable P-51s for v1.22 and I would hope he would be willing to take into account any feedback a current P-38 pilot of Mr. Hinton's stature would be willing to share. Performance curves and histograms are an important part of evaluating a aircraft's performance, but they don't tell the whole story. I understand Oleg's reluctance to accept anecdotal information, particularly when it's a recollection based on a sixty year old experience. Mr. Hinton's recent flight time "in-type" could help add important pieces of the puzzle. Keep your fingers crossed.

VulgarOne
04-07-2004, 08:42 PM
The one thing that was a difference with the p38 in comparison to most twins. Was the direction each engine turned. In most twins the right and left engine turned in a direction that if an engine failed, the torque from the powered engine helped keep the un-powered wing up.

In the p38 the direction of rotation was such that the torque had an effect to cause the un-powered wing to go down. This rotational effect, the p factor and the weight of the un-powered side was the cause of some mishaps, on takeoff or landing.

Like many unique configurations, this decision caused advantages and disadvantages. Since we may not be experiencing proper p factor effects in game, reducing power on one side may not have the full effect experienced with the real aircraft.

I have read both, some pilots stating they never modulated the throttles separately and never reduced power in combat, some have mentioned modulating the throttles separately. I would think it is safe to assume that both are true. Personal preference or a newer pilot may be inclined to never slow down, speed is safety. The more experienced or talented pilot would be more capable and confident to fine tune things to extract extra performance. This confident pilot may not be as worried about slowing a bit to gain maneuverability and or acquire target solution. Whether pilots did or did not is a moot point. The aircraft had the ability, how much is what I think we are looking for.

It is great to see all the info everyone is coming up with. Hopefully this will remain productive and civil. I am one that would love to see twins correctly depicted. I have been waiting 20 years to see aircraft such as the p38, bf110, pe2, pe3 and other twins to be closely depicted in CFS‚'s. Can only thank Oleg and Crew for bringing this to us.

Vulgar

WhiskeyRiver
04-08-2004, 01:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
S!


Dang, I cant get these Lockheed Charts to show.

What am I doing wrong?


______________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.






<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kahuna I posted a link an NACA chart on the previous page of this thread. It shows Mach as it changes at altitude from SL up to about 40000 feet. .67 Mach is the magic number for the -38.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

WhiskeyRiver
04-08-2004, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Ok.. what I have seen so far:

Climb rate - seems about correct?

Roll rate - some debate over relative roll
of some models at low speed. Seems roughly
ok overall, and correct at high speed. Are there
any definitive figures on the differences on
J and L models at lower speed to be sure there
is any error in AEP?

Stall speed - might be a bit too high in AEP.
Is this an issue with the P38, or an endemic
issue for other planes (as if the latter it
might be a game engine issue or general physics
model parameterisation issue - if it is it is
better to flag it as such to Oleg rather than
a P38 issue).

Stall behaviour - might be an issue with
lack of torque from other planes/engine issue
more than anything else, so might not be an
issue with the P38 so much as everything, and
maybe not fixable.

Acceleration relative to P51 - might not be
a P38 issue - could be overmodelling of the
P51. Absolute figures are needed to compare
against the figures posted here before it can
be necessarily said that the P38 is wrong.
One of the problems is that to ensure you
are determining the acceleration at 250 mph,
you have to measure the time taken to accelerate
to only a small amount above 250 mph, so there
are going to be large error bars on this, and
repeated tests required, and it might be as
well to repeat the tests with the P51 as well,
to determine if the official P38 and P51
rates both fall within the error bars. (If one
doesn't there may be a problem with that plane
and it might not be the P38).

Speeds (below 10,000m) - generally about right?
What are people getting in game (at the
relavant power setting) and what should they be?

Gun issue - dealt with in other threads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot compressibility speeds being wrong also.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

paradoxbox
04-08-2004, 01:26 AM
Hi, a quick word on differential thrust. This type of manipulation of the throttles would ONLY have a small effect in turn rate at medium and low speeds, and the risk would be very great the slower the speed due to the plane trying to roll over. Below 150mph reducing the throttle on the inboard engine while attempting to roll or turn into it would be extremely foolhardy in a combat situation. It was already recommended NOT to turn into a dead engine at slow speeds, so doing it while the prop is semi-windmilling is a very bad idea.

The roll rate trick does not work in AEP because torque is barely modelled, and in the P-38 modelled incorrectly (Game limitation) You can even see the tendancy for the P-38 to roll to the right. I'm wondering if there's no way we can get this eliminated completely.

The reason you hear about P-38's so dangerous on takeoff is because like Vulgar said, the direction of rotation of the engines. Normal counter rotating twin engined planes (With propellers turning inboard at the top) have NO critical engine, which makes low speed, single engine takeoffs less of a dangerous situation. But the P-38's props turn outboard at the top, meaning the P-38 has TWO critical engines. No matter which engine fails, the situation is as bad as it gets. Like he said, this can be a good or a bad thing depending on whether you are trying to use it for combat, or it's happening to you on a takeoff roll.

I am going to post some sound clips of the zeno's warbirds video, since some people here seem to not want to watch it. Not sure if Oleg has seen it but it would be nice, because it contains video proof that takeoff procedures in AEP are incorrect, as well as gun spread and shake and most importantly, the stall speeds (It even shows the airspeed indicator during the stall! No argument can disprove this, will not tolerate the "Propaganda" reply)

paradoxbox
04-08-2004, 01:41 AM
Right click and save as to listen&gt;
Part 1: http://www.freewebs.com/paradoxbox/1miloburchamstall.mp3
Part 2: http://www.freewebs.com/paradoxbox/miloburchamstall.mp3

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RedLine.JPG
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38rollchart.JPG
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38speedchart.JPG
I've heard arguments against the 1725 HP / 3200 RPM engine setup on some P-38L's as being "against USAAF policy" but I kind of think they sound rediculous, if the USAAF had its way, none of the planes would have been field modded. I don't expect to see a 1725hp 3200rpm P-38 in the game though.

Aaron_GT
04-08-2004, 05:23 AM
Repeating and summarising...

Climb rate - seems about correct?

Roll rate - From Lockeheed figures just
posted the L should always be at least a little
better than the J for sustained rates. Is it
possible to do tests for the J and L in AEP
to exclude the initial intertia to get the
sustained rates and compare them?

Stall speed - might be a bit too high in AEP.
Is it endemic in all planes in AEP (i.e. a
game engine issue, not a P38 issue per se?)

Stall behaviour - might be game engine related,
or a lack of advantage for the P38 due to mild
torque modelled for all planes.

Acceleration relative to P51 - is it the
P38 that is too sluggish, or the P51 to
sprightly? Need to test over a small speed
increase from 250mph at correct speed
settings (multiple times to get error bars) to
see if the P38 is about right or not.

Speeds (below 10,000m) - generally about right?
What are people getting in game (at the
relavant power setting) and what should they be?

Compressibility - sets in 80mph too early?

Gun issue - dealt with in other threads.

pinche_bolillo
04-08-2004, 07:26 AM
unless I am wrong the issue of losing an engine on take off in the 38 is because it has a single engine safety speed. I believe it was 120 mph ias. below that you could not keep the plane from yawing out of control while using sufficiant engine power to keep it inflight. all twins have this problem. even if they do not have props. I believe the 262 for example has a single engine safety speed of 180 mph ias. the farther away from the centerline the engines are mounted the worse it would be. if the engines are mounted right next to the centerline it probably wouldnt be an issue. just incase somebody feels the need to pull out some rare exception of twins not having a single engine saftey speed cause 1 engine is mounted on the front and the other is on the rear.

the main reason why you were not suppose to use flaps for take offs in the 38 to shorten the take off run was a safety issue. by using flaps it would greatly reduce the take off run, but it would also mean that the a/c would be airborn before the single engine safety speed was reached.

p1ngu666
04-08-2004, 02:12 PM
wouldnt the extra lift ofset the less thrust?
mind u, more drag. a situation u dont wanna be in tbh

oleg got tons of info for the p38.
god knows where the nasty stalls came from :|
iirec he111 has a more gentle stall. thats a twin

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

WhiskeyRiver
04-09-2004, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
wouldnt the extra lift ofset the less thrust?
mind u, more drag. a situation u dont wanna be in tbh

oleg got tons of info for the p38.
god knows where the nasty stalls came from :|
iirec he111 has a more gentle stall. thats a twin

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At that low a speed and probably fairly high AOA the wing on the same side as the dead engine will drop. The aircraft will also yaw towards the dead engine and rapidly enter a spin. It's the yawing/rolling motion at low speed and high AOA thats causes the crash not a lack of lift.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

WUAF_Co_Hero
04-09-2004, 01:26 AM
Really fascinates me how much info has been brough forth here, yet only the old 38 thread with little to no factual data has oleg's responses on it. I have noticed this in many occasions, that raw Data gets less attention from him, than speculation.

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

WUAF_Badsight
04-09-2004, 01:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
S!


Dang, I cant get these Lockheed Charts to show.

What am I doing wrong?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

like pages you look at the on the WWW .... you need to have your pictures put up on a server somewhere so it will load them onto this webpage every time someone opens it

the pictures you want others to see cannot just be on your own HardDrive .... that wont do this webpage any good

for FREE picture hosting you can use

http://photobucket.com/

or another FREE service is

http://www.uploadit.org/

BigKahuna_GS
04-09-2004, 02:49 AM
S!

Paradoxbox--please post portions of the video--especially the stall speed and firing of the guns. You really get a good perspective on how bad the center section shakes during full zoom while firing on a target.

If you can email them to Oleg.

Paradoxbox--do you have the Lockheed P38 Climbing chart with the P38-L climbing on WEP ?

If you look at the Lockheed Climbing chart-- there are some differences in climb rate, especially on WEP--The FB P38-L climbs to slow while on WEP.

____________

Thanks Badsite for posting tip !

_____________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

Aaron_GT
04-09-2004, 05:28 AM
There must be something odd going on
as I haven't noticed any particular
shake. It's less for the P38 than other
planes for me for some reason. Perhaps
it is another of those issues like the
roll rate bug that means for some the
P38 roll rate is slow?

paradoxbox
04-09-2004, 06:28 AM
Hi kahuna, the P-38 climb chart you are thinking of actually shows an uprated P-38L using field modded engine performance figures. Unless Oleg plans to give us a field modded P-38L option in the game I don't think it'll be of much use to us.

I will see if I can get some video online of the zeno's warbirds drive in movie. I don't think fraps will record that. Maybe Fraps 2000 will, I have a dual boot 98/XP system so I'll give it a try.. I will also take some video of a stall, and of the guns shaking during firing.

Does anyone have a place where I can host these?

ZG77_Nagual
04-09-2004, 08:32 AM
I've had some communication with Oleg - he says the stall performance for the 38 is better than for the 109. he says the critical angle for the p38 is 3-4 degrees greater than most planes in the simm - I've found that with great care I am able to outstall 109s in a turn. He also believes the onset of compression was earlier than what has been claimed here. He also says there is no game limitation affecting torque in the p38 and that it is modeled correctly. I think this is probably true given the outward rotation of the props - this makes for some odd behavior when there is very little forward momentum - as sited elsewhere this is partly a function of varied angles of attack.

I tested the 38J last night offline against 8 109g6. I was consistently able to dive away and extend from them. I was able to hang in the vertical longer when speeds were close - even when the 109s started out gaining a little - and on several occasions I was able to lose them in a stall turn (just try losing 8 109s in a stall!!). The 109 ai fm is one of the best in the game - when fighting groups they will disengage and do slow spiral climbs - while others stay on your six and still others disengage in another direction up close they dogfight well and will hang with you in a slow turn. I set the 109s to ace with 25% fuel and the 38 with 50% - all settings full difficulty except for external views (cockpit on) stating alt 3000meters. The performance of the p38 seemed to improve even more at around 4000 meters. I stayed above the 500 meter hard-deck that makes the ai break off most of the time. Took about 15 minutes to get them all.

Summary:
I was able to outstall the 109s - both in turns and in vertical stalls

I was able to run away from them in a shallow dive - and flat out run away at all tested alts. (500+-6000)

I observed no shaking when firing the guns and most kills required less than 1 second bursts - wing root, rear fusilage or engine - with a few pks. It will be nice to have more ammohttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Against 8 zeros this is really pretty easy. Their tactics suck and they fall apart like wet toilet paper.

Granted this is against ai. My feeling is that the 38 needs a little extension at the ends of it's speed regime - slightly higher compressions, slightly lower stall. But it will take very solid evidence to change it at this point - and it gets to be a matter of opinion.

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Fri April 09 2004 at 07:45 AM.]

paradoxbox
04-09-2004, 09:16 AM
Nagual it's extremely EXTREMELY obvious you have not seen the P-38 training video. I recall you won't use realplayer to view it. Why not download Real Alternative and watch the video before you agree with Oleg's "opinion" that the P-38 flies, stalls etc.. correctly. I'll even give you a link, so no more excuses from anyone else that's out there that doesn't want to use realplayer to view the video.

http://c2.edskes.com/realalt122.exe

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-38SS.ram

Install that then watch the zeno's video which will play in Windows Media Player classic.

I would like to know how ANYONE can possibly think the P-38 stalls are correct given the VIDEO EVIDENCE and the pilot's manual which prove otherwise! Where is Oleg getting his information!? It's certainly not very comprehensive. I'll be posting some videos today.

dahdah
04-09-2004, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paradoxbox:

Where is Oleg getting his information!? It's certainly not very comprehensive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say the same 'reliable' source that he got his P-47N info from.

ZG77_Nagual
04-09-2004, 09:40 AM
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing at this point. I also have no problem with realplayer - but it's Oleg who needs to be convinced - not me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WhiskeyRiver
04-09-2004, 10:34 AM
So Oleg believes that .67 Mach is different than what the NACA says?

Also stall behavior is more important than the actual speed. When you stall the 38 1 wing snaps down as the engine torque is taking over. Since there isn't any torque, this is incorrect.

Here is the NACA chart once again

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1943/naca-wr-l-473/index.cgi?page0009.gif





To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Aaron_GT
04-09-2004, 10:52 AM
"Since there isn't any torque, this is incorrect."

Same behaviour in FS2004, though.

I'll have a look at other sims that I have
the P38 in. I can't get EAW or Janes WW2F to work
with an MS FFB stick though.

PzKpfw
04-09-2004, 04:17 PM
Concerning P-38 Dive & Recovery*:

Due to its weight and streamlined design the P-38 accelerated rapidly in a dive. At a Mach number of 0.65, that is 65 percent of the speed of sound in air, airplane drag started to increase sharply with the onset of compressibility.

This Mach number corresponded to 440mph true airspeed (290mph IAS) at 30000 feet, or 460mph TAS (360mph IAS) at 20000 feet. In one g diveing flight(no pullup attempted) shocks started forming at Mach 0.67 and aircraft buffeting commenced at Mach 0.675.

At flight above one g, as in a dive pullout or turn, buffeting commenced at a lower Mach number. At 30000 feet a pullout maneuver over three g got the P-38 in trouble.

At lower altitudes the safe limits of speed and g level without compressibility buffet occurrance expanded, since there were higher tempratures where for a given speed Mach number decreased. The speed of sound was greater lower down. In any case compressibility buffet could be stopped by reducing speed or g level.

If a high speed dive was continued past placarded limits compressibility effects realy took over. At Mach 0.74 a nose down pitching tendency, or "tuck-under", started to steepen the dive. A typical experience for a P-38 pilot going after an enemy plane in a near vertical dive, perhaps trying to follow an enemy "split-S" maneuver from high altitude, was to have his aircraft start to vibrate and buck severely with the control column flailing back and forth and the wheel taken right out of his hands.

Sometimes bucking was so severe the pilot might think he had lost tail surfaces. Then if the aircraft hung together control could finally be re-established in the warmer denser air of lower altitude, but the enemy would likely have disappeared. The elevator trim tab could be used to recover at lower altitudes but use resulted in a five g pullout. So dive speeds were restricted to the equivalent of Mach 0.65, and the restriction was placarded in the cockpit.

In late model P-38s some P-38J and all P-38L models a dive recovery flap system was added under the wings on each side just outboard of the booms. These flaps when extended lessened the lift loss in compressibility and delayed onset of the tuck-under tendency. They also added drag which together with higher allowable dive speed permitted dives at steeper angles. Flaps were extended just before or just after starting a dive. If the P-38 was already in buffet and the flaps were extended buffeting would momentarily increase, then diminish and the tuck-under tendency would reduce.

But even with flaps deployed it was not wise to exceed placarded speeds by more then 20mph. With flaps extended before diveing angles up to 45 degrees could be safely attained, wheras without flaps maximum dive angle was 15 degrees. If the 45 degree dive angle was exceeded and speeds attained of more then 20mph above placard a dangerous buffet of the airplane and tuck-under would occur even with dive flaps extended. In general reduction of power improved aircraft characteristics in a dive.

A large number of US service, British, and company test pilots evaluated a P-38L airplane equipped with dive flaps in 1944. They rated divingacceleration, dive stick forces, and dive recovery good. Four pilots reported dive flaps made recovery "effortless". In spite of this pilot survey ranked the P-38 last of all fighters tested in a category "best stability and control in a dive"


*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand. pp 138-139

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

ZG77_Nagual
04-09-2004, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At low altitudes, the
plane could max out at about 330-340 mph. This rose to well above 400 mph
between 25,000 to 30,000. As the plane approached 30,000 ft, speeds over
Mach 0.60 could be sustained in level flight. Thus, manuevering could
quickly give the plane compressibility problems. At Mach 0.65 (290 mph
IAS, 440 mph TAS at 30,000 ft.; 360 mph IAS, 460 mph TAS at 20,000 ft.)
drag began to soar as the plane began to encounter compressibility. At
Mach 0.67 shock waves began forming and buffeting began at Mach 0.675. At
Mach 0.74 tuck under began. Buffeting developed at a lower Mach number in
any maneuver exceeding 1 g.
What this meant to a pilot in combat in say, a P-38H such as that used by
the 55FG or 20FG circa Jan. '44, was that if, at high altitude such as
Me-109s preferred approaching bomber formations, he locked on to the e/a
and it split-S'ed and dove away (typical Luftwaffe evasive maneuver), if
he attempted to follow, his P-38 would start to vibrate, then start
bucking like a rodeo bronco, the control column would begin flail back and
forth so forcefully it would probably be ripped out of his hands and begin
pounding him to crap. Once the plane dropped down to lower altitude where
the speed of sound was higher, the buffeting declined and the trim tab
could be used to haul the airplane out of what seemed to be a death dive.
Recovery with trim tab resulted in 5 g pull-out. Many a low-time service
pilot would be so shaken by this experience that he would never dive the
P-38 again, and might be so afraid of the airplane that his usefullness as
a fighter pilot was over.
The late J and L models solved this problem with the installation of a
dive flap. Extend the flaps at the beginning of a dive and all problems
were eliminated. Again, these models weren't available in the critical
period between fall 1943 and spring 1944 when the most desperate battles
against the Luftwaffe took place, and when the P-38s rep in Europe was
established.
The reason P-38s were as successful as they were in Europe (and it should
be kept in mind they performed their escort role before it was decided to
free the fighters from the bombers to seek out e/a on favorable terms so
they were always forced to engage on unfavorable terms) was at least in
part because they were wonderful aerobatic airplanes with absolutely no
maneuvers restricted except the dive. Loops, Immelmans, slow and snap
rolls, Cuban eights...it could perform them all with perfection. It had a
wonderful ability to perform in the vertical, with an excellent rate of
climb, splendid zoom climb. It could easily change direction while
executing vertical maneuvers. It was also a very stable gun platform,
being stable and very smooth while executing maneuvers.

In contrast, the P-51, had far fewer compressibility problems at speeds
normally encountered in combat, including dives from high altitude. The D
model was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph TAS, Mach 0.81) at 35,000 ft.
In a dive, the P-51 was such an aerodynamically clean design that it could
quickly enter compressibility if the dive was continued (in reality, a
pilot could, as a rule, catch any German plane before compressibility
became a problem). But, say, in an evasive dive to escape, as the P-51's
speed in the dive increased, it started skidding beyond what the pilot
could control (this could be a problem in a dive onto a much lower-flying
plane or ground target--couldn't keep the plane tracking on the target if
speed was too high). As compressibility was entered, it would start
rolling and pitching and the whole plane would begin to vibrate. This
began about Mach 0.72. The pilot could maintain control to above Mach
0.80 (stateside tests said 0.83 (605 mph) was max safe speed--but
structural damage to the aircraft would result).
The P-51's quirk that could catch the uprepared service pilot by surprise
was that as airspeed built up over 450 mph, the plane would start to get
very nose heavy. It needed to be trimmed tail heavy before the dive if
speeds over 400 mph were anticipated. However, in high speed dives, the
plane's skidding changed to unintended snap rolls so violent that the
pilot's head was slammed against the canopy. Depending on how much fuel
was in the fuselage tank, on pull-out stick force reversal could occur, a
real thrill that could totally flummox a low-time service pilot diving
earthward at close to 1,000 ft per second trying to escape a pursuer.
The P-51 was a good dogfighter, positively stable under all flight
routines. A pilot didn't have to work hard to get it to the limits of its
flight envelope (that is, he wasn't sweating heaving and pushing and
pulling and kicking to get it to move its ***.) It was important to burn
down fuel in the fuselage tank to avoid longitudenal instabillity.
Cranking into a tight turn with too much go-juice in the tank would mean
instant stick force reversal and the pilot had to brace himself to oppose
the stick slamming backward into his solar plexus, and shove hard to
prevent the turn from tightening till, if he was lucky, he entered a high
speed stall, or, if unlucky, the wing ripped off.
Turns above 250 mph IAS were the killers, because they resulted in g
forces high enough to black out the pilot so that he couldn't oppose the
stick reversal and the Mustang would, unattended, wind itself up into a
wing-buster.

So, which plane would rather go into combat against the Luftwaffe in?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWMaxGunz
04-09-2004, 09:56 PM
Good post by JW there.

I think some people expect way too much of a sim as well as having other unrealistic expectations about planes themselves.


Neal

WUAF_Badsight
04-09-2004, 10:00 PM
wow you think !

not even the worlds most incredible supercomputer can totally replicate the enviroment but my PC should be able too in FB

right ?

WUAF_Co_Hero
04-09-2004, 11:58 PM
I personally have no gripes about the 38's flight characteristics: but this could be largely because I may not know any better. However, I have seen, read, and heard substancial evidence to show that the firing platform for the 38 should be more stable. Aside from that, and the obvious problem of losing your ONE and ONLY elevator, and still having pitch control... I'd say this is a very well designed a/c in FB.

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Aaron_GT
04-10-2004, 03:21 AM
"Aside from that, and the obvious problem of losing your ONE and ONLY elevator, and still having pitch control... I'd say this is a very well designed a/c in FB.
"

I think there are some intermittent bugs. I
played an offline mission yesterday and lost
the elevator and had no pitch control (managed
to crashland by using power and flaps to control
the descent).

There seem to be a number of inconsistencies.
Some people about the right roll rates, for
some it is much too slow, for some people
there is lots of shake when firing the guns,
and for others (at least two here, including
me) there is none.

Very odd.

ZG77_Nagual
04-10-2004, 07:30 AM
I reported the elevator loss bug to Oleg right after aep came out.

Basically I'm pretty happy with the p38 - it needs maybe a little tweakage - but nothing huge and I can certainly live with it as is.

clint-ruin
04-10-2004, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
There seem to be a number of inconsistencies.
Some people about the right roll rates, for
some it is much too slow, for some people
there is lots of shake when firing the guns,
and for others (at least two here, including
me) there is none.

Very odd.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get the slow roll rate [not that I noticed until someone pointed it out], but no really obvious shake. Certainly nothing more than any other nose mounted armament type of plane in FB. Pilots head moves around a bit but the actual bullet stream is straight enough. Nothing compared to what the P-47 used to do when firing all of the guns.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

CaptainGelo
04-10-2004, 09:08 AM
I know how to fix all p38 bugs..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Remove it from this game... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
Big Bills suck, small Bills don't....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
04-10-2004, 09:43 AM
I've not tested the roll bug myself to see
if it affects me. From just flying the J and
L in a general sense I don't notice any real
difference in rates, but that could be deceptive.
The elevator issue is a hard one to test again
and again, though!

Perhaps shake of the pilot of modelled (to
match reports that vibration was high in
the cockpit) but the stable gun platform behaviour is also present? Not that I've noticed
much shake of any sort.

Giganoni
04-12-2004, 02:38 AM
Hehe, tweaking these planes certainly generate lots of data throwing and mud slinging. Now data can be wrong, and it can be biased. Who knows? I wouldn't expect someone from Lockheed to say their plane sucked, even if it did.. That one track where it seems to face the ki-84 at maybe medium or high altitude the p38 dominated.

One thing I don't care for is personal experiences. On this particular thread I've seen stuff such as "At low altitude I can't keep manuverability with a zero (or a ki84). That is wrong!" Or "zero got on my tail and that isn't right, p-38 is much faster." They never give enough information. In the first example, did you use combat flaps? When did your opponent switch to combat flaps? What speed was he going? How fast were you going? Or could it be he did a tactic you just weren't prepared for? Those are just a number of questions that need to be asked.

For the second situation, maybe the p-38 was climbing, or the zero coming out of a dive...etc. I think it is hard to say what needs to be done to a plane from combat tests. Because in combat is there never a time when one plane has an advantage and another a disadvantage.

worr
04-14-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Incorrect. The P-38 is a very large plane, very heavy, with huge drag. Power-to-weight ratio is unimpressive. No way it will outaccelerate any lightweight single engined fighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the FTD was heavy. Yes it did have high wing loading which made it both a stable gun platform and great at weather penetration. But no, its power to weight ratio was VERY impressive. It also had a great aspect ratio...glider like....which gave it very low drag.

The P-38F and G got a bad rap from the Experten in the ETO who most often (and I've heard this with my own ears) dismissed them as just another ME-110.

Early identification in a fight was a major disadvantaged, but where the bad rap came (not from the MTO btw) was that the 38 was simply swarmed in Europe when it went into service. The first sorties of lightenings in Europe were at the height of Luftwaffe influence in the ETO....just a few days after Black Thursday. There were always outnumbered on escorts, and the engines suffered dearly from poor fuel quality, maintenance, and pilot training. All these things would be turned around by 1944, but the rap was already set.

Never mind the kill ratios in the ETO, or the bare numbers on the page, the P-38 was dominate at lower altitudes, and once compressibility and engine problems were solved it was in the ascendancy.

My first post in this forum, btw. Just loaded up IL-2 AEP and new to the community. But not new to the ‚"Der Gabelschwanz Teufel‚"Ě (Forked Tailed Devil) controversy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Worr, out

worr
04-14-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Incorrect. The P-38 is a very large plane, very heavy, with huge drag. Power-to-weight ratio is unimpressive. No way it will outaccelerate any lightweight single engined fighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the FTD was heavy. Yes it did have high wing loading which made it both a stable gun platform and great at weather penetration. But no, its power to weight ratio was VERY impressive. It also had a great aspect ratio...glider like....which gave it very low drag.

The P-38F and G got a bad rap from the Experten in the ETO who most often (and I've heard this with my own ears) dismissed them as just another ME-110.

Early identification in a fight was a major disadvantaged, but where the bad rap came (not from the MTO btw) was that the 38 was simply swarmed in Europe when it went into service. The first sorties of lightenings in Europe were at the height of Luftwaffe influence in the ETO....just a few days after Black Thursday. There were always outnumbered on escorts, and the engines suffered dearly from poor fuel quality, maintenance, and pilot training. All these things would be turned around by 1944, but the rap was already set.

Never mind the kill ratios in the ETO, or the bare numbers on the page, the P-38 was dominate at lower altitudes, and once compressibility and engine problems were solved it was in the ascendancy.

My first post in this forum, btw. Just loaded up IL-2 AEP and new to the community. But not new to the ‚"Der Gabelschwanz Teufel‚"Ě (Forked Tailed Devil) controversy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Worr, out

ZG77_Nagual
04-14-2004, 08:51 AM
Welcome Wor. What do you think of the 38 in aep? I've long flown 190s in this simm but have been almost unable to fly anything but the p38 since it's appearance.

worr
04-14-2004, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If anyone has a roll chart showing roll rate for both the boosted and unboosted 38's at 50lbs of stick deflection please post it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a quick reference:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.html

If you need more information I can dig it up for you. AHT and shaw aren't the only sources. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Worr, out

PzKpfw
04-14-2004, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Incorrect. The P-38 is a very large plane, very heavy, with huge drag. Power-to-weight ratio is unimpressive. No way it will outaccelerate any lightweight single engined fighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The drag coefficient of the P-38J* was .0270 with a wingspan of 327.5 SQ.FT with an equivelent flat plate area of, 8.84 sq.ft. This gave the P-38J an equivelant flat area that was just between the lighter F6F-3 & F4U-1D.

*Comparison P-38L vs P-47D, & P-51D Power Loadings @ Altitude:

P-38L Power Loadings @ 17699lbs:

Sea Level:

MIL HP - 2850
LB/HP - 6.21

10,000ft:

MIL HP - 2850
LB/HP - 6.21

20,000ft:

MIL HP - 2850
LB/HP - 6.21

30,000ft:
MIL HP - 2850
LB/HP - 6.21

P-47D-40 Power Loadings @ 14411bs:

Sea Level:

MIL HP - 2000
LB/HP - 7.21

10,000ft:

MIL HP - 2000
LB/HP - 7.21

20,000ft:

MIL HP - 2000
LB/HP - 7.21

30,000ft:
MIL HP - 2000
LB/HP - 7.21


P-51D Power Loadings @ 10176lbs:

Sea Level:

MIL HP - 1490
LB/HP - 6.83

10,000ft:

MIL HP - 1500
LB/HP - 6.78

20,000ft:

MIL HP - 1360
LB/HP - 7.48

30,000ft:
MIL HP - 960
LB/HP - 10.60

Generaly, the lower the power loading Ie, less weight; per each engine HP, the better the planes performance is.


*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred Thousand. pp. 592 - 594

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

worr
04-14-2004, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paradoxbox:
Hi kahuna, the P-38 climb chart you are thinking of actually shows an uprated P-38L using field modded engine performance figures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you get that from, paradoxbox?

There is a descrepency in reports from factory to field with Lockheed, but not because Lockheed cheated, but rather it didn't put the same restrictions (espeically in the ETO) upon their engines as field manuels first put on them. And most of the P-38Ls in service were running with 38J manuals.

Bode is one of the best books on the P-38 in terms of actual test data. AHT is spotty at times, and not always giving you apples for apples. And Caidin's popular work needed a revision for some errors....though one isn't forth coming.

Worr, out

Kurfurst__
04-14-2004, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:

The drag coefficient of the P-38J* was .0270 with a wingspan of 327.5 SQ.FT with an equivelent flat plate area of, 8.84 sq.ft. This gave the P-38J an equivelant flat area that was just between the lighter F6F-3 & F4U-1D.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theres obviously an error in your maths or thinking - the P-38J had the highest drag coefficient of all the major US fighter planes, AND the largest wing area(save the hellcat) - since multiplying these two gives the equivalent flat plate area, how come can you arrive in between the Hellcat and Corsair ?

Ie. drag coefficient, wing area, and equivalent flat plate area :

P-38J
0,028 x 327 = 9.156 sq.ft
F6F-3
0.023 x 334 = 7.682 sq. ft
F4U-1
0.020 x 314 = 6.28 sq. ft

and the typical FPA of the opposition was about 4-5 sq.ft... ie. having a LOT less drag.

From : "Characteristics of current US fighter planes"

So the Lighting has the worst drag of all these... none of them are any small planes, ie. being the typical large US airframes, with large absolute drag as a result. The foreign competition, Messerschmitts, Yaks, Spits, FW 190 etc. had, without exception, less drag.

Now your comparision of power loadings... it compares w. P-51, P-47 etc, none of which were known for having "excellent" powerloading - ie. same case as before, typical US fighter characteristic to have lower powerloadings. It proves little, except that the P-38 was better than the US avarage. Again the case is that the competition, UK, German, Soviet fighters, using much lighter airframes, have the better powerloadings, with the likely exception of the Soviet fighters, for which this advantage is limited to the lower altitudes.

Effectively, it meant the Lightning could not compete in the area of acceleration, as it was phyically impossible with higher drag/lower p/w-ratio.

So generally speaking, the P-38L had unimpressive power-to-weight ratio, and large drag compared to the fighters it faced; this put into disadvantage in relative acceleration capabilities, and it meant little how well it stacked up vs. the other US types. The relatively high drag and poor p/w ratios show themselves in the rather avarage topspeed of the fighter, despite having very good high altitude engine output.

The P-38`s bad reputation come from these factors, ie. the actual flight characteristics of a large and heavy twin engine plane. It is a matter of record in flight tests, ie. P38F fared poorly in UK tests vs. FW 190A.

There are no wonders in flight. You wont make a turn-wizard with very high wingloading. You only make a fast diver perhaps. You won`t make a good turner with only avarage power-to-weight and acceleration either. Some people expect the P-38 to defy all these basic rules, just because their personal belief is by some wonder, a twice as heavy plane based on apprx. equal technical level, can beat a much lighter one.. it can`t, at least not on the tactical level.. it`s advantages only come on the strategic level. But that won`t make happy the fighter pilot facing a more nimble opponent at the moment.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/dasboot.jpg
Final shot. Prepeare to fire! Target speed: 0. "Check" Range, 650 meters. "Check" Depth: 4 meters. Torpedo speed: three-zero. Aiming point..forward of after mast.
Tube I., ready? "Tube I. ready!" Tube I....! "Tube I." Fire! "Fire. Torpedo running!"


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below : For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

PzKpfw
04-14-2004, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Ie. drag coefficient, wing area, and equivalent flat plate area :

P-38J
0,028 x 327 = 9.156 sq.ft
F6F-3
0.023 x 334 = 7.682 sq. ft
F4U-1
0.020 x 314 = 6.28 sq. ft

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Below is a *comparison of profile drag coefficents for 11 US fighters:

DC = Drag Coefficient
WA = Wing Area SQ.FT
FPA = Equiv. Flat Plate Area


P-51D:
DC = .0176.
WA = 233.19 SqFt.
FPA = 4.10 Sqft.

P-39N:
DC = .0217
WA = 213.2 SqFt.
FPA = 4.63 SqFt.

P-63A:
DC = .203
WA = 248.0 SqFt.
FPA = 5.03 Sqft.

P-40:
DC = .242
WA = 236.0 SqFt.
FPA = 5.71 Sqft.

F2A-3:
DC = .0300
WA = 208.9 SqFt.
FPA = 6.27 Sqft.

P-47B:
DC = .0213
WA = 300.0 SqFt.
FPA = 6.39 Sqft.

F4F-3:
DC = .0253
WA = 260.0 SqFt.
FPA = 6.58 Sqft.

F4U-1D:
DC = .0267
WA = 314.0 SqFt.
FPA = 8.58 Sqft.

P-38J:
DC = .270
WA = 327.5 SqFt.
FPA = 8.84 Sqft.

F6F-3:
DC = .0272
WA = 334.0 SqFt.
FPA = 9.08 Sqft.

P-61B:
DC = .0244
WA = 664.0 SqFt.
FPA = 15.94 Sqft.

*See: Dean Francis.H America's Hundred Thousand. p.592


And yet the P-38L had the fastest initial acceleration of any US fighter Ie:


*Late War 250mph @ SL to COMBAT POWER by order of ranking 1-8:

P-38L:

COM.HP - 3200
Weight - 16880lbs
Thrust.LB - 3840
Drag.LB - 1676
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 4.13

P-47M:

COM.HP - 2800
Weight - 14700lbs
Thrust.LB - 3360
Drag.LB - 1527
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 4.02

P-51D:

COM.HP - 1720
Weight - 10208lbs
Thrust.LB - 2064
Drag.LB - 845
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.85


P-39Q-1:

COM.HP - 1420
Weight - 7570lbs
Thrust.LB - 1704
Drag.LB - 864
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.57

P-63A:

COM.HP - 1500
Weight - 8442lbs
Thrust.LB - 1800
Drag.LB - 926
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.33

F4U-4:

COM.HP - 2380
Weight - 12420lbs
Thrust.LB - 2856
Drag.LB - 1569
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.33

F6F-5:

COM.HP - 2250
Weight - 12740lbs
Thrust.LB - 2700
Drag.LB - 1673
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 2.60

P-40N:

COM.HP - 1360
Weight - 8451lbs
Thrust.LB - 1632
Drag.LB - 1044
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 2.24

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand p.604

Their is no competioin Ise, you stated the P-38 could not possibly compete with lighter SE fighters in Acceleration, as we see from the above it did very well vs US fightetrs in initial acceleration, and that was my point.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Wed April 14 2004 at 12:31 PM.]

PzKpfw
04-14-2004, 01:23 PM
Oops Dbl post..

Kurfurst__
04-14-2004, 01:30 PM
It appears Dean`s work, which seem to contain quite a few errors btw, ignores this primary document :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/alliedchrts1.jpg

But even in Dean`s data, the P-38 has one of the worst drag figures at hand, in any case. The main thing is, the P-38 has about TWICE the drag as a single engined type, and generally worser power-to-weight ratio.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And yet the P-38L had the fastest initial acceleration of any US fighter Ie:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That`s kinda like saying you won a gold medal on the paraolympics. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ie. best of all US fighters in this regard, when US fighters were the worst accelerators in the general picture.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Their is no competioin Ise, you stated the P-38 could not possibly compete with lighter SE fighters in Acceleration, as we see from the above it did very well vs US fightetrs in initial acceleration, and that was my point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then I don`t understand your point, provided you have one. Seawolf stated the P-38L could outaccelerate "anything in the air". I showed him apprx. data about this is being incorrect, and told him there`s no way the Lightning could outaccelerate any _lightweight_ s-e fighter. To which you come up with long-long tables showing the P-38 vs. the _heaviest_ s-e fighters, ie. it`s well known that the avarage US s-e fighter was much heavier than the avarage non-US s-e fighter, for many reasons, ie. using inefficient (weight-wise)combinations of armament, need for large internal fuel capacity etc.. I think you missed to meaning while being busy trying to prove something wrong.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/dasboot.jpg
Final shot. Prepeare to fire! Target speed: 0. "Check" Range, 650 meters. "Check" Depth: 4 meters. Torpedo speed: three-zero. Aiming point..forward of after mast.
Tube I., ready? "Tube I. ready!" Tube I....! "Tube I." Fire! "Fire. Torpedo running!"


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below : For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Wed April 14 2004 at 12:42 PM.]

PzKpfw
04-14-2004, 01:44 PM
appearences can be decieving Ise, BTW you realy need to clean that scan up as its about unreadable in its current condition. I printed it & its still largely unreadable.

As to primary material Ise how bout, citeing where the chart came from, that is customary when presenting information. I wasn't aware NACA data wasn't primary material.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Wed April 14 2004 at 01:17 PM.]

PzKpfw
04-14-2004, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Then I don`t understand your point, provided you have one. Seawolf stated the P-38L could outaccelerate "anything in the air". I showed him apprx. data about this is being incorrect, and told him there`s no way the Lightning could outaccelerate any _lightweight_ s-e fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point was quite clear I'm sure the others will get it right off, even if you dont.

If you had taken the time to read the posts you would have seen that no one was agreeing with Seawolf & the P-38 did not out accelerate anything in the air etc.

Now where have you been hideing and why have you not given me that date I asked for concerning 503 yet, in the 35 hits 20mm thread.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Wed April 14 2004 at 01:06 PM.]

worr
04-14-2004, 02:21 PM
Not sure either how the comment about someone named Seawolf saying the P-38 "out accelerated anything in the air" figures into any of this.

As for thrust to weight ratios, the P-38 had the best ratio for USAAF fighters. Sure, the 38 was heavy, about 1,000 lbs heavier than even the Thunderbolt. But it had nearly twice the horsepower, and better yet, that thurst was translated via two effecient props instead of just one.

It had also the highest aspect angle of any wing being long and thin, instead of short and thick. This, of course, added to the reduction in roll rates, and the need for tappered tips, aleron boost, special control wheel, etc...but the energy retention advantages were still there. It just wouldn't bleed as much energy in a turn as other fighters.

Try comparing the thrust to weight ratio of the 38 with the ME 110 or 410 giggles. I mentioned these two fighters as that is the typical (Galland) dismissal. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Worr, out

Bearcat99
04-14-2004, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf_195th:
I have been researching the P38 and P51 for a couple of weeks now and although I know a drop in the bucket of what there is to learn what I have found is that the P38 is arguably the best fighter of WWII (yes even better than the P51).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It can be argued that the P-47 is better than the P-51... as great as the Pony was she had a glass jaw..... the P-47 however could take a punch and hit back.... hard. I'm a Pony lover btw..so not trying to start something.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

WWMaxGunz
04-14-2004, 04:06 PM
John, what speed and alt are those accel figures taken at?

And in general, engine HP is not the same as thrust. I would expect 2 props running less HP each to be more efficient than one with the same as the other two or near that.

Aplles, oranges, pears and plums... it's almost fruit salad time.


Neal

paradoxbox
04-14-2004, 04:12 PM
Hi Worr, the information is right on the graph itself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It states at WEP the L in question was generating 1725 HP at 64 inches manifold pressure, this is not standard HP or manifold pressure for the L (1625 60in.Hg. seems to be about average for non field mods, although other sources quote 1615 and 1613 HP at 60in.Hg.)

Trust what I'm saying on the P-38, I will not say anything about the P-38 unless I can back it up with video or multiple data sources.. I respect the P-38 too much to lie about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (It's my only ride in AEP by the way)

Nice to meet another person that's been combatting the negative myths for years http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It seems like a never ending struggle sometimes, but eventually they'll see the light. :P

PzKpfw
04-14-2004, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
John, what speed and alt are those accel figures taken at?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

250mph @ SL then accelerateing to full COMBAT POWER.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

worr
04-14-2004, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paradoxbox:
It states at WEP the L in question was generating 1725 HP at 64 inches manifold pressure, this is not standard HP or manifold pressure for the L (1625 60in.Hg. seems to be about average for non field mods, although other sources quote 1615 and 1613 HP at 60in.Hg.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it does state that...but that still doesn't answer my question. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I should say I have a vested interest in the question because I was in contact with the author of those charts a year ago...as well as the host of the web site...and it was stock engine without any mods.

But if you have real information contrary to that, I'm open to it.

I do think the chart is problematic for other reasons, but not for the HP ratings. When you consider the WEP climb exceeds the time limit for WEP you know something else is going on...but hardly any "modification"...just a little stretching of the government's own limitations on Lockheed's own engines.

Believe me too paradoxbox, I've been in the primary sources. I'm still mystified by what seems to me on most accounts as a plopping in of P38J regimes charts, etc into P38L airframes and engines. I have the original pilot's manuals and they are the same. Why? They were different airplanes!

There was a LT in England trying his darndest to get the 8th AAF to listen to the factory, as well as to what the British (they were cutting edge!) were doing with the earlier P38s (f-h). But in the PTO, as well as in the MTO, there were no such bureaucratic limitations. Guess they were further from the brass. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But once again, if you have some hard data on your statement, I'd be very interested! I'm all ears!

Thanks for the welcome. The myth dies a hard death. Big = bad is the usual baseline of dismissal. That and the ME-110 parallel.

Then again, you still see the F-15 in flight. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Worr, out

worr
04-14-2004, 07:29 PM
Lockheed performed dynamic output testing on 46 V-1710- F-30 engines in May of 1944. Power output varied from 1,737 hp to 1,765 hp at 60 in. Hg, 3,170-3,215 rpm. Four engines were subjected to boost pressures of 66 in. Hg. @ 3,200 RPM and produced the following output:

1,812 hp
1,833 hp
1,798 hp
1,807 hp

You wont see those in the charts either. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Worr, out

Source Vee's for Victory: The story of the Allison V-1710 Aircraft Engine 1929-1948.

ZG77_OzZ
04-14-2004, 08:01 PM
I am glad this thread has brought all this great info here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WhiskeyRiver
04-15-2004, 03:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
John, what speed and alt are those accel figures taken at?

And in general, engine HP is not the same as thrust. I would expect 2 props running less HP each to be more efficient than one with the same as the other two or near that.

Aplles, oranges, pears and plums... it's almost fruit salad time.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's an NACA study that found that increasing porp are by adding more blades is better than increasing blade area and keeping the number of blades the same.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Kurfurst__
04-15-2004, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
The point was quite clear I'm sure the others will get it right off, even if you dont.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry John, it`s a rather futile effort to accuse others with your own problems, ie. with reading comprehension. I clearly stated that the P-38 was unable to compete with LIGHTWEIGHT S-E fighters for simple aerodynamic reasons. In your zeal to "disprove" this, you come up with an example comparing the P-38 with the HEAVIEST single-engien fighter of WW2, the P-47.... to me, and to any intelligent person, this shows either your lack of reading comprehension skills, failure to understand the meaning of "lightweight", or insufficent knowladge on the matter, ie. I see no other reasonable answer why would want come up with the P-47 in a comparison. So that you would understand, too, lightweight refers to the rather typical fighters of ww2: Bf 109s, Yaks, Lavockins, most Spitfires etc. All being in the area of 3 tons, and NOT a near 7-ton monster, which you used in your comparison.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you had taken the time to read the posts you would have seen that no one was agreeing with Seawolf & the P-38 did not out accelerate _anything in the air_ etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, John. Explain your failure again. Perhaps you convince some, if you repeat it long enough. It`s really you who`s vision was clouded by his prove-the-other-wrong zeal, and failed to address the point itself, rather than his own ghosts. At least you would admit it...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now where have you been hideing and why have you not given me that date I asked for concerning 503 yet, in the 35 hits 20mm thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hiding, John? Why would I "hide"? Nice style, John. I hope sooner or later your behaviour will improve. Unfortunately I lost my interest in discussing that topic with you - you were offered to get it contineued in a PT, which you failed to realize for some reason. It appears you are rather most interested in those silly little "hah! I prove you wrong" crusades, as also appearent on this thread, ie. failing to get the meaning of a sentence, desperately trying to prove it wrong, then failing to admit your failure, and bringing an off-topic matter from an old thread where it was considered already off-topic. etc. Is this some kind of result of an inferiority complex, and the need to compensate, John? I would like to know the reason why you brough the 509. up (not 503, John. Your memory seems to fail you again.).
Also, reading your posts there convinced me that it is waste of time discussing ww2 tank design with you, for you show severe ignorance on this matter, ie. your claims the Soviets had easy time with Tigers, statements of short barreled Shermans vs. PzIV, claims of "more than 5-600 yards combats range being impossibility in Western Europe (to which brings up the question why John NEVER answer the following question wheter he ever been to Europe.. obviously he was never) and you constantly changing subject instead of giving straight answers etc. Sorry, I have really no time to waste like that.

But, since you asked for this, here`s the combat story of a small detachment of the 509st heavy tank battalion in 1945, the example I brought up for John to enlighten him about the reality of the eastern front.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Defensive fights in the vicinity of Szekesfehervar

In the upcoming days the battalion (i.e. the 509.) was in continous fights against the numerically superior Soviet tank units. Major Burmester was conducting a series of defensive fights with his just repaired Konigstigers in the area between Baracska and Pettend. Despite the division of the battalion, it suceeded in stopping multiple Soviet tank assualts. Soviet forces , even though they suffered heavy losses, failed to force a break through to the north of the Velencei lake.

On 27th January, 1945, a detachemnt of three Konigstigers advanced from the village of Seregelyes through Kapolnasnyek to the village of Pettend, a depth of around 20-30km. Two of the three tanks situated itself inside the village (tank commanders Oberfeldwebel Nauhaus and Feldwebel Kollmansberger), while the third Konigstiger, Feldwebel Bauer`s turret No. 133 took a position at the northeast edge of the village housings, and turned it`s turret towards the railway-embankmnent, about 1200m far from his position.

At 10h AM a column of T-34sappeared from the NE. Feldwebel Bauer`s Konigstiger opened fire immidiately, as soon as the Soviet tanks were in range. In little time there were five Soviet tanks burning. The remaining T-34s built up their speed and tried to seek refuge inside the village, using the railway embankbant as a cover. Fw. Bauer decided not yet to change his position.

Loud noise of battle was heard from the village, and the - now retreating - T-34s appeared again, drving out ofthe village. Despite the cover offered by the railway embankment, No. 133 succeded in knocking out further three Soviet tanks. It also succeded in hitting a fourth one, but that managed to get away, hurling black smoke after itself.

Within an hour, another enemy tank column appeared, driving at very high speed, which made aimed shots impossible. Since it was likely that the Soviets learned the position of his tank, Fw. Bauer ordered to change his position, and drove to a new one where he could direct fire to the entire area to the east from the village. The T-34s soon appeared, and this time five of them fell to the 8.8cm gun of Fw. Bauer`s Konigstiger.

During some standstill in the engagment, the Konigstiger of the battalion Commander, Major Burmester`s appeared, and reported that it knocked out further two T-34s during it`s march. However it had to retreat back to Kapolnyasnyek due to engine troubles, which were caused by a hit from a friendly Panzerfaust. The engagment come again to a halt, and darkness fall on the battlefield.

The last victim of the three ambushing Konigstigers was that damaged T-34 that was hit early in the day by Bauer`s gun but managed to get away. The immobilized Soviet tank hit the approaching No.133 Konigstiger from point blank range, and resulted that it`s round logged deeply into the Tiger`s gun mantlet, disabling the gun. Noticing the muzzle flash of the Soviet tank, Oberfeldwebel Nauhaus`s Konigstiger finished off the opponent.

According to the reports, the three Konigstigers that fought at Pettend knocked out and destroyed 41 T-34s in total, as the following:

Oberfeldwebel Nauhaus: 15
Feldwebel Bauer: 13
Feldwebel Kollmannsberg: 11
Major Burmester: 2

These numbers show that whole Soviet tank Brigade was stopped at Pettned by a few Konigstigers. This engagment gives a fine example of the marked superioty of the Konigstiger in firepower and armor over the T-34."

Original article by Major Lippai Peter, published in the magazine Haditechnika, 2000/3 issue."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It also demonstrates the flaws of John`s picture about the engagments on the EF, ie. T-34s vs. the German heavy battalions. Ie. between Oct 1944 and the end of the war, the 503. sPz Abt, a unit with a nominal strenght of 45 Konigstigers (but with usually a lot less available for a day action) knocked out and destroyed a minimum of 121 Soviet tanks, 244 anti tank guns and other arty pieces, 5 aircrafts and a Soviet train, for the loss of 10 Konigtigers destroyed by the Soviets in combat. Researcher of the subject, Szamveber Norbert, however, puts the total number of enemy equipment destroyed to apprx. 150 enemy tanks and 270 ATGs.

Also the reality of combat ranges happening in the Western front, as told by US and Allied tank crews :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
1ST LT. WILLIAM, L. SCHAUBEL, COMPAANY COMMANDER:

At Oberemo, Germany, 27 February 1945, our second platoon on road block was engaged by two Tiger tanks, Mark VI, at 3600 yards, and two of our Shermans were knokced out. Our 3400 feet per second HVAP ammunition was used and bounced off the side slopes, seven rounds. Definietely outranged due to their better sights in the Mark VI and more muzzle velocity in their suped up ammunition. Upon throwing smoke at the Tiger tanks, they withdrew becouse smoke menas marking target for artillery and fighter-bombers to the Germans."

1ST LT THOMAS H. OSBORNE, EXO CO I 67TH ARMORED REGT.:

Plainly visible at 2500 yards was a Mark VI with it`s side exposed to us. It was dug in up to the hull on aridge commanding two draws. Another force was attempting to advance toward this vehicle and the enemy tank would hit two of ours and the force would withdraw. This continued for a day and a half, until the "Kraut" ran out of ammunition and drove away. All during this time my platoon fired AP, smoke, HE attempting to dislodge the enemy tank. We had at least 10 to 15 direct hits with 75mm AP on the tank, but he failed to move and we made no apparent impression on the vehicle occupants."

CAPT. HENRY W. JOHNSON, CO.F, 66TH ARMD. REGT.:

The higher muzzle velocity f the German tanks enables them to far outrange our Sherman tanks. I have seen them to knock our tanks out at ranges 1000 yards and I know of know no incident where a Sherman tank knocked out a Mark V or VI tank at more than 300 yards. Further, it is my opinion that the vast majority of Mark V and VI tanks knocked out have been destroyed by air support, abandoned, or as a direct result of air attack. On the other hand, 85% of the tanks we lost have been due to enemy SP guns, tanks or AT guns.
It is my opinion that the long-rifled 75 and 88 of the German tanks is far superior to our low muzzle velocity 75 and 76mm guns.
The slhouette of the Sherman tank is such that it is easily spotted 2000 or 3500 yards away. The silhouette presented by the Sherman is more perpendicular than that of the Mark V and VI tanks. Seldom have I seen a shot richochet from the Sherman tank, however, often our APs have glanced harmlessly off the German tank`s front slope and turrets. It is my opinion that the silhouette presented by the Mark V and VI German tanks is far superior to that presented by our Sherman.

I saw 4 tigers at around 1800 yards & fired upon them. I fired 15 shots using Armour Peircing ammunition & hit their right sides they all bounced off....."

-British Sherman commanders report Normandy 1944

I saw one of the new Tiger tanks at a range of around 1000 yards & fired seven times. I saw each round bounce off the front & side armour. The Tiger traversed it's gun & blew off our left track killing the driver."

-British Matilda tank commander Tunisia 1943
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Appearantly, long range tank combat was not uncommon on the Western front. At least for the German`s, principally because their guns had killing power at long ranges, too, while Allied tank guns were less effective at range vs. thick armor.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/dasboot.jpg
Final shot. Prepeare to fire! Target speed: 0. "Check" Range, 650 meters. "Check" Depth: 4 meters. Torpedo speed: three-zero. Aiming point..forward of after mast.
Tube I., ready? "Tube I. ready!" Tube I....! "Tube I." Fire! "Fire. Torpedo running!"


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below : For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Thu April 15 2004 at 02:47 AM.]

Kurfurst__
04-15-2004, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by worr:
Try comparing the thrust to weight ratio of the 38 with the ME 110 or 410 giggles. I mentioned these two fighters as that is the typical (Galland) dismissal. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Worr, out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the 110 and 410 (esp the latter) had of course worser

ie. the P-38J/L had 3200 HP for 7452 kg (sorry for metrics!), this gives it 2.32kg/HP.
Bf 110 G had 2950HP for 7300 kg, that`s 2.47 kg / HP. Worser, but not as much as you would think!
Me 410A had 3500 HP for 9650 kg, that`s 2.75 kg / HP. That`s quite a bit worser.

For comparison, P-51D had 2.54 kg/HP, rather comperable to the Bf 110 G... so those "poor" 110s and 410s also share with the P-38 as having undeserved bad rep. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now of course MY baby had a mere 1.68 kg for every HP to move! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

One thing should be kept in mind, however, these were different class of planes. The P-38 was originated as fast interceptor; the Bf 110 was designed in the first place as multipurpose plane, which meant more weight and more drag in the first place, ie. for rear gunner/RO. The 410 was again different from the 110, as now it went back to the original "Kampfzestorer" concept, ie. it was more like a fast bomber, than a heavy fighter, altough could fill both roles. Neither the 110 or the 410 were bad planes, they had their strong points, and were very successfull in their primary roles. They could not compete s-e fighters either - high weight won`t make you manouverable, and as I said, it`s nice to be better than domestic s-e fighters, or foreign twin engines in combat flight performance, but as long as the contest is with lightweight single engines(well I hope John managed to grasp what that means by now), you always get the low end of stick. Even if not by much, in the case of the P-38, ie. being fairly competetive. But not an equal... limits of the type has to be understood, and put into the advantage. That`s what the US did, ie. fighting in the vertical vs. the nimble but slow Japanese, and using the plane eventually for ground attack in ETO. BTW, I think the P-38 is w/o doubt the most well suited US fighter for classical vertical fight - given it`s dive, sustained climb, and armament characteristics.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- SGT. Clyde D. BRUNSON, US Tank Commander, February 1945


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below : For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

worr
04-15-2004, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
ie. the P-38J/L had 3200 HP <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The -30 engines produced 1725 HP each at WEP. The 3200 you see is without overboost for combat.

Bf 110 G had 2950HP for 20,700 lbs normal loaded. 17,500 was normal loaded for the P-38. So right away something is wrong with your weights, because you show the ME-110 as lighter!

If you stay with the -17 engines and rate the weight to HP you come up with 5.5 lbs/HP in the 38 compared with 7 lbs/HP. There is quite a disparity right there.

The P-51D was 1695 HP for 10,100 LBs normal loaded. This yields 5.9lbs/HP. This still gives the thrust to weight advantage to the P-38.

Oh, and be careful with using max load, because the P-38 unlike the MEs and 51s could carry quite a load into combat. And empty weights, well the ME-110 did have a two man crew! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also keep in mind that what you are doing is HP to weight, not thrust to weight. The benefit of two props gives more effenciency to the power put into thrust in flight.

Worr, out

Kurfurst__
04-15-2004, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by worr:
The -30 engines produced 1725 HP each at WEP. The 3200 you see is without overboost for combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please show me something that tells the 1725 HP boost was standard. All docs I have seen lists 1600 HP for both J and L.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Bf 110 G had 2950HP for 20,700 lbs normal loaded. 17,500 was normal loaded for the P-38 So right away something is wrong with your weights, because you show the ME-110 as lighter!.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately I am not, I used the above chart for P-38 weights (I guess you accept those as accurate), and the normal T-O weight for a Bf 110G as a fighter. 20 000+ would be 110G with gunpods, bombs or other extra load, ie. sources usually show nightfigther G-4 with every single thing that was attached to it. Fighter weight for 110G was no more than about 7tons, also Il2 site lists it as such (correctly). And at 2100m, the DB 605B`s peaked out at 2x1550HP=3100HP, but I did not used those figures..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The P-51D was 1695 HP for 10,100 LBs normal loaded. This yields 5.9lbs/HP. This still gives the thrust to weight advantage to the P-38.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used 9500 lbs for P-51D, ie. w/o back tank. Fair, since that was the actual combat version.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Oh, and be careful with using max load, because the P-38 unlike the MEs and 51s could carry quite a load into combat. And empty weights, well the ME-110 did have a two man crew! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both Me 110 and 410 were able to carry up to 2000 kg bombload. In fact I believe the 410 was able carry even more in special configs, ie. more than the P-38. The P-38 could theoretically carry up to 1814kg/4000 lbs iirc, altough it was quite rare. Of course the biggest advantage of the 110/410 in a bombing mission was the ability to continue to the target without the need to jettison the load, and still being able to protect itself, esp. the 410 (which, as said, was more like the original Kampfzestorer concept)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also keep in mind that what you are doing is HP to weight, not thrust to weight. The benefit of two props gives more effenciency to the power put into thrust in flight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not neccesarily... without exact data, it`s impossible to tell.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- SGT. Clyde D. BRUNSON, US Tank Commander, February 1945


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below : For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

BigKahuna_GS
04-15-2004, 08:17 AM
S!~


The P38J and P38L used different engines with the L model getting the more powerful Allison V-1710F-30 V-12s engine. I am very interested in seeing the climb rate correctly modeled under WEP conditions because of the great power increase it could give a tactical advantge.

There is a huge difference in power settings between-- Normal---Military Power--and War Emergency Power.

See the climbing chart below for the P38 :


P38L-5-LO Normal Power ( 1,100horsepower )

P38L-5-LO War Emergency Power ( 1,725horsepower )


A whopping difference of 625hp per engine (being a twin). Under WEP conditions the P38 had a climbing rate which appears to be according to the Lockheed-Martin chart of 4,600ftmin - 4,700ft/min. I'll let you decide that.

Americas Hundred Thousand does not have the climb rate of the upgraded P38L Allison engine V-1710F-30 V-12s rated at 1,725horsepower. AHT has the old rating listed at 1600hp basically the same engine rating as the P38J.

The P38J & P38L had different engines and thus different climb rates and top end speeds.

The P38J-25-LO had a 1,600 HP War Emergency rating of the F-17 powerplant.

The P-38L-5/10-LO - A Technical Perspective, had two Allison V-1710F-30 V-12s had a 5.5 in. bore and 6.0 in stroke, providing a compression ratio of 6.5. These drove Curtiss Electric constant speed props via a 2:1 reduction gear, delivering 1,475 HP military and takeoff ratings at 3,000 RPM, or 1,612 HP maximum rating at 3,000 RPM and 60 in. of manifold pressure. Some later engines are described as delivering up to 1,725 HP WEP rating. The engines required 100 octane or higher rated fuel, and had 13 USG oil capacity. The oil was cooled in two outboard chin core radiators, vented via automatically controlled flaps on either side of the nacelle. Fuel consumption was 0.65 lb/HP./hr at 1,100 HP normal rating, at 2,600 RPM. "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" By Warren M. Bodie/Lockheed-Martin

THE Definitive book for the P38. This book contains information that was classifed secret and additional information from the company and designer Kelly Johnson himself.

"The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" By Warren M. Bodie.
ISBN 0-9629359-0-5, published by Wideing Publications, distributed
by Motorbooks international. Price? About $40.

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html

_____________________

P38L Acceleration in Americas Hundred Thousand :

Of the eight later fighter models in table 105 the P38L is the acceleration leader. The short-time -brute- Combat/WEP power of the final Lightning model provides over 1000 pounds more thrust than the early Lightning with little more drag and not much greater weight. Pg. 604

This is the key point "brute War Emergency Power & over 1000 pounds more thrust" .

And that is with the underrated WEP of 1600hp not the upgraded engine of 1,725hp.

The acceleration of the airborne P38L in FB/AEP -in level flight- seems slow, below to that of the P47 and P51--and those planes have marginal F/M acceleration modeled to them. Haven't checked the acceleration of the P38J.

AHT Acceleration ft/sec - 4.13 rank 1st

_______________________


Dive and Zoom Climb

Turning to dive acceleration, we find the F4U-4 and Mustang in a near dead heat. Both the P-47D and P-38L easily out distance the Corsair and P-51D in a dive.

Oleg, has told me the P 47 could out zoom climb the 190, and he has a track of it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I hope he takes this into consideration when modeling the dive and "Energy" retention during the zoom climb of the P47 & P38 in the upcoming patch.

The P47 & P38 should have similar dive speeds(Mass)& recovery/zoom climbs with the exception being the P38 is the much better climber and therefore should have the better zoom climb.



http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/ClimbChart.html



http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.html



http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RedLine.html



http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/SpeedChart.html



________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

BigKahuna_GS
04-15-2004, 08:40 AM
S!

Those dang charts still wont post right even from a web site.


P38 Climb Chart from Lockheed-Martin :


http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/ClimbChart.html



http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/ClimbChart.html



________________



P38 Roll Rate from Lockheed-Martin :


http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.html



http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.html



______________



P38L Speed Chart from Lockheed Martin :



http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/SpeedChart.html



http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/SpeedChart.html



________________


P38 Diving Speeds at (Redline)


http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RedLine.html



http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RedLine.html



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

Blutarski2004
04-15-2004, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
There's an NACA study that found that increasing porp are by adding more blades is better than increasing blade area and keeping the number of blades the same.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... A limiting factor in propeller design was, interestingly enough, the speed of sound. As propeller dimensions were increased to absorb ever increasing engine power, it was discovered that there was a limit to the maximum possible diameter of the propeller. That limit was reached when the speed of the blade tips, as they travelled about the circumference of the rotation disc, approached the speed of sound. When that point was reached, efficiency fell off drastically. When it was not longer possible to increase blade area by simply enlarging overall dimensions, other methods had to be found. Hence the steady increase in numbers of blades from two, to three, to four, and ultimately to five bladed prop assemblies during the war period, not to mention the appearance of dual contra-rotating props on a common shaft shortly thereafter.

BLUTARSKI

worr
04-15-2004, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Please show me something that tells the 1725 HP boost was standard. All docs I have seen lists 1600 HP for both J and L.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Others have posted the same sources as well as links online. I tend to shy away from on line sources, myself.

Vee's for Victory (listed above in this thread) is even more specific than Bodie's all inclusive work on the Lightening that others have mentioned. I put some store by it. BTW...Bodie's work came out in paperback last year...so the cost has come down. You can pick it up for under $18 at amazon.com

20 000+ would be 110G with gunpods, bombs or other extra load,

Actually you trimmed the P-38 by 1,000lbs in your equation. I ran my numbers with a heavier weight for the 38 and still came out ahead in the illustrations.

As for bombs, field attachments, no that isn't included in "normal weight." The weight for the 38 did include guns and ammo, hard points, etc, as well as fuel.

BTW....I understand there is only one ME-110 still in service to the public? In England? I believe it is a G-4/R3

I used 9500 lbs for P-51D, ie. w/o back tank. Fair, since that was the actual combat version.

Well, a 38 would have less fuel by the time it reached combat too. In fact, the impact upon performance would give even more advantage to the 38 as it carried almost twice the fuel, and could burn it at nearly 3 times the rate! At 6lbs per gallon, you've seen a lot more weight loss after getting to combat in the 38 than compared to the 51.

The magic of the merlin was its economical fuel burn rate, not the pure volume of gas put into the wings and fmain body of the P-51.

Both Me 110 and 410 were able to carry up to 2000 kg bombload. In fact I believe the 410 was able carry even more in special configs, ie. more than the P-38.

The 38 could carry 4,000 lbs, and did so in theater. It was done in a level radar guided drop.

Not neccesarily... without exact data, it`s impossible to tell.

Kurfurst, it is a given.

Someone else posted on the NACA reports. Keep in mind once a prop tip starts hitting the speed of sound it has outlived its usefullness...so translating high performance power into 2 props is a no brainer in this set up.

Any one here with a multi rating? I'm still working (read paying) on mine, but we learned this early on in the book work. I pay for my flying by teaching ground school. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Worr, out

worr
04-15-2004, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
The P38J and P38L used different engines with the L model getting the more powerful Allison V-1710F-30 V-12s engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is even more to it than that. The L also had new turbos and better cooling.

As I showed in the other post, the -30 was capable of 1800 HP @ WEP for sustained periods. But the real issue was temperature.

Take the HP rating change from the 38H to the 38J...jumping from 1450 HP to 1600HP. Nice jump, eh? Yet it was the same engine! So what gives? Intercoolers!

Already back in 42 Lockheed was warning the government that their engines were going to deliver horse power far beyond their ability to cool them down and avoid fuel detonation. There was a bit of a scramble in late 42 to get better fuel to the front lines...which met with great success. And there was the halt in production to change over to the 38J which changed the position of the coolers from the leading edge of the wing (yielding up more room for fuel) and into the chin of the engine. Hence the noticeable change in profile from the 38H to the J series.

This also explains part of the problem of engine failure, especially in the ETO, for the early 38Gs and Hs. There was massive failures on the front lines, because the pilots and mechanics didn't appreciate that the engine was so far ahead of its own resources.

So it isn't all just about "more powerful engines" The engines were actually limited by their installments, not just themselves.

Worr, out

PzKpfw
04-15-2004, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Sorry John, it`s a rather futile effort to accuse others with your own problems, ie. with reading comprehension. I clearly stated that the P-38 was unable to compete with LIGHTWEIGHT S-E fighters for simple aerodynamic reasons. So that you would understand, too, lightweight refers to the rather typical fighters of ww2: Bf 109s, Yaks, Lavockins, most Spitfires etc. All being in the area of 3 tons, and NOT a near 7-ton monster, which you used in your comparison.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should be Sorry Isegrem. So thats it, the P-38 just couldn't compete with any SE fire, because of its weight etc. Damn and all these years we were led to believe the P-38 was a fighter AC.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

In your zeal to "disprove" this, you come up with an example comparing the P-38 with the HEAVIEST single-engien fighter of WW2, the P-47.... to me, and to any intelligent person, this shows either your lack of reading comprehension skills, failure to understand the meaning of "lightweight", or insufficent knowladge on the matter, ie. I see no other reasonable answer why would want come up with the P-47 in a comparison. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmm, lets see about readeing comprehension on your part Isegrem, so i only compared the P-38 to the P-47?.

below is the contents of my posts yesterday you took objection to:


--------
The drag coefficient of the P-38J* was .0270 with a wingspan of 327.5 SQ.FT with an equivelent flat plate area of, 8.84 sq.ft. This gave the P-38J an equivelant flat area that was just between the lighter F6F-3 & F4U-1D.

*Comparison P-38L vs P-47D, & P-51D Power Loadings @ Altitude:

P-38L Power Loadings @ 17699lbs:

Sea Level:

MIL HP - 2850
LB/HP - 6.21

10,000ft:

MIL HP - 2850
LB/HP - 6.21

20,000ft:

MIL HP - 2850
LB/HP - 6.21

30,000ft:
MIL HP - 2850
LB/HP - 6.21

P-47D-40 Power Loadings @ 14411bs:

Sea Level:

MIL HP - 2000
LB/HP - 7.21

10,000ft:

MIL HP - 2000
LB/HP - 7.21

20,000ft:

MIL HP - 2000
LB/HP - 7.21

30,000ft:
MIL HP - 2000
LB/HP - 7.21


P-51D Power Loadings @ 10176lbs:

Sea Level:

MIL HP - 1490
LB/HP - 6.83

10,000ft:

MIL HP - 1500
LB/HP - 6.78

20,000ft:

MIL HP - 1360
LB/HP - 7.48

30,000ft:
MIL HP - 960
LB/HP - 10.60

Generaly, the lower the power loading Ie, less weight; per each engine HP, the better the planes performance is.


*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred Thousand. pp. 592 - 594
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Ie. drag coefficient, wing area, and equivalent flat plate area :

P-38J
0,028 x 327 = 9.156 sq.ft
F6F-3
0.023 x 334 = 7.682 sq. ft
F4U-1
0.020 x 314 = 6.28 sq. ft

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


Below is a *comparison of profile drag coefficents for 11 US fighters:

DC = Drag Coefficient
WA = Wing Area SQ.FT
FPA = Equiv. Flat Plate Area


P-51D:
DC = .0176.
WA = 233.19 SqFt.
FPA = 4.10 Sqft.

P-39N:
DC = .0217
WA = 213.2 SqFt.
FPA = 4.63 SqFt.

P-63A:
DC = .203
WA = 248.0 SqFt.
FPA = 5.03 Sqft.

P-40:
DC = .242
WA = 236.0 SqFt.
FPA = 5.71 Sqft.

F2A-3:
DC = .0300
WA = 208.9 SqFt.
FPA = 6.27 Sqft.

P-47B:
DC = .0213
WA = 300.0 SqFt.
FPA = 6.39 Sqft.

F4F-3:
DC = .0253
WA = 260.0 SqFt.
FPA = 6.58 Sqft.

F4U-1D:
DC = .0267
WA = 314.0 SqFt.
FPA = 8.58 Sqft.

P-38J:
DC = .270
WA = 327.5 SqFt.
FPA = 8.84 Sqft.

F6F-3:
DC = .0272
WA = 334.0 SqFt.
FPA = 9.08 Sqft.

P-61B:
DC = .0244
WA = 664.0 SqFt.
FPA = 15.94 Sqft.

*See: Dean Francis.H America's Hundred Thousand. p.592


And yet the P-38L had the fastest initial acceleration of any US fighter Ie:


*Late War 250mph @ SL to COMBAT POWER by order of ranking 1-8:

P-38L:

COM.HP - 3200
Weight - 16880lbs
Thrust.LB - 3840
Drag.LB - 1676
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 4.13

P-47M:

COM.HP - 2800
Weight - 14700lbs
Thrust.LB - 3360
Drag.LB - 1527
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 4.02

P-51D:

COM.HP - 1720
Weight - 10208lbs
Thrust.LB - 2064
Drag.LB - 845
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.85


P-39Q-1:

COM.HP - 1420
Weight - 7570lbs
Thrust.LB - 1704
Drag.LB - 864
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.57

P-63A:

COM.HP - 1500
Weight - 8442lbs
Thrust.LB - 1800
Drag.LB - 926
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.33

F4U-4:

COM.HP - 2380
Weight - 12420lbs
Thrust.LB - 2856
Drag.LB - 1569
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 3.33

F6F-5:

COM.HP - 2250
Weight - 12740lbs
Thrust.LB - 2700
Drag.LB - 1673
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 2.60

P-40N:

COM.HP - 1360
Weight - 8451lbs
Thrust.LB - 1632
Drag.LB - 1044
Acceleration.FT/SEC.SEC - 2.24

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand p.604

Their is no competioin Ise, you stated the P-38 could not possibly compete with lighter SE fighters in Acceleration, as we see from the above it did very well vs US fightetrs in initial acceleration, and that was my point.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Upon reviwing these posts I see I compared the P-38 to quite a few more AC then oh, lets say um an P-47.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Sure, John. Explain your failure again. Perhaps you convince some, if you repeat it long enough. It`s really you who`s vision was clouded by his prove-the-other-wrong zeal, and failed to address the point itself, rather than his own ghosts. At least you would admit it...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLMAO ok Isegrem, keep telling yourself if that makes you feel better.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
John? I would like to know the reason why you brough the 509. up (not 503, John. Your memory seems to fail you again.).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well Isegrem you just dissapeared from that thread though I do know why & so does anyone else who read it. As to a privayte thread I have no desire to talk with you privately about anything, I dont like you. But I will respond to your line of bull$hit on these boards.

As to why i brought up 509. Below is your quote off the other thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Great story John. And the Big Picture? Actions of, uhm, 3 or so Konigstigers holding a village in hungary early 1945 vs. a whole soviet tank brigade, knocking out some 40+ T-34s for NO losses? One attack wave butchered after the other... Or how about the combat record of Tiger II`s of the 503.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your unidentified refrence to 3 Tiger II, in a village in Hungary, knocking out 40+ T-34 clearly refers to 509s actions on 27.01.45, @ PsZ Pettend. So you never had to mention 509 etc, as it was obvious. Now what was that about memory?.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Also, reading your posts there convinced me that it is waste of time discussing ww2 tank design with you, for you show severe ignorance on this matter, ie. your claims the Soviets had easy time with Tigers, statements of short barreled Shermans vs. PzIV, claims of "more than 5-600 yards combats range being impossibility in Western Europe
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Isegrem I tried to share a little of my knowledge on WW2 armor with you. Unfortunntly you are more interested in insults etc, then learning anything.

As to my ignorance etc, on armor interesting as I can say without any boasting whatsoever that i am considered an expert on WW2 armored warfare, Isegrem, in fact i have probably done resaearch for, & worked on, most WW2 warfare sims ppl here have ever played, Ie, Steel Panthers series, TOP/PITS, Panzer Commander, Panzer Elite, CMBB, etc. as well as written articles etc, for publications, provided material for other authors books etc over the past 25 years, in fact i usualy get paid for what I have given away here for free. Yet here I am being accused of ignorance on an webboard, go figure.

I merely repeated that Soviet M4A2 Sherman tank crew reported M-72 solid shot had no trouble defeating the Tiger E side hull & turret armor. You took exception to that.

As to the ranges in Westren Europe why dont you point out exactly where I stated that no tank combat in WE took place at more thewn 500 - 600yards etc.

Because you cant, either youy are delibertly trying to lie, or your "reading comprehension" suxor. Below is exactly what I repled to you on Standard Battle Ranges in Normandy:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Standard battle ranges are limited by terrain, weather conditions etc. Ie, in Nomandy standard battle ranges were anywhere from PB range to 600 - 800m. In fact Applied Operations Research showed tyhat over 50% of all engagements occured @ ranges less than 650 yards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmm 50% of all tank vs tank engagements took place at ranges less than 650 yards. So Ise where did i state "more than 5-600 yards combats range being impossibility in Western Europe" etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

It also demonstrates the flaws of John`s picture about the engagments on the EF, ie. T-34s vs. the German heavy battalions. Ie. between Oct 1944 and the end of the war, the 503. sPz Abt, a unit with a nominal strenght of 45 Konigstigers (but with usually a lot less available for a day action) knocked out and destroyed a minimum of 121 Soviet tanks, 244 anti tank guns and other arty pieces, 5 aircrafts and a Soviet train, for the loss of 10 Konigtigers destroyed by the Soviets in combat. Researcher of the subject, Szamveber Norbert, however, puts the total number of enemy equipment destroyed to apprx. 150 enemy tanks and 270 ATGs.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow a whole 120 - 150 tanks, what did that accomplish Ise?, lests see the Soviets had thousands of T-34s to replace their losses, while th4e Germans had how many replacements?.

Problem is as I asked in the original thread that you fled from, what exactly did the small actions of 503 & 509 accomplish strategicly?, what did the huge expenditure of manpower & materials on the Tiger II gain Nazi Germany's war effort?, did it halt the Allies?, did it prolong the war?.

Yes German Tiger Abt racked up impressive numbers of kill claims in WW2, but the "Big Picture" (as you like to refer to small unit tactical actions), means very little in the real "big picture" which is strategic.

So while Tiger IIs etc were haveimng some small local tactical successes, the front was collapseing, & Germany and her satalite Nations folded up one after the other.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also the reality of combat ranges happening in the Western front, as told by US and Allied tank crews:

Appearantly, long range tank combat was not uncommon on the Western front. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow a few quotes, and suddently the standard battle ranges in Westren Europe is what 3-4000 yards now?. Like that Tunisa quote from the Matilda crew was that thrown in their for good luck?.

Heres a few quotes you migt find interesting:

Captain Thomas Evans in his oral history told that using the Gyros on the M18 Hellcat he was able to destroy a Panther while moving at 35 miles per hour at 1100 yards.


From the combat history of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion, Fourth Armored Division, of General Patton's Third Army:


The time was September, 1944, the weapon was the 76mm, high-velocity antitank rifle that armed the M-18 "Hellcat." The gunner was SSG Phillip Hosey. I quote from Phil Hosey.
"Near Nancy, France, between Luneville and Arracourt, we faced a group of German tanks that had taken a position one mile away, across a shallow open valley. Our M-18s were in defilade, facing out over a small hill. Infantry led the way across the valley with three M-4s intermingled. The Krauts let them get halfway across, then opened up with anti-tank fire from woods on the right. They immediately KO'd two M-4s and drove the infantry to the ground. Two Panthers, a Mark IV, and an assault gun came out of the woods and moved across our line of fire at the distance of about a mile. In his position in our open turret, the tank commander, SSG Hicklin, watched their progression through his glasses and called out the range: "Two thousand yards, moving at about ten mph." Our rifle, with AP, had a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps, so it would take two seconds to arrive on target. The Krauts were moving at fifteen feet per second, which let them travel thirty feet in two seconds. Their lead tank was twenty feet long (from the book), so we led him a good length for a center shot. We laid on and fired. Voila, a hit! It struck two feet in front of his rear drive idler. We then picked the last tank and scored - he began to bum. The two intervening tanks were destroyed by two fast AP shots. So we got two Panthers, a Mark 4, and an assault gun. Our 76mm rifle packed a good punch, even at two thousand yards. We felt that we had the best self-propelled antitank gun in the ETO."


You could have saved time of cutting and pasting a few quotes of rare occurence LR engagements etc Isegrem, as I am well aware of them.


As I stated long range engagements in Westren Europe were rare, due to terrain etc.
Nor were LR engagements as common as Isegrem would like ppl to believe here on the basis of a few quotes.They were exceptions to the rule, not the norm and to imply otherwise shows a severe lack of understanding of applied operational research. Ie, concrning Soviet tank losses o the Eastreen front where long range engagements were much more comon then in the West, during 1943-1944 only 4.4% of all Soviet tank losses were knocked out ranges greater than 1200m, by 7.5cm lang fire, and 10.8% were at a range greater than 1200m by 8.8cm fire.

Its interesting that you wish to promotre German superiority of WW2 German tanks at long ranges as even concerning the M1A1 Abrams with the most advanced FCS in the world, has shown that a company team of M1A1s most effective ranges, has been determined to be under 2400 yards.

Since that is the range over which they train under for tables VI, VII, and VIII. Exceptional crews can get longer range hits, these crews are sometimes referd to as "Snipers" and can get hit @ 2500 - 3200 yards.

Of course you would prefer we discussed LR engagements only for German tanks, as that highlights the Panther & Tigers main advantages over Allied tanks, Ie, the ideal engagement range for the Panther's 7.5cm KwK.42 L/70 was 1400m. While ignoreing their shortcomeings, Ie, the Panthers weak side turret & hull armour.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu April 15 2004 at 10:07 AM.]

dahdah
04-15-2004, 10:23 AM
Interesting, a few examples of long range engagements now becomes the norm. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

ZG77_Nagual
04-15-2004, 10:46 AM
Well, amidst fears this otherwise really very edifying thread is getting hijacked, initially by Kurfurst's contentious tone - echoed in responses in kind - let me point out a thing or two.

Kurfurst - you seem preoccupied with comparing the P38 to single engined planes from other nations. Near as I can tell this thread is geared more toward looking at the p38's raw performance compared, at times against other US fighters. The point being to gain a sense of it's performance in the simm against a base of other known types. From reading here and everywhere else it seems pretty obvious that the P38 depended alot on pilot skill - but in the hands of a skilled pilot could and frequently did perform outside what was thought of as it's envelope. Pilot accounts are pretty universal in singing it's praises - and even in the europian theatre some units quite excelled - even, I dare say, against 109s.

This reminds me of another infamous airplane - maligned by many yet praised by those who learned it's ways and flew it most in combat.

informative p38 thread (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html)

Here is the summary from the link above

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In his book"The First and the Last" Adolf Galland, who fought
&gt;against
&gt;them said that the P-38 was no better than the ME-110
&gt;so called fighter.
&gt; If P-38s with better performance had been built they may
&gt;have had a better chance.
&gt;
&gt;

We have had some exhausting debates on the merits of the P-38; both
here and over at rec.military.aviation. Much of the effort in these debates
has been to overcome the post war myth that the P-51 was best fighter
to emerge from WWII. Let's establish a few undisputed facts. Undisputed
by those who have done the research. Frequently disputed by those who have
not. I'll provide ten reasons why Galland's comments should be dismissed
as mere piss and wind.

1) Adolf Galland has never been accused of being the standard of objective
writing, or public speaking. A fine pilot and tactician, Galland frequent wrote
and spoke about things, of which, he had minimal firsthand knowledge and
understanding. About 15 years ago he got into a discussion with several
former P-38 pilots about his comments in the First and the Last. Pressed,
he admitted that his comments were not so much his own, but those of
some of his pilots. He also admitted that a well flown P-38 was a very
dangerous foe. One of the P-38 pilots involved in this discussion is still alive
today and a personal friend.

2) Any P-38 pilot was eager to encounter an Me 110. They were very easy
kills for the Lightning.

3) From the P-38J-25-LO on, the Lightning was likely the finest fighter package
flying in 1944. It offered versatility unmatched by any other fighter in any
theater, flown by any nation. There was virtually no mission beyond its means.

4) In terms of range, a properly flown P-38J or L (this means using the correct
power and propeller settings) out-ranged the P-51D by as much as 200 miles.

5) The Japanese considered the P-38 to be a far greater adversary than the
P-47 of the P-51.

6) The TRUE maximum speed of a P-38L was not the much published 414 mph.
This reflects Military Power, not War Emergency Power. In WEP, a clean P-38L
could exceed 440 mph. The P-38J with its lower rated engines could pull speeds
in the low to mid 420's.

7) At corner speed, any P-38 model could EASILY out-turn any fighter in the
Luftwaffe inventory.

8) The P-38L could out-climb the P-51D and Fw-190D by better than 30%.

9) Most Luftwaffe pilots felt that it was suicide to make a head-on attack
against a P-38. The P-38's four .50 caliber MGs and one 20mm cannon
concentrated in a 30 inch circle was devestating.

10) The P-38 was the only fighter in the ETO that could be flown into an
accelerated stall at 1,000 ft. without fear of torque-rolling into an
unrecoverable attitude. Nothing in the ETO could stay with a P-38 down
in the tree tops. Absolutely nothing.

I should give 10 reasons why the P-38 a problematic fighter, to balance the
scales a bit.

1) Early models had only one generator. Suffer a failure of the associated
engine and you were in deep trouble, especially at high altitudes where the
battery had been cold-soaked and produced inadequate power. Without power,
it became impossible to control the Curtiss Electric propellers, which would go
into feather.

2) Models prior to the P-38L-5-LO had terrible heaters and defrosters.

3) Models prior to the P-38J-25-LO lacked dive flaps and were dangerous
to dive at speeds beyond Mach .68. This allowed German pilots to escape
in a steep dive and P-38 pilots were reluctant to follow.

4) At high altitudes, P-38s prior to the P-38L-1-LO tended to suffer engine
failures. This was related to a poorly designed intake manifold, intercooler
over-efficiency and poorly formulated avgas.

5) The lack of automatic engine controls in early models.

6) Poor roll response in early P-38's. Roll rate in later models with
hydraulically boosted ailerons was outstanding.

7) The P-38 required nearly twice the man-hours to maintain the fighter.
It also consumed 80% more fuel than a P-51D for a given distance.

8) Access to engines and systems was poor due to the tight fitting
cowling and crowded booms.

9) Unreliable turbocharger regulators in early models.

10) Poor rear vision, especially below .

The P-38 was not without serious problems. However, as a combat
plane it was among the very best. Galland was wrong, and he knew it.
Perhaps there was something about a big twin out-flying his 109 that
caused him to refuse to acknowledge what he KNEW to be true. Of
course, that is just speculation. Nonetheless, the fact that Galland could
not stand up to the challange of the P-38 pilots indicates that he was
being less than honest in his memiors. Another fact, that he himself barely
escaped with his scalp from a lone P-38L, should settle any arguments.
That P-38, by the way, had to break off due to fuel limits being exceeded.
The U.S. pilot was from the 364th FG. Galland was flying a Fw-190D.
Galland avoided discussing this event unless pressed hard.

My regards,
C.C. Jordan
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Thu April 15 2004 at 10:11 AM.]

BigKahuna_GS
04-15-2004, 11:30 AM
S!



Kurfurst wrote :

For comparison, P-51D had 2.54 kg/HP, rather comperable to the Bf 110 G... so those "poor" 110s and 410s also share with the P-38 as having undeserved bad rep.

Now of course MY baby had a mere 1.68 kg for every HP to move!

___________


One important point that is often over looked is that the P38 and P51 were strategic fighters that carried enormous fuel loads. As these fuel loads burned off wing loading and the weight/horsepower ratio improved proportionately at a much higher level than the 109 or 190 whose fuel loads and combat radius were much smaller.

Buzzsaw listed a chart of wing loading per amount of fuel on board and there is a crossover point were the P51 at about a 25%-35% fuel load has a much greater range and equal or slightly better wing loading than a 109 with a 25% fuel load that needs to exit the comabt area immediately or not make it back to base.

I wish I had saved that chart it was very informative.


_______________


Off Topic: Tiger II Tank vs M4 Sherman

I agree with you Kurfurst about the M4 Sherman tank vs Tiger II tank. It was a standard practice that the allies needed about a 5 to 1 ratio-- 5 Shermans to 1 Tiger Tank in order to defeat the Tiger. The Allies had thousands of Shermans to do the job but that's a hell of a way to fight a war--attriton fighting.

The Germans built some of the finest Tanks in the world and developed modern battlefield tactics to exploit their superior armor and guns. The only weakness the Tiger tank had was slow mobility from it's great weight. That is where the more mobile medium Panther tank complemented the Tiger.

When WW2 broke out the US was totally unprepared and most of its planes, tanks, weapons systems and tactical theorys on warfare were obsolete. The US played catch up for the first 2-3 years of the war.

The US Army had a huge internal struggle between the Ordanace Dept-Armored Force Board-Army Ground Forces Command with the role of a Main Battle Tank, opting for lighter manueverable "Tank Destroyers", this was antiquated thinking. Army Ground Forces Command was concerned that a heavily gunned and armored tank would encourage "tank hunting" which the lightly armored "Tank Destroyers" role was. Also 1 heavy tank took the space of 3 meduim tanks to ship to Europe.

Many Sherman crews died needlessly becuase of this poor tank design, and lack of introducing a Main Battle tank that could defeat the Tiger 1v1 until way late in the war. After the Ardennes German offensive showed just how poorly matched the M4 Sherman was to the Panther and Tiger, all 20 brand new M-26 Pershing heavy tanks with 90mm guns were shipped to France in Jan 45.

The M-26 Pershing heavy tank served with the 3rd (Patton)and 9th Armored Divisions. In one battle, a single M-26 Pershing destroyed 2 Panthers and a Tiger tank. This vindicated the Ordanance Department which had lobbied strongly for a heavily gunned heavy tank.

Why did it take till 1945 to figure this out ?



______________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

crazyivan1970
04-15-2004, 11:49 AM
Ok this is getting personal now. Isel, check your PT. This thread is locked untill ya all cool off.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

crazyivan1970
04-15-2004, 02:00 PM
Ok, carry on and stay on the subject please.

Thank you.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

crazyivan1970
04-15-2004, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paradoxbox:
Hi worr, since the topic got locked (thanks for turning it into a personal flamefest guys..) I'll post my response here,

Kahuna pretty much posted all the necessary data so I won't go over it again, the fact is the engines CAN produce more than 1725hp (That is a given, I think) but the planes do NOT produce 1725hp or more than 60in.Hg. straight out of the factory, even at combat power. They are configured at reduced HP and manifold pressure settings in order to maximise engine life. As far as I am concerned modifying the airplane or engines in any way that changes the performance of the airplane from factory specs is "field modding". Maybe that's where the confusion comes from.

Interestingly enough the P-38K prototype used Allison engines generating over 1875 horsepower and used Hamilton Standard hi-activity propellers (like the kind on the P-47D). That particular series of engines was definately capable of producing that kind of horsepower, but the engines wore out much more quickly when overboosted.

Gotta run right now but I'll be back later this afternoon to follow up.

Cheers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

ZG77_Nagual
04-15-2004, 02:24 PM
Nicely done.

This is one of the better threads.

worr
04-15-2004, 02:53 PM
Grrr...lost a long reply paradox as the other thread was locked. The whole page dropped and I lost my data.

I'll cut to the chase..but with far less elegance and piquancy! There was no modifications of these engines. And they weren't on the tables. I posted table ratings on the previous page.

To modify means to change. Hence in stock car racing you cannot swap out a Holley carb for a Rochester. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe you are using modify loosely?

The higher HP question is a rabbit hole in and of itself...and if you want to see how deep the hole goes send me an e-mail:

bworral@cableone.net

Worr, out

worr
04-15-2004, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Nicely done.

This is one of the better threads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ever read that thread you quoted above?

I believe it is still archieved at rec.aviation.military I participated in that thread too...and watched it unfold...some years ago.

Worr, out

ZG77_Nagual
04-15-2004, 03:29 PM
Yup, several times.
this discussion reminds me of the P39 discussion we had awhile back - vvs ace Golodnikov said, basically, you either flew it so as to ensure 150 hours of engine life (per the manual), or you flew it to shoot down messerschmitts and focke wulfs - I expect something along the same lines is true of the p38.

I had a feeling you were probably in on that one. I posted a link to the full thread - it is still there.
The link is in blue in that message - here it is again http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nice to see such well-informed participation!

The Cool Yarchive 38 thread (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html)

dahdah
04-15-2004, 03:33 PM
worr, it was not the link Nagual posted but this thread and the action Ivan took to get it back on track.

Nagual told me if you sub in 40, 47, 51 for the 38 you can find simular discussions for the link he posted.

worr
04-15-2004, 04:50 PM
Not sure who put that together...it left out much of the discussion. Then again, it was a massive thread. Took a couple of months to finish if I recall. And it got sour toward the end.

1999? Wow, I didn't remember it being so recent. Seems like years ago. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dahdah not sure I follow your first sentence there. You operating from a context I'm missing?

Worr, out

worr
04-15-2004, 04:55 PM
Going back over the thread...noticed comments on compressability. Anyone done some IL-2 inflight testing of it? Some sims just pick a number and when the dial hits it it begins, but it is anything but a set number.

It depends on altitude, most decidedly high altitude was where the real problem was. I have the compressability charts on me. I could feed them out to someone who can post them on-line showhow.

Frankly, because of the poor visiliby in the cockpit art I can never tell how fast I'm going when it comes on. And I have the dash lights on. I've since turned on the speed bar.

Worr, out

ZG77_OzZ
04-15-2004, 05:16 PM
Guys Please keep this thread going and not make it personal thanks

ZG77_Nagual
04-15-2004, 05:29 PM
Worr, some wire crossage back there. Nothing consequential.

You can watch the speedometer by using the zoom view - but basically onset seems to be right around 410 or so indicated - which I think is a bit too soon. Of course in the L you can handle this nicely with the dive flaps. (in normal gunsight view on the 38 the speed is pretty easily visible - maybe graphics settings? I think it's one of the nicest cockpits overall)

I gather the yarchive thread is edited down a bit. One of my squadmates has tried to contact a fellow who has current time in the P38. Hopefully he'll consent to review the simm version, though I'm not holding my breath http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Thu April 15 2004 at 04:49 PM.]

worr
04-15-2004, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
You can watch the speedometer by using the zoom view - but basically onset seems to be right around 410 or so indicated - which I think is a bit too soon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

410ias is generous, actually.

It can begin at 290ias at higher altitude. But altitude is the key dynamic, if this flight model even does that dynamic.

Of course, if you are going to fudge a FM then you pick a number closer to the deck where most fights actually take place in this sim. At 10,000 feet 420ias was the onset of buffeeting and dive tendency. (460TAS).

Of course, if you add in a banked turn of 60 degrees and you can forget all those numbers. It gets worse when you load up the wings. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW...the P-38J-25-LO did have dive recovery flaps, and they were back fitted to older 38Js, even after that famous transport was mistakenly shot down by a friendly fire incident. They sent another one and back fitted all the 38Js.

Wish I had a zoom to the guages key, like the zoom to the gunsight key, instead of having to use the mouse and zoom. Done a few C.F.I.T.s doing that!

Worr, out

p1ngu666
04-15-2004, 05:50 PM
i did a little test earlier, tried a p38 stall, climbing up, keeping level as best i can. with engines off its softer but still goes down on 1 wing. a he111 is the same, maybe softer, with engines off it goes down on 1 wing. now a he111 would have some rudder/aliron trim default to conteract torque of engines. but a p38 wouldnt (or have very little cos of slight airframe differences etc)
so :\
also is the compressablitity like a on/off or is it a gradual thing?
also the p38 writhes or something when u nail throttles from idle. also it seems different on my dads pc :\.
remmber the p38 had good cooling, so extra power would limit your time at max power i guess. and on the engine field mod thing, i think most pilots would elect to have the extra power avalible.

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

paradoxbox
04-15-2004, 06:42 PM
Hi worr, I posted this earlier just before the thread got reopened and before you posted your response at around 21:00 zulu.

"Hi worr, since the topic got locked (thanks for turning it into a personal flamefest guys..) I'll post my response here,

Kahuna pretty much posted all the necessary data so I won't go over it again, the fact is the engines CAN produce more than 1725hp (That is a given, I think) but the planes do NOT produce 1725hp or more than 60in.Hg. straight out of the factory, even at combat power. They are configured at reduced HP and manifold pressure settings in order to maximise engine life. As far as I am concerned modifying the airplane or engines in any way that changes the performance of the airplane from factory specs is "field modding". Maybe that's where the confusion comes from.

Interestingly enough the P-38K prototype used Allison engines generating over 1875 horsepower and used Hamilton Standard hi-activity propellers (like the kind on the P-47D). That particular series of engines was definately capable of producing that kind of horsepower, but the engines wore out much more quickly when overboosted.

Gotta run right now but I'll be back later this afternoon to follow up.

Cheers."

It does seem like the confusion comes from my use of the word "field modifY". But I do stand by my statement that the 38 will not generate 64" and 1725HP even at throttles firewall without the throttle or (I believe it's called the manifold valve, not positive. Will contact someone at kalamazoo about that) being modified.

To be honest the P-38s single largest problem is the fact that it is stalling at about 88mph with flaps and gear down, no matter how lightly loaded you are. This is a BIG BIG issue, far more than an extra 100hp during WEP, IMO. And it is far easier to prove that the stall is wrong than it is to prove the engine performance is off.

MHO.
cheers

paradoxbox
04-15-2004, 06:53 PM
In response to pingu, the compression SHOULD be gradual and it should start happening around 400mph at sea level, and gradually decrease in IAS as you gain altitude. One thing I found particularly intruiging is that the J seems to compress *earlier* than the L in AEP! Not to sound rude, but what in the samuel hell is happening there!? They are the exact same airframe with only the ailerons on the L being different from the J.

Why the J enters compressability sooner and elevator becomes stiffer more rapidly than the L I don't know, but it's almost imossible to move the elevator at 650kph/sea level in the J but quite doable in the L at same speed and altitude.

Strange, it makes me wonder if compression is even modelled in the game at all or if it's just an arbitrary value plugged into the flight model (effectiveness@tas650=15% ??? Seen this in flight sims before..). It seems like a likely explanation, since the flaps deploying speed also seems to be based on true air speed instead of IAS.

worr
04-15-2004, 09:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paradoxbox:
It does seem like the confusion comes from my use of the word "field modifY". But I do stand by my statement that the 38 will not generate 64" and 1725HP even at throttles firewall<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have gumption then. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But removing a governor is hardly a field modification. That's just cutting red tape, and especially since the fuel ratings changed everything, the governors became meaningless.

But who said anything about 64"? If you look at the Lockheed data it said 60 inches MP. I have in my files an AAF advisory circular (that I'm trying to get posted online again) that shows the MP settings for this as confirmed by the 8th AAF.

For some real wild numbers you wont believe either go here:

http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Miss%20US/Allison%20V1710%20Engine.htm#Allison-powered%20Aircraft

Would you believe there was a late model allison V1710 G6 series r/l that went into the P-38 that could put out not 1725 but 2250 HP? 375 airplanes received them, but no data as to who got them. 4500 HP? Gag Zeus what a honey!

Will contact someone at kalamazoo about that) being modified.

They know the history? I wouldn't ask a pilot. Ask a mechanic who was there in the war...because it really is a historical question. We run warbirds out of my airport, and none of them are pulling more than 50" on take off (compared to my 25 that's still much!). So they don't have much experience with "pushing through the gates" as those engines are expensive, and no one's life depends upon the added power.

Not trying to discredit people who actually fly the bird today, but the context is very different, and it is a historical question.

To be honest the P-38s single largest problem is the fact that it is stalling at about 88mph with flaps and gear down, no matter how lightly loaded you are.

Here is the raw data:

Vs1 (clean) 94 mhp; 100 mph and 105 mph
Vs0 (dirty) 69 mph; 74 mph; and 78 mph

The three weights are 15, 17 and 19,000 lbs.

88 seems WIDE of the mark. Is 88 the ias when it stalls? I can read my gauges and fly at the same time.

Stall is described in the POH: "As stalling speed is approached, the center section stalls first with noticeable shaking of the airplane, however, the ailerons remain effective.

In either power-on or power off stalls with flaps and landing gear up, the airplane mushes straight forward in a well controlled stall. With flaps and landing gear down, there appears to be a slight tendency for one wing to drop. There is, however, no tendency to spin. Under these conditions, the nose drops slightly and as the speed increase the wing will come up." [emphasis mine]

Of course, all AC stall from the center section as the angle of incidence is tapered to allow for continued maneuverability into the stall from the ailerons. The real difference is its forward motion in a stall!

This is a BIG BIG issue, far more than an extra 100hp during WEP, IMO.

That is an extra 250 HP. But agreed, the stall is wrong. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But again, it might be something the FM just cannot do, not a design decision and or mistake. Twin fighters are hard to model, especially when you built a sim around single engine fighters.

Worr, out

paradoxbox
04-15-2004, 10:49 PM
The graph for climb rate and speeds in this thread both state 64 inches manifold pressure.
It's not so much the wing drop that's the problem, but the fact that the aircraft is stalling some 20mph faster than it should. I have verified it with the airspeed indicator at sea level, it stalls out on average at 90 mph. with some extreme aileron deflection very quick to each side you can ride it to 88mph while still flying level, but to be honest I think it's just stalling at 90.


Cheers.

WUAF_Co_Hero
04-16-2004, 02:59 AM
In response to worr and P1ngu666, respectively:::

I have done a large amount of testing w/ the 38: the compresibility is most definitely not a set number. I don't know if it's the effect of alttitude on it is correct or not (because I'm simply ignorant on this fact), but as you go higher, you most definitely get compresibility at lower speeds.

And yes, the compression is gradual. At first it will just become slightly harder to pull the nose up, then harder... and then it will start full force nosing in. From my experience, the hardest thing was to know when using the airbrake is neccesary, and when it will just bleed E wastefully. In time though, it becomes almost second nature.

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

worr
04-16-2004, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Co_Hero:
In response to worr and P1ngu666, respectively:::

I have done a large amount of testing w/ the 38: the compresibility is most definitely not a set number. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here are the factory chart numbers you can aim for:

290 @ 30k (440 tas)
360 @ 20k (460 tas)
420 @ 10k (460 tas)

Dive placard reads: Do not exceed placard limits more than 20 MPH with dive recover flaps extended. There are two dive limits placards on the 38. Zeno has one of them on his web site:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/38dv.gif

Worr, out

worr
04-16-2004, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paradoxbox:
The graph for climb rate and speeds in this thread both state 64 inches manifold pressure.
It's not so much the wing drop that's the problem, but the fact that the aircraft is stalling some 20mph faster than it should. I have verified it with the airspeed indicator at sea level, it stalls out on average at 90 mph. with some extreme aileron deflection very quick to each side you can ride it to 88mph while still flying level, but to be honest I think it's just stalling at 90.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is just wrong.

Those alison engines eventually went up to 80" MP in the post war racers. Not sure I understand your objection to numbers above 60" MP.

"P-38L. Production was from June 1944 through August 1945, effectively to the end of the war. Not only did they incorporate improvements such as the critical dive flaps, hydraulically boosted ailerons and additional fuel capacity, they also utilized the further improved V-1710-111/130 (F30R/L) engines, while continuing to use the Type B-33 turbosupercharger.

The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17s but incorporated many internal improvements, most notably the 12 counterweight crankshaft. As a consequence it could be operated up to 3200 rpm. Using Grade 150 fuel it could deliver 1725 bhp under WER conditions." (Vee's for Victory p 145)

Worr, out

p1ngu666
04-16-2004, 08:55 AM
thanks guys http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

ZG77_Nagual
04-16-2004, 09:09 AM
Well, assuming the elevators really did get THAT heavy as you approached compressibility - it is probably, as Oleg said in an email, right where it should be. Good to know it's right! At 3000 meters It seems to enter compressibility right around 420. At 600 meters I had some positive elevator authority at nearly 450. Oleg told me that the 38's critical angle is 3 to 4 degrees better than the 109 and most other planes in the simm but I find it difficult to outturn 109s at very low speeds. Last night I took several 109s into a low speed turn (ai will do this now - and well!) speed got as low as 150 kph for sure and I was not able to get a leg up on them in the turn. Could be a matter of practice - but I was pretty much ridin' the rail. Great info guys! One of the best orr threads ever.

Kurfurst__
04-16-2004, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Oleg told me that the 38's critical angle is 3 to 4 degrees better than the 109 and most other planes in the simm but I find it difficult to outturn 109s at very low speeds. Last night I took several 109s into a low speed turn (ai will do this now - and well!) speed got as low as 150 kph for sure and I was not able to get a leg up on them in the turn. Could be a matter of practice - but I was pretty much ridin' the rail. Great info guys! One of the best orr threads ever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nagual, keep in mind that critical angle of attack of the wing is different from outturnning the opponent. No better example than the Spit and 109E, the Spit I could outturn the Emil in UK tests, however it was also shown the latter can ride higher angles of attack on its wing, thanks to slats and the thicker profile. But theres also wingloading(or better, liftloading) and powerloading...

It merely shows how much angle the wing can support without the airflow break up over the surface. Ie., if the crit. AoA is higher than that of the 109, that would mean it should be harder to stall the P-38 with abrubt elevator movements, ie. the ones which will genereate high angle of attack, yet it could be that at anlges of attack supported by both wings, the 109 will still have a lower stall speed.. though there are many variables, wheter this statement from Oleg refers to the H-P slats of the 109 open or closed, and I guess the P-38s longspan wing can make things different than in the avarage case. That would lead me to believe that the P-38 has relatively thick wing section, early compressibility also points toward that... thicker profiles usually support high angle of attacks (but again it depends much on the airfoil...). I flew the P-38 only a few times, so I cant comment much on it, however stall behaviour did not seem very bad to me for sure. Perhaps not to exceptations (compared to the usual drumbeating... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ), but definitely not bad. And about turning, it is known that in the AFDU tests even the FW 190 could outturn the older P-38 models, which had similiar aerodynamic properties (and I guess improvements of power[+), and losing manouveribility to increasing weight[-] is correct for later models of both `190 and the `38).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

p1ngu666
04-16-2004, 11:36 AM
i just tried b1 and me163. my b1 was hardly scienticific, using outside view http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif but wing drop happens there, but u can ride the stall a little. on the me162 i used cockpit view and tried to keep pip level with the fake horizon thingy. me163 can ride hte stall along time. i had engine off btw, and finaly the wing dips. im wondering if its coded cos wing drop seems the same, roughly 70degree drop i think
later ill try with torque and stuff off, see if that helps

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

ZG77_Nagual
04-16-2004, 11:51 AM
Thanks for your comments and perspective Kurfurst.
Pilot reports do indicate very good low speed turn in the 38 - based on my admittedly limited knowlege - if there is a shortcoming in the modeling I think it would be in the stall regime.
I'm assuming the 190 tests you refer to probably involve one of the early 190s as well - a4 possibly - which seems to have the best turn of the lot. I think alot of the problem with the p38 is that it took a bit of skill to fly it - evidently a relatively long learning curve. So there is a pretty broad range of opinions - kinda like the p39 and even the 109 when flown by allied pilots vs opinions of german aces.

I've been flying nothing but the p38 lately and I like it fine as is. This thread has a nice conversational tone - rather than a 'complaining' tone which so often happens with FM discussions. Oleg responds well to good information - it'll be interesting to see what he thinks when he gets back. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
04-16-2004, 11:53 AM
S!

I have sent much information to Oleg via email also and he has been kind enough to answer almost all my emails. There are some issues that I think (my opinon) he does not care to respond to and I respect him so I will not force the issue. It may also be that he simply does not have the time to respond.

To be honest I have never recieved this kind of support from any flight sim before and it is pretty amazing. Granted, somethings have taken way too long to fix or reslove. But at least Oleg is open enough to hear you out.

The P47D-27 roll rate should be fixed in the patch same as the D-30

The P38L will be recieving airborne tail warning radar-not sure when

Oleg even said he would consider factering in G-suits for US/Brits if I could get dates and units of who wore them. That has been a tough one.


___________



Wor --good points about the turbo-intercooler upgrades and change of installation locations. Especially the stall speed.

Wor if you have access to these books can you post the info?

For a more complete, readers are suggested to Daniel Whitney's "Vee for Victory!" or Graham White's "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II".
________

Most of the powerplant information in Americas Hundred Thousand pertains to the early E & F series engines with goveners setting limits on turbo-speed at 26,400rpm Pg178.

AHT does not even list WEP as being available, (AID)Water & Alcohol anti-detonation injection Pg.179

AHT is not the complete book I thought it would be. I find I have to refrence many other books because the information I want is simply not there.

____________



Key Specifications (Prior to racing modifications)

Model V-1710 G6R/L (V-1710-143/-145)

Application All models: Major production included : P-38, P-39, P-40, P-46, P-47, P-51A, P-63, P-82

Engine Type V-12 Piston Aero Engine, 60‚? "V" (angle between banks)
Material Aluminum heads, water jacket, crankcase; Steel cylinder liners; Forged aluminum alloy pistons; Magnesium oil pan
Bore x Stroke 5.5" x 6.0"
Compression Ratio 6.00:1
Supercharger type Two stage engine driven supercharger, 10.25" engine impeller, 12.1875" auxiliary impeller
Supercharger Ratio 7.48 engine stage, 8.087 (R) and 8.03 (L) auxiliary stage

Anti-detonation 50:50 water-methanol injection anti-detonation injection (ADI)

Fuel System Bendix-Stromberg SD-400D3 speed/density injection
Weight 1,595 lbs

Power 2,250 hp war emergency rating (WER) at 3,200 RPM & 101" Hg (35 psig) boost "wet" (w/ADI) and 115/145 PN fuel

Performance 325 psi BMEP (brake mean effective pressure)
Max. Piston Speed: 3,200 ft/min
Firing Order RH turning: 1L-2R-5L-4R-3L-1R-6L-5R-2L-3R-4L-6R
LH turning: 1L-6R-5L-2R-3L-4R-6L-1R-2L-5R-4L-3R
Timing Ignition: Intake fires 28‚? BTDC, Exhaust 34‚? BTDC, Sparkplug gap = 0.012-0.015"
Intake: Valve opens 48‚? BTDC, Closes 62‚? ABDC, 0.015" clearance (cold), 0.533" lift
Exhaust: Valve opens 76‚? BBDC, Closes 26‚? ATDC, 0.020" clearance (cold), 0.533" lift
Total Manufactured 70,033 total, from #1 manufactured Aug 13, 1931 through s/n A-074125 completed June 2, 1948

_______________

The power unit on the "E" and "F" engines were identical, with crankshafts, connecting rods, pistons, cylinder blocks, valve gear, and intake manifolds among other components completely interchangeable. The "E" featured a remote propeller reduction gearbox for the Bell P-39 Airacobra (and P-63 Kingcobra) driven with a 10 ft extension shaft turning at crankshaft speed between the engine and reduction gear.

The "F" had a conventional integral tractor propeller reduction gear Lockheed P-38 Lightning and Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk. A turbocharged V-1710-F17L/-F17R engine equipped with ADI produced a WER of 2,300 bhp at 3,000 rpm with 90 in hg,, developing a BMEP of 355 psi. The "E" and "F" engines were the bread&butter Allisons, with these engines used in large volume on several major fighter programs of WWII.

A total of 66,658 "E" and "F" types were built -- 18,998 "E"-type extension shaft engines were shipped, mainly for P-39 and P-63 aircraft,

and 47,660 "F" models were shipped, mainly for P-38 and P-40 airplanes.

The ultimate V-1710 was the "G" series which brought together all of Allisons design and manufacturing experience to produce an outstanding engine in almost all respects from earlier engines.

The V-1710-G was incorporated a number of desired improvements identified in 1943 by Wright Field (U.S.A.A.F. engineering/procurement organization) and improve performance to 1,725 bhp at 3,400 rpm.

To improve performance, the 12-counterweight crankshaft developed in late 1942 was used to increase the maximum rpm to 3,400, the induction path was improved to increase flow, and improvement were also made to the supercharger, cylinder heads, and accessories section.

One interesting characteristic of the "G"-series was the large proliferation of features and configurations -- short-nose integral reduction gears or extension shafts, with and without auxiliary superchargers, both 9.5" and 10.25" engine supercharger impellers, one or two-speed supercharger drives, a range of supercharger drive ratio's, three compression ratio's, pressure (injection) carburetor, speed density injection, or port fuel injection, and both left and right hand rotation.

These engines became the most desirable to racers because of the high-revving crankshafts and improved detail design. A total of 763 were produced -- a batch of 750 V-1710-G6R/-G6L consisted of virtually all the "G" series production.

When this batch of engines were declared surplus in the 1950's, they were said to to have been the engines which powered Unlimited Hydroplanes into the 1990's (Daniel D. Whitney, "Vee for Victory", pg 278). This same source describes how the Unlimited Racers traded performance for engine life, modifying engines to deliver as much as 4,000 hp.

The most remarkable engine was probably the V-1710-E27 experimental turbo-compound engine. This unique engine was the first turbo-compound or "power-feedback" engine and was way ahead of its time. Based on an E-22 power section with auxiliary stage supercharger, it used a General Electric CT-1 power turbine which was adapted from the exhaust turbine of a CH-5 turbosupercharger. The turbine drove the crankshaft through a 5.953 reduction gear.

The engine compression was reduced to 6.0:1 to facilitate high supercharger boost pressure of 100 in hg (35 psig). Using 115/145 PN fuel with ADI injection, this engine was able to develop 2,980 hp at 3,200 rpm and 100 in hg boost from sea level to 11,000 feet. In addition to the remarkable power output, the engine demonstrated a 19% improvement in specific fuel consumption during cruise.

Had the inlet exhaust temperature not been limited to 1750‚? F, it is certain even more power could have been developed. The temperature proved to be easily exceeded during full-power operation, so the engine was never placed into service with the P-63 as intended.



Engine Models and Applications:

Because of the vast number of V-1710 derivatives which were generated, the following table is necessarily incomplete, but includes representative models from the major series. Many of these deviates stem from early development, for example the "C" series consists of 13 unique models with total production of 2,582, yet 2,550 of those engines belonged to one model type (and of the 32 remaining engine, 19 belonged to another model type!).

For a more complete, readers are suggested to Daniel Whitney's "Vee for Victory!" or Graham White's "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II". Note that both Allison and Service designations are used to refer to Allison models, the Allison designation consists of a letter followed by a number with an optional letter suffix, while the service designation is just a number. The service numbers are shown in parenthesis in the following table (some engines were experimental or developmental and not issued a service number).

Dash Application hp/rpm/altitude Comments
A1 (-2) Navy Prototype 795/2480/SL (build 2) Prototype for Navy, first

Allison V-1710, 87 PN fuel , 5.88 CR

A2 (-1) Air Corp Prototype 1070/2800/SL (46" Hg abs) Prototype for Air Corp, 92 PN fuel, 5.75 CR

B2R (-4) Dirigible 690/2400/SL Cancelled after loss of both USS Akron and Macon, R for reversible

C15 (-33) Curtiss P-40 1040/3000/SL (42" Hg abs) 1,870 units delivered to British, long nose, Bendix Injection carburetor

D2 (-9) YFM-1A 1150/2950/SL Pusher extension shaft engine

E4 (-35) Bell P39 1150/3000/SL Extension shaft tractor, cannon fired through remote reduction gear
___________

F2R (-27) Lockheed P-38 1150/3000/SL First "short-nosed V-1710", internal spur gear replaced w/external gear

F15R (-75) Lockheed P-38K 1425/3000/SL Water/Alcohol anti-detonation injection (ADI)

**F17R (-89) Lockheed P-38H/J 2300/3000/SL (90" Hg abs) WER,
Turbosupercharged, w/115/145 fuel and ADI Water/Alcohol anti-detonation

___________

G6R (-143) N.A. P-82E/F 2250/3200/SL Used Bendix speed-density injection, 115/145 fuel with ADI

E27 (-129) Bell XP-63H 2980/3200/11,000 (100" Hg abs) Most powerful V-1710, Turbocompound experimental engine

The total number of engines built for each series were:

A-series 2
B-series 3
C-series 2,582
D-series 44
E-series 18,998
F-series 47,660
G-series 763

Total 70,052 (note only 70,033 engines delivered because some prototypes were converted to later models



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

worr
04-16-2004, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
And about turning, it is known that in the AFDU tests even the FW 190 could outturn the older P-38 models<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF Air Fighting Development Unit (AFDU) tested a captured FW-190A-3 in the fall of 1942. It never flew against the later models of the P-38 series. It did fly against a P-38F which in the fall of 1942 was still underrated due to maintenance issues. The ratings were lifted Oct 23, 1942 from 1150 TO HP to 1325 HP TO which is a good distance from the 1725 HP seen in the P-38L. The MP was limited to 41.5" on the 38F then lifted to 47.5"

The FW 190 was considered more ‚"maneuverable‚"Ě in those tests‚...but this owing not to sustained rates but roll rates.

That being said, in instantaneous turn I would give the nod to the FW190 series. But not in a sustained turn and certainly not in slow flight due to the stall issues already mentioned.

Worr, out

worr
04-16-2004, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
Worr if you have access to these books can you post the info?

For a more complete, readers are suggested to Daniel Whitney's "Vee for Victory!" or Graham White's "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, what do you want?

I would echo your complaints about AHT. I use it to coorberate sources, or find out how they are used, but not as a primary source. But I believe you are mistaken on your point about WEP. WEP didn't mean the same thing to all people in the war. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

These engines became the most desirable to racers because of the high-revving crankshafts and improved detail design. A total of 763 were produced -- a batch of 750 V-1710-G6R/-G6L consisted of virtually all the "G" series production.

When this batch of engines were declared surplus in the 1950's, they were said to to have been the engines which powered Unlimited Hydroplanes into the 1990's (Daniel D. Whitney, "Vee for Victory", pg 278). This same source describes how the Unlimited Racers traded performance for engine life, modifying engines to deliver as much as 4,000 hp.

Hehe....the allison V-1710 engine had a life far beyond the war. Friend of mine is a mechanic who works on F-16s. He saw four of those G series connected in tandom on a tracker in a pull contest! He nearly wept when he saw those rare engines all in a line. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Worr, out

Blutarski2004
04-16-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
Oleg even said he would consider factering in G-suits for US/Brits if I could get dates and units of who wore them. That has been a tough one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... go here -

http://www.cebudanderson.com/europe.htm

- from which I quote as follows:

QUOTE -
*Another piece of equipment that gave the Eighth fighter pilot an advantage over his Luftwaffe counterpart was the G-suit. Standard flight gear of an American fighter pilot consisted of a helmet, sloping goggles, a white silk scarf, a gabardine flight suit, an A-2 leather jacket, leather gloves, and fur lined boots. This outfit kept the pilot warm at high altitude, but failed to keep the pilot from blacking out during high-G maneuvers. The G-suit was designed to solve this problem.

Two types of G-suits were tested by Eighth fighter groups. The British suit used water and was tested by the 357th, while the 4th Fighter Group tested the American design that used air. the British suit, known as the "Frank suite," resembled fishing waders. It was made of rubber and came up to the pilots armpits. Major Thomas Hayes remembers, "...the suit was very stiff and cumbersome and the ground crew filled it with water while the pilot stood. Once filled, the ground crew helped the pilot into the cockpit. Cumbersome as it was, the suit was effective in delaying the black outs. However, the 357th did not think the tradeoff was worth the fatigue on the pilot."

The American suit, know as the "Berger suit," had a tight fitting band around each calf and thigh as well as the stomach. It was pressurized from the positive side of the vacuum pump through a valve that opened when the pilot experienced G-load maneuvers. The suit, when pressurized, tightened up and squeezed the pilot so the blood did not drain from his brain and cause a black out. Eighth fighter pilots agreed the Berger suit was superior to the Frank suit and were equipped with the American version during the summer.
- UNQUOTE

Hope it helps.

This also leads to an interesting question. If the British were involved in the development of G-suits, were any issued to RAF fighter pilots? Inquiring minds want to know.



BLUTARSKI

BigKahuna_GS
04-16-2004, 04:04 PM
S!

Hya Worr--Sure, what do you want?

Anything that will solidify exact dates, engine specs and numbers during mass production of the P38.

AFAIK, I think Oleg has taken THE best available engine that was mass produced for a given aircraft and modeled that in. That is the same thing he wanted for the tail radar and g-suits.

Blutarski thanks dude---

I was fortunate enough to eat dinner with P51 Aces Bud Anderson and Bob Goebel while attending a WW2 Fighter Pilot Symposium last year in San Diego . They are great guys and I have stayed in touch with both of them.

I emailed Bud about his Sqdn's use of g-suits and he wrote back that they got them in the fall of 1944.

This was not good enough for Oleg as he wants to know ALL the Sqdns that used g-suits and the exact date they recieved them. I think Oleg will not factor g-suit usage in if only some Sqdns got them.

If you have any more info I can use it.



_________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

BigKahuna_GS
04-16-2004, 04:36 PM
S!


First G-suits used by Brits & Canadians--

Allied pilots would have all recieved g-suits much earlier in the war but secrecy about their use for the all important "Operation OverLord" D-Day held their use back for that operation. It turned out that the allies didnt need to keep g-suits a secret and save them for D-Day use as the Luftwaffe had already suffered severe losses by that point in the war and were not much of a threat to the D-Day Invasion.

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/csa_sectors/human_pre/cao/osm_aviation.asp#anti-g

While seat angle is important, the G-suit is the most important
piece of equipment.


The RCAF Institute of Aviation Medicine
World War II Jump-Starts Aviation Medicine in Canada
The Anti-Gravity Suit and the Human Centrifuge
Pressure Suits
Helmets and Oxygen Masks
Ejection Seats
Decompression Sickness
Motion Sickness
A Legacy for the Space Program
References
PDF Version


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


The RCAF Institute of Aviation Medicine


World War II Jump-Starts Aviation Medicine in Canada

In Canada, it all started with one man‚"Ēan iconic figure whose name is instantly familiar to many Canadians, though usually not in the context of aviation medicine. Nobel Prize winner Sir Frederick Banting, the co-discoverer of insulin, was head of the University of Toronto‚'s Banting and Best Institute for Medical Research as war loomed in Europe. Following the Munich conference in 1938, Banting did not share the misguided hope of many that there would be "peace in our time."


Nobel Prize winner, Sir Frederick Banting.

He was "more farsighted," noted an article in the November 1946 edition of the Journal of the Canadian Medical Services (JCMS). "He realized the inevitability of war. Without delay, he...called upon his staff of brilliant research scientists to familiarize themselves with some problems in the field of war aviation medicine. Thus, in the event of hostilities, Canadian scientists would not be caught napping but would be prepared to come immediately to the aid of their country."

According to Peter Allen, a former commercial airline pilot who wrote a paper on the early years of Canadian aviation medicine for the Canadian Aviation Historical Society Journal (CAHS), much of the credit for getting Banting involved belongs to Major A. A. James of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, who had spent a year studying the state of aviation medicine in other countries. "Realizing that all countries except Germany were appallingly unprepared to support their aircrews in the coming war, James was determined to see that situation changed in Canada." He persuaded the very busy Banting that a research program was needed because the aircraft of the time had exceeded the physical capabilities of the crews that would fly them.

Banting realized immediately that the ability to fly at high altitudes would give Allied crews a tactical advantage in war. As a result, he started a fund-raising program and brought his research team together with James to focus on the most urgent medical problems. The result, said Allen, is that Canada initiated "the most powerful research program in the world designed solely to protect the pilots and aircrew who were about to wage the tremendous aerial battles in the skies over Europe."

Initially Banting‚'s team worked out of the university, but it rapidly became apparent that a more private facility was needed to do classified research. A federal government grant enabled them to purchase the Eglinton Hunt Club near downtown Toronto in 1939. Known first as the No. 1 Clinical Investigation Unit and later as the RCAF Institute of Aviation Medicine, it was a top-secret facility disguised as an aircrew evaluation unit.

One of Banting‚'s colleagues at the U of T, Wilbur Franks, was doing cancer research before the war and it was not immediately apparent what he could contribute to aviation medicine‚"Ēuntil he heard James explaining that that fighter pilots were blacking out during high-speed manoeuvres, such as pulling up hard out of a dive or making tight, fast turns in aerial dogfights.

These moves created strong centrifugal forces that caused blood to pool in the lower part of their bodies and made it difficult for their hearts to pump blood to the brain. Deprived of oxygen (a condition called hypoxia or anoxia), pilots often experienced first a loss of vision and then unconsciousness. The military considered this one of the most pressing problems affecting the performance of their pilots; James told the IAM scientists that it would provide an enormous tactical advantage if the G tolerance of the Allied pilots could be increased.

The blackouts were a consequence of increased G-forces created by changes in speed and/or direction. One G is the force exerted by earth‚'s gravity, which is measured as weight. Thus, objects subjected to three Gs weigh three times their normal weight. At seven Gs, blood weighs as much as iron. It‚'s not surprising, therefore, that the heart has trouble pumping it out of the body‚'s extremities and up to the brain. In tight turns, the fighter aircraft used during the war, such as Spitfires and Messerschmitt 109s, could subject their occupants to more than seven Gs.

(The opposite situation occurs in negative-G conditions, or weightlessness, when body fluids tend to pool in the head rather than the legs, causing bloating and congestion. Astronauts refer to this condition as "puffy face and bird‚'s legs." However, in the 1940s, that was an issue for the future; the JCMS article commented that "no tactical problem for protection against negative G presented itself during the war.")

What piqued Franks‚' interest was the fact that the pilots‚' problems stemmed from being subjected to centrifugal forces. He knew all about centrifuges and the damage they could do; he‚'d used them to spin test tubes for his cancer research and, after having too many tubes smashed by the G-forces created by spinning, he‚'d devised a workaround‚"Ēfloating the tubes in water to provide a counterbalancing pressure that cancelled out the centrifugal forces. The question immediately came to mind: could this work for humans as well?

The idea was that the water‚"Ēwhich, like blood, gets heavier when subjected to G forces‚"Ēwould exert sufficient pressure against tissues in the lower part of the body to prevent blood from pooling in the veins of the calves, thighs and abdomen, thus allowing the blood to return to the heart in a more nearly normal way. The pressure also supports the arteries that carry blood from the heart. Both effects enhance the heart‚'s ability to pump blood up to the eyes and brain even under considerably increased G loads.

Franks tried it first with mice, fashioning tiny water-filled G-suits for them out of condoms. It worked like a charm‚"Ēamazingly, the mice tolerated up to 240 Gs without coming to harm. The next step was to develop a suit that could be worn by humans.

Enthusiastic about the potential of this concept to help fighter pilots, Banting sought funds to develop Franks‚' brain child at a time when many in government were less convinced than he that war was coming. In fact, much of their initial bankroll‚"Ēthe grand sum of $5000‚"Ēwas donated by a private citizen, Harry McLean, a wealthy, eccentric businessman known for his philanthropy.



The Anti-Gravity Suit and the Human Centrifuge

Harry McLean‚'s money enabled Wilbur Franks to buy the materials and hire a tailor to make the first anti-G suit, which was secretly sewn together on an old sewing machine in Franks‚'s office. In May, 1940, he donned this first rough version of his Franks Flying Suit and climbed into a Fleet Finch aircraft at Camp Borden. This was the first time he had ever flown in an aircraft‚"Ēand he was initiating himself with high-speed aerobatics. He and the pilot were hit with about seven Gs while pulling out of a steep dive; the pilot experienced a temporary blackout but Franks did not.


Wilbur Franks in a plane during a G-force test.

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/Franks_in_plane.jpg

He was jubilant that his concept worked, although it had not been a pleasant experience. The suit was cut to fit him standing up but he was sitting down in the plane. "When the pressure hit, I thought it was going to cut me in two," he said later.

As a result of the tests, Franks realized that it was not necessary to cover the entire body, but only the essential areas of the lower body. He quickly modified the suit and a month later, it was worn by a Royal Air Force pilot, D‚'Arcy Greig, who flew a Spitfire in from England for the tests at Malton airport in Toronto. He became the first pilot ever to wear a true G-suit in flight.

Greig‚'s secret report noted that in his first 30-minute test, he pulled almost seven Gs without blacking out. He added that the suit was "somewhat uncomfortable" to wear, but did not impede his handling of the plane. In another 45-minute test two days later, he reported that the Spitfire "was subjected to almost continuous and violent manoeuvres at high speed." He estimated the maximum G forces exceeded eight Gs. (One dive produced accelerations beyond the limits of the aircraft‚'s accelerometer.) Again, he did not experience blackouts, but reported a "considerable feeling of fatigue in the legs and feet" at the end of the flight. A third test flight of 55 minutes was done the following day, during which he once experienced very momentary symptoms of blackout.

Grieg concluded that the concept was sound but the suit itself was "not a practical proposition. However, the results obtained were of such a convincing nature that further development is strongly recommended..."

Allen‚'s CAHS paper noted that one of Greig‚'s tests "strained the composure of Franks to its limits." Franks knew the suit reduced a pilot‚'s ‚ėseat of the pants‚' feel for the plane and it was possible to push the aircraft to the point of breaking up. During one test, Greig disappeared from the view of those watching on the ground and didn‚'t come back for over half an hour, by which time Franks was on the verge of calling out the crash trucks. When Franks questioned Greig about where he had gone, the British pilot "stated quite matter-of-factly that a friend of his was attending a garden party on the lakeshore near Oshawa and he had put on an airshow for them with the Spitfire."


An early photo of the Spitfire.

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/spitfire.jpg

Wilbur Franks and Frederick Banting quickly decided that continued testing of the suit in real aircraft was not the way to go. Not only were flight tests potentially dangerous and subject to the whims of unpredictable weather, they did not provide the precisely controlled environment that Franks required to understand and improve his creation. Since the development of the G-suit was still a top-secret project, they also represented a security risk; it was difficult to shield test flights from unclassified eyes.

This decision led directly to the development of a human centrifuge, the first device of its kind to be built by any of the Allied countries. The Germans had built a smaller, less sophisticated version before the war but Franks‚' device was the first that could mimic the effects of aircraft acceleration on the human body.

With a $25,000 grant from the National Research Council, a centrifuge was constructed in the Clinical Investigation Unit (CIU) and went into operation in mid-1941. It was a top-secret project, but there were telltale clues of its existence outside the CIU‚'s walls. Powered by a 200 horsepower streetcar motor, it shared the city‚'s electrical lines and every time it was fired up, streetcars on a nearby street would grind to a halt.

The centrifuge consisted of a spherical gondola suspended from a horizontal arm attached to a vertical shaft. The motor rotated the central shaft, causing the gondola to swing out on moveable joints to an almost horizontal position. The test subject sat inside the gondola in a seat resembling those in fighter aircraft. This seat was suspended independently of the gondola, allowing the subject to be positioned at different angles inside the gondola, including in an upside down position to produce negative Gs‚"Ēa unique feature.

Subjects were monitored by an observer who transmitted signals into the gondola by turning on lights and sounding a buzzer. The subject responded by turning the signals off. A failure to turn off the lights indicated he had blacked out and could not see; however, he was still conscious and could respond to the buzzer. A failure to turn off the buzzer indicated the subject was unconscious.

Subjects were also monitored with electrocardiographs, electroencephalographs and by a photoelectric device attached to the earlobe that measured blood flow to the head. The latter confirmed that the volume of blood going to the head was greatly reduced when the subject experienced high G forces.

The tests led to the following conclusions:

During the standard five second run in the centrifuge, the average man will "greyout" at 4 Gs, blackout at 5 Gs and become unconscious at 6 Gs.
Tolerance to G forces did not increase even if subjects did repeated runs in the centrifuge every day.
The threshold at which subjects blacked out did not significantly correlate with age, weight, or body measurements or with resting blood pressure and pulse rates.
The centrifuge was, in fact, used to evaluate humans as well as G-suits. The JCMS article noted that "many aircrew trainees suspected by the instructors of having a very low G tolerance were referred during the war to this Unit for testing purposes. In this way, those with abnormally low G tolerances...were detected and transferred from pilot training before they got into difficulties."


An early centrifuge in use.

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/centrifuge.jpg

His work with the centrifuge enabled Franks to develop the first operationally practical G-suit. It consisted of a rubber bladder covered by a non-stretchable material that forced all the pressure produced by the bladder inward against the body. "As the blood got heavier under G, so too would the water in the suit get heavier and press in against the tissues with a force sufficient to prevent the pooling of blood and to support the arteries," the JCMS article noted.

Although the bladder could be filled with air rather than water, the water-filled suit had one advantage‚"Ēonce it was filled, it worked automatically as soon as G forces occurred. An air-filled suit, on the other hand, required connections to the plane and a source of compressed air to pump into the bladder in flight. In the early days of the war, planes didn‚'t have the power to spare, said Peter Allen. "The planes needed all their power to get to altitude; it‚'s not like they had surplus power to run a generator." He said the brilliance of Franks‚' design was that it was completely self-contained‚"Ēprecisely what was needed at the time he started working on the problem.

The Franks Flying Suit Mark III was used in combat for the first time in November 1942, by the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, which provided air cover for Eisenhower‚'s invasion of North Africa at Oran, Morocco. Several of the pilots who wore the suit reported that it greatly enhanced their ability to manoeuvre in the air and outfly enemy aircraft without experiencing blackouts.

One noted that under attack by an enemy aircraft, "I immediately went into a steep turn and pulled round very sharply, causing the enemy to spin. It recovered about 50 feet from the ground and ... attempted to land, probably very shaken." Another commented: "I had hit an enemy fighter. I watched him dive and expected him to crash. He pulled out though and started flying low down ... so I dived on him vertically and got a burst on him. After that I had to pull up sharply to avoid hitting the ground myself, but did not blackout and had complete confidence in the suit."

Allen added that the Royal Navy pilots particularly appreciated having a week‚'s supply of fresh water on board "in case they were forced down in the desert or at sea."

The RAF recommended adoption of the suit for operational use, saying it would provide British pilots with a significant advantage over enemy aircraft. The pilots themselves were enthusiastic about the suit and wanted to wear it during air operations, but the RAF decided to limit its use, despite having stockpiled more than 8000 units, to preserve the secrecy of the device until it could be used to greatest advantage in the invasion of Europe, codenamed OVERLORD. There was concern that if it fell into enemy hands too soon, this advantage would be lost.

Moreover, by the time the suit was being mass-produced, the nature of the war had changed. Rather than engaging in short, furious dogfights, fighter pilots were more likely to find themselves escorting bombers over long distances‚"Ēa situation that did not endear the heavy and uncomfortable water-filled suits to those who had to wear them.

"On longer range bombing missions, they were in the air for six to eight hours," said Allen. "The crews resisted the suit. There were temperature issues‚"Ēhow do you keep it warm? It was heavy because it was filled with water. And it was uncomfortable because it was always filled. So you had a warmth problem, a weight problem and a comfort problem."


Photos of the Mark VI (at left) and Mark VII g-suit, two of the later models.

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/MkVI_gsuit.jpg

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/MkVII_gsuit.jpg

At this time, jet aircraft were starting to make an appearance and they did have sufficient power to pump air into the pilots‚' G-suits. Later versions of Franks‚' suit did, in fact, use air-filled bladders. They were lighter and more comfortable than the water suits but they were also more complex, requiring connections to the aircraft and valves to regulate airflow. These valves were designed with a spring-mounted weight that allowed air into the suit only when the G forces exceeded 2 Gs, so pilots only flew with inflated suits when it was necessary.

Even though Franks‚' original suit was not used to the extent he‚'d hoped, his concept was the progenitor of the G-suits that were later worn not only by pilots but also by astronauts. Allen said the Canadians shared their findings with researchers who were also working on the problem in the United States, Britain and Australia. "The whole issue of acceleration had been around, but the problem just hadn‚'t been solved. There was a lot of research into ways to deal with acceleration but none of them worked. Franks‚' suit was the first that worked. After Franks‚' discovery was provided to them, everybody got in the game but it was because of Franks‚' original discovery that they were even in the game."

Allen added that Franks can also be credited with pioneering the use of the human centrifuge in acceleration research. He interviewed one of the German scientists who came to the United States to work in the space program after the war. "His view was that Franks made two significant contributions‚"Ēthe concept of the suit and creating the first suit that worked, and also the creation of the centrifuge to do acceleration research. There was no question in his mind about the breakthroughs Franks made." This scientist told him that the German centrifuge developed before the war was "not a true human centrifuge" that could be used for research on the effects of acceleration.

Charles Bryan was a doctor who worked with Franks on the centrifuge studies in the 1950s and 1960s. His research focused on the effects of acceleration on the lung. He found that the alveoli‚"Ēthe tiny sacs at the bottom of the lung where oxygen actually transfers from the lung to the blood, became greatly compressed. This caused the subject to experience a lack of oxygen because "the bottom of the lung was essentially collapsed and almost airless."

Bryan said the legacy of the G-suit is as important today as it was 60 years ago. "With the latest generation of fighters, G forces have come back as a really serious problem. G-forces with modern fighters are potentially very high indeed. They‚'re dodging rockets, doing terrain flying up and down, turning all the time, so G forces have come back with a vengeance and are as important as they were during the last war."

As for Frederick Banting, he didn‚'t live to see the success of the invention he had championed. He was killed in February 1941, when the plane he was flying in crashed in a snowstorm near a frozen lake in Newfoundland. Two of the four people on board were killed and Banting and the pilot, Joseph Mackey, suffered serious injuries. Mackey was able to leave the plane to search for help, but the severely injured Banting died before the pilot returned.

Banting had been on his way to England to enlist the support of the British military for continued development of the Franks Flying Suit. He was reportedly carrying a copy of the suit on the plane with him. "It may be mythology, but that was the word of mouth that got carried down," said Bryan. "The timing was absolutely right. Franks had just produced the suit so it was logical to take it to the Brits at that time."

The purpose of Banting‚'s trip was not for public consumption, however. The newspaper article mentioned that Banting was on a "secret" medical mission and quoted an official of the National Research Council saying that "when the time comes and his contribution can be adequately assessed, it will be clear that no one has done more for our cause."

In his paper, Allen noted that "thousands of Allied fliers would likely never realize how great a part he played in increasing their chances of survival in the skies over Europe and Asia. It is incredibly ironic that his last great field of research would involve the instrument of his untimely death."


References

The Journal of the Canadian Medical Services, Vol. 4, No. 1, November 1946.
The Remotest of Mistresses: The Story of Canada's Unsung Tactical Weapon: The Franks Flying Suit, by Peter Allen. Canadian Aviation Historical Society Journal.
"Franks' Incredible Flying Suit: The Canadian Invention that Changed the Face of War," by Andrew Duffy. Ottawa Citizen, November 11, 2001.
"Banting Tended Injured Pilot Before His Own Life Ebbed Away," newspaper article, February 26, 1941. From the Sir Frederick Banting Archives





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updated: 2003/04/11 Important Notices



________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

p1ngu666
04-16-2004, 06:38 PM
good post

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

BigKahuna_GS
04-16-2004, 07:09 PM
S!

Blutarski -- great artical, Thanks again http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I should read better before I write. I thought it just said when Bud Anderson Sqdn recieved them. It says the entire 8th Air Force were issued G-suits :

"Eighth fighter pilots agreed the Berger suit was superior to the Frank suit and were equipped with the American version during the summer."



http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/europe01.jpg
Mustangs of the 362nd FS escort a B-17. Photo Merle Olmsted



Air War Over Europe


Selected excerpts from Scott Richardson's Thesis "A History of Eighth Air Force Fighter Operations 1942 to 1945" We hope to make the entire thesis available soon.

* In early 1944 an event of historic importance took place - the release of fighters from the close escort policy and the establishment of a relay escort pattern,. General James H. Doolittle replaced General Eaker as head of the Eighth Air Force on 5 January 1944. Doolittle was a fighter pilot at heart and understood the frustrations caused by the close escort policy. He often came to Fighter Command operations and listened to the radio chatter of his fighter pilots in combat. Sitting in a chair with eyes closed and ear phones on, he stayed until the last of his fighter pilots returned to their bases.

Doolittle changed the close escort policy after his arrival when he ordered General Kepner to "flush them (Luftwaffe fighter aircraft) out in the air and beat them up on the ground on the way home. Your first priority is to take the offensive." He told Kepner to tear down a sign posted in Eighth Fighter Command Headquarters that read "THE FIRST DUTY OF THE EIGHTH AIR FORCE FIGHTERS IS TO BRING THE BOMBERS BACK ALIVE" and replace it with one that read " THE FIRST DUTY OF THE EIGHTH AIR FORCE FIGHTERS IS TO DESTROY GERMAN FIGHTERS." General Kepner was overjoyed at this order and tore the sign down as Doolittle walked out the door.

The death of the close escort policy resulted in a modification of the relay system. Instead of flying to a rendezvous point, Eighth fighter groups now patrolled predetermined areas along the bomber's route to the target. Thunderbolts groups patrolled the shallow and medium range distances with the most experienced groups flying where enemy opposition was expected. Target area support was assigned to the P-38s and P-51s because of their long range.

Lightning groups took over escort from the P-47s and handed the bombers over to the Mustang groups about 100-150 miles from the target. Major Thomas Hayes of the 357th Fighter Group remembers his group: "...provided area support ahead of the bombers and five to ten miles laterally. The group leader would continue ahead of the bombers plus or minus thirty to forty miles with a squadron on each side, the high squadron usually on the right side, then execute a 180 degree turn in a race track pattern bringing the group over the lead bomber to repeat the pattern."

The North American P-51 Mustang was designed, built, and flown in 102 days. It languished on RAF and USAAF air fields as a result of being under powered until the British put a Rolls Royce Merlin engine in the air frame. The results were dramatic, transforming the once scorned Mustang into the best overall fighter of the war. Carrying four fifty caliber machine-guns in the B Model and six fifty caliber machine guns in the D Model, the Mustang was equal to the Me 109 in maneuverability and more maneuverable than the FW 190. It had a top speed of 445 mile per hour at 24,000 feet and a service ceiling of 40,000 feet. "Traffic pattern air speeds were 115 to 120 miles per hour on final approach with touch down around 100 to 90 miles per hour." A low fuel consumption rate of one gallon a minute at cruise speed, combined with a fuel capacity of 485 gallons allowed Mustang pilots to fly to any target within 2,120 miles from base.

*Another piece of equipment that gave the Eighth fighter pilot an advantage over his Luftwaffe counterpart was the G-suit. Standard flight gear of an American fighter pilot consisted of a helmet, sloping goggles, a white silk scarf, a gabardine flight suit, an A-2 leather jacket, leather gloves, and fur lined boots. This outfit kept the pilot warm at high altitude, but failed to keep the pilot from blacking out during high-G maneuvers. The G-suit was designed to solve this problem.

Two types of G-suits were tested by Eighth fighter groups. The British suit used water and was tested by the 357th, while the 4th Fighter Group tested the American design that used air. the British suit, known as the "Frank suite," resembled fishing waders. It was made of rubber and came up to the pilots armpits. Major Thomas Hayes remembers, "...the suit was very stiff and cumbersome and the ground crew filled it with water while the pilot stood. Once filled, the ground crew helped the pilot into the cockpit. Cumbersome as it was, the suit was effective in delaying the black outs. However, the 357th did not think the tradeoff was worth the fatigue on the pilot."

The American suit, know as the "Berger suit," had a tight fitting band around each calf and thigh as well as the stomach. It was pressurized from the positive side of the vacuum pump through a valve that opened when the pilot experienced G-load maneuvers. The suit, when pressurized, tightened up and squeezed the pilot so the blood did not drain from his brain and cause a black out. Eighth fighter pilots agreed the Berger suit was superior to the Frank suit and were equipped with the American version during the summer.


http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/europe02.jpg
Looking in the wind screen of a P-51D. Photo Will Foard

*A second development arrived later in the summer of 1944 in the form of a new gun sight. Eighth fighter aircraft were equipped with a fixed sight, called the N-3 and later N-9 gun sight,. Both sights were optical with a ring and dot of light called the "pipper," which projected onto the clear glass in front of the sight. The pilot looked at his target through the gun sight, putting the pipper on the target only when there was no angle off involved, which is from directly ahead or directly behind. To make a deflection shot, he estimated the angle off to the target and then placed the pipper ahead to get proper lead.

The new K-14 gyroscopic gun sight solved this problem for the pilot. the pilot used the k-14 much like the N-3 or N-9, but with a few exceptions. The K-14 had a dial attached to the throttle, which enabled the pilot to set a ring of diamonds around the target's wing span. Once the target's wing span was selected, the pilot placed the ring and pipper on the aircraft and maneuvered his fighter to keep the target centered for a brief second. The K-14 computed the range and angle of the target in relation to the attacking fighter, and moved the pipper to the proper aim point. The fighter pilot then moved the nose of his aircraft to center the pipper. Once this was accomplished, he could open fire on the target.

The K-14 was not too popular at first, due to its mounting in the cockpit. Mounted right on top of the instrument panel, the new gun sight extended back to within inches of the pilot's face. this blocked the pilot's vision and created a serious hazard if he was forced to belly land his fighter. This problem was solved by a sergeant in the 357th Fighter Group.

Sergeant Idalo E. Auguliaro solved the problem by cutting a hoe out of the glare shield and moving the sight forward. The group's pilots were pleased with this modification and sent the specifications to the Air Corps engineering center at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. The engineering center rejected the improvement and ordered the 357th to place the sight back in it's original position. The Yoxford Boys ignored the order, remounted the rest of their sights in the same fashion, and shared their discovery with the rest of the Mustang equipped groups., This resulted the the North American factory retooling their assembly line to mount the gun sight as the 357th had discovered. Sergeant Auguliaro received the Bronze Star for his efforts.

*Strafing airfields was particularly dangerous due to the numerous antiaircraft guns. German flak-towers lined the fields and were usually the first guns attacked by strafing aircraft. A flak tower consisted of a concrete pillar sixteen to twenty feet high with a circular platform mounted on top. the platform averaged six feet in diameter and had a five foot wall. Usually, these towers had a twenty millimeter or forty millimeter gun mounted on top.

Because of the placement of these flak-towers, no two strafing attacks were the same. Ideally, Eighth fighter pilots would fly high over the field as if they had o interest in the target below. The would pick out landmarks to help them line up their attack run and then dive to tree top level. Racing along at 400 miles per hour, they would pop up over the trees, line up on gun emplacements or aircraft, and open fire,. The first wave usually caught Luftwaffe ground personnel and antiaircraft gunners by surprise, while the succeeding waves of strafing aircraft flew through a hail storm of antiaircraft fire. Several leading Eighth Air Force pilots would become prisoners of war as a result of ground fire.

* Conclusion:

The vital role Eighth Air Force fighter pilots played in defeating Nazi Germany extended beyond protecting the bombers. Descending to tree top altitude, Eighth fighter pilots severely hampered the German transportation system by strafing locomotives, rolling stock, barges and road vehicles. These marauding fighter aircraft also destroyed large numbers of German transport aircraft in addition to the bombers and fighters parked on air fields and by the side of the rode.

The fighter-bomber capability enabled Eighth fighter pilots to play a tactical role on or behind the battlefield by blasting enemy strongholds, supply dumps, tanks, troop concentrations, and gun emplacements. Their ground attack capability enabled them to isolate the enemy by destroying bridges, tunnel entrances, and crossroads.

Eighth fighter pilots also played havoc with the Luftwaffe's pilot training program. Young, inexperienced pilots soon found themselves unable to learn the basic fundamentals of flying without interference from Eighth fighter pilots, As a result, new Luftwaffe pilots failed to get the experience they needed before being posted to operational fighter units. This had the effect of weakening Luftwaffe fighter units, which also weakened the ferocity of their attacks on B-17s and B-24s.

Eighth Air Force fighter pilots were the reason for the bomber's success. Their presence provided security to the bombers, and torment to Luftwaffe fighter pilots. Without the presence of the Eighth fighter pilot, Luftwaffe forces could possibly have stopped the daylight strategic bombing campaign just as they had done against the RAF.

The Eighth's fighter pilots forced Luftwaffe commanders to transfer desperately needed day fighter units from the Eastern and Mediterranean fronts. This had a detrimental effect, especially on the Eastern Front, where Luftwaffe fighter pilots were out numbered two to one at the Battle of Kursk in early July 1943. History records the engagement at Kursk as the largest tank battle of the Second World War, but fails to mention it marked the decline of the Luftwaffe fighter strength on the Eastern Front. Eighth fighter pilots were not deterred by the increased strength of Luftwaffe day figher units in Germany and the Western Front in 1943. In stead, they threw themselves at the enemy, and not only won air superiority, but achieved air supremacy.

This supremacy removed the threat of the Luftwaffe's ground attack capability. Therefore, Eighth fighter pilots helped the Normandy invasion to succeed on 6 June 1944., because of their operations during the previous twenty-two months. Without them, a healthy German Air Force could possibly have repulsed the Normandy invasion. This point was acknowledged by General Eisenhower, a week after the successful invasion, when his son pointed out the vehicles moving bumper to bumper from the landing craft to the roads violated West Point textbook doctrine. "You'd never get away with this if you didn't have air supremacy," remarked Second Lieutenant John Eisenhower. His dad replied, "If I didn't have air supremacy, I wouldn't be here."

There is no question of the important role Eighth fighter pilots played for the heavy bomber crews. Bomber crews loved their "Little Friends" and hated to fly any mission without them. This love and admiration persists fifty-one years later, when a B-24 crewman wrote the author, "Little Friend, My Friend. One of the prettiest sights I ever saw was the P-51, the P-47, or the P-38 flying with our group., I still say an occasional prayer for those fighter pilots."


____________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

worr
04-16-2004, 08:07 PM
You want dates just for the engines in the 38J and L? They came with the planes!

Just kidding. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Could you narrow your question a bit. You could have me digging and typing for the weekend with that tall order. As far as I can tell, IL2 doesn't care much about dates as you don't have a rolling plane set like we did in warbirds.

I know Bob. Had breakfast with him a couple years back. Got his book too. Great guy! And from a great squadron. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Worr, out

BigKahuna_GS
04-17-2004, 02:18 AM
S!

Hya Worr,

Yeah Bud is good people. There was 20 Allied pilots at that symposium, all Aces and some Medal of Honor recipients. All military branches represented. We are losing more and more of the "Greatest Generation" everyday. I hope people remember and appreciate the sacrifices made by them.

________


I took it for granted that you knew what I was looking for---sorry.

How about the 2 best engines for each- P38 J & L models that were mass produced and saw service with front line units during WW2--of course http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Nothing experimental, no one off's. Just Legit engines.

The date installed, engine specs including WEP rating & model number. If they list how many P38 were assembled with one of the above engines that would be pertinent data to include.

If the data is listed in both books; Daniel Whitney's "Vee for Victory!" or Graham White's "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II", could you include both sources to back each other up.

I think this would satisfy Oleg requirements. Like I said before, AFAIK Oleg models the best engine that saw service with the aircraft.

Thanks Dude !


____________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

worr
04-17-2004, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
How about the 2 best engines for each- P38 J & L models that were mass produced and saw service with front line units during WW2--of course http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Nothing experimental, no one off's. Just Legit engines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that is easy. There were no "best" engines. Just the engines that came installed from the factory. In this case the F-17 (89 & 91); and the F-30 (111 & 113) Sometimes folks get confused by the numbers in the parenthesis because those sub numbers delineate right turning and left turning cranks for the counter rotational props. They both are the same engine, but one spins in the opposite direction.

In terms of ratings, well that depends on a number of factors. First, what the US government decides are the parameters for that rating. Lockheed fought dearly (and eventually won though not soon enough to head off some mistakes in the records) with the Army (no airforce at this time) to raise HP ratings, since they wanted them all at sea level. But the real power was delivered at altitude. So they compromised on a Take Off HP rating as a sub routine earlier in the war. This too can be confusing. Hence the ever-popular William Green lists the P-38J-25-LO with a HP of only 1425! Even while most all other books have the 1600 figure.

Another variable is fuel octane. Obviously the higher obtains allowed the engines to be pushed further.

I have the charts for 100 (ANF 28) octane fuel, and it allows 62" MP @ 3000 RPM at auto rich before you are in the "detonation range" but octanes up to 150 were available. Vee's for Victory does give you ratings for 92, 100 100/130, 115/145. But not for each engine. My guess is they notated the fuel available at the time of production and included it in the HP rating, even though the higher ratings became available. Such is the case for the F-30.

A third variable is simply choice. Someone put the quote up about the P-39s sent to Russia, and that would about sum that up. I'd be interested to know how the P-39 is done by IL-2 and (I'm guessing) native Russian data compared to a sim based upon US data. Surely there has been a thread on that here?

A forth variable is RPM. The F-30 was the same engine but for the carburetor, and a 12 counter weight crank shaft that allowed the engine to be run up to 34000 rpms continuous. Some ratings I've seen that get over 1600 HP are at 3200 rpms.

A fifth variable is what theater of operation. I think most of our US data is influenced by the ETO. They had the most control, and also the most paper work. Hence the paper trail for later generations to follow. But we know for a fact that things were done differently in the PTO and with far better results than in the ETO regarding the P38. Yet in field tests most often come from the 8th AAF.

Worr, out

BigKahuna_GS
04-17-2004, 03:32 PM
S!

Hya Worr,

You seem very knowledgeable about Allison engines http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I would say keep it simple with no confusion. Best case scenario that saw service and had a production run. Oleg has modeled about every aircraft I know this way concerning powerplants.

The best case scenario, as long as it saw service; ie production run- If 150Av gas was available and in service with front line units so be it. If 150 Av gas was a rare commodity and just used in extreme cases -then no. Same goes for engines, crankshafts, turbos, intercoolers, etc.

The complete specs, model numbers and dates installed need to be listed.
I would say since you have a good background about this subject matter, choose the best 2 engines for the P38 J & L in your opinon that is historically accurate and meets this criteria.

I wish I had these books I would be looking up the info too. Thanks for sharing your reasources with us http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

They are on my list to get.


____________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

worr
04-18-2004, 09:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
If 150Av gas was available and in service with front line units so be it. If 150 Av gas was a rare commodity and just used in extreme cases -then no. Same goes for engines, crankshafts, turbos, intercoolers, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough! And there was good supplies by the time the 38L was around.

But there is no secret about the engines in the 38....only two as above stated. No mystery there.

Worr, out

Blutarski2004
04-19-2004, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
The best case scenario, as long as it saw service; ie production run- If 150Av gas was available and in service with front line units so be it. If 150 Av gas was a rare commodity and just used in extreme cases -then no. Same goes for engines, crankshafts, turbos, intercoolers, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BK,

According to the 4th Fighter Group website,

June 15, 1944 -
All 8th Fighter Command bases started getting 100/150 octane fuel. Later in the month new kits arrived for the installation of bob weights, dorsal fins and landing gear uplock systems in the P-51s. During March and April some 4th P-51s lost wings and tails in combat and after modifications there were no further problems of this type.

BLUTARSKI

WUAF_Co_Hero
04-20-2004, 05:35 PM
When exactally did this thread become hijacked by P-51 drivers? Let's at least try to keep this on track http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

ZG77_Nagual
04-20-2004, 06:14 PM
I believe the point Blutarski is making has to do with the arrival of 100/150 octane fuel in the ETA. The assumption being that it was also available to P38 units.

BigKahuna_GS
04-20-2004, 11:18 PM
S!


Worr---Well, that is easy. There were no "best" engines. Just the engines that came installed from the factory. In this case the F-17 (89 & 91); and the F-30 (111 & 113) -

Blutarski---

According to the 4th Fighter Group website,

June 15, 1944 -
All 8th Fighter Command bases started getting 100/150 octane fuel.

____________


The confusion seems to be on horsepower, rpm and WEP ratings. Even which engine was in the J or L models, as I have seen the F-17 listed in the 38L.

Worr -- could you post what you have from these books Daniel Whitney's "Vee for Victory!" & Graham White's "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II", .

P38J: F-17 (89 & 91)

P38L: F-30 (111 & 113)

Horsepower Rating, RPM & WEP Rating with 100/130, 115/145 & 100/150 Av gas.

You could clear up allot of ratings confusion, and how a P38L F-30 (111 & 113) got a 1,725hp WEP rating & climb rate like this :


http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38climbthumbnail.JPG



____________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
04-20-2004, 11:21 PM
S!

Ok I'll try again :


http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38climb.JPG



________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Blutarski2004
04-21-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I believe the point Blutarski is making has to do with the arrival of 100/150 octane fuel in the ETA. The assumption being that it was also available to P38 units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Indeed correct, although it probably would not have hurt if I had omitted the P51 related bit.

BLUTARSKI

VFA-195 Snacky
04-22-2004, 02:23 AM
"On my first confrontation with the P-38, I was astonished to find an American aircraft that could outrun, outclimb, and outdive our Zero which we thought was the most superior fighter plane in the world. The Lightning's great speed, its sensational high altitude performance, and especially its ability to dive and climb much faster than the Zero presented insuperable problems for our fliers. The P-38 pilots, flying at great height, chose when and where they wanted to fight with disastrous results for our own men. The P-38 boded ill for the future and destroyed the morale of the Zero fighter Pilot."...Saburo Sakai, Japanese Ace

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/Corsairs.jpg

worr
04-22-2004, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Co_Hero:
When exactally did this thread become hijacked by P-51 drivers? Let's at least try to keep this on track<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

His post was exactly on track. Very helpful!

Worr, out

worr
04-22-2004, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
The confusion seems to be on horsepower, rpm and WEP ratings. Even which engine was in the J or L models, as I have seen the F-17 listed in the 38L.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where have you seen that? Can you name the source?

Worr, out

PzKpfw
04-22-2004, 06:59 PM
Been goin thru O'leary's Lockheed P-38 Lightning Production Line to Frontline. & I cant find any mention of the F-17 being installed in any L Ie, he states on pp. 80-82:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-38L (Model 422-87-23) was the final production version of the Lightning, and it was built in two blocks. Power came from V-1710-111/-113 Allisons, with a war emergency rating of 1600hp at 28,700 ft and a military rating of 1475 hp at 30,000ft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

WhiskeyRiver
04-22-2004, 10:14 PM
John,

From what I understand the V1710-111/-113 is the USAAC designation. V-1710-F17R/-F17L was Allison's designation for the same engine. I think the 1600 Wep rating was for 110 octane fuel. It was rated for higher power with 150 octane.

Worr is the one who should clear this up for us.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

PzKpfw
04-23-2004, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
John,

From what I understand the V1710-111/-113 is the USAAC designation. V-1710-F17R/-F17L was Allison's designation for the same engine. I think the 1600 Wep rating was for 110 octane fuel. It was rated for higher power with 150 octane.

Worr is the one who should clear this up for us.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, ok, DOH, thx Whiskey. None of my P-38 refrences list Allison designations.

Concerning fuel the I found the below from the JFC @ Patuxent River in Oct 44 interesting:


Captian SPANGLER:

Our general conclusion on the use of special fuels for improving power operation in engines I believe is the same as anyone else's. We originally intend, when fuel availability rendered it such as to make it possible, to use a new fuel which would have 150 so-called rich mixture responsive rating.

However we felt that to take full advantage of that fuel we should have a lean mixture response rating of 120. We finally compromised with AAF on grade 115, and 145 fuel which will shortly be available within the limitations of production. Thank you gentlemen.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

worr
04-23-2004, 07:33 AM
V-1710-89/91 (V-17) was rated 1425 HP @ 3000 rpm 54" MP @ 24,900 ft; 1600 HP @ 3000 rpm, 60" MP 10,000 ft and with 100/130 octane.

V-1710-111/113 (V-30) reads EXACTLY the same except at 29,000 ft & 28, 700 ft respectively. Remember this WEP isn't water injection, Methanol, etc...it is simply over boost.

115/145 type fuel became readily available in the ETO just before D-Day, and the 38L was on the factory floor right before that. 130 was the standard from 1943 until 1945 when 145 became standard at Allison. However, on the battle field 150 was becoming available already mid 44. BTW the slash separates the lean/rich mixture octane.

According to Whitney "However, because of quality and supply problems, they used only Grace 125 for rating engines prior to the V-1710-89/91 (F17R/L), which began deliveries in 1943. These, and all V-1710's delivered through the end of the war were rated on Grade 100/130 fuel produced to military specification AN-F-28. The V-1710-G series, and a Few late v-1710-E/F, engines were developed and rated on Grade 115/145 fuel (specification AN-F-33), but none of these saw service during the war.

Through most of the war, the aircraft being flown within the continental US in various training and liaison roles were operated on 91 octane fuel. This was a fuel which was not suitable for combat. The reason was simply the critical fuel supply situation. It was standard practice to ****** the fixed timing of the magnetos in such service as a way to protect them from detonation damage, particularly during take-off....While official Air Force technical orders required resetting the timing on any engine being sent to foreign theaters, a number of engines with ******ed timing reached England in 1944 and were installed in P-38's without having been reset for full power operation on Grade 100/130 fuel. The Material Command took immediate action to insure this situatuion was rectified." (Vee's for Victory p 378)

PzKpfw what was is the page number in Joint Fighter Conference? It has a poor index.

Worr, out

worr
04-23-2004, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
From what I understand the V1710-111/-113 is the USAAC designation. V-1710-F17R/-F17L was Allison's designation for the same engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is correct, but that 111/113 was for the F-30.

Worr, out

PzKpfw
04-23-2004, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by worr:

Remember this WEP isn't water injection, Methanol, etc...it is simply over boost.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also refered to as Combat power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
PzKpfw what was is the page number in Joint Fighter Conference? It has a poor index.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doh. p.75 Yes it is I use a highlighter to mark data that interests me in it.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

BigKahuna_GS
04-24-2004, 03:24 AM
S!

Worr-
V-1710-89/91 (V-17) was rated 1425 HP @ 3000 rpm 54" MP @ 24,900 ft; 1600 HP @ 3000 rpm, 60" MP 10,000 ft and with 100/130 octane.

V-1710-111/113 (V-30) reads EXACTLY the same except at 29,000 ft & 28, 700 ft respectively. Remember this WEP isn't water injection, Methanol, etc...it is simply over boost.

**These, and all V-1710's delivered through the end of the war were rated on Grade 100/130 fuel produced to military specification AN-F-28.

--Are the above ratings from this Av gas 100/130 ?

__________


"P-38L. Production was from June 1944 through August 1945, effectively to the end of the war. Not only did they incorporate improvements such as the critical dive flaps, hydraulically boosted ailerons and additional fuel capacity, they also utilized the further improved V-1710-111/130 (F30R/L) engines, while continuing to use the Type B-33 turbosupercharger.

The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17s but incorporated many internal improvements, most notably the 12 counterweight crankshaft. As a consequence it could be operated up to 3200 rpm. Using Grade 150 fuel it could deliver 1725 bhp under WER conditions." (Vee's for Victory p 145)



Thanks Worr,

What I am confused about is when did they achieve a WEP rating of 1,725hp, 3000-&gt;3200rpms and start using water/methanol 50/50 mix for anti-dentanation during combat power ?


**F17R (-89) Lockheed P-38H/J 2300/3000/SL (90" Hg abs) WER,
Turbosupercharged, w/115/145 fuel and ADI Water/Alcohol anti-detonation

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html


The P-38L-5/10-LO - A Technical Perspective, had two Allison V-1710F-30 V-12s had a 5.5 in. bore and 6.0 in stroke, providing a compression ratio of 6.5. These drove Curtiss Electric constant speed props via a 2:1 reduction gear, delivering 1,475 HP military and takeoff ratings at 3,000 RPM, or 1,612 HP maximum rating at 3,000 RPM and 60 in. of manifold pressure.

(Some later engines are described as delivering up to 1,725 HP WEP rating. The engines required 100 octane or higher rated fuel, and had 13 USG oil capacity.)


The oil was cooled in two outboard chin core radiators, vented via automatically controlled flaps on either side of the nacelle. Fuel consumption was 0.65 lb/HP./hr at 1,100 HP normal rating, at 2,600 RPM. "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" By Warren M. Bodie/Lockheed-Martin


The total number of engines built for each series were:

A-series 2
B-series 3
C-series 2,582
D-series 44
E-series 18,998
F-series 47,660
G-series 763



____________

June 15, 1944 -
All 8th Fighter Command bases started getting 100/150 octane fuel.

The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17s but incorporated many internal improvements, most notably the 12 counterweight crankshaft. As a consequence it could be operated up to 3200 rpm. Using Grade 150 fuel it could deliver 1725 bhp under WER conditions." (Vee's for Victory p 145)

___________

My point in all this is: When you take all the readily avaiable componets : higher rated Av gas of either 115/145 or 100/150 from 6/1944, more boost & rpm from the factory-- what ratings do we end up with that is historically accurate for the 38L ?

Best case scenario is --Using Grade 150 fuel it could deliver 1725 bhp under WER conditions." (Vee's for Victory p 145)

Did P38Ls see combat in this configuration ?

I thought they did.



____________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

worr
04-24-2004, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
**These, and all V-1710's delivered through the end of the war were rated on Grade 100/130 fuel produced to military specification AN-F-28.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I say the above?

I thought I said there were V-1710s delivered that were rated on the higher octane...namely the G series. You'll also see water injection in the G series. The P-38 used overboost for WEP, as before said.

You have to remember that the engines were rated with the available fuel state side...and when the plane was just getting those ratings 100/130 (lean/rich) was common place. By the time they got shipped to Europe and into combat that had changed. In fact, the best fuel was overseas not at home. But the ratings weren't changed back at the factory nor on the specs sheets. Or so it appears. But this would explain the oft repeated descrepencies.

Frankly, they were getting higher HP ratings BEFORE the better fuels. But I'll guess they waited for the better fuels to impliment the higher margins.

Let me know what other questions I might have missed.

Worr, out

WhiskeyRiver
04-24-2004, 12:05 PM
So the 1725 @3200rpm horsepower rating is correct for the L using 150 grade fuel & ADI injection in unmodified configuration?

I just wanted to clarify for anyone reading this thread since it's starting to get a little confusing with all the quoting of posts.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

BigKahuna_GS
04-24-2004, 12:24 PM
S!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
**These, and all V-1710's delivered through the end of the war were rated on Grade 100/130 fuel produced to military specification AN-F-28.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did I say the above?

______________

I tried to post last night that I realised it was for all models--it wouldn't go through.

________


Worr-Let me know what other questions I might have missed.



Its not a question of missing, it is a question
of dates and times.

Like I said way back in the beginning--Oleg usually models the best available powerplant and fuel that saw service.

June 15, 1944 -
All 8th Fighter Command bases started getting 100/150 octane fuel.

So we know the dates of fuel delivery.


The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17s but incorporated many internal improvements, most notably the 12 counterweight crankshaft. As a consequence it could be operated up to 3200 rpm. Using Grade 150 fuel it could deliver 1725 bhp under WER conditions." (Vee's for Victory p 145)


So we know the fuel was avaiable to attain the 1,725hp under WER conditions 15th June, 1944.

The only dates we need is when the engine changed over 3200rpm and started using an ADI mixture of 50%-50% water & methanol WEP.

Even if we were not able to atain these dates for the 3200rpm engine and wet WEP, the fact still remains that the engine produced 1,725hp with 150av gas under WER conditions.

Hopefully that in itself would be good enough.


___________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
04-24-2004, 12:35 PM
S!


Blutarski :

According to the 4th Fighter Group website,

June 15, 1944 -
All 8th Fighter Command bases started getting 100/150 octane fuel. Later in the month new kits arrived for the installation of bob weights, dorsal fins and landing gear uplock systems in the P-51s. During March and April some 4th P-51s lost wings and tails in combat and after modifications there were no further problems of this type.



BLUTARSKI---do you have a link for this info ?


Thanks BK

_________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

worr
04-24-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
So the 1725 @3200rpm horsepower rating is correct for the L using 150 grade fuel & ADI injection in unmodified configuration?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No.

There was no "injection" in the equation. Any mixing was done in the fuel itself, not in the carberator. Where are you getting any injection in the P-38 discussion? That was in the later G engines...and only a few of those made it into the P-38L.

Worr, out

worr
04-24-2004, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:

Did I say the above?

______________

I tried to post last night that I realised it was for all models--it wouldn't go through<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, the above was incorrect...hope you aren't tripped up by that.

BTW....your method of cut n paste is a bit confusing. Not sure who said what. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Worr, out

worr
04-24-2004, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
Like I said way back in the beginning--Oleg usually models the best available powerplant and fuel that saw service.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dates are already laid out.

Maybe Oleg needs to ask his own questions?

Worr, out

BigKahuna_GS
04-24-2004, 07:39 PM
S!

___________

Worr-Dates are already laid out.
___________



For when the F-30 was factory upgraded to 3200rpm or when water injection was added ?

Guess I missed those dates then.

There are many variations and ratings for the F-15 and F-30 engines so bare with us we are trying to keep it straight. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



________________________

Worr-
There was no "injection" in the equation. Any mixing was done in the fuel itself, not in the carberator. Where are you getting any injection in the P-38 discussion? That was in the later G engines...and only a few of those made it into the P-38L.

The V-1710-G series, and a Few late v-1710-E/F, engines were developed and rated on Grade 115/145 fuel (specification AN-F-33), but none of these saw service during the war.

_______________________



It looks like those P38's that recieved the G/E/F- series engines did not see combat according to the information you provided. If I am mistaken let us know.

Or maybe these engines saw service but under the military specification AN-F-28. It is not clear.



__________________________


Worr- Maybe Oleg needs to ask his own questions?

__________________________



Oleg will not ask any questions until a different technical perspective
revealing upgraded factory specifications is presented to him. If nothing is sent, the P38 J & L engines will remain the same stock factory ratings as they are now.

If you wish to see a historically accurate P38L in FB/AEP with a factory upgraded engine that produced 1,725hp on either 115/145 or 150 Avgas, please send Oleg your technical information. Same for the P38J factory upgrades. If Oleg has questions, you can answer them.



I did email Oleg this :

There was continued advancement in engine development and power ratings for all Allison powered aircraft.

For a more complete, readers are suggested to Daniel Whitney's "Vee for Victory!" or Graham White's "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II". Note that both Allison and Service designations are used to refer to Allison models, the Allison designation consists of a letter followed by a number with an optional letter suffix, while the service designation is just a number. The service numbers are shown in parenthesis in the following table (some engines were experimental or developmental and not issued a service number).


"P-38L Production was from June 1944 through August 1945, effectively to the end of the war. Not only did they incorporate improvements such as the critical dive flaps, hydraulically boosted ailerons and additional fuel capacity, they also utilized the further improved V-1710-111/130 (F30R/L) engines, while continuing to use the Type B-33 turbosupercharger.

The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17s but incorporated many internal improvements, most notably the 12 counterweight crankshaft. As a consequence it could be operated up to 3200 rpm. Using Grade 150 fuel it could deliver 1725 bhp under WER conditions." (Vee's for Victory p 145)


According to the 4th Fighter Group website,

15 June, 1944 -
All 8th Fighter Command bases started getting 100/150 octane fuel.

(waiting for the link)



It is good if Oleg hears this information from more than just one person.



_______________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

worr
04-24-2004, 08:33 PM
Forget the water injection....wasn't seen in the P-38.

As for Oleg...does he post in here?

Understand it wasn't a new engine...it was simply an underrated engine set free. When that happened...wasn't an exact date. It happened with the advent of better fuel...and that date can be arrived at through other means.

Consider that most squadrons received P-38Ls with the F-30 engines alongside 38Js with the F-17 engines...and treated them the same for some time. But production figures were HUGE for the 38L and they soon came to dominate...and the crew cheifs rose to the occasion.

The fact that Lockheed has this documented, is probably a reflection on the changes they welcomed in the field.

Worr, out

WhiskeyRiver
04-25-2004, 04:08 AM
I saw a the ADI listed earlier but wasn't sure which engine you were talking about. See, I told this thread was getting confusing.

By all means, please email Oleg with your information.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

worr
04-25-2004, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
I saw a the ADI listed earlier but wasn't sure which engine you were talking about. See, I told this thread was getting confusing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you go back a page you'll see it was BigKahuna_GS who posted that. But he was quoting Vee's for Victory about the allison engines in general...which, of course, were installed in may aircraft types.

The V1710 G did have ADI, but was only installed in a few 38Ls late in the war as well as other ac. That isn't the application we are talking about. Were talking about the F series, especially the F-17 and F-30 that were in the J and L FTDs.

Like I said, no water injection in the P-38. Hope that helps.

Worr, out

Aztek_Eagle
04-25-2004, 09:05 PM
this ppl wiht their complains, in real life you did not take a single p38 by ur self vs 10 players, yes sure u will kill all the 10 planes by ur self because u read the p38 was good, it got good result as the pilot worked on close coperation vs each other, witch doesnt happen much in online game...

http://www.angelfire.com/art2/robertosgallery/CORSAIR8.JPG

worr
04-25-2004, 09:27 PM
Aztek_Eagle what is your complaint?

Only discussion going on here lately are the merits of the aircraft all by its lonesome. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Worr, out

VW-IceFire
04-26-2004, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aztek_Eagle:
this ppl wiht their complains, in real life you did not take a single p38 by ur self vs 10 players, yes sure u will kill all the 10 planes by ur self because u read the p38 was good, it got good result as the pilot worked on close coperation vs each other, witch doesnt happen much in online game...

http://www.angelfire.com/art2/robertosgallery/CORSAIR8.JPG <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
An excellent point but they aren't arguing combat effectiveness or team fighting or even fighting with a single fighter.

What they are talking about is the raw performance data. That translates into combat performance and ability but its not the same thing (since you can talk about raw performance of a Cessna if you wanted to).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

VMF513_Sandman
04-26-2004, 01:28 PM
p-38 should be able to outclimb and outrun both the a6m2 and a6m5 with ease. the planes that couldnt outrun the zekes in the straights were the wildcat and p-40...the p-39 got its *** handed to it from the zeke. in fb, the zeke will outrun them, and dive with the 38. no tojo was able to outdive any of our planes in the pacific. u cant tell me a zeke is capable of holding together at 650...that's double the speed the zeke was able to pull off in the war. from 2k meters, i watched an a6m5 zeke keep up and close with me in a power dive without coming apart. last check, i was closin in on 700 on the speed bar. that's pure bs. i should have left him 4 miles behind at that speed.

lbhskier37
04-26-2004, 01:44 PM
I fly the P40s all the time against zekes, online and offline. I have no problem outdiving any of them,and also outrunning them after a dive. Zoomclimb also smokes them. I don't know what game you guys are playing, or where you guys learned to fly that can't do these things. Once you hit 650 in a dive, just hold that speed by slowly leveling out and run at that speed. Then slowly start climbing until you reach about 400. At that speed start to pull yourself over and you will see a zeke sitting there prime for your .50s.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

WhiskeyRiver
04-27-2004, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF513_Sandman:
p-38 should be able to outclimb and outrun both the a6m2 and a6m5 with ease. the planes that couldnt outrun the zekes in the straights were the wildcat and p-40...the p-39 got its *** handed to it from the zeke. in fb, the zeke will outrun them, and dive with the 38. no tojo was able to outdive any of our planes in the pacific. u cant tell me a zeke is capable of holding together at 650...that's double the speed the zeke was able to pull off in the war. from 2k meters, i watched an a6m5 zeke keep up and close with me in a power dive without coming apart. last check, i was closin in on 700 on the speed bar. that's pure bs. i should have left him 4 miles behind at that speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The -39 usually had to engage the Zekes at over 15,000 feet. At these altitudes the -39 was seriously down on horsepower. Also, the 'Cobras fighting the Japanese were P-400's or the American spec models. These were significantly heavier than the Russian versions of the P-39.

I don't have much trouble with the Zero in a 1v1 situation. It's when the Zero is paired with a fighter that can catch me that I start having problems.

Except for the dive speed, elevator authority, and DM I think the Zero is pretty close.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Fehler
04-27-2004, 03:35 AM
[Poor understanding of a standard]

If you guys cant out dive out distance or out climb a zero in this sim, then you really dont have any business even contemplating posting in this form (Period)

I think some of you assume that outdiving means, the Zero stays completely still while you dive, like he is suspended in mid air until you feel free to stop diving. That and the fact that his bullets are also obviously slower than your plane and you can go from "Within gun range" to "Outside of gun range" in a milisecond. If that is your conception, then I recommend Star Wars Galaxies for you, because I think it has hyper-space jump.

One of hardest tests for a virtual pilot in this game is to fight a P-38 in a Zero. You are out-classed, out-gunned, and slower than a "Patch promised in two weeks." The P38 will absorb most of your ammo as well, assuming you can stay with it long enough to deliver your rounds on target.

Flown correctly, utilizing the planes strong points and correct energy management, a good P38 driver is a force in this sim. And if you stick two above average pilots on comms together, watch out... the fat lady will be singing.

Learn to fly before you learn to cry.

I really hope they fix the dispursion of the .50 cals, because after watching some of you shoot, I will fear USAAF planes a whole lot less if they shoot like lasers. In other words, some of you need all the "Shotgun dispursion" you can get.

If you try and turn/burn with a zero, especially at slow speeds, you are a numbskull. Nothing - except the bi-planes, can sustain a turn fight with a zero 60 odd years ago, or in this game today. Yeah, I know what some of you are thinking, "P38 could turn with a zero at tree top." At what speed? Sustained or corner? Dont just read what you want to hear, read what is actually being said.

For example, Pappy Boyington said that he had a method of attacking a Zero in a turn fight in his P-40 while flying for the AVG in China. He would get up to speed and constrict all his muscles, and because of his physical stature, he could turn inside a Zero at high speed and most of the time force the other pilot to black-out. Some of you would read that and say, see.. The P-40 can turn with a Zero! No way would Greg Boyington try to sustain a slow turn with a Zero, because he knew he would go from looking at the Zero's rudder to looking at his engine pretty fast.

The P38 is a great plane. I personally dont fly it well, but as long as you dont burn your energy too fast, it can take on the best the axis has to offer and be very successful. If you get it slow, it's dead meat, as a lot of other planes will accelerate faster than it, but it will still out run most of them, just not initially. Those are still props on those nacells, not anti-matter, galaxy class, warp drive engines! Sheesh!

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

jurinko
04-27-2004, 03:49 AM
hmm guys you will be pleased with P-38 FM and firepower after the patchhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Zero is dead meat.

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

ZG77_Nagual
04-27-2004, 08:09 AM
Thanks for that Jurinko http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for the P39s story - it's oft been told on this forum - early on in the pacific it suffered from being a new type with some bugs assembled hastily out of boxes, being on the defensive and antiquated combat doctrine that favored the opponents strengths. Also the Japanese pilots early in the war were perhaps the finest in the world.