PDA

View Full Version : The Never Ending P-38 Debate...



Fork-N-spoon
08-04-2009, 12:08 AM
Hello. I've noticed that there haven't been many lively discussions about aircraft going on around here lately, so I decided to stir the cauldron a bit...

Over the years, it's been my contention that most of the lame duck stories revolving around the P-38 against the Germans involves the 8th Air Force and the 8th alone. I'd rather not get into the 8th at this moment, so I'm going to shift over to the MTO and one group in particular that used the P-38, the 82nd Fighter Group.

The 82nd flew P-38s in the high altitude deep penetration bomber escort role, a role most will tell you that the P-38 was ill suited for. When I point out how the P-38 had more air to air victory claims in the MTO than both the P-47 and P-51 combined, most nay sayers show up and stated, "When the P-51 arrived, it out claimed the Lightning per sortie by a wide margin." Now this is true, but I feel that most overlook some very important reasons why the Mustang was able to do this. It wasn't due to the Mustang being vastly superior, but rather due to the fact that the Mustang was used very differently. For example, when comparing the P-47 against the P-38 in the MTO, the Lightning out claimed the Thunderbolt by a margin of something in the order of 8 to 1. Does this mean that the P-47 was greatly inferior to the P-38? No, it doesn't. What it means is that despite the P-47 being deployed in the MTO in much larger numbers than the P-38, the P-47 was relegated to primarily ground attack roles due to it's insufficient range to participate in high altitude deep penetration bomber escort missions; hence, it should come as no suprise that the P-38 units out claimed P-47 units by a rather large number despite the fact that the P-47 represented the lion's share of fighter aircraft in the theater.

To offer one mitigating example of why P-51 units out claimed P-38 units per sortie, let's take a look at one mission in particular. From "Flight Journal's" June 2003 edition, "Turkey Shoot Over Vienna."

Directly from the magazine:

"With many Luftwaffe fighters based in Austria and southern Germany, U.S. bombers needed fighter protection. The 82nd Fighter Group was among the P-38 units that provided this protective cover, and on July 8, 1944, it just happened to be in the right place at the right time!

When escorting bomber formations, the P-51 Mustangs usually flew far out in front of the formation and intercepted enemy fighters that had scrambled. (This helped to account for the high rate of aerial kills by Mustangs.) The P-38s usually flew above the bombers as top cover. On this day, the strategy was that the P-38s would protect the entire strike force. All three squadrons (48 aircraft) took part in the mission led by Lt. Charles Pinson. "

To paraphrase now, one group of P-38s flew out in front of the bomber formation and jumped the German aircraft while the Germans were climbing out to attack the bomber formation. Unfettered by the restrictive constraints of having to fly close top cover for the bombers, this group of free ranging P-38s scored as well as Mustang groups. A wild melee ensued, and the P-38 group came out with the upper hand.

Back to the article:

"When the mission had finished, the 82nd Group had had one of its biggest days of the War. On that day, it was officially credited with 21 confirmed kills and four "probables." To put this in perspective: other 15th Air Force fighter groups, theater-wide, tallied only eight kills for that day. The next day, Group HQ received a message from Gen. Nathan Twining, who congratulated the 82nd for eliminating an entire group from the German battle order."

So it's my contention that had there been enough P-38s, (shortages were felt throughout the war due to insufficient production), to both act as top cover and free range in front of the bomber formations, the 1000 air to air claims that Mustang groups claimed would have been P-38 group claims. Not only did tying P-38s as top cover for the bombers hurt their claims per sortie, but the bomber crews themselves exacerbated the situation. The bomber crews complained that there was no visible escort, so their command put pressure on the fighter groups to provide visible top cover. Since the P-38 was easily reconizable, it was chosen as the fighter craft to provide this "visible" top cover. The Mustang was not used due to the simple fact that bomber crews tended to shoot at Mustangs because from a distance, it closely resembled single engine enemy aircraft. The myopic view of the bomber crews actually caused more of their losses rather than lessen them. Had the top cover of P-38s been able to range out ahead of the bomber groups with the Mustangs, even more German aircraft would have been dispatched; hence, greatly reducing bomber losses and or cutting back on the number of fighters able to penetrate the bomber formations.

In short, the P-38 was more than capable if it was flown by competent pilots, serviced by experienced P-38 mechanics, and utilized properly in combat. By tying the P-38s to the bombers, this crippled the P-38s ability to claim more enemy aircraft. This is true of any fighter group serving in all theaters of combat during any part of the war. For example, I believe that it was the 356th FG, 8th AF that flew P-47s, and later, I believe, P-51s is a good example of how a fighter group can suffer if too closely tied to the bombers. This group had a rather poor combat record. Their claims per sorte were amongst the lowest in the entire 8th Air Force, and this time there's no P-38 to blame. Rather than blame the men and mechanics that were directly involved, let's take a look at what sort of missions were handed down to them. When one looks at what sort of missions the group was ordered to fly, it's no wonder the group had done so poorly. They did so poorly due to the fact that the 356th was tied directly to the bombers nearly all the time: hence the 364th's poor showing during the war.

In the introduction to the publication "The 356th FG in World War II," Kend D. Miller writes:

"Because the principle of bomber escort was strictly adhered to by the 356th's leaders, pilots of the group often had to pass up opportunities to engage enemy fighters and increase their scores. While this in fact helped earn the 356th a reputation as being a "hard luck" outfit, due to their low victory to loss ratio, the gratitude and praise from the bomber crews more than offset this misnomer."

To show what happened to this group when it was tied to the bombers, the 356th FG had 200 air to air victory claims while losing 115 of their own aircraft and having an additional 13 pilots KIA. I have no intentions of tarnishing the 356th's record or it's personnel, I simply wanted to point out that while other units of the 8th were chalking up record claims, this group suffered dearly due to the way it was employed by its command structure.

So as one can see, no matter what the aircraft, theater, or faction, when tying fighters to bombers, it greatly impedes the fighter group/wing to operate effectively. I believe that the same thing happened to the Germans during the Battle of Britain.

megalopsuche
08-04-2009, 12:15 AM
I don't see what's so controversial here. True, the 38 didn't gain the best reputation during the war, but that was mostly due to problems with the earlier models and the *freezing* cold cockpit. There can be no doubt that it was a capable fighter.

Waldo.Pepper
08-04-2009, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
So it's my contention that had there been enough P-38s, (shortages were felt throughout the war due to insufficient production), to both act as top cover and free range in front of the bomber formations, the 1000 air to air claims that Mustang groups claimed would have been P-38 group claims.

I think you are wrong. Ok for a start - after you read the following passage you will not think that "insufficient production" was the sole reason for shortages. Nor losses from mechanical faults were the results of "improper mantenance." or "doctrinal missuse."

But to get back tightly on topic I would dispute your contention for the following two nearly universally overlooked reasons. (which are dealt with in the passage I will present after my introductory remarks.)

Firstly, the heater in the P-38 was terrible. Which helps to explain why it did better in the Pacific and the Mediterannean. Two places that are a little more tolerable than Europe is in the Winter.

Secondly, there war a reliability issue to condend with.

Instead of me typing consider the following words of Veteran P-38 combat pilot (who flew the P-38 over Italy) - Royal D. Frey in Flying American Combat Aircraft of World War 2 pages 69-71.


===

"The other limiting feature, cockpit temperature, would be more correctiy identified as "paralyzing." Cockpit heat from the engine manifolds was nonexistent. When you were at 30,000 feet on bomber escort and the air temperature was —55° F outside the cockpit, it was —55° F inside the cockpit. After thirty minutes or so at such a temperature, a pilot became so numb that he was too miserable to be of any real value; to make matters worse, he did not particularly care. Only his head and neck exposed to the direct rays of the sun retained any warmth.

Not only did the numbness seriously decrease a pilot's efficiency, but the balky clothing he wore further restricted his efforts. For example, I wore double-thickness silk gloves, then heavy chamois gloves, and topped these with heavy leather gauntlets (all British issue). Inside all these layers were fingers almost frozen stiff and completely without feeling. Flipping a single electrical switch required deep concentration, skill, and luck, and the P-38 cockpit was loaded with electrical switches. How we envied the P-47 and P-51 pilots with a heat-producing engine in front of them to maintain a decent cockpit temperature.

The greatest problem of all with the P-38 over Europe in 1943-44 was its engines, or rather its engine installation. When the AAF decided to add more internal fuel to the P-38 and thereby increase its range, the only place more tankage could be placed was in the leading edges of the wings where the intercoolers were located. So leading edge tanks for about one hour's additional endurance were installed, and the intercooler radiators were moved to the lower noses of the booms under the prop spinners.

The intercoolers worked fine in this position, but the adjacent oil coolers were now much too efficient. We would put up a Group strength of forty-eight planes, and if thirty got to the target, we considered ourselves fortunate. On every mission plane after plane would turn back for England once we had reached high altitude, primarily because of an engine that had blown up or a turbosupercharger that had "run away"— i.e., uncontrollable over-speeding.

A couple of months after my left engine had blown up while I was flying deep inside Germany (an event that led to my capture), Col. Mark Hubbard, 20th Group CO, arrived at Stalag Luft I, my POW camp on the Baltic Sea north of Berlin. In a conversation one clay he remarked that during the first three months the 20th Group was on operations, it had the equivalent of a complete turnover in pilots—seventy percent of which could be attributed either directly or indirectly to engine trouble. What a needless waste of highly trained men to the enemy!

A Lockheed tech rep explained that at the tremendously low air temperatures in which we were flying, the oil in the radiators cooled to such an extent that its viscosity resembled that of molasses. It simply-refused to flow sufficiently, and the engines would eventually explode or the oil-type turboregulators would malfunction."

====

BSS_CUDA
08-04-2009, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Firstly, the heater in the P-38 was terrible. Which helps to explain why it did better in the Pacific and the Mediterannean. Two places that are a little more tolerable than Europe is in the Winter.
Its just as cold at 30K in the Pacific and Med as it was in Europe so that argument doesn't fly


Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Secondly, there war a reliability issue to condend with. interestingly there weren't NEAR the reliability issues in the Med and Pacific as there was in Europe, perhaps Poor Training was more to blame than the aircraft in general

Gammelpreusse
08-04-2009, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:

Its just as cold at 30K in the Pacific and Med as it was in Europe so that argument doesn't fly

It does, as typical combat altitudes differed greatly for the theatres. The ETO usually sported much higher combat altitutes then both the MTO and PTO.


interestingly there weren't NEAR the reliability issues in the Med and Pacific as there was in Europe, perhaps Poor Training was more to blame than the aircraft in general

That has probably more to do with the environmental conditions. Northern Europe is not exactly easy on the material, especially in autumn and winter.

BillSwagger
08-04-2009, 01:48 AM
Interesting reads.

I must say that Waldos reply coincides with what Fork-N-Spoon had to say about the P-38, which is why FnS directed the discussion toward the P-38s MTO service, and mentions that the plane was more useful and bearable in moderate climates.
I would think at high altitudes would be just as cold, so maybe they weren't flying as high.

Fork-N-spoon
08-04-2009, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
So it's my contention that had there been enough P-38s, (shortages were felt throughout the war due to insufficient production), to both act as top cover and free range in front of the bomber formations, the 1000 air to air claims that Mustang groups claimed would have been P-38 group claims.

I think you are wrong. Ok for a start - after you read the following passage you will not think that "insufficient production" was the sole reason for shortages. Nor losses from mechanical faults were the results of "improper mantenance." or "doctrinal missuse."

But to get back tightly on topic I would dispute your contention for the following two nearly universally overlooked reasons. (which are dealt with in the passage I will present after my introductory remarks.)

Firstly, the heater in the P-38 was terrible. Which helps to explain why it did better in the Pacific and the Mediterannean. Two places that are a little more tolerable than Europe is in the Winter.

Secondly, there war a reliability issue to condend with.

Instead of me typing consider the following words of Veteran P-38 combat pilot (who flew the P-38 over Italy) - Royal D. Frey in Flying American Combat Aircraft of World War 2 pages 69-71.


===

"The other limiting feature, cockpit temperature, would be more correctiy identified as "paralyzing." Cockpit heat from the engine manifolds was nonexistent. When you were at 30,000 feet on bomber escort and the air temperature was —55° F outside the cockpit, it was —55° F inside the cockpit. After thirty minutes or so at such a temperature, a pilot became so numb that he was too miserable to be of any real value; to make matters worse, he did not particularly care. Only his head and neck exposed to the direct rays of the sun retained any warmth.

Not only did the numbness seriously decrease a pilot's efficiency, but the balky clothing he wore further restricted his efforts. For example, I wore double-thickness silk gloves, then heavy chamois gloves, and topped these with heavy leather gauntlets (all British issue). Inside all these layers were fingers almost frozen stiff and completely without feeling. Flipping a single electrical switch required deep concentration, skill, and luck, and the P-38 cockpit was loaded with electrical switches. How we envied the P-47 and P-51 pilots with a heat-producing engine in front of them to maintain a decent cockpit temperature.

The greatest problem of all with the P-38 over Europe in 1943-44 was its engines, or rather its engine installation. When the AAF decided to add more internal fuel to the P-38 and thereby increase its range, the only place more tankage could be placed was in the leading edges of the wings where the intercoolers were located. So leading edge tanks for about one hour's additional endurance were installed, and the intercooler radiators were moved to the lower noses of the booms under the prop spinners.

The intercoolers worked fine in this position, but the adjacent oil coolers were now much too efficient. We would put up a Group strength of forty-eight planes, and if thirty got to the target, we considered ourselves fortunate. On every mission plane after plane would turn back for England once we had reached high altitude, primarily because of an engine that had blown up or a turbosupercharger that had "run away"— i.e., uncontrollable over-speeding.

A couple of months after my left engine had blown up while I was flying deep inside Germany (an event that led to my capture), Col. Mark Hubbard, 20th Group CO, arrived at Stalag Luft I, my POW camp on the Baltic Sea north of Berlin. In a conversation one clay he remarked that during the first three months the 20th Group was on operations, it had the equivalent of a complete turnover in pilots—seventy percent of which could be attributed either directly or indirectly to engine trouble. What a needless waste of highly trained men to the enemy!

A Lockheed tech rep explained that at the tremendously low air temperatures in which we were flying, the oil in the radiators cooled to such an extent that its viscosity resembled that of molasses. It simply-refused to flow sufficiently, and the engines would eventually explode or the oil-type turboregulators would malfunction."

==== </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When looking at the "big American three," none of them suffered from excessive losses per sortie.

I can see that it's time to break out some books and begin using quoting sources.

Cockpit heating:

Supposedly, the later model Js dealt with this, although there is controversial anecdotal evidence to support both camps; moreover, you've stated that in the Pacific and Mediterranean that the P-38s missions were at lower altitudes. At this point I would like to point out to you that in my original thread, P-38s were used as high altitude deep penetration bomber escorts, and they flew as high as the 8th did. Additionally, in the Pacific, I've read countless reports of high altitude missions in the area of 25k, 30k, and sometimes as high as 30k+

To debunk your final comments in which you seem to have quoted somebody from a book, you may want to look at what Tony LeVier had to say about his European tour. He stated loosely now, I've not my book to quote from at the moment so I'm paraphrasing, it seemed that the men of the 8th were neither trained to fly the type nor were the mechanics trained to service them. Most mechanics were trained on P&W. Moreover, the pilots were using any combination of boost and rpm to achieve their desired speed. In many cases this meant high rpm and low boost, which is a devastating combination due to the fact that the engines do not produce enough heat to keep the oil flowing and work at their proper tolerances. This condition of high rpm and low boost caused oil to congeal in the radiators until it resembled molasses.

Rather than get into a lot of anecdotal evidence, I consider this, the 8th’s own 479th performed about as well with the P-38 as it did with the P-51. The P-38 units in the MTO performed better than the P-51 units in the same theater performing identical missions as did the 8th air force. In north Africa, and all other theaters, the reliability issue was not a problem. In fact, the Allison engine in the P-38 flew 50% or more hours before overhaul as did the Merlin in the Mustang, and the Allison required some 50% less man hours to rebuild as did the Merlin.

I’ll revisit this topic when I have my inventory of books. At present, I’m going off what I remember reading. I’m sorry, but I’m in the middle of yet another move.

By the way, the temperature about the world is the same above 30K, and the conditions in Italy were far more primative and colder than anything that the 8th had to deal with. It actually snowed in Floggia Italy, and temperatures below 32 degrees F were quite common during the winter.

J_Weaver
08-04-2009, 08:34 AM
Interesting read. I love a good debate. To add more fuel to the fire... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If pilot and ground crew training issues were responsible for the P-38's performance in the ETO, why didn't MTO and PTO P-38's suffer the same problems? Were the pilots and crews coming out of different schools or perhaps had more P-38 specific traning?

general_kalle
08-04-2009, 01:43 PM
and even though your talking about the P51 and the P38, it really was A P47 Outfit that had the top scoring US ace of the western front and the highest score of all Western front Fighter outfits.

The Famous 56th Fighter Group

dadada1
08-04-2009, 04:29 PM
Surely issues of reliability and poor staff training (both air and ground) cannot be dismissed as factors for why the P38 never acheived perhaps what it deserved. It should be remembered that wartime conditions sometimes mean the best compromise is the answer to a problem and in that instance the P51 (before everyone leaps on this as you guys often do I'm not suggesting the P51 was either compromised or inferior) was the best all round fighter for its purpose in Europe. In peacetime and with proper training the P38 may have been the bee's knee's but we're not talking about that context are we?

deepo_HP
08-04-2009, 04:38 PM
in peacetime noone would have thought to build such an expensive aircraft...

horseback
08-04-2009, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
and even though your talking about the P51 and the P38, it really was A P47 Outfit that had the top scoring US ace of the western front and the highest score of all Western front Fighter outfits.

The Famous 56th Fighter Group Wrong. I believe the 9th AF's 354th FG, the 'Pioneer' Mustang group had more air to air kills, and the 4th FG had more combined air and strafing credits.

The Wolfpack finished second in all but the news release departments in the 'team' events.

cheers

horseback

R_Target
08-04-2009, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:
in peacetime noone would have thought to build such an expensive aircraft...

Nobody but Lockheed, I guess(1937).

deepo_HP
08-04-2009, 05:40 PM
yes, and they would have had a miserable time with it, if not war had come to them.

megalopsuche
08-04-2009, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
and even though your talking about the P51 and the P38, it really was A P47 Outfit that had the top scoring US ace of the western front and the highest score of all Western front Fighter outfits.

The Famous 56th Fighter Group

The P-47 also scored more kills than any other American fighter.

R_Target
08-04-2009, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
The P-47 also scored more kills than any other American fighter.

F6F is the highest scoring American fighter. Thunderbolt may be the top scoring Army plane though.

R_Target
08-04-2009, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:
yes, and they would have had a miserable time with it, if not war had come to them.

Possibly, but not because the USAAF wasn't going to buy P-38s. Lockheed might have been sunk when the British reneged on their agreement to pay for the planes that they ordered. A large legal battle was avoided when the Air Force bought out the British order upon U.S. entry into the war.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 01:09 PM
P-38
Rocked the PTO
Hindered in the ETO due to UK fuel
two top US aces flew them
nuff said

DKoor
08-06-2009, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
P-38
Rocked the PTO
Hindered in the ETO due to UK fuel
two top US aces flew them
nuff said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 01:58 PM
Nice Sig! S!

hirosangels
08-06-2009, 02:08 PM
I like the P-38.

In IL-2 its awesome, stable. It looks ****, and flies very well. Myh first dewinging happened on the P-38. And it can move mud very well.

And the hammerhead stalls (well with my clumsy hands) with playing with dual engines really rocks (works good for turning 4 taxiing 2).

They helped seal Japan's fate with Operation Venegence.

And the tricycle gear! With my n00bish landing skills, I can land her easy.

But alas,

when you look at real war and logistics.

A plane that has two engines, more service time. More expensive. Requires more fuel.

Takes longer to build.

And the costs must justify the performance. I mean the P-38 was a well performer, but essentially on par with 51 and 47. If it exceeded both of them by alot, heck maybe justify the price tag.

But having two engines is key for survivability (navy had something 2 engine requirement until cost cutting drove them to forsake it with the JSF).

horseback
08-06-2009, 03:10 PM
Interesting read. I love a good debate. To add more fuel to the fire...

If pilot and ground crew training issues were responsible for the P-38's performance in the ETO, why didn't MTO and PTO P-38's suffer the same problems? Were the pilots and crews coming out of different schools or perhaps had more P-38 specific training? The groups that enjoyed the early war successes with the Lightning had been pre-war trained P-38 outfits composed of relatively experienced pilots and they and their support organizations had been largely ‘spoon-fed’ by Lockheed tech reps and test pilots. In the Pacific, most outfits that transitioned to the P-38 had been flying considerably less capable aircraft in combat, and quickly figured out how to take full advantage of its greater abilities. In North Africa, the 1st, 14th, and 82nd FGs were heavily supplemented by drafts of personnel from the 78th FG, which was also a prewar Lightning group, as well as taking their airplanes to replace operational losses.

When the 20th and later, the 55th FGs arrived in England, they had been given a training syllabus arranged by the Army Air Force, which was more than a little schizophrenic, since the Army couldn’t decide if they were multiengine (more than one engine, more than one crewman) pilots or fighter (single seat) pilots. They absolutely did not have the direct support and contact with Lockheed that their predecessors enjoyed. Their support personnel were little better off.

They were also more than a little snakebit; their squadron and group COs had a tendency to get shot down after a week or so in office; this would have made the support situation even more critical, because only a Group’s CO could ‘fire’ a bad support group CO (as Zemke had to with his first support group CO, who was more concerned with the Book than with winning the war).

If the support groups were not getting the job done, they got a free pass every time a new CO reported on station.

Ultimately, the Lightning was doomed by a number of factors:
• It had been designed to a requirement for an interceptor that was expected to result in no more than 150 aircraft built. As a result, the design had made no concessions to mass production.
• It was Lockheed’s first effort at a fighter; some basic considerations for a combat aircraft were overlooked, not least of which was the poor ergonomics of its cockpit and the comfort of the pilot at high altitudes.
• Between management and the Army, the program was poorly run and production during the first two years of the war, when the Lightning had a virtual monopoly on range and performance capability among Allied fighters, was abysmal. It was never available in the numbers needed (much less requested) until more capable versions of the P-51 and P-47 were already dominating the ETO squadrons.
• It was the first American aircraft to encounter many of the problems of high speed and high altitude operations; there is no question that North American and Republic’s products benefited from the P-38’s pioneering work, and avoided some of the pitfalls with the demands of combat in the cold thin air over 25,000 ft.

cheers

horseback

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The groups that enjoyed the early war successes with the Lightning had been pre-war trained P-38 outfits composed of relatively experienced pilots and they and their support organizations had been largely ‘spoon-fed’ by Lockheed tech reps and test pilots.
Interesting, I have often felt that had alot to do with it, but never seen anyone make note of it, Explanes alot when you consider the cases, as with all weapons, training is the key, the best weapon in the world wont do you any good if you dont know how to use it. Thanks for the info!

Aviar
08-06-2009, 10:06 PM
Even Charles Lindbergh had a hand in training some P-38 pilots:

http://www.charleslindbergh.com/history/b24.asp

Aviar

J_Weaver
08-07-2009, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Interesting read. I love a good debate. To add more fuel to the fire...

If pilot and ground crew training issues were responsible for the P-38's performance in the ETO, why didn't MTO and PTO P-38's suffer the same problems? Were the pilots and crews coming out of different schools or perhaps had more P-38 specific training? The groups that enjoyed the early war successes with the Lightning had been pre-war trained P-38 outfits composed of relatively experienced pilots and they and their support organizations had been largely ‘spoon-fed’ by Lockheed tech reps and test pilots. In the Pacific, most outfits that transitioned to the P-38 had been flying considerably less capable aircraft in combat, and quickly figured out how to take full advantage of its greater abilities. In North Africa, the 1st, 14th, and 82nd FGs were heavily supplemented by drafts of personnel from the 78th FG, which was also a prewar Lightning group, as well as taking their airplanes to replace operational losses.

When the 20th and later, the 55th FGs arrived in England, they had been given a training syllabus arranged by the Army Air Force, which was more than a little schizophrenic, since the Army couldn’t decide if they were multiengine (more than one engine, more than one crewman) pilots or fighter (single seat) pilots. They absolutely did not have the direct support and contact with Lockheed that their predecessors enjoyed. Their support personnel were little better off.

They were also more than a little snakebit; their squadron and group COs had a tendency to get shot down after a week or so in office; this would have made the support situation even more critical, because only a Group’s CO could ‘fire’ a bad support group CO (as Zemke had to with his first support group CO, who was more concerned with the Book than with winning the war).

If the support groups were not getting the job done, they got a free pass every time a new CO reported on station.

Ultimately, the Lightning was doomed by a number of factors:
• It had been designed to a requirement for an interceptor that was expected to result in no more than 150 aircraft built. As a result, the design had made no concessions to mass production.
• It was Lockheed’s first effort at a fighter; some basic considerations for a combat aircraft were overlooked, not least of which was the poor ergonomics of its cockpit and the comfort of the pilot at high altitudes.
• Between management and the Army, the program was poorly run and production during the first two years of the war, when the Lightning had a virtual monopoly on range and performance capability among Allied fighters, was abysmal. It was never available in the numbers needed (much less requested) until more capable versions of the P-51 and P-47 were already dominating the ETO squadrons.
• It was the first American aircraft to encounter many of the problems of high speed and high altitude operations; there is no question that North American and Republic’s products benefited from the P-38’s pioneering work, and avoided some of the pitfalls with the demands of combat in the cold thin air over 25,000 ft.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post! Thanks for the info.

HellToupee
08-08-2009, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:
in peacetime noone would have thought to build such an expensive aircraft...

Actually only in peace time would someone design such an expensive aircraft :P.

BSS_CUDA
08-08-2009, 06:40 PM
/me points to the F-22 and B-2 both peace time aircraft

deepo_HP
08-08-2009, 08:43 PM
well, true about war often demands more economic designs. but i think, the usa had the most reserves that time. i probably had better said: in a peacetime or civil (not military) market situation...
imo, if ressources are not severely limited and production is not under governmental control, war - and also the thread of war - offers a lot of opportunities for a good share.

the f-22 and b-2 exactly show that. the end of the cold war reduced quite fast the planned orders from 130 to 21 (b-2) and from 800 to eventually 190 (?, i think).
also the b-2 is not exactly a peace-time bomber.
i don't know, if there was any analysis proving the actual need for a jet like the f-22 other than demonstrating capabilities. like the question, how one f-22 relates to two f-35 or three super-hornets or even six f-15e.
but it seems, that with the lack of a possible opponent, and the realisation that there hasn't been any use for it in the latest military actions, the economies of market have been reestablished for both.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-09-2009, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
in peacetime noone would have thought to build such an expensive aircraft...

Actually only in peace time would someone design such an expensive aircraft :P. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a good point, the 38 was build prior to WWII ramping up. At which time the mind set was quality over quantity, hence the 38. But as the war got rolling it was clear that quantity had a quality of its own, hence the 51. In short, the US didn't need a plane as good as the 38, the 51 was cheaper and more than enough plane to deal with what the axis was putting up.

JtD
08-09-2009, 10:37 AM
It's more like that the technological evolution made it possible to design a plane that got an as good performance at half the price. The P-51 clearly did have qualities the P-38 could not match, so I don't see where the "not as good as" comes from.

M_Gunz
08-09-2009, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I don't see where the "not as good as" comes from.

That's just attention bait. Next comes the reel it in fight which is what it's about.

horseback
08-09-2009, 12:01 PM
Agree with JtD here.

The P-38 prototype was flying in January of 1939. At that point, it was probably the most advanced fighter desgn out there, but delays after the crash of the prototype held off the building of the second Lightning, a YP-38, until September of 1940.

Here the economic mess the US was in was a factor; we were still stuck in the Great Depression, and the government did not have the wherewithal to finance even such a promising project.

There is a general misconception about the United States' situation in the prewar years that we were just sitting at our ease waiting for the most convenient time to enter the contest. The fact is that things were still a mess, unemployment remained higher for longer than in Europe, and the whole situation was harsher here than most people understand.

A significant percentage (over 10%)of American men who volunteered for the armed forces when the war broke out were found physically unfit for service due to malnutrition during their childhood or adolescent years.

The government didn't have the money for the project, and Lockheed spent a lot of their resources during that time catering to British orders for Hudsons.

In any case, like the Corsair, the P-38 remained a remarkably competitive fighter design well into 1944 without ever reaching full maturity. The difference with the Corsair was that Vought had licensees like Goodyear and Brewster building Corsairs too. It was quickly available in (almost) the desired numbers.

Add to that the P-38's basic limiting flaws of the design which could not be overcome by changing engines, auxiliary systems or propellors; it simply couldn't safely go faster at higher (30K+ft) altitudes without going into compression.

What could have been literally a war winner in 1940 and should have been a war changer in 1942/3 was an also ran in 1944 because it wasn't available in the necessary numbers earlier. Had the USAAF been able to equip and adequately train even half of its fighter groups with P-38s in 1942/3, the Axis' air forces would well have collapsed much sooner.

By late 1943 though, a Merlin powered Mustang could match or surpass the P-38H/J in most if not all regimes, particularly when both aircraft had burned off a significant fraction of their fuel loads,as they would when entering action in the escort role, and the P-51 was more reliable and available in greater numbers during the critical period of January to April of 1944.

The P-47 was always superior at higher alts, and with the paddleblade props & water injection narrowed the gap at medium alts. Once it's makers found a way to increase its fuel load and range, it too eclipsed the P-38, probably no later than May of 1944.

And both the Mustang and the Thunderbolt were vastly easier to master for combat; being an earlier technology, the Lightning was much more complicated and demanding than even the basic requirements of two engines compared to a single engined fighter.

In short, the P-38 was a great fighter in 1942/43, but it was only average by Allied standards NLT mid-1944. That is not to say that it wasn't competitive to war's end, but there were easier to fly, cheaper and more capable choices out there.

cheers

horseback

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-09-2009, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
It's more like that the technological evolution made it possible to design a plane that got an as good performance at half the price. The P-51 clearly did have qualities the P-38 could not match, so I don't see where the "not as good as" comes from.
It comes from my definition of better.

At the time the 51 came hit the scene the 38 bested it in every category except range, and after the inclusion of extra internal tanks it was right up there with the stang. Thus my definition of better is more of a gamers perspective than a real war definition of better. Where real life has to take into account the economics, logistics, training, maintenance, etc.

In short, gamer wise, the 38 was a better dog fighter than the 51 in the TnB since. Which is why I love the 38 in the game.

But, real world wise, from the onset of the war it was clear the air war had moved away from that WWI TnB style to a BnZ style where quality was not needed and quantity ruled the sky. Basically what is good for the game is not necesarly good for real life.

JtD
08-09-2009, 12:57 PM
It had never come to my mind before to try, but it is pretty much fun to shoot up 38's with 51's in game.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-09-2009, 01:20 PM
what ever floats you boat, AI is funny like that, but I prefer human pilots and shootin down 109G6s in my 38J

horseback
08-09-2009, 01:30 PM
At the time the 51 came hit the scene the 38 bested it in every category except range, and after the inclusion of extra internal tanks it was right up there with the stang. Thus my definition of better is more of a gamers perspective than a real war definition of better. Where real life has to take into account the economics, logistics, training, maintenance, etc. Please try not to confuse the game's oversensitive trim biotch Mustang FM with the the real thing's flying and fighting qualities. The Mustang was flat out superior to the P-38 for destroying enemy aircraft in real life.

Once the Mustang got the Merlin engine, it was more than a match for the Lightning in most meaningful ways, particularly as a dogfighter. Better all around vision even in the razorback version, comparable climb (without the fuselage tank, some contemporary AAF sources state that it was superior) and acceleration, vastly better dive and zoom (critical in the ETO, especially at high alts), and always faster.

Maybe it wasn't quite as nifty in a turn, but that doesn't seem to hamper the FW 190's reputation either; both the 190 and the Mustang have a better reputation for maneuverability than the postwar aerodynamic numbers would indicate.

Most pilots who flew both the P-38 and the P-51 in combat soon preferred the P-51, especially if they were taking the fight up past 25000 ft.

All the logistical factors pale in comparison to the fact that Mustangs were credited with more victories per sortie than Lightnings under the same conditions for the 8th AF in the early months of 1944. If the Lightning had been available in greater numbers, had similar victory credits and been more reliable, it would have pre-empted the Mustang, higher cost or not.

A lost, or even an extended war is more expensive than mere cash considerations.

cheers

horseback

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-09-2009, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Please try not to confuse the game's oversensitive trim biotch Mustang FM with the the real thing's flying and fighting qualities. Im not, I am basing it off of the real world performance tests preformed on both planes.

AllorNothing117
08-10-2009, 05:58 AM
I don't believe that the 1 38 was as expensive 2 51's or 47's. No way. I don't buy that. 2 enginse yes, more fuel: It's bigger and a had a longer range. Just cos it can carry more fuel doesn't mean that it was more expensive as it could travel a further distance no Anyway, it had fewer guns and the same amount of everything eles apart from 2 engines. I've never heard the 38 refered to as being like, mega expensive compared with the 51 or 47, or any other plane for that matter.

JtD
08-10-2009, 07:29 AM
P-38 134000$ decreasing to 97000$ as the war went on, P-51 59000$ decreasing to 51000$.

The P-38 was not designed as a mass production fighter. The P-51 was.

P-47 cost about 85% of a P-38, a P-40 less than half.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-10-2009, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by AllorNothing117:
I don't buy that.
As JtD pointed out it was more, but not double. But even if it was double, you got allot for it! Double the reliability with two engines thus double the survivability. Something that gave the PTO guys great comfort while flying over the big blue nothingness. And as I noted before, performance wise, the P38 did everything better or as good at the P51. All in all a better dog fighter TnB wise, its only real short coming ws it was not as cost effective as the P51. But that still didn't stop them from making the 38. As a mater of fact I think the 38 is the only US pre war plane that was still in production at the end of the war

M_Gunz
08-10-2009, 09:41 AM
Initial price does not cover cost to run and to maintain. P-38 kept on being more expensive, it is not a model on a shelf.

P-38 has a lower critical Mach than either P-47 or P-51. Sure, there are dive brakes on later models but that don't catch
the bandits diving away nor does it keep energy. Cockpit view is blocked to either side by the booms as well.

JtD
08-10-2009, 10:10 AM
If the P-38 did everything as good or better than the P-51, how come the 51 is considerably faster?

M_Gunz
08-10-2009, 12:24 PM
I think that there are those who will say the last P-38 model was as fast or faster. For instance the Wiki article
lists the maximum speed as 433 mph down in the info block while up above in the text you can see that refers to a
one-off prototype and the value coming from Lockheed. Any bets that the instrumentation was completely right?
Going once....

A number of experimental planes were canceled because they were not appreciably faster or better than the P-51.
None that I ever heard of were canceled because they were not better or faster than the P-38.

JtD
08-10-2009, 01:02 PM
433? That would be only 50 mph slower than a number I found for a late P-51.

But I was referring to service models, contemporaries preferably.

horseback
08-10-2009, 01:22 PM
Ash, I have to wonder about the sources of your information about the P-38.

The two engine comfort factor was almost entirely psychological; the Lightning's compexity often led to problems and aborts on long-range missions at a similar rate to single engine types, and it was significantly worse in the ETO. Its loss rate in the ground pounding mission was higher than the P-47s, and actually closer to the P-51's, not least because its planform made for a bigger target for AAA, and two engines provided twice the flammmables.

Pilot's field of view was quite a bit more limited than single engine fighters, as others have posted.

It did have a superior gun setup; all that firepower packed in the nose provided a much more intuitive aiming system and provided a huge punch at almost all ranges. It was designed to kill bombers, so a fighter straying into the line of fire was unlikely to survive the experience.

It had a wonderful sustained rate of turn, but this was hampered by the slow initial rate of roll; German pilots in the Med quickly learned to roll right, roll left and dive away when they had a Lightning on their tail. The inevitable result was that the Lightning driver would still be trying to reverse his roll right by the time the German aircraft he was chasing had already obtained an uncatchable lead.

That never changed, even with the later hydraulic assist to the controls, because the problem was inertia, not how much force could be applied to the ailerons.

Finally, the cockpit layout was a nightmare, especially if the pilot was wearing the heavy gloves required for high altitude operations over Europe. Just dropping the tanks and going from cruise condition to high performance mode when you spot the enemy about to bounce you required something like 6 or 8 separate actions that had to be done in the correct order.

It was NOT user friendly; even its strongest proponents agreed that it took a pilot twice as long to gain the proficiency needed to be an asset rather than a liability to a flight in combat. Most who flew both the Lightning and the Mustang agreed that the Mustang was a better fighter, and that they'd rather be in a P-51's cockpit in a fight, including Robin Olds.

In short, sometimes the 'book' values don't translate into the expected superiority, especially when the competition keeps getting better faster than you do.

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
08-10-2009, 02:31 PM
Interesting stuff guys, thanks!

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-10-2009, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Ash, I have to wonder about the sources of your information about the P-38.

The two engine comfort factor was almost entirely psychological; the Lightning's complexity often led to problems and aborts on long-range missions at a similar rate to single engine types, and it was significantly worse in the ETO. Its loss rate in the ground pounding mission was higher than the P-47s, and actually closer to the P-51's, not least because its planform made for a bigger target for AAA, and two engines provided twice the flammmables.

Pilot's field of view was quite a bit more limited than single engine fighters, as others have posted.

It did have a superior gun setup; all that firepower packed in the nose provided a much more intuitive aiming system and provided a huge punch at almost all ranges. It was designed to kill bombers, so a fighter straying into the line of fire was unlikely to survive the experience.

It had a wonderful sustained rate of turn, but this was hampered by the slow initial rate of roll; German pilots in the Med quickly learned to roll right, roll left and dive away when they had a Lightning on their tail. The inevitable result was that the Lightning driver would still be trying to reverse his roll right by the time the German aircraft he was chasing had already obtained an uncatchable lead.

That never changed, even with the later hydraulic assist to the controls, because the problem was inertia, not how much force could be applied to the ailerons.

Finally, the cockpit layout was a nightmare, especially if the pilot was wearing the heavy gloves required for high altitude operations over Europe. Just dropping the tanks and going from cruise condition to high performance mode when you spot the enemy about to bounce you required something like 6 or 8 separate actions that had to be done in the correct order.

It was NOT user friendly; even its strongest proponents agreed that it took a pilot twice as long to gain the proficiency needed to be an asset rather than a liability to a flight in combat. Most who flew both the Lightning and the Mustang agreed that the Mustang was a better fighter, and that they'd rather be in a P-51's cockpit in a fight, including Robin Olds.

In short, sometimes the 'book' values don't translate into the expected superiority, especially when the competition keeps getting better faster than you do.

cheers

horseback
As for my sources, no need to wonder, Ill tell you, they are top notch, in that they are tests preformed by the USAAF, not some cherry picked aerospace values, but the values the USAAF obtained during their acceptant testings. With that in mind, lets compare the rate of climb and time to climb of a typical 38J to the typical 51D. In that as we all know the rate of climb is analogies to excess power.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
alt(ft) 38J(fpm) 51D(fpm) dif(fpm) 38J(min) 51D(min) dif(sec)
0 4000 3600 400
5000 3960 3575 385 1.25 1.4 9
10,000 3820 2925 895 2.54 2.9 22
15,000 3550 2275 1275 3.89 4.8 55
20,000 3190 3050 140 5.37 6.6 74 (1min 14sec)
25,000 2665 2375 290 7.06 8.4 80 (1min 20sec)
30,000 1830 1700 130 9.32 10.9 95 (1min 35sec)</pre>

As you can see the 38 best the 51 all the way up to 30kft, it isn't until 35kft that the 51 starts to match the 38 and it isn't until 40kft that the 51 starts to out preform the 38. As most of you know, just flying at those high altitudes was a challenge, thus the real dog fighting altitudes where they mixed it up was typically below 25kft. Thus if I had to choose a plane to mix it up in, it would be the 38, espically in and around 15kft! Note the 38 has a 1275fpm better rate of climb! I don't know where most of the action was in real life, some claim to know, I have never seen any real data to support thier claims, but as far as the game goes most of the fighting online happens around 15kft.

As for the two engine comfort factor being almost entirely psychological, that is your opinion and your welcome to it, I just don't agree with your opinion.

As for ground attack loss rates, there are more variables at play there than the plane, plane size, etc, Thus I don't come to the same conclusion that you do. But again that is your opinion and your welcome to it, I just don't agree with your opinion.

As for pilot's field of view being limited, that is also subjective. Some pilots claimed it to be better, others said it was worse. I tend to see it the way Jeff Ethel described it, I wont repeat it all here, but know that he found it to be superior to other single engine planes.

As for hampered by the slow initial rate of roll, I would be willing to bet that 'most' who held that opinion were pilots that didn't have alot of stick time in the 38 and didn't use rudder to assist the roll, let alone adj the thrust/throttles. But that is just my opinion, and a hard one to provide supporting evidence in that it is not 100% clear from roll rate testing if rudder was or was not employed in those tests.

As for the hydraulic assist to the aileron controls, it may not have improved the initial roll rate, but it greatly increased the roll rate at higher speeds, such that it out rolled a Fw190 at high speeds

As for layout, that is your opinion and your welcome to it, I just don't agree with it, But even if true, I see this as something that would be a non issue as more time is logged in the plane, that goes for any plane.

As for most pilots preferring the 51 over the 38, I would love to see the statistics your basing that off of, because all the real P38 pilots I have had the pleaser to talk to never said that.

As for book values translating, well, that is a two way street! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
08-10-2009, 09:54 PM
Rate of climb is analogous to specific excess power **at the speed and altitude not to mention loading of the climb**,
as --all-- specific excess power is _at speed, altitude and loading_. But then the obfuscation (aka Smoke and Mirrors)
provided only includes the part that supports the P-38 as superior POV.

How much specific excess power does a P-38-J have at 25,000 ft going 400 mph level? Ya think it's more than a P-51-C?
That's with equal fuel, full ammo, no bombs or drop tanks, last serial makes of both models.

As for a lot of opinion... LOL! Trying to say that trained military pilots didn't know how to kick rudder to snap roll
is really trying to discredit them badly. Trying to say that workload doesn't matter with experience is pure BS, the
controls don't move just by thought and even the veterans had times when they wished for quicker and easier controls.

But typical we-know-who says the only things and opinions that matter are what we-know-who decides matters.


As for my sources, no need to wonder, Ill tell you, they are top notch, in that they are tests preformed by the USAAF, not some cherry picked aerospace values, but the values the USAAF obtained during their acceptant testings. With that in mind, lets compare the rate of climb and time to climb of a typical 38J to the typical 51D. In that as we all know the rate of climb is analogies to excess power.

Note clearly that the first sentence invokes the USAAF *acceptance* testing values but doesn't invoke them ALL, only
what's going to be used. It's stage magic, "keep your eye on my left hand as in that's all that matters". In the push
for persuasion, rhetoric replaces logic as needed.

Did the P-51D pass USAAF acceptance testing? Even, GASP, with such a poor climb rate compared to the P-38J?
Please, do tell how all fracking important those climb rates are! Please, was the P-51D as tested fully fueled for
a round trip to Berlin that no P-38 ever made? LOL, of course not, right? Because that would be cherry picking!

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-10-2009, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Rate of climb is analogous to specific excess power **at the speed and altitude not to mention loading of the climb**,
as --all-- specific excess power is _at speed, altitude and loading_. But then the obfuscation (aka Smoke and Mirrors)
provided only includes the part that supports the P-38 as superior POV.

How much specific excess power does a P-38-J have at 25,000 ft going 400 mph level? Ya think it's more than a P-51-C?
That's with equal fuel, full ammo, no bombs or drop tanks, last serial makes of both models.

As for a lot of opinion... LOL! Trying to say that trained military pilots didn't know how to kick rudder to snap roll
is really trying to discredit them badly. Trying to say that workload doesn't matter with experience is pure BS, the
controls don't move just by thought and even the veterans had times when they wished for quicker and easier controls.

But typical we-know-who says the only things and opinions that matter are what we-know-who decides matters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for my sources, no need to wonder, Ill tell you, they are top notch, in that they are tests preformed by the USAAF, not some cherry picked aerospace values, but the values the USAAF obtained during their acceptant testings. With that in mind, lets compare the rate of climb and time to climb of a typical 38J to the typical 51D. In that as we all know the rate of climb is analogies to excess power.

Note clearly that the first sentence invokes the USAAF *acceptance* testing values but doesn't invoke them ALL, only
what's going to be used. It's stage magic, "keep your eye on my left hand as in that's all that matters". In the push
for persuasion, rhetoric replaces logic as needed.

Did the P-51D pass USAAF acceptance testing? Even, GASP, with such a poor climb rate compared to the P-38J?
Please, do tell how all fracking important those climb rates are! Please, was the P-51D as tested fully fueled for
a round trip to Berlin that no P-38 ever made? LOL, of course not, right? Because that would be cherry picking! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for obfuscation, not sure what it is your trying to say there, you said a lot but IMHO didn't really say anything, care to give it another try?

As for what a P51C might or might not do at 25kft with different configs, I could only guess. But I prefer to stick with real world data, like I provided, and thus will leave the unsupported undocumented guess work to you.

As for discrediting pilots attempting to roll the 38, I did nothing of the sort IMHO. I simply suggested that someone with more stick time in a 38 is more likely to know how to combined the stick, rudder and throttle settings to obtain the best roll rate.

As for discrediting pilots workload in the 38, I did nothing of the sort, as a mater of fact I did just the opposite in pointing out that with enough stick time it will become 2nd nature to them.

As for we-know-who decides matters, not sure what it is your trying to say there, you said a lot but IMHO didn't really say anything, care to give it another try?

As for static magic, not sure what it is your trying to say there, you said a lot but IMHO didn't really say anything, care to give it another try?

As for did all P-51Ds pass USAAF acceptance testing? I could only guess. But I prefer to stick with real world data, like I provided, and thus will leave the unsupported undocumented guess work to you.

As for how important climb rates are, IMHO the rate of climb tells a lot about what a plane can do in a dog fight. Personally I think a 1200fpm rate of climb advantage over your opponent can be put to very good use. But that is my opinion, your mileage may vary, and clearly does. If you have some real world data to dispute that, I am all ears. If not, and you think a 1200+fpm rate of climb advantage is no advantage at all, well that is your opinion and your welcome to it, I just disagree with your opinion.

All in all if you have some real world data that disputes anything I posted, I would love to hear it. As for your ill tempered opinions vs. my opinions, well Im really not interested.

JtD
08-10-2009, 11:04 PM
So the interceptor design has a better maximum climb rate than the escort design. Wow. We all knew that.

But you still compared the best P-38 climb data with the worst P-51 climb data I know. Except for the 150 octane fuel tests.

And how does the better climb rate make the P-38 as good or better than the P-51 at everything, for instance faster?

na85
08-10-2009, 11:04 PM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">alt(ft) 38J(fpm) 51D(fpm) dif(fpm) 38J(min) 51D(min) dif(sec)
0 4000 3600 400
5000 3960 3575 385 1.25 1.4 9
10,000 3820 2925 895 2.54 2.9 22
15,000 3550 2275 1275 3.89 4.8 55
20,000 3190 3050 140 5.37 6.6 74 (1min 14sec)
25,000 2665 2375 290 7.06 8.4 80 (1min 20sec)
30,000 1830 1700 130 9.32 10.9 95 (1min 35sec)
</pre>

Tagert could I trouble you to provide a link to the source of this data? Without knowing the conditions the tests were performed under, this is useless.

Please and thank you.

M_Gunz
08-10-2009, 11:41 PM
Simple to know that at near top speed the P-38J does not have as much specific excess power as the not as near top speed
by a long shot P-51D, both at the same high speed. P-38 was not built to go as fast as the P-51.

As for supported claims, yeah sure that little table sans conditions tells more about the claimant than the planes.

JtD
08-10-2009, 11:42 PM
na85, this is the P-38 Jtest (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-67869.html) and this is the P-51D test (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html) AH referred to.

A very poor choice, imho.

M_Gunz
08-11-2009, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
na85, this is the P-38 Jtest (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-67869.html) and this is the P-51D test (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html) AH referred to.

A very poor choice, imho.

Could have used worse, no? The P-51D wasn't overloaded. Still, climb at under 200mph... do that in a furball
and you're a sitting duck!

na85
08-11-2009, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
na85, this is the P-38 Jtest (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-67869.html) and this is the P-51D test (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html) AH referred to.

A very poor choice, imho.

Thanks JTD

na85
08-11-2009, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by JtD:

A very poor choice, imho.

What makes it a poor choice IYO?

BSS_CUDA
08-11-2009, 05:45 AM
uhm, why are we comparing the 38J with the 51D???

you should be comparing the J with the B or C

Bremspropeller
08-11-2009, 07:15 AM
Even better, as the B and C were faster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JtD
08-11-2009, 09:26 AM
The selected P-51D a poor choice because they were using MS gear to a too far up altitude. They say it automatically changes at about 16000ft depending on the ram, but 16000 is too high for climbing (where you have very little ram). They then went on to test it in manual mode, and tested FS gear only from 17000ft up. They should have tested it down to about 10000ft, as it was done in other tests. There's no reason to have the climb rate drop below 3000ft/min at 15000ft. So, instead of 1275 ft/min difference AH gets so exited about, you'd have like 500ft/min.

The reason the P-38J is a poor choice is because it has been done with an early model that doesn't have the LE tanks. It was only with those that the P-38 could equal the range of the P-51 (on internal capacity only), unless you compare it to model that don't have the fuselage tank. If you were to compare models with equal range, you'd end up with a reduced climb performance by the P-38J or an increased one by the P-51. Depending on your choice, the differences are in the range of 200-400 ft/min for most of the altitudes. It is obvious that this will have a notable impact on the difference as noted by HA.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-11-2009, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Tagert could I trouble you to provide a link to the source of this data?
You allready managed to get one thread locked with this sillyness, are you trying to get this one locked too?

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-11-2009, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
So the interceptor design has a better maximum climb rate than the escort design. Wow. We all knew that.

But you still compared the best P-38 climb data with the worst P-51 climb data I know. Except for the 150 octane fuel tests.

And how does the better climb rate make the P-38 as good or better than the P-51 at everything, for instance faster?

and


Originally posted by JtD:
The selected P-51D a poor choice because they were using MS gear to a too far up altitude. They say it automatically changes at about 16000ft depending on the ram, but 16000 is too high for climbing (where you have very little ram). They then went on to test it in manual mode, and tested FS gear only from 17000ft up. They should have tested it down to about 10000ft, as it was done in other tests. There's no reason to have the climb rate drop below 3000ft/min at 15000ft. So, instead of 1275 ft/min difference AH gets so exited about, you'd have like 500ft/min.

The reason the P-38J is a poor choice is because it has been done with an early model that doesn't have the LE tanks. It was only with those that the P-38 could equal the range of the P-51 (on internal capacity only), unless you compare it to model that don't have the fuselage tank. If you were to compare models with equal range, you'd end up with a reduced climb performance by the P-38J or an increased one by the P-51. Depending on your choice, the differences are in the range of 200-400 ft/min for most of the altitudes. It is obvious that this will have a notable impact on the difference as noted by HA.

As for interceptor vs escort, both the P38 and P51 were 'pursuit' aircraft (hence the 'P') that could and were tasked with escort and climb to intercept missions. Of the two the P38 'pursuit' aircraft had a better climb rate than the P51 'pursuit' aircraft. As for range, neither plane started off with the range they ended up with, both had internal fuel added to them to increase the range. Thus your in error to think they were from conception only suited for one task or the other, and thus in error to think you knew that in advance.

As for how does the better climb rate make the P38 as good or better, as I have already stated, rate of climb is analogies to excess power. Typically a plane with more excess power is going to be better at the TnB type of classical dog fight, within reason. Granted the P51 was faster, but that had more to do with it's clear aerodynamic lines (read less drag) which also help in its range. Thus give the P51 enough time and it will walk/run away from a P38, but most dog fights didn't occur at or near the planes top speed. Slashing BnZ blind sided attacks yes (read boxing), but not TnB types of dog fights (read wrestling). But even if they were to take place near the top speeds, the 38 would again have the advantage over the 51 in that it could actually maneuver at those high speeds with its dive breaks, elevator authority and boosted ailerons (That enabled it to roll faster than a Fw190 let alone a P51). So faster is useful for the one pass blind sided slash attack and run tactics (read BnZ) and either plane could do each well, but should you get into a TnB style of flight, you will wish you have the 38 with it better rate of climb (read more excess power). And we have not even begun to talk about the other aspects of the 38 that made it a better dog fighter, things like centralized guns placement, counter rotating props that made it a stable gun plat form and gave it great stall charterstics, just to name a few.

As for a poor choice, that is your opinion and your welcome to it, there was nothing sinister about my choices, I simply picked two tests and did the comparisons. The point your missing is even if you use the P51 test your referring to, you will find the 38 still has a better rate of climb, now you and yours can poo poo a better rate of climb all you want, where you suggest that 500fpm is not a big deal. But IMHO that says more about your lack of understanding of what excess power means to a fighter in a TnB style fight. Only a fool would think that all it means is you can climb away at from the enmy at constant rate.

SILVERFISH1992
08-11-2009, 07:51 PM
Damn, please no more fighting!

You guys are acting younger then me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

dadada1
08-11-2009, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
Damn, please no more fighting!

You guys are acting younger then me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Been like this here for as long as I can remember. Some will argue that black is white and vice versa, either way they'll just wear you into submission rather than proving a point.

BillSwagger
08-11-2009, 08:43 PM
I'm not disagreeing, but what i don't understand is if the P-38 had a better climb rate, then why was it out performed in rate of climb against most of the German contemporaries??


At least, that was a suggestion that was made in referring to its preferred use in the PTO where its rate of climb was far better than most JPN planes.

It is also common knowledge that the 38 won the favor of more pilots in the PTO, where the same can be said about the P-51 in the ETO.

So something is very peculiar about the P-38s use in the war and why it wasn't used as frequently as the P-51 in the ETO.
Especially when you start showing statistics of climb rate and range, etc etc.

what is going on there??
Why these tests that mark the P-38 as superior, however, we still see more Mustangs on escort missions??

Why would the USAAF look at these tests and still go against them by choosing the Mustang?

dadada1
08-11-2009, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I'm not disagreeing, but what i don't understand is if the P-38 had a better climb rate, then why was it out performed in rate of climb against most of the German contemporaries??


At least, that was a suggestion that was made in referring to its preferred use in the PTO where its rate of climb was far better than most JPN planes.

It is also common knowledge that the 38 won the favor of more pilots in the PTO, where the same can be said about the P-51 in the ETO.

So something is very peculiar about the P-38s use in the war and why it wasn't used as frequently as the P-51 in the ETO.
Especially when you start showing statistics of climb rate and range, etc etc.

what is going on there??
Why these tests that mark the P-38 as superior, however, we still see more Mustangs on escort missions??

Why would the USAAF look at these tests and still go against them by choosing the Mustang?

Because the guys who were there at the time took ALL THINGS into consideration and made a decision in the context of the war. Are we any smarter or more informed than they were?

I very much doubdt it, more importantly we weren't there.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-11-2009, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I'm not disagreeing, but what i don't understand is if the P-38 had a better climb rate, then why was it out performed in rate of climb against most of the German contemporaries??


At least, that was a suggestion that was made in referring to its preferred use in the PTO where its rate of climb was far better than most JPN planes.

It is also common knowledge that the 38 won the favor of more pilots in the PTO, where the same can be said about the P-51 in the ETO.

So something is very peculiar about the P-38s use in the war and why it wasn't used as frequently as the P-51 in the ETO.
Especially when you start showing statistics of climb rate and range, etc etc.

what is going on there??
Why these tests that mark the P-38 as superior, however, we still see more Mustangs on escort missions??

Why would the USAAF look at these tests and still go against them by choosing the Mustang?
Simple, The TnB style of dogfight was the exception to the rule. From what I have gathered over the years from reading and talking to WWII pilots, most pilots were shot down and never knew what hit them. That is to say the blind sided slashing BnZ attack was the majority of what went on. Thus with that in mind, the P51 was more than capable of fighting that fight. But should you find yourself in one of those exceptions to the rule, you would wish you were in a 38! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Factor in the fact that the 38 had issues with the British fuel and you have your answer for the why the ETO didn't care for the 38 as much as the guys in the PTO. Also, rate of climb (excess power) is not everything in a TnB style of flight, but it is a big thing. The P38 shot down more japan planes than any other US plane, the two top aces in WWII flew the 38, and they both flew in the PTO. On that note the japan planes are typically considered to be more nible than the Luft jobs. So clearly the 38 was able to hold it's own with manavuralbe planes.

BillSwagger
08-11-2009, 10:48 PM
i doubt the big plane handled itself well in a TnB battle with the much more maneuverable planes in the JPN inventory.
What i do see is a plane with a stronger climb rate than those JPN planes, and two engines giving it both the added thrust (from slowing down in extended turning) so they could out accelerate most JPN planes before they could get caught in the burn. They still opted to hit and run with the 38.
The JPN calibers tended to be a bit smaller than what was being hucked around in the ETO, so i think it also had a better place in the PTO where the Mustang was likely to suffer heavily from a light caliber round into the engine, and not have the wear with all on a relatively longer flight back to base.

I think the Mustang had to carry some advantage over the P-38 for its preference in the ETO.
It could've just been size and appearance, and perhaps with the larger calibers it was better to not be hit at all than fly a larger domineering plane.

I think the Mustang was better suited in the ETO with its high speed turn performance, and possibly better adapted for taking on the German inventory.
The P-38 had a good ceiling and climb but lacked the ability to dive away safely to escape, which was a necessary asset to have in the ETO.

JtD
08-11-2009, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:

As for interceptor vs escort, both the P38 and P51 were 'pursuit' aircraft (hence the 'P') that could and were tasked with escort and climb to intercept missions.

But only the P-38 was built to answer a specification that explicitly called for an "interceptor".


Thus your in error to think they were from conception only suited for one task or the other, and thus in error to think you knew that in advance.

Don't claim to know what I think. You don't.


As for how does the better climb rate make the P38 as good or better,...

That's not the question.


Granted the P51 was faster...

Ok, so the P-38 was not better at everything. Your claim is wrong.


... the 38 would again have the advantage over the 51 in that it could actually maneuver at those high speeds with its dive breaks, elevator authority and boosted ailerons (That enabled it to roll faster than a Fw190 let alone a P51).

The P-51's high speed maneuverability leaves little to desired.


As for a poor choice, that is your opinion and your welcome to it, there was nothing sinister about my choices, I simply picked two tests and did the comparisons.

If you "just picked two tests", then you're putting way too much weight into the result of your comparison.


The point your missing is even if you use the P51 test your referring to, you will find the 38 still has a better rate of climb, now you and yours can poo poo a better rate of climb all you want, where you suggest that 500fpm is not a big deal.

I did not suggest that.
Overall the P-38J has a marginally better climb than the P-51. At some altitudes, it is somewhat better, at some altitudes slightly worse.


But IMHO that says more about your lack of understanding of what excess power means to a fighter in a TnB style fight. Only a fool would think that all it means is you can climb away at from the enmy at constant rate.

Wow, that's quick. Personal attacks at the end of the first reply to me.

M_Gunz
08-11-2009, 11:57 PM
Cut out the abuse Gunz,no need for it.

Waldo.Pepper
08-12-2009, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
i doubt the big plane handled itself well in a TnB battle with the much more maneuverable planes in the JPN inventory.


The real world is not a game. Real world pilots tended to avoid turn fights. A single pass was common on an ideally unsuspecting prey. Those who did make turn fighting their regular practice were less likely to be alive today to tell us about all the fun they had risking their life was.

Why was the P-38 favored over the pacific? The Pacific is a REALLY REALLY BIG Ocean. If your life was riding on the reliability of a single engine, wouldn't your nerves feel better flying a twin?

Despite what some here think about temperature and the theatre of operations, planes do have to sit on the ground and climb through weather to get to 30K altitude. During that time in Europe the pilot and plane suffered.

To restate; this and the reliability of a twin is why the Lightning fared better in the Pacific than elsewhere.

I don't understand why it is a mystery why a single aircraft type does better in one part of the world than another. Examples from the war are all too common. Brewster was a dog for all but the Finns. Surely all know about the P-39 in Soviet service rising to the occasion. The Lightning is another example of this. No big mystery.

Kettenhunde
08-12-2009, 03:31 AM
The high speeds obtained on the two original engines was reported because more speed data was available, less time was on the airplane and engines, and the surfaces of the airplane were less worn at the time this data was obtained.



It may be stated here that the performance reported cannot be obtained unless strict attention is given to maintaining a minimum duct leakage by keeping the entire duct system tight.


It is a brand new airplane and well maintained example. It will perform accordingly.


All power figures are based on a power curve from Eng. Spec. No. 162, dated 30 November 1942.

Typical of all flight testing. Most the data from the curves you see in the these reports is calculated from data points obtained in the ~30 flights conducted in the test testing 14 parameters at one CG position.

Most importantly the following data was not posted by the website:


Airspeed indicator and altimeter calibration (See Fig. 1 &2)


http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...p-38/p-38-67869.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-67869.html)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...-38j-67869-climb.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38j-67869-climb.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

HellToupee
08-12-2009, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
To restate; this and the reliability of a twin is why the Lightning fared better in the Pacific than elsewhere.


I would say it was more the fact it was facing much lower performance aircraft in the Pacific.

AndyJWest
08-12-2009, 01:48 PM
Guys, there's a simple way to settle this once and for all:

P-38 fanclub pay to build an 100% authentic replica.
P-51 fanclub do same.

Dogfight!

Now can we have some donations, and volunteer pilots...

SILVERFISH1992
08-12-2009, 01:49 PM
I'm a P-38 pilot... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-12-2009, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:

As for interceptor vs escort, both the P38 and P51 were 'pursuit' aircraft (hence the 'P') that could and were tasked with escort and climb to intercept missions.

But only the P-38 was built to answer a specification that explicitly called for an "interceptor".


Thus your in error to think they were from conception only suited for one task or the other, and thus in error to think you knew that in advance.

Don't claim to know what I think. You don't.


As for how does the better climb rate make the P38 as good or better,...

That's not the question.


Granted the P51 was faster...

Ok, so the P-38 was not better at everything. Your claim is wrong.


... the 38 would again have the advantage over the 51 in that it could actually maneuver at those high speeds with its dive breaks, elevator authority and boosted ailerons (That enabled it to roll faster than a Fw190 let alone a P51).

The P-51's high speed maneuverability leaves little to desired.


As for a poor choice, that is your opinion and your welcome to it, there was nothing sinister about my choices, I simply picked two tests and did the comparisons.

If you "just picked two tests", then you're putting way too much weight into the result of your comparison.


The point your missing is even if you use the P51 test your referring to, you will find the 38 still has a better rate of climb, now you and yours can poo poo a better rate of climb all you want, where you suggest that 500fpm is not a big deal.

I did not suggest that.
Overall the P-38J has a marginally better climb than the P-51. At some altitudes, it is somewhat better, at some altitudes slightly worse.


But IMHO that says more about your lack of understanding of what excess power means to a fighter in a TnB style fight. Only a fool would think that all it means is you can climb away at from the enemy at constant rate.

Wow, that's quick. Personal attacks at the end of the first reply to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for it it was build to answer a specification that explicitly called for an "interceptor", assuming you read the requirements specs and that word was used, it does not change the fact that they were both 'pursuit' aircraft (hence the 'P' in P38 and P51 and not 'I' as in I38) that were both used as 'escorts' and 'interceptors'.

As for don't claim to know what you think. I didn't claim to know what you think, I simply pointed out that you were wrong to imply the P38 was build with the idea of only being an interceptor and that the P51 was build with only the idea of being an escort.

As for that not being the question, I disagree, the was exactly the question.

As for the P38 not being better at everything and the 51s high speed maneuverability leaves little to be desired, that really depends on what you consider to be better. As it should be clear to you and yours now, a little better top speed is not what I consider to be better, especially in light of the fact the P51s roll rate at those speeds was much less than the P38s. At those speeds a Fw190 would have not problem following a P51 in a roll, but the Fw190 could not follow a P38 in a roll. Thus the P38 is better IMHO, in that I don't think flat out top speed, that may take up to 5mins to reach, is all that useful in a TnB or BnZ dogfight, unless your just running for home or planing on making one fast blind sided slashing attack. The the 38 IMHO is an all around 'better' dog fighter, and thus my claim stands.

As for putting too much weight into the results, I think not. The fact remains that any comparable comparison will show the 38 besting the 51 in rate of climb for the majority of altitudes.

As for you not suggesting that, I beg to differ.

As for personal attacks, there was nothing personal about it IMHO. I simply suggested that anyone who thinks rate of climb is not important may not fully understand what excess power means to a fighter, and that only a fool would think the only thing a better rate of climb can be used for is to try and climb away from your opponent at a constant climb speed. A lack of understanding does not mean your beyond learning (read stupid) it just means your not privy to all the information, and thus can make foolish statements. We all have gaps in our understanding of things, that is why we come to places like this to talk about them and learn from others. On that note, that is why I said a few posts back to another member that I am not interested in arguing about our opinions. That would be like arguing about how high is high. Thus my statements here (read opinions) are based off what I have learned over the years, others may have learned other things, or learned the same things only they interpreted them differently. Thus the way it works for me is to make a statement, and, if someone does not agree with it, Ill ask them if they have any real world data that supports their statement. In that if I am wrong about something, I want to correct it. If they provide it, great, if they don't, no biggie, but at that point we will just have to agree to disagree. The reason I ask for the source of their opinion is I want to see if it is a clear cut case, or, a case of them interpreting it differently. If the former, I can learn something, if the later, we will just have to agree to disagree. With that said, it is hard sometimes, because there is a lot of conflicting combat pilot opinions out there. That is to say for every spit pilot story that say he could out turn 109 there is a 109 pilot story that says he could out turn a Spit. Which is why I ignore most combat pilot accounts an stick to test pilot accounts and or test data. Rarely will you see me quoting something a combat pilot said, unless I have come across some other data that supports what he said.

So in summary, I think you and I are done here, in that you feel the better rate of climb of the P38 really does not say anything with regards to being better. Thus, we are just going to have to agree to disagree!

S!

BillSwagger
08-12-2009, 06:52 PM
http://www.skynet.ie/~cheese/GsocStuff/Kill%20it%20With%20Fire%20Aliens.jpg

AndyJWest
08-12-2009, 06:53 PM
Just to clarify my last post, when I said 'Dogfight!', I was proposing live ammunition.

Still any takers?

SILVERFISH1992
08-12-2009, 06:59 PM
Anyone with a descent set of brains would know that the P-38 is superior. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I think you guys should either dogfight or lock the thread, these arguments **** me off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

na85
08-12-2009, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
Anyone with a descent set of brains would know that the P-38 is superior. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Superior how? Would you care to back that statement up?


I think you guys should either dogfight or lock the thread, these arguments **** me off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

So don't read the thread then.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-12-2009, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
i doubt the big plane handled itself well in a TnB battle with the much more maneuverable planes in the JPN inventory.
What i do see is a plane with a stronger climb rate than those JPN planes, and two engines giving it both the added thrust (from slowing down in extended turning) so they could out accelerate most JPN planes before they could get caught in the burn. They still opted to hit and run with the 38.
The JPN calibers tended to be a bit smaller than what was being hucked around in the ETO, so i think it also had a better place in the PTO where the Mustang was likely to suffer heavily from a light caliber round into the engine, and not have the wear with all on a relatively longer flight back to base.

I think the Mustang had to carry some advantage over the P-38 for its preference in the ETO.
It could've just been size and appearance, and perhaps with the larger calibers it was better to not be hit at all than fly a larger domineering plane.

I think the Mustang was better suited in the ETO with its high speed turn performance, and possibly better adapted for taking on the German inventory.
The P-38 had a good ceiling and climb but lacked the ability to dive away safely to escape, which was a necessary asset to have in the ETO.
As for your doubt, the F15 eagle is bigger than a P38, and the F15 can out maneuver a 38 in most if not all categories. Thus bigger does not necessarily mean less maneuverable. That is to say there is more to it than the size of the plane.

As for much more maneuverable JPN planes, there are accounts of Thomas McGuire taking on the likes of a Ki43 in his 38 in a TnB style of fight. He was the 2nd top scoring USAAF ace in the PTO, so, I think that shows he had enough confidence in his 38 to do such things. Sadly he was a little too confidant the last time, in that he didn't even bother to drop his drop tanks before he engaged, and stalled during the process and crashed and died.

As for opting the run (read extend and use BnZ) that is the neat thing about the 38, it could do everything well! And since a lot of the JPN planes were a lot slower than the 38, it would be the smartest move to use your safest option, but that should not be confused with the notion that it couldn't op for the more risky TnB style of fighting.

As for the JPN calibers tending to be smaller. Most, like the Luft, had combination MG and cannon. Thus I don't see it that way.

As for thinking the Mustang had to carry some advantage over the 38 in the ETO, yes it did, must it was more economic advantage than a performance one. Other than the range which allowed it to penetrate a little farther or stay on target a little longer.

As for the Mustangs better suited for the ETO due because of its high speed turn performance, the 38 actually had a better roll rate and turn radius than the 51, Thus I don't see it that way.

As for the P-38 having a good ceiling the 51 actually had a better ceiling

As for the P38 lacking ability to dive away, safely, that is more myth than merit. The P38 could dive away from an attacker at any altitude without worry of puling out of the dive before hitting the ground. In that below 20kft the compensability was NOT a problem. The problem was if the 38 wanted to dive a little to extend (read not run but stay in the fight) above 20kft. At least until the advent of the dive flaps.

SILVERFISH1992
08-12-2009, 07:46 PM
It had 2x the range, 2x the firepower, 2x the power and 1 1/3xthe agility...

BillSwagger
08-12-2009, 09:21 PM
I'm starting to think the idea of this discussion is just to keep the debate going. (Never-Ending)




As for your doubt,


Comparing the 38 to an F15 is taking the argument to the extreme, however i understand what you are saying as far as maneuverability and size. Its still was not as maneuverable at the lower speeds the JPN planes fought at. (neither is an F-15)
It was a preferred tactic to BnZ. Pilots accounts can give graphic descriptions of turning and rolling, but this is still largely energy fighting out of an initial BnZ attack. So maybe we have different ideas of TnB.
i think its real advantage was the low speed acceleration that helped it regain advantage after a series of turns. I don't doubt the P-38 was better suited for turn fighting than the Mustang.

The P-38 in the ETO wasn't able to compete like the Mustang. I think the Mustang was better equipped to handle the German fighters. "Better at high speed turns", meaning...the Mustang holds its energy better through a series of high speed turns. Comparing turn radius is somewhat moot, because I'm talking about each planes V speeds. Both the 109 and 190 were both great high speed turners ( not the tightest turn, they make a 180 in shorter time), the Mustang is better suited because its V speed was in similar range.
Making a tighter turn (still has its benefits)....or..... being able to change direction with little or no loss of energy. Take your pick, but the latter prevailed in the ETO.

Initially the P-38 dive speeds were very unstable, and later improvements helped with the problems, but having dive flaps doesn't enable it to dive faster. They are actually part of an emergency procedure if the plane is caught in a tuck during a dive and the pilot needs to slow down.
This fact was why the pilot had to fly higher than its opponents, and was often at a loss for chasing down a 109 or 190 trying to dive away. (or even holding a flat extended turn at 400IAS at 30,000ft)

Its roll rate is also argumentative (probably why this discussion is still going on), because rate of roll and roll acceleration are two different things. Late war features might have held it in contention, but i think the bulk of its days in the ETO show its weak spots.

na85
08-12-2009, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
It had 2x the range, 2x the firepower, 2x the power and 1 1/3xthe agility...

Try again.

Quoted range for the P-51D is 1650 miles. The quoted range of the P-38L is 1300 miles.

Furthermore, even if what you said is true that hardly makes the P-38 superior in all areas.

JtD
08-12-2009, 11:03 PM
AH, just so I can be sure you're referring to this topic:

Please find my statement that suggests a 500 fpm difference in climb don't make a difference.

Actually, please just find my statement where I make _any_ evaluation regarding that figure.

I'm pretty sure I didn't do it, and this basically makes two thirds of your post pointless. The rest of your post is pointless for other, though similar reasons.

deepo_HP
08-13-2009, 12:24 AM
i must say, you have a very nice avatar there, ash_housewares. sam raimi and peter jackson have the same roots in ingenious splatter.
a pity, that none of you both - aka_tagert or ash_housewares - have anything similar in common with that avatar.

on topic:
besides that single chart, which has already been discussed in this thread, you haven't shown anything to confirm your repititious posts (in struggle for a new identity, it would have been a pleasure, if you had succeeded in getting another literally style... actually it seems, that you have only been able to leave out those sweat li'l '..' you used to set after each sentence - all the rest is better than a fingerprint)

back on topic:
in special, i would be interested about the better roll-rate - in general and in regard on speeds - and the 'myth' of a dive problem with the p-38.

as a statement of mine (which was, if i got it right, one of your paragraphs about lately), 'compensability' (guess, you compressability'?) or not (had been discussed lately in other threads) i highly doubt, that the p-38 'could dive away from any attacker'. do you have comparison dive-data?

anyway, don't try to hard finding data... the 'notion that it could op for the more risky tnb style of fighting' with 'jpn planes' (as a general classification, i guess) makes it obvious, that data are hardly the source of your arguments.
you said

Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
That is to say for every spit pilot story that say he could out turn 109 there is a 109 pilot story that says he could out turn a Spit. Which is why I ignore most combat pilot accounts
but nevertheless, in the next reply it reads:

Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
there are accounts of Thomas McGuire taking on the likes of a Ki43 in his 38 in a TnB style of fight.
so, i suppose, the gathering of tales is more the field of your passion.

ah, and if we are at it:
stating, that the superiority of the p-38 to the mustang is proven in it's climb-rate doesn't leave much of a chance for it against many others, does it? so, just for curiosity, how do you manage to 'shootin down 109G6s in my [your] 38J'?

Waldo.Pepper
08-13-2009, 12:51 AM
On topic - your welcome.

http://simjunkie.com/files/Manuals/combat_tactics.pdf

deepo_HP
08-13-2009, 03:15 AM
hi waldo.pepper,

thx for the read!

i am not quite sure, if it was a reply related to my post.
if so, i consider the document as a nice tactical manual on combat-situations. i had no doubts on mcguire's capabilities in flying and fighting with a p-38.
so the manual and his own success are about how to use the plane in it's characteristics by tactical means. good example of sharing one's experience by analysing and telling.

but sorry, if that is obvious... and you will know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

concerning my last post, i found this passage in the manual hintful:
'the only japanes fighter which can be outmanoeuvred by a p-38 is the twin-engined nick' (mcguire, p.17)

thx again!

Kettenhunde
08-13-2009, 04:27 AM
'the only japanes fighter which can be outmanoeuvred by a p-38 is the twin-engined nick' (mcguire, p.17)

I think the next line is even more telling...


you must keep to shallow dive, climb, or turn, there isn't a trick maneuver in the book that can't be done better in a Japanese plane than in a P-38.

All the best,

Crumpp

SILVERFISH1992
08-13-2009, 07:03 AM
The P-38 costs 2X as much as the P-51, equaling the P-80 and that has to have somthing to do with it.

If you think about it, the P-38 is more advanced, fire extinguishers, featherable props, air brakes, all metal construction and more...

na85
08-13-2009, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:

If you think about it, the P-38 is more advanced, fire extinguishers, featherable props, air brakes, all metal construction and more...

Fire extinguishers are nothing new. I seem to recall the TB-3 has fire extinguishers. Would you call that an advanced aircraft?

Single engined-fighters have no need for featherable prop, and the added weight of the feathering mechanism probably is not worth any benefit one could obtain by feathering the prop.

P-51 was all metal as well.

Additionally the P-51 had a lead-computing gunsight.

Still think the 38 was more advanced?

SILVERFISH1992
08-13-2009, 11:03 AM
The P-38 is advanced.

It was better then the P-51.

Now your going to ask me for facts, and I will give you some...

SILVERFISH1992
08-13-2009, 11:11 AM
I sense an argument and a ban and a locked thread... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

na85
08-13-2009, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
The P-38 is advanced.

It was better then the P-51.

Now your going to ask me for facts, and I will give you some...

Well you keep making statements and you can't back them up with anything.


I sense an argument and a ban and a locked thread...

You've been talking about locked threads for a while now.

SILVERFISH1992
08-13-2009, 11:17 AM
The P-51 was not all metal, it had fabric covered rudder and a wood cockpit floor.

The P-38 was also more advanced becuase it had tri landing gear and had a bigger nicer cackpit and could turn better then the P-51 when using different engin power.

It also could take more damage and the reason I said it had 2x the range is becuase somone changed it on wikapedia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

The P-38 had better high altitude performance too.

SILVERFISH1992
08-13-2009, 11:22 AM
P-51:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg

P-38:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-tactical-chart.jpg

na85
08-13-2009, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
The P-51 was not all metal, it had fabric covered rudder and a wood cockpit floor.


lol okay well I was referring to the fuselage but if you want to get technical I'm sure that there are SOME items on the 38 that are not metal either.


The P-38 was also more advanced becuase it had tri landing gear So did the P-39


bigger nicer cackpit and could turn better then the P-51 when using different engin power.

No offense or anything, but bigger cockpits and better turning performance doesn't really shout "advanced aircraft" at me.


The P-38 had better high altitude performance too.

The charts that you posted show that at 30000 feet, the P-51 is faster than the P-38

SILVERFISH1992
08-13-2009, 11:39 AM
Look, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you like a little child.

I'm 13 and its weird that you would want to start an arguement.

I'f I had to pick, I would choose the P-38.

Have a nice day, carry one...

na85
08-13-2009, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
Look, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you like a little child.


Then you shouldn't make inflammatory statements like this:


Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
Anyone with a descent set of brains would know that the P-38 is superior. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I think you guys should either dogfight or lock the thread, these arguments **** me off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

If you can't back them up.

This statement here:


I'f I had to pick, I would choose the P-38.

I have no problem with because it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But please don't insinuate that anyone who thinks the P-51 is superior is in some way mentally deficient or something.

S~

SILVERFISH1992
08-13-2009, 11:44 AM
I was being sarcastic in that sdtatement...

JtD
08-13-2009, 12:24 PM
lol okay well I was referring to the fuselage but if you want to get technical I'm sure that there are SOME items on the 38 that are not metal either.

The windows were made of glass.

na85
08-13-2009, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by JtD:

The windows were made of glass.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TS_Sancho
08-13-2009, 01:09 PM
NA85, the kid busted on you with a chart.

Even if he misread it you have to admit that is awesome.

Just when you think this forum might be getting stale......

na85
08-13-2009, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
NA85, the kid busted on you with a chart.

Even if he misread it you have to admit that is awesome.

Just when you think this forum might be getting stale......

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hehe, yeah it's pretty awesome

BSS_CUDA
08-13-2009, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by na85:

Additionally the P-51 had a lead-computing gunsight.
so did the 38, I don't remember who has the picture, either Gibbage, or Bollio but it CLEARLY shows the 38 with the K14 gunsight

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-14-2009, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
AH, just so I can be sure you're referring to this topic:

Please find my statement that suggests a 500 fpm difference in climb don't make a difference.

Actually, please just find my statement where I make _any_ evaluation regarding that figure.

I'm pretty sure I didn't do it, and this basically makes two thirds of your post pointless. The rest of your post is pointless for other, though similar reasons.

Sure no problem, it was right here.


JtD:
So, instead of 1275 ft/min difference AH gets so exited about, you'd have like 500ft/min.

That get exited statement of yours gave me the impression you were not excited about the 500fpm better rate of climb.

But to be honest it is hard to keep up with what your saying. Take this exchange for example.


summary:
JtD: And how does the better climb rate make the P-38 as good or better than the P-51 at everything, for instance faster?

AoA: As for how does the better climb rate make the P38 as good or better, as I have already stated, rate of climb is analogies to excess power. Typically a plane with more excess power is going to be better at the TnB type of classical dog fight.

JtD: That's not the question.

You ask me a question, I gave you the answer to the question, than you say that is not the question.

So, please forgive me if I misinterpreted something you said, as you can see it is hard to keep up with you what with all the reversals you do.

Now lets see if I can get this topic back on track, starting with another summary of the exchange between the two of us.


summary:
AoA: In short, the US didn't need a plane as good as the 38, the 51 was cheaper and more than enough plane to deal with what the axis was putting up.

JtD: so I don't see where the "not as good as" comes from

AoA: It comes from my definition of better.

Thus my definition of better is more of a gamers perspective than a real war definition of better. Where real life has to take into account the economics, logistics, training, maintenance, etc.

In short, gamer wise, the 38 was a better dog fighter than the 51 in the TnB since

And as I noted before, performance wise, the P38 did everything better or as good at the P51. All in all a better dog fighter TnB wise.

JtD: If the P-38 did everything as good or better than the P-51, how come the 51 is considerably faster?

Up to that point I had been talking about the qualities of the 38 that IMHO make it 38 a better dog fighter than the 51. Where I ignore the real world factors of economics, logistics, maintaince, etc of war, and just focus on the end result, i.e. the plane vs plane dog fight.

The list is is long and wide, reliability of two engines, centralized gun placement, counter rotating props that make for a stable gun platform and favorable stall charterstics, just to name a few of the historically obvious ones. The one I choose to focus on was the 38s better rate of climb, a useful factor you don't see talked about much. When faced with those facts, did you choose to talk about any of those qualities? No, you decided to focus on the one thing, what you referred to as a "considerably faster speed".

As for top speed, I for one don't see flying straight and level for a long period of time to obtain the top speeds as being all that useful in a dog fight. In that was the only way you were going to obtain that top speed. I for one would be more interested in the planes acceleration, sadly that was something they didn't have and easy way of measuring back in WWII. In WWII the two things they could test for easily was the planes top speed and the rate of climb. Where IMHO the rate of climb was a measure of the planes excess power, which in modern testing imply how maneuverable a plane is in a TnB style dog fight, and it's top speed, though based on excess power, says more about it aerodynamic clean lines. For example, some like to point out the fact that the P51's top speed was right up there with the 109s, yet the 109 had a much more powerful engine. But I digress, both tests were done to give the pilot an idea/feel for the over all 'performance' of the plane. Neither of which was intended to suggest the pilots should fly straight and level or climb at some constant angle in a dog fight. But that didn't stop some here from trying to imply that is what I was saying. So allow me to play their game for a moment. In that in the end I think these two extreme examples will highlight way I think rate of climb is more telling of a planes dog fighting abilities than its top speed.

CASE 1 The better rate of climb scenario. Some have suggested that if you try to climb away in a 38 in a straight line using your better rate of climb you would be sitting duck for a P51 chasing you. Ok, now lets take a closer look at it. To make this comparison fair, you have to have both planes starting out at near the same energy state, except for a slight separation in height due to the 38 being out in front of the 51. With both planes climbing at their best climb speed and thus best rate of climb. If both planes continue on this course the 38 would continue to widen the gap between them (up to 30kft) due to it's better rate of climb. Should either pull back on the stick, trading speed for height, they stand a good chance of going into a stall. In that typically the best rate of climb results in a best climb speed that is slightly above the stall speed of the plane. But, for a moment or two the P51 could do this to get his nose up for a snap shot. But after doing so he would have to dive a little to keep from stalling and thus widen the gap beyond what the better rate of climb was already widening the gap by.

CASE 2 The better top speed scenario. To make this comparison fair, you have to have both planes starting out at near the same energy state, except for a slight separation in distance due to the 51 being out in front of the 38 (but at the same altitude) and the slight speed advantage the 51 has over the 38. With both planes flying at their max speed. If both planes continue on this course the 51 would continue to widen the gap between them due to its better top speed. The difference here is the P38 does not have to do anything different to bring his guns to bar on the 51. Thus the 38 is not going to do something that will add to the widening of the gap. Thus the 38 could fire away at the 51 until the 51s speed advantage resulted in a separation that put him beyond the range/ark of the 38s bullets.

So, I hope all this helps you understand my point of view. In sort, I think rate of climb (excess power) is more telling about how well a plane can dog fight in the classical since, than its top speed that IMHO has more to do with it's clean aerodynamic lines than its power. If not, than we will just have to continue to agree to disagree. In that your opinion is not going to sway me from what I know. The only way your going to be able to do that is to provide some real world data that would suggest otherwise. Where real world data should not be confused with combat pilot's options, in that as I already pointed out, for every spit pilot that says he could out turn a 109 there is a 109 pilot saying he could out turn a spit.

S!

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-14-2009, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I'm starting to think the idea of this discussion is just to keep the debate going. (Never-Ending)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

As for your doubt,


Comparing the 38 to an F15 is taking the argument to the extreme, however i understand what you are saying as far as maneuverability and size. Its still was not as maneuverable at the lower speeds the JPN planes fought at. (neither is an F-15)
It was a preferred tactic to BnZ. Pilots accounts can give graphic descriptions of turning and rolling, but this is still largely energy fighting out of an initial BnZ attack. So maybe we have different ideas of TnB.
i think its real advantage was the low speed acceleration that helped it regain advantage after a series of turns. I don't doubt the P-38 was better suited for turn fighting than the Mustang.

The P-38 in the ETO wasn't able to compete like the Mustang. I think the Mustang was better equipped to handle the German fighters. "Better at high speed turns", meaning...the Mustang holds its energy better through a series of high speed turns. Comparing turn radius is somewhat moot, because I'm talking about each planes V speeds. Both the 109 and 190 were both great high speed turners ( not the tightest turn, they make a 180 in shorter time), the Mustang is better suited because its V speed was in similar range.
Making a tighter turn (still has its benefits)....or..... being able to change direction with little or no loss of energy. Take your pick, but the latter prevailed in the ETO.

Initially the P-38 dive speeds were very unstable, and later improvements helped with the problems, but having dive flaps doesn't enable it to dive faster. They are actually part of an emergency procedure if the plane is caught in a tuck during a dive and the pilot needs to slow down.
This fact was why the pilot had to fly higher than its opponents, and was often at a loss for chasing down a 109 or 190 trying to dive away. (or even holding a flat extended turn at 400IAS at 30,000ft)

Its roll rate is also argumentative (probably why this discussion is still going on), because rate of roll and roll acceleration are two different things. Late war features might have held it in contention, but i think the bulk of its days in the ETO show its weak spots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for you seeing what I am talking about, good to hear!

As for the rest, that is your opinion, and your welcome to it. But know that the opinons you provided in no way changed my view of the 38. But thanks for taking the time to respond!

S!

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-14-2009, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:
i must say, you have a very nice avatar there, ash_housewares. sam raimi and peter jackson have the same roots in ingenious splatter.
a pity, that none of you both - aka_tagert or ash_housewares - have anything similar in common with that avatar.

on topic:
besides that single chart, which has already been discussed in this thread, you haven't shown anything to confirm your repititious posts (in struggle for a new identity, it would have been a pleasure, if you had succeeded in getting another literally style... actually it seems, that you have only been able to leave out those sweat li'l '..' you used to set after each sentence - all the rest is better than a fingerprint)

back on topic:
in special, i would be interested about the better roll-rate - in general and in regard on speeds - and the 'myth' of a dive problem with the p-38.

as a statement of mine (which was, if i got it right, one of your paragraphs about lately), 'compensability' (guess, you compressability'?) or not (had been discussed lately in other threads) i highly doubt, that the p-38 'could dive away from any attacker'. do you have comparison dive-data?

anyway, don't try to hard finding data... the 'notion that it could op for the more risky tnb style of fighting' with 'jpn planes' (as a general classification, i guess) makes it obvious, that data are hardly the source of your arguments.
you said
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
That is to say for every spit pilot story that say he could out turn 109 there is a 109 pilot story that says he could out turn a Spit. Which is why I ignore most combat pilot accounts
but nevertheless, in the next reply it reads:

Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
there are accounts of Thomas McGuire taking on the likes of a Ki43 in his 38 in a TnB style of fight.
so, i suppose, the gathering of tales is more the field of your passion.

ah, and if we are at it:
stating, that the superiority of the p-38 to the mustang is proven in it's climb-rate doesn't leave much of a chance for it against many others, does it? so, just for curiosity, how do you manage to 'shootin down 109G6s in my [your] 38J'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
One thread has allready been locked due to this sillyness, thus if you want a reply from me your going to have to refrain from said sillyness.

S!

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-14-2009, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
NA85, the kid busted on you with a chart.

Even if he misread it you have to admit that is awesome.

Just when you think this forum might be getting stale......
Yup! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fork-N-spoon
08-14-2009, 12:40 PM
So far, all I've seen are Mustang supporters pulling out specially prepped North American tests to show how the Mustang's climb was equal to the Lightning. In my opinion, this is getting off subject.

For more than a decade, I've watched as myths about the P-38 have been spawned partly by anecdotal evidence, which is spotty at best, and mostly by computer pilots as they try and out debate others.

My favorite myth, "The P-38 suffers from roll inertia. It takes a few seconds after control input for the Lightning to begin its roll." In the dozens of videos that I've seen, the P-38 begins its roll the instant that there's stick input.

Back to the topic:

I simply do not understand why MTO units that flew as far, as high, and against the same enemy did as well as or better than other units equipped with P-51s and P-47s.

I was trying to find a post from three or four years back. I found the statistical records for 8th AF P-38 units that switched from P-38s to P-51s. The units did no better and there were more P-51s lost due to mechanical failure than P-38s. It appeared as though the only thing that boosted the units scores that switched from P-38s to P-51s was the month of November 1944. During this month it would seem that the Germans put up on last great effort. The month of November 1944 would see all ETO fighter units making record claims.

Anecdotal evidence: Hub Zemke took over the 479th FG while it was flying P-38s. He was in command during and after the transition. He is often quoted saying "Once we converted from P-38s to P-51s, our losses due to mechanical failure decreased." Here's my problem with pilot's statements; during Hub Zemkes brief stint as the C/O of the 479th, there were actually more P-51 losses due to mechanical failure than P-38s. It was a rather large difference something in the order of 3 P-51s lost for every 1 P-38 due to mechanical failure. I believe that it's mistatements like this one that perpetuate the rumors. Hub Zemke was lost in a P-51 while with the 479th. The irony in his often quoted statements against the P-38 in favor of the P-51...

The fact stil stands that MTO units did well flying the exact same missions as did the 8th AF. When the P-38s weren't shoe horned into being tied to the bombers and were left to free range ahead of the bomber formations, they proved very capable.

The lame duck P-38 stories all seem to have been spawned by the 8th AF. There's a lot of staticsical evidence that does not support the least credible source of evidence, lame duck P-38 anecdotal pilot's statements.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-14-2009, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Anecdotal evidence: Hub Zemke took over the 479th FG while it was flying P-38s. He was in command during and after the transition. He is often quoted saying "Once we converted from P-38s to P-51s, our losses due to mechanical failure decreased." Here's my problem with pilot's statements; during Hub Zemkes brief stint as the C/O of the 479th, there were actually more P-51 losses due to mechanical failure than P-38s. It was a rather large difference something in the order of 3 P-51s lost for every 1 P-38 due to mechanical failure. I believe that it's mistatements like this one that perpetuate the rumors. Hub Zemke was lost in a P-51 while with the 479th. The irony in his often quoted statements against the P-38 in favor of the P-51...
As for what Hub said, it only goes to show, even back in WWII there was alot of politics going on that didn't allways jive with what was actully going on. As you noted, the irony of it all is all too telling! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

deepo_HP
08-14-2009, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
One thread has allready been locked due to this sillyness, thus if you want a reply from me your going to have to refrain from said sillyness.

S! i don't know, which thread has been locked for what... sometimes they disappear too fast from the first page. if i have said anything which might be considered a reason for a lock, i apologise - it was not known to me.
if it had been labeled as 'sillyness' in that thread, i would have to find it.
if you just called it 'sillyness', i consider it inappropriate adressing!


for sure i don't 'want' any answer from you, since i replied to your before statements and questioned them, pointed to your contradictions or asked for data. if you don't provide any, i take it as you can't provide any. if you reply just to tell, that you won't reply, i take it as you can't provide any. i am fine with that...


i am sorry, that this reply of mine doesn't contribute to the discussion. however, i have been replied to with adressing a full quote of my previous post as 'sillyness'.

anyway, i won't interfere anymore with off-topic posts of interpersonal content.
in order to further follow this discussion, i nevertheless would like to ask for proper quoting:

Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
summary:
JtD: [...]

AoA: [...] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>who is 'AoA' referring to here?

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-14-2009, 05:26 PM
for sure i don't 'want' any answer from you
No problem, consider it done. As for how you take it, I could care less. Enjoy!

blairgowrie
08-14-2009, 06:20 PM
I could care less.

Careful ASH_HOUSEWARES. You are on borrowed time around here and it was comments like this that got you into trouble before.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-14-2009, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by blairgowrie:
Careful ASH_HOUSEWARES. You are on borrowed time around here and it was comments like this that got you into trouble before.
Note deepo_HP said


if you don't provide any, <span class="ev_code_yellow">i take it</span> as you can't provide any. if you reply just to tell, that you won't reply, <span class="ev_code_yellow">i take it</span> as you can't provide any.

Thus it was not a 'comment like that' by me as much as me repeating 'his comment like that' back to him to let him know I don't care which way he takes it.

blairgowrie
08-14-2009, 06:38 PM
I am not going to argue with you. You had your chance to bow out of this and you just had to come back with another comment.

Guess what?

Kettenhunde
08-14-2009, 07:20 PM
The P-38 suffers from roll inertia.

Physics...


In contrast, in a twin-engine airplane, both inertia and damping must be taken into account. A twin has a lot more roll-wise inertia (because it has those heavy engines mounted way out on the wing, and maybe tip-tanks also). You may notice that it does not respond as quickly to aileron deflection.

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/vdamp.html#@default417


So how does it fly. Actually much like a 414. Because there aren’t any engines on the wings, the roll inertia is less

http://www.ksql.com/myriad/testpilot.htm

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6254/p38rollcomments.jpg (http://img89.imageshack.us/i/p38rollcomments.jpg/)

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
08-16-2009, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by AH:
Up to that point I had been talking about the qualities of the 38 that IMHO make it 38 a better dog fighter than the 51.

I was thinking of the better combat plane. But then, elaborating this seems to have become a mood point by now.

Fork-N-spoon
08-16-2009, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-38 suffers from roll inertia.

Physics...


In contrast, in a twin-engine airplane, both inertia and damping must be taken into account. A twin has a lot more roll-wise inertia (because it has those heavy engines mounted way out on the wing, and maybe tip-tanks also). You may notice that it does not respond as quickly to aileron deflection.

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/vdamp.html#@default417


So how does it fly. Actually much like a 414. Because there aren’t any engines on the wings, the roll inertia is less

http://www.ksql.com/myriad/testpilot.htm

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6254/p38rollcomments.jpg (http://img89.imageshack.us/i/p38rollcomments.jpg/)

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I undrestand that a twin has more roll inertia, the fact still stands that in the dozens of videos that I've seen, the P-38 begins its roll the same instant that stick input is used. For those that doubt this, buy Roaring Glory's Warbird video with Jeff Ethel as the pilot, and you'll clearly see what I'm speaking of.

I too have America's Hundred Thousand, as well as 40+ book written specifically on P-38s and the men and units that flew it. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that there's usually statistical evidence to debunk the pilot's statements. The only time I give credit to anecdotal evidence is when there's stronger evidence around to corroborate the anecdotal evidence. For example, after making the switch from P-38s to P-51s, many pilots claimed that it took much longer to get to altitude in the P-51 as it did in the P-38. The pilot's manuals for both aircraft show that the P-38 had at least an 800 fpm climb rate advantage at all altitudes. I'm sure that somebody can produce a specially prepped P-51 test where the pony had no fuselage tank, but I'm speaking of run of the mill front line fighters no some one off test.

I'd also like to get back to the original topic. When P-38s in the MTO were permitted to range ahead of the bomber groups, they did as well as or better than units equipped with P-51s. In the MTO, the P-38 scored more air to air claims than did the P-47 and P-51 units. The P-38 units in the MTO flew under more primative conditions than did ETO units, it was colder in the MTO than the ETO, MTO units flew the exact same missions as did ETO units, and frequently flew longer distances than the ETO units all the while fighting the exact same enemy as ETO units; hence, I believe that there was a problem of command in the ETO, the lame duck stories are just that stories, and the Mustang arrived just as fighter escort doctrin changed. Therefore, the entire P-38 was a failure in Europe is a load of rubbish. Moreover, the last time I checked, Italy is part of Europe.

Xiolablu3
08-16-2009, 01:00 PM
I would think a twin engines INITIAL roll rate would be at a disadvantage when compared to a single engined aircraft.


Just my thoughts.

The_Stealth_Owl
08-16-2009, 01:05 PM
The P-38 has a better spiral climb then most single engined planes, on the game.

JtD
08-16-2009, 01:25 PM
Physics dictate that the roll begins as soon as aileron deflections starts, the question is how fast, and this is determined to a large degree by inertia. The P-38 did have deficiencies in that regard.

Tests indicate that a P-38J without boosted ailerons would need
2.0 seconds for a 90° bank at 200mph indicated. A P-51A is quoted at 1.8-2.0 seconds for the same thing, however comparable these tests may have been. So while the P-38 was no doubt slower than some single engined fighters of WW2, it certainly isn't generally outclassed.

BillSwagger
08-16-2009, 03:15 PM
roll the plane one way to 70 degrees, then immediately roll it the opposite way to 90 degrees.

I wonder what the times would be for that simple maneuver.


http://kazoku.org/xp-38n/articles/p38info.htm
This is a good overview of the plane.



"Turn

Without employing the MANEUVER flaps, the P-38 did not turn as well as most other US planes. It had the largest minimum turning radius of all fighters. For comparison, it's minimum turning radius was about twice that of the FM-2 Wildcat. The flaps helped decrease turning radius at the expense of speed. The MANUEVER flaps helped, but still did not make the P-38 into legendary dogfighter."


Roll

Generally, roll rate increases with speed. In early models, up to and including the J-20 production block, this trend held true until about 300 mph. Beyond 300 mph, roll rate became more of an issue of pilot strength, as the increasing force required on the control wheel required a lot of "muscle." Beginning with J-25, hydraulic boost allowed faster roll rates at speeds beyond 300 mph.

"Between 250 mph and 300 mph IAS, the rates were similar for both earlier and later models, and were approximately 70 - 80 degrees per second (4.5 - 5 second roll)."

he then lists all his sources

P-38 Lightning in Detail and Scale Part 1: XP-38 through P-38H, Bert Kinzey. Squadron/Signal Publications, 1998.
P-38 Lightning in Detail and Scale Part 2: P-38J through P-38M, Bert Kinzey. Squadron/Signal Publications, 1998.
P-38 Lightning in Action, Larry Davis, et. al. Squadron/Signal Publications, 1990
P-38 Lightning in World War II Color, Jeffrey L. Ethell. Motorbooks International, 1994.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning (Warbird Tech Series), Frederick A. Johnson. Specialty Press, 1996.
Peter Three Eight The Pilots Story, John Stanaway. Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1986.
P-38 Lightning Aces of the ETO/MTO, John Stanaway. Osprey Publishing, 1998.
P-38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI, John Stanaway. Osprey Publishing, 1997.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning (Production Line to Frontline Series), Michael O'Leary. Osprey Publishing, 1999.
Pilots Manual for Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Lockheed/US Army circa 1944. republished by Aviation Publications sometime in the mid 1970s.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Steve Pace. Motorbooks International, 1996.
America's Hundred Thousand, Francis H. Dean, Shiffer Publishing, 1997.
Fork Tailed Devil, Martin Caidin, iBooks, 2001 (original printing 1972).
The P-38J-M Lockheed Lightning, Profile Publications no. 106, 1966.
The P-38 Lightning, Pamela Reynolds and the P-38 National Convention, Turner Publishing Co., 1989.
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Warren M. Bodie, Widewing Publications, 2001 (first printing 1991).
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Edward T. Maloney, Aero Publications, 1968.
Comouflage & Markings: Lockheed P-38, F-4 & F-5 Lightning USAAF ETO & MTO 1942 - 1945, Ducimus Books Ltd
Fighting Lightnings, Michael O'Leary, Osprey Publishing, 1988.
Famous Aircraft Series: The P-38 Lightning, Gene Gurney, Arco Publishing Co., 1969.
P-38 Screamers: the history of the surviving Lockheed P-38 Lightnings, A. Kevin Grantham, Pictoral Histories Publishing Co., 1994.
P-38 Lightning: Restoring a Classic American Warbird, Jesse Alexander, Motorbooks International, 1990.
American Eagles: P-38 Lightning Units of the Eighth and Ninth Air Forces, Roger Freeman, Classic Publications, 2001.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning: A Pictoral History, Anthony Shennan, Historian Publications, 1968
Crowood Aviation Series: Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Jerry Scutts, Crowood Press, 2006.

BSS_CUDA
08-16-2009, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I would think a twin engines INITIAL roll rate would be at a disadvantage when compared to a single engined aircraft.


Just my thoughts. why??? would a single have to combat torque?? when the 38 had none.

in theory a single should roll better with the torque and slower against the torque. where the 38 would roll the same either way

BillSwagger
08-16-2009, 10:06 PM
i think the difference would be that the weight of the engines are out away from the center of roll. So rolling in one direction probably wouldn't be too far off from single engine fighters, but suddenly trying to roll the opposite way would mean that the plane would have to counter the inertia of those engines.

So thats where i think it would lose in the roll battle.

Fork-N-spoon
08-17-2009, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
roll the plane one way to 70 degrees, then immediately roll it the opposite way to 90 degrees.

I wonder what the times would be for that simple maneuver.


http://kazoku.org/xp-38n/articles/p38info.htm
This is a good overview of the plane.



"Turn

Without employing the MANEUVER flaps, the P-38 did not turn as well as most other US planes. It had the largest minimum turning radius of all fighters. For comparison, it's minimum turning radius was about twice that of the FM-2 Wildcat. The flaps helped decrease turning radius at the expense of speed. The MANUEVER flaps helped, but still did not make the P-38 into legendary dogfighter."


Roll

Generally, roll rate increases with speed. In early models, up to and including the J-20 production block, this trend held true until about 300 mph. Beyond 300 mph, roll rate became more of an issue of pilot strength, as the increasing force required on the control wheel required a lot of "muscle." Beginning with J-25, hydraulic boost allowed faster roll rates at speeds beyond 300 mph.

"Between 250 mph and 300 mph IAS, the rates were similar for both earlier and later models, and were approximately 70 - 80 degrees per second (4.5 - 5 second roll)."

he then lists all his sources

P-38 Lightning in Detail and Scale Part 1: XP-38 through P-38H, Bert Kinzey. Squadron/Signal Publications, 1998.
P-38 Lightning in Detail and Scale Part 2: P-38J through P-38M, Bert Kinzey. Squadron/Signal Publications, 1998.
P-38 Lightning in Action, Larry Davis, et. al. Squadron/Signal Publications, 1990
P-38 Lightning in World War II Color, Jeffrey L. Ethell. Motorbooks International, 1994.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning (Warbird Tech Series), Frederick A. Johnson. Specialty Press, 1996.
Peter Three Eight The Pilots Story, John Stanaway. Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1986.
P-38 Lightning Aces of the ETO/MTO, John Stanaway. Osprey Publishing, 1998.
P-38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI, John Stanaway. Osprey Publishing, 1997.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning (Production Line to Frontline Series), Michael O'Leary. Osprey Publishing, 1999.
Pilots Manual for Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Lockheed/US Army circa 1944. republished by Aviation Publications sometime in the mid 1970s.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Steve Pace. Motorbooks International, 1996.
America's Hundred Thousand, Francis H. Dean, Shiffer Publishing, 1997.
Fork Tailed Devil, Martin Caidin, iBooks, 2001 (original printing 1972).
The P-38J-M Lockheed Lightning, Profile Publications no. 106, 1966.
The P-38 Lightning, Pamela Reynolds and the P-38 National Convention, Turner Publishing Co., 1989.
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Warren M. Bodie, Widewing Publications, 2001 (first printing 1991).
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Edward T. Maloney, Aero Publications, 1968.
Comouflage & Markings: Lockheed P-38, F-4 & F-5 Lightning USAAF ETO & MTO 1942 - 1945, Ducimus Books Ltd
Fighting Lightnings, Michael O'Leary, Osprey Publishing, 1988.
Famous Aircraft Series: The P-38 Lightning, Gene Gurney, Arco Publishing Co., 1969.
P-38 Screamers: the history of the surviving Lockheed P-38 Lightnings, A. Kevin Grantham, Pictoral Histories Publishing Co., 1994.
P-38 Lightning: Restoring a Classic American Warbird, Jesse Alexander, Motorbooks International, 1990.
American Eagles: P-38 Lightning Units of the Eighth and Ninth Air Forces, Roger Freeman, Classic Publications, 2001.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning: A Pictoral History, Anthony Shennan, Historian Publications, 1968
Crowood Aviation Series: Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Jerry Scutts, Crowood Press, 2006.

With your wirting about the turn radius of the P-38 in comparison to other American aircraft, it appears as though you're partially quoting "America's Hundred Thousand." It appears as though you're simply using an Internet source; hence, you've only been told part of the story by a spotty and not very credible Internet source. Let's expand on what "America's Hundred Thousand" really said.

To paraphrase: With the maneuvering flap the P-38 could get on the P-47's tail in two turns or less and it was about equal with the P-63. About the P-63, it states: The P-63 was superior to the Mustang in all turns.

While you pointed out that the maneuvering flap could be used at the expense of speed, many late model American fighters used combat flaps. I'd like to point out that the P-38's flaps effected the most lift while causing the least drag of all American fighter type's combat flaps. Moreover, the idea of using flaps to effect a tighter turn is going to slow down any aircraft and in and of itself is all part of low speed air to air combat. Additionally, if caught low and slow, the P-38 had the best acceleration and climb in comparison to the P-47 and P-51.

We've not delved into climbing turns, and I'm not even sure why we're talking about turning. It's a fact that most aircraft that were dispated by other aircraft were flying straight and completely unaware that they were even being shot at until after the fact, so it's a moot point.

To elaborate on entire roll inertia rumor. Nobody has provided any proof that it existed to the degree with which it's talked about in a few books. I've only seen whiz bang rocket scientist types use their ping pong tidily slide rule boy genious mathematical calculations baffle their audiences with their academic skills. To this I say, buy a video and watch it... I mean, it's not as if they're not exactly expensive. While many have bandied the weight of the two P-38 engines causes the P-38 to pause a few seconds before it rolls all about the Internet over the years, nobody has ever thought about pointing out the fact that the P-38 had a long wing, therefore, greater leverage... While I'm quite sure that at low speed the P-38 did indeed have a poor rate of roll, this seemed to not affect the aircraft in any theater other than the ETO... Again we're back on the ETO and the rumor mill that generated loads of myths... In the book "Victory Roll," it speaks about pilots using asymmetrical thrust and rudder input in early P-38 models to effect a maneuver that no single engine aircraft could follow. Much like the way the Harrier uses vectored thrust.

The link that you've provided only gives partial information and omits quite a lot of pertinent facts. Of the data provided, it doesn't expand on the conditions with which the data was obtained. For example, the story about the recently restored P-38 he observed on take off. Nothing is said about how many inches were pulled on take off, what rpm was used, or what the weight of the aircraft was. I could nit pick at least 25% of his page to death, but I feel you get the picture. Internet sources are not very credible due to the fact that there's no well know publisher's, writer's, or editor's reputation at risk.

My sources included everything that David C. Copley has used and quite a lot more.

Fork-N-spoon
08-17-2009, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
roll the plane one way to 70 degrees, then immediately roll it the opposite way to 90 degrees.

I wonder what the times would be for that simple maneuver.


http://kazoku.org/xp-38n/articles/p38info.htm
This is a good overview of the plane.



"Turn

Without employing the MANEUVER flaps, the P-38 did not turn as well as most other US planes. It had the largest minimum turning radius of all fighters. For comparison, it's minimum turning radius was about twice that of the FM-2 Wildcat. The flaps helped decrease turning radius at the expense of speed. The MANUEVER flaps helped, but still did not make the P-38 into legendary dogfighter."


Roll

Generally, roll rate increases with speed. In early models, up to and including the J-20 production block, this trend held true until about 300 mph. Beyond 300 mph, roll rate became more of an issue of pilot strength, as the increasing force required on the control wheel required a lot of "muscle." Beginning with J-25, hydraulic boost allowed faster roll rates at speeds beyond 300 mph.

"Between 250 mph and 300 mph IAS, the rates were similar for both earlier and later models, and were approximately 70 - 80 degrees per second (4.5 - 5 second roll)."

he then lists all his sources

P-38 Lightning in Detail and Scale Part 1: XP-38 through P-38H, Bert Kinzey. Squadron/Signal Publications, 1998.
P-38 Lightning in Detail and Scale Part 2: P-38J through P-38M, Bert Kinzey. Squadron/Signal Publications, 1998.
P-38 Lightning in Action, Larry Davis, et. al. Squadron/Signal Publications, 1990
P-38 Lightning in World War II Color, Jeffrey L. Ethell. Motorbooks International, 1994.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning (Warbird Tech Series), Frederick A. Johnson. Specialty Press, 1996.
Peter Three Eight The Pilots Story, John Stanaway. Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1986.
P-38 Lightning Aces of the ETO/MTO, John Stanaway. Osprey Publishing, 1998.
P-38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI, John Stanaway. Osprey Publishing, 1997.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning (Production Line to Frontline Series), Michael O'Leary. Osprey Publishing, 1999.
Pilots Manual for Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Lockheed/US Army circa 1944. republished by Aviation Publications sometime in the mid 1970s.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Steve Pace. Motorbooks International, 1996.
America's Hundred Thousand, Francis H. Dean, Shiffer Publishing, 1997.
Fork Tailed Devil, Martin Caidin, iBooks, 2001 (original printing 1972).
The P-38J-M Lockheed Lightning, Profile Publications no. 106, 1966.
The P-38 Lightning, Pamela Reynolds and the P-38 National Convention, Turner Publishing Co., 1989.
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Warren M. Bodie, Widewing Publications, 2001 (first printing 1991).
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Edward T. Maloney, Aero Publications, 1968.
Comouflage & Markings: Lockheed P-38, F-4 & F-5 Lightning USAAF ETO & MTO 1942 - 1945, Ducimus Books Ltd
Fighting Lightnings, Michael O'Leary, Osprey Publishing, 1988.
Famous Aircraft Series: The P-38 Lightning, Gene Gurney, Arco Publishing Co., 1969.
P-38 Screamers: the history of the surviving Lockheed P-38 Lightnings, A. Kevin Grantham, Pictoral Histories Publishing Co., 1994.
P-38 Lightning: Restoring a Classic American Warbird, Jesse Alexander, Motorbooks International, 1990.
American Eagles: P-38 Lightning Units of the Eighth and Ninth Air Forces, Roger Freeman, Classic Publications, 2001.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning: A Pictoral History, Anthony Shennan, Historian Publications, 1968
Crowood Aviation Series: Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Jerry Scutts, Crowood Press, 2006.

With your wirting about the turn radius of the P-38 in comparison to other American aircraft, it appears as though you're partially quoting "America's Hundred Thousand." It seems as though you're simply using an Internet source; hence, you've only been told part of the story by a spotty and not very credible Internet source. Let's expand on what "America's Hundred Thousand" really said.

To paraphrase: With the maneuvering flap the P-38 could get on the P-47's tail in two turns or less and it was about equal with the P-63. About the P-63, it states: The P-63 was superior to the Mustang in all turns.

While you pointed out that the maneuvering flap could be used at the expense of speed, many late model American fighters used combat flaps. I'd like to point out that the P-38's flaps effected the most lift while causing the least drag of all American fighter type's combat flaps. Moreover, the idea of using flaps to effect a tighter turn is going to slow down any aircraft and in and of itself is all part of low speed air to air combat. Additionally, if caught low and slow, the P-38 had the best acceleration and climb in comparison to the P-47 and P-51.

We've not delved into climbing turns, and I'm not even sure why we're talking about turning. It's a fact that most aircraft that were dispated by other aircraft were flying straight and completely unaware that they were even being shot at until after the fact, so it's a moot point.

To elaborate on entire roll inertia rumor. Nobody has provided any proof that it existed to the degree with which it's talked about in a few books. I've only seen whiz bang rocket scientist types use their ping pong tidily slide rule boy genious mathematical calculations baffle their audiences with their academic skills. To this I say, buy a video and watch it... I mean, it's not as if they're not exactly expensive. While many have bandied the weight of the two P-38 engines causes the P-38 to pause a few seconds before it rolls all about the Internet over the years, nobody has ever thought about pointing out the fact that the P-38 had a long wing, therefore, greater leverage... While I'm quite sure that at low speed the P-38 did indeed have a poor rate of roll, this seemed to not affect the aircraft in any theater other than the ETO... Again we're back on the ETO and the rumor mill that generated loads of myths... In the book "Victory Roll," it speaks about pilots using asymmetrical thrust and rudder input in early P-38 models to effect a maneuver that no single engine aircraft could follow. Much like the way the Harrier uses vectored thrust.

The link that you've provided only gives partial information and omits quite a lot of pertinent facts. Of the data provided, it doesn't expand on the conditions with which the data was obtained. For example, the story about the recently restored P-38 he observed on take off. Nothing is said about how many inches were pulled on take off, what rpm was used, or what the weight of the aircraft was. I could nit pick at least 25% of his page to death, but I feel you get the picture. Internet sources are not very credible due to the fact that there's no well know publisher's, writer's, or editor's reputation at risk.

My sources included everything that David C. Copley has used and quite a lot more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JtD
08-17-2009, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
the P-38 had a long wing, therefore, greater leverage...

And bombers even more so. Doesn't make them great at rolling, does it?

M_Gunz
08-17-2009, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
My favorite myth, "The P-38 suffers from roll inertia. It takes a few seconds after control input for the Lightning to begin its roll." In the dozens of videos that I've seen, the P-38 begins its roll the instant that there's stick input.

For the ones with hydraulic ailerons, yes there is some delay with hydraulics.

BillSwagger
08-17-2009, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
The link that you've provided only gives partial information and omits quite a lot of pertinent facts. Of the data provided, it doesn't expand on the conditions with which the data was obtained. For example, the story about the recently restored P-38 he observed on take off. Nothing is said about how many inches were pulled on take off, what rpm was used, or what the weight of the aircraft was. I could nit pick at least 25% of his page to death, but I feel you get the picture. Internet sources are not very credible due to the fact that there's no well know publisher's, writer's, or editor's reputation at risk.

My sources included everything that David C. Copley has used and quite a lot more.

i thought the page i quoted from gave a broad un-biased over view of the plane and sited plenty of sources ranging from the books i posted, as well as videos, magazines, pilot interviews etc.
So if you want to bash his credibility then why should I listen to you.

I'm sure with the sources sited there is much more to be said, and that you can probably make more arguments on the subjects of turning, rolling, and acceleration. Copley leaves all the argumentative information at the door, and tells you how certain things worked and functioned on the plane, and what performance was to be expected by these functions.
I think the article is brief and its intentions were to give an accurate picture for virtual modeling.
I don't think its intent was to argue turn radius or maneuverability other than to state simple facts.

Fork-N-spoon
08-18-2009, 12:10 AM
This is radio clash on pirate satelite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-t52zc8Ex4

M_Gunz
08-18-2009, 01:07 AM
Bomb the Casbah?

Fork-N-spoon
08-18-2009, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
the P-38 had a long wing, therefore, greater leverage...

And bombers even more so. Doesn't make them great at rolling, does it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buy the video and you'll see that there's no roll delay and or pause after control input was used.

Big K, or anybody out there that has the Jeff Ethell video, and you back me up on what I'm saying?

Fork-N-spoon
08-18-2009, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
The link that you've provided only gives partial information and omits quite a lot of pertinent facts. Of the data provided, it doesn't expand on the conditions with which the data was obtained. For example, the story about the recently restored P-38 he observed on take off. Nothing is said about how many inches were pulled on take off, what rpm was used, or what the weight of the aircraft was. I could nit pick at least 25% of his page to death, but I feel you get the picture. Internet sources are not very credible due to the fact that there's no well know publisher's, writer's, or editor's reputation at risk.

My sources included everything that David C. Copley has used and quite a lot more.

i thought the page i quoted from gave a broad un-biased over view of the plane and sited plenty of sources ranging from the books i posted, as well as videos, magazines, pilot interviews etc.
So if you want to bash his credibility then why should I listen to you.

I'm sure with the sources sited there is much more to be said, and that you can probably make more arguments on the subjects of turning, rolling, and acceleration. Copley leaves all the argumentative information at the door, and tells you how certain things worked and functioned on the plane, and what performance was to be expected by these functions.
I think the article is brief and its intentions were to give an accurate picture for virtual modeling.
I don't think its intent was to argue turn radius or maneuverability other than to state simple facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's wrong with my calling his credibility on the carpet? The Internet author gave spotty and incomplete data; hence, Internet sources aren't very credible is all that I'm saying. I'm not bashing him, I'm simply pointing out some facts, and I'm adding to his incomplete data from the very same source that he's quoting.

na85
08-18-2009, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:

Buy the video and you'll see that there's no roll delay and or pause after control input was used.

You're obsessed with this roll delay business. JtD is not trying to tell you that a roll delay existed. What he's saying is that the 38's longer wing does not necessarily make it roll fast, similar to how the extremely long wings on a B17 do not make the B17 roll very fast.

Fork-N-spoon
08-18-2009, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
My favorite myth, "The P-38 suffers from roll inertia. It takes a few seconds after control input for the Lightning to begin its roll." In the dozens of videos that I've seen, the P-38 begins its roll the instant that there's stick input.


For the ones with hydraulic ailerons, yes there is some delay with hydraulics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you come up with this? There's delay simply because it's hydraulic? Buy the video, and you'll see that you're mistaken is all that I have to say.

M_Gunz
08-18-2009, 01:45 PM
I "come up with this" from attending aircraft systems schools over 20 years ago as part of a coding job. I have
experience as well as advice from experts during training to make teaching machines for systems training. What do
you base your ideas on? Watching video?

The difference between flying a non-hydraulic controls Lear and a hydraulic controls anything else is amazing as to
the quickness of response. OF COURSE the hydraulic controls surfaces START moving IMMEDIATELY -- DUH! But they do
not move as fast, the delay is somewhat like IL2 trim as a matter of fact. I know this from REAL EXPERIENCE, not
just being TOLD or watching a video. BTW, I do have the Roaring Glory P-38 video though I can't remember if the
one Ethel flew has the hydraulic boost ailerons or not, I'd have to check and while I'm at it I'll review the P-51
episode just to get his words on that plane since you think so highly of his opinion.

Hey, maybe you should ask people who fly different planes with either hydraulics or cables and cranks just to get
some more info. Those courses I took were for jet pilots with 800 hours MINIMUM and they did answer my questions
as did the instructors and my boss/CEO. The difference in response is very noticeable.

After that you should perhaps find out HOW hydraulic controls work. Or perhaps you can try to tell that a P-38 from
the 1940's has a more capable hydraulic system than a modern twin engine corporate jet with many times the carrying
capacity and available power to run that system. Go ahead, I like extreme jokes!

BTW, when you saw your P-38 videos did you see ANY side by side tests of speed? Two planes flying formation or
coordinated maneuvers do not count, the one with quicker response just keeps in line with the other.

Kettenhunde
08-18-2009, 04:28 PM
What do
you base your ideas on? Watching video?


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

BillSwagger
08-18-2009, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
What's wrong with my calling his credibility on the carpet? The Internet author gave spotty and incomplete data; hence, Internet sources aren't very credible is all that I'm saying. I'm not bashing him, I'm simply pointing out some facts, and I'm adding to his incomplete data from the very same source that he's quoting.

I'm not wanting to debate the mans credibility, it is very argumentative and really comes down to what your opinion is on his presentation and sources. I don't agree with every single thing he is stating myself, but the meat of his article seems to pertain more to the discussion here.
You have no more credibility than he does, unless your about to throw some credentials at me that show you've actually flown a P-38 in combat.

I think the bottom line with the 38 is that it had a good rate of climb, and better low end acceleration. Those who want to revel in fantasy about its turn ability go right ahead. I give it more credit for its acceleration where when in turn fights would have a greater ability in regaining speed.
Its maneuver flaps were necessary for it to have a decent turn radius. With out them it was one of the worse turning planes in the entire US fighter inventory.
The great ingenuity of those flaps also allowed them to be deployed in such a way to allow max lift and minimal drag. Remember that other planes didn't need flaps to have a decent turning ability, so they could turn with no added drag. Although, if they deployed a small degree of flaps they could reduce their turn radius in the same way, but these planes would encounter more drag when compared to the 38 design.
This might be where the perception that the 38 was a good turn fighter comes from.

It has a good rate of roll, similar to the P-47, but its roll response is what comes into question.

na85
08-18-2009, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:

The great ingenuity of those flaps also allowed them to be deployed in such a way to allow max lift and minimal drag. Remember that other planes didn't need flaps to have a decent turning ability, so they could turn with no added drag. Although, if they deployed a small degree of flaps they could reduce their turn radius in the same way, but these planes would encounter more drag when compared to the 38 design.

This sounds pretty suspect.

Edit: never mind, I misread this quote

The_Stealth_Owl
08-18-2009, 05:56 PM
Dont make me bring out a chart... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

na85
08-18-2009, 06:08 PM
If you can produce a chart that illustrates how flaps on the P-38 generate more lift with less drag than those on other aircraft, then please do.

BillSwagger
08-18-2009, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:

The great ingenuity of those flaps also allowed them to be deployed in such a way to allow max lift and minimal drag. Remember that other planes didn't need flaps to have a decent turning ability, so they could turn with no added drag. Although, if they deployed a small degree of flaps they could reduce their turn radius in the same way, but these planes would encounter more drag when compared to the 38 design.

This sounds pretty suspect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not to say the flaps had no added drag, however the fowler design allowed for more lift with less drag when compared to other airplane designs.

http://kazoku.org/xp-38n/articles/p38fowler.gif

They opened slightly under the wing. If the pilot needed more flaps for landing or takeoff, they would extended out on rails as they lowered.
This design is recognized as being the best for lift by comparison.

you can also look here:

http://www.cheffers.co.uk/flaps1.GIF

WTE_Galway
08-18-2009, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:

The great ingenuity of those flaps also allowed them to be deployed in such a way to allow max lift and minimal drag. Remember that other planes didn't need flaps to have a decent turning ability, so they could turn with no added drag. Although, if they deployed a small degree of flaps they could reduce their turn radius in the same way, but these planes would encounter more drag when compared to the 38 design.

This sounds pretty suspect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Suspect?

The P38 used fowler flaps ...

ADVANTAGE ... more lift with only a slight drag increase compared to "conventional" flaps.

DISADVANTAGE ... heavy as all cr@p and complicated, expensive to manufacturer and prone to have more problems such as jamming and so forth in the field compared to conventional flaps.


While we are on the topic of oddities ...

The P38 has counter-rotating props that turn the "wrong way" compared to normal counter-rotating props. This according to Kelly was done to make it a more stable firing platform.

A side effect of this is that under asymmetric thrust the engine torque works with rather than against the aircraft weight meaning the plane will tend to rotate into a bank far more quickly than with a "normal" prop setup. AFAIK this is not modelled in IL2.

The_Stealth_Owl
08-18-2009, 06:35 PM
From what I read(correct me if I'm qrong) the P-38 can handle more Gs then the P-51, but the P-38s airframe "bends" in turns so here you go:

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt138/SILVERFISH1992/energy1b.jpg

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt138/SILVERFISH1992/energy2-p51.gif

na85
08-18-2009, 06:36 PM
I'm sorry, I misinterpreted what was written.

na85
08-18-2009, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
From what I read(correct me if I'm qrong) the P-38 can handle more Gs then the P-51, but the P-38s airframe "bends" in turns so here you go:

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt138/SILVERFISH1992/energy1b.jpg

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt138/SILVERFISH1992/energy2-p51.gif

That's not even remotely what I was looking for but thanks all the same.

The_Stealth_Owl
08-18-2009, 06:37 PM
Sorry I cant get a bigger chart but I will get more... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
08-18-2009, 06:47 PM
"For a general combination of climb, range, speed, and altitude and fire power, the P-38 is the best production line fighter to date at this station. Types teted include the P-47, P-51, P-40 and P-39."


Read from this site:

Click here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html)

M_Gunz
08-18-2009, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
From what I read(correct me if I'm qrong) the P-38 can handle more Gs then the P-51, but the P-38s airframe "bends" in turns so here you go:

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt138/SILVERFISH1992/energy1b.jpg

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt138/SILVERFISH1992/energy2-p51.gif

First - those are Warbirds Arena GAME charts.

Second - both show the upper limit a bit below 7 G's which is the sustained PILOT limit.

BillSwagger
08-18-2009, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
"For a general combination of climb, range, speed, and altitude and fire power, the P-38 is the best production line fighter to date at this station. Types tested include the P-47, P-51, P-40 and P-39."

Click here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html)


cool, more numbers, but at that stage the 38's usefulness as a fighter was limited by compressibility, and above 300IAS the aileron controls were very, very heavy.

JtD
08-18-2009, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
"For a general combination of climb, range, speed, and altitude and fire power, the P-38 is the best production line fighter to date at this station. Types teted include the P-47, P-51, P-40 and P-39."

A P-47C1, P-51A, P-40F and P-39D-1.

M_Gunz
08-18-2009, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
"For a general combination of climb, range, speed, and altitude and fire power, the P-38 is the best production line fighter to date at this station. Types tested include the P-47, P-51, P-40 and P-39."

Click here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html)


cool, more numbers, but at that stage the 38's usefulness as a fighter was limited by compressibility, and above 300IAS the aileron controls were very, very heavy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's when they added the aileron-boost hydraulics, I wonder how much they weighed?
Why they are not as fast as direct linkages; the pump only works -so- fast, the line diameters are small and pistons are bigger.

PS -- JtD... good spot! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Scorch! Pow! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

BSS_CUDA
08-19-2009, 06:32 AM
there is NO DELAY with hydraulics

hydraulic fluid under pressure does not compress,there by it acts as a solid unit much like a cable or rod but with much more power. much like the brake systems on your cars, don't you think it just might be a little dangerous if you stepped on the brake pedal of your car and there was a delay before the brakes applied???
the same with heavy equipment. if the system is kept up there is no delay in the operation. quite to the contrary, on heavy equipment fast action of the control levers can cause a several ton vehicle to literally come off the ground just by the rapid movement of the bucket.
hydraulics are faster, more powerful, and more consistent. ( they will not stretch like a cable)

M_Gunz
08-19-2009, 08:49 AM
You step on the brake pedal of your car is not the same as as a motor boosting ailerons.
Read what I wrote. The action starts immediately, it's just not as fast as direct linkage.
From experience and confirmed immediately and afterwards by professionals, planes with hydraulic
controls feel more sluggish than those with direct linkages. Every one of those pros would also
by far rather have the hydraulics for reasons of safety.

Don't try to blow up sluggish feel into some countdown before a surface moves please. Not the same.
I already stated that movement begins right off. It just takes them longer to move than you might
crank back or press on unless the back force gets too high to move quickly by muscle. Do you think
that the hydraulics only cut in when the plane got moving fast perhaps, best of both?
Slam down on your brake pedal, that's your foot doing the work closing a SMALL GAP, not set up to move
control surfaces against back pressures that you would otherwise not be able to pull against with any
real speed which is WHY they put the units in there. Apples to Oranges. Better you talk of power
steering versus manual rack and pinion.

Now if you want to compare the hydraulics in modern fighter planes then you also need to consider
the weight and power requirements of those same. Think the P-38 had the equivalent? No way.
Don't even try to compare available electric and pneumatic power off a modern jet to what a P-38
generator turned out, that would be a poor joke. Nor the bulk of such systems, just compare the
size difference between even a small jet fighter to the P-38 or the weight or the power to weight.

Fork-N-spoon
08-19-2009, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I "come up with this" from attending aircraft systems schools over 20 years ago as part of a coding job. I have
experience as well as advice from experts during training to make teaching machines for systems training. What do
you base your ideas on? Watching video?

The difference between flying a non-hydraulic controls Lear and a hydraulic controls anything else is amazing as to
the quickness of response. OF COURSE the hydraulic controls surfaces START moving IMMEDIATELY -- DUH! But they do
not move as fast, the delay is somewhat like IL2 trim as a matter of fact. I know this from REAL EXPERIENCE, not
just being TOLD or watching a video. BTW, I do have the Roaring Glory P-38 video though I can't remember if the
one Ethel flew has the hydraulic boost ailerons or not, I'd have to check and while I'm at it I'll review the P-51
episode just to get his words on that plane since you think so highly of his opinion.

Hey, maybe you should ask people who fly different planes with either hydraulics or cables and cranks just to get
some more info. Those courses I took were for jet pilots with 800 hours MINIMUM and they did answer my questions
as did the instructors and my boss/CEO. The difference in response is very noticeable.

After that you should perhaps find out HOW hydraulic controls work. Or perhaps you can try to tell that a P-38 from
the 1940's has a more capable hydraulic system than a modern twin engine corporate jet with many times the carrying
capacity and available power to run that system. Go ahead, I like extreme jokes!

BTW, when you saw your P-38 videos did you see ANY side by side tests of speed? Two planes flying formation or
coordinated maneuvers do not count, the one with quicker response just keeps in line with the other.

You've absolutely no experience with the P-38 or pilots that flew it. Your experience is limited to modern day.

In the video, it's a L model with boosted ailerons. I've never stated that "Think so highly of Jeff Ethell's opinion." What I've been stating and restating is that as soon as he using control input the P-38 instantly begins its roll. Moreover, I've seen far more than one video, and each time the control surfaces are moved, the aircraft instantly beings its roll. This is something very basic, I don't need a billion hours of chatting, reading, or class room experince to come to the conclusion that if input is used to make the aircraft roll, it instantly beings its roll. That's about as simple and basic as my limited ability to write can explain it to you.

Fork-N-spoon
08-19-2009, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
What's wrong with my calling his credibility on the carpet? The Internet author gave spotty and incomplete data; hence, Internet sources aren't very credible is all that I'm saying. I'm not bashing him, I'm simply pointing out some facts, and I'm adding to his incomplete data from the very same source that he's quoting.

I'm not wanting to debate the mans credibility, it is very argumentative and really comes down to what your opinion is on his presentation and sources. I don't agree with every single thing he is stating myself, but the meat of his article seems to pertain more to the discussion here.
You have no more credibility than he does, unless your about to throw some credentials at me that show you've actually flown a P-38 in combat.

I think the bottom line with the 38 is that it had a good rate of climb, and better low end acceleration. Those who want to revel in fantasy about its turn ability go right ahead. I give it more credit for its acceleration where when in turn fights would have a greater ability in regaining speed.
Its maneuver flaps were necessary for it to have a decent turn radius. With out them it was one of the worse turning planes in the entire US fighter inventory.
The great ingenuity of those flaps also allowed them to be deployed in such a way to allow max lift and minimal drag. Remember that other planes didn't need flaps to have a decent turning ability, so they could turn with no added drag. Although, if they deployed a small degree of flaps they could reduce their turn radius in the same way, but these planes would encounter more drag when compared to the 38 design.
This might be where the perception that the 38 was a good turn fighter comes from.

It has a good rate of roll, similar to the P-47, but its roll response is what comes into question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My credibility? Look, I'm not sure what you're missing or why you seem to be defensive as I'm neither attacking you nor him. All that I've stated with regards to the web page that you've provided, is that the autor has omitted parts of the paragraph that he was quoting from. I happen to own the book "America's Hundred Thousand," and all I'm stating is that I've finished adding details that the web page has left out for reasons unknown.

I stated that I'm quoting "America's Hundred Thousand." If you doubt me, buy the book. I'm sure that there's somebody out there that also owns "America's Hundred Thousand." If I've not quoted or paraphrased the book properly, somebody please tell me so.

Additionally, the only enemy aircraft that the P-38 enountered that were vastly superior in the turn were Japanese...

My original intention with this thread was to point out that the P-38 did well the MTO flying deep penetration high altitude bomber escort flying one way missions as long or longer than 800 miles one way all the while fighting German aircraft. Had the P-38 units not been shoe horned into close bomber escort, those units could have added substantially to their claims, which by the way, were more than all other units in the MTO combined.

Kettenhunde
08-19-2009, 10:50 AM
there is NO DELAY with hydraulics

You have to load the piston before it can act on the fluid and that force must overcome the inertia of the system.

Some hydraulic flap deployments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl7Zl5dmTn8

from 1:31

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpOSWn4Hpmg

Hydraulically boosted control surfaces in WWII have the additional caveat of being extremely unreliable systems. This is why there were not more commonplace despite the fact hydraulics was a very well known technology.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
08-19-2009, 10:58 AM
Did the P-38s in the videos instantly or even close to that start rolling at full rate?

The planes I am hands-on familiar with carried a lot more hydraulics than the P-38 could afford and ran with
considerably more available power for such than any P-38 but I should expect the P-38 hydraulics to be extremely
high powered and far quicker than on commercial jets?

And of course when anyone presents historic documents saying the initial roll rate was slower, that's just opinion.
Obviously they should have watched videos instead of oh, going out and flying the plane and others they compare to.

I'm not going to bother arguing with fanboys. Find a video with side by side full effort rolls between a P-38 and
a P-51 then come tell about it. Jeff had a lot of good things to say and show about all those planes in the Roaring
Glory videos.

Kettenhunde
08-19-2009, 10:58 AM
I'm quoting "America's Hundred Thousand."

AHT comments on roll performance have already been posted in this thread in its entirety.

They specifically note that even with boosted controls, the P38 still suffered a lag in roll response due to the inertia of having engines outboard of the centerline.

This makes sense as we know the law of the lever states:

Moment = weight x arm

That moment simply does not disappear and still must be accounted for when we apply force.

All the best,

Crumpp

horseback
08-19-2009, 03:11 PM
Fork'n'Spoon

I have America’s Hundred Thousand, and I use it and Warren Bodie’s book on the Lightning for my primary references on it, supplemented by a myriad of other sources. I cannot disagree with your quotes. I do disagree with your conclusions.

All agree that the Lightning had a near unbelievable rate of sustained turn for a fighter of its size, and most sources say that it was somewhat better in terms of climb and acceleration than the Mustang or P-47 at most altitudes. Given that fuel made for a much lesser proportion of its 'all-up' weight, that is not that much of a revelation.

Since no one seems to have data for a Mustang for Thunderbolt carrying half a full fuel load, the question of combat performance is kind of pointless.

In the hands of a skilled Lightning pilot, it would be a formidable opponent in a furball or any other form of air to air combat that did not permit escape by a steep dive. In the hands of a relatively new trained fighter pilot entering frontline service though, it wouldn’t be nearly as dangerous and was often a liability in the high altitude combat over Central and Northern Europe. This was considerably less true of a pilot entering frontline service in a P-47 or Mustang outfit which had any kind of tradition enforced by the veteran members, like the 4th, 56th, or 357th FGs (or any number of other successful fighter organizations in any air force).

The successful groups that flew the P-38 in the Pacific and the Mediterranean theaters were uniformly veteran groups before they entered combat.

Particularly in the cases of the groups that joined the Torch forces, these were groups that had flown the Lightning for almost a year or more before they faced the enemy. They had established leaders, support organizations well versed in the Lightning’s unique systems & design, and most of all, they had all learned the aircraft’s capabilities and swapped all their little secrets for squeezing the most out of it.

Those that survived the initial shock of combat established the traditions and standards that carried them and their successors through the following years of the war. Given the enormous range advantage the Lightning had over every other fighter type in the theater, it conferred far more access to the enemy after the Sicilian campaign and the LW and the Italians had withdrawn most of their air assets to the far north of Italy and points east.

This alone accounts for the score advantage the Lightning groups had over the former P-40 and P-47 groups in the Med; they simply made contact with the enemy more often than the other fighter outfits in the theater.

The groups that flew P-38s and early P-51B/Cs in the 8th AF did not have the luxury of long term exposure before entering combat, or having a set of established leaders, traditions and standards. They went in without the time in type, the direct support from Lockheed or North American and they faced a longer average mission at higher altitudes than any previous USAAF fighters had consistently performed to that date. Their first combat missions were led by the best combat leaders around, in the form of Hubert Zemke for the 20th FG and Don Blakeslee for the 354th, but once they were ‘blooded’, they were on their own. Most pilots making a direct comparison and having a comparable amount of combat time in both types expressed a preference for the Mustang because in the war that they fought and against the opponents they faced, the P-38 was simply less effective in the high altitude escort role.

Even the 15th AF P-38 groups were less than stellar in the long range escort role north of the Alps. Part of that can be attributed to the limited numbers of aircraft that approached Germany from the south compared to the swarms that came out of Britain, but the first Mustang groups that penetrated past the more numerous P-47’s range were out there in limited numbers too, and compared to the 15th AF’s P-38 groups, were considerably less experienced and still outperformed them in terms of victories per sortie, even if you exclude the veteran 4th FG’s stats.

Cost had next to nothing to do with it. A simple comparison of the box scores made the Mustang the clear winner. In 1943, the Lightning was the best fighter the United States had on the front lines, but by January of 1944, it had been completely eclipsed by the P-51 and then again in June of that year it was excelled by the bubbletop versions of the P-47D.

The P-38 was a great technological step forward in its time, but the simpler designs made with later technology turned out to be more adaptable.

cheers

horseback

Waldo.Pepper
08-19-2009, 03:27 PM
What I've been stating and restating is that as soon as he using control input the P-38 instantly begins its roll.

No object behaves like this. Inertia must first be overcome.

TAGERT99
08-19-2009, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
They specifically note that even with boosted controls, the P38 still suffered a lag in roll response due to the <span class="ev_code_yellow">inertia of having engines outboard of the centerline.</span>

This makes sense as we know the <span class="ev_code_yellow">law of the lever</span> states:

Moment = weight x arm

That <span class="ev_code_yellow">moment</span> simply does not disappear and still must be accounted for when we apply force.
Actually that moment (read torque) simply DOES disappear in the case of a P38.

How you ask?

Simple!

Your confusing 'moment' (aka torque) with 'moment of inertia'! Two very different things!

And to prove it to you Ill give you a physics 101 example so simple that everyone can relate to it. After which it should be clear to all that your mixing apples and oranges here and that the 'moment' equation your provided is very misleading with regards to P38 rolls, i.e.

Moment = F×L
Moment = m×a×L

In that it implies a force of 'F' is required, where 'F' in your case is equal to the weight of the engine. The reason it is so misleading is your only considering one engine, as in 'half' a seesaw, i.e.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> #
------------
^</pre>

But we all know the P38 has 'two' engines, one on each side of the wing at equal distances from the centerline of the plane, and therefore falls under the 'full' seesaw case, i.e.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> # #
-----------------------
^</pre>

Thus using your very own 'moment' equation it can be shown the forces cancel, i.e.

F1×g×L1 = F2×g×L2

Where F1 = F2 and L1 = L2

As you can see in the full seesaw case (read symmetrical systems) the forces 'cancel' each other out and your left with a balanced system! And a balanced only requires a very small force to cause the system to rotate! A much much smaller force than the weight of an Allison engine that you were trying to imply. Just a finger push on a balanced seesaw is all it takes to overcome the moment of inertia and set the seesaw in motion. Assuming the baring at the pivot point is greased up good (low friction), but in the case of an airplane there is no friction due to a baring at the pivot point to contend with, just the moment of inertia!

Now that we have that clear up there is something else I want you to consider. As you know the P38s wings are wider than the P51s, thus the 'lever' action of the force applied by the ailerons would result in a larger moment (torque) assuming the P38 had the same size ailerons as the P51. But the P38 actually has larger ailerons, so not only was the lever action larger but the force applied is larger, with the end result being a larger moment (torque). But the P38 does not stop there! On top of all that the P38 has 'boosted' ailerons, therefore the pilot was able to move those ailerons farther/fully under high loads at high speeds than an un-boosted P38, resulting in an even larger moment (torque)!

And those are just a few reasons why the P38's initial roll rate was not as bad as some would have us belive!

And lets not forget that the P51 had guns and ammo out there in the wings, granted didn't add up to the weight of an Alison engine, but it is mass out there that a lot of you are conventually forgetting/ignoring.

So yes the P38 had a larger moment of inertia DUH!

But it also had a larger lever action and force to offset the larger moment of inertia!

na85
08-19-2009, 08:45 PM
Tagert,

The mass of the engines must be accelerated when you roll the aircraft. To do this, it requires a force be applied. This force comes from the ailerons, located at some arm length from the fuselage.

The mass of the engines, however, is also located at some distance from the axis of roll, and the INERTIA of those engines must be overcome.

The moments only cancel if the accelerations are opposed!

This is critical. In your example, gravity acts downward on both ends of the seesaw. When rolling the P38, one aileron's force acts upward, and the other acts downward.

As JtD mentioned pages ago, a bomber has enormous wings and large engines out on the wings. Do bombers roll well?

Thekid321
08-19-2009, 08:53 PM
Just to bring something up, (keep in mind im not even done with high school education http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). But one, large bombers have larger wing areas thus causing more air resistance when rolling. And a question, I know on some planes, the aileron that moves down doesnt go the same degree of bank as the one that moves up. Would this have anything to do with anything on the P-38? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

na85
08-19-2009, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Thekid321:
Just to bring something up, (keep in mind im not even done with high school education http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). But one, large bombers have larger wing areas thus causing more air resistance when rolling.

Yep but generally they also have larger control surfaces than fighters, which produce a larger rolling moment. This applies to the 38, which has a larger wing than the 51 (~30 square meters compared to ~21 square meters) The control surfaces on the 38 are larger than those on the 51, but not by a large amount.


And a question, I know on some planes, the aileron that moves down doesnt go the same degree of bank as the one that moves up. Would this have anything to do with anything on the P-38? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Not really, no.

The aileron thing (this is called Differential Ailerons) is because when the aileron deflects down, it causes more form drag than it does if it deflects up, due to the curvature of the airfoil. The resulting drag imbalance causes the aircraft to yaw to one side.

To counteract this, the ailerons are deflected by differing amounts, depending on if they are going up or down.

Gaston444
08-19-2009, 08:59 PM
The boosted P-38L had almost instantaneous response at high speed, but at low speed the roll response was as slow as ever. It could out roll any WWII fighter above 350 MPH, but was soundly beaten by most below, except maybe late WWII-model Spitfires, especially so the Mk XIV. Here's a Lockeed Roll rate chart:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38rollchart.JPG (http://home.att.net/%7Eww2aviation/P-38rollchart.JPG)

Here's a climb rate chart while we are at it:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38climb.JPG (http://home.att.net/%7Eww2aviation/P-38climb.JPG)

And a Speed chart:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38speedchart.JPG (http://home.att.net/%7Eww2aviation/P-38speedchart.JPG)

The dive redline chart:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RedLine.JPG (http://home.att.net/%7Eww2aviation/RedLine.JPG)

This last dive redline chart shows the inferior dive speed performance of even a spoiler-equipped P-38L. The top allowable dive speed is significantly below that of even a lowly Me-109G-6's 840-850 km/h aileron flutter limit, being mostly at or below 800 km/h.

This problem was never solved, and the spoilers only allowed a safe dive interruption at the pilot's will, which may have entailed steeper allowable dive angles for a very short while at very high speeds, but not a really durable advantage.

The P-38L did solve most problems, but was very late in Europe to do so, and never saw 8Th Air Force service. It is almost irrelevant to most European combat.

The other European problem was the British High Octane 150 fuel, which had lead insufficiently mixed in it compared to US fuels, which is why there were power variations in Europe as the spark plugs fouled, something which did not happen in the pacific.

The "custom" 64" Hg WEP is relevant to Europe, and was widely used, and demonstrates a faster speed than the P-51D (which was slower than the sleeker B by 12 MPH at least...).

Turn rate is difficult to pin down at high-low extremes, but the P-38J-25 was beaten by 360° by the A6M5 Zero in 800°, which puts it level with early-mid FW-190As, exactly as British tests between an A-4 and a P-38G peg them as very much equals. This also puts it as about level with the paddle-blade P-47D Razorback, and thus significantly superior to the Me-109G-6, Merlin P-51D and Bubbletop p-47D. It would probably not do as well against late FW-190A-8s, the F4U-1 or F6F Hellcat, which all hovered at around 1100° against the A6M5, but I suspect at extremely low speeds the contra-rotating props might give it a sort of parity, gradually wasting away as speed increased.

At extreme speeds it could beat the P-51's heavy elevator, but between 250-400 MPH it had a tendency to "tail sink" in turns.

It was a better aircraft to use against the Japanese than against the Germans, but like many aircrafts like the 109G, its superior climb rate acceleration did not for some reason translate to superior sustained turns vs the late Spitfires or late 190A's.

Gaston

Kettenhunde
08-19-2009, 09:09 PM
Tagert says:
But it also had a larger lever action and force to offset the larger moment of inertia!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Gaston444
08-19-2009, 09:11 PM
I forgot to add that the Me-109G gets better than Merlin P-51s and late P-47Ds when equipped with MW-50, but otherwise is not a whole lot better than the 550° those two tested like against the Zero A6M5. (That is, being beaten by 360° IN 550°...)

Gaston

BillSwagger
08-19-2009, 09:13 PM
In my thinking, i can recognized the balanced see saw effect, which is why i think the initial roll of the 38 is not that horrible. Where i think it suffers is a sudden change in direction, where having those engines off the center line means there would be more inertia to counter.

It was also said many pages ago that 109s pilots learned to bank right in a turn and then suddenly roll left when being pursued by a P-38.

na85
08-19-2009, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
In my thinking, i can recognized the balanced see saw effect, which is why i think the initial roll of the 38 is not that horrible. Where i think it suffers is a sudden change in direction, where having those engines off the center line means there would be more inertia to counter.

It was also said many pages ago that 109s pilots learned to bank right in a turn and then suddenly roll left when being pursued by a P-38.

The masses of the 2 engines BOTH work AGAINST the ailerons during a roll acceleration.

Kettenhunde
08-19-2009, 09:17 PM
Lockeed Roll rate chart:

I think whoever put that together misinterpreted some things. The FW-190 data matches RAE 1231. That report gives its data in EAS at 10,000 feet.

The homemade chart on you linked gives the data in mph TAS. 340mph EAS at 10,000 feet where the P38 equals the FW-190A is 395mph TAS.

Unfortunately we do not know what the source of the Lockheed data is or the correct airspeeds.

It would be interesting to find it.

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
08-20-2009, 03:29 AM
The other European problem was the British High Octane 150 fuel, which had lead insufficiently mixed in it compared to US fuels, which is why there were power variations in Europe as the spark plugs fouled, something which did not happen in the pacific.

The P-38 saw very little use with 150 grade fuel because it was being phased out of the 8th AF as 150 was being introduced.

There is a persistent story going around that the P-38 had problems with British fuel, but I suspect it was caused by the change in US supplied fuel in mid 1943:
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1305/dcp0163a.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3814/dcp0164a.jpg
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/2406/dcp0165a.jpg

Kettenhunde
08-20-2009, 04:45 AM
but I suspect

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

M_Gunz
08-20-2009, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
In my thinking, i can recognized the balanced see saw effect, which is why i think the initial roll of the 38 is not that horrible. Where i think it suffers is a sudden change in direction, where having those engines off the center line means there would be more inertia to counter.

It was also said many pages ago that 109s pilots learned to bank right in a turn and then suddenly roll left when being pursued by a P-38.

Bill, is it easier to turn a light wheel or a heavy one?

And how about two wheels of the same weight but on one most of the weight in close to center in the hub while the other
has a light hub and heavy rim?

Rolling the plane is a turning motion about the roll axis, it is by torque no matter what ole smoke and mirrors says.
The more weight and the farther from center, the more torque. That applies to getting it started and getting it stopped.
Got two weights then you have twice the torque not one minus the other -- turn a wheel and see it's not effortless.

Don't be fooled by half fast mind games.

JtD
08-20-2009, 10:02 AM
There is a persistent story going around that the P-38 had problems with British fuel, but I suspect it was caused by the change in US supplied fuel in mid 1943:

Interesting, but it appears to be a prediction rather than a report. It's also not about to the P-38, just Allisons in the P-51. Have you read more about it and/or could you link more info?

BillSwagger
08-20-2009, 10:17 AM
thanks gunz,

i think there is more going on here so drawing the analogy to spinning a wheel might be too simplified, but obviously the lighter wheel will be easier to spin, and i get what you are saying.
To take this analogy one step further, you could also say that the aileron is the hand turning the wheel, while the airspeed is the strength or force applied to the wheel.
Which is why i think at critical airspeeds of 300IAS, roll acceleration would be less of an issue. There is sufficient force/leverage to start the roll, but as speed in the roll builds there would be a delay in changing roll directions. I think this would be a more noticeable delay than the initial start of the roll.

If the plane is moving slower around 200IAS, i could see bigger delays in the initial roll response.

M_Gunz
08-20-2009, 11:08 AM
The faster you go the more force you have to apply to the aileron to get the same deflection. The aileron deflects and
that changes not only the curve of the outer wings but the angles of attack or each. Air pressure against the
deflections must be overcome, the wing going up will also have more drag from higher AOA than the wing going down
which is another torque that counter-rotating props do zilch to eliminate, in this case yaw torque to go with the
roll torque and both at the same time.

The wheel example is exactly like turning any balanced mass or less exactly like -any- mass around a center.
I just pointed that out to show that weight on one side adds to rather than subtracts from the other in terms of
rotational inertia. And a plane doing an axial roll -is- rotating mass, as is rolling to bank. Wingtip tanks,
wing tanks, gunpods or just a load of guns/bombs/rockets will slow roll initiation, stopping or reversing a roll.
Two whole engines with turbochargers too big for small single-engine planes and a great big WIDE elevator in the
back to turn against the air... nahhhhh, that should be like nuthin! LOL! And I have a working UFO parked outside!

here's 1 of 3 parts where Bill Nye explains spinning objects. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6GxNRzjg6U)

na85
08-20-2009, 11:28 AM
Gunz speaks truth. Tagert (who conveniently has disappeared now that he's been proven wrong) either misunderstands the principles involved or is attempting to be misleading. I suspect the former.

Also Bill Nye is epic.

FatCat_99
08-20-2009, 12:00 PM
Robert L. Shaw:
"In air combat, continuous rolls of more than 180° are seldom required.
Because a certain length of time is necessary to accelerate the roll rate from
zero to its maximum value, maximum stabilized roll rate may not be
reached during such short periods of roll. Therefore, roll acceleration is
often the controlling factor in combat performance.

In addition to roll-control power, roll acceleration is a function of the
"moment of inertia" of the aircraft.

This moment of inertia about the roll axis depends on the aircraft weight and its distribution. The greater
the total weight, and the farther it is distributed away from the fuselage
axis, the greater the inertia. Large wingspan, tip-tank fuel, and wingmounted
ordnance or engines, for example, would contribute to increased
roll inertia and reduced roll acceleration."

na85
08-20-2009, 12:29 PM
For anyone who still doubts

http://il2.na85.ca/img/roll.jpg

Note that in this example,

Fr and Fl denote the forces produced by the ailerons, not the direction in which they are deflected

Ir and Il denote the inertial forces of the engines (i.e. the mass that must be accelerated in order to commence a roll), NOT the torque caused by the props rotating.

BillSwagger
08-20-2009, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The faster you go the more force you have to apply to the aileron to get the same deflection.

I was assuming the use of hydros here, but i really dont think the initial roll was all that unresponsive as long the air speed was up.


Here is something interesting, since we are talking about the rate of roll.

In game, I rolled a P-47 at 300IAS(MPH) at 2000ft and at again at 20,000ft.
The plane rolled much faster at 2000ft. What could account for difference in rate of roll despite having the same 300IAS??

Could it be mach effects?? Thats seems strange that such a low mach number could effect aileron deflection to that degree. At 20,000ft, it has less than half the rate of roll at 300IAS and doesn't begin to improve until about 260IAS where it then gradually improves as the plane slows to under 200IAS.

So is this a game error or this an accurate example of how mach effects can greatly inhibit aircraft performance?

Bill

PS
critical mach of P-47 is .76
critical mach of P-38 is .68

na85
08-20-2009, 12:34 PM
Well up high the air is thinner, so there is less air mass to deflect, so I would assume that therein lies the difference.

BillSwagger
08-20-2009, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Well up high the air is thinner, so there is less air mass to deflect, so I would assume that therein lies the difference.


300 IAS is the same amount of air pressure , isnt it??


At 20,000ft the TAS is faster than at 2000ft, but the 300 indicated is the same.

na85
08-20-2009, 12:40 PM
Not 100% sure. Kettenhunde would know.

I think, though, that you have to convert to Equivalent airspeed (EAS)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_airspeed

M_Gunz
08-20-2009, 12:46 PM
Spinning the wings around, you also have to displace air around that axis same as if the plane were stopped and
mounted on a lengthwise axle. The air being thinner up high is easier to spin the wings against. It's quite like
the drop of a bullet having nothing much to do with forward speed unless the spin axis is out of line with the
forward travel. It probably also has much to do with why higher wing loaded planes like FWs tend to roll well.

hop2002
08-20-2009, 12:47 PM
Interesting, but it appears to be a prediction rather than a report.

I'm not sure I understand. It's a British response to the news that the fuel they were getting was changing from 4.8 cc TEL to 5.5 cc.

It also mentions test results of the new fuel with various engines.


It's also not about to the P-38, just Allisons in the P-51.

It's a British report. It only mentions aircraft in use by the RAF, and the RAF didn't have any P-38s. It does note the problems experienced by Allison engines.


Have you read more about it and/or could you link more info?

That's all I've got, I'm afraid.

M_Gunz
08-20-2009, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Not 100% sure. Kettenhunde would know.

I think, though, that you have to convert to Equivalent airspeed (EAS)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_airspeed

In IL2 it seems to work out that IAS=EAS or at least CAS. Shortcuts, hardware limits, framerate kind of thing.

na85
08-20-2009, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

In IL2 it seems to work out that IAS=EAS or at least CAS. Shortcuts, hardware limits, framerate kind of thing.

That's a new one on me.

BTW Bill was asking for reasons why the aircraft would roll SLOWER at altitude. Your last post seems to explain why it might roll faster at altitude. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
08-20-2009, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:

It also mentions test results of the new fuel with various engines.

It's not service related experience, which is what I was looking for.


That's all I've got, I'm afraid.

Still a good piece of information. Thanks.

JtD
08-20-2009, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
In game, I rolled a P-47 at 300IAS(MPH) at 2000ft and at again at 20,000ft.
The plane rolled much faster at 2000ft. What could account for difference in rate of roll despite having the same 300IAS??

Same way the plane flies faster at higher altitude for the same IAS, it rolls faster.

BillSwagger
08-20-2009, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Spinning the wings around, you also have to displace air around that axis same as if the plane were stopped and
mounted on a lengthwise axle. The air being thinner up high is easier to spin the wings against. It's quite like
the drop of a bullet having nothing much to do with forward speed unless the spin axis is out of line with the
forward travel. It probably also has much to do with why higher wing loaded planes like FWs tend to roll well.



im still a little confused because IAS is based on air density.
So Im thinking that at 300IAS, you have the same amount of air moving over the wing, it just requires more TAS to get the equivalent at higher altitudes.

The loss of roll response goes against what you are describing, Mgunz.


The plane rolls slower at higher altitudes despite having the same IAS.

M_Gunz
08-20-2009, 01:06 PM
You're right. It must be something else. Maybe EAS is less and it's only IAS=CAS in IL2.

BillSwagger
08-20-2009, 01:09 PM
yet as i slow down the roll response improves.


its almost as though the planes roll response is linked to TAS, not IAS.

JtD
08-20-2009, 01:10 PM
The rolling plane is like a screw, with a certain amount of roll per length traveled (sort of). Since the plane goes faster and does more length per time, it also does more roll per time.

Maybe it is an input limit in Il-2. What are the exact times for a 360° roll?

BillSwagger
08-20-2009, 01:32 PM
Just using the Il2 timer, it took 9-10 seconds at 20,000ft to roll 360 degrees.
I didnt time the lower elevation rolls, but in the past i've found it takes about 3 seconds to do a 180 degree roll at 300IAS, at 2000ft.

M_Gunz
08-20-2009, 02:27 PM
Could be that prop torque is playing a part or maybe rudder use or even not rolling the same?
Propwash spiral would be less at higher TAS for instance.

Kettenhunde
08-20-2009, 03:18 PM
Bill was asking for reasons why the aircraft would roll SLOWER at altitude.

It is harder to realize the necessary pressures on the control surface because the air is less dense.


300 IAS is the same amount of air pressure , isnt it??


If our airspeed is equivalent then our forces of flight are normalized for density. Equivalent airspeed is sometimes referred to as "perfect indicated airspeed".

We can't read equivalent airspeed in the cockpit or at least it is very expensive for an indicator that can so we use Indicated. Indicated is the airspeed read on the dial before it is corrected for installation error (CAS), compressibility effects (EAS), and density (TAS).

Indicated airspeed is close enough that we do not consider it to change over altitude.

Why? The position error is a linear function such that at a given velocity we will realize the same given error each time and compressibility is universal within our system.

Wow, glad you did not ask me to explain Glauerts dimensionless equations of airplane motion. Hopefully my explaination is clear and not confusing to you.

As for roll rate:

Roll rate is generally expressed in terms of the helix angle. A fighter designer attempts to get his roll performance in the vicinity of .07 radians of helix angle. This means for each complete roll, the aircraft will travel 44.8 wingspans no matter what the velocity.

Roll performance is generally optimized for low speed or high speed but never both.

All the best,

Crumpp

BillSwagger
08-20-2009, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Could be that prop torque is playing a part or maybe rudder use or even not rolling the same?
Propwash spiral would be less at higher TAS for instance.
I dont think prop wash or torque could account for this, considering that the rate of roll is still much slower when comparing rolls with out the use of rudder.
It was actually something i never really noticed until i was flying with full switch settings, and messing around in QMB fighting against me-262s. We were up high around 20-25kft and i noticed i couldn't roll as fast despite my indicator being under 300IAS. It actually gets much slower when the indicator goes above 300IAS, which leads me to think its actually linked to TAS.

JtD
08-20-2009, 10:47 PM
It's not wrong to link roll to TAS, but apparently the way Il-2 does is not correct.

TAGERT100
08-20-2009, 10:48 PM
na85
For anyone who still doubts

http://il2.na85.ca/img/roll.jpg

Note that in this example,

Fr and Fl denote the forces produced by the ailerons, not the direction in which they are deflected

Ir and Il denote the inertial forces of the engines (i.e. the mass that must be accelerated in order to commence a roll), NOT the torque caused by the props rotating.
WOW and I thought Crump was confused!

na85 there is so many things wrong with that drawing I don't even know where to start..

That and any effort on my part to help you will be a waste of time in that your not at a point in your life to admit you made a mistake, thus I will only bother to point out the MAIN thing wrong with your drawing, that you can not sum terms that have different units. That is to say you can not sum apples an oranges! And to prove it to you I did take the time to prove it using MathCad, a nifty little program that displays equations the way you would actually write them out by hand, as opposed to that crayon crayon example you provided. I did keep your same notation and applied some ball park values to them, all in all to show you just how wrong your attempt at summing the.. well not exactly sure what it was you were trying to sum, lets just leave it at you can NOT sum terms with different units! Basic physics 100 mistake my friend! Oh and while we are on the topic of physics, I even took the time to post you an excerpt from an actual physics book that confirms what I was trying to tell you, that being the two torques cancel each other out. Enjoy!

http://www.flightsimtesting.com/fna85/fn851.jpg
http://www.flightsimtesting.com/fna85/na85ex1.jpg

TAGERT100
08-20-2009, 10:48 PM
na85
Tagert,

The mass of the engines must be accelerated when you roll the aircraft. To do this, it requires a force be applied. This force comes from the ailerons, located at some arm length from the fuselage.

The mass of the engines, however, is also located at some distance from the axis of roll, and the INERTIA of those engines must be overcome.
AGREED 100%!

In that all you have managed to do up to that point is repeat what I have allready stated.

But glad to see you agree with me!


na85
The moments only cancel if the accelerations are opposed!
Here is where you stopped repeating what I said and decided to inject your thoughts on the subject. Sadly you not only missed the point I was making, but you also made the same mistake Crump made. That being you think the torque (mode) equation that crump provided is equal to the inertia. Its not!

And to prove it to you lets calculate the MOMENT and the INERTIA for a point mass some distance from the axis of rotation, you know, that 'half' seesaw example.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> #
------------
^</pre>

MOMENT (aka torque aka moment of force)
T = Force × Length
T = mass × acceleration × Length

MOMENT OF INERTIA
I = mass × Lenght^2

As you can see there is no acceleration associated with the calculation of INERTIA and the lenght is squared.

With that out of the way allow me to restate what I have allready stated in the hopes that it will sink in for you this time.

The torques (aka moments) cancel each other out, and your left with a ballanced system.

Think of two kids (lets say twins) of the same weight sitting on oposite of each other on a seesaw equal distance from the piviot point. Since the weight of each kid is equal the force applied is equal, thus the seesaw will not move.

Now a small bird lands on the head of one of the kids, the seesaw will now start to move down on that side..

Why? Because the forces are no longer equal!

The weight of the small bird is all it took to make the seesaw rotate. Not a weight equal to the weight of one of the kids, just the weight of the small bird is all it took to un-balance the system and cause it to rotate.

Now applying the same to the P38 where the kids are replaced by the allision engines and the weight of the small bird is replaced by the alieron (for this analogy assume one of the alierions has been removed). Thus to make the P38 rotate the alierons only have to produce a small force, NOT a force equal to the weight of the engines.

That is it in a nut shell!

So I hope you can now understand what I ment when I said Crumps half seesaw example is very missleading. Crump was talking 'inertia' problem was he was trying to use the moment (torque) equation as an indicator of the amount of inertia the engines add to the system. That is to say he was talking about how red the apple is by showing us an orange. It is missleading in that if someone were to do what Crump was telling them to do and take the weight of an allison engine and multiply it by the distance out on the wing to obtain the moment (torque) they would be looking at a very big number! A big number that has nothing to do with inertia! Crumps first cluse should have been to notice that the units of moment (torque) is not the units of inertia!

But the funniest part of all is that he said "that moment simply does not disappear" when in fact it actully does because the oposing engine cancles it out.

For future reference, if you or Crump want to talk about the amount of inertia in a system use the inertia equation, ie.

MOMENT OF INERTIA
I = mass × Lenght^2

And if you want to talk about torque the amount of torque in a system use the torque equation, i.e.

MOMENT (aka torque aka moment of force)
T = Force × Length
T = mass × acceleration × Length

And in doing so you will see the torques cancle each other out, which is not to be confused with cancling out the inertia!


na85
This is critical.
AGREED 100%!

Yet you got it all wrong!


na85
In your example, gravity acts downward on both ends of the seesaw.
AGREED 100%!

In that all you have managed to do up to that point is repeat what I have allready stated.

But glad to see you agree with me!


na85
When rolling the P38, one aileron's force acts upward, and the other acts downward.
AGREED 100%!

Thus not only do you have the force of the bird landing on the head of one of the kids, you have a bird pulling up on the hair of the other kid with a force equal to the birds weight, thus DOUBLING the force the alierions produce.


na85
As JtD mentioned pages ago, a bomber has enormous wings and large engines out on the wings. Do bombers roll well?
That depends, what is your definition of 'well'? In the mean time I will say this, The max roll rate of this so called 'bomber' like plane had a better roll rate than the Fw190 and P51B-5-NA at speeds above 350 TAS.

TAGERT100
08-20-2009, 10:48 PM
na85
Gunz speaks truth. Tagert (who conveniently has disappeared now that he's been proven wrong) either misunderstands the principles involved or is attempting to be misleading. I suspect the former.
This may come as a shock to you na85 but not everyone hangs out in the ubi forum all day. I know it may seem that way to you what with all you PMing all of the unemployable rabble here that reply back to you within minutes, most of us have other things going on during the day (read life) that keeps us from responding back to you with the same response time of your unemployable buddies. With that said, take a break bud! Put on some pants and step out the your front door. Be bold and walk beyond the range of your routers wi-fi and take a look around. Get a hobby like feeding the squirrels at your local park instead of feeding the unemployable rabble in this forum. Trust me within a few months you will look back at this day and thank me!

Now with regards to you proving me wrong.

Care to quote anything I said that you consider to be in error?

Now I don't expect you to quote me, in that it is clear that you know that I am not wrong and are just claiming I am in the hopes that if you say it enough some might think it is true. Not a big surprise really, in that is your famous for. Just thought I would let you know your not fooling anyone but the fools.

TAGERT100
08-20-2009, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Tagert says:
But it also had a larger lever action and force to offset the larger moment of inertia!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Crump.. We all know your not one to sit idealy by and say nothing when you think your right, thus your deafaning silence speaks volumes in that regard. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
08-20-2009, 11:53 PM
MOMENT OF INERTIA
I = mass × Lenght^2 ---> [kg*m²]

MOMENT (aka torque aka moment of force)
T = Force × Length
T = mass × acceleration × Length ---> [kg*m²/s²]

Both is correct, but since we want to accelerate the moment of inertia we have to multiply with an angular acceleration which comes with /s² unit and then we have kg*m²/s² for both quantities involved.

The bird won't accelerate the fat kids as easily as an empty seesaw, though the terminal velocity is the same.

Kettenhunde
08-21-2009, 12:10 AM
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9490/rollinertia.jpg (http://img11.imageshack.us/i/rollinertia.jpg/)

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/859/earlyhydrauliccontrols.jpg (http://img146.imageshack.us/i/earlyhydrauliccontrols.jpg/)

Kettenhunde
08-21-2009, 12:16 AM
Basic physics

Study it Tagert...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

BillSwagger
08-21-2009, 12:41 AM
"I can buy a physics book, but that doesn't make me a physicist."



All that math, and its still reputed.
Reading english is bit easier for me to understand.

Anyway, i could see the flaw in the seesaw analogy because its in reference to weight balancing on the axis.
any extra weight applied to one side is going to throw that balance, such as carrying a drop tank on one side of the aircraft.

Forces that act on the wing like the ailerons would be more similar to a person pushing/lifting on either side to offset the balance.
It is easier to push an empty see saw than it is with weights on the end.

It was also mentioned earlier that the ailerons don't act on both wings exactly the same. One aileron is deflected more than the other, and vice verse on opposite rolls. Something about equalizing the drag, but it might also suggest that the roll axis is not perfectly aligned with the center of gravity initially which would also have an effect on your initial roll response.

na85
08-21-2009, 12:46 AM
Tagert,

I'm done discussing with you on this particular subject. It's like you're being deliberately dense.

Take care.

na85
08-21-2009, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
"I can buy a physics book, but that doesn't make me a physicists."


It's a good quote, isn't it?


It was also mentioned earlier that the ailerons don't act on both wings exactly the same. One aileron is deflected more than the other, and vice verse on opposite rolls. Something about equalizing the drag, but it might also suggest that the roll axis is not perfectly aligned with the center of gravity initially which would also have an effect on your initial roll response.

I would imagine that the angular difference between the roll axis and the longitudinal axis of the aircraft is quite small.

Additionally, since all aircraft experience adverse yaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_yaw) to some extent, the P-38 was not the only aircraft to use differential ailerons (although there are other ways to counteract adverse yaw).

M_Gunz
08-21-2009, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Could be that prop torque is playing a part or maybe rudder use or even not rolling the same?
Propwash spiral would be less at higher TAS for instance.
I dont think prop wash or torque could account for this, considering that the rate of roll is still much slower when comparing rolls with out the use of rudder.
It was actually something i never really noticed until i was flying with full switch settings, and messing around in QMB fighting against me-262s. We were up high around 20-25kft and i noticed i couldn't roll as fast despite my indicator being under 300IAS. It actually gets much slower when the indicator goes above 300IAS, which leads me to think its actually linked to TAS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm just trying to guess at what's missing in our understanding (most likely) or in the FM (possibly due to shortcuts).

M_Gunz
08-21-2009, 05:31 AM
A simple of measure not only of the intellectual dishonesty of the troll Tagert but also of the inability to
be consistent with itself just as poorly as with any so-called knowledge it runs roughshod over.


TAGERT100 (aka agreed to forum rules but so-t-f-what?) Posted Thu August 20 2009 21:48
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> na85
Gunz speaks truth. Tagert (who conveniently has disappeared now that he's been proven wrong) either misunderstands the principles involved or is attempting to be misleading. I suspect the former.


This may come as a shock to you na85 but not everyone hangs out in the ubi forum all day. I know it may seem that way to you what with all you PMing all of the unemployable rabble here that reply back to you within minutes, most of us have other things going on during the day (read life) that keeps us from responding back to you with the same response time of your unemployable buddies </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


TAGERT100

Posted Thu August 20 2009 21:49 Hide Post

quote:
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

quote:
Tagert says:
But it also had a larger lever action and force to offset the larger moment of inertia!



Party Hat

Nuh uh


Crump.. We all know your not one to sit idealy by and say nothing when you think your right, thus your deafaning silence speaks volumes in that regard. Wink

The moderators shut one down and another pops up to sling more BS. Tagert deserves no more respect than it gives.

M_Gunz
08-21-2009, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
It was also mentioned earlier that the ailerons don't act on both wings exactly the same. One aileron is deflected more than the other, and vice verse on opposite rolls. Something about equalizing the drag, but it might also suggest that the roll axis is not perfectly aligned with the center of gravity initially which would also have an effect on your initial roll response.

So one side is closer to center and the other is equally as much farther out.

Kettenhunde
08-21-2009, 04:36 PM
It was also mentioned earlier that the ailerons don't act on both wings exactly the same.

Differential ailerons corrects adverse yaw. Proverse yaw is the normal condition found in most airplanes lateral stability characteristics. This is not ideal but acceptable. Ideal is no yawing moment at all.

Proverse yaw induces a yawing moment in the direction of the roll. Adverse yaw induces a yawing moment opposite of the roll direction. Of course no yawing moment means our airplanes does not yaw at all but just has pure lateral motion.


All the best,

Crumpp

SeaFireLIV
08-21-2009, 10:54 PM
wow, talk about dejavu. Certainly is never-ending.

But in the old days these threads had a sort of point because Oleg might`ve paid attention and perhaps changed things in IL2. Now he doesn`t so nothing will change.

None of you will admit to being wrong about anything as it`s just a big pi**ing contest.

So I wonder what you guys are actually getting out of this? Can`t be anything of actual worth.

Actually don`t answer because there is no reasonable answer except more arguing.

BillSwagger
08-21-2009, 11:19 PM
I avoid the trivial arguments, or making my opinions personal. For some it is indeed a ****ing match. There are also comments like these, from left field that also seem out of place.
But I see your point, and for me, maybe the only thing i get out of it is learning something about the aircraft. If i'm wrong at least im learning something.

I actually don't expect anything to change in the game, but it is nice to know that there is a team who will continue to develop the game, even if it isn't Oleg.

Kettenhunde
08-22-2009, 06:11 AM
There are also comments like these, from left field that also seem out of place.


Certainly. Taking the time to complain about the relevance of a thread someone obviously felt was relevant enough to read as well as comment has a psychology of its own.


i get out of it is learning something about the aircraft.

And that is the entire point!

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
08-22-2009, 08:10 AM
The bird won't accelerate the fat kids as easily as an empty seesaw, though the terminal velocity is the same.

That's the whole point.

blairgowrie
08-22-2009, 08:33 AM
I was hoping that someone could summarize the last 11 pages in 11 words or less.

Cloyd
08-22-2009, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by blairgowrie:
I was hoping that someone could summarize the last 11 pages in 11 words or less.

The P-38 rolls - too fast, too slow, or maybe just right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Your welcome,
Cloyd

BillSwagger
08-22-2009, 08:47 AM
The P-38 had a good roll response.

no it didn't. read this (link)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

na85
08-22-2009, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by blairgowrie:
I was hoping that someone could summarize the last 11 pages in 11 words or less.

Some think the P38 doesn't roll well enough, others do. Tagert is a troll who lacks a basic grasp of physics.

The_Stealth_Owl
08-22-2009, 09:51 AM
Hey now, I'v been called a troll and its not fun.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Try to be a bit nicer, please. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

steiner562
08-22-2009, 09:56 AM
Zip it Na85,your all just as bad as him.

The_Stealth_Owl
08-22-2009, 09:56 AM
Look what a different forum gave me:

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt138/SILVERFISH1992/TrollLicense20Dark20Matter1.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

M_Gunz
08-23-2009, 12:15 AM
You and nancy can get a room together since you have so much in common.

BSS_CUDA
08-23-2009, 08:04 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/troll-1.jpg

The_Stealth_Owl
08-23-2009, 08:12 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt138/SILVERFISH1992/Moderating.jpg

J/K http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
08-25-2009, 04:13 PM
boosted ailerons made the P 38 twice as manuverable

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/Clipboard16.jpg

Kettenhunde
08-25-2009, 04:55 PM
boosted ailerons made the P 38 twice as manuverable

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Daiichidoku
08-25-2009, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">boosted ailerons made the P 38 twice as manuverable

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hope you arent taking it that i believed that, and noticed my http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif icon

Daiichidoku
08-25-2009, 05:26 PM
been in a new computer transition lately, and havent had access to my stuff on the old comp, but today i went flash-driving for some things and dug this out; semi-OT, and i ahve no idea where i copied it from..although i believe it was a Kahuna post at old CWOS Lockheed Syndicate forum


"Hya Harrier,

I got an email from Bodie saying that was the problem according to British fuel expert Graham White. White said that liquid fuel collecting in the intake manifold was the major engine problem for P38's and not manifold pressure. White in an email to me said that after WW2, commercial RR Merlins encountered the same problem at low cruise power settings for long time frames. The fix was to pre heat the fuel prior to the intake manifold.

I also asked White if Lindberg's cruise settings of auto-lean/high manifold pressure/low rpm would help prevent liquid fuel from collecting in the intake manifold during long flights. White said that the combination of auto lean/high manifold pressure would help keep the intake manifold clear of any problems.

On another note that Tagart would be happy to hear, White felt that the P38J operating on grade 150 fuel at 66" MAP was the low end and very conservative. White said the P38J should be able to run at 75-77" MAP with 150 grade fuel on a daily basis. "

Kettenhunde
08-25-2009, 05:27 PM
hope you arent taking it that i believed that


I took it as you intended....a joke. It is very funny in the context of this thread.

All the best,

Crumpp

Daiichidoku
08-25-2009, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hope you arent taking it that i believed that


I took it as you intended....a joke. It is very funny in the context of this thread.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

phew..had to czech, too many would not have :P

Daiichidoku
08-26-2009, 08:55 AM
does anyone have the letter that was up on the now-defunct "P-38 online" website RE: a USAAF/C officer lamenting the seeming lack of support for 38 ops in ETO by said organisation despite availble assistance by Lockheed et al?