PDA

View Full Version : P38J V P38L



ZG77_Nagual
05-28-2004, 04:07 PM
Anybody noticed - the L seems to have the pre-patch fm - or is it just me.

ZG77_Nagual
05-28-2004, 04:07 PM
Anybody noticed - the L seems to have the pre-patch fm - or is it just me.

VW-IceFire
05-28-2004, 05:48 PM
Must be you?

Seems alright when I took one out for a spin online. I must say that I actually prefer the J sometimes...I don't know why either.

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

ZG77_Nagual
05-28-2004, 06:23 PM
I think so too (it's me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)- the J is faster - but I think I had my trim set differently during the test flights.

Korolov
05-28-2004, 07:30 PM
Aside from the J being a bit quicker in acceleration, and maybe speed, I don't notice much difference between the two.

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

JG53Frankyboy
05-28-2004, 07:37 PM
P38L rolls MUCH better than P38J above ~480Km/H

VMF513_Sandman
05-28-2004, 07:49 PM
i noticed that the L doesnt go into a flat spin in a heartbeat when the brake goes on in a turn. seems the hvar's lost a bit of power. before, if the rockets landed 10 feet from a whirbelwind, it was toast. now, it survives. even the 20mm wont kill it. before patch, those zsu's would die in 2 cannon shots. it does seem the speed and climb rates have been bumped up, and maybe the L has a bit better turn rate. but what still kills the 38 over the mustangs is the guns. their hitting power is still way off. what would kill an engine in a snapshot in a 51 or p-40, doesnt in a p-38. should be that anything that's in front of a p-38 should die fast...just like anything that gets in front of a 190 dies in 2 seconds

BigKahuna_GS
05-30-2004, 06:04 AM
S!

Too me the J seems faster and a bit more nimble. The P38L actually had better rated engines than are currently modeled into FB/AEP, so the L model should be faster.

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)

Many P38Ls were manufactured with this engine.



________________

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"

Willey
06-01-2004, 05:52 AM
I'm finding this pretty strange. If I'm not wrong the P-38J has ~1600hp per engine, and the L has 1725 as written above. Now, wven if they had the same power, why the hell is the J faster by some 15km/h on the deck, but climbing ~5m/s worse? I expect them both to climb like the L climbs now and the speeds exchanged.

VMF513_Sandman
06-02-2004, 05:45 AM
think the L should have more manuverability with the power assisted flight controls, but the J clearly seems more nimble. the J-lo model was the fastest of the 38's. why, no clue. could the J-lo have different engines than the other varients kahuna?
it was also reported that the p-38-H model was unshakeable from a spitfire in a mock dogfight that 79 pilots witnessed. lightning driver almost splashed in a split-s near the deck following the spit, but was still locked on.
what was the spec's on the H model...mebby they should have had the H in fb instead.

ZG77_Nagual
06-02-2004, 08:38 AM
I assumed that story was a later 38 - because I thought it was with a mkxiv spit - could be out to lunch on that one. The flaps on the L are really only useful at higher speeds - if you hit them in a slow turn she'll float and you can easily lose it. - below 350k or so you need to switch to flaps instead. The high speed roll of the L is very good. I havent' really (after testing) noticed the L being less nimble than the J at lower speeds - the J is a tad faster but this seems right.

BigKahuna_GS
06-03-2004, 01:13 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________
Nagual--the J is a tad faster but this seems right.
__________________________________________________ _________________


That is actualy incorrect. What has happened over the years is that everyone assumes that the same engines that were in the J model were also in the L model--- the V1710 Allison engine. That is what Oleg has done also.


"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)"

It was the same engine but different variants. The F-17 went into the J model and F-30 the L model. As you can see the F-30 version was upgraded.

So you have basically the same engine rating in both planes in FB which is wrong. The J model being a little lighter so it is a little more peppy.

There was a huge thread about this way before the patch came out. Information was emailed to Oleg to check both these books for exact data :

"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".


There was also complete speed, climb and roll rate charts from Lockheed. I sent them to Oleg--and Oleg discounted them rather quickly---hmm direct data from Lockheed.


____

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"

VulgarOne
06-03-2004, 03:46 AM
Seems to me the J is the same as it was pre-patch. Pre-patch I seemed to think the J ( in game not rl ) was a bit faster and maneuvered a bit better, just don‚'t compress. The L now seems to turn a little better than it did before, and compression starts at a higher speed,. If compression starts latter would that not give more elevator authority, and therefore turn better? Maybe it‚'s just me, but the L seems to compress at a little bit higher speed than the J now.

Seems that every time a CFS incorporates the p38 the same issue comes up. One thing I have noticed is that all CFS developers go by the same chart showing TAS. My understanding is that TAS is derived by assuming that if all conditions (variables) are correctly tabulated then the actual TAS can be figured. But one must know ambient temperature, barometric pressure, wind and altitude and probably a few others like particle density to correctly determined true airspeed, also the range of error your airspeed indicator may experience. This range of error is usually different for low or high alt Therefore my thought is that since ALL CFS developers go by TAS, their modeling of compression in the p38 is incorrect. In fact the actual effect depicted in the games may be entirely incorrect. Loss of elevator authority may be experienced, but at what rate does it increase or decrease as speed increases or decreases?

Is the speed the p38‚'s enters compression the same for the desert map in comparison to a winter map? Does the coding have the capability? Is the compression speed variable in tune with the varying environment? I think what has happened is that the CFS developers are lazy. Why take the time to code all the variables when most people will accept the TAS graph. It is more easily explained and defended then actually discussing and having to evidence, the incorporation of actual variables. Ever notice that all developers claim they have some secret data and cannot divulge due to non-disclosure contracts. Why would an aircraft design of 60+ years have to be a closely guarded secret? Of course the holder of a patent should get paid if someone builds and sells and aircraft off of their patents. But is a virtual aircraft considered the same? But then why would basic information like stall speed, vne, distance to clear a 50ft object be withheld. This is all information that in RL a pilot is supplied with from the manufacturer.

Lockheed (Kelly Johnson) has designed the fastest aircraft known by the general public. They knew about the compression effects on the p38, I assume it was intentional. Because to gain anything there is always a price to be paid. In all aircraft designers have attempted to get that right blend of speed, climb, versus maneuverability depending on what job the aircraft was being designed for.

Being on the bleeding edge of development for the times. I think the p38 was the one craft that really pushed the envelope. Even though it was large and heavy, it had horsepower and a big thick wing. Politics, finance, complexity, and common opinions caused most to never see this aircraft in its true light.

Those that did have the ability to absorb all this aircraft had to offer, excelled at the art of air combat. This is were the statements of, I would have never thought that plane could do that, coming from pilots of other aircraft. Everyone simply thinks big and heavy is slow and fat. With the right blend of power, weight and aerodynamics. There is simply no reason why this aircraft could not compete and beat other aircraft. Today‚'s aircraft have achieved stunning maneuverability for the weight they are, yes they have a lot of power also. I wonder if because it was heavy it would be able to turn tight having the right aerodynamics and not bleed as much energy, then with 2 props and some horsepower, be able to climb. I just think a closer look is merited.

I am not surprised that Oleg would discount information from Lockheed. What always gets me is that every CFS developer discounts any data supplied. Why don‚'t the CFS developers contact Lockheed and people that own the aircraft directly. I am sure plenty of them would be happy to assist in nearly any way. I have one explanation for this. The planes performance in game is designed to offer playability. Other CFS programmer‚'s (aeronautical engineer‚'s ) have stated that the game companies force the employee‚'s (programmers) to code towards game play rather than reality. Of course the companies could not care less about attention to reality, as their only concern is making money.

I have heard one CFS programmer that to put it simply, IL2 runs about 1.5 rather than 1 being real life. With the CFS he was working on running 2-2.5. I guess you could say things run faster than they should to give you that feeling of speed and urgency. If you have seen a ww2 fighter perform acrobatics it does not look like things happen as fast as in the game. The first time I saw a spit perform, I was surprised as it seemed to be slow. The FW 190 roll rate seems to be to fast in game, many in the forums have commented about this. If the FW 190 is to fast and others are measured by it, then is not all aircraft incorrect?

This is a tuff subject and with UBI looking at profitability and the next release. I doubt we will ever see any changes for the p38. Real shame as the p38 does not stall right, nor does it stall at the right speeds, among other things. I am afraid we will never see it right as I am sure Oleg is pushed to produce new titles, not refine and get what has already been started right.

Vulgar

ZG77_Nagual
06-04-2004, 07:58 AM
Vulgar.

In my opinion the 38 is a good deal better than before the patch. The biggest diff is in stall behavior and low speed handling. the thing that amazes me is the extent to which skill in working with the controls can bring the most out of this plane - there is not the sense, as there was in Jane's ww2 for example, of hitting a kind of wall in terms of what the plane will do. Combinations of trim, rudder, aleron, flaps and throttle yield some interesting results. When I can I try to get into unconventional fights in whatever I'm flying - trying to win with the most difficult and unlikely tactics - and the 38 really brings alot of flexibility to the table in this regard - moreso than pre patch

Thanks for the info Kahuna - I do recall that thread now - alot of discussion on various engine types. In any case I'm pretty happy with the 38 now - though I still have trouble outturning 109s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Fri June 04 2004 at 07:11 AM.]

BigKahuna_GS
06-04-2004, 10:52 AM
S!

I checked again in the in game object viewer, it shows :

P38J ---1,425hp @ 8,235 meters
No boost listed.


P38L---1,475hp @ 9150 meters
Boost--1600hp @ 8750 meters


I agree Nagual the F/M is better but just looking at the horsepower ratings the P38L should be faster. The only thing I would like to see besides the stall issue corrected is the right boost for the L at 1,725hp per engine.



______________

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"