PDA

View Full Version : Intresting thing found about the P-38



Demons7th_Wolf
02-10-2005, 11:11 PM
Lockheed P-38J Lightning
Last revised June 5, 1999

Through all the modifications leading from XP-38 to P-38H, the basic contours of the engine nacelles of the Lightning had remained virtually unchanged. The P-38J version, which first began to appear in August of 1943, introduced some appreciable differences in the geometry of the engine nacelles which make this and later versions easily distinguishable from earlier versions of the Lightning.

Earlier P-38s had passed the compressed air from the turbosuperchargers through a hollow passageway lying along the leading edge of the wing all the way from boom to wing tip and back in order to cool it down before it entered the carburetor. There were problems encountered with this arrangement. The difficulty in controlling the superchargers caused frequent engine backfires, some of which actually caused changes in the shape of the wing leading edge. The large area of these wing intercoolers also make them vulnerable to gunfire. The P-38J (known by the Lockheed company as the Model 422) introduced a revised powerplant installation, with the intercooler being changed to a core-type radiator located below the engine. The air intake for the intercooler was sandwiched between the oil radiator intakes in a deeper, lower nose. The core-type radiator took cooling air through the central duct behind the propeller and exhausted it through a controllable exit flap, thus permitting a considerable amount of control over the the temperature of the air entering the carburetor. The leading edge tunnels were eliminated and were replaced by additional self-sealing fuel cells in the outer wing panels.

This modification was initially tested on P-38E Ser No 41-1983. The P-38J also had redesigned Prestone coolant scoops on the tail booms. All P-38Js retained the V-1719-89/91 engines of the P-38Hs, but their more efficient cooling installations enabled military rating at 27,000 feet to be increased from 1240 to 1425 hp, while at that altitude war emergency rating was 1600 hp.

The revised beard radiators produced some additional drag, but it was more than adequately compensated for by the improved cooling which made the Allison finally capable of delivering its full rated power at altitude. Consequently, the P-38J was the fastest variant of the entire Lightning series--420 mph at 26,500 feet. Maximum speed at 5000 feet was 369 mph, 390 mph at 15,000 feet. Range was 475 miles at 339 mph at 25,000 feet, 800 miles at 285 mph at 10,000 feet, and 1175 miles at 195 mph at 10,000 feet. Maximum range was 2260 miles at 186 mph at 10,000 feet with two 250 Imp gall drop tanks. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 2 minutes, 15,000 feet in 5 minutes, 10,000 feet in 7 minutes. Service ceiling was 44,000 feet. Weights were 12,780 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs normal loaded, 21,600 lbs maximum. Wingspan was 52 feet 0 inches, length was 37 feet 10 inches, and height was 9 feet 10 inches. Wing area was 327.5 square feet. Armament consisted of one 20-mm Hispano M2(C) cannon with 150 rounds plus four 0.50-inch Colt-Browning MG 53-2 machine guns with 500 rounds per gun. In addition two 500, 1000, or 1600-lb bombs or ten five-inch rockets could be carried on underwing racks.

The 1010 Model 422-81-14s included three production blocks. The first block consisted of ten service test P-38J-1-LOs. These were quickly followed by 210 P-83J-5-LOs with two 55-US gallon additional fuel tanks in the leading edge space previously occupied by the intercoolers and thus restoring maximum internal fuel capacity to 410 gallons (1010 gallons with drop tanks). Modifications, including the addition of stiffeners, were required to prevent deformation of the new wet wing leading edge. The last production block consisted of 790 P-38J-10-LOs with flat windshields with the bulletproof glass panel being incorporated into the windshield.

These were followed by Model 422-81-22s in two blocks. The first block consisted of 1400 P-38J-15-LOs with revised electrical systems. The second block consisted of 350 P-38J-20-LOs with modified turbo regulators.

When earlier J-series Lightnings went into a high speed dive, their controls would suddenly lock up when a certain speed was reached and the nose would begin to tuck under, making recovery from the dive very difficult. The problem would begin at Mach 0.65 to 0.68, accompanied by vigorous buffeting and a strong nose-down pitch. As speed increased, it became progressively more and more difficult to recover from the dive, larger and larger stick forces being required for a pullout. At Mach 0.72, dive recovery became for all practical purposes impossible, and runaway dives that got this far out of hand usually had fatal results. The onset of severe buffeting would, of course, usually provide adequate warning for a pilot in a diving P-38 that he was about to encounter a problem, but it is easy to get distracted while in the stress of combat. This dive recovery problem was so severe that the Lightnings found it very difficult to follow German fighters in a dive, allowing many Luftwaffe fighters to escape unscathed.

The problem was eventually traced to a shock wave that formed over the wings as the Lightning entered the transonic regime, the shock wave preventing the elevators from operating. In order to counteract this problem, starting with the P-38J-25-LO (Model 422-81-23) production block, a small electrically-operated dive flap was added underneath each wing outboard of the engine nacelles and hinged to the main spar. These dive flaps would change the characteristics of the airflow over the wing, offsetting the formation of the shock wave and permitting the elevators to operate properly. This innovation largely solved the problems encountered by diving P-38s.

The P-38J-25-LO production block also introduced power-boosted ailerons. These consisted of ailerons that were operated by a hydraulically-actuated bell-crank and push-pull rod, making it easier for the pilot to maneuver the airplane at high airspeeds. This boosting system was one of the first applications of powered controls to any fighter, and required only 17 percent of the previous stick forces. The hydraulic aileron booster system vastly improved the roll rate and thereby increased the effectiveness of the P-38 in combat. P-38Js with power-boosted ailerons proved to have the highest roll-rates of any fighter.

210 P-38J-25-LOs were built.

In March of 1944, Colonel Benjamin Kelsey reached an indicated speed of more than 750 mph during a high-speed dive in a P-38, which would have made the P-38 the first supersonic fighter. However, it was later discovered that compressibility effects on the airspeed indicator at about 550 mph had given a greatly exaggerated reading. Nevertheless, the Lightning handled quite well at high speeds, and its strong airframe withstood the excessive aerodynamic loading produced by these high-speed dives.

With the increased use of the Lightning as a light bomber, the type was modified to carry in place of the forward-firing armament either a bombardier with a Norden bombsight in a glazed nose enclosure, or a "Mickey" BTO (Bombing Through Overcast) bombing radar in the nose with an operator station between the radar and the pilot's cockpit. These modifications were developed at the Lockheed Modification Center in Dallas, Texas. These so-called "droop-snoot" Lightnings were used to lead formations of P-38s each carrying two 2000-lb bombs which were released on instructions from the lead bombardier.

Two P-38J-20-LOs (serials 44-23544 and 44-23549) were modified in Australia during the autumn of 1944 for use as single-seat night fighters, carrying AN/APS-4 radar in a pod underneath the starboard wing. These modifications were tested in New Guinea and the Philippines.

A P-38J-5-LO (serial number 42-67104) was tested at Wright Field and Orlando, Florida as an experimental night fighter with a radar operator sitting on a jump seat just aft of the pilot. The AN/APS-4 radar was initially mounted under the fuselage in a pod just aft of the nosewheel. This pod proved to be rather easily damaged by stones thrown up by the nosewheel during takeoffs and landings, so it was repositioned beneath the starboard wing, but this resulted in interference from the adjacent engine nacelle.

Beginning in September of 1944, a P-38J was used to test a unique method for extending the range of escort fighters by having the fighter engage a hook trailed from a B-24H bomber. Attached to the hook was a standard drop tank. After contact, the tank was automatically attached to standard external tank fittings beneath the fighter's wing. The method proved to be basically feasible, but it required considerable skill on the part of the Lightning pilot in order for it to work. Consequently, this innovation was not pursued any further.

A number of P-38Js were modified in service as TP-38J-LO two-seat "piggyback" trainers with a jump seat aft of the pilot. Some of these aircraft carried an AN/APS-4 radar pod underneath the starboard wing and were used to train P-38M crews.

At least one P-38J was successfully flown with skis. P-38J-1-LO Ser No 42-13565 was fitted with an experimental retractable ski installation.

The initial photo-reconnaissance version of the P-38J was the F-5B-1-LO (model 422-81-21). It had the same camera installation as did the earlier F-5A-10-LO (equivalent to P-38G-10-LO), but had an airframe and engines identical to those of the P-38J-5-LO. The F-5B-1-LO introduced a Sperry automatic pilot, which became standard on all subsequent reconnaissance versions. Two hundred of these photographic aircraft were built, serial numbers being 42-67312/67401 and 42-68192/68301. This was the last of the Lockheed production of the reconnaissance version of the Lightning, subsequent F-5 versions being modifications of standard P-38 fighter airframes performed after delivery.

The F-5C-1-LO was the designation given to P-38J airframes converted at the Dallas Modification Center to a standard basically similar to that of the F-5B-1-LO but with improved camera installations. A total of 123 aircraft is believed to have been so modified. The serial numbers of the P-38J aircraft so modified are not known.

A total of 200 P-38J-15-LO fighter airframes were converted in Dallas to F-5E-2-LO reconnaissance configuration. These were produced to a standard similar to that of the F-5C-1-LO. The designation F-5E-3-LO was given to a similar conversion of 205 P-38J-25-LO airframes. Again, any record of the serial numbers of the P-38J aircraft modified to F-5E-2-LO or F-5E-3-LO standards seems to have been lost.

One F-5B-1-LO (42-68220) was modified with a revised camera installation and was redesignated F-5F-LO.

The few surviving USAAF P-38J aircraft were redesignated F-38Js in 1948 when the USAAF became the USAF and the P designation was changed to F.

P-38J-10-LO Ser No 42-67762 is currently held in storage at the Paul Garber Preservation, Restoration and Storage Facility at Suitland, Maryland. I saw it there on November 2 of this year. It is more or less intact, but needs some restoration work before it is really presentable.

Serials of the P-38J/F-5B were as follows:

42-12867/12869 Lockheed P-38J-1-LO Lightning
42-13560/13566 Lockheed P-38J-1-LO Lightning
42-67102/67311 Lockheed P-38J-5-LO Lightning
42-67312/67401 Lockheed F-5B-1-LO Lightning
42-67402/68191 Lockheed P-38J-10-LO Lightning
42-68192/68301 Lockheed F-5B-1-LO Lightning
42-103979/104428 Lockheed P-38J-15-LO Lightning
43-28248/29047 Lockheed P-38J-15-LO Lightning
44-23059/23208 Lockheed P-38J-15-LO Lightning
44-23209/23558 Lockheed P-38J-20-LO Lightning
44-23559/23768 Lockheed P-38J-25-LO Lightning

Sources:

1. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987

2. The P-38J-M Lockheed Lightning, Profile Publications, Le Roy Weber Profile Publications, Ltd, 1965.

3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.

4. Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.

5. The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

6. Wings of the Weird and Wonderful, Captain Eric Brown, Airlife, 1985.

7. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.


Intresting part about the P-38J buffering effects and locking of controls Mach 0.65 = 221.1885 m/s and locking Mach 0.72 = 245.0088 m/s. There also some cool loadouts on the J. Thought it nice to share with the community.

Demons7th_Wolf
02-10-2005, 11:11 PM
Lockheed P-38J Lightning
Last revised June 5, 1999

Through all the modifications leading from XP-38 to P-38H, the basic contours of the engine nacelles of the Lightning had remained virtually unchanged. The P-38J version, which first began to appear in August of 1943, introduced some appreciable differences in the geometry of the engine nacelles which make this and later versions easily distinguishable from earlier versions of the Lightning.

Earlier P-38s had passed the compressed air from the turbosuperchargers through a hollow passageway lying along the leading edge of the wing all the way from boom to wing tip and back in order to cool it down before it entered the carburetor. There were problems encountered with this arrangement. The difficulty in controlling the superchargers caused frequent engine backfires, some of which actually caused changes in the shape of the wing leading edge. The large area of these wing intercoolers also make them vulnerable to gunfire. The P-38J (known by the Lockheed company as the Model 422) introduced a revised powerplant installation, with the intercooler being changed to a core-type radiator located below the engine. The air intake for the intercooler was sandwiched between the oil radiator intakes in a deeper, lower nose. The core-type radiator took cooling air through the central duct behind the propeller and exhausted it through a controllable exit flap, thus permitting a considerable amount of control over the the temperature of the air entering the carburetor. The leading edge tunnels were eliminated and were replaced by additional self-sealing fuel cells in the outer wing panels.

This modification was initially tested on P-38E Ser No 41-1983. The P-38J also had redesigned Prestone coolant scoops on the tail booms. All P-38Js retained the V-1719-89/91 engines of the P-38Hs, but their more efficient cooling installations enabled military rating at 27,000 feet to be increased from 1240 to 1425 hp, while at that altitude war emergency rating was 1600 hp.

The revised beard radiators produced some additional drag, but it was more than adequately compensated for by the improved cooling which made the Allison finally capable of delivering its full rated power at altitude. Consequently, the P-38J was the fastest variant of the entire Lightning series--420 mph at 26,500 feet. Maximum speed at 5000 feet was 369 mph, 390 mph at 15,000 feet. Range was 475 miles at 339 mph at 25,000 feet, 800 miles at 285 mph at 10,000 feet, and 1175 miles at 195 mph at 10,000 feet. Maximum range was 2260 miles at 186 mph at 10,000 feet with two 250 Imp gall drop tanks. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 2 minutes, 15,000 feet in 5 minutes, 10,000 feet in 7 minutes. Service ceiling was 44,000 feet. Weights were 12,780 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs normal loaded, 21,600 lbs maximum. Wingspan was 52 feet 0 inches, length was 37 feet 10 inches, and height was 9 feet 10 inches. Wing area was 327.5 square feet. Armament consisted of one 20-mm Hispano M2(C) cannon with 150 rounds plus four 0.50-inch Colt-Browning MG 53-2 machine guns with 500 rounds per gun. In addition two 500, 1000, or 1600-lb bombs or ten five-inch rockets could be carried on underwing racks.

The 1010 Model 422-81-14s included three production blocks. The first block consisted of ten service test P-38J-1-LOs. These were quickly followed by 210 P-83J-5-LOs with two 55-US gallon additional fuel tanks in the leading edge space previously occupied by the intercoolers and thus restoring maximum internal fuel capacity to 410 gallons (1010 gallons with drop tanks). Modifications, including the addition of stiffeners, were required to prevent deformation of the new wet wing leading edge. The last production block consisted of 790 P-38J-10-LOs with flat windshields with the bulletproof glass panel being incorporated into the windshield.

These were followed by Model 422-81-22s in two blocks. The first block consisted of 1400 P-38J-15-LOs with revised electrical systems. The second block consisted of 350 P-38J-20-LOs with modified turbo regulators.

When earlier J-series Lightnings went into a high speed dive, their controls would suddenly lock up when a certain speed was reached and the nose would begin to tuck under, making recovery from the dive very difficult. The problem would begin at Mach 0.65 to 0.68, accompanied by vigorous buffeting and a strong nose-down pitch. As speed increased, it became progressively more and more difficult to recover from the dive, larger and larger stick forces being required for a pullout. At Mach 0.72, dive recovery became for all practical purposes impossible, and runaway dives that got this far out of hand usually had fatal results. The onset of severe buffeting would, of course, usually provide adequate warning for a pilot in a diving P-38 that he was about to encounter a problem, but it is easy to get distracted while in the stress of combat. This dive recovery problem was so severe that the Lightnings found it very difficult to follow German fighters in a dive, allowing many Luftwaffe fighters to escape unscathed.

The problem was eventually traced to a shock wave that formed over the wings as the Lightning entered the transonic regime, the shock wave preventing the elevators from operating. In order to counteract this problem, starting with the P-38J-25-LO (Model 422-81-23) production block, a small electrically-operated dive flap was added underneath each wing outboard of the engine nacelles and hinged to the main spar. These dive flaps would change the characteristics of the airflow over the wing, offsetting the formation of the shock wave and permitting the elevators to operate properly. This innovation largely solved the problems encountered by diving P-38s.

The P-38J-25-LO production block also introduced power-boosted ailerons. These consisted of ailerons that were operated by a hydraulically-actuated bell-crank and push-pull rod, making it easier for the pilot to maneuver the airplane at high airspeeds. This boosting system was one of the first applications of powered controls to any fighter, and required only 17 percent of the previous stick forces. The hydraulic aileron booster system vastly improved the roll rate and thereby increased the effectiveness of the P-38 in combat. P-38Js with power-boosted ailerons proved to have the highest roll-rates of any fighter.

210 P-38J-25-LOs were built.

In March of 1944, Colonel Benjamin Kelsey reached an indicated speed of more than 750 mph during a high-speed dive in a P-38, which would have made the P-38 the first supersonic fighter. However, it was later discovered that compressibility effects on the airspeed indicator at about 550 mph had given a greatly exaggerated reading. Nevertheless, the Lightning handled quite well at high speeds, and its strong airframe withstood the excessive aerodynamic loading produced by these high-speed dives.

With the increased use of the Lightning as a light bomber, the type was modified to carry in place of the forward-firing armament either a bombardier with a Norden bombsight in a glazed nose enclosure, or a "Mickey" BTO (Bombing Through Overcast) bombing radar in the nose with an operator station between the radar and the pilot's cockpit. These modifications were developed at the Lockheed Modification Center in Dallas, Texas. These so-called "droop-snoot" Lightnings were used to lead formations of P-38s each carrying two 2000-lb bombs which were released on instructions from the lead bombardier.

Two P-38J-20-LOs (serials 44-23544 and 44-23549) were modified in Australia during the autumn of 1944 for use as single-seat night fighters, carrying AN/APS-4 radar in a pod underneath the starboard wing. These modifications were tested in New Guinea and the Philippines.

A P-38J-5-LO (serial number 42-67104) was tested at Wright Field and Orlando, Florida as an experimental night fighter with a radar operator sitting on a jump seat just aft of the pilot. The AN/APS-4 radar was initially mounted under the fuselage in a pod just aft of the nosewheel. This pod proved to be rather easily damaged by stones thrown up by the nosewheel during takeoffs and landings, so it was repositioned beneath the starboard wing, but this resulted in interference from the adjacent engine nacelle.

Beginning in September of 1944, a P-38J was used to test a unique method for extending the range of escort fighters by having the fighter engage a hook trailed from a B-24H bomber. Attached to the hook was a standard drop tank. After contact, the tank was automatically attached to standard external tank fittings beneath the fighter's wing. The method proved to be basically feasible, but it required considerable skill on the part of the Lightning pilot in order for it to work. Consequently, this innovation was not pursued any further.

A number of P-38Js were modified in service as TP-38J-LO two-seat "piggyback" trainers with a jump seat aft of the pilot. Some of these aircraft carried an AN/APS-4 radar pod underneath the starboard wing and were used to train P-38M crews.

At least one P-38J was successfully flown with skis. P-38J-1-LO Ser No 42-13565 was fitted with an experimental retractable ski installation.

The initial photo-reconnaissance version of the P-38J was the F-5B-1-LO (model 422-81-21). It had the same camera installation as did the earlier F-5A-10-LO (equivalent to P-38G-10-LO), but had an airframe and engines identical to those of the P-38J-5-LO. The F-5B-1-LO introduced a Sperry automatic pilot, which became standard on all subsequent reconnaissance versions. Two hundred of these photographic aircraft were built, serial numbers being 42-67312/67401 and 42-68192/68301. This was the last of the Lockheed production of the reconnaissance version of the Lightning, subsequent F-5 versions being modifications of standard P-38 fighter airframes performed after delivery.

The F-5C-1-LO was the designation given to P-38J airframes converted at the Dallas Modification Center to a standard basically similar to that of the F-5B-1-LO but with improved camera installations. A total of 123 aircraft is believed to have been so modified. The serial numbers of the P-38J aircraft so modified are not known.

A total of 200 P-38J-15-LO fighter airframes were converted in Dallas to F-5E-2-LO reconnaissance configuration. These were produced to a standard similar to that of the F-5C-1-LO. The designation F-5E-3-LO was given to a similar conversion of 205 P-38J-25-LO airframes. Again, any record of the serial numbers of the P-38J aircraft modified to F-5E-2-LO or F-5E-3-LO standards seems to have been lost.

One F-5B-1-LO (42-68220) was modified with a revised camera installation and was redesignated F-5F-LO.

The few surviving USAAF P-38J aircraft were redesignated F-38Js in 1948 when the USAAF became the USAF and the P designation was changed to F.

P-38J-10-LO Ser No 42-67762 is currently held in storage at the Paul Garber Preservation, Restoration and Storage Facility at Suitland, Maryland. I saw it there on November 2 of this year. It is more or less intact, but needs some restoration work before it is really presentable.

Serials of the P-38J/F-5B were as follows:

42-12867/12869 Lockheed P-38J-1-LO Lightning
42-13560/13566 Lockheed P-38J-1-LO Lightning
42-67102/67311 Lockheed P-38J-5-LO Lightning
42-67312/67401 Lockheed F-5B-1-LO Lightning
42-67402/68191 Lockheed P-38J-10-LO Lightning
42-68192/68301 Lockheed F-5B-1-LO Lightning
42-103979/104428 Lockheed P-38J-15-LO Lightning
43-28248/29047 Lockheed P-38J-15-LO Lightning
44-23059/23208 Lockheed P-38J-15-LO Lightning
44-23209/23558 Lockheed P-38J-20-LO Lightning
44-23559/23768 Lockheed P-38J-25-LO Lightning

Sources:

1. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987

2. The P-38J-M Lockheed Lightning, Profile Publications, Le Roy Weber Profile Publications, Ltd, 1965.

3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.

4. Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.

5. The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

6. Wings of the Weird and Wonderful, Captain Eric Brown, Airlife, 1985.

7. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.


Intresting part about the P-38J buffering effects and locking of controls Mach 0.65 = 221.1885 m/s and locking Mach 0.72 = 245.0088 m/s. There also some cool loadouts on the J. Thought it nice to share with the community.

LEXX_Luthor
02-10-2005, 11:40 PM
Thanks.

I think we "forgot" to post the link.

Wellcome to Forgotten Board

Demons7th_Wolf
02-10-2005, 11:42 PM
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38.html

EnGaurde
02-10-2005, 11:54 PM
good post.

bravo.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p38 vs oscar/zero/tony server...?

LEXX_Luthor
02-10-2005, 11:54 PM
Hey that looks Fine.

Somebody put that into the FB/PF Archive...

We do have an Archive, don't we? yes? no? anybody?

ImpStarDuece
02-11-2005, 04:13 AM
Good post and some interesting info. This deservs a nice fat bump or two.

mortoma
02-11-2005, 10:00 AM
The most interesting thing I've found about the P-38 we fly in the sim is that it flies more like a C-130 Hercules than it does a fighter

Indianer.
02-11-2005, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
The most interesting thing I've found about the P-38 we fly in the sim is that it flies more like a C-130 Hercules than it does a fighter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh man i couldnt agree more.

I was sooo looking forward to it before it came out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .

pssst...word on the street is that it could out turn the late 109s but dont mention that around here

Demons7th_Wolf
02-11-2005, 02:18 PM
Yea this is the reason i brought this post up cause the P-38 in this game does feel like a C-130 and i also want to investergate the compressiblity effect of the P-38J since it say there that it not suppose to
"The problem would begin at Mach 0.65 to 0.68, accompanied by vigorous buffeting and a strong nose-down pitch."
now under that level Mach 0.65 is 221.1885 m/s which is about 494.784583 mph. But in the game it seem to have this effect alot earlier then what this document say.

GR142_Astro
02-11-2005, 06:21 PM
Well, here we go again. Seems this aircraft has been discussed more than most others in recent memory. I think some of the other chaps were going to send Oleg some materials on the Lightning, but I haven't heard anything more.

My 2 continuing gripes:

1 - Bogus compressibility at low altitudes. If you can't model it accurately, remove it. This one aspect really hurts the P38 in its BnZ role against I.J. aircraft.

2 - Armament LESS accurate than the Mk108s which is absolutely stupid. Nose/headshake is too much. This was a stable, accurate gun platform. Not so in this game.

Here are two of the larger, recent P38 threads.

Enjoy.

P38 Thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3291015622)

P38 Thread 2 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=6171065052)

Demons7th_Wolf
02-11-2005, 09:02 PM
Thz Astro
You guys just reasure me that i am not the only one that deeling all this werid ****. yea i got say squeezing the cannon on the P-38 feels like i am firing the 50mm cannnon with that shake

wayno7777
02-11-2005, 10:12 PM
oh man i couldnt agree more.

I was sooo looking forward to it before it came out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .

pssst...word on the street is that it could out turn the late 109s but dont mention that around here[/QUOTE]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gifI also read that certain P-38 jocks through use of flaps and throttles could turn inside a Zero but you didn't hear that from me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

GR142_Astro
02-13-2005, 02:47 AM
Anytime.

There are a handful of guys such as BSS_CUDA and a few of his squaddies that fly the P38 solo and in pairs and do quite well. I think Sandman and Korolov fly the whiz out of it too.

They have figured out ways to overcome the freakish characteristics. I just don't think you should have to overcome garbage like this when it's quite fixable.

As far as turn rate, I've never had a problem with what the 38 can presently do. I think it's darn good for a twin. I've pulled throttle and used flaps to briefly out turn tons of enemy ac, including zekes.

Roll rate, I dunno. The guys with the huge libraries can fight over that one. Seems a bit slow when u consider the boosted ailerons.

But losing elevator efficiency at low altitude and 530kph is just plain stupid. It's wrong no matter how many ways you look at it.

Finally, the gunshake is nuts. Ninety degree deflection shooting is much more accurate for me than dead six shots. Pull up on a zero and watch your 20's fly all over the place while the nose bobbles around.

Great sim still, but please Oleg fix the P38 before you leave us good for BoB.



P38 pilot enjoying his hobby:

http://www.gifanimations.com/Image/Animations/Cars/Fast_racer.gif___1108287783715

Badsight.
02-13-2005, 02:49 AM
**cough** Bf-109Z **cough**

Blackdog5555
02-13-2005, 03:53 AM
I agree with most of what you say. my biggest peaves are the the lack of true flowler flaps and the early compressability and easy spins of the the J and L model at low speed. Should be able to stall turn the L much easier with full flaps. With the first sign of stall comes spin which i have never read about as one of the complaints of this plane. here is a copy of a cgood post i found on the web. authors name is attached.


3) From the P-38J-25-LO on, the Lightning was likely the finest fighter package
flying in 1944. It offered versatility unmatched by any other fighter in any
theater, flown by any nation. There was virtually no mission beyond its means.

4) In terms of range, a properly flown P-38J or L (this means using the correct
power and propeller settings) out-ranged the P-51D by as much as 200 miles.

5) The Japanese considered the P-38 to be a far greater adversary than the
P-47 of the P-51.

6) The TRUE maximum speed of a P-38L was not the much published 414 mph.
This reflects Military Power, not War Emergency Power. In WEP, a clean P-38L
could exceed 440 mph. The P-38J with its lower rated engines could pull speeds
in the low to mid 420's.

7) At corner speed, any P-38 model could EASILY out-turn any fighter in the
Luftwaffe inventory.

8) The P-38L could out-climb the P-51D and Fw-190D by better than 30%.

9) Most Luftwaffe pilots felt that it was suicide to make a head-on attack
against a P-38. The P-38's four .50 caliber MGs and one 20mm cannon
concentrated in a 30 inch circle was devestating.

10) The P-38 was the only fighter in the ETO that could be flown into an
accelerated stall at 1,000 ft. without fear of torque-rolling into an
unrecoverable attitude. Nothing in the ETO could stay with a P-38 down
in the tree tops. Absolutely nothing.

I should give 10 reasons why the P-38 a problematic fighter, to balance the
scales a bit.

1) Early models had only one generator. Suffer a failure of the associated
engine and you were in deep trouble, especially at high altitudes where the
battery had been cold-soaked and produced inadequate power. Without power,
it became impossible to control the Curtiss Electric propellers, which would go
into feather.

2) Models prior to the P-38L-5-LO had terrible heaters and defrosters.

3) Models prior to the P-38J-25-LO lacked dive flaps and were dangerous
to dive at speeds beyond Mach .68. This allowed German pilots to escape
in a steep dive and P-38 pilots were reluctant to follow.

4) At high altitudes, P-38s prior to the P-38L-1-LO tended to suffer engine
failures. This was related to a poorly designed intake manifold, intercooler
over-efficiency and poorly formulated avgas.

5) The lack of automatic engine controls in early models.

6) Poor roll response in early P-38's. Roll rate in later models with
hydraulically boosted ailerons was outstanding.

7) The P-38 required nearly twice the man-hours to maintain the fighter.
It also consumed 80% more fuel than a P-51D for a given distance.

8) Access to engines and systems was poor due to the tight fitting
cowling and crowded booms.

9) Unreliable turbocharger regulators in early models.

10) Poor rear vision, especially below .

The P-38 was not without serious problems. However, as a combat
plane it was among the very best. Galland was wrong, and he knew it.
Perhaps there was something about a big twin out-flying his 109 that
caused him to refuse to acknowledge what he KNEW to be true. Of
course, that is just speculation. Nonetheless, the fact that Galland could
not stand up to the challange of the P-38 pilots indicates that he was
being less than honest in his memiors. Another fact, that he himself barely
escaped with his scalp from a lone P-38L, should settle any arguments.
That P-38, by the way, had to break off due to fuel limits being exceeded.
The U.S. pilot was from the 364th FG. Galland was flying a Fw-190D.
Galland avoided discussing this event unless pressed hard.

My regards,
C.C. Jordan

No one like the early P-38 but the J and especially the Ls were top notch. one theing the poster didnt not was that the P-38 J was the hot rod ofthe pack. It acellerated about 30% faster that the other alied fighters. About 2.6 mph/per sec.

the AEP/PF P-38 stalls way too easy! I dont know about the gunnery but i cant trace the 20s because the tracers are too dull.

geetarman
02-13-2005, 08:55 AM
Blackdog - I agree with all of your points. The 38 had it's share of problems, but, the later J and L's were excellent airplanes. I don't think we'll ever see them in the game.

I know some don't take much stock in pilot accunts, but I've read a ton that said the 38 was the best late war USAAC plane for low alt fighting. It could easily handle a 190 or 109 at low speeds and low altitudes. Much better horizontal turn.

Bull_dog_
02-13-2005, 11:06 AM
I have watched Oleg model the P-39 and P-40 very ambitiously...two aircraft that were maligned by many US pilots. Subsequently he has had to tone them both down with regard to flight performance and I think they are all about spot on except for the D2.

Oleg modelled the Corsair and Spitfire ambitiously and has had to knock them down in the aspect of speed and acceleration.

Oleg porked the Browning HMG's in relation to other HMG's. I never argued whether they were right or wrong, only that one HMG shoots like Laser and one shoots like shotgun...which is it? Ole grudgingly chose laser after a near mutiny.

Oleg modelled the P-51 pretty decent...a little slow at first...then too good of turn and now spot on except he made sure the wing falls off in high speed manuevers and the engine is much more fragile than the same engine in a spit...Why??? Why should a wing fall off on this aircraft that was made to fly fast? The phenom is much more prevelant online than off so I think there is a package loss element too but it really handcuffs this aircraft.

The P-47 was a joke when it was released. It is now pretty darn good...the D-27 seems too slow at high altitude than earlier models...no reason for this. The D-22 is not modelled with a paddle blade prop either so speed and particularly climb performance are a little off. Not bad and certainly tolerable give we are playing a sim....Does anyone remember the fighting, arguing and BS that we went through to get this changed? The cockpit on D-10 and D22 still stink in terms of visibility.

Speaking of visibility...does anyone notice how poor it is on Corsair, Hellcat, P47 and how good it is on Yak and 109? If you study the angles of head turn, you'll find that you can see more of the elevator on German and soviet aircraft than on US aircraft in general.

The Hellcat...this thing is a turd. The only reason we don't hear much about it is the lack of online servers featuring this aircraft. The PTO servers just are not popular and it is largely the online crowd that does the most complaining...I think this is because human adversaries get more out of their aircraft and you have to fly better to be successful than offline. If you want to know how an aircraft performs...fly it online.

Now we get to the P-38. This thing is grossly wrong in so many ways...they have all been detailed before and in this post. Oleg has not bothered putting any effort in rectifying this situation and it is apparent to me that he won't even acknowledge or debate whether it is right or wrong. The plane is junk in this sim for the onliner. It was a very effective fighter in real life and got better, relatively speaking, as the war progressed. It did shoot down Dora's, G10's etc and was competitive with those aircraft.

All these things together jade my opinion of Oleg and his use of objective data for aircraft. He has the best sim going, but everytime I jump into a P-38, I think "boy I can't wait till someone develops a better sim" so I can move on. I don't think Oleg is familiar with American aircraft, I think his focus is European...nothing wrong with that until you introduce American aircraft and try to get American dollars like everyone does... Everytime I participate in one of these threads I get one step closer to using this game as a coaster....still the best, but as a fan of American and British aircraft...this sim falls way short.

My only plea is to fix the P-38 before you move on to BoB.

Flakenstien
02-13-2005, 11:10 AM
I recently spent a weekend with Maj. Fredric Arnold a P38 pilot form WWII. He lterally wrote the book on flying the P38 so I posed many similar questions to him such as the "points" listed above.
And saddned to say most of the info provided above is false, Olegs models of the P38 are extremly accurate. I was at first shocked at how the 38 handled but after talking with Maj. Arnold have found that the 38's we have are really close to the real life thing!
The only thing that he said was not realistic was the ease of entering a flat spin, this rarely happened.
The most common accident was on take off, and it killed more 38 pilots in WWII than any other means, and that was power loss on one engine on the take off, you would enter a spin that was un-recoverable. That is what happens when you have a engine that creates that much power.

I once posted the fact that the 38 could out turn a Zero, I was assured that it is false and the most rumored idea around. The way that other pilots would mention how this procedure was done was by cutting power in the engine on the opposite your turn. Maj. Arnold stated that there is never a reason besides engine faliure that you would want to cut power from one engine, the output of toruqe from the other would make you lose control, He did say although this idea seems that it might work it would have never been done except in a extreme situation.
He too has heard other pilots mention this out turning ability and even the theory behind it but states that Not one of them has ever done it in battle, and non of them has ever tried it, as a matter of fact there is no record of any pilot flying a P38 that has ever performed this manuever, and if there ever was a pilot that tried it he isn't alive to tell about it.
Maj. Arnold stressed that "In theory it MIGHT work, but in reality "IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE"
That coming from a man that flew a 38 in combat, wrote the flying manual on the P38,P51,P47, P80, he invented the aileron boost for the P38 which saved the lives of many pilots who faced the dreaded take off engine failure.
Bottom line is many things you read about any aircraft is information of what the plane should be able to do, information they got in testing.
A combat situation is a totally different story.
If you want to gather real information talk to a pilot that flew aircraft in a combat situation.
Oleg has modeled the P38 in PF probably as close to real as possible, I don't come to that conclusion because I'm a "fanboy" I come to that conclusion becasue I spent many hours talking with someone who flew the 38 in combat and survived to tell about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VFA-195 Snacky
02-13-2005, 11:39 AM
The torque on the P38 in FB should not be there, period.

NawlinzVoodoo
02-13-2005, 11:46 AM
Great rebut FLAKENSTIEN. Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Flakenstien
02-13-2005, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The torque on the P38 in FB should not be there, period. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes this is true, and I forgot to mention it along with the spin.
With the counter rotating props touque was eliminated, only time you would have it at a noticable point would be if one enging was out or throttled differantly.

Krt_Bong
02-13-2005, 12:39 PM
Speaking as one who has been around WWII Military Aviation I see lots of wonderful info posts from people who obviously are into this game. However I see criticisms from people who never give any qualifying statements as to their experience with "Flying" said military aviation, as someone once said "Those who can: Do, Those who can't: write about it" I would never question cold hard facts but it seems like all anyone does when a remark gets posted is turn around and say "Oleg didn't do this" and "Oleg got the Eastern Front aircraft so much stronger" and I wish they would make this stronger or that weaker. The info posted by Wolf is a correct and historical account of the P-38 as it was developed and I guarantee anyone with a good connection, decent equipment(Track IR and a good flight stick) and some skill is gonna eat for lunch anyone who has less than that no matter what airplane they pick. It's pilot skills and tried and true technique that won most dogfights Heck the P-40 went all the way to model K through to the end of the war and accounted for most japanese Kills during the PTO and that wasn't because it was a Superior Aircraft it was Superior Pilot Skills so rant all you want about Flight models and the proper number of rivets on the battery covers I've seen plenty of online playing and it's skillfull flying that wins in this game not over-modelled Machine Guns

Bull_dog_
02-13-2005, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Krt_Bong:
Speaking as one who has been around WWII Military Aviation I see lots of wonderful info posts from people who obviously are into this game. However I see criticisms from people who never give any qualifying statements as to their experience with "Flying" said military aviation, as someone once said "Those who can: Do, Those who can't: write about it" I would never question cold hard facts but it seems like all anyone does when a remark gets posted is turn around and say "Oleg didn't do this" and "Oleg got the Eastern Front aircraft so much stronger" and I wish they would make this stronger or that weaker. The info posted by Wolf is a correct and historical account of the P-38 as it was developed and I guarantee anyone with a good connection, decent equipment(Track IR and a good flight stick) and some skill is gonna eat for lunch anyone who has less than that no matter what airplane they pick. It's pilot skills and tried and true technique that won most dogfights Heck the P-40 went all the way to model K through to the end of the war and accounted for most japanese Kills during the PTO and that wasn't because it was a Superior Aircraft it was Superior Pilot Skills so rant all you want about Flight models and the proper number of rivets on the battery covers I've seen plenty of online playing and it's skillfull flying that wins in this game not over-modelled Machine Guns <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You might want to check your premises on why P-40's were still around at the end of the war...I assure you it wasnt the quality of aircraft they were producing. Between Brewester and Curtiss, they probably killed more pilots from the bad management of their companies than did Fw's...I'm being sarcastic of course, but I assure you curtiss was around more because of politics than the quality of the aircraft the company was turning out.

At Flakenstein... did you ask him about the gunshake? How about compressibility at low altitude? How did his control authority get at 350mph relative to other aircraft?

I love to hear from real pilots but the feedback I have read from pilots relative to this game has been very mixed and I don't think this sim will ever simulate real combat or real flying because there is no sensation of g's, fear, heat, cold, adrenaline etc...

The plane compresses too soon at too low of altitude...there are errors in the speed ratings and engine boost...straight from Lockheed...stall characteristics and climb rates are off.

This plane should be stable and easy to aim...I remember flying online for the first few times...one of my favorite planes was the P-47. I had to be careful but when I BZ opponents, the plane was soooo easy to aim I rarely missed even though I was a noobie...plus we had a scattergun for hmg's. IMHO, the Lightning should be very similar to that...easy to aim, steady, good controls at high speeds below compressibility limits at high altitude.

The aircraft we have has an annoying pitch to it and it rocks on its veritcal axis...the gun shake is minor to me because it is a visual effect rather than an actual effect... give me a plane that has boost, doesn't compress and doesn't pitch and you will find a deadly opponent online in the Lightning.

Flakenstien
02-13-2005, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> At Flakenstein... did you ask him about the gunshake? How about compressibility at low altitude? How did his control authority get at 350mph relative to other aircraft? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did ask about "gunshake" he said with that much firepower you definately feel it. Although it is hard to simulate but you knew it when you fired(guess the closest we get to that is using a FF joystick)
Compressibility we didn't talk much about but I will ask him since we speak on a regular basis, he did tell me that most compressibility issues we taken care of early on in the first P38 models and it wasn't much of a factor when they entered battle.
I'll ask him about the control authority.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I love to hear from real pilots but the feedback I have read from pilots relative to this game has been very mixed and I don't think this sim will ever simulate real combat or real flying because there is no sensation of g's, fear, heat, cold, adrenaline etc... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most real pilots I have spoken with all feel the same about simulators, "I don't understand how someone can call this fun? When I was there it was not fun and I sure as hell never want to re-enact it!"

Many here don't understand this, many consider PF as entertainment, when in real life there was nothing entertaining about it at all. I personally use the sim for learning and enjoyment, nothing I like more than to research a battle, type aircraft etc the go and re-create the mission. But I never forget that the events that this sim is based on wasn't a game and if more thought that way they would get so much more from thier simming experiance.

When I asked Maj. Arnold about what he thought of Combat Sims in general he stated..
"Until they can make a simulator that causes you to sh*t yourself when bullets start to hit your six, until they can make one that gives you the fear that rushes through your body when you realize that your wingman has been taken down by a 109 that no one saw coming, until they can make them make you realize that you are about to die with no chance of "starting over" a simulator can never ever be realistic!"

We at times in battle get the adriniline rush, sweaty palms etc, but we will never know what it was really like, this is what we all need to keep in mind when the topic of "realistic" comes up. We are well off with what we have http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Texas LongHorn
02-13-2005, 06:44 PM
Demon, while your sources appear to be immaculate, inclucing the NIPress, You should pick up a copy of the late Jeff Ethell's book simply titled P-38. It is _THE_ difinitive study of the cockpit, controls, etc. Also included are some fab foldouts of major interest. Ethell died just a few years ago piloting... you guessed it, a p-38. Until he died AFAIK he was considered THE expert on P-38's. All the best, LongHorn

VF-29_Sandman
02-13-2005, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flakenstien:
I recently spent a weekend with Maj. Fredric Arnold a P38 pilot form WWII. He lterally wrote the book on flying the P38 so I posed many similar questions to him such as the "points" listed above.
And saddned to say most of the info provided above is false, Olegs models of the P38 are extremly accurate. I was at first shocked at how the 38 handled but after talking with Maj. Arnold have found that the 38's we have are really close to the real life thing!
The only thing that he said was not realistic was the ease of entering a flat spin, this rarely happened.
The most common accident was on take off, and it killed more 38 pilots in WWII than any other means, and that was power loss on one engine on the take off, you would enter a spin that was un-recoverable. That is what happens when you have a engine that creates that much power.

I once posted the fact that the 38 could out turn a Zero, I was assured that it is false and the most rumored idea around. The way that other pilots would mention how this procedure was done was by cutting power in the engine on the opposite your turn. Maj. Arnold stated that there is never a reason besides engine faliure that you would want to cut power from one engine, the output of toruqe from the other would make you lose control, He did say although this idea seems that it might work it would have never been done except in a extreme situation.
He too has heard other pilots mention this out turning ability and even the theory behind it but states that Not one of them has ever done it in battle, and non of them has ever tried it, as a matter of fact there is no record of any pilot flying a P38 that has ever performed this manuever, and if there ever was a pilot that tried it he isn't alive to tell about it.
Maj. Arnold stressed that "In theory it MIGHT work, but in reality "IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE"
That coming from a man that flew a 38 in combat, wrote the flying manual on the P38,P51,P47, P80, he invented the aileron boost for the P38 which saved the lives of many pilots who faced the dreaded take off engine failure.
Bottom line is many things you read about any aircraft is information of what the plane should be able to do, information they got in testing.
A combat situation is a totally different story.
If you want to gather real information talk to a pilot that flew aircraft in a combat situation.
Oleg has modeled the P38 in PF probably as close to real as possible, I don't come to that conclusion because I'm a "fanboy" I come to that conclusion becasue I spent many hours talking with someone who flew the 38 in combat and survived to tell about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it's 1 thing to try something that's 'never been done' when no1 is shooting at u, and ur not at low alt so just in case something does go wrong, u have enough time to think about how to recover. but u wouldnt dare think of trying this/that when a bandit is serious about taking u out of the equation permanently.
in some ways, a 38 was forgiving, and in other ways, to make a mistake was fatal. mcguire broke a cardinal rule about getting low and slow with a zero, and having droptanks on...and didnt live to tell about it. to make the wrong mistake at the wrong time in any plane in a combat arena, u'll die. next page.

ClnlSandersLite
02-13-2005, 10:18 PM
About the lightnings torque:
I myself fly the lightning (in game) extensively. I've done a lot of tests, ranging from engine failure at takeoff (for fun), to limited capability landings. Well, something that I noticed is that the p-38 torques one way at full power, and a bit differently at another power setting. Basically, I don't think the engine's power is perfectly synchronized. Try flying for awhile with one engine at like 100% power and the other on something like 98%. It seems to nearly eliminate the torque problem. I always just viewed it as like the throttles are slightly wrong (pilot error) or perhaps since it's older tech, maybe the engines aren't synchronized as well as they could be if it was modern. Something that the game does not model at all is the super chargers not kicking in at the exact same time. I've read a couple of pilot accounts on how this was a real ***** in formations. It'd be like, all the sudden engine #1 is putting more power out than 2, correct with the rudder before you slam into the man next to you, and almost before you get fully corrected, engine #2 kicks up an you have to correct again.

Badsight.
02-13-2005, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flakenstien:
And saddned to say most of the info provided above is false, Olegs models of the P38 are extremly accurate. I was at first shocked at how the 38 handled but after talking with Maj. Arnold have found that the 38's we have are really close to the real life thing! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
thats pretty damming

but the torque issue is one & the low-alt compression is another part of this plane that IS wrong , i mean fly a Bf-109Z & see if it torques & spin stalls as easy as the P-38

i hate bringing up the Bf-109Z when the P-38 is discussed as i like it a lot but its so obvious when you fly them back to back

Airmail109
02-14-2005, 02:20 AM
Yeah I have read many accounts saying that the P38 was inferior to German single seaters in a dogfight. People say that a P38 should be able to turn inside a 109, Im sorry but that is BS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

VF-29_Sandman
02-14-2005, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flakenstien:
And saddned to say most of the info provided above is false, Olegs models of the P38 are extremly accurate. I was at first shocked at how the 38 handled but after talking with Maj. Arnold have found that the 38's we have are really close to the real life thing! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
thats pretty damming

but the torque issue is one & the low-alt compression is another part of this plane that _IS_ wrong , i mean fly a Bf-109Z & see if it torques & spin stalls as easy as the P-38

i hate bringing up the Bf-109Z when the P-38 is discussed as i like it a lot but its so obvious when you fly them back to back <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly. not only does this 'death star' have almost 1.5 times the climb rate, it also has about the same acceleration on the level. also the stall tendencies: u can break hard in either direction with ease in the 'death star', but not so in the 38.
not only will a 38 go into terminal tail compression, the boom will also snap off if the speed is right. that uber 'death star' will easily peg the indicated airspeed gauge with nary a flutter, and survive a pullout with the tail boom intact. hmmmmm. i smell fish.

Aztek_Eagle
02-14-2005, 02:38 AM
here we go again... now the p38 like the p47 is wanted to fly like a yak by the whinners

VF-29_Sandman
02-14-2005, 02:47 AM
go fly a 38, then a jug in a non-wonderwoman/no externals server, then a 109-z (if available), then report back

Badsight.
02-14-2005, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
Yeah I have read many accounts saying that the P38 was inferior to German single seaters in a dogfight. People say that a P38 should be able to turn inside a 109, Im sorry but that is BS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>im sorry but you cannot ignore the torque issue with the P-38

or its snap stalls

or its elevator compression at low alts

all im saying is fly it & the Bf-109Z back to back a few times over thru hard manouvering

look at how each plane feels powering on & off (motor torque) & put each into snap stalls then , & only then , bother to post in this thread again

& Sandman , your Z envy is literally ooozing dude

Giganoni
02-14-2005, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:


5) The Japanese considered the P-38 to be a far greater adversary than the
P-47 of the P-51.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would imagine if true this was due to the fierce battles mostly of the JAAF in New Guinea. With conditions so miserable the Japanese squads seemed to have idolized their aces during this period of fighting especially. Pilots such as Saito, Chiyoji who was considered the 24th Sentai's "P-38 Killer" is one example. P-38s also seem to often escort the bombers during this period and eclipsed the unfortunate pilots who had the Oscar. It probably made a more lasting impression than the better, later 47 and 51.

I also agree with Bull_Dog_ people tend to forget that war and weapons means money to some people. Heck, the B-17 would have been removed from the budget if it wasn't for the lobbyists selling the government that it wouldn't need escort fighters.

VF-29_Sandman
02-14-2005, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
Yeah I have read many accounts saying that the P38 was inferior to German single seaters in a dogfight. People say that a P38 should be able to turn inside a 109, Im sorry but that is BS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>im sorry but you cannot ignore the torque issue with the P-38

or its snap stalls

or its elevator compression at low alts

all im saying is fly it & the Bf-109Z back to back a few times over thru hard manouvering

look at how each plane feels powering on & off (motor torque) & put each into snap stalls then , & only then , bother to post in this thread again

& Sandman , your Z envy is literally ooozing dude <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that jerri p-38-ripoff will never fly in my servers. guarenteed. never saw action, wont in my skies either.

BSS_CUDA
02-14-2005, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Anytime.

There are a handful of guys such as BSS_CUDA and a few of his squaddies that fly the P38 solo and in pairs and do quite well. I think Sandman and Korolov fly the whiz out of it too.

They have figured out ways to overcome the freakish characteristics. I just don't think you should have to overcome garbage like this when it's quite fixable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx for the word Astro, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I love this plane online, if there is a 38 in a game thats what I'll be flying. its hands down better than the 190 @ co-alt or higher, you have to seriously screw up to get out flown by one of them, the only advantage they have over you is to head for the deck where your compressability sets in and you cant follow, I even find that its a very good match for the 109k's ( stay away from the G's if your solo ), the head shake issue is one that I dont understand, its the only plane that has it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif( allied I dont fly axis ) even the la's with the twin 20's in the nose no shake, they shoot like lazerbeams, the 38 take more patence knowing your sights gonna bounce like a superball, also if someone does find proof of WEP on a 38 PLZ let the creator know so hopefully he'll add it to this FINE aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Badsight.
02-14-2005, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
that jerri p-38-ripoff will never fly in my servers. guarenteed. never saw action, wont in my skies either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well arnt we the no fun , stick-in-the-mud , spoil sporting , party pooper

that plane is hellish fun to fly

everyone agrees

Giganoni
02-14-2005, 11:49 PM
Hehe..badsight and his uber planes. I'm surprised you don't have a petition going to have the Shinden in PF yet?

GR142_Astro
02-14-2005, 11:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:


Thx for the word Astro, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I love this plane online, if there is a 38 in a game thats what I'll be flying. its hands down better than the 190 @ co-alt or higher, you have to seriously screw up to get out flown by one of them, the only advantage they have over you is to head for the deck where your compressability sets in and you cant follow, I even find that its a very good match for the 109k's ( stay away from the G's if your solo ), the head shake issue is one that I dont understand, its the only plane that has it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif( allied I dont fly axis ) even the la's with the twin 20's in the nose no shake, they shoot like lazerbeams, the 38 take more patence knowing your sights gonna bounce like a superball, also if someone does find proof of WEP on a 38 PLZ let the creator know so hopefully he'll add it to this FINE aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give props where they belong I say. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So where do I find CUDA in GreaterGreen? Taking on two K4s with the P38 at 10 meters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That was nuts. We torched em both but the second bandit's fireball took him out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Nice flying anyway.

The P38 is on the bubble of being a decent fighter, like the Jug once was. I hope Oleg takes one last look at this important ac before moving on.

Spectre-63
02-15-2005, 01:11 AM
a close friend of mine did some extensive research on the P-38, even going to the extent of packing up his laptop and taking it to some of the pilots who flew them in both the ETO and the PTO for evaluation....they all basically came back and said that the elevator authority was nowhere near accurate and even some of the simplest items (gunsight, pilot head position) were way off. The really sad part about the whole thing was that when my friend submitted his data to 1C:Maddox he was told that it was "American propaganda" and that the pilots memories of the aircraft's handling capabilities were clouded by age. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Think the P-38 is "accurately modeled" in FB/AEP/PF? Try a simple test: taxi with one engine and see if you can maintain heading.

It's really sad - my first impressions of Oleg's sims were that he was interested in making them as accurate as possible. Based upon his responses to historical data, I no longer have that impression.

VF-29_Sandman
02-15-2005, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
a close friend of mine did some extensive research on the P-38, even going to the extent of packing up his laptop and taking it to some of the pilots who flew them in both the ETO and the PTO for evaluation....they all basically came back and said that the elevator authority was _nowhere near_ accurate and even some of the simplest items (gunsight, pilot head position) were way off. The really sad part about the whole thing was that when my friend submitted his data to 1C:Maddox he was told that it was "American propaganda" and that the pilots memories of the aircraft's handling capabilities were clouded by age. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Think the P-38 is "accurately modeled" in FB/AEP/PF? Try a simple test: taxi with one engine and see if you can maintain heading.

It's really sad - my first impressions of Oleg's sims were that he was interested in making them as accurate as possible. Based upon his responses to historical data, I no longer have that impression. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

somehow i would seriously doubt that any1 that survived ww2 in any fighter would forget about how his plane handled. especially when he was gettin lined up by an enemy and having tracer fire whizz by the cockpit and knowing that this bandit might be the 1 that has ur number. 60 yrs ago, any of us could have wound up being on the receiving end of a bandit....and some would never live to tell about their mistakes.

VFA-195 Moses
02-15-2005, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
a close friend of mine did some extensive research on the P-38, even going to the extent of packing up his laptop and taking it to some of the pilots who flew them in both the ETO and the PTO for evaluation....they all basically came back and said that the elevator authority was _nowhere near_ accurate and even some of the simplest items (gunsight, pilot head position) were way off. The really sad part about the whole thing was that when my friend submitted his data to 1C:Maddox he was told that it was "American propaganda" and that the pilots memories of the aircraft's handling capabilities were clouded by age. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Think the P-38 is "accurately modeled" in FB/AEP/PF? Try a simple test: taxi with one engine and see if you can maintain heading.

It's really sad - my first impressions of Oleg's sims were that he was interested in making them as accurate as possible. Based upon his responses to historical data, I no longer have that impression. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate agreeing with you Spectre but i do agree completely with what you said. Just sad that people that flew the plane can be so easily dismissed.

ZG77_Nagual
02-15-2005, 09:01 AM
So we have some pilots saying the 38 is spot on, others saying elevator authority is too weak. Personally, based on everything I've read I tend to agree the elevs are a bit weak - a BIT - this can be countered with trim but then you loose nose down - so I'd say a 10-15% increase in elev onset across the board would be nice - move the speed at which they get heavy up say 30 or 40 mph.

I fly the 38 allmost exclusively - and I really like it. It's not the easiest - maybe the hardest - to win in but it sure is fun.

Bull_dog_
02-15-2005, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
So we have some pilots saying the 38 is spot on, others saying elevator authority is too weak. Personally, based on everything I've read I tend to agree the elevs are a bit weak - a BIT - this can be countered with trim but then you loose nose down - so I'd say a 10-15% increase in elev onset across the board would be nice - move the speed at which they get heavy up say 30 or 40 mph. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This reply reflects what I had said earlier in this post about pilot accounts...I think you have to listen to what is said, but take things with a grain of salt...just like those darn facts that are printed out there...there are contradictions which mean one or both are wrong.

I like listening to pilots and in any investigation, I tend to listen for what is consistantly being said and why they think that way. Things like great stall characteristics and stall climbs are consistant. B&Z tactics is consistant. Interestingly, what I don't hear from pilot accounts is a lot about compressibility...test pilots yes...maybe the others are all dead but I think this effect was new and mis understood and over publicised. Over and over, I hear that compressibility was a high altitude phenomenom...and over and over from pilots that entered it and survived, the lost control effectiveness when it happened, but it was preceeded by buffeting and downward pitch of nose...then loss of control. I have consistantly heard that the lightning was a steady gun and weapons platform and very versitile. I have also heard it was a really bad aircraft for high altitude escort duty with a very high mission abort rate that was corrected in the J and L models. I have consistantly heard that it was an effective fighter with a compliment of strengths and weaknesses and consistantly heard that the L model was a viscous dogfighter....not the can of pork we have.

Now when I look at those consistancies in these testimonials vs. what I fly in game in relation to other aircraft (the operative words are "in relation to") I can't help but see that this plane is not an accurate reflection of its real life counterpart.

Now, there is data that has convinced me that in addition to all this the P-38J and L were boosted and the top speed of the J model was about 424 mph and the top speed of the L model was 440...414 without boost. Now I can certainly understand people debating those numbers, but I can't understand why people would debate the lack of boost clearly indicating that the FM is wrong in an obvious way. This isn't the first time aircraft were modelled with unboosted numbers.

horseback
02-15-2005, 10:18 PM
Unfortunately, there appears to be a clear bias against the top American fighters in this sim; apparently the sentiment is that even though the record shows otherwise, nothing that big should ever be able to turn inside my 109/YaK/La/A6M/Ki-whatever...

Here are the quotes, with sources and page numbers:

1) "Johannes Steinhoff, Kommodore of JG 77 in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, flying Bf 109s, had this to say about the P-38, 'I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last few days of the North African campaign, Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening. The machine guns mounted on the nose supposedly produced a concentration of fire from which there was no escape. Certainly the effect was reminiscent of a watering can when one of those dangerous apparitions started firing tracer, and it was essential to prevent them manoeuvring into a position from which they could bring their guns to bear." P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984, page 21.

2) "Oberleutnant Franz Steigler, a 28 victory ace in the Bf 109 with JG 27 in North Africa, said the P-38s "could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank, and by then we would already be gone. One cardinal rule we never forgot was: avoid fighting a P-38 head on. That was suicide. Their armament was so heavy and their firepower so murderous, that no one ever tried that type of attack more than once."P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984Pages 21,22.

3) LtCol. Mark E. Hubbard, CO of the 20th FG: The P-38 will out-turn any enemy fighter in the air up to 25,000 ft,..." "To break off combat, out-climb him if under 20,000 ft. Out-turn him and head for some help. We can outrun him up to 25,000 ft with an even start." Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #31- VIII Fighter Command at War -Long Reach-The Official Training Document Compiled from the Experiences of the Fighting Escorts of the 'Mighty Eighth', compiled by Michael O'Leary, 2000Pages 80 and 97.

4) Capt. Maurice R. McLary, 55th Fs, 20FG: "...I would say that anyone flying a P-38 should have no fear of any enemy aircraft - even dogfighting a single-engined fighter at a decent altitude. I consider anything below 20,000 ft a decent altitude for a P-38." Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #31- VIII Fighter Command at War -Long Reach-The Official Training Document Compiled from the Experiences of the Fighting Escorts of the 'Mighty Eighth', compiled by Michael O'Leary, 2000, Page 106.

5) Capt. Merle B. Nichols, 79thFS/20th FG: "After making a break, if we can make the enemy commit himself by turning with us or or doing anything but a split-S, we can usually be on the offensive in a matter of seconds." "When on the deck, if both engines are running okay - full RPM and maximum manifold pressure - the Hun does not have an aircraft that can catch us." Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #31- VIII Fighter Command at War -Long Reach-The Official Training Document Compiled from the Experiences of the Fighting Escorts of the 'Mighty Eighth', compiled by Michael O'Leary, 2000, page 107.

6) "Col Oliver B. Taylor, CO of the 14th FG in 1944, analysed the P-38's effectiveness in the theatre with the following recollections:...Stability: The plane could be pulled into a tight turn, essentially right at the stall point, without snapping out or dropping. The counter-rotating props eliminated any torque problems when passing through a range of speeds. This was particularly useful durning dive bombings and strafing runs because the longitudinal axis of the plane remained on the flight path along which we were aiming. Manoeuvrability: Generally we found the 38 could out-manoeuvre anything else, friend or foe, between 18,000 and 31,000 ft (5,490 and 9,450m). Below 18,000, it was sort of a toss-up, except that very near to the ground we could run Jerry right into the dirt, since he apparently couldn't get quite such a fast pull-out response as we could." P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984, page 23.

7) John A. Tilley, an ace with the 431st FS/475th FG, "...remembers that Mac (Tom McGuire-38 victory ace) was notorious for going 'round and round' with Japanese fighters. McGuire told those under his command never to turn with an enemy fighter in the heavy '38 but he did it anyway with great success, particularly at low altitudes and low airspeeds of 90 mph (145 km/h)." "Although dogfighting in the Lightning was often played down officially, it was more common than not (in the 475th FG, anyway- they were an elite group formed on P-38s in-theater with an excellent core group of aces-HB)." "...so how did I get my second kill by turning a full 360 degree circle to the left, at low speeds and on the deck with an Oscar? Primarily I think it happened because the &lt;Japanese pilot&gt; and I both believed he could out turn me. I never would have tried to stay with him if there hadn't been 12 of us and only two of them. I figured I could always holler for help if I got into a jam. And I'm sure the &lt;Japanese pilot&gt; figured the usual tight turn was his best bet when he didn't have enough air under him for a split-S. Miracle of miracles, the big old P-38 actually turned inside the nimble little Oscar. I was on the deck, in a vertical bank, the airspeed under 90 mph, and the yoke was bucking and shuddering in my hands. That turn was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. But without torque (good old counter-rotating engines) I didn't worry about 'snapping' out of control and into a spin, as with a single-engine aircraft, so I was able to pull enough lead for my guns to really hit him hard. By the time we had completed a 360 degree of this turn, he was a ball of flames and my aircraft was drenched with oil from his engine. I couldn't see a thing through the windshiled so I had to ask a squdronmate to lead me home. the I had to crank down the side window and reach around to clear a spot on the windshield so I could see enough to land." P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984, pages 46-47.

7) "... Air Force captain that had served in North Africa and Siciley had this to tell Lockheed about his P-38 combat experience: 'The chief fighting characteristic of the P-38, aside from its terrific firepower, is its high-altitude capability. And because of its excellent performance at high altitude, the strategy for combat, he said, is to force the aerial battle upward whenever possible. For as altitude increases, the '38 gains the advantage over the Jerry planes not designed for the thinner air."
"Another point of interest is that the P-38 could not only climb higher, but faster than any of the German fighters I encountered. Thsi is important, and as a result of this characteristic and effective combat technique has been developed- that of outclimbing the enemy, and when he stalls out, just rolling over and picking him off."Lockheed P-38 Lightning, by Steve Pace, Motorbooks International, Warbird History, 1996.Pages 87-88.

Like the P-40, the general impression seems to be "well, it couldn't turn with the Zero, so it must be a real pig." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most of the pilots quoted above were combat aces with the necessary hours in the P-38 to appreciate and exploit its potential, and in most of the American quotes, their comments were sought out for the instruction of other airmen getting prepared for combat, not for propaganda or Lockheed sales brochures.

I could dig out a dozen more, from Osprey's two Aircraft of the Aces volumes on the P-38, or Martin Caiden's infamous 'Fork-tailed Devil', but these should suffice. Luftwaffe pilots who caught an unwary, mechanically unsound or inexperienced Lightning driver may not have respected it, but the ones who faced the experienced groups that trained from the ground up in P-38s, as in the case of the 1st, 14th and 82nd Fighter Groups, had a very different impression.

The record speaks for itself. The P-38 conferred significant advantages over its Axis opponents through war's end to pilots with the experience and skill to exploit them.

cheers

horseback

Badsight.
02-15-2005, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
somehow i would seriously doubt that any1 that survived ww2 in any fighter would forget about how his plane handled. . . . . . 60 yrs ago,. . . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>5 years ago i owned the last GSX-400X i ever would , i owned 4 in total & thrashed everyone to death , knew those bikes well as i do GSX-R 750's , had one & thrashed it till it died & then owned a GSX-R1100 & then a RF-900 after that

now one things for sure is that my exact knowledge i had of the GSX-400's handeling is nothing what it used to be , & this is just 5 years down the track & i had a 4 year period of riding that bike only & for one of those years it was my only transport & i rode it multiple times daily , & only slowly if a cop was in sight

GR142_Astro
02-16-2005, 12:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The record speaks for itself. The P-38 conferred significant advantages over its Axis opponents through war's end to pilots with the experience and skill to exploit them.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Appreciate you typing these up horseback. Interesting quotes indeed. I guess it will take the kind of campaigning to get the P38 right as it took for the Jug.

horseback
02-16-2005, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
somehow i would seriously doubt that any1 that survived ww2 in any fighter would forget about how his plane handled. . . . . . 60 yrs ago,. . . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>5 years ago i owned the last GSX-400X i ever would , i owned 4 in total & thrashed everyone to death , knew those bikes well as i do GSX-R 750's , had one & thrashed it till it died & then owned a GSX-R1100 & then a RF-900 after that

now one things for sure is that my exact knowledge i had of the GSX-400's handeling is nothing what it used to be , & this is just 5 years down the track & i had a 4 year period of riding that bike only & for one of those years it was my only transport & i rode it multiple times daily , & only slowly if a cop was in sight <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So was the GSX-400 a prop bike, and the ones that followed it all jet powered? The minority of wartime pilots who stayed in the service went on fairly quickly to jet aircraft, a whole other type of flying experience, by all accounts.

If, like most of the pilots (including the aces) who flew the P-38, you had left the field after your GSX-400 days (most wartime pilots returned to civilian lives, went back to school, got married, got jobs, and rarely got much stick time in military fighters), I imagine you'd have a clearer memory of the GSX-400's quirks.

Even then, I don't think a motorcycle's handling is remotely akin to handling a fighter aircraft in combat. Most military aviators have better than average memories to begin with, and fighting World War II was the most mportant thing most of the participants ever did, even for those who played Texas high school football.

I know that the expression "etched into my memory" has fallen into recent disrepute, but I think it would apply here.

cheers

horseback

BigKahuna_GS
02-16-2005, 12:44 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________
horseback
Unfortunately, there appears to be a clear bias against the top American fighters in this sim; apparently the sentiment is that even though the record shows otherwise, nothing that big should ever be able to turninside my 109/YaK/La/A6M/Ki-whatever...
__________________________________________________ ______________________



It certainly appears that way for Western Front Aircraft.

You dont need to compare the 109Z vs 38, try the Me110G2.

An utter failure as a long range fighter, the Me110G2 has better stall and turn qualities than the no engine torque-counter rotating props P38. The P38 had a very gentle stall.

A simple question, can the P38 perform the "Clover Leaf Maneuver" in AEP/PF as it did in real life ? The answer is no.

If you go to the Lockheed Martin web site you will see that Oleg chose not to include the more powerful engines in the P38L of which several thousand were produced. Missing is an additional 250hp while on boost(1,725hp)per engine vs 1600hp per engine.

Horizontal acceleration- The P38 was the fastest accelerating aircraft in this catagory as compared to all other US fighters in WW2. (AHT)

The P-38 encountered compressibilty starting at .67 Mach. That's 67 percent
of the speed of sound. At sea level .67 mach is over 500 miles per hour (804kph+). In AEP the P-38 begins losing elevator effectiveness(the first sign of compressibility) at about 675 kph TAS (419 mph). Basically there was no compressibility problems from mid altitudes on down to the deck where the air was warm and thick. The elevator response is wrong. It
severely cripples the P-38's dive ability and needs to be corrected.


Stienhoff comments about late model P38J-Ls:

WWII: Of all the Allied fighters you encountered, which was the most
difficult to handle with a good pilot at the controls?

Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets.


Oleg had a shocker when he found out the BIGGER F6F Hellcat & F4U Corsair could easily out-turn and out-loop the SMALLER 190A5. Big fighters can be quite nimble which is contrary to his thinking and soviet fighter doctrine in WW2.

The problem is Oleg and his lack of understanding of the Western Front and US plane capabilities. I asked Oleg if he had read any books or materials about this theater of war--the answer was no. Of the pilot accounts Oleg had only read about some of the german aces that mostly served on the Eastern Front and barely mentioned air battles in the west.


Oleg also thinks the P47M at 470mph+ (490mph over-boosted) TAS 30,000ft and the best turning and rolling (100deg/sec) P47N at 465+mph TAS were worse models of the P47--not better.

How are you going to win over that type of thinking ?


Presently the 109K4 can stay with a P47-D27 during a long dive. There is no separation now.

Gunther Rall:
The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, she was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster.

Key point from Gunther Rall's perspective-- "But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition."

Read the whole interview :
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html


The Mustang shreding wings during high speed manuevers with little or no elevator input. Is it an online bug ?

I chased a 109k4 nose down at high speed. The 109k4 rolled during this dive and I matched his roll in the P51 with no elevator input, the wing came off. Is that pilot error or a bug ?



______

horseback
02-16-2005, 01:49 PM
The only line I've heard about the Mustang wing-shedding phenomenom is that the elevators are too effective (due no doubt to excessive Ami-whining), and the result is that when the a/c exceeds a certain number of Gs, the wings come off, whereas the much lighter (and more lightly built) 109, with it's less effective elevators, is not able to acheive this G-loading, comes out more slowly, and therefore keeps its wings.

Without an elevator input, I can't imagine what the excuse for that one will be, but like the foggy windshields and other supposed factory flaws that only show up in American planes (some people are still convinced that we couldn't make anything well except refrigerators and razor blades), we'll just have to flood 'em with corrective documentation.

cheers

horseback

BigKahuna_GS
02-16-2005, 02:05 PM
S!


Rgr that horseback. All planes have a supposed 15g limit in this sim.
What I dont understand is the randomn wing breakage.

If there was a prescribed way to fly the P51 at high speed that would 100% eliminate wing breakage I would try and do it. This problems has occured to so many 51 pilots at odd times there must be a lag/lost packet of info bug that spikes the G meter causing wing breakage. This problem is definetly worse online.

At this point I am starting think that the myth of the P51 wing problem is being included into the factory model of the P51 in AEP/PF.


____

hop2002
02-16-2005, 02:38 PM
The 440 mph figure is from Lockheed testing, I believe, courtesy of Warren Bodie, who was a Lockheed engineer.

The problem with that is, whatever Lockheed were claiming, and pushing P-38s to get, those aren't the figures the USAAF seems to have got.

CC Jordan, who is the source for most of these claims on the net, has claimed the USAAF approved the 1725 hp rating in June 1945, and reccomended 115/145 fuel (115/145 fuel was never issued for service use during the war, although some was manufactured for testing purposes).

All in all, I'd take those performance figures with a pinch of salt.

As to roll rate, the P-38 with boosted ailerons certainly had a very good roll rate at high speeds.

However, that's steady state roll, the degrees per second you can sustain once you have got up to full rolling speed.

What matters most in combat is roll acceleration, how long it takes to bank a certain number of degrees. In that, the P-38 is still going to be poor, because it has long wings and heavy weights on the wings. That's going to give very high inertia to overcome.

Bull_dog_
02-16-2005, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The 440 mph figure is from Lockheed testing, I believe, courtesy of Warren Bodie, who was a Lockheed engineer.

The problem with that is, whatever Lockheed were claiming, and pushing P-38s to get, those aren't the figures the USAAF seems to have got.

CC Jordan, who is the source for most of these claims on the net, has claimed the USAAF approved the 1725 hp rating in June 1945, and reccomended 115/145 fuel (115/145 fuel was never issued for service use during the war, although some was manufactured for testing purposes).

All in all, I'd take those performance figures with a pinch of salt.

As to roll rate, the P-38 with boosted ailerons certainly had a very good roll rate at high speeds.

However, that's steady state roll, the degrees per second you can sustain once you have got up to full rolling speed.

What matters most in combat is roll acceleration, how long it takes to bank a certain number of degrees. In that, the P-38 is still going to be poor, because it has long wings and heavy weights on the wings. That's going to give very high inertia to overcome. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we have to take all these things with a grain of salt, but I have been convinced, salt and all that the commonly printed 414mph is an unboosted figure.

The slow start of the roll rate is correct for a lighting before boosted ailerons. Any twwin engined fighter has extra weight from the engine to move around its axis. Once rolling, inertia figured into the game and the aircraft had a respectable rate of roll....

All accounts I have read say the L model did away with the mush and slow starting of the roll rate...even at slow speeds so it was faster starting the roll...the word "snappy" is used to describe it and the faster the aircraft goes the faster it rolls.

I will look a little differently on turn rate after reading all those quotes. I felt like the Lightning had a comparable and effective turn radius, but I always felt it was either at super slow speeds or fast speeds, but it appears several pilots felt its turning prowess was unmatched by the luftwaffe...a little salt may be in order, but I will not just accept the plane was a poor turner anymore.

@Kahuna...I read a lot of things Oleg says so I take those with a grain of salt, but I'll tell you that what you said sure makes a lot of sense to me and would answer a lot of burning questions I have. There is no doubt in my mind that the fighter doctrine over the eastern front was much different than on the western front and I assumed that is why Russia like Airacobras and Warhawks and the US sent them to Russia cause they didn't like them...but the lighting is modelled as if the modeller didn't know a darn thing about it...the Jug too and yes the Mustang and its mysterious wing shedding problem too....offline I buy the 15G limit...online it is BS! My wings have shed without a hint of greyout at speeds blow 700km/hr and little elevator input...there is a bug afoot.

Now I'd like Oleg to surface and let us know if Kahuna's statement is accurate and what he intends for the Lightning. He has been strangly silent on the whole issue...another cause for concern.

People fill in the blanks in their understanding with their imagination and that imagination is rarely positive....it would be in Oleg's best interest to acknowledge the community and state whether there is an issue from his standpoint and if he intends to fix it....of course saying that, if he actually tried to tell me it was accurate I would lose all respect I have for the man and his sim...but he remains silent so there is still a chance.

Yes I think somewhere in his paradigms he can't imagine a big twin engined Lightning or a heavy Jug or a sleek Mustang out performing the small and agile messers and La's....Imagine how he'd model a blackwidow???? the only US plane that could out turn it was a wildcat and the US did have some good turning aircraft!

BSS_CUDA
02-16-2005, 09:22 PM
hrm reading the book forked-tailed devil right now, I skimmed the section on the 38L, one thing it did say was that the L had a AN/APS-13 rear radar in the left boom that set off a bell in the cockpit and had a red warning light flash next to the gunsight whenever another plane came up behind it. WTF is my rear radar?!?!?!?!?!?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif it also states that the J had 1425 hp while the L had 1600 hp while both had the same combat weight of 17,500lbs, I'm perplexed at why the L is slower than the J ( I'll keep reading, just got the book today ) I'm sure its just more american proaganda, but some of the accounts that I've read said that the 38 was more than a handful for any axis aircraft in the hands of a skilled pilot, that does appear to be true in FB. PPl that fly it alot seem to do much better at it than those who fly it only part time. one part that I did notice was that it was pretty standard practice for Luft pilots to avoid a headon with the Lightning, as the firepower was so devistating, they must have been flying those special 38's with the MK-108's in the nose http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif I'll keep on reading and posting anything else I find significant.

Badsight.
02-16-2005, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
If, like most of the pilots you had left the field after your GSX-400 days (most wartime pilots returned to civilian lives, went back to school, got married, got jobs, and rarely got much stick time in military fighters), I imagine you'd have a clearer memory of the GSX-400's quirks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
imagine is right ,
as in youd be imagining that would be right & you actually would be wrong

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Even then, I don't think a motorcycle's handling is remotely akin to handling a fighter aircraft in combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>never said it was , just that thinking your old mind & memory would be exact after 60 years is totally wrong

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Most military aviators have better than average memories to begin with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>your dreaming

basically trying to base anything on what these old aviators say about how some DogFight they were in went as a representation of plane performace should be is total wack

its not scientific

its not accurate

its not subjective

its not 2-sided

my exact knowledge of how my old suzuki impluse's handeled is degraded after just 5 years , after 60 years with my 2-inch thick rose tint spectecals ill probably be saying how this decent little road bike made back in 1987 was probably the best thing ever & that the sun rose & fell out of its exhaust

Cloudy_
02-16-2005, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
basically trying to base anything on what these old aviators say about how some DogFight they were in went as a representation of plane performace should be is total wack

its not scientific

its not accurate

its not subjective

its not 2-sided

my exact knowledge of how my old suzuki impluse's handeled is degraded after just 5 years , after 60 years with my 2-inch thick rose tint spectecals ill probably be saying how this decent little road bike made back in 1987 was probably the best thing ever & that the sun rose & fell out of its exhaust <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, there is truth to your statement as bitter as it may seem. Relying on personal recollections many years after the fact is just one piece of the puzzle. Relying on them entirely is fallacious. I believe that Stephen Ambrose eventually crossed over the line from historian to storyteller by beginning to believe everything as fact that he was told by participants.

Accounts that would tend to hold more weight in my book would be closer in time to the incidents related or actually from that era. Veterans who kept their logbooks, diaries etc. to refresh their memories about incidents would also hold more weight than those who didn't. Another thing is that few people ever saw "the big picture" so that they may only relate their piece of a larger puzzle.

One only need to have read any of a number of infantry accounts in which every tank spotted was a Tiger, every piece of artillery an 88 and every enemy soldier was SS to see what I mean. When one checks other records, you find that there were no Tigers or SS anywhere near the area of combat. So what does one think? You have to check multiple sources and try to remain objective. All eyewitness accounts have an inherent value which it is up to you to decide. Flavor or substance?

Here's another example closer to home. My father was in the OSS during WWII. He fervently believed that General McAuliffe at Bastogne uttered something unprintable instead of the classic "Nuts" reply to the German surrender demand. Everything that I've read indicates that the reply was "Nuts". Was my father wrong? It appears so. He wasn't there (as far as I know) but he did believe the alternate story as fact.
I wondered why they said "Nuts" for the longest time until I did some reading! YMMV

GR142_Astro
02-17-2005, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
hrm reading the book forked-tailed devil right now, I skimmed the section on the 38L, one thing it did say was that the L had a AN/APS-13 rear radar in the left boom that set off a bell in the cockpit and had a red warning light flash next to the gunsight whenever another plane came up behind it. WTF is my rear radar?!?!?!?!?!?!? . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look over your right shoulder and you will see the antenna on the bottom of the rudder. So it's on the right boom in the game......but NO other equipment. Dealer option I guess.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

The Jug had this system as well.

Cloudy_
02-17-2005, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The only line I've heard about the Mustang wing-shedding phenomenom is that the elevators are too effective (due no doubt to excessive Ami-whining), and the result is that when the a/c exceeds a certain number of Gs, the wings come off, whereas the much lighter (and more lightly built) 109, with it's less effective elevators, is not able to acheive this G-loading, comes out more slowly, and therefore keeps its wings.

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I can't comment on the wing-shedding having never flown the P-51 in the game, I did just finish reading "Zemke's Wolfpack" and his P-51 (he switched to P-51's later) did shed a wing when he tried to recover from a stall in bad weather. He survived to be captured and as I recall, he speculated that he may have overstressed the aircraft on a prior mission.

horseback
02-17-2005, 10:02 AM
I read the same book, Cloudy, and if I remember correctly, he was flying through a thunderhead at the time. I was a USAF 'brat', and one of my Dad's assignments was at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona in the late 60s. There was a sign at base Ops that read "There is NO good reason to fly through a thunderstorm in peacetime."

They were flying F-4D Phantoms there at the time, which I suspect are orders of magnitude stronger structurally than the Mustang, and were certainly not flown as hard as the operational fighters in the ETO. Even today, an F-14 or F-15 will NOT be flown through heavy weather systems without an excellent reason for doing so because the forces inside them are unpredictable and sufficiently powerful to crumple a modern warplane like so much tissue paper.

Zemke was operating in a time when weather prediction was much less reliable than it is today, far from his base in an aircraft that had seen some hard use. He got caught in the storm while trying to get back to England because even the Mustang lacked enough fuel to go around that weather system.

I doubt that any aircraft of the time in the same situation would have come out of it any better. To make a few isolated incidents into the only supposed factory flaw modeled in the Il-2 series is just a little suspicious.

If you look at the 109F/G series, you'll see a lot more outstanding examples of wing loss under clear conditions-Gustav Sprick and Wilhelm Balthasar were both lost within a week of each other, both having a wing fold up on them while turning tightly. They were far from the only ones this happened to. This may explain why most Allied pilots were convinced that the 109 couldn't turn as well as it did; most of the 109's pilots were leary of stressing those wings, regardless of its theoretical capability.

In the Il-2 series of sims, however, the 109's wing is quite reliable. The Mustang is smaller and lighter than the P-47 and P-38; compared to these, it was not as rugged. Compared to the Spitfire, Me 109 or the FW 190, however, I'd say it was a lot tougher than it's given credit for. And it wasn't more prone to wing loss than any other fighter of the period.

cheers

horseback

Cloudy_
02-17-2005, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
If you look at the 109F/G series, you'll see a lot more outstanding examples of wing loss under clear conditions-Gustav Sprick and Wilhelm Balthasar were both lost within a week of each other, both having a wing fold up on them while turning tightly. They were far from the only ones this happened to. This may explain why most Allied pilots were convinced that the 109 couldn't turn as well as it did; most of the 109's pilots were leary of stressing those wings, regardless of its theoretical capability.

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the elucidation (no sarcasm intended). It seems to me that in the same book, Zemke was chasing a 109 or 190 at low level and was amazed when the german's wing just folded up. So there you have two instances (IIRC) of wing structural failure in one book. It would be interesting to see what the actual safety margin was on the 109 and P-51 wings. Also whether prior over-G stress in the game would contribute to failure the next time a high-G maneuver was attempted.

ZG77_Nagual
02-17-2005, 07:09 PM
Some good points - I hope the quotes and so forth have been sent to Oleg - he does listen. I also recall reading the recollections of a 190 pilot who talked about the 38s turn and ability to transition to vertical very quickly - all that points to elevator response - which is currently sluggish above 300mph.

I have to object to the accusations of Bias however. This is a good way to ruin an otherwise credible thread and is not in fact the case. I've emailed with Oleg quite a bit - he models according to the best data he can find and the limits of current pc technology. Accusing him of bias simply turns the thread into noise and reduces the chance of credible arguments actually being heard.

AFJ_Locust
02-18-2005, 04:23 AM
The P-38J-25-LO production block also introduced power-boosted ailerons. These consisted of ailerons that were operated by a hydraulically-actuated bell-crank and push-pull rod, making it easier for the pilot to maneuver the airplane at high airspeeds. This boosting system was one of the first applications of powered controls to any fighter, and required only 17 percent of the previous stick forces. The hydraulic aileron booster system vastly improved the roll rate and thereby increased the effectiveness of the P-38 in combat. P-38Js with power-boosted ailerons proved to have the highest roll-rates of any fighter.

210 P-38J-25-LOs were built.

In March of 1944, Colonel Benjamin Kelsey reached an indicated speed of more than 750 mph during a high-speed dive in a P-38, which would have made the P-38 the first supersonic fighter. However, it was later discovered that compressibility effects on the airspeed indicator at about 550 mph had given a greatly exaggerated reading. Nevertheless, the Lightning handled quite well at high speeds, and its strong airframe withstood the excessive aerodynamic loading produced by these high-speed dives.

With the increased use of the Lightning as a light bomber, the type was modified to carry in place of the forward-firing armament either a bombardier with a Norden bombsight in a glazed nose enclosure, or a "Mickey" BTO (Bombing Through Overcast) bombing radar in the nose with an operator station between the radar and the pilot's cockpit. These modifications were developed at the Lockheed Modification Center in Dallas, Texas. These so-called "droop-snoot" Lightnings were used to lead formations of P-38s each carrying two 2000-lb bombs which were released on instructions from the lead bombardier.

BSS_CUDA
02-19-2005, 07:40 AM
from the forked_tailed devil pg 116.
Hans Pichler 75 confirmed kills north africa

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Over tunisia, my flight encountered 4 P-38's and we slipped in behind them, virtually unnoticed. altho our Gustavs gave all they could, the distance between us and the Lightnings hardly diminished. At a distance of about 500 meters, I fired all my guns, but my shells exploded behind one of the P-38s. after several more ineffective bursts, the U.S. pilots obviously sensed danger Applying full war-emergency power, they disappeared, leaving us with our mouths wide open. the five minute chase caused my engine to seize. one of the connecting rods pushing itself right through the cowling... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hrm dont see that kind of speed and exceleration modeled

VF-29_Sandman
02-19-2005, 04:27 PM
we'll never see that. the luftwimpies would whine worse than a schoolroom sissy. be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

BSS_CUDA
02-19-2005, 05:48 PM
page 202 of the Forked_tailed Devil
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The German pilot who flies an ME-109G, and knows that his next 10 flights will be against a P-38 @ 34,000 ft, has a tremendous advantage on the P38 pilot, he knows that at that height neither plane climbs too quickly, the ME 109G has a faster rate of roll all to its advantage, he knows that the P38's heavy wing loading especially at altitude, gives him an even chance in that maneuver. and he knows that anytime he gets into real trouble, he can flick through a half-roll and split-S and get the hell out of there, and come back for more later.

Now get down to around four or five thousand feet and what happens? suddenly the German pilot is flying a plane that is slower than the P38, without combat flaps the P38 can easily turn inside the ME-109G: with the use of combat flaps the odds get even better for the lightning jock. the P38 can outclimb the enemy. he has far better slow-speed characteristics and can really reef it in tight inside the other fighter. he can get right down on the edge of stall where the ME-109G, despite those beautiful slots, can't hang in there with him. what about high speed turns left or right? with the contra-rotating props the 38 can go either way without giving an inch: not so in the 109G with engine torque and P factor to mess him up.
And the 109G cant split-S out of trouble. down here the 38 doesnt have the compressibilty problem, and there's too little room to plunge for the deck. the 38 is quite a bit faster, so he makes up that way for the faster initial acceleration of the 109G.
Pretty soon it becomes a matter of former intagibles turning into vital issues- and the odds flicker and change faster than the eye can see. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are we flying the same aircraft? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
I'm find this read very interesting when compared to what the 38 flies like in the game

VF-29_Sandman
02-19-2005, 06:42 PM
"who told u that the 38 can outturn/run the me-109? close this book forever and never open it again"-----i have a feeling this is comin ROTFL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

seriously...if oleg were to model this ship per lockhead spec's, we just might have something here. or maybe the pilots figured out some tricks to the bird, and that info has never seen the light of day; and probably never will with the rate the pilots of ww2 are dying off.

horseback
02-20-2005, 12:25 AM
It's simple enough to figure out what to do to be good with a P-38; the problem was that doing it in a P-38 was quite different from doing it in a Mustang or P-47.

Wartime pilots in the ETO and the Med found that it took twice as long to fully develop expertise in the Lightning as it did for the other two main USAAF fighters. Lockheed expended all their design genius outside the cockpit: it was an ergonomic nightmare, even by the standards of the time.

Once mastered, however, it had tremendous warfighting capabilities that are not accurately portrayed in this (or any)sim.

As for modelling it, Oleg would have to change the stall to a slight shudder and mush, easily recovered from, the torque (ALL of it) would have to go away, he'd need to add the ability to map TWO throttles & two prop pitches (for differential throttling), the elevator authority would need to improve, along with much better roll for the hydraulically boosted J/L models(postwar US evaluations of the Dora compared its roll to the P-38 and P-80), crank the turn rate up to something noticably better than the 109 (boy, would that hurt a lot of feelings), compressability would only come into play in dives from above 20,000 ft (and last no longer than to 16,000ft), the gun shake would go away (the **** plane weighed almost 6 &1/2 tons-firing four fifties and a 20mm cannon along its central axis shouldn't affect it more than a light weight like an FW firing four 20mm cannon in its wings), and the effectiveness of the four fifties firing in extremely close convergence (the .50 rounds landed in a 21" x 6" rectangle at practically all ranges) would reach realistic levels, and deploying the combat flaps should make a dramatic difference in handling at all speeds.

Climb and accelleration are reported to be pretty good, but I'd question whether they are close to the the mark compared to the Spit IX and 109, if either is significantly better.

Some of this would probably require global changes to the code, no doubt affecting every other aircraft in the game, but I'm sure he could get it done right by next Thursday...

cheers

horseback

Saburo_0
02-21-2005, 12:45 AM
Just wanted to add this, if you haven't seen it (I posted it before elswhere.) Scroll down to the bit on th 38 if you don't want to read it all._

Hubert "Hub" Zemke P-38, P-47 & P-51 fighter group commander:

I was fortunate enough to have flown the P-51, P-47 and P-38 in combat and to have led fighter groups with all three.

P-51- By far the best air-to-air fighter aircraft of the three below 25,000 feet. Avery good long-range radius of action for the type of work we did in Europe. The acceleration from slow cruise to maximum performance was excellent compared to the competition.

It's rate of roll was good and it maneuvered easily to a learned hand. Dive and acceleration were rapid. Visibility in all directions was very ample for need. As an instrument aircraft it was a bit touchy. It could be overactive in turbulence.

On armament it carried sufficient machine guns. Why I say this is that after viewing numerous combat films where pilots often fired at extreme range or over deflected, I came to the conclusion that one fought for a combat position of 10 degrees or less deflection. At close range-250 yards or less- there is no doubt what could happen when the trigger was depressed. It was a matter of ducking the flying pieces after that. This was drilled into the skulls of all pilots.

P-47-- A rugged beast with a sound radial engine to pull you along. Heavy in firepower that chewed up the opponent at close ranges. Best suited and likewise adopted in the ground support role, as everything in the armament arsenal was hung on its sturdy wings.

Accelerated poorly and climbed not too much better from a slow airspeed. Once a good high cruising speed was attained, the P-47 could pretty well stand up and fight with the competition.

Strangely rate of roll and maneuverability was good at high speeds. In fact, the aircraft had many a forgiving feature and reliability. With its high altitude supercharger its performance at altitude-above 24,000 to 25,000-- appeared superior to the other two US Army Air Corps fighters in the theater. At high altitude this fighter's level speed, better climb and more solid response to control reflected the tactics that the 56th Fighter Group developed early in combat.

it should not be overlooked here that the P-47--once it gained altitude--could exceed any of the contenders in speed of entering a dive with a very goo "zoom" recovery to altitude again.

Naturally a fighter pilot endeavors to fight his aircraft from the strength of his machine's performance rather than from its weaknesses. With this in mind, I repeatedly impressed upon the 56th's fighter pilots that our tactics were to "hit and recover, hit and recover." If one couldn't get the opponent by an altitude of 15,000 feet, then break off and recover to altitude again.

In this respect it was stressed that the element leader, who initiated the attack, pressed in viciously. If he missed his attack, it was his responsibility to set up his wingman to press through for a cleanup kill on the dive. If the wingman's follow-through failed, a zoom recovery by the element leader to give high cover and a position for a second attack often resulted.

This one, two punch tactic was continued into refinement of the entire group's tactical employment, wherein the first or lead squadron was designated the Assault or Strike squadron, the second designated Support or Follow Through squadron which flew a bit higher, and the third which flew still higher, became the Reserve or High Cover squadron.

Though the 56th recieved criticism for this conservative policy of not bouncing below 15,000 feet, until the introduction of the paddle blade propeller and water injection to the R-2800 engine there was considerable effort to refine tactics and coordination of the entire group formation. The tactics worked.

About the highest engagement I recall was just over 35,000 feet. Here the P-47 still performed fairly well while the enemy (Me109s) had dropped off considerably. In about one turn with the group, the opponents were falling off in spins or split-S-ing for denser air mass. Then enemy fell into the trap of being overhauled by the superior diving speed of the P-47. The P-51 and P-38 also employed these tactics but to a lesser degree in dive performance to the P-47.

As an instrument flying platform the P-47 proved to be better than the P-51 but probably not as good as the P-38. Though not equipped for icing conditions, with carburetor heat the engine pulled the bulk through.

As to firepower, the eight .50 caliber machine guns were ample proof of a real punch either in aerial combat or on a strafing run. Once dive bombing was learned, the P-47 consistently came up with flying colors.

P-38--Though this aircraft had virtues, for me it was the poorest of the three US Army fighters in the European Theater. The fact that the extreme cold at altitude affected its performance hardly endears the machine. The turbosuperchargers were controlled by an oil regulator. At altitude the oil had a tendancy to congeal, which cause serious problems. On two occasions I recall, when entering combat with enemy single seaters it was a case of life and death to get away and survive, though I had started with the advantage.

On both occasions the engines either cut out completely or overran rpm limitations as the throttles were cut or advanced. It was enough just to regulate the engines and control the aircraft without entering combat.

The second serious limiting factor that detracted form the P-38's combat capability was its steep diving restriction--estimated at about 375 mph. A common tactic of the Luftwaffe single seaters was to split-S for the clouds or the deck. Oftentimes their head-on attacks on the bomber formations saw them roll over and dive for the deck to confuse and outdistance the flexible machine gunners. P-38s had little chance to pursue. When on defense, it can be easily understood that a dive to safety was the best maneuver for longevity.

Another factor to degrade theP-38's combat capability was the identification factor. The eyes of a pilot often picked up specks in the distance that could not be immediately identified as friend or foe. These were reported in as "bogies." Appropriate tactical maneuvers were taken to prevent bogies from having the advantage of a subsequent attack. In the case of the P-38 the twin booms and slab elevator gave this aircraft's identity away- as far as the eye could see.

It was also necessary for the P-38 pilot to do much more weaving to look down over the two engines that lay on each side of the cockpit. A better cockpit heating system could have been provided as my feet always froze at altitude.

Taken alone, the above statements would conclude that the P-38 had no outstanding features... it did! As a gun platform, it was steady as a shooting stand. With two engines there was no torque. With a little trim for buildup of speed (in a dive) a pilot could ride directly into a target.

As to the armament installation, I have seen no better. Four machine guns and one cannon in a tight pocket directly in front of the pilot. This armament being so closely aligned to the sight of plane of the gunsight required no convergence of fire as necessitated in fighters having their guns placed in the wings.

Though the P-38 had a wheel instead of the proverbial stick, this was no handicap- controls were light and response was excellent.

Relative load carrying capacity, the aircraft could take off with just about anything. I've taken off with a thousand-pound bomb under each wing and cruised with ease. On fuel consumption, the P-38 enabled us to cruise out to combat areas deep in Germany without the anguish of not having enough "petrol" to return home.

A tricycle landing gear made it much easier for a junior pilot to "spike the kite" on the runway and chalk up another landing. This was also an advantage in taxiing- a large engine and cowling did not deter from forward vision.

Chet Patterson P-38 pilot 55th FG:

"Because of the losses in P-38 units someone at Lockheed thought the pilots didn't know how to fly it so they sent over Tony LeVier. As far as I was concerned, he did nothing that I hadn't seen around the airfield by our own men. Had it been my choice of what he did, I would have had him fly some two hours at 28,000 feet, then tangle with me at 15,000 feet instantly. Then he could see how well he could fly when he was frozen. "
He goes on to describe an incident where a fellow got shocked while trying to relieve himself, and before his heart stopped pounding the urine was turned to frost all over his instrument panel.

The P-38 was C O L D !
Much better to sit close to the engine at altitude over Europe.

On the next page I find another.
Edward B. Giller P-38 pilot 55th FG
"...Flying around 30,000 feet resulted in extreme fouling of the plugs in the Allison engine as well as a great number of thrown rods and swallowed valves. Needless to say a P-38 on a single engine was in an unenviable condition.....This was the world's coldest airplane and we tried every combination of suit, glove and heater imaginable, including some that would short out & give you a hot foot. We were so cold sometimes, we did not even want to fight....
The turbo supercharger regulator had a delightful habit of freezing at high altitude, resulting in two throttle settings...10 inches of mercury, which would not sustain flight, or 80 inches which would blow up a supercharger. I recall one very cold day over the Ruhr Valley where both the pilots and the regulators were so frozen that, in spite of heavy flak in that vicinity, we let down to 3,000 feet to warm up both us and the airplanes."

All quotes taken from Air Command Fighters & Bombers of WW2 by Jeffrey L. Ethell
It's a collection of color photos and interviews. I highly recommend it.

I enjoy the good FM discussion & like to follow it. I enjoyed Fork-Tailed Devil but it did seem rather overly positive if ya know what I mean. Also read a book called The Hurricane Story years ago & it would have you believ that the Hurri was in evry way the Spitfire's equal. It's important to be critical & ask questions.
For ex 190 pilots reporting the P-38's quick pitch change. We don't know what speeds the two planes were at etc. Also did the Luft pilots EXPECT it would handle more poorly because it was a big twin & were thus impressed by it's agility ?

Not saying the current FM is correct but it's tough to prove much by just pilot accounts.

One idea, could the AAF dive speed limit mentioned by Zemke have been construed by Oleg & crew to mean that compression set in earlier than it actually did ? I assume that limit had a safety factor in it, ya know?
Hope you guys keep after the 38 FM and gather as much info as possible. It's late in the game but the FM just might get tweaked.

Cheers,
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
02-21-2005, 10:36 AM
Saburo

Agree with you wholeheartedly about Caiden's book, which, while it still resides in my bookshelf is never used by me as a primary source. I try to bear in mind that this is the same guy who gave us The Six-Million Dollar Man, and look for a confirming source for any info I originally get from his book.

Now, about your quotes, the last two most condemning were from guys who operated with the P-38 in its initial deployment in the ETO, and until about March or April of '44, they were flying G or H models (which are not part of the FB/AEP/PF inventory). I do not know if those individuals had completed their tours before the J models arrived, but it does sound like they didn't get a chance to operate in the models better suited for the cold and humidity of northern Europe.

Most of the P-38s problems in the ETO were due to the unique conditions over that battlefield, and poor training for the pilots who were placed in this unique aircraft, and it should be remembered that the design, in response to an Army Air Corps specification written in 1936 was originally intended for domestic air defense. Somehow the designers, based in Los Angeles, never considered the need for a cockpit heater, for instance. Everywhere else that it served though, the Lightning excelled-at all altitudes.

The problem here is that US models are the only ones in the series that appear to suffer from 'factory defects'-every other aircraft is assumed to be in perfect condition and meet the design specs. You don't see 109Fs and later losing a wing or tail in a dive or hard turn (and there are beaucoup eyewitnes descriptions of these from both sides), you can see through the early Soviet cellophane (yes-cellophane) canopies, the FW 190A-4 model engines don't occasionally burst into flame, and the 109K windshield & canopy don't consistantly frost up as soon as you get up to around 7000m, and these are just a few examples.

But Mustangs lose a wing spontaneously every so often, the P-47 originally lacked the roll and dive characteristics that it was famous for (and the dive advantage is still somewhat lacking), as does the Wildcat now in comparison to the Zero, all the Naval fighters have this odd yellowish fogging on the canopy and windscreen, the P-40 used to blow up when you reached a certain dive speed (and prior to the P-47, nothing could stay with a P-40 in a dive and survive the pullout), and as for the P-38, it seems that the modellers gave it the FM they think it should have rather than doing some serious research and giving it something akin to what it actually had.

From what we've seen in this thread & a number of others, Oleg and company seem to have largely eschewed English language (and especially American) sources of information for their flight models for American fighters.

I spent a lot of time playing with the Lightning in QMBs over this weekend, and we could add another thing to my list of fixes: the elevator trim is atrocious, I was constantly going too far in one direction or the other.

cheers

horseback

Saburo_0
02-21-2005, 11:59 AM
Horseback,

clearly the early lightnings had alot of problems in Northern Europe, as opposed to the Med & the Pacific. I realy really wish we had the early model Lightnings for the Pacific etc.

I also realize the supercharger problems etc are not the type of thing modelled in the game.(fine by me) I'm not sure what version of the P-38 Zemke flew that nearly got him killed. Would be interesting to find out. By the time the Js & Ls came out the P-38 units had been steered away from high altitude excort it seems, so not sure they ever got a 2nd chance to prove they could do it.

Don't believe in any deliberate bias against US planes myself but FMs seem to be a bit of an art at this stage as well as a science.

Any way even tho most of what I posted doesn't have much to do with FM characteristics I thought it was really interesting. blaming the Lightnings performance in the ETO on pilot training doesn't really wash, plenty of guys learned to fly the things in New Guinea etc & did quite well.

Can't decide on the P-51 issue as some arguments that it's pulling too many Gs make sense, but not in the case mentioned earlier where the pilot was rolling not pulling on th elevator. well, gotta go but keep digging up sources Oleg has made changes before.

Cheers,

horseback
02-21-2005, 01:24 PM
Converting combat veterans to the P-38 from the P-39 or P-40 in the Pacific, where the Lightning conferred a significant performance advantage over all the Japanese competition, is very different from taking pilots fresh from the AAF fighter pilot training syllabus (mostly centered on single engine fighter techniques) and dropping them and their maintenance teams into the ETO, where the Germans were much more competitive, even when you had no engine problems at altitude. As has been repeatedly mentioned, the Lightning was a unique aircraft that required a lot of 'break-in time' for the pilot before he could fully exploit its potential.

That's a polite way of saying that the cockpit had everything bass-ackword compared to most other fighters in the inventory.

Previous fighter groups assigned in the Med had been experienced prewar groups trained up in the Lightning Stateside, with heavy involvement from Lockheed, down to the maintenance and engineering crews. If these groups had stayed in England and operated as escorts (do you really think that 8th AF would have released them at that time without a fight if they thought the bombers needed escort?), the Lightning's rep might not have suffered as badly there.

Lockheed initially thought that a lot of the complaints from the 20th and 55th were specious, that these were a bunch of cry-babies who didn't know what they were talking about. They didn't have a rapport with the people operating their bird in England, which showed in the time it took to investigate and remedy the problems experienced there.

As to the bias issue, all I can point to is the consistancy with which American fighters have problems that always seem to subtract their well-known strengths. If the 109z, with both props turning in the same direction, doesn't have torque, how come my P-38, with counter-rotating props, needs several clicks of left rudder trim to center the ball?

Maybe I'm paranoid, but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

cheers

horseback

BigKahuna_GS
02-21-2005, 09:42 PM
S!

P38 Comments:


Once these bugs were worked out this is how the majority of P38 pilots felt :

"Nothing, to these pilots, after the hard winter of 1943-44 could be more beautiful than a P-38L outrolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin or split-S or whatever gyration a startled, panicked and doomed German might attempt to initiate. You just couldn't get away from the P-38L. Whatever the German could do, the American in the P-38L could do better." (cited from [8] with permission from Arthur W. Heiden)."

"The airplane was a "dream" on single-engine. While I was instructing in P-38's at Muroc AAF, on occasion the instructor and three students (four ship flight) would each feather the right propeller (remember, only a single generator, and that on the left engine) for a "tail chase" which included loops, slow and barrel rolls, and just generally having a good time. The exercise was to instill confidence in the pilots ability to control the aircraft on one engine. My area of "expertise" while instructing at Muroc was single-engine demo's in a piggyback P-38. Take-off on two engines, feather the right engine shortly after take-off. Climb to 10,000'. Demonstrate various emergency procedures (landing gear and flap extension), propeller operation in fixed pitch (simulating electrical failure), high speed stalls, a loop, a roll or two, then return to the airfield for landing on one engine. Make a typical fighter approach on the deck, pitch out, drop the landing gear, then some flaps, finally full flaps and plunk it onto the runway. "

"For a short period in my life flying P-38's I had as much time on one engine as I did on two. Keep in mind that most of my P-38 flying occurred just after my 20th birthday. Some of my P-38 combat time was while I was a 20 year old snot-nosed kid. No brains, lotsa luck. Gad! I love that bird..... "

"It was a dandy flying machine in instrument conditions associated with poor weather. I had to return once from Berlin on one engine. No problem." "Every one of these problems was solved with the introduction of the P-38L."

"Let me repeat this again and again. It can never be emphasized too strongly. It makes up the Gospel Word. The P-38L. Now there was the airplane."

Sometime in the development of the P-38, the design engineers must have realized that P-38's didn't have great roll capability. When Tony Levier, Lockheed test pilot, visited the 55th FG, he heard a common thread of complaints from the pilots. Cold cockpit, poor "flick" roll rate, and inability to dive after the Bf-109's and FW-190's from high altitude.

The complaints were relayed to the Lockheed factory, and design changes were incorporated in the P-38L. Prior to the arrival of the "L's" at Wormingford, many modification kits were shipped to Langford Lodge, North Ireland, for field modifications of the "J" model Lightning then arriving in the theater. Unfortunately, an early shipment aboard a DC-4 was lost at sea when the Brits shot the cargo plane from the sky. It took several months to replace the lost modification kits. Early P-38J-5-LO's were modified at Langford Lodge by the addition of the replacement kits. The kits added dive recovery flaps under the wings, outboard of the engines, and a 3000psi hydraulically boosted aileron system. The P-38L's were now coming down the production line with the aileron boost and "speed boards" installed.

P-38's from the J-25's onward were what we should have had when we went operational in October 1943. The compressibility problem of the P-38 was also experienced by P-47 Thunderbolts, and was not a mystery to aeronautical design engineers.

The P-38J25-LO and P-38L's were terrific. Roll Rate? Ha! Nothing would roll faster. The dive recovery flaps ameliorated the "compressibility" (Mach limitation) of earlier Lightnings. An added benefit of the dive recovery flaps was their ability to pitch the nose 10-20 degrees "up" momentarily when trying to out turn the Luftwaffe's best, even when using the flap combat position on the selector. Of course the nose "pitch-up" resulted in increased aerodynamic drag, and must be used cautiously. High speed is generally preferred over low speed in combat situations. Properly flown, the Fowler flaps of the P-38 allowed very tight turning radius."

Arthur Heiden observed first-hand how tight a well flown P-38 could turn.

"I remember an amusing incident, Apr '44. We had run into a real mess and the Luftwafe was bouncing everybody. My flight had just been bounced, did the break, and the Luftwaffe kept on going. While I was on guard, I saw this other flight get bounced. While the rest of that flight did a halfhearted break, old tail-end Charlie's P-38 emitted a cloud of exhaust smoke (thought he had been hit), saw his nose come up and wrap up his turn. Before I could think, old #4 was in the lead of that flight. Impressed the hell out of me. Turned out to have been Fiebelkorn -- he was off to a good start."




Complexity of Combat Flying

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html

"For perspective, it must also be remembered that two other significant events had taken place in training (in England). Theater indoctrination at Goxhill in England had received the same overhaul that had occurred in the States. The most important of all may have been the training units set up by the combat organizations themselves. Here it was possible to up-date training to the latest information and for individual commanders to put their special stamp on things and develop new tactics. "But and this is giant towering BUT this was all for the P-51 pilots."
"What would have happened if the P-38 pilots and their units could have been blessed with the same wonderful opportunity?"


For context, we present a previously unpublished letter from the Commanding Officer of the 20th Fighter Group, to the 8th Air Force Headquarters. The letter spells out the problems faced by the P-38 Groups in clear, unambiguous terms.



20th Fighter Group Headquarters
APO 637 U.S. Army
(E-2)

3 June 1944

Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.

To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.

1. The following observations are being put in writing by the undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VII FC. They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are intended in any way to "low rate" our present equipment.

2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the word 'average, taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on as operational status.

3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.

4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going.

5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it? It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/V and tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on, combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment for the escort job ahead.

6. What is the answer to these difficulties? During the past several weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again by Lockheed representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking Army personnel connected with these two companies. They all ask about our troubles and then proceed to tell us about the marvelous mechanisms that they have devised to overcome these troubles that the Air Force has turned down as "unnecessary". Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in combat.

7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never been in combat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means when a "bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just another nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of the enumerated above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a really effective combat airplane.

8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the gas switching system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector handles} are all in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The toggle switches for outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate with gloves on.

9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy can produce. But it does need simplifying to bring it within the capabilities of the 'average' pilot. I believe that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and Colonel Cass Huff are among the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe that it is difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going into his first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to be done, in my opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around fighting airplane.

HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps,
Commanding.



___________________

horseback
02-21-2005, 10:30 PM
Colonel Rau is generally credited with leading the first Allied day fighters (P-38Hs, if I remember correctly) over Berlin in the first week of March, 1944.

Mahalo, Kahuna. I've been looking for that letter for over a week. Where'd you find it?

cheers

horseback

BSS_CUDA
02-21-2005, 10:43 PM
I'm curious? does Oleg ever read any of these posts? or are we just chatting amoungst our selves, there has been so many different sources posted here that say the same thing over and over

The P-38 accelerates too slow
The P-38 should not compress below 15k
The P-38 should not suffer the gun shake.

granted in the game like in real life it take a courageous few to fly the P-38. it is not an easy aircraft to fly, but it could and should be better.

Gibbage1
02-21-2005, 10:56 PM
This is one of the biggest things that burns me about the P-38 as it is represented in IL2.

"My area of "expertise" while instructing at Muroc was single-engine demo's in a piggyback P-38. Take-off on two engines, feather the right engine shortly after take-off. Climb to 10,000'. Demonstrate various emergency procedures (landing gear and flap extension), propeller operation in fixed pitch (simulating electrical failure), high speed stalls, a loop, a roll or two, then return to the airfield for landing on one engine. Make a typical fighter approach on the deck, pitch out, drop the landing gear, then some flaps, finally full flaps and plunk it onto the runway. "

In IL2, once you loose and engine, your doomed. You cant climb. You cant manuver. You sure as HE11 cant loop. All you can do is find a place to land, and soon! The instructor CLIMBED to 10K on one engine and did all the manuvers. The only thing the P-38 cant do on 1 engine is abort a landing on final once flaps are down. And it says that in the manual. Anyone else find this annoying?

BigKahuna_GS
02-21-2005, 11:16 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _________________________
Gibbage
In IL2, once you loose and engine, your doomed. You cant climb. You cant manuver. You sure as HE11 cant loop. All you can do is find a place to land, and soon! The instructor CLIMBED to 10K on one engine and did all the manuvers. The only thing the P-38 cant do on 1 engine is abort a landing on final once flaps are down. And it says that in the manual. Anyone else find this annoying?
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Hya Gibby,

I think every P38 pilot in AEP/PF is annoyed in so many ways at the thought of the present P38 F/M.

I was really looking forward to trying differential throttling for better turn rates and rolls, but the money move I wanted to try was the "Clover Leaf Manuever". The P38 was the only plane that could do this manuever because of the counter rotating props, no-torque induced stall.

Maybe they can just take the 109z stall and plug in it in - lol.


_____

BigKahuna_GS
02-21-2005, 11:27 PM
S!

Mahalo Horseback http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif,

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-2.html

Great web site. I have been emailing alot of this info to Oleg.
He is a tough one to convince.

Der Gabelschwanz Teufel
Part Two

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/Luckylady.JPG


____

horseback
02-21-2005, 11:30 PM
Gibbage has some of the greatest heartache about the Lightning because he did a lot of the graphics modeling...and then they turned his baby bull into a steer!

cheers

horseback

GR142_Astro
02-22-2005, 12:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

Mahalo Horseback http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif,

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-2.html

Great web site. I have been emailing alot of this info to Oleg.
He is a tough one to convince.

Der Gabelschwanz Teufel
Part Two

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/Luckylady.JPG


____ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute Kahuna,

So is there any open dialog at all, or does Oleg just say pffft? I would have thought some of the more obvious problems such as the poor elevator authority and the low alt thick-air fake compressability would have been slam dunk fixes 2 patches ago.

The head/gun shake could potentially be harder to prove, but one burst while sitting inside a mk108 mobile or even a spit or charlie Corsair kind of makes you scratch your head.

Gibbage's comments about the 1 engine performance also make you wonder what is up. And yes, the graphic model for the P38 is one of the top 2 or 3 in the game in my opinion. Very nice work, now if we can just get it to perform up to its historical levels.

Saburo_0
02-22-2005, 01:00 AM
HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps,
Commanding.


Boy I LIKE that guy!

Great letter, & lots of neat stuff there Kahuna, Thanks!

Now hana hana find some more numbers charts and other means of communicating with that most interesting species: the engineer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Saburo_0
02-22-2005, 01:20 AM
Horseback,

"As to the bias issue, all I can point to is the consistancy with which American fighters have problems that always seem to subtract their well-known strengths. If the 109z, with both props turning in the same direction, doesn't have torque, how come my P-38, with counter-rotating props, needs several clicks of left rudder trim to center the ball?"

109Z- uh .... no comment.
But the P-38 suffering from torque was a big disappointment. It doesn't ruin it but ...it's a constant reminder that I'm flying a sim. In other planes as well the amount of trim or rudder needed doesn't really seem to fit or make sense somehow. Of course if we had stronger torque etc effects for the singles, then the P-38s wouldn't be so bad. My point being that even without torque the P-38 in FB/PF will always lack the real advantage it had over the
single engine fighters, because they suffer too little from it. But I see this as a game play compromise, so people without rudder pedals can fly more easily.
As for paranoia, well after years of this-whining & that whining I think most partisans of particular planes feel their bird has been screwed at one time or another. I do think the FMs favor T-n-B planes, by not having enough energy bleed. As VVS planes pretty much TnB they have complained less.

I wonder if the people beta testing FMs in Russia don't spend as much time with the Ami planes ? I mean they've grown up reading about Yaks etc, so that's what they focus on. Reverse would be true here in the states.
Seems like a possible explanation for exploding P-40s etc...

What do you think ?

Gibbage1
02-22-2005, 02:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Gibbage has some of the greatest heartache about the Lightning because he did a lot of the graphics modeling...and then they turned his baby bull into a steer!

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still love her. I dont consider totally porked. Yes, I think there are some issues. I have tried to address the compressability issue with Oleg, but I think that may be a limit of the engine. That compressability is a global thing that once its set on an aircraft, it cant be triggerd by altitude. Also, Oleg has said torque is a limit by the engine. All aircraft have torque. But I dont feel torque on aircraft like the P-80, Go-229, 109Z, or B-25. Even the P-63 has LESS torque. Corrected by "two clicks" of aileron. P-38 needs about 5-6.

As for turn ability, I have reason to doubt they would out turn a 109. 190, yes. But 109? The 109 is about 1/3 the weight and has better wing loading. The P-38 I think could carry more weight in fuel then a fully loaded 109! Think about it. In some situations, the P-38 CAN and WILL out-turn a 109. At high speed. Just before compressability and above 300KPH it will turn inside almost anything. Even a Ki-84. But it looses energy VERY quickly and soon becomes a target.

The flaps would make a huge differance. They cover 2/3's the wing, and 100% of then are directly behind the props. Compair this with any other single engine aircraft that only have 25% or 40% behind the prop. Remember that the propwash moves a lot faster then the air, so it will effect the flaps more. So not only are the flaps on the P-38 massive, but more effective. They also add too the wings area with minimul drag. 109's flaps dont add to its wing area. Just its overall lift with a lot more drag. I wonder if you compair the added wing area of the P-38 in combat flaps would it be more faivorable to the 109? Yes. But still not as good.

Then you dont have torque. Torque is what makes an aircraft "snap" on stall. Its because the engine and props are putting more weight on one wing then the other. That means one wing will stall out before the other, creating the snap stall. This does not happen on the P-38 (in real life) and for such a heavy aircraft, has a VERY low stal speed. 69MPH clean with flaps down (This may be off, I dont have my pilots manual handy). I think the 109 has a higher stall speed (around 71MPH?).

But dont expect this big bird too best the best of the singles. She was the best twin engine fighter of the war, and I will stand by that. But she was only a good fighter compaired too the singles. The P-38 I consider a very impressive peace of work. A big heavy twin that CAN and WILL dance toe-2-toe with light single engine fighters 1/3 her weight. I consider that more impressive then some ultra-light POS aluminum shell strapped to the biggest engine possible with about 30-45 mins of flight time. Anyone can make a nimble light fighter when you dont have too fly 3000+ miles to reach your target http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Only the US was able to make long range fighters that could dance with the best. Be sure!

Gib

Gibbage1
02-22-2005, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:

And yes, the graphic model for the P38 is one of the top 2 or 3 in the game in my opinion. Very nice work, now if we can just get it to perform up to its historical levels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you very much. Looking back, there are things I wish I did differant. I also wish I had a few hundred more polygons to spend. But she was a labor of love. And that love shows I think. Maybe I will do one in FS2004 with a much higher poly count for P-38 lovers like you and I.

mynameisroland
02-22-2005, 07:22 AM
I agree with gibbage the P38 is by far the most potent twin engine plane in the game (excluding 109Z) and is very competitive when flown against single engine axis fighters.

It should not be a surpries however to find that the P38 can be out fought by smaller higher HP/weight fighters. All of the points made that the P38 is undermoddled may be correct or maybe they are a fair simulation of the P38's failings in RL. If you look at many other aircraft in the game all suffer from FM moddeling except for T and B planes. The FM cannot cope equally with high wing loaded fighters giving certain disparities in performance when compared with RL.

All in all you P38 fliers have it good, you have a lovely moddeled plane( poly model ), powerful and accurate weapons, Lots of ground attack options, decent all round performance and twin engine safety if you lose and engine you can still rtb.

So what if you cant out turn smaller more nimble fighters? So what if there is a problem across the board with torque, so what that there are compressibilty issues and elevator authority discrepancies. Get over it.

You act as though the plane is porked while it is plainly not, get a wingman , get some serious practice and then reap the rewards of knowing your mount intimately. There will always be situatios where you cant out turn, cant out run , cant out climb ect most of the time this is due to an enemy having a different E state some of the time just a plain better performing Aircraft.

Dont go campaigning for Oleg to change the world and make the P38 better than any Axis prop fighter becasue this was blatantly not the case historically. In its element it was very formidable but so was every other contemporarie in its own envelope.

Ok so there were some US fighter jocks who thought it was the best Wow! a fighter pilot who thinks his planes is the dogs b*****s! theres a surprise. I could post quotes taken from similar Osprey books relating to Fw190 and 109 that have pilots accounts where they regarded the Lightning as nothing special. It is just situational that is why pilots accounts have to be taken in a tactical context.

VF-29_Sandman
02-22-2005, 07:53 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
what a goober. obviously hasnt flown this bird much.

BSS_CUDA
02-22-2005, 08:14 AM
we are not asking for it to out fly anything!!!! but what we are asking for is KNOWN inaccuracies to be corrected. that's all no super planes, no KI-84C or LA-7 all we want is our favorite ride to be as close to correct as possible. I fly this plane exclusivly when on warclouds, I can dogfight with any 190 and most 109's but there are things about this plane that are just pure WRONG! now I can and do work around them. but there should be no reason why this plane cannot fly as it should, he1l the fantasy 109-Z ( how can you model a plane that never flew, with what specs? ) flies more like the P-38 should fly, so there is no reason why these FM corrections cannot be made

mynameisroland
02-22-2005, 09:48 AM
Dont tag me sandman just because im not jumping on the ridiculous conspiracy against US designs by Oleg Band Wagon.

The P38 isnt modelled correctly. No plane in the game is! do you think a correctly modelled P38 is going to be my worst nightmare ? Excactly far from it ... im far more concerned with other more capable uber types like the La 7


Most planes in the game dont perform as they did on paper. I believe (as others who have discussed this ) that this is in some part due to the FM of the games engine. It is not a simulator specifically for the emulation of the P38 lightning. It was designed for the IL2 what we have now is an evolution of that with lots of knobs on. It does not represent aircraft like the Lightning as well as we'd like but at least its in the game and competitive. Stop going on about the 109z if you fly on organised servers rather than the ones on Ubi this craft never appears.

If you want to talk about poor FM modelling climb in to half the other types of aircraft in the game and then you will see that the P38 isnt some isolated phenommena.

Try the Ta 152 out against the Spit IX at 10000m and you will see an incorrectly modelled aircraft against a more competitively modelled one.

horseback
02-22-2005, 10:13 AM
Saburo

I think the bias against American planes has its base in size as much as nationality. The Russians got as many P-40s as P-39s initially, and should have almost as much information on hand about it as the Airacobra. The two aircraft used the same engines, enjoyed similar performance, had much the same kind of firepower and cockpit technology that the Soviets found so luxurious. Yet the P-40 is treated almost scornfully and the 'Cobra is like an adopted son.

I think it's because the P-39 looks more like their idea of what a prop fighter should be. It's about the same size as a YaK-7. It took almost 40 years for the Soviets to build an all-purpose front line fighter (as opposed to an interceptor like the Firebar or Foxbat/Foxhound) along the lines of an American F-15 or F-14, and there was a lot of internal resistance to the Flanker variants at first. They were just too danged big.

If the Russians played American football, their tight ends would be the 280 lb earthmover types, and never catch a pass. They wouldn't know what to do with a Tony Gonzalez. The tailbacks would be built along the lines of Barry Sanders rather than Jerome Bettis, and the quarterback would be a Drew Brees type rather than a Donovan McNabb. They tend to think that size defines function.

Even the Mustang is an enormous fighter by Soviet WWII standards. The P-38 is a behemoth, and they don't like, much less accept, the idea that it was much more capable than their similarly sized Pe-3. They dismiss most of what is reported about it as American hyperbole.

That whole zerstorer/heavy escort concept was a failure, you know, strictly a niche concept.

cheers

horseback

ZG77_Nagual
02-22-2005, 11:24 AM
Obviously there are several different planets here. I'm with Gib on the 38 - she could use some tweaking but once you get to know her she ain't half bad - or even a quarter bad - also my favorite plane - though I do like landing on boats http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - and also; thanks again to Gibbage - she's a beaut.
As for the great American Plane conspiracy. Give me a break! I only fly the mustang if I've been getting ganged by k4s and want a little payback. If you fly the P47 with a lick of sense it's fantastic. Lets not start with the p40, p39, p63 (!!!) and Corsair! These are all phenomenal performers. I don't know what you guys who think there is a conspiracy are doing - but it must be something wrong because pretty much all the american planes are fantastic - the p63, p51, p39 and corsair are matches for any plane in the simm - except the jets (assuming they are well flown) The others excel in their era and context - f6f vs zeros, likewise fm2. Possibly the problem is you are simply not employing the right tactics, or are letting your opponent get a leg up e wise. In any case most of the american a/c are on my uber-plane list (planes I avoid because it's to easy to win and I'm worried about losing my p38 chops)

WOLFMondo
02-23-2005, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The only line I've heard about the Mustang wing-shedding phenomenom is that the elevators are too effective (due no doubt to excessive Ami-whining), and the result is that when the a/c exceeds a certain number of Gs, the wings come off, whereas the much lighter (and more lightly built) 109, with it's less effective elevators, is not able to acheive this G-loading, comes out more slowly, and therefore keeps its wings.

Without an elevator input, I can't imagine what the excuse for that one will be, but like the foggy windshields and other supposed factory flaws that only show up in American planes (some people are still convinced that we couldn't make anything well except refrigerators and razor blades), we'll just have to flood 'em with corrective documentation.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your wrong, the FW190D9 and A's wings can come of in a high speed dive with a severe pull out. Do any of you guys fly other planes apart from the US ones?!?! Spread your wings a little. Play with the other sides planes for a bit, or are you guys scared you might actually like themhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. P47&gt;P38&gt;FW190&gt;soon to be Tempest converthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

AgentBif
02-23-2005, 05:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
They also add too the wings area with minimul drag. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the flaps cause "minimal drag" then they create "minimal lift" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That's just basic physics that you can't get around.

What facts are you deriving this "minimal drag" claim from?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Then you dont have torque. Torque is what makes an aircraft "snap" on stall. Its because the engine and props are putting more weight on one wing then the other. That means one wing will stall out before the other, creating the snap stall. This does not happen on the P-38 (in real life) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that's not quite right. As I understand it, the fundamental mechanism in a wingover during a turn stall is that the inside wing is travelling slower than the outside wing in a turn. Thus, the inside wing stalls before the outside one and the aircraft "falls over" into the turn. While the wingover can be enhanced by torquing, even torqueless aircraft should still suffer a wingover in a turn stall.

Some aircraft would have more gentle wingovers than others. For example, when turning against prop torque, the wingover should be gentled by the torque. P-38's with their very high roll inertia (lots of weight distributed wide against the roll axis) should also probably suffer a more gentle wingover than something with one engine.

But mere lack of prop torque on the P-38 shouldn't eliminate wingovers.

ZG77_Nagual
02-23-2005, 08:01 AM
KI 84s shed wings also.
Rogr on the 38 wingover - I believe also there is torque in the 38 at certain points when there is a changed in the engines relative angle of attack - don't have the science handy though.

Gibbage1
02-23-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
They also add too the wings area with minimul drag. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the flaps cause "_minimal drag_" then they create "_minimal lift_" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That's just basic physics that you can't get around.

What facts are you deriving this "minimal drag" claim from?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I said above, the fowler flaps added to the wing area. More wing area = more lift. It also came down to change the airfoil and provide more lift also. It has minimal drag compared to the standard flaps. If you just angle the flaps down, your creating a deadzone behind the wing were the flap separates from the wing, and more drag by increasing the frontal area.

Fowler flaps are simply more efficient. You dont need drag to make lift.

BigKahuna_GS
02-24-2005, 02:13 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Horseback
They tend to think that size defines function.
Even the Mustang is an enormous fighter by Soviet WWII standards. The P-38 is a behemoth, and they don't like, much less accept, the idea that it was much more capable than their similarly sized Pe-3. They dismiss most of what is reported about it as American hyperbole.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Rgr that. First of all props to Gib for a bueatiful job on the P38-had to say that. WW2 soviet fighter doctrine called for small fighters that could turn well/climb well with a short to medium combat radius.

Most of the air war on the eastern front was generally fought below 15,000ft. There was no need for high altitude long range fighters and the soviets did not like the P51, P47 or P38.

Why do you think the first P47 in FB was out-turned and out-rolled by the Hienkel He-111 bomber ? LoL
It took a very very long time to fix the P47 by many people sending in information.
Even now the P47 does not fly as Hub Zemke describes it:

"Strangely rate of roll and maneuverability was good at high speeds."
109K4 can stay with a P47 in a long dive (no seperation) and forget trying to manuever against it.

"It should not be overlooked here that the P-47--once it gained altitude--could exceed any of the contenders in speed of entering a dive with a very good "zoom" recovery to altitude again."

Try diving from 24-25,000ft and see how far your recovery is as compared to the 109/190. You do not make the same altitude back again (24-25,000ft) in a dive to 15,000ft and back to altitude again.

About the highest engagement I recall was just over 35,000 feet. Here the P-47 still performed fairly well while the enemy (Me109s) had dropped off considerably. In about one turn with the group, the opponents were falling off in spins or split-S-ing for denser air mass.

Won't happen in AEP/PF.


Why was Oleg "greatly surprised and impressed" at the official US Navy fly off of the F4U and F6F vs 190 ? Because the Corsair and Hellcat are much larger planes than the 190A-5 and both Navy planes easily out-looped and out-turned the 190A-5.


Just my Observations:

With every patch US plane performance goes up and down there is no consistency, a true yo-yo effect.
Each time we are told that this is the "correct" F/M Remember just how bad the P47 used to be in FB?
It took a very very long time to fix.

P51:
P51 cannot gently manuever at high speed without losing a wing. This happens more online than off. There is a good chance of losing a wing while in a dive even without elevator input. Many say there is an online lost packet G-load bug that spikes causing wing failure. Not sure.

Oleg's response is too much elevator authority. I followed a 109k4 straight down in a dive in a P51D, the 109k4 rolled and I follwed his roll with the P51D without elevator input and the wing came off.
Rall and many other german pilots along with flight performance tests said the P51 was superior to the 109 at moderate to high speeds. It is pretty tough to exploit this when the wing keeps coming off.
P51 high altitude turn rate vs Bf109 off ?
__________________________________________________ _________________________
WOLFMondo posted Wed February 23 2005 03:35
quote:
Your wrong, the FW190D9 and A's wings can come of in a high speed dive with a severe pull out.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


Wolf, where do you see a severe pull out in the P51?
There was NO elevator input at all, I simply rolled nose down at high speed and the wing came off.




P38:
Stall qualities (Clover Leaf Manuever-not possible) stall should be a "mush" foward without dropping a wing.
Compressibilty at low altitude affecting Dive/Zoom climb-none according to pilot reports.
Cockpit shaking when firing guns-none according to pilot reports.
Improve Dive acceleration/zoom climb
Flying on a single engine--cant climb, roll or loop.
Horizontal acceleration -was best of US A/C -Americas Hundred Thousandpg604
Compare P38 Horizontal acceleration to P63/P51 it is worse.


P47:
Cannot out dive late model 109G & K series/190s in long sustained dives. There is no longer seperation during the dive.
Energy bleed/zoom climb
Turn rate cut ?

Grease on the windows when no other planes have this (Hellcat & Wildcat)

No late model US piston driven aircraft such as the P47M, P47N, F4U-4.Oleg has actually told me that the P47 M & N models were worse planes not better. That is simply incorrect.


Again just my observations and reports from online pilots flying these planes.


____________

CaptJodan
02-24-2005, 09:47 AM
I'm yet another voice who is truly thankful that Gib built the P-38, and has been a voice for those changes we did get that has helped to improve her. Even though there are inaccuracies, I think the 38 has somewhat less inaccuracies than other American AC. I think Gib was a major player in getting her this way.

The P-51's wing issue seems to me to be a bit higher in the 51 than in other AC. The advantages that the 51 had at higher speeds can't be used as it is now. Yes, other AC loose their wings, but don't seem to do so in the same envelope. I often loose the 51's wings only at about 700, sometimes 680 kph. I just can't come to grips with the plane being that fragile.

Oh well, such is life. As has been said, American AC probably aren't the only ones that seem to have some curious issues.

Bull_dog_
02-24-2005, 04:30 PM
Posted about my wings falling off in a high speed roll... I'm sure there was slight elevator input but the operative word is slight....there are issues with some American aircraft.

I'd like to see the Mustang wing falling off problem fixed...heck the Fw would be nice too but I know when I over do it with a Fw...the Mustang just can't be flown fast with certainty.

The lightning needs an overhaul. This will be up to Oleg, but my unless he demonstrates through action that he understands how US aircraft should fly and then follows that up with modelling, then I won't purchase his sim because there are American aircraft in it.

Overall, I love the Fw and several of the Russian aircraft are good...i think DM's are overbaked but I can live with that...British aircraft seem ok but those US planes that didn't fly for mother Russia have been a struggle to even make them competitive and still seem to be hampered by oddities... green puke on the windscreen, blocked views backwards or forwards in corsair and Jug, no paddleblade prop on D-22, strange drop off in high altitude performance of D-27, wing fall off, HMG fight, roll rate fight, speed fight, radiator drag fight, lightning .... lack of boost, compressibility, control authority, muzzle shake, stall characteristics, slow speed climb, accelaration.... whew http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Snow_Wolf_
02-24-2005, 08:58 PM
now from the pilots Manual for the Lockheed P-38H series , P-38Jseries , p-38L-1, L-5 , and F-5B

it says this on Spins

16. SPINS
a. Deliberate spinning is prohitbited because the spin tends to flatten out after two or three turns. When this occurs, the control column is forced back and engine power must be used to help get the control column forward. Before flattening out, normal recovery may be made without power. Recovery is made by applying full opposite rudder and easing the control column forward.

Gibbage1
02-24-2005, 09:23 PM
Ya. Thats a spin. We are talking about stalls. Two differant thing even thought one CAN lead too the other.

IL2 seams to only have 1 type of stall. A wing drop snap. Even flying level, no throttle or pulling hard, all aircraft will snap stall. In flight, there are many types of stalls. Not all lead to spin. Snap stalls lead to spin if not corrected. P-38 should NOT snap stall in level flight and therefor should not go into spin on level flight. Also a stall should be minor without torque in a tight turn. In a P-38, its rather NASTY. Watch Zero's warbirds for proof. It shows a P-38 stalling a few times. No snap, no spin.

Also note... "a. Deliberate spinning is prohibited". DELIBERATE! That means they dont want you to FORCE it into a spin. That makes sense and I bet most instructors tell you NOT too deliberately spin except some FW drivers. It does not say "If in an accedental spin". Kinda says something about the stability of an aircraft if you must FORCE it into a spin hay?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snow_Wolf_:
now from the pilots Manual for the Lockheed P-38H series , P-38Jseries , p-38L-1, L-5 , and F-5B

it says this on Spins

16. SPINS
a. Deliberate spinning is prohitbited because the spin tends to flatten out after two or three turns. When this occurs, the control column is forced back and engine power must be used to help get the control column forward. Before flattening out, normal recovery may be made without power. Recovery is made by applying full opposite rudder and easing the control column forward. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Snow_Wolf_
02-24-2005, 10:19 PM
well Gibbage you want stall right here is the section on it

15. STALLS
a. With Power OFF the airplane stalls at the following indicated airspeeds at the gross weight noted:

Flaps and ladning gear UP

15,000lb = 94 mph
17,000lb = 100 mph
19,000lb = 105 mph

Flaps and ladning gear DOWN

15,000lb = 69 mph
17,000Lb = 74 mph
19,000lb = 78 mph

b. AS stalling speed is approached, the center section stalls first with noticeable shaking of the airplane, However, the ailerons remain effective

c. In either "Power-on" or "power-off" stalls with flaps and landing gear up , the airplane "mushes" straight forward in a well controlled stall. With flaps and landing gear down , there appears to be a slight tendency for one wing to drop. There is however no tendency to spin. Under theses conditions, the nose drops slightly and, as the speed increases, the wing will come up

ClnlSandersLite
02-24-2005, 10:35 PM
I think what it means by "Deliberate spinning" is maneuvers such as the snap roll. For anyone who does not know what this is:
In a p-38j fly level 250mph full throttle. Pull back the stick full (instantly) and simultaneously kick full rudder in the direction of roll desired. Immediatly upon entering the roll, releas all inputs. This is a pure defensive maneuver to be used when he's shooting you full of holes and will cost you speed.

ronison
02-25-2005, 01:07 AM
Edited due to wrong info.

IL2-chuter
02-25-2005, 01:26 AM
http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183014-1.html

It's titled: The Jeff Ethell P-38 Crash.

WOLFMondo
02-25-2005, 01:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:


_"It should not be overlooked here that the P-47--once it gained altitude--could exceed any of the contenders in speed of entering a dive with a very good "zoom" recovery to altitude again."_

Try diving from 24-25,000ft and see how far your recovery is as compared to the 109/190. You do not make the same altitude back again (24-25,000ft) in a dive to 15,000ft and back to altitude again.

_About the highest engagement I recall was just over 35,000 feet. Here the P-47 still performed fairly well while the enemy (Me109s) had dropped off considerably. In about one turn with the group, the opponents were falling off in spins or split-S-ing for denser air mass. _

Won't happen in AEP/PF.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At 15,000ft isn't the supercharger at its worst point? Hauling 7 tons of plane on a 2100hp engine compared to a 4 ton plane on the same HP who do you think is going to zoom better?!?!? The P47's zoom climb up high starting at 7000m when your already doing close to 400mph is fantastic, your probably starting out your dive at close to cruise speed. ME109's in IL2:FB/Aces/PF perform badly at that height, you'll find the P47 pretty good, only can be outperformed by the TA152.

WOLFMondo
02-25-2005, 01:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

P47:
Cannot out dive late model 109G & K series/190s in long sustained dives. There is no longer seperation during the dive.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fact is (because I actually bother to learn and fly both sides planes) the P47 will stay together longer than any 109 or 190 in a dive. The 190's A's come apart around 810kph and the D's around 900kph. The P47's still happily going along at over 1000kph before it breaks up. And yes, there is dive seperation, works for me and i've seen it used against me. I think some people don't really know how to fly the jug :P

horseback
02-25-2005, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At 15,000ft isn't the supercharger at its worst point? Hauling 7 tons of plane on a 2100hp engine compared to a 4 ton plane on the same HP who do you think is going to zoom better?!?!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wolf-

The whole point of a zoom climb is that, like a rollercoaster going up the next slope after a steep drop, you convert the energy of the dive into your climb back up; your momentum should carry you through the first two-thirds or so of your climb back to the original altitude.

Because the P-47 was well streamlined (and let's be clear here; the 109 and 190 were smaller, not smoother), it could convert more of the energy of it's dive into a smoother pullout and climb back up. Coupled with the energy added by its greater weight and horsepower, that should translate into a significant advantage in the climb back up from 15,000 ft, where the climb back up cited by Kahuna begins. The beginning of the zoom climb is where the greatest energy is still available from the dive.

Supercharger efficiency at that point would be almost irrelevent. By the time he runs out of momentum going back up, the P-47 driver should be back to an altitude where his engine works more efficiently, and helps maintain that momentum longer.

As has been pointed out ad infinitum, the US late war fighters' controls tended to become more effective at higher speeds and they were much more solidly engineered, generally exceeding the official strength requirements by a good margin.

The Mustang and P-47 particularly should be capable of steeper dives and pullouts than their Axis counterparts, and decisively more control response at higher speeds in most cases.

cheers

horseback

Gibbage1
02-25-2005, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snow_Wolf_:
well Gibbage you want stall right here is the section on it

15. STALLS
a. With Power OFF the airplane stalls at the following indicated airspeeds at the gross weight noted:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya. I DO have the pilots manual.

"the airplane "mushes" straight forward in a well controlled stall."

"There is however no tendency to spin."

Again. Spinning is not a charactoristic of the P-38 unless you force it. In IL2, the P-38 will spin or try to enter a spin on every stall.

fordfan25
02-25-2005, 02:43 PM
Gib what do you think of the recoil or shakeing when you fire eather the .50s or the single 20mm in the p38?

ronison
02-25-2005, 04:55 PM
Quote:
__________________________________________________ __________
http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183014-1.html

It's titled: The Jeff Ethell P-38 Crash.

"I fly only Full Real in Il2 Forgotten Battles." -Mark Donohue
__________________________________________________ __________

IL2-chuter Thanks for the link. Oviously my info I recieved was not correct. Also it appears from the report that the other part of the info I recieved was wrong also. The oliv drab P-38 was not Ethell's plane. Anyway again thanks for the link and sorry to anyone I mislead there.

ClnlSandersLite
02-26-2005, 10:52 AM
Something else for you guys:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-38/38FOIC.gif
I don't know if any of you have seen this chart or not but...

1. It leads me to believe that there are no boost type systems beyond what's modeled in the game.

2. There is no fuel mixture selection. Honestly though, in game it already can fly about 3hrs 45 mins on only 50% fuel (personal experience, about ten or fifteen of them was combat time) so it's not a big worry.

3. On a wild hair I decided to test the in game L against the settings on table 1. That took about an hour and a half so I'll do table 2 later. I can't do 3, 4 and 5 as there is no auto lean (I assume it models auto rich). The in game lightning is slower, the L model anyways. I set my engines at 80% prop pitch which gives me rpms just a little higher than on the chart. Since I don't have one of those nice dual throttles that was as close as I could get. The throttle setting was 69%. Radiator closed for duration. The test was IAS against IAS. All my initial tests where full fuel, but I spot checked with 25% and it made very little difference. Default ammo loadout as the chart is apparently for combat operations. Anyways, here where my results (yes, on crimea...).

100 feet slower by 14 mph.
3k feet slower by 13 mph.
6k feet slower by 27 mph.
9k feet slower by 32 mph.
12k feet slower by 35 mph.
15k feet slower by 38 mph.
20k feet slower by 40 mph.

I stopped testing here as I saw no point in continuing. It looks like the gap gets larger by roughly 3 to 4 mph every so often.

I'm quite tired and really need to validate these numbers tomorrow. Someone here can validate them as well. While some of these higher altitude numbers still look small, when you start talking about TAS differences the gap starts getting quite big. If someone debunks these in one way or another, I'll delete/edit the post.

By the way, does anyone have a digital copy of the full lightning manual I can get? Not the 16-17 page book (I assume there's a longer one).

Edit: BAD typo

VF-29_Sandman
02-26-2005, 07:36 PM
if u look also at the limits, it says:

war max: 3k rpm at 60" manifold, auto rich, 5 mins. meaning, the pilot was not to exceed 5 mins at this setting. fuel is also gulped at 360 gallons per hour.

military power: 3k rpm at 54" manifold, a/r. 15 min time limit. fuel use: 334 gph.

normal rated: 2600 rpm at 44" manifold in a/r. no time limit. 226 gph fuel use.

just from what this says here, the 38 appears to have been a huge gas hog. probably as much if not more then the fw-190. also note that the lower the rpm's, the more range the lightning had in speed sacrifice. problem is, we cant reduce the fuel mix. but if the pilots were restricted to only 5 mins at 60" manifold, the engines were clearly putting out tremendous power. the pilots were also not to allow the rpm's to exceed 3000 rpm or supercharger damage would likely follow. this happened quite a bit at very high alts when the oil would thicken. rpm's would exceed the max, and the supercharger's would blow. scratch 1 engine.

if oleg had modeled the engine's a bit more true to life, at extreme high alts, we'd run into the problems of radiator's overcooling, oil gelling, and supercharger's coming apart from over-rev's. but that would be askin for a bit much.

ClnlSandersLite
02-28-2005, 12:48 AM
I rechecked table 1 and got the same results.

Skalgrim
02-28-2005, 03:55 AM
it is so heavy to understand,

when p47 with 8000kg fly same fast as dora with 4000kg, had p47 doubly energie,

but she need too to get for same zoomclimb doubly energie, so at means on par.

but that means too, the plane with better acceleration had better zoomclimb by same drag.

k4, la-7 are best acceleration plane at sealevel

and too zero was famous for very good zoomclimb at low altitude, because very good acceleration.

p47 had sure better zoomclimb as 109 at 8000m but not 3000m, because at 8000m had p47 better acceleration, but at 3000m had 109 better acceleration,

but most fight was 7000-8000m where p47 had better acceleration, therefore the rumor p47 had so good zoomclimb

k4 reach sealvel 611km/h with 2000ps, no p47 can that match, because p47 has much higher drag
as k4.

for physics it not important, how to get low drag, small airframe make low drag, that is fact.

Look sealevel speed k4 and p47, p47 much slower at sealevel with much more power.

VF-29_Sandman
02-28-2005, 06:25 AM
the 47 could outdive the 38...but pilots that flew the 38 said the jug couldnt outturn a 38 or outclimb it.

VF-29_Sandman
02-28-2005, 06:49 AM
i ran a check on ur fig's and i got roughly the same thing...+/- 2 mph. full fuel, trimmed out.

75-80% pp to put it roughly on 2600 rpm. thought they were cps props; if so, the rpm shouldnt have fluctuated roughly 1500 rpm in a climb. u have to increase pp to keep it at 2600.

ClnlSandersLite
02-28-2005, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...+/- 2 mph. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's about how accurate the gauge is without a **** protractor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

The climb didn't really matter as it was a level flight cruise test. Basically what speed it maintained at the indicated altitudes. I'm pretty sure i've not seen it fluctuate before. I'll check that. Anyways, Tomorrow I'll check table 2.

VF-29_Sandman
02-28-2005, 10:34 AM
do u have the 1 for the J? supposedly, the L was slower than the J. i tend to think otherwise, but then again, this L doesnt seem to have boost. if it did, the 109/190/spits would be screamin blue murder.

horseback
02-28-2005, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
it is so heavy to understand,

when p47 with 8000kg fly same fast as dora with 4000kg, had p47 doubly energie,

but she need too to get for same zoomclimb doubly energie, so at means on par.

but that means too, the plane with better acceleration had better zoomclimb by same drag.

k4, la-7 are best acceleration plane at sealevel

and too zero was famous for very good zoomclimb at low altitude, because very good acceleration.

p47 had sure better zoomclimb as 109 at 8000m but not 3000m, because at 8000m had p47 better acceleration, but at 3000m had 109 better acceleration,

but most fight was 7000-8000m where p47 had better acceleration, therefore the rumor p47 had so good zoomclimb

k4 reach sealvel 611km/h with 2000ps, no p47 can that match, because p47 has much higher drag
as k4.

for physics it not important, how to get low drag, small airframe make low drag, that is fact.

Look sealevel speed k4 and p47, p47 much slower at sealevel with much more power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zoomclimb is generally understood to refer to a climb after a dive. Level speed at higher altitude is a function of a number of factors, not least of which is the efficiency of the turbosupercharger, which is where the Thunderbolt excelled.

At sea level, the greatest factor for top speed is generally power to weight; here, the 109 or 190 has the advantage, being essentially big engines with wings, compared to the Jug, which needs to haul around a lot of fuel in addition to the bulk of the turbosupercharger. Even so, the P-47 was pretty fast. It just took longer to get up to speed. Nobody fought at top speed anyway.

Now as for drag, that issue has been explored ad infinitum, and sheer size isn't the whole story when it comes to drag. The P-47 was at least as aerodynamically efficient as any flavor of the 190, and quite a bit more so than the 109, even the more refined G-10s and Ks, else it wouldn't have acheived the speeds it could hauling around all that extra weight and mass compared to the horsepower the R-2800 generated.

If it weren't less drag-y, it couldn't have been competitive with the German hotrods, much less beaten them out of the sky in early 1944.

cheers

horseback

ClnlSandersLite
02-28-2005, 04:31 PM
VF-29_Sandman

No, I wish I did have it. I'd be glad to have a copy of any other official documentation on the lightning like that. However, I've got very little.

ClnlSandersLite
03-01-2005, 12:18 AM
I was trying out table 2 and well, I stopped after the first 2. There was just no point. The results?

100 feet, 130 mph slower.
3k feet, 134 mph slower.
I'll bet it progresses in the same 4mph slower pattern as on table 1. Maybe worse though.

If I had to guess, I might say that the aircraft has too much drag modeled. I honestly have no ****ing clue what's wrong with it though.

I'll double check them later. You know, when I'm not as irritated.

VF-29_Sandman
03-03-2005, 06:02 AM
just for grins, i turned off head shake......and hmmmm, smooth as butter in shooting. either a: the pilot is sittin on a vibrator for a cockpit seat, or B: the yoke is shakin em like a cat engaging a rat

bolillo_loco
03-04-2005, 12:24 AM
glad to see you finally made it over here wide wing, I was one of the people who contacted you back in 1999 or early 2000 and asked you to provide information about the P-38. we were in aces high at the time. I have since given up debating a/c because it is just too frustrating. it is clear that anti P-38 pilots just keep restating early model lighting bugs and are convinced that an early J model is the same as late J and L models. as far as engine reliability goes, I have a book called Vee's for victory. in that book they have records from the usaaf. by the end of the war the 38's engines had become so reliable that on average they could log 2x as many hours before overhaul than could the mustangs merline engine. also the allison took half as long to over haul as did the merline. the late model 38s clearly addressed the short comings of H and early J models. seems that nobody wants to believe this.