PDA

View Full Version : P-38J expectations?



kyrule2
01-01-2004, 03:25 AM
My best friend is a huge P-38 fan and he and I will be flying this plane alot in coops and such (things could certainly be worse http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). I'm not too impressed with the earlier models but I know the "J" model was a significant improvement (and is why I think the late P-38's are/were under-rated IMO). My question is what should I expect from the P-38J in terms of:

-turn rate. What plane should this plane be similar to in FB as far as turning ability?

-I believe starting with the "j" the climb was improved quite a bit, would it be similar to P-51D in climb? If I remember correctly it is slightly better. It should be better than the Thunderbolt I'm sure but not as good as those at the top of the class either. Good but not great, correct?

-roll-rate. I think this was one of the weaknesses of the Lightning, is this correct?

-dive and zoom climb. This is an important one and I am curious as to whether or not the Lightnings size and weight would be helpful or detrimental.

-performance at altitude. Where did it perform the best/worst? Low, medium, high?

Any info would be appreciated. I can't wait to fly the Lightning, it's armament was second only to the late 190A's (and Ta-152 which was the best of the war IMO) as far as fighters are concerned IMHO. Four .50s and a 20mm cannon right down the nose in a VERY tight space. Nice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

kyrule2
01-01-2004, 03:25 AM
My best friend is a huge P-38 fan and he and I will be flying this plane alot in coops and such (things could certainly be worse http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). I'm not too impressed with the earlier models but I know the "J" model was a significant improvement (and is why I think the late P-38's are/were under-rated IMO). My question is what should I expect from the P-38J in terms of:

-turn rate. What plane should this plane be similar to in FB as far as turning ability?

-I believe starting with the "j" the climb was improved quite a bit, would it be similar to P-51D in climb? If I remember correctly it is slightly better. It should be better than the Thunderbolt I'm sure but not as good as those at the top of the class either. Good but not great, correct?

-roll-rate. I think this was one of the weaknesses of the Lightning, is this correct?

-dive and zoom climb. This is an important one and I am curious as to whether or not the Lightnings size and weight would be helpful or detrimental.

-performance at altitude. Where did it perform the best/worst? Low, medium, high?

Any info would be appreciated. I can't wait to fly the Lightning, it's armament was second only to the late 190A's (and Ta-152 which was the best of the war IMO) as far as fighters are concerned IMHO. Four .50s and a 20mm cannon right down the nose in a VERY tight space. Nice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Deathsledge
01-01-2004, 08:15 AM
the only difference really on the J model was the turbo chargers, other than that i would say the flight characteristics arent too much difference, just a faster A/C. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

LeadSpitter_
01-01-2004, 09:00 AM
Im just hoping for its low end and combat turn accelaration.

Check zenos site for video of the p38j it outruns the p51d and p47 d27 until the p38js top speed then the others pass the 38, accelaration is alot in a dogfight also its 4 leaf clover move and im wondering if the p38 will be able to hang on its props from a couple seconds

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

SkyChimp
01-01-2004, 09:07 AM
Here's the pilot's flight operating instruction handbook:
http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/p-38pilot.pdf

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

VW-IceFire
01-01-2004, 09:19 AM
We're getting two P-38's aren't we? One is a J and the other is an L? Whatever the case, I remember Gibbage said that one had some kind of power assisted controls so that one should roll faster than the other one (by a little bit anyways).

I think I'm going to have fun with this bird. A powerful fighter with two engines and some excellent strike possibilities (rockets, bombs, gunpods, etc.) and that makes me very excited. I don't expect it to be a really acrobatic plane but as I understand it the P-38 was able to quite easily hold its own against single engine planes so it should be very competitive in the right kinds of situations condusive to its power.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

LeadSpitter_
01-01-2004, 09:22 AM
Fork Tailed Devil

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

Korolov
01-01-2004, 09:23 AM
The J model was a step in the right direction, but the definitive Lightning (and most produced) was the P-38L. The P-38L had aileron boost, dive recovery flaps, and all those goodies. With aileron boost, the roll rate was a lot better than previous models.

Turning was said to be equal to the P-63's turn rate, but only with combat flaps. The best thing about the P-38 is it could go from level flight to climb in no time - I'd imagine you could probably get one of these things to spiral climb if you wanted to.

Climb rate for the L model was 7 minutes to 6100m (20,000ft). The J model should be about the same, maybe better (it was lighter than the L).

Zoom climb should be pretty good I imagine, but diving I think you can expect problems with heavy elevator controls. The P-38 accelerated awful damn fast in a dive, so it was hard to keep control.

Performance at altitude would overall be good, probably better than the P-47. the P-38 has a higher ceiling than the P-47 (44,000ft). Best performance was at 25,000ft, but most P-38 pilots in the ETO say that the P-38 was better below 10,000ft.

Needless to say, I'm a big Lightning fan too. I'll have to find you guys so I can fly with ya! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

Korolov
01-01-2004, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Fork Tailed Devil
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been pointed out that that's what ground troops called the P-38.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
We're getting two P-38's aren't we? One is a J and the other is an L? Whatever the case, I remember Gibbage said that one had some kind of power assisted controls so that one should roll faster than the other one (by a little bit anyways).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-38J will be a earlier 1943 model, while the L will be the P-38L-5LO I believe. The L will have signifigantly better roll.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

GoodKn1ght
01-01-2004, 09:35 AM
I cant wait to shoot them down. They look like even fatter targets than p47s. So hopefully the p38 will be even more worthless than the p47 and will give me a few easy kills online. Thats my expectations.

badaboom.1
01-01-2004, 09:40 AM
Skychimp,That's a great link thanks!Speaking of turbo chargers,Will they be controllable in the P-38,I've heard in the forums that some a/c that historically had them do not in FB.As a side note thier is a good article on a recovered/restored P-38F in FLIGHT JOURNAL MAG,this month.HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

http://server5.uploadit.org/files2/301203-aceinaday.jpg

LeadSpitter_
01-01-2004, 09:55 AM
Korolov, gunther rall called them fork tailed devils on discovery wings in interviews talking about if someone spotted them they yelled it in german, certainly not a ground soldier but then again discovery wings isnt all that accurate but the majority of it is. But hes the one who said it so I'd take his word over a book saying only foot soliders called them that.

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

p1ngu666
01-01-2004, 10:00 AM
it should be good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
it suffered from compressablity, but so did the zero and thats fine at highspeed in fb :\
climb should be very good. 2 engines http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Korolov
01-01-2004, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Korolov, gunther rall called them fork tailed devils on discovery wings in interviews talking about if someone spotted them they yelled it in german, certainly not a ground soldier but then again discovery wings isnt all that accurate but the majority of it is. But hes the one who said it so I'd take his word over a book saying only foot soliders called them that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point being they got the callsign from ground troops. I'd imagine in combat it'd be easier to say "Der Gabelshwanz Teufel" rather than confusing everyone with "P38".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
I cant wait to shoot them down. They look like even fatter targets than p47s. So hopefully the p38 will be even more worthless than the p47 and will give me a few easy kills online. Thats my expectations.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just remember that the P-38 was vastly more agile than the P-47, with acceleration rivaling german fighters. If you don't watch out, your Fw-190A9 will end up with a few holes in the wings. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

Bull_dog_
01-01-2004, 10:53 AM
One thing not mentioned is the counter rotating props...this plane was very difficult to stall and thus, pilots liked it at low levels too. Early models could outclimb a zero I believe and it was unbeatable in the dive. One very common misconception is around compressability...it only occurs at high altitude...above 18,000 ft. The counter rotating props also allowed for an excellent hammerhead since the plane would not roll off to one side due to engine torque...should be real good against Ki's and Fw's. Depending on modeling it might even outclimb 109's.

In the ETO, German fighters attacking bombers at high altitude would split S and easily evade the attacks of P-38's. L Models with the dive flaps could follow this maneuver.

My biggest concern is the energy modelling in this sim...it is my biggest complaint in that it is terrible....I didn't notice it so bad until I started flying the P-51 and Mig 3U and the zoom climb of those aircraft would take them nearly back to the altitude they started their dive from....do this in a P-47 from 6000 meters and you'll be lucky to make it back to 3500 meters...a serious flaw for energy fighters making some of them vulnerable. If the P-38 is modeled like the P-47 it will not be good...if it is like the migs or mustang it should be good. Accelaration in the dive is not modelled well in this game either so we'll have to see how Oleg does it.

I am not counting on historic performance from an energy standpoint as I have not seen it yet...I only hope that the plane is competitive.

arcadeace
01-01-2004, 11:03 AM
I don't know if this is what you would appreciate. This site has in-flight training footage of popular fighters and bombers of the day. It's all original and some, like the P-38, in color. It requires the latest Real Player

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1072979168.jpg

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/main.html

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1072923641.jpg

SkyChimp
01-01-2004, 12:23 PM
How it flew, and how Oleg thinks it should fly are VASTLY different things.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Jaws2002
01-01-2004, 12:27 PM
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/images/pro_190_survey_b_7.jpg

This is how P38F compares with Fw 190 A(A3 or A4 I'm not sure). I found it on this site:
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/index.htm

GoodKn1ght
01-01-2004, 01:11 PM
i dont know about in this sim, but in other sims ive flown, the p38 was a flying hunk of junk just like the p47 is currently in il2 (sorry cajun its true.) Id expect most german fighters to outclass it.

Copperhead310th
01-01-2004, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
I cant wait to shoot them down. They look like even fatter targets than p47s. So hopefully the p38 will be even more worthless than the p47 and will give me a few easy kills online. Thats my expectations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gifGoodKnight i've seen you fly online. & you not a very good combat pilot at all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif lol As for the P-47 being "Worthless"....I've got a whole Squadron of them with pilots that would shoot your noob @*** down in our "worthless" P-47's before you could even cry out Mommy! Help me!.

Now getting back on topic...for those interested...like Krule..you should watch ol Left Gardners film of his P-38 White Lightning.
He really puts her through her paces. Outstanding film to watch & it's in color.
http://p38whitelightnin.com/images/aaatitle.jpg
Lefty Gardners P-38 "White Lightning" (http://p38whitelightnin.com/gallery/)

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

kyrule2
01-01-2004, 01:17 PM
Great stuff guys, thanks. If you have more info keep it coming.

As for the comparison with the P-38F and FW-190A-3 from the account I read the 190 pretty much outperformed it in most catagories except at higher altitudes (around 22,000 feet) where the Lightning performed better and in very low speed turn radius. But like I said I believe the J and F were big improvements and I have alot of respect for those planes. It is interesting Korolov, in the account I read the recommendation for the P-38F pilot to evade was to eliminate any energy advantage and pull the 190 into a very steep spiral climb. Apparently the 190 could outclimb the P-38F but it did so at a speed 20mph faster so if it tried to follow a high angle, VERY low speed climb it would stall out.

I like acceleration in combat, if Maddox/1C models this like Leadspitter said then that would be impressive (and useful). Acceleration can get you out of a tight spot if you make a mistake, allowing you to disengage.

One thing that wasn't mentioned was stability, I imagine/heard it was a very stable aircraft as well due to its weight and counter-rotating props.

Anyway, it sounds like the P-38 has some really strong points that could prove to be useful (especially hanging on its props) in combat. This plane just oozes character and should be a pleasure to fly. The loadout options are sweet. The B-25 has always been my favorite American plane, but I'm really starting to like the Lightning as well (along with the Corsair).

To keep this thread going could someone tell me about pilot protection and how it compared to other planes? Were any of the systems "automated" to reduce pilot work-load?

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

olaleier
01-01-2004, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
I don't know if this is what you would appreciate. This site has in-flight training footage of popular fighters and bombers of the day. It's all original and some, like the P-38, in color. It requires the latest Real Player

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1072979168.jpg

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/main.html

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1072923641.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


-WOW-

That was excellent! I just watched the P-38 vid, great stuff. I love those 40s education videos! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And you gotta love the cartoon nugget pilot with all the books and the scary instruments!

Lot's of others too, looks like my evening is planned out, thanks for the link. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GoodKn1ght
01-01-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gifGoodKnight i've seen you fly online. & you not a very good combat pilot at all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif lol As for the P-47 being "Worthless"....I've got a whole Squadron of them with pilots that would shoot your noob @*** down in our "worthless" P-47's before you could even cry out _Mommy! Help me!_.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that im not a good pilot but i still think the p47 is bad and american planes in general are bad. sorry. thats my opinion. Even with the settings you fly it (arcade) it can't make up for the fact thats its just not a good airplane. That said, your squad has my respect for trying to fly a gimped hunk of metal. ~S

Gibbage1
01-01-2004, 03:33 PM
Just wanted too add my .02 cents.

#1, Oleg is now using US test data and not Soviet test data.

#2, I sent him a lot of data and video of them flying.

#3, I sent him a few megs of photo's of P-38's that returned from battle with a lot of damage. These things will be almost as tough as a P-47, with the added security of two engines.

#4, the P-38 pilots had a trick of chopping one engine to make the roll rate a lot better. I dont know how Oleg will implament it, but I keep buggin him about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

#5, the P-38 had the lowest stall speed of any WWII fighter aircraft. This can be used to stall fight (very tight turns down low and slow with flaps) or used to reach up and grab a high alt 109. Pilots in WWII would often fallow a 109 in a zoom climb. The 109 was faster, but the P-38 could hang on its props and wait for the 109 to stall out.

#6, the P-38 will have the firepower. The concentrated punch of .50 cal and the 20MM boarsighted with no convergance will rip anything in half. There are many pilot accounts of scoring hits and kills at 1000M out. The guns were between two gyro's (engines) and were VERY stable. No shake.

#7, TONS AND TONS of ammo. Something like a 30 second triger time for the 20MM and 45 second triger time for the .50 cal.

#8, LOTS of loadouts. Its a mud moover AND a fighter. The HVAR rockets are 120lb shells on rockets. Lots of power. Plus two 1000lb bombs.

#9, even MORE firepower with the .50 cal gunpods. 8 .50 cal and 1 20MM.

#10, its just a damn good aircraft. In the hands of a pilot who knows her, it will be one of the best. I will be flying this, and the P-63. If you see Gibbage online and he is NOT in a P-38 or P-63, its not me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

kyrule2
01-01-2004, 03:42 PM
Good stuff, Gibbage, especially number #5 which is what I was eluding to in my previous post about the very low speed spiral climb. Other planes simply couldn't fly that slow and climb.

I like #10 as well, good to see someone passionate about their plane.

Btw, a big thank you on behalf of my friend. He is foaming at the mouth waiting to ride the lightning.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

GR142_Astro
01-01-2004, 04:44 PM
I can't wait to try it out, but i see lots of PKs for lightning drivers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FuryFighter
01-01-2004, 04:56 PM
My question... how will the Bf 110 (Bf 110G-2 mainly) compare with the P-38, or will there be no comparison ie one is drastically superiour?

http://www.angelfire.com/space2/messerschmitt262/sig_test.jpg

Korolov
01-01-2004, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
To keep this thread going could someone tell me about pilot protection and how it compared to other planes? Were any of the systems "automated" to reduce pilot work-load?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By the G and H models, they had automatic controls for the cooling systems and turbocharger. They could revert to manual if they required.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
I agree that im not a good pilot but i still think the p47 is bad and american planes in general are bad. sorry. thats my opinion. Even with the settings you fly it (arcade) it can't make up for the fact thats its just not a good airplane. That said, your squad has my respect for trying to fly a gimped hunk of metal. ~S
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that's true, then would that make the various japanese and german fighters that lost to American aircraft bad in general? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage:
#7, TONS AND TONS of ammo. Something like a 30 second triger time for the 20MM and 45 second triger time for the .50 cal.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

500RPG for the 50 cals, 150 rounds for the cannon. About 35 seconds on the 50 cals and 10-15 seconds on the 20mm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
My question... how will the Bf 110 (Bf 110G-2 mainly) compare with the P-38, or will there be no comparison ie one is drastically superiour?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Me-110 is no match for the P-38. It has the advantage of heavier firepower in terms of multiple cannons and defensive guns, but it is far outclassed by the P-38's stability and agility. The Me-210 or Me-410 would be a better comparison.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

Gibbage1
01-01-2004, 05:15 PM
The 110 cant compair. It was bigger with less horse power and the P-38 could carry more payload. Also the 110 could NOT compete with single engine late-war fighters were the P-38 COULD.

noshens
01-01-2004, 05:41 PM
you made this thing sound so good i can't wait to fly it! ugh where is the expansion already #(*%#&Q(*#%Q http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

http://www.img.net/cliff-m/vvn/me262.jpg

Menthol_moose
01-01-2004, 05:43 PM
In August 1944 they were joined by the great Charles A. Lindbergh, who would fly with them for two months. Lindberg had resigned his Army commission when he was a leader in the America First movement, fighting to keep America out of the war. When the war came, he volunteered for service but President Roosevelt refused to let the Army accept him, due to his political activities. Undeterred, Lindbergh became a technical representative for United Aircraft and went to the Pacific to teach what he know of flying long distances over open ocean to the young pilots flying combat. By the time he arrived at the 475th, Lindbergh had flown "Corsairs" with the Marine units in the Marshall Islands. He taught cruise control and the proper way to trim an airplane for long distance flight, and by so doing extended the P-38's range by 45 percent with no extra fuel. It is not well known that on a mission to Peleliu in September 1944 with both Colonel McDonald and McGuire, Lindbergh shot down two Japanese planes. These were never officially credited - though they are part of the Group's total - due to his civilian status.

ElAurens
01-01-2004, 06:19 PM
I'm going to be in a fix when the expansionn comes out.

P38 or P63?

Coupled with the P40 for early years....

Life is good.

BE SURE!

_____________________________

http://www.bicycleman.com/Local_Info/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

HellToupee
01-01-2004, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
How it flew, and how Oleg thinks it should fly are VASTLY different things.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How oleg thinks it should fly and how you think it should fly are VASTLY different things.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Korolov
01-01-2004, 07:48 PM
No matter how it flies in the addon, I'll just be glad to have it.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

BaronVonSnoopy
01-01-2004, 08:25 PM
From everything I've ever read on P-38s, their performance suffered greatly in the cold skies of Europe, and were beyond excellent in the hot humid skies of the Pacific. With that being historically correct, how will the performance figures for the FM be done? It wouldn't be right to have them as peak performers in european/russian skies when they weren't. I'm not saying it wasn't a good plane, but it did suffer in one theater and excell in the other.

Cajun76
01-01-2004, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaronVonSnoopy:
From everything I've ever read on P-38s, their performance suffered greatly in the cold skies of Europe, and were beyond excellent in the hot humid skies of the Pacific. With that being historically correct, how will the performance figures for the FM be done? It wouldn't be right to have them as peak performers in european/russian skies when they weren't. I'm not saying it wasn't a good plane, but it did suffer in one theater and excell in the other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wan't the theater, so much as the opposition and mission profiles were drastically differant.

And Goodnight, I believe you said you fly the Fw-190, so I'll use it for my question.

Do you think the Fw is great, even in the hands of a crappy pilot, or does the machine do most of the work?

Does your reaction to the thoughts of other pilots who think the Jug is decent to fly reflect your inability to fly it effectively?

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Korolov
01-01-2004, 08:59 PM
Well, the main excuses given for the P-38's failure in the ETO are:

- Poor pilot attitude towards the plane

- English weather - mud, grit, cold rain, etc. getting into the complex mechanics and causing failures

- High altitude flights with poor cockpit heat

In the MTO, the P-38 performed about average, and pretty much was the only fighter availible in the latter half of 42.

Remember, FB models every aircraft as if it were in peak condition; it wouldn't be fair to model the P-38 as having failures left and right while other aircraft perform with no hinderance whatsoever.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

horseback
01-02-2004, 01:19 AM
The P-38 Lightning was the best twin-engined fighter of WWII, easily superior to any other twin (including the Mosquito-much better accelleration, climb and turn radius)used as a fighter during the war, and competitive with any single engined fighter when flown by an experienced Lightning driver.

The greatest reason the P-38's reputation suffered in the ETO was fourfold:

(1) Avgas available in Great Britain was not up to the standards of the US-refined avgas provided in other theaters.

(2) For some reason, the Los Angeles based engineers who designed it never thought about the need for a cockpit heater until pilots came back from their first long range, high altitude escort missions with frostbite. This was remedied in the J/L models, but a lot of guys' feet were never the same, and their combat effectiveness suffered.

(3) It was easily recognizable from a distance. This made it easy for Axis pilots to avoid it if they were at a disadvantage, or pick a safe way to get close enough to strike if they thought they were in a good postion. Single engined planes all look the same from a distance, but that big square shape sticks out like a sore thumb.

(4) USAAF pilot training for fighters was all single engine, except for a few groups who actually got their hands on Lockheed Model 322s, the Lightning Mk Is the RAF kicked back after their requested design changes castrated the fighting qualities of the basic aircraft. In any case, the P-38 was quite a bit more complicated to fly than most of its' contemporaries, and the successful P-38 units were 'seeded' with Lightning experienced flight leaders who could pass on their hard won knowledge. The first P-38 group in the Pacific had flown them from the beginning in the States, as had the 1st FG, which was sent to N. Africa right from the start of Torch; these units were pretty successful right from the start. But combat in the P-38 was not a good idea for beginners; you had to know how to fly the aircraft and exploit it's strengths.

BUT it was vastly superior to all the German twins it encountered, although I know of no records of encounters with the He-219 or Do-335. US fighter pilots of all three major fighter types considered LW twin-engined planes to be "meat on the table," and the Me-110, 210, 410, and Ju-88 zerstorers were decimated every time they met up with escort fighters.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

GR142_Astro
01-02-2004, 01:36 AM
My expectation is for it to sound like this:

http://www.p38.com/p38.wav

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Huckebein_FW
01-02-2004, 01:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:

#5, the P-38 had the lowest stall speed of any WWII fighter aircraft. This can be used to stall fight (very tight turns down low and slow with flaps) or used to reach up and grab a high alt 109. Pilots in WWII would often fallow a 109 in a zoom climb. The 109 was faster, but the P-38 could hang on its props and wait for the 109 to stall out.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?? the lowest stall speed of any ww2 aircraft?? what are you smokin' Gib? do you at least know the stall speed for P-38 (clean, loaded weight)?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

pinche_bolillo
01-02-2004, 02:54 AM
I expect the P-38 to perform very poorly in the game, this is because it has always been a very poor performer at every flight sim I ever played. it seems that "due to the game engine the good qualities of the fm cannot be modeled properly" but it never seems to be a problem modeling its poor qualities. I never designed a game, so I wouldnt know how true this is.

a few notes on the test of an early fw 190a (pre A4) vs the P-38F, the 190A3 was much lighter than later 190s thus it turned much better, the 38F is a pre -15 F model, thus it does not have the "combat flaps" yet even with out combat flaps it managed to out turn the 190 at slow speeds, but was out turned by the 190 at all other speeds. W/ combat flaps the 38J/L has been reported to out turn all 109G6 and later models and all 190A and D series. america's 100 thousand stated that the 38J was equal to the P-63 in turning, the P-63 could get on a mustang's tail in 3-4 turns and the P-47's in 2 turns.

mechanical problems with the 38 in the ETO can be traced directly to

bad gas, it was more critical in the 38 than the 47 and 51 because at high altitude the 38 could pull more map

poor maitainence and poorly trained mechanics unfamiliar with allison engines. one reason why the 38 was more reliable in the mto and pto is because the P-39 and P-40 were used extensively in those two theaters, thus when units transitioned into the P-38 the mecanics had experience with allison engines. for those of you that think it was because they operated at lower altitudes, pick up a book on units that flew 38s in these two theaters, you can find plenty of references to 38s flying top cover at 30-35,000 ft for bomber escort while middle altitude fighters flew at 20,000-25,000ft

cooling systems for oil and turbo inner cooler were too effective in early J models, this was cleared up in J-15 models

poor cockpit heat, fixed in J-20 or J-25 models

poor rate of roll at high speed, fixed in J-25 model, some pre J-25 models got dive flaps and boosted ailerons as a retro fit

compressability in dives started at over 20,000 ft, never fixed, but effectively skirted with the J-25 model and later

poor pilot training, many pilots flew the 38 for the first time when they arrived in england, and had less than 20 hours in the plane when they entered combat and the entire unit flew into combat with no combat experience, much different than the pto and mto theaters where combat experienced pilots in the 38 could pass on their experience to new pilots joining the unit.

poorly trained pilots in engine management. many pilots flew at too high a map pressure and low rpm because they had no training on this type of aircraft, compounding the effects of bad gas and poor engine cooling systems

lockheed and allison addressed and fixed all the mechanical reliability problems and by early to mid 44 the gas was straightened out, the allison in the lightning would go on to finsh the war with much better reliability than the merlin in the mustang. the allison flew 50% longer hours than the merlin before it needed an overhaul and needed 50% less man hours to rebuild.

in the mto the top scoring unit flew mustangs, they clinched the top spot the last month or two of the war barely beating out a P-38 unit by less than 20 kills.

if you look at the units that flew the 38 in the eto, it has always been said the 38 was the problem, but if you examine the units history you will see that once they transitioned into the mustang they did not do much better. all units that made the switch from 38s to 51s scored a lot of kills during the month of november 44, during that month the germans fielded the largest amount of fighters during the entire war, and on one day I believe the figure to be 750 german fighters, on this day the germans mistook a large group of escorting mustangs for bombers and vectored their fighters to them. take this high scoring month away from them and their performance was almost the same as when they flew 38s.

the rumor mill in the eto had it that the 38 was a very laim plane, thus many young pilots that had no combat experience or 38 flight time were defeated before they even took off. Tony Levier (lockheed's top 38 test pilot) reported that while he was in the eto to give 38 units tips and pointers, one P-38 squadron commander told him that he thought the P-38 was a dud and said that even the P-40 is a much better plane than the P-38.

turbo regulators on early J models were buggy, these too were fixed in later J models

early in the american air war there were plenty of short ranged P-47s to help the 38s with escort, but many times the germans waited till the 47s turned back and then attacked, the 38s were hopelessly out numbered by germans in quality planes and lots of combat experienced pilots. yet the 38 still managed to shoot down more german planes than 38s lost to direct combat action.

poor escort tactics of the 8th airforce tied the out numbered 38s to the bomber formations. thus when the germans showed up they not only had numerical advantage but altitude advantage also. these close escort tactics were also employed in the pto theater early in the war, and even in the pto many 38s were lost because they were tied to the bombers. once the close escort was lifted in the pto the 38 went on to be the highest scoring army aircorps fighter. shooting down more japanse planes than the 47 and 51 combined. by the time the close escort was lifted in the eto the 38s were already being replaced.

from what I have read it did fairly well in the mto fighting the same german planes as did the eto 38 units...........so was it the man or the machine?

the 38 was a good plane (while not the best) it stil was like many other planes it had its strengths and weakness'

I too wonder if the game will let the 38 use asymetric power to effect 190 like spins and spitfire like turns. the biggest thing I have wondered about is will the plane stall and do a 1/2 snap spin like many planes here do. I mean the plane is reported to not snap out of a turn when stalled and it never spun when stalled in either high or low speed maneouvers as long as both engines were using the same power settings and the weight distribution of the plane was equal. I bet it will snap into spins just like all single engine planes here, thus taking away another advantage of the plane.

somebody stated the climb being 7 min to 20,000 ft this is correct when using less than wep power. the 38 easily outclimbs the 51D and 47D at all altitudes, the higher you go in altitude the more significant the difference becomes. I have a variety of books and they give the rate of climb at a take off weight of 17,699lbs (full internal fuel and ammo) 3,800-4,000 feet in the first minute after the breaks are released on the runway. and it is still climbing at around 2,500 fpm at around 25,000ft. this is while using the derated army power settings for the allisons at 1,600 hp per engine. allison rated the V-1710F30 in the P-38L at 1,725 hp giving the 38 a top speed of 443 mph and a rate of climb in the mid 4,000 fpm range.

all we can do is wait and see

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 04:42 AM
OK. The counter rotating engines eliminated torque. One of the biggest factors of low speed stalls. Then you have the 4 huge flaps just behind the prop wash. This is from the pilots manual.

15,000lb. Flaps and gear up, 94MPH
15,000lb. Flaps and gear down, 69MPH.

This is also in the notes. As stalling speed is approached, the center section stalls first with noticeable shaking of the airplane, however, the ailerons remain effective.

OK. Show me a 1943-45 single wing fighter that has a better stall speed. 69MPH will be hard to beat.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:

#5, the P-38 had the lowest stall speed of any WWII fighter aircraft. This can be used to stall fight (very tight turns down low and slow with flaps) or used to reach up and grab a high alt 109. Pilots in WWII would often fallow a 109 in a zoom climb. The 109 was faster, but the P-38 could hang on its props and wait for the 109 to stall out.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?? the lowest stall speed of any ww2 aircraft?? what are you smokin' Gib? do you at least know the stall speed for P-38 (clean, loaded weight)?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SpinSpinSugar
01-02-2004, 04:42 AM
Hey, don't you start on my beloved Mosquito, I'll take my nose mounted 4x20mm Hispanos and 4x.303 over any armnament, any time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And it's a true bomber with an internal bomb bay, able to hoist the same load as a B-17 with speed and grace. It's only real counterpart for comparison is the Ju88 in the versatility stakes. Shame I'll never be able to fly it in FB. Or in BoB either, I presume, if we're sticking to 1940.

Still, I LOVE flying twins (if asymmetrics are modelled properly) so can't wait for Gib's fine looking P38. Or the Me110, for that matter. The more the merrier.

Cheers,

SSS

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 04:44 AM
Well there may be some carrier based aircraft that can beat 69MPH. Anyone?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:

#5, the P-38 had the lowest stall speed of any WWII fighter aircraft. This can be used to stall fight (very tight turns down low and slow with flaps) or used to reach up and grab a high alt 109. Pilots in WWII would often fallow a 109 in a zoom climb. The 109 was faster, but the P-38 could hang on its props and wait for the 109 to stall out.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?? the lowest stall speed of any ww2 aircraft?? what are you smokin' Gib? do you at least know the stall speed for P-38 (clean, loaded weight)?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cajun76
01-02-2004, 05:01 AM
Huckbein got hung up on the "lowest stall speed of any WWII aircraft" Using that definition, the Storch could claim a spot. But you're being more specific now, Gib, so hopefully this won't turn into a IL2 Forum classic. That quite a low stall speed, though. Very impressive. I seem to remember someone posting about an American PTO ace turning with Zeros in a P-38, but he didn't jettison his droptanks, and crashed.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SpinSpinSugar
01-02-2004, 05:04 AM
I think Huck actually missed out the word "fighter" whilst selectively quoting Gibbage, so I don't think the Storch would qualify!

Still, always entertaining to sit back and watch these develop.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,

SSS

Cajun76
01-02-2004, 05:22 AM
Damn SSS, I'm out of practice! LOL. I should've known it was a selective quote. Shame on me! I'm quite sure that the 109 will have the lowest stall speed, someway, somehow. It could also transition from stall speed to vertical and accelerate to attack speed, too. No, really..... I'll draw a graph....

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Abbuzze
01-02-2004, 06:03 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
OK. The counter rotating engines eliminated torque. One of the biggest factors of low speed stalls. Then you have the 4 huge flaps just behind the prop wash. This is from the pilots manual.

15,000lb. Flaps and gear up, 94MPH
15,000lb. Flaps and gear down, 69MPH.

This is also in the notes. As stalling speed is approached, the center section stalls first with noticeable shaking of the airplane, however, the ailerons remain effective.

OK. Show me a 1943-45 single wing fighter that has a better stall speed. 69MPH will be hard to beat.

Gib

With your Original posting, the P38 will lose the race for slowness.
109 E4 - with flaps down 61mph
RAE Test 1944

But cause you noticed that to call it the lowest stallspeed of all WWII fighters is nonsense and confined it to 43-45, you are right, nevertheless who would be so stupid to get so slow ?? playing sitting duck for BaZ pilots?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

Raiden48
01-02-2004, 07:14 AM
yeah well im disappointed about most of the US fighter planes in FB, seem to lack something essential ........

Gato_M5
01-02-2004, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
I cant wait to shoot them down. They look like even fatter targets than p47s. So hopefully the p38 will be even more worthless than the p47 and will give me a few easy kills online. Thats my expectations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gifGoodKnight i've seen you fly online. & you not a very good combat pilot at all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif lol As for the P-47 being "Worthless"....I've got a whole Squadron of them with pilots that would shoot your noob @*** down in our "worthless" P-47's before you could even cry out _Mommy! Help me!_.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
GoodKn1ght: see you in february, through my
P-38 sight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (not a joke)

DangerForward
01-02-2004, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
america's 100 thousand stated that the 38J was equal to the P-63 in turning, the P-63 could get on a mustang's tail in 3-4 turns and the P-47's in 2 turns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a copy of America's Hundred Thousand and can't find any reference to the p38 out turning the p63. Where do you see it? I do see that in the turn-rate comparison amongst the American fighters that the P38L is sixth and the P63A-9 is second(Table 103). Just curious...

DangerForward

TheJayMan
01-02-2004, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
How it flew, and how Oleg thinks it should fly are VASTLY different things.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How oleg thinks it should fly and how you think it should fly are VASTLY different things.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely everything I've ever seen from SkyChimp has been some of the most objective analysis I've seen from anybody. He makes sound and consistent premises, backed up by solid research. His work on the P-47 roll rate is totally sound, and Oleg's refusal to fix it is difficult to understand. He has proven on a number of occasions that Oleg does not apply an equal standard to all aircraft, as evidenced by the 30lb vs 50lb stick force issue. Oleg should hire SkyChimp to do performance research and beta testing.

GoodKn1ght
01-02-2004, 10:51 AM
Gato,
you won't see me in your p38 sights for very long, you will be either be
1. outturned
2. outclimbed
3. outrunned
4. outgunned

all this will happen despite me 'not being a very good combat pilot' lol

I think the first thing you should do after you start flying the p38 is learn how to put out fires and learn how to fly with one engine. hehehe. then practice bailing out. little ctrl-E exercise never hurt anyone http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TX-Zen
01-02-2004, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Just wanted too add my .02 cents.

#1, Oleg is now using US test data and not Soviet test data.

#2, I sent him a lot of data and video of them flying.

#3, I sent him a few megs of photo's of P-38's that returned from battle with a lot of damage. These things will be almost as tough as a P-47, with the added security of two engines.

#4, the P-38 pilots had a trick of chopping one engine to make the roll rate a lot better. I dont know how Oleg will implament it, but I keep buggin him about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

#5, the P-38 had the lowest stall speed of any WWII fighter aircraft. This can be used to stall fight (very tight turns down low and slow with flaps) or used to reach up and grab a high alt 109. Pilots in WWII would often fallow a 109 in a zoom climb. The 109 was faster, but the P-38 could hang on its props and wait for the 109 to stall out.

#6, the P-38 will have the firepower. The concentrated punch of .50 cal and the 20MM boarsighted with no convergance will rip anything in half. There are many pilot accounts of scoring hits and kills at 1000M out. The guns were between two gyro's (engines) and were VERY stable. No shake.

#7, TONS AND TONS of ammo. Something like a 30 second triger time for the 20MM and 45 second triger time for the .50 cal.

#8, LOTS of loadouts. Its a mud moover AND a fighter. The HVAR rockets are 120lb shells on rockets. Lots of power. Plus two 1000lb bombs.

#9, even MORE firepower with the .50 cal gunpods. 8 .50 cal and 1 20MM.

#10, its just a damn good aircraft. In the hands of a pilot who knows her, it will be one of the best. I will be flying this, and the P-63. If you see Gibbage online and he is NOT in a P-38 or P-63, its not me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is my second favorite plane of all time, after the TA152/FW190D9/12 series.

I am really excited about getting to fly it and with the points raised by Gib, I can only hope it rocks like it sounds that it might.


Yehaaaw!

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX-Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM Only)
TX-OC3 Server 209.163.147.67:21000
http://www.txsquadron.com/library/20031218144359_Zensig2.jpg (http://www.txsquadron.com)

Korolov
01-02-2004, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
With your Original posting, the P38 will lose the race for slowness.
109 E4 - with flaps down 61mph
RAE Test 1944

But cause you noticed that to call it the lowest stallspeed of all WWII fighters is nonsense and confined it to 43-45, you are right, nevertheless who would be so stupid to get so slow ?? playing sitting duck for BaZ pilots?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt you'll see a Emil in 43 very often anyways. People prefer the G-6 with the big arse 30mm gun.

Also, remember that you won't be able to simple jerk up like you usually do after a BnZ attack in a 109; with the P-38's climb rate and good low speed characteristics, it could just hang back and wait for you to snap out at the apex of your climb. German pilots in the MTO were warned not to pull up after a BnZ attack on a P-38 for this reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
Gato,
you won't see me in your p38 sights for very long, you will be either be
1. outturned
2. outclimbed
3. outrunned
4. outgunned

all this will happen despite me 'not being a very good combat pilot' lol

I think the first thing you should do after you start flying the p38 is learn how to put out fires and learn how to fly with one engine. hehehe. then practice bailing out. little ctrl-E exercise never hurt anyone
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Outturned: Nope. P-38 has excellent turning capability.

Outclimbed: Nope. P-38 has better climb than the Fw-190, though it is rivaled by the 109's climb.

Outrunned: Nope. P-38 can do 414MPH at altitude and about 370 at lower altitudes. Not to mention excellent acceleration!

Outgunned: Four 50 caliber machine guns and one 20mm cannon. Definately not outgunned.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

p1ngu666
01-02-2004, 02:37 PM
looking forward to it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
gib, i think some jap planes had uber low stall :P
i loled at the outclimb
gonna fly a 163 are u?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
01-02-2004, 02:37 PM
gib, what about your spitfire ? will u not fly that online?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

GoodKn1ght
01-02-2004, 02:38 PM
just look at the size of the thing, it just looks like a porker. I mean gimme a break, its almost the size of a bomber. I dont know anything about real planes but its turning was bad in other sims. Nothing will outrun my dora sorry, and its not gunna climb with the k4. So it has 4 bb guns and ONE cannon? so what? thats nothing. Im afraid you may be full of it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
And even if ur right, its still a really fat target. Oh yeah and its one ugly bird, thats enough reason not to fly it, lol.

olaleier
01-02-2004, 02:43 PM
Size can often be decieving. At (considerable) altitude, this:
http://usuarios.lycos.es/pedritus/b-36-5.jpg

would out-dogfight this:

http://www.edwards.af.mil/gallery/images/yeager-planes/f-86-2_072.jpg

Scary ain't it?

Wing-loading and power.

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 02:58 PM
The reason why I stated 43-45 was because there were a lot of rather slow early war fighters like the I-153, the Roc, or others that damn near glide. Im talking late war big-n-heavy hunks of aluminum. This sircraft was damn near 3x's the size and weight of a E4 but still had a compairable stall speed. Plus the E4 cant break 400MPH in level flight, or carry a few thousand lb of bombs. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Im just saying it was an outstanding twin engine aircraft that was capable of dancing with single engine aircraft, and no other twin could say that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:

With your Original posting, the P38 will lose the race for slowness.
109 E4 - with flaps down 61mph
RAE Test 1944
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov
01-02-2004, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
just look at the size of the thing, it just looks like a porker. I mean gimme a break, its almost the size of a bomber. I dont know anything about real planes but its turning was bad in other sims. Nothing will outrun my dora sorry, and its not gunna climb with the k4. So it has 4 bb guns and ONE cannon? so what? thats nothing. Im afraid you may be full of it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
And even if ur right, its still a really fat target. Oh yeah and its one ugly bird, thats enough reason not to fly it, lol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Size has the great advantage of altitude performance. The larger size enables it to fly better where the air is thinner. Wingspan is 52ft. For example, think of how many shots it takes to down a B-17.

Remember, the P-38 was designed on a contract for a interceptor role, it would fly high and intercept incoming bombers - little itty bitty fighters don't fly well at altitude.

La-7s outrun your Dora. Yak-3s outrun your Dora. So there. Of course it won't climb with a K-4 - what CAN? LOL!

4BB guns huh? They won't be BB guns when concentrated like that. Take for example your 13mm guns on the Dora - they pack a lot of wallop. Double that and you got the machine gun power on the P-38. Plus the cannon - roughly equal firepower compared to the Dora, and just as tight; not to mention better than 109G-6s and G-2s have.

Oh, and your dora is ugly as hell. I don't know why I like to fly it. Oh wait, I don't - I prefer those antons instead. :P

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 03:03 PM
If I remember, in America' 100,000, the P-61 was #1 in turn radious. ITs a LOT bigger then the P-38 and was a 3 man radar equiped night fighter with a turrete. For the guy who says "P-38 is so big! It cant turn!" should study a little aerodynamics. Size matters not! (Thanks Yoda). But the book is for high speed turn? What we are talking about is low speed stall fightign. If someone try's to stall fight a P-38 in a Yak 3 or 109, they will stall out a LOT sooner then the P-38 will, and the P-38 will have more controle and a tighter turn at those low stall speeds. In a knife fight, I think the P-38 will loose because of its low initial roll. I do think it will be a great B&Z aircraft due too its high speed, dive brakes (on L) and boosted aelaron that could make the P-38 roll better at speeds then the FW-190. The J will be nice in 1943 servers, but the L will be damn sweet in 1944.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DangerForward:

I have a copy of America's Hundred Thousand and can't find any reference to the p38 out turning the p63. Where do you see it? I do see that in the turn-rate comparison amongst the American fighters that the P38L is sixth and the P63A-9 is second(Table 103). Just curious...

DangerForward<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov
01-02-2004, 03:15 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If I remember, in America' 100,000, the P-61 was #1 in turn radious. ITs a LOT bigger then the P-38 and was a 3 man radar equiped night fighter with a turrete. For the guy who says "P-38 is so big! It cant turn!" should study a little aerodynamics. Size matters not! (Thanks Yoda). But the book is for high speed turn? What we are talking about is low speed stall fightign. If someone try's to stall fight a P-38 in a Yak 3 or 109, they will stall out a LOT sooner then the P-38 will, and the P-38 will have more controle and a tighter turn at those low stall speeds. In a knife fight, I think the P-38 will loose because of its low initial roll. I do think it will be a great B&Z aircraft due too its high speed, dive brakes (on L) and boosted aelaron that could make the P-38 roll better at speeds then the FW-190. The J will be nice in 1943 servers, but the L will be damn sweet in 1944.

Gib
QUOTE]

If you loose a engine though, then you're in a world of hurt! But you'll probably make it home alive, unlike most single engine fighters.

What should be a good trick will be getting into a low speed turn fight then making a slow steep climb out of it - that should be interesting!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

FI-Aflak
01-02-2004, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If I remember, in America' 100,000, the P-61 was #1 in turn radious. ITs a LOT bigger then the P-38 and was a 3 man radar equiped night fighter with a turrete. For the guy who says "P-38 is so big! It cant turn!" should study a little aerodynamics. Size matters not! (Thanks Yoda). But the book is for high speed turn? What we are talking about is low speed stall fightign. If someone try's to stall fight a P-38 in a Yak 3 or 109, they will stall out a LOT sooner then the P-38 will, and the P-38 will have more controle and a tighter turn at those low stall speeds. In a knife fight, I think the P-38 will loose because of its low initial roll. I do think it will be a great B&Z aircraft due too its high speed, dive brakes (on L) and boosted aelaron that could make the P-38 roll better at speeds then the FW-190. The J will be nice in 1943 servers, but the L will be damn sweet in 1944.

Gib
QUOTE]

If you loose a engine though, then you're in a world of hurt! But you'll probably make it home alive, unlike most single engine fighters.

What should be a good trick will be getting into a low speed turn fight then making a slow steep climb out of it - that should be interesting!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yah, if you loose an engine in any other fighter in the game, you are in for EVEN MORE hurt!

the reason I love the Jug so much is that I have seen several Dora's run out of ammo on me online and I still make it back to base . . minus half my elevator, most of my rudder, large portions of my wings, most of my fuselage, nearly all my gas, and 2/3 of my cylinders.

I'd imagine that the Lightning would be an even better survivor due to engine redundancy.

JG27_BLACKHART
01-02-2004, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
How it flew, and how Oleg thinks it should fly are VASTLY different things.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Agreed Sky Chimp,

I just hope it handles well in the acceleration.
38 was a well rounded plane.

http://home.earthlink.net/~eaglz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bh.jpg

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 03:32 PM
The P-38 was still rather nimble on 1 engine. IT could still do loops and rolls just fine as long as you trim it out. One of the training excercised for P-38 pilots was a 1 engine fallow-the-leader were the leader would do all sorts of crazy **** and have the trainees fallow him to give them confadence in single engine flight. Sure it was less of a fighter, but you could still jink.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If I remember, in America' 100,000, the P-61 was #1 in turn radious. ITs a LOT bigger then the P-38 and was a 3 man radar equiped night fighter with a turrete. For the guy who says "P-38 is so big! It cant turn!" should study a little aerodynamics. Size matters not! (Thanks Yoda). But the book is for high speed turn? What we are talking about is low speed stall fightign. If someone try's to stall fight a P-38 in a Yak 3 or 109, they will stall out a LOT sooner then the P-38 will, and the P-38 will have more controle and a tighter turn at those low stall speeds. In a knife fight, I think the P-38 will loose because of its low initial roll. I do think it will be a great B&Z aircraft due too its high speed, dive brakes (on L) and boosted aelaron that could make the P-38 roll better at speeds then the FW-190. The J will be nice in 1943 servers, but the L will be damn sweet in 1944.

Gib
QUOTE]

If you loose a engine though, then you're in a world of hurt! But you'll probably make it home alive, unlike most single engine fighters.

What should be a good trick will be getting into a low speed turn fight then making a slow steep climb out of it - that should be interesting!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov
01-02-2004, 03:37 PM
The stall characteristics would probably be off though - not crazy enough to get into a stall fight with all that torque...

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 03:41 PM
Very true!

crazyivan1970
01-02-2004, 03:48 PM
Can`t wait to make two planes out of that P-38 with that mk108, you think it will devide it nicely? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Eh Koro?

On the serious note, it will be one of those "not for average flier, but for dedicated ones" type of planes, like P-47. But i suspect that in good hands, it will be a killer. Look at those guns, all in one spot ...ouch.

V!
Regards,

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

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

Huckebein_FW
01-02-2004, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
OK. The counter rotating engines eliminated torque. One of the biggest factors of low speed stalls. Then you have the 4 huge flaps just behind the prop wash. This is from the pilots manual.

15,000lb. Flaps and gear up, 94MPH
15,000lb. Flaps and gear down, 69MPH.

This is also in the notes. As stalling speed is approached, the center section stalls first with noticeable shaking of the airplane, however, the ailerons remain effective.

OK. Show me a 1943-45 single wing fighter that has a better stall speed. 69MPH will be hard to beat.

Gib
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all the stall speed you gave is NOT for loaded weight, which is around 17500lb for a late variant of P-38. From the same manual you can read that stall speed at 17000lb is 100mph clean and 74mph flaps down gear down.

I'm afraid Gib, that 100mph stall speed is very much average among late war fighters, nothing of the stellar performance you have claimed. Even 109 Gustavs had the same stall speed (and even better for early Gs).

And it's true that stall speed allows you to compare the turn radius among fighters, but please do no mix here heavy twin engine fighters like P-61, because all early war bombers had lower stall speed (for example Ju-88) than late war figters. This means that those twin engine bombers actually turned tighter than late war fighters. That does not mean that those bombers could win a turn fight against a late war fighter, since they had a very unfavourable power loading, resulting in a slow turn rate.

Back to P-38. It's 100mph stall speed was obtain despite his awful wing loading (compare the wing loading with other fighters, tell me what you find outhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) by using a very thick airfoil, similar to those used by carrier fighters. Such airfoils suffer heavy from compressibility, which was even worse on P-38 because of it's long span horizontal stabilizer. This is why it was restricted to 15 degrees dive without dive flaps and 45 degrees dive with dive flaps. I don't want you to dissapoint you but this mediocre performance was similar to a He-177, a heavy bomber.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

SkyChimp
01-02-2004, 04:07 PM
Nevermind Huck, Gib. There's not an American plane that he wouldn't try to talk you out of liking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

DaBallz
01-02-2004, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
OK. The counter rotating engines eliminated torque. One of the biggest factors of low speed stalls. Then you have the 4 huge flaps just behind the prop wash. This is from the pilots manual.

15,000lb. Flaps and gear up, 94MPH
15,000lb. Flaps and gear down, 69MPH.

This is also in the notes. As stalling speed is approached, the center section stalls first with noticeable shaking of the airplane, however, the ailerons remain effective.

OK. Show me a 1943-45 single wing fighter that has a better stall speed. 69MPH will be hard to beat.

Gib
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all the stall speed you gave is NOT for loaded weight, which is around 17500lb for a late variant of P-38. From the same manual you can read that stall speed at 17000lb is 100mph clean and 74mph flaps down gear down.

I'm afraid Gib, that 100mph stall speed is very much average among late war fighters, nothing of the stellar performance you have claimed. Even 109 Gustavs had the same stall speed (and even better for early Gs).

And it's true that stall speed allows you to compare the turn radius among fighters, but please do no mix here heavy twin engine fighters like P-61, because all early war bombers had lower stall speed (for example Ju-88) than late war figters. This means that those twin engine bombers actually turned tighter than late war fighters. That does not mean that those bombers could win a turn fight against a late war fighter, since they had a very unfavourable power loading, resulting in a slow turn rate.

Back to P-38. It's 100mph stall speed was obtain despite his awful wing loading (compare the wing loading with other fighters, tell me what you find outhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) by using a very thick airfoil, similar to those used by carrier fighters. Such airfoils suffer heavy from compressibility, which was even worse on P-38 because of it's long span horizontal stabilizer. This is why it was restricted to 15 degrees dive without dive flaps and 45 degrees dive with dive flaps. I don't want you to dissapoint you but this mediocre performance was similar to a He-177, a heavy bomber.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huck, I get the feeling you are out to bash
all things Allied. Unfortunately I have yet to
read a post where you have meerly been informative.

You are way off to say stall speed can be used
to "compare the turn radius among fighters".
You might be able to guess who may turn better
but you could not be further from the truth in
your statement.

Airfoil shape, flap performance and fuselage
shape are all important parameters. (yes, fuselage shape).

Take a P-51D and a SpitIX at 400mph. The P-51
will out turn a Spit easily at that speed.
The same planes at 150mph and the Spit smokes the P-51.

Your way off Huck.

Da

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 04:26 PM
First of all, we know how well the Germans love the Grief bomber since it gave them a lot of Grief http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

2nd, you ASKED for "clean, loaded" figures. I gave you clean. Now you want just loaded?

3nd, again your selectively quoting. I said fighter, but now your talking bombers stall speed? Bombers have a massive wing area to carry bombs and that tends to help stalls.

4th, I wish the admins would just disallow you from posting in any Allied thread since you always turn it into a flame war. Let it be noted that this thread was 4 pages of good post's till YOU came in.

Tully, I would like too reginster a complaint against Huck for constantly insighting flames in every Allied related aircraft post. Im very sick of this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
dissapoint you put this mediocre performance was similar to a He-177, a heavy bomber.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov
01-02-2004, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Can`t wait to make two planes out of that P-38 with that mk108, you think it will devide it nicely? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Eh Koro?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd rather not waste time with that stupid mk108. Give me a quad of cannon and I'll make sure it'll have a few dents.

You and that stupid POS 109. You should see where the real power is and fly a 190.

Huckbein, explain to me why P-38s had such good success against all types of enemy aircraft, from slow Zeros to fast Fw-190s? I think the P-38 had more capability than you give it credit for. It did what it was designed to do and then exceeding that - the mark of a well designed piece of technology.

Take for example, the 109 - good plane, nicely designed, but when it needed to improvise, the capability wasn't there. It was a home defense fighter and when more was asked of it, it came up short.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

RedDeth
01-02-2004, 05:10 PM
blackhart i was not attacking you in other thread i was asking a serious question on the source of your info.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 05:42 PM
I dont like the Mk-108. I think its a noob-gun. Point it in the general direction of the enemy and pull the trigger. IT has such a high ROF and a wide spread that it should hit something. ITs like hunting pigions with a shotgun. The only think that keeps it from being Uber is the aircraft its installed in http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Thats why 90% of the time 190's get there kills head on, and if not, run like mad. Or a 109 will fly well above the battle, dive down, spread some Mk-108 love, and run away.

Thats why I fly a P-39. It takes skill to fly it, and takes skill to aim that 37MM. The P-38 will be require a new fighting tactic from me since i like to get down and dirty in the furballs in a P-39. I wont be able to do that in a P-38. So I may need too addopt a B&Z tactic, but I will make a point not to be as bad as AFJ's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The Uber Runners! Lol.

P.S. I hate fighting B&Z'ers. 30 mins of climb just to fallow them into a 30 min climb. God its boring to fight B&Zers.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:

I'd rather not waste time with that stupid mk108. Give me a quad of cannon and I'll make sure it'll have a few dents.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov
01-02-2004, 05:53 PM
What I don't like about the mk108 is the lead time required. It packs a punch but it isn't sufficient enough for fighter use. The 20mm guns are far more useful for dogfighting - less lead and more ammo. Moreso Mk108s just bounce off of Yaks and Las, so it makes the point of using it moot.

With the P-39, I hate that 37mm gun - the 50 cals are way better. Though if you get a nice sweet 1-meter-away shot, might as well pound that trigger!

B&Z should be more at home with the P-38, but I'm worried about dives; going to take a lot of muscle to pull it out.

Fighting BnZ'ers is easy - extend, extend, extend! The more distance you have, the more energy he has to spend to catch you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

olaleier
01-02-2004, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont like the Mk-108. I think its a noob-gun. Point it in the general direction of the enemy and pull the trigger. IT has such a high ROF and a wide spread that it should hit something. ITs like hunting pigions with a shotgun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, I think it's like hunting pigeons with a rifle. The ROF isn't THAT impressive considering the calibre. I can only speak for myself, God knows I've missed a few shots. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'll second this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What I don't like about the mk108 is the lead time required. It packs a punch but it isn't sufficient enough for fighter use. The 20mm guns are far more useful for dogfighting - less lead and more ammo. Moreso Mk108s just bounce off of Yaks and Las, so it makes the point of using it moot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't fly much online, but using the Mk108 against AI Russians is quite easy. When they start the vanilla barrel roll, keep up and put ONE round in the engine/cockpit from inside of 100m. Bye bye Boris.

pinche_bolillo
01-02-2004, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DangerForward:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
america's 100 thousand stated that the 38J was equal to the P-63 in turning, the P-63 could get on a mustang's tail in 3-4 turns and the P-47's in 2 turns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a copy of America's Hundred Thousand and can't find any reference to the p38 out turning the p63. Where do you see it? I do see that in the turn-rate comparison amongst the American fighters that the P38L is sixth and the P63A-9 is second(Table 103). Just curious...

DangerForward<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

danger, flip to page 417 in americas hundred thousand and read the first paragraph. I believe you may have misread what, I have stated that the book says the P-38J was equal in turning to the P-63 if the 38 used its combat flaps. very few ww 2 era aircraft had combat flaps, the 38 had them, the P-63 didnt. if you read the chart in the back of the book where the 38 placed 6th in calculated turning you will see that this is with out the use of combat flaps. also those figures are "calculations" calculations are not always accurate, the statements I made come directly from the book and are taken from an army test and are not calculations.

when it came to turning the 38 needed the combat flaps to effect a tight turn, w/o the combat flaps it was a poor turner at speeds above 150 mph tas

Bogun
01-02-2004, 06:16 PM
Gentlemen, there is an excelent article in Flight Jeournal magazine "Flying P-38" by Jeff Ethell which gives a clue to a secrets of the P-38 performance. just read those two paragraphs:

'...Without much thought, I was entering his preferred combat maneuver; power up, I pictured a 109 on my tail and began an increasingly steep right-hand climbing turn. In turning and twisting with 109s and 190s, Dad never got a bullet hole in Tangerine, his P-38F. As the speed dropped below 150mph, I flipped the flap handle to the maneuver stop (which can be used up to 250mph) and steepened the turn. At this point, the 109 pilot, at full power with the right rudder all the way down, would have snap-rolled into a vicious stall if he had chosen to follow. I pulled the power back on the inside (right) engine, pushed the power up on the outside (left) engine, shoved right rudder pedal, and the Lightning smoothly swapped ends. Not only did it turn on a dime, but it actually rotated around its vertical axis as if spinning on a pole running through the top of the canopy and out the bottom of the cockpit. The maneuver was absolutely comfortable with no heavy G-loading. As the nose came through 180 degrees, I threw the flap lever back to full up, evened the throttles and headed downhill going through 300mph in less time than it takes to tell it. The 109 would have been a sitting duck.

This transitional performance is what made the Lightning great in a dogfight; it gave it far more versatility than a single-engine fighter. No doubt, if it were flown like a single-engine fighter, it would come out on the short end, but when a pilot learned to use everything available to him, it was stunningly dangerous to the enemy. One final characteristic made all this worthwhile: there was no converging fire from the wings. A P-38 pilot could get all of his guns on target whether it was 10 feet or 1,000 yards away. Convinced they were flying the finest fighter of the War, Bong and McGuire were sold on this combination. They had no hesitation at going round and round with Zeros and Oscars, which were supposedly more maneuverable...'

This adwantage will be really hard/impossible to realize without having separate throttle tor each engine. Article also shows how diiferent is the point of interrest of the reall pilot from us, 'virtual pilots'....

Here is a link to a whole article:
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/p-38_lightning/p-38_lightning_1.asp

Regards,

&lt;b&gt;AKA_Bogun&lt;/b&gt;
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

crazyivan1970
01-02-2004, 06:16 PM
Gibbage, with all due respect, in Close cockpit settings MK108 requers more skill then you think. Try land some deflection shots in the pit, or even direct from 6 thru gunsight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Heeeee

V!
Regards,

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

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

Bogun
01-02-2004, 06:22 PM
Gentlemen,
On a previous page I posted the link to an interesting article in Flight Jeournal about flying real P-38.
There are a lot of interesing information in that article.

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

faustnik
01-02-2004, 06:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Gibbage, with all due respect, in Close cockpit settings MK108 requers more skill then you think. Try land some deflection shots in the pit, or even direct from 6 thru gunsight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with Ivan on this one! I love the Mk108s on my 190A8 but, they are not easy to score hits with. Just like the Cobra's 37mm, skill is required to be successful with it.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 06:36 PM
When I fly a 109 with a Mk-108, I feel like I am damn near cheating! Head on, hose anyone down. High deflection, lead extra, fire, and let him fly through the stream of load. On his 6, hose him down. Its just NASTY. I know im in trouble when I hear the distinctive rappid fire "blap blap blap". It has a much greater ROF then any large cal gun in the game, wife spread, huge damage, and wicked sound. Making it the true shotgun of IL2. Were as the 37MM on a P-39 is more of a sniper rifle, and the BK Yak's are toating bazooka's in there nose http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The .50 cal's on the P-39 are just too pepper up the target to prepair it for the main corse of 37MM He.

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 06:37 PM
Yes. I love that artical. Thanks for the post. I can read it over again and dream it was me.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:
Gentlemen,
On a previous page I posted the link to an interesting article in Flight Jeournal about flying real P-38.
There are a lot of interesing information in that article.

Regards,

_AKA_Bogun_
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

olaleier
01-02-2004, 06:38 PM
The ROF is pretty mean as high calibres in FB goes, that's true. Maybe you're just an ace Gibbage. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142_Astro
01-02-2004, 07:50 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
It has a much greater ROF then any large cal gun in the game, wife spread....QUOTE]

Gib, sounds like you're getting more out of this gun than anyone playing the game.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MosDef_99th
01-02-2004, 08:02 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:


P.S. I hate fighting B&Z'ers. 30 mins of climb just to fallow them into a 30 min climb. God its boring to fight B&Zers.

Gib

--------------------------------------------
Amen, but I'm a noob anyways. Have ta disagree with ya on the Mk108's though

If P38 has half of the traits mentioned in this thread, I may have to specialize, because in old AW3, where it had these advantages it was a blast to fly.

VW-IceFire
01-02-2004, 08:31 PM
While I'm particularly interested in the RAF aircraft moreso than anything else at the moment (with a Tempest as my avatar and a Spitfire as my signature - who would have guessed? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) but the P-38 is one of the aircraft I'm really looking forward to in this expansion. The twin engines and the firepower are what appeal to me the most. Should be a good ride into battle for sure!

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

Korolov
01-02-2004, 08:57 PM
For one, it'll be the first plane with HVARs in the game - which I'm looking forward to.

February won't come fast enough! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 09:08 PM
The P-38 will be one of the aircraft that must be mastered like the P-39. A typical pilot in a P-39 can be easy meat. A ace in a P-39 can be a real threat to any aircraft. Its not easy getting kills in it unlike LA, Yak, 190's and 109's. 190's and 109's taking more skill then the LA and Yak, but its still easy getting kills in them. Fly high and wait for someone not looking. Dive down, get your shots off with your 30mm shot gun, and get out of dodge. I do have the utmost respect for people who will stay in a furball in a 109 or 190 like my Squad mates. They can and WILL out turn my poor little P-39 so they are proof that in the right hands, its a very capable knife fighter, but not a stall fighter.

Truth be told, any fighter is deadly in the proper hands. ITs just some are deadlier when mastered then others, and some are deadly without being mastered.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by phife-dawg:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:


P.S. I hate fighting B&Z'ers. 30 mins of climb just to fallow them into a 30 min climb. God its boring to fight B&Zers.

Gib

--------------------------------------------
Amen, but I'm a noob anyways. Have ta disagree with ya on the Mk108's though

If P38 has half of the traits mentioned in this thread, I may have to specialize, because in old AW3, where it had these advantages it was a blast to fly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eisenweasel
01-02-2004, 09:36 PM
Gib said, "ITs just some are deadlier when mastered then others, and some are deadly without being mastered."

ITs just some are deadlier when mastered THAN others, and some are deadly without being mastered.

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 10:31 PM
Lets see. You have 5 post's. Are your other 4 post's also grammer corrections? If you wanna contenue on this path, keep an eye out for my spelling. Its horrid.

P.S. Grammer and spelling really have no relivance in a forum when your only trying to convey a simple meaning or supply info as long as everyone understands the basic premis of the post. So if your going too come here and rip open threads just to point our errors, your going to be a busy and lownly man.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eisenweasel:
Gib said, "ITs just some are deadlier when mastered then others, and some are deadly without being mastered."

ITs just some are deadlier when mastered THAN others, and some are deadly without being mastered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

olaleier
01-02-2004, 10:41 PM
Gibbage, you know as well as the rest of us, if you can't spell, you can't kill. God forbid you should try doing a 3D model. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Suckerpunch11
01-03-2004, 04:04 AM
That Goodknight guy seems like an excellent example of people that draw conclusions about WWII aircraft from their video game experiences, not from real research. I suspect he played CFS2, where the P-38 was awful.

Hey Goodknight, here's a tip: Pick up a history book. The P-38 was one of the great fighters of WWII. More planes were shot down by the P-38 in the the Pacific theatre than any other plane.

Also, if you are flying a FW190D, you had better hope you don't get low and slow against a P-38. Contrary to what many people think (especially those mindless enough to think that CFS2 is a credible authority on aircraft performance), the P-38 can turn a very tight circle--something the 190D is poor at. A P-38 can EASILY outturn a FW190D. Against a competant pilot, a FW190D is at a severe disadvantage in a low-altitude turning fight. The P-38 also hates to stall.

So maybe do a little research next time before you start popping off. If Maddox&Co. do a halfway decent job of modeling the 38, it will be a good all-around performer, and deadly in the hands of a good pilot.

People are expecting the P-38 to be a good plane in FB because it certainly was a good plane in real life.

pourshot
01-03-2004, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
I dont know anything about real planes .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you have nothing to add to this topic.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

pinche_bolillo
01-03-2004, 07:47 AM
one thing, many books state the 38 shot down the most enemy aircraft in the pto during ww 2. I think this is just a simple ommision of details on the authors part. the 38 shot down more enemy a/c than any other army aircorps plane. the hellcat actually shot down more enemy a/c in the pto, infact I think it is about 2.5 times as many. during the last year and a half of the war, P-38 units saw fewer and fewer enemy a/c thus they didnt have many opertunities to shoot them down. they got by passed and had to fly 10-12 hour missions just to get to the combat area. the hellcat on the other hand had a lot of contact with the enemy.

many factors go into whether an aircraft was decent or not, the number of kills isnt the only one. the P-40 for example shot down more enemy a/c than the P-38, P-47, and P-51 combined in the cbi, the reason, the P-40 was there when the japanese had a/c, by the time the 38, 47, and 51 showed up they flew unopposed. so as one can see, the most enemy a/c downed isnt the key factor.

F19_Ob
01-03-2004, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont like the Mk-108. I think its a noob-gun. Point it in the general direction of the enemy and pull the trigger. IT has such a high ROF and a wide spread that it should hit something. ITs like hunting pigions with a shotgun. The only think that keeps it from being Uber is the aircraft its installed in http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Thats why 90% of the time 190's get there kills head on, and if not, run like mad. Or a 109 will fly well above the battle, dive down, spread some Mk-108 love, and run away.

Thats why I fly a P-39. It takes skill to fly it, and takes skill to aim that 37MM. The P-38 will be require a new fighting tactic from me since i like to get down and dirty in the furballs in a P-39. I wont be able to do that in a P-38. So I may need too addopt a B&Z tactic, but I will make a point not to be as bad as AFJ's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The Uber Runners! Lol.

P.S. I hate fighting B&Z'ers. 30 mins of climb just to fallow them into a 30 min climb. God its boring to fight B&Zers.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:

I'd rather not waste time with that stupid mk108. Give me a quad of cannon and I'll make sure it'll have a few dents.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------



Why the h*ck do U say things like that Gib.


"I dont like the Mk-108. I think its a noob-gun. Point it in the general direction of the enemy and pull the trigger."
" Or a 109 will fly well above the battle, dive down, spread some Mk-108 love, and run away.
Thats why I fly a P-39. It takes skill to fly it, and takes skill to aim that 37MM."



Both the bf109 and p39 are my favorites ,and I think they are close in performance and the p39 has almost the same number of disadvantages as the 109 Wich makes it difficult to fly on the edge for an average flyer.
But I also think The 109 is more difficult to use effectively for the average pilot.( the difficulty of these ac is one of the reasons why they are interresting to me)



The p39 is close to equally good to the 109 at BnZ at low altitudes below 2000m and as u know, anyone can shoot an ac if he succeds in a bounce.

Only difference is that the bf109 accelerates marginally better initially, but on the other hand it is easier to draw deflection in the p39 and hit a turning target bcause of the better turn, and spray effect of the mg ( a few hits is enough to cripple the 109)
The mgs on the 109 can do damage ,if they hit, but since the turning performance in the 109 is bad, only a few bullets can ever hit, also due to the low rate of fire compared to many allied, so in turning fights they are almost useless ,where the p39's are exellent.

As for the cannon I feel that mk108 is equal, but I hit more often with the p39( better turn and draw deflection)

109's was used both as turn fighters and Bnz just like the p39, but on the low altitude battles on the russian front( below3- 2000m) p39's were often winning, even if they didnt shoot down the 109 they managed to get it on the defensive and the 109's only option was escaping...just like in online fb on the ace servers.

Since the p39 has the advantage in turning over the 109 and the spraying effect of the mg
it has generally more opportunities to shoot at a bandit Wich is easily observable on onlinetracs from GreaterGreen for example.


To say that u easily can shoot down allied planes in a 109 isnt at all helping the community, all those who have recognized the difficulies of this ac...and as i said, it is easy to shoot down an ac if u succed to bounce it, but that goes for all ac not just the bf109 and if u have played on servers like GG u know that there are many flyers that are excellent and they arent easily bounced unless it is in the merge of the furball where the 109 absolutly is not the top predator.

Since the better turning of most allied ac, the 109 have more often deflectionangles of 90 degrees or more, bcause it is extreemly difficult to position yourself on the 6 of a better turning ac ,and thus u have fever opportunities to point your guns at the enemy.

I dont know u mr Gib, But u have to be a very good deflection shooter to be able to say the 109 is easy.
And Asure U that many are not at all this good on the 90 degree deflection angles. and thus they are ( not yet) able to use it easily . So in this respect u are a little unfair to 109 drivers.

This is why I must disagree with U, and bcause I know many are struggling to get the hang of the 109.


I love the p39 too but, i can not say more skill is needed to fly it than the 109, and the 109 still have a greater number of disadvantages .

THNX

GoodKn1ght
01-03-2004, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
Then you have nothing to add to this topic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do have something to add. You have to be kidding yourself if you think every plane in FB is 100% real. Everyone knows the germans had superior engineers. All of you all claim you know so much about planes that were around before you were born. Where are you guys getting your information from? Why should i believe you?

Why should I believe some guy named "suckerpunch" or "SkyChimp" with a monkey in his sig, that posts on a video game forum and acts like he knows everything? You guys aren't history professors you are video game players, its really silly - the fact remains NONE OF YOU HAVE EVER FLOWN THESE PLANES. Well maybe you have flown a remodelled version, but original? and in a combat situation? i rest my case.
So some of you may read books but how are u supposed to know that the books are accurate?

RedDeth
01-03-2004, 12:30 PM
guys like skychimp whether you love em or hate em after two years of reading his posts you will know this dude reads tons of books and tons of historical data and spreadsheets from official records. when he posts something its never b.s. statistics and is rarely in error. and im not pro or con skychimp.

skychimp is one of the few in here that throws up serious info. as well as pinche_bolillo and about two more guys.

also does anyone here know the Hardest plane to fly and master in F.B.? its the K4 so called uber plane. that plane run on auto trim is mediocre. on manual trim you need about 12 buttons set up for it to fly properly and you have to constantly monitor pitch and trim and flaps while turning while FIRING while dodging. it is the most NON easy plane in the game. that is why there are so few great k4 pilots in the game. its very very hard to fly correctly. most are too lazy and just call it uber duber and scoff at it. its the hardest.and try dogfighting in a 109. only masters at fb can dogfight a 109 and stay alive. it can only be done on manual settings.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
01-03-2004, 12:35 PM
Couple things - which may have been covered - if so ignore this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The P-38, maybe more than any other plane in the simm - depended on the pilot. It was either very bad, or very, very good. I've seen accounts by german aces saying it was the best allied plane of the war, and an account by an american colonel who said it was superior to the mustang at virtually everything - but it took alot of flying. After J-25-lo the p38 had the electronic dive flaps - which changed the airfoil when engaged to alleviate compression at high speeds. It also had power assisted alerons - both were retrofitted to some earlier models - I believe - in any case - high speed roll was obviously very good - though roll onset was still slow. The dive flaps were used by skilled pilots to dramatically increase instantaneous turns. It should be obvious that the p38 had strong climb, acceleration and armament - but it's success in the pacific - and the dogfight stories that come from there, indicate it could also turn very well when properly flown - though, obviously, furball tactics are to be avoided - really in most late war planes. If it is accurately modeled it will be a formidable and challenging plane.

pinche_bolillo
01-03-2004, 02:47 PM
it seems that the advantage it had of gentle stall characteristics seems to be hard to model. then the single engine aircraft benifit from being modeled with stall characteristics that are more gentle than they really were, thus single engine planes gain an advantage while the 38 loses one.

the 38 is always modeled with its lowest performance data 414 tas at 25,000ft and 345 mph tas sea level with a climb rate of 3,800 fpm sea level, most books I have on this plane give it a top speed of 421-426 mph at altitude with a rate of climb at 4,000 fpm sea level and around 2,500 fps at 25,000 ft. that little performance boost is enough, especially at high altitudes were other planes have lost a lot of power. the 38L kept sea level hp up to 28,700. taking away another advantage of the 38 and giving one to a/c that climb slower, have less speed, and poor high altitude performance.

it always has a very large hit bubble. while it is a large plane it isnt boxy at all. it is very skinny from the rear and front, its profile is smaller also. its long and skinny. single engine aircraft present a larger target from the side, rear and front. I have quite a few pics of 38s that sustained combat damage and returned to base. the plane took a lot of damage. due to the box design of the tail it was very slender and sturdy, but not in games. I can remember spitfires at janes that expended all their cannon ammo blowing the tail boom off from the radiators back with a short burst of the 303 mgs. I can gladly send pics of the elevator being severed completely from one boom and the aircraft still flew back to base, on one engine at that. other pics of the rudder with 3 20 mm HE damage, each of the holes are the size of a dinner plate, elevator damage where large chunks of it are missing, but games never seem to model this, its modeled as very frail and very big. one of my favorite pics is of a 38 that had an engine fire, it burned completely through the boom aft of the radiators, the plane made a belly landing back at base. its amazing that it sustained an engine fire that wasnt fatal, most engine fires are fatal. one thing I have always been curious about is that the 38L is said to have both sensing and extinguishing system for fires for each engine. its in americas hundred thousand.

the plane never turns well in games, even aircraft that the 38 historically out turned can beat it. the 38 is one of the few ww 2 fighters to employ fowler flaps, these flaps made a lot more lift than conventional flaps while creating a lot less drag. this must be hard to model. dive recovery flaps were used to slow the plane down to get the enemy to over shoot and were also used as a way to tighten up a turn, this seems hard to be modeled correctly

its critical mach is always stated as .675 this is the army's number w/o dive recovery flaps and is to be considered safe. a lot of games model the 38 so that if it exceeds this number it falls apart. I have read that with out the dive recovery flaps buffet begins at mach .675 and by mach .71 tuck under begins, at mach .74 tuck under becomes so great that the pilot can no longer exert pressure on the stick to counter this, if the pilot does not reduce power and go into low pitch he will pick up more speed and shortly there after the tail unit will likely fail. I have read of pilots who went so fast in the dive and tuck under became so great that they did a negative g loop and finished it heading back up into the air upside down, a lucky pilot indeed. one must begin the dives at high altitude above 20,000ft to encounter this

the pilots manual says 45 degree dives w/ dive recovery flaps are safe, and many people take this to mean if you exceed this the plane will fall apart. tony levier reported that he dove the 38 to 60 degrees and reached speeds of mach .72 yet he was still in control of the aircraft, this is with dive recovery flaps. yet games model the critical mach lower for the 38 than what many books say, while most single engine aircraft can easily exceed their critical mach with few ill effects. many 51s were lost in dives due to the the plane breaking up. so many that at one point the aaf imposed dive restrictions, 400 mph tas I believe. the same can be said for the corsair and jug too. the 38s dive restrictions are always very strict while the other a/c seem to have less stringent restrictions.

its fire power is always weak. the 38 had very little dispersion at ranges up to 1,000 meters. while a/c that had wing mounted guns could only obtain a tight pattern at the range the guns were harmonized, anything out side of this harmonized range greatly reduced the guns effectiveness.

I have read about pilots not only using assemetric power to effect a tight turn, but to also cause the plane to explode into a roll by chopping power on the engine they are rolling into. neither of these to features seem to be able to be modeled

forward vision is very good in the 38, you can see down over the nose, this makes it much easier to shoot at the enemy while pulling some lead. single engine a/c had a much more restricted forward field of view than the 38, but since most people play cockpit off this takes another advantage away.

so when you cannot correctly model the 38's strengths due to a limited game engine, its easy to see why the 38 is always a dud in the game.

DaBallz
01-03-2004, 04:19 PM
Early P-47s and P-51s had problems in high speed
dives, but those problems were fixed by the time
the D models of both aircraft flew.

I agree the P-38's strengths and advantages
can not be exploited in FB because of the
poor modeling of touque, especially in low
speed situations. Snap roll by engine torque
is not modeled.

The P-38 was by far the best TWIN engined
piston engined fighter plane to see service
in WWII, yes, IMO better than the fighter version
of the Mosquito.
The P-82/F-82 was better by a long shot but did
not get into action.
I have to agree that the turbo supercharged
engines of the p-38 and P-47 provided more
power at critical altitude than a comparable
gear driven supercharger. but the increased
back pressure did reduce power a bit, not
quite 100%, but close.

The airfoil section of the P-38 did cause
problems with the early formation of shock waves
and the "mysterious" "compressability".

It will be interesting to see how the P-38
is modeled in FB, but rest assured the La-7
will make mincemeat of it.

Da

Suckerpunch11
01-03-2004, 05:07 PM
Our friend Goodknight wrote:

"You have to be kidding yourself if you think every plane in FB is 100% real."

We of course don't think this. As a real pilot, I can tell you that there is a world of difference between flying a real plane and playing a sim. However, Maddox and his crew really do their best to try to have the planes in FB reflect the performance of their real-world counterparts.

AND:
"Everyone knows the germans had superior engineers."

Germans had excellent engineers, but big problems in the Luftwaffe technical office as well as the German high command itself repeated stifled much of this. This is why Germany continued to produce obsolete aircraft, like the He-111 or Bf-110: They failed to come up with suitable replacements.

AND:
"All of you all claim you know so much about planes that were around before you were born."

We have done some reading on the topic.

AND:
"Where are you guys getting your information from? Why should i believe you?"

There are literally thousands of books written on the topic of WWII aircraft. I'm sorry to say that I only own a few dozen. Studying WWII aviation has been a hobby of mine for the past 25 years or so.

AND:
"Why should I believe some guy named 'suckerpunch' or 'SkyChimp' with a monkey in his sig, that posts on a video game forum and acts like he knows everything?"

Don't believe us. Do some research. Learning about the historical realities of WWII aviation is not only fascinting, it will give you a greater appreciation of FB.

AND:
"So some of you may read books but how are u supposed to know that the books are accurate?"

Well, this is a problem with anything you read: history, newspapers, magazines, etc. I admit that it IS possible that everything I have read about the P-38 has been a lie, but that would be a rather impressive conspiracy, wouldn't it?

BM357_Raven
01-03-2004, 06:20 PM
Lol...My wife bought me a P-38 for Christmas.. I was soooo surprised.. She really does love me!

http://www.bm357.com/bm357_goofy_ubi.jpg (http://bm357.com)
Blazing Magnums 357th VFG
bm357.com (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash_intro.html) | Roster (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/bm357_rosters.asp) | Flash Cartoon (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/raven_in_plane9p.html) | BroDawg (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash-intro/tinman3.html) | QuickTime Videos (http://www.bm357.com/movies.htm)

GoodKn1ght
01-03-2004, 06:55 PM
raven-
Return it and get a dora lol.

"Suckerpunch" -
I am your friend. Im not going to argue with 'facts' or detailed technical specs, but rather, common sense. Facts and statistics can be decieving- keep that in mind. Can you honestly say that because the lightning had the most victories in the pacific that it, was therefore, a good airplane?
I dont know myself, but what about other factors?
What if the pilots that flew them were just good?
What about americas superior resources? I've read somewhere that the p51 wasn't as good as people make it out too be. According to the germans, the reason it was so successful was because 'there was so damn many of them.' Could this be true with the lightning as well?

Why is it that the top american ace had like 20 or 30 kills while the top german ace had over 200? Some might say pilot skill. Well i agree, but it would be ignorant to assume this was the only factor. Clearly german fighters were superior and this contributed to the kill count as well as pilot skill.

Cajun76
01-03-2004, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
.and try dogfighting in a 109. only masters at fb can dogfight a 109 and stay alive.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I recommend strapping on a Thunderbolt and trying to dogfight in it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

pinche_bolillo
01-03-2004, 07:31 PM
actually daballz, these problems were not fixed with the introduction of D model 51 and 47s, directional stability became much worse with the introduction of the D model for both planes. it was gradually improved with each sub D model with the introduction of metal covered tail surfaces on the 51 and increased fin fillets for both the 51 and 47. The 47 eventually got dive recovery flaps to help it with its problems. In the case of the 51 it was most likely due to the 51 gaining so much weight (the 51B/C/&D models did not meet the army's 8g requirement with 12 being ultimate break) 6.3gs comes to mind for these mustangs, this is at full take off weight with no external stores. they added a weight bob to the elevators of the 51D to make it more dificult for the pilot to pull a lot of g force. with the case of the mustang high speed dives done by aggressive pilots would continue to cause structual failures even at the end of the war. not all of these aircraft resulted in a crash, but there are enough cases of this happening to mustangs that it is well documented. many books list cases of 51s returning with buckled wings that caused the a/c to be written off as a loss. There is a book by roger freeman called "mustang in profile" in this book it lists all the problems that the mustang had in high speed dives, from wings failing due to ammo doors popping open, landing gear doors being sucked open, there are a lot of them listed. many of the problems were fixed by the 51D-25 series, but not all of the problems were fixed. I am not picking on the mustang nor the jug, its just that beside the 38, the 51 and 47 are the most familiar planes to me. if one looked at all the planes fielded by every nation I am sure it is easy to find they too had problems when pushing planes at speeds beyond mach .75

horseback
01-03-2004, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
Im not going to argue with 'facts' or detailed technical specs, but rather, common sense. Facts and statistics can be decieving- keep that in mind. Can you honestly say that because the lightning had the most victories in the pacific that it, was therefore, a good airplane?
I dont know myself, but what about other factors?
What if the pilots that flew them were just good?
What about americas superior resources? I've read somewhere that the p51 wasn't as good as people make it out too be. According to the germans, the reason it was so successful was because 'there was so damn many of them.' Could this be true with the lightning as well?

Why is it that the top american ace had like 20 or 30 kills while the top german ace had over 200? Some might say pilot skill. Well i agree, but it would be ignorant to assume this was the only factor. Clearly german fighters were superior and this contributed to the kill count as well as pilot skill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, do you think opportunity might have had something to do with it? The high scoring German aces on the Eastern Front were more likely than not to make contact with the enemy in numbers almost every time they sortied...check and see when Allied pilots ran up scores quickly, and you will see that for the most part, it was when they were defending an island or area under constant enemy pressure. RAF pilots during the BoB and at Malta, Americans in the early Pacific campaigns in New Guinea and Guadalcanal. All of these units scored just as quickly as any Eastern Front German unit, and more quickly than the units on the Western Front after mid 1943.

After that, contact with enemy was often a matter of luck, particularly for the American escort fighters scattered across a hundred plus mile long bomber stream. The Germans never suffered from technical inferiority, they 'warmed up' against large numbers of inferior opponents using what are now the standard fighter tactics worlwide, and the guys trained before 1944 were given very good training. If they didn't have the highest scores in WWII, it would have been inexcuseable.


Americans starting in the ETO in 1943 (I don't count the 4th FG because they were trained in RAF tactics, which were probably unsuited to American fighters) had to start from scratch in what were essentially experimental aircraft against an experienced and dangerous opponent who only engaged voluntarily when he had the advantage, while the escort fighters were (particularly early on) tied to the protection of the bombers. Most of the average American fighter pilot's combat time was spent commuting to or from the combat zone at high altitude and on oxygen, which was extremely wearing. A German fighter pilot in the same theater could make two or three one and a half hour sorties in the same day, and he often didn't have to look long for his targets.

He also didn't get rotated out to sell War Bonds after eight months or a year of combat.

In the Pacific, after mid-1943, the Japanese prewar trained aviators were decimated, and it became progressively harder to find Japanese aircraft, much less get to them ahead of your buddies.

Bong, the top American ace (and P-38 driver), was a particular favorite of his commanding general, and was in combat for much of the period from late '42 to early '45, moving from unit to unit as a roving 'gunnery instructor' whereever the 'action' was hottest, and his total sorties were well short of the German average, making contact even more rarely. He was lucky to have scored as highly as he did. This is not a criticism; luck is a major factor in combat.

The Lightning WAS a good plane. It was used successfully against both the Germans (in the Med more than the ETO) and the Japanese, and it was the most advanced airplane in the inventory when America entered the war. It was, however, intended to be a bomber intercepter built in limited numbers, and was not well suited to mass production or rookie pilots.

As for the German's stated opinions of American fighters, bear in mind that the ones likely to be questioned were aces vastly more experienced than anybody they faced after the Americans entered the war. They fought the RAF on nearly equal terms in 1940, and that was the toughest test many of them had and survived. However, too many 100+ kill experten were lost to American fighters for the Americans (and their planes) to have been completely inferior. The 'numbers' arguement doesn't wash unless you believe that the escorts were all bunched up in one ten square mile box moving across Europe every time the LW made contact.

Hopefully, this explanation has sufficient common sense for you.

Cheers,

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Korolov
01-03-2004, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
raven-
Return it and get a dora lol.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That ugly POS? I could understand a Anton, but a Dora? Stick with the P-38.

BTW Raven, is it one of those big 1/18 scale things?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"Suckerpunch" -
I am your friend. Im not going to argue with 'facts' or detailed technical specs, but rather, common sense. Facts and statistics can be decieving- keep that in mind. Can you honestly say that because the lightning had the most victories in the pacific that it, was therefore, a good airplane?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It gives a reasonable idea of how well it fared, especially when you compare it to other planes in the same theatre.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I dont know myself, but what about other factors?
What if the pilots that flew them were just good?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

American pilots good? Blasphemy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What about americas superior resources? I've read somewhere that the p51 wasn't as good as people make it out too be. According to the germans, the reason it was so successful was because 'there was so damn many of them.' Could this be true with the lightning as well?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Total production for the Lightning never exceeded 10,000. The P-51s and P-47s exceeded 15,000. Compare that to the 35,000 Bf-109s and 20,000 Fw-190s made. Makes you wonder, eh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Why is it that the top american ace had like 20 or 30 kills while the top german ace had over 200? Some might say pilot skill. Well i agree, but it would be ignorant to assume this was the only factor. Clearly german fighters were superior and this contributed to the kill count as well as pilot skill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think about it for a moment - there were only a handful of 100+ kill experten flying for the germans and most of those experten flew on the eastern front. Farmers in Yaks and Lavochkins, with little experience or skill. Meanwhile a couple of 109s flying at 6k dive down on a flock of 12 of these guys and annhilate them. Insta-'experten'. Do also remember that on the west front, there were smaller numbers of experten that exceeded the 100 kill count. And don't give me the attacking bombers stuff - there were plenty of bombers out on the east front for the fighters to go after, too.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

VW-IceFire
01-03-2004, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
raven-
Return it and get a dora lol.

"Suckerpunch" -
I am your friend. Im not going to argue with 'facts' or detailed technical specs, but rather, common sense. Facts and statistics can be decieving- keep that in mind. Can you honestly say that because the lightning had the most victories in the pacific that it, was therefore, a good airplane?
I dont know myself, but what about other factors?
What if the pilots that flew them were just good?
What about americas superior resources? I've read somewhere that the p51 wasn't as good as people make it out too be. According to the germans, the reason it was so successful was because 'there was so damn many of them.' Could this be true with the lightning as well?

Why is it that the top american ace had like 20 or 30 kills while the top german ace had over 200? Some might say pilot skill. Well i agree, but it would be ignorant to assume this was the only factor. Clearly german fighters were superior and this contributed to the kill count as well as pilot skill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is definately quite a bit of historical precedent for the American's capacity in both World Wars to litterally break the back of their opponent through sheer attrition. If you do a bit of a study of Germany during WWII you'll find that they were nearly always stretching their resources and were usually producing even less than the British were in 1940 and while (as I remember from the lecture on this part of history) production efficiency ramped up even through 1944.

There is no grand conspiracy as I see it to how good the P-51 was and how well it performed. It was an excellent aircraft by all rights (not to diminish other excellent aircraft like the FW190 and the Bf 109 or even the groundbreaking Me 262) and one of its attributes undoubtedly is as you said - the fact that America's industrial capacity was such that P-51's could be deployed on the front in massive numbers compaired to what the Germans had in comparison. In terms of plane VS plane quality the P-51 was close to being even with German fighters in most areas and generally better rounded in my opinion.

In terms of Aces and scoring kills...its a fairly simple one in my mind and it has nothing to do with pilot quality. American fighter pilots would rotate in for their tour(s) of duty and then roate back to the States to train new pilots (and/or retire back into civil life). Luftwaffe pilots were essentially in the war until they died, were wounded, or the war ended. Definately a sobering notion indeed. But that did give opportunity for many of their best pilots to have enourmous numbers of kills far in advance. No side really had the "best" ace...as there was always notables on each side that were really good at what they did.

But its not a clear conclusion that German fighters or their pilots were just better. There were different strengths and attributes to give to all sides and it didn't just stand with just the pilot or just the plane but the overall war effort.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

noshens
01-03-2004, 10:49 PM
German people are very disciplined (i know that for sure!) I think this could give them quite a good adventage in the war in the skies and anywhere else. Very overlooked fact.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
But its not a clear conclusion that German fighters or their pilots were just better.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.img.net/cliff-m/vvn/me262.jpg

Korolov
01-03-2004, 11:00 PM
Yay1 hit the bullseye. Being disciplined is very important, and probably one of the main reasons for success on all sides.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

kyrule2
01-03-2004, 11:18 PM
Wow, I just wondered what people thought about certain characteristics of the P-38 and I got 6 pages and counting. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Here is my take on the whole thing.

1. The P-38 was a good airplane with its own strengths and weaknesses.

2. The FW-190 was a good airplane with its own strengths and weaknesses.

3. The P-51 was a good airplane with its own strengths and weaknesses.

4. The Bf-109 was a good airplane with its own strengths and weaknesses.

5. The P-47 was a piece of s**t (just kidding), actually it was a good airplane with its own strengths and weaknesses.

I hope this helps clear things up a bit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Btw, thanks for the replies.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Copperhead310th
01-04-2004, 12:18 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RedDeth:
.and try dogfighting in a 109. only masters at fb can dogfight a 109 and stay alive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


lol Red i think you've gone loopy man. I'll trade a p-47 for an Uber-noob 109 any day. It take 3time the skill to dogfight in a FB Thunderbolt & win. you 109/ 190 guys really crack me up. lol Now thier getteing that Ta what ever it is to moan about being undermodeld & needing an Expert to fly the damn thing.
& i agree with Gib on the 108 thing.

As for Goodnight....I've gotten reports from our bomber group pilots on your conduct twards them. In piticular on Slammins server....
just to let you know....we're looking for you buddy. We take noobs picking on our bomber guys VERY SERIOUS. So we'll be seeing you.

Some guy's ego just cant take being killed by something with more than 1 engine. lol
Ppl host DF servers with bombers on them to inspire team work/ emertion & realisim. All good things IMO. if you cant handle being straifed by a bomber then i would stronly sugest you fly on servers that don't have any bombers. As for maoning about the B-17 gunners....what are you gonna gripe about when we start flying b-25's? & last time i was on Slammins (as with most severs) Vulching in a bomber is not only allowed but encouraged.

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

pourshot
01-04-2004, 12:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:


I do have something to add. You have to be kidding yourself if you think every plane in FB is 100% real. Everyone knows the germans had superior engineers. All of you all claim you know so much about planes that were around before you were born. Where are you guys getting your information from? Why should i believe you?

Why should I believe some guy named "suckerpunch" or "SkyChimp" with a monkey in his sig, that posts on a video game forum and acts like he knows everything? You guys aren't history professors you are video game players, its really silly - the fact remains NONE OF YOU HAVE EVER FLOWN THESE PLANES. Well maybe you have flown a remodelled version, but original? and in a combat situation? i rest my case.
So some of you may read books but how are u supposed to know that the books are accurate?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is this, if you come in here telling people how it was with no real idea you will look like a fool and nobody will take you seriously.I dont pretend to know it all but I read what people post here and if I'am unsure if I should beleave what has been said I research it and then debate it here.If you do the same you may learn something and not look like a ***.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Blottogg
01-04-2004, 04:54 AM
Hi guys. Back from the holidays, and resultant headcold after visiting the nephews.

Most of the points I wanted to bring up about the Lightning (and subsequent tangents) have already been covered, but a couple of more to consider:

- Visibility forward and aft was excellent, but to the sides and down was terrible. As my new signature quote says "Sight is life, speed is merely groovy." At least the engines on either side would protect the pilot himself from being shot by unobserved banits in those directions, even while blinding him to those bandits.

- To some extent size does matter (insert titular giggling here.) Even with the aileron boost of the later J's and L's, fighting slow with the Lightning I'd be inclined towards rolling scissors rather than flat scissors (i.e. rolling in one continuous direction rather than rapid, frequent refersals.) The engine's effect on roll inertia (if properly modelled) would make flat scissors a bad idea.

- I had forgotten to mention the counter-rotating engines lack of net torque, and this feature's benefitial effect on stall characteristics, in a previous post, but this is very important. The Lightning wouldn't fall off on a wing if stalled (as long as both engines were running at about the same settings), which lended confidence to the pilots, allowing "care free" maneuvering closer to the limit, as well as a better gun platform. As others have already mentioned, single engine stall performance is a bit watered down WRT real life flying, so at least some of this advantage for the Lightning will be lost in the sim.

- Using asymmentric engine settings for maneuverablity is techincally possible with the existing software, but without hardware to support it, would involve enough key tapping to be all but unusable in the sim. Since most of these techniques were useable at slow speed only, I question how useful they actually were in combat (kind of like the Pugachev cobra maneuver with the FLANKER.)

- The Lightning's Fowler flaps were more effective than the plain or split flaps of it's major opponents, and helped its low speed turning. I still don't have AHT (it will be in my "things I didn't get for Christmas" order from Amazon), but look forward to reading its turn performance calculations. Since the Ki-84 has a similar flap treatment, I assume the sim engine will be able to model them effectively for the Lightning.

- I'm less confident in the sim's ability to correctly model the Lighting's high altitude advantages. Is it just me, or does it seem kind of silly to be introducing high altitude aircraft (Ta-152, P-38, Me-163) in a sim with known shortcomings in its high altitude performance modeling?

- One of the recent magazine articles mentioned that horizontal tail buffet was the original reason for the elevator balance masses (at the request of the Army, IIRC) though Kelly Johnson eventually traced the problem to the cockpit pod/wing joint, and fixed it by adding a fairing. The masses were retained for nothing more than bureaucratic inertia as far as I know, since they didn't solve the buffet/flutter problem. I mention this for nothing more than its "gee whiz" trivia factor.

- Gibb, I'm not so anal retentive as to correct others' spelling or grammar (unless it changes the meaning of a posting), but as a poor speller, I've been known to make a quick pass thru spell check before posting (I still miss a few.) Poor spelling/grammar reduces the poster's credibility, or at the very least doesn't help it. If you're trying to make a point, it's more effective to use language as a rapier than a blugeon, so long as you don't take it so far as William F. Buckley, who's apparent motto is "why use a big word, when a diminuative polysyllable will suffice." It's an unfortunate byproduct of the Internet, e-mail and IM that spelling and grammer have taken a hit in general in recent years. Us old geezers learned to type when a mistake meant either white out or starting over, and "cc" involved carbon paper, not a keystroke.

Overall, I'm looking forward to trying out the Lightning in Feb. It wasn't the best plane in every performance category, but it was better than all other aircraft in one category or another. Fight it to its strengths while avoiding its weaknesses, and it should prove as deadly as it was in real life.

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

edited for spelling (see, I told you.)

VW-IceFire
01-04-2004, 08:23 AM
Copperhead - I can see a great number of fantastic fun filled moments when someone takes out a B-25 and does a gunship pass over an airfield. THAT will be quite a sight to see!

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

Copperhead310th
01-04-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Copperhead - I can see a great number of fantastic fun filled moments when someone takes out a B-25 and does a gunship pass over an airfield. THAT will be quite a sight to see!
- IceFire <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you wont be seeing that. What you will be seeing is no less than 4 or 5 B-25's over an airfeild with P-38's/P-47's as as escoruts to mop up what they miss. A top cover of p-51's/P-80's.

We gearing up for a Group of 16 dedicated bomber jockey's for the B-25. It's going to be a blast. Compleate joint ops. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
LOL & damn all those that don't like it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
We seem to be the Only squadron in FB that thinks this way. 80% of these squads online are all DF flyers. We're more 50% DF & 50% Coop. We like em both & fly them both. We going to be ready for any eventuallity & be able to multi task opperations. So here you see a 380th BG pilot on HL you'll also see a 310th FS Pilot.
We have bigger planes for this sim than most squadrons. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And it's not all Air-quake for us.

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

VW-IceFire
01-04-2004, 12:21 PM
You are quite right...quite right. Sounds like a total blast of fun...I'm sure we'll be having quite a bit more when many of these new aircraft are presented to us. The possibilities for co-op missions will be fantastic!

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

GoodKn1ght
01-04-2004, 12:54 PM
copperhead you are one funny guy. Don't you ban all late german aircraft on your server (arcade settings) because your p47 doesn't stand a chance? Then for some reason you allow the KI.

Having a squad that only flys AI bombers, which weren't intended to be flown in the first place, is ridiculous in my opinion. I don't mind bombers, but that future guy is full of it. He takes advantage of the b17s overmodeled gunners and flys on the deck over the enemy base so his gunners vulch planes taking off. Can you say nOOb? If he was after realism he would drop his bombs from 5k. And he never grows tired of it, he just vulches over and over again. Not to mention its a 2 minute flight between bases on slammin. In addition half of every team on slammin were bombers. Im definately not playing there again until he fixes it.

Pourshot-
Some people are obviously biased to some planes for some reason or another. The p38 was a decent plane, the german planes were better. Thier "evidence" for why the p38 was a good plane is nothing short of questionable. Someone listed how many p38s were produced and compared it to the large amount of bf109s that were also produced. They seemed to forget that germany fought a war on two fronts, and failed to show the correlation between factory production and air to air encounters. Just because germany produced more planes doesnt mean they were not outnumbered in most of their air to air combat encounters. Some of you still lack common sense and I guess thats my way of contributing. whos the *** now? lol

Cajun76
01-04-2004, 12:58 PM
You still are, GoodNight, don't worry.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GoodKn1ght
01-04-2004, 01:02 PM
cajun, dont you get bored of continuously getting shot down in your 47? give it up man its a porker, just like the p38.

Gato_M5
01-04-2004, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
Gato,
you won't see me in your p38 sights for very long, you will be either be
1. outturned
2. outclimbed
3. outrunned
4. outgunned

all this will happen despite me 'not being a very good combat pilot' lol

I think the first thing you should do after you start flying the p38 is learn how to put out fires and learn how to fly with one engine. hehehe. then practice bailing out. little ctrl-E exercise never hurt anyone http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol!!!
I insist, see you in februaryhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cajun76
01-04-2004, 01:26 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I would say that I have learned the most from getting shot down. There's always someone better out there, but when you can shoot someone down, that you know has skill, in a plane that is supposedly inferior, it makes for a sweet victory. I'd rather have a good fight with someone of skill and be shot down, than get easy kills all day long.
Your basing your opinion on the things that happen on DF servers, which are an extreme caricatures of RL dogfighting, IMO. You think the Jug is a porker, and it's true it's still a little undermodeled. But take a Axis plane from the 1943 planeset and compare it to the P-47-22 I usually fly, and you'll relize that the Jug can hold it's own against any contemporary fighter. It won't win every engagement, but niether will the other plane.

I'm not here to play IL2: Doom, I like to fly and learn. So no, I don't get bored, hopefully I get better.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The P-38 will be a welcome addition to FB, and I hope they model it correctly, like any other a/c here. BTW, I don't think you ever answered my question.

I believe you said you fly the Fw-190, so I'll use it for my question.

Do you think the Fw is great, even in the hands of a crappy pilot, or does the machine do most of the work? Talking about the 190 here.

Do you think the Thunderbolt is a "porker" because of your inability to fly it?

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
01-04-2004, 02:10 PM
You bash everyone here for basing there "openion" with no "proof", and you dont consider "proof" written material but real-life experance. Were are you basing your "openion" that your aircraft is better in every way? Are you 85 years old and flew FW-190 D-9's in WWII over Berlin? Because according too you, thats the only way we could base an openion here.

Also, I have read all these pages, and I dont see anyone saying it was the best aircraft or bested any single engine fighter. Just a lot of people who say it was a very good fighter even for a twin engine fighter and it could complete with the best single engine fighters. It was never even designed as a "fighter" but a bomber intercepter and that just adds to its credit.

Even you in your limited "luftwaffa" vision can say it was quite an amazing aircraft. A twin engine aircraft that was designed to shoot down big and heavy high alt high speed bombers thats able to fight with aircraft at half its weight and win! Even win against aircraft 1/3 its weight (early Zero's and 109's). Plus it was one hell of a ground attack aircraft! This aircraft served in every role in every theater in WWII. Thats why so many people are here supporting it. Not because it was the best fighter, but because it was the best twin engine fighter, and a damn good all-around aircraft.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
cajun, dont you get bored of continuously getting shot down in your 47? give it up man its a porker, just like the p38.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

GoodKn1ght
01-04-2004, 02:34 PM
whats with all the spelling errors? :O

Im bashing people for not citing their sources, for all i know they could be making it up. In addition, some sources aren't credible. I don't trust US data from captured german airplanes or vice versa. In fact its very hard to find unbiased data. Even the germans might admit that US planes were good because it is the easy thing to do. Furthermore, the outcome of the war itself may have had an effect on the interviews with various pilots from both sides. It is only natural to favour one side or the other and people can go hunting for information to support their view almost indefinately. I agree the p38 was a decent fighter, but I do think that, like many US planes, it recieved more credit than was due.

pourshot
01-04-2004, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Some people are obviously biased to some planes for some reason or another <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats like the kettle calling the pot black

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thier "evidence" for why the p38 was a good plane is nothing short of questionable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then "prove" them wrong

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> They seemed to forget that germany fought a war on two fronts <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You seem to forget so did the allies

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> and failed to show the correlation between factory production and air to air encounters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats simple germany built them the allies shot them down

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> whos the *** now? lol <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmm let me think about that one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Cajun76
01-04-2004, 03:06 PM
Of course GoodNight, that's perfectly reasonable. You yourself have made, fair, unbiased, thoughtful analysis based on your time in the DF servers. You've posted numerous sources as well. It's nice your such an open minded person, and not a hypocrite.

Now, I'm not an expert, but I also read an learn about RL aircraft. Since I don't think you've learned all that much in the past 36 hours or so to change the fact that you 'know nothing of real planes' (paraphrasing), why don't you do some reading and pondering before shooting off?

Even some of the die hard LW fans (nothing intrinsically wrong with that) think the P-38 and other US a/c were good planes. So if you think you're ingratiating yourself to them just because you like to bash US a/c, you may find that they respect more than just biased hollering. Try getting a clue from TX-Zen, you might learn something. He seems like a reasonable sort, and a Dora fan. (added: The two are not mutually exclusive http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif "resonable and Dora fans" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif thought about the wording on my way out the door! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif)

Oh, before I forget, two things: Are you going to answer my questions? And, if you want to spend time correcting Gib's spelling, it's a full time position. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Korolov
01-04-2004, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
copperhead you are one funny guy. Don't you ban all late german aircraft on your server (arcade settings) because your p47 doesn't stand a chance? Then for some reason you allow the KI.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should know that even early war aircraft have extreme capabilities and can hold their own against late war aircraft. Did I ever tell you about how I won a turn fight with a La-7 in a Fw-190A4?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Having a squad that only flys AI bombers, which weren't intended to be flown in the first place, is ridiculous in my opinion. I don't mind bombers, but that future guy is full of it. He takes advantage of the b17s overmodeled gunners and flys on the deck over the enemy base so his gunners vulch planes taking off. Can you say nOOb? If he was after realism he would drop his bombs from 5k. And he never grows tired of it, he just vulches over and over again. Not to mention its a 2 minute flight between bases on slammin. In addition half of every team on slammin were bombers. Im definately not playing there again until he fixes it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bombers in a DF server have about a 66% loss ratio. If you get the snot vulched out of you, then somebody wasn't being careful enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Pourshot-
Some people are obviously biased to some planes for some reason or another. The p38 was a decent plane, the german planes were better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If german planes were better, why did they loose? Hmm? They lost to the british in their Spitfires and Hurricanes. They lost to the russians in their Yaks, Lavochkins and Illushyins. They lost to the americans in their P-47s, P-51s and P-38s. If the german aircraft were sooooo good, why didn't they win the war? If they could take on 10 allied planes alone and win, why did they loose?

I have no idea what you're smoking.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Thier "evidence" for why the p38 was a good plane is nothing short of questionable. Someone listed how many p38s were produced and compared it to the large amount of bf109s that were also produced. They seemed to forget that germany fought a war on two fronts, and failed to show the correlation between factory production and air to air encounters. Just because germany produced more planes doesnt mean they were not outnumbered in most of their air to air combat encounters. Some of you still lack common sense and I guess thats my way of contributing. whos the *** now? lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forget too, that allied planes were split on two fronts as well. Only the russians didn't have two fronts to fight on. Lets say for a moment that allied fighters were equally split for both the PTO and the ETO. That'd be about 22,500 fighters for both fronts. Then you take 20,000 Fw-190s, 35,000 Bf-109s and split them between two fronts. 27,500 fighters for each front. But then you also have to remember that some fighters were more common on one front than the other. Fw-190s were more common on the west front than on the east front. P-38s were more common in the PTO than in the ETO.

Fact is, the axis powers didn't have fighters that were any better OR any worse than what the allies fielded. The outcome of the war proves that.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

Korolov
01-04-2004, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
cajun, dont you get bored of continuously getting shot down in your 47? give it up man its a porker, just like the p38.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps then, he should go fly a P-39? For that matter maybe all us ami plane fans should go fly the P-39. We could go out and outclimb all your silly german aircraft, outturn them and put 37mm holes into them. Would you like that?

BTW, food for thought - most aircraft losses were due to ground fire rather than attacks by enemy aircraft. About 75% of the IL-2s were lost to AAA fire, 55% for russian fighters of all types. Also on the east front, Fw-190s weren't considered opponents, they were so easy to down.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

VW-IceFire
01-04-2004, 04:05 PM
How are any of the USAAF fighters portrayed so far in this game considered "porkers"? Where's the sources and proof for that?

I just find it really interesting to see one person so consistently attacking one particular countries historical aviation representation in a game with abandon to the success of many other pilots in those planes.

It just seems very off center from historical documents, test data, simulation representations, pilot memoirs, and experiences of the vast majority of pilots here in this thread and elsewhere. Its not a conspiracy.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

GoodKn1ght
01-04-2004, 04:29 PM
pourshot you completely missed the point of my post and that is evident from ur selective quoting and unthoughtful comments. better rethink that last question.

Im outnumbered here so im gunna throw in the towel. But just think for a second, what would you rather own, a bmw or ford? Germany produced better machines and continues to do so today. Im done with the thread, Look forward to downing you all in feb.
~S

SkyChimp
01-04-2004, 04:44 PM
W hat ' s with all the spelling errors? :O

I ' m bashing people for not citing their sources ; for all I know they could be making it up. In addition, some sources aren't credible. I don't trust US data from captured G erman airplanes or vice versa. In fact it ' s very hard to find unbiased data. Even the G ermans might admit that US planes were good because it is the easy thing to do. Furthermore, the outcome of the war itself may have had an effect on the interviews with various pilots from both sides. It is only natural to favour one side or the other and people can go hunting for information to support their view almost indefinately. I agree the P- 38 was a decent fighter, but I do think that, like many US planes, it rec ei ved more credit than was due.


===


You have lofty standards. Thought I'd point out some errors of yours. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

necrobaron
01-04-2004, 04:52 PM
I think it's obvious GoodKn1ght is a simple troll. Anyway,with that said,the P-38 is a plane I'm going to spend a lot of time mastering and is one the planes I'm looking forward to the most. My old steed was the Jug,which (contrary to Kn1ght's claims) is quite capable even in my clumsy hands.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif However I'm afraid I'm going to have to trade my Thunderbolt in for a Lightning.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Some people here(you know of whom I speak) don't seem to understand that in most situations there was no plane that was clear-cut better than the other. It all came down to pilot skill. I'm a great admirer of German design,but I also know America,Great Britain,etc. had equally impressive designs and feats of engineering....

[This message was edited by necrobaron on Sun January 04 2004 at 04:30 PM.]

Gibbage1
01-04-2004, 05:22 PM
Just for the reccord. I think we can find a easy way of chopping one throttle to help roll. On may sticks, there are many keys. You can have two of them set to the Engine 1 and Engine two. Hit a key, chop the throttle, and start your turn. Once the turn is over, release the key and kick up the throttle. It will take a little hand-eye coordnation, but its doable. Also my boss is thinking of buying a yoke for his work/game system that has 3 throttles (well throttle, prop pitch, and 1 other) but can be mapped to throttle. Its just a little steel for most of us. But its a yoke just like the P-38 had!

I remember in a previous thread some Luftwhiner tried too convince the P-38 fans that it having a yoke and not a stick was proof it was not a fighter. Some people will try anything to discredit an aircraft that could possibly threaten any shread of superiority.

Again, nobody here siad its the best fighter, just damn capable.

Gib

Copperhead310th
01-04-2004, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
copperhead you are one funny guy. Don't you ban all late german aircraft on your server (arcade settings) because your p47 doesn't stand a chance? Then for some reason you allow the KI.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On my server you should read the rules.
Rule 1. Don't be an A$$hole.
Rule 2. Don't be an *******.
Rule 3. this is our house we make the rules.
if you don't like the settings/plane set then fly somewhere else. It's hosts choice.
Last rule: See Rules 1 & 2.
As of this point you breaking both 1 & 2.
As for the p47. I'll take you on 1v1 anytime you want chump. pick any ac in the game of the same yeah & i'll clean your clock. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Coun't on it.

As for banning late war geman AC. that's on 1 map that i have. & you seemeed to be having fun there or the 5 or 6 differant times you came on or you would have left. in any case the only thing that's being banned form our servers as of now is YOUhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
Having a squad that only flys AI bombers, which weren't intended to be flown in the first place, is ridiculous in my opinion. I don't mind bombers, but that future guy is full of it. He takes advantage of the b17s overmodeled gunners and flys on the deck over the enemy base so his gunners vulch planes taking off. Can you say nOOb? If he was after realism he would drop his bombs from 5k. And he never grows tired of it, he just vulches over and over again. Not to mention its a 2 minute flight between bases on slammin. In addition half of every team on slammin were bombers. Im definately not playing there again until he fixes it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As i said before once the b-25's come we'll make the transition to that AC. Untill then the B-17 is the only American Bomber we have outside of the Cat & with out a pit it's kinda useless at the momnet.

The B-17 gunners are not overmodeld. Maybey if you spent moretime reading up on these planes instead off shooting your mnouth off you would know things like:

The B-17 guns have NO blindspots. Any where on the aircraft. there is a gun that can & will shoot you down from almost any & every Angle.

The tactics used by USAAF Bomber Command & how best to attack a B-17. Knowing your opponent is 1/2 the battle.but no. you too busy being a troll to learn anything.

As for high alt bombing i'll have a word with the 380th Squadron CO's about that. I typically don't like Bombers on low level runs with out the protection of fighter cover. But with out a Norden higg alt bombing is kinda hit & miss.

As for Future you don't know him. so shut yer pie hole punk. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif He's a good guy a i consider him a friend. I wouldn't trade 500 of you for 1 Future. EVER. And decimaiting the enemy on the ground is the PRIMARY role of a bomber group. Live with it.

As for Slammin's Server. We'll that's his. he does a great service to the community by keeping it up. & we should all be greatfull for ppl like slamin & other ppl who host games.
If you don't fly there (slammins) i can only think that will benifit every one.

Now good night. Goodknight. there'sa bus comming by in 10 min. be under it.

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

faustnik
01-04-2004, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:, Fw-190s weren't considered opponents, they were so easy to down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

Gibbage1
01-04-2004, 07:15 PM
Hay Copper. Can we simmer down before this nice P-38 thread gets locked? I think thats Goodnights goal just like Huck. Have any Allied aircraft thread turned into a flame war and get it locked before the deficiancies of LW aircraft get revieled. So dont bother with him. The burden of proof is on him, and he has yet to provide any and still demand's it from us. Dont fall for it. Its just a troll, and nothing more.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

Now good night. Goodknight. there'sa bus comming by in 10 min. be under it.

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG77Hawk_9
01-04-2004, 07:21 PM
Ahh, bombers

Bring them on. People winging about B17's vulching just don't know how to use the Mk108's to bring them down (-: (usually 2 or three shots without a single mg ping in return from the ai gunners, message here, learn to fly against bombers especially groups of em and use tactics).

One thing I love about Slammin's Server, B17's for my guns. I don't like the settings though but until these planes and others like B24, B25, Ju88, Lanc, Halli, Tu2, and others are made flyable then you have to deal with the settings provided. I know that every kill I make is within a lovely rendered cockpit and that is what counts. If other fighter jocks need to have the lovely artwork turned off cause they can't fly and aim properly then boohoo to them. Just makes my kills more satisfying when a Wonder Woman fighter jock goes down to my guns.

Gibbage1
01-04-2004, 07:31 PM
Soon the B-25 will come with cockpit. We will get both the early and later J models with glass and solid nose. A lot of people are looking forward too flying it, as am I. The solid nose will be the vulching supreme. 12 .50 cal guns forward plus the turretes and 3500lb of bombs. Plus it was a very good aircraft to fly and was credited with airial kills (for the pilot in the pacific) in the solid nose models. Once the bombs were away, it was a very capable fighter. Im sure 1 on 1 with anything it wont have much of a chance, but you can get a good bounce on people. Not even a Fw-190 will stand up too 12 .50 cal guns from a bomber bounce http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG77Hawk_9:
Ahh, bombers

Bring them on. People winging about B17's vulching just don't know how to use the Mk108's to bring them down (-: (usually 2 or three shots without a single mg ping in return from the ai gunners, message here, learn to fly against bombers especially groups of em and use tactics).

One thing I love about Slammin's Server, B17's for my guns. I don't like the settings though but until these planes and others like B24, B25, Ju88, Lanc, Halli, Tu2, and others are made flyable then you have to deal with the settings provided. I know that every kill I make is within a lovely rendered cockpit and that is what counts. If other fighter jocks need to have the lovely artwork turned off cause they can't fly and aim properly then boohoo to them. Just makes my kills more satisfying when a Wonder Woman fighter jock goes down to my guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

pourshot
01-04-2004, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
pourshot you completely missed the point of my post and that is evident from ur selective quoting and unthoughtful comments. better rethink that last question.

Im outnumbered here so im gunna throw in the towel. But just think for a second, what would you rather own, a bmw or ford? Germany produced better machines and continues to do so today. Im done with the thread, Look forward to downing you all in feb.
~S<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that you cant take the heat when you are wrong is not my problem.People come here to talk ww2 planes and if you make silly claims as to how good or bad a plane was in real life you better be able to back it up.

And as for what would I prefer to own a BMW or a FORD ,well I will take the ford it's a 1/4 the price of a bmw and wont do the job any better or worse.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Bearcat99
01-04-2004, 08:17 PM
I am looking forward to it. Even though the P-47 was not perfect it was still IMO the best Jug in a sim I have ever flown. In fact it is the only jug in a sim I have wanted to fly. The others were so bad I just didnt want to be bothered with them. I an only iagine how hard it is to get the physics models right in a sim...especially one ith so many different planes. The fact that most of these planes have istinct characterisitics...even within the ame model, is a testament to the quality of the programming. I have no doubt that it will be decent. Accurate? I am not qualiied to say... but I do look forweard to it. Im not even going to touch the third wheel of the Uber triplettes.. (Twins no more! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif)
Thats one of the things I like about this sim... it's the only sim I have ever flown where each plane flys differently..but if you practice with it..you can get somewhere.

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

kyrule2
01-04-2004, 08:28 PM
Wow, now I'm up to eight pages and still going. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I don't think I've ever seen one guy piss so many people off in one thread. Oh well, at least through all of this bullsh1t hostility there is some good stuff on the P-38 (which was the intention of this post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ). Hopefully, they will lock this one up soon as its WAY off course.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

pourshot
01-04-2004, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I don't think I've ever seen one guy piss so many people off in one thread. Oh well, at least through all of this bullsh1t hostility <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope my post's dont look hostile thats not the tone that I intend to put across. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

kyrule2
01-04-2004, 08:46 PM
Not at all pourshot (your posts are always fair), just a little frustrated with the whole Allied vs. LW thing. It's kind of ironic, I love the 190 and made this post because I know I'll be flying the P-38 alot and to show that I have a respect for all planes, and it still turns into an argument. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

LEXX_Luthor
01-04-2004, 08:58 PM
Leave this Microsoft Noob GoodNite for me. He/She likes Politics and Propaganda, but is a mere amateur.

GoodNite:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why is it that the top american ace had like 20 or 30 kills while the top german ace had over 200? Some might say pilot skill. Well i agree, but it would be ignorant to assume this was the only factor. (hehe okay ~lexx) Clearly german fighters were superior and this contributed to the kill count as well as pilot skill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The selfish and greedy Glorius German Aces sacrificed Germany's Future by never being assigned to fighter training schools after a tour like the USA pilots were forced to do. Thus did the Glorius Luftwaffe Aces devour Germany's Youth for their score points and thus lose the WAR for Germany.

Anyway, the Luftwaffe won in Poland only because they had superior numbers, given the German air crew were much less trained and much inferior, very poor in fact. The Poles were historically far better fighter pilots, which is why the Germans were so desperate to shoot them in parachutes to prevent them from escaping to England. But the Luftwaffe failed to shoot them all, and thus England was Saved. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

Korolov
01-04-2004, 09:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
Not at all pourshot (your posts are always fair), just a little frustrated with the whole Allied vs. LW thing. It's kind of ironic, I love the 190 and made this post because I know I'll be flying the P-38 alot and to show that I have a respect for all planes, and it still turns into an argument. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems like if you bring up the subject of american planes around here, it always turns into a flame war. I guess some people can't help it and neither can I.

It'd be somewhat similar to everyone going around saying the Fw-190 was a piece of sh!t when it was in fact proven to be better than the Bf-109.

Faustnik - key word: East Front. Since Ivan is more of a expert on the east front, I took his word for what the VVS thought of the Fw-190. Keep in mind most Fw-190s on the east front were running low altitude support missions, right smack dab in the realm of low altitude VVS fighters; it'd be pretty easy then to consider the Fw-190 more of a bomber rather than a fighter.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
01-04-2004, 09:15 PM
Korolov:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Keep in mind most Fw-190s on the east front were running low altitude support missions, right smack dab in the realm of low altitude VVS fighters; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Also, Luftwaffe was Desperate to avoid low altitude frontline combat in the west, saving all thier eggs for the high level bombing intercepts.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

faustnik
01-04-2004, 09:51 PM
I'm sure all the unfortunate Soviet victems of 190 aces thought differently about the effectiveness of the 190. Depsite the fact that many of the 190s on the Ostfront were Jabos, they still took down a LOT of Soviet a/c.
***************

On the subject of aces, I was very surprised to read that there were only eight American P-38 aces in the ETO. Even if the big Lightning was less maneuverable than the single-engined fighters, it was certainly fast and capable of good dive and average climb rates. Fast with good firepower sounds good to me.

I expect the P-38 to be very similar to the P-47, or even the 190, in FB. It should be fast, dive and zoom climb well, and have devastating firepower. A capable a/c for anyone who takes the time to master it and a quick death for those insist on "yanking and banking" the big plane. I look forward to fighting against dedicated P-38 pilots!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

Gibbage1
01-04-2004, 10:53 PM
This thread is hopeless. ITs gotten so far off subject that Goodknight wins. Do you guys want that? Now if your going to post something here, post it about the P-38. PLEASE

Korolov
01-04-2004, 10:59 PM
I don't think so Gibbage. This is actually a interesting discussion, on or off topic. GoodKn1ght tried to take it out but I think most of us can see it was a amateur trolling attempt.

Faustnik - I never said the Fw-190 wasn't a good fighter. I just said that the VVS didn't think much of it. Their funeral.

All I expect from the P-38 will be excellent weaponry and good climb rate. Anything else can be easily worked around.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

pinche_bolillo
01-04-2004, 11:47 PM
yes the topic has gotten so far off like many threads. a similar circumstance happened to the ki 84 thread so I tried starting another, but the moderator complained :O so you cannot start another P-38 thread.

I like the P-38, but I am quite sure it will be cannon fodder.

Copperhead310th
01-05-2004, 12:00 AM
I'm sorry Krule. i'm kinda guilty for side tracking this thread too. My appologies.
Back on topic....

Gibbage how many skins willl we be getting with the P-38? just a default skin?

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

pourshot
01-05-2004, 12:02 AM
Here you go Gibbage this is one of only 3 p-38's that served in the RAAF.If I have my history right all 3 were PR's with this one being a F-4

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/A55-1%20PR%20lightning.jpg

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Suckerpunch11
01-05-2004, 01:04 AM
Hey Pinche, I think you might have it backwards. I believe the 38 was in fact the highest scoring plane in the PTO, with the Hellcat being the highest-scoring Navy plane. The Hellcat had 5168 total victories (according to the offical Naval history website). I am still looking for the official 38 kill total, but I have seen two sources mention that it was the leading PTO killer. Feel free to prove me wrong...



(Maybe we can get our buddy goodknight to come in and straighten this out for us. He seems to know everything).

Gibbage1
01-05-2004, 01:24 AM
Only 1 skin. I do have a void out there floating around for skinners who wanna make a skin for it. Im sure if you work fast, it could get on the CD. Oleg seems to be VERY open to putting user-made skins on the CD. I have a few squads making skins for the Spit and some of my other aircraft. Look at IL2 Skins, if not I will host it on my server.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
yes the topic has gotten so far off like many threads. a similar circumstance happened to the ki 84 thread so I tried starting another, but the moderator complained :O so you cannot start another P-38 thread.

I like the P-38, but I am quite sure it will be cannon fodder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

kyrule2
01-05-2004, 01:49 AM
No problem Copperhead, much appreciated. Many people here have made a very good case for the P-38 and it doesn't need anyone's approval to earn my respect. I'm tired of people coming into a thread about a plane and badmouthing it, no matter what the country of origin. Maybe someday things will change. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It's a shame that some of the good characteristics of the P-38 may not be modelled due to FB engine limitations, but like Korolov said excellent firepower and good climb can go a long way.


I'm still wondering about the P-38's pilot protection. I remember someone saying they expect alot of pilot kills in the Lightning, did it have poor protection/armour?

I'm really interested to see how the HVAR's are implemented as well. I think all rockets in the game are a little too easy to hit with, they seem to have very straight, accurate flight paths to a fault. If they are modelled to the standards of other rockets they should be pretty sweet for ground pounding. Personally I would love to see some wobble in the flight patch, or instability when rockets are fired, of all types.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

[This message was edited by kyrule2 on Mon January 05 2004 at 01:00 AM.]

Boandlgramer
01-05-2004, 01:53 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Suckerpunch11:
Hey Pinche, I think you might have it backwards. I believe the 38 was in fact the highest scoring plane in the PTO, with the Hellcat being the highest-scoring Navy plane. The Hellcat had 5168 total victories (according to the offical Naval history website). I am still looking for the official 38 kill total, but I have seen two sources mention that it was the leading PTO killer. Feel free to prove me wrong...

QUOTE]

Salute,
according to a book of mine, "American Warplanes of ww2 "
you can read: the p38 was the highest-scoring american plane in the PTO , but there are no numbers about the kills in the book, just for the corsair and the hellcat.
but IMHO it was a very good plane.

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Copperhead310th
01-05-2004, 03:34 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Only 1 skin. I do have a void out there floating around for skinners who wanna make a skin for it. Im sure if you work fast, it could get on the CD. Oleg seems to be VERY open to putting user-made skins on the CD. I have a few squads making skins for the Spit and some of my other aircraft. Look at IL2 Skins, if not I will host it on my server.

Gib

Yep rgr I have what you gave me Gib but it wasn't a void. I've been toying with it all this time & havne't been getting ay head way. LOL i'm not the best skinner around but i can do "OK" so long as i have a templete to start with. the void would probably work a lot better than what i have. well at least untill we get it. then what you sent me will work just finehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
& thanks for all you hard work.

(checked Il-2 skins- Not there)http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

Copperhead310th
01-05-2004, 03:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Suckerpunch11:
Hey Pinche, I think you might have it backwards. I believe the 38 was in fact the highest scoring plane in the PTO, with the Hellcat being the highest-scoring Navy plane. The Hellcat had 5168 total victories (according to the offical Naval history website). I am still looking for the official 38 kill total, but I have seen two sources mention that it was the leading PTO killer. Feel free to prove me wrong...

QUOTE]

Salute,
according to a book of mine, "American Warplanes of ww2 "
you can read: the p38 was the highest-scoring american plane in the PTO , but there are no numbers about the kills in the book, just for the corsair and the hellcat.
but IMHO it was a very good plane.

RED_Boandl
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try Here:
Top American aces of the Pacific & CBI (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_pto_aces.html)

Lots of goos stuff therehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

here's an example:

http://www.acepilots.com/bong-2.jpg
Major Richard I. Bong
Top American Ace of World War Two Shot down 40 Japanese Planes in the Pacific

Richard Ira Bong, who would become America's "Ace of Aces," was born on September 24, 1920, the son of a Swedish immigrant. He grew up on a farm near the small town of Poplar, Wisconsin.

**** did well in high school, helped on the farm, and pursued many interests as a teenager. He played on the school's baseball, basketball and hockey teams; played clarinet in the school band; sang in the church choir; and enjoyed fishing and hunting. He became a quite a good shot with a hunting rifle. Like many boys of his era, he became interested in aviation at a young age, and was an avid model builder.

He started at Superior State Teachers College in 1938, where he enrolled in the Civilian Pilot training program, also taking private flying lessons. In 1941, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps Aviation Cadet Program.

Training
He did his primary flight training at Rankin Aeronautical Academy in California in June 1941, and completed Basic at at Gardner Field, California. He went to Luke Field near Phoenix, Arizona, for Advanced Training in single-engine (fighter) planes, where he learned to master the AT-6 under Captain Barry Goldwater, who later said, "I taught him fighter gunnery. He was a very bright student. But the most important thing came from a P-38 check pilot who said Bong was the finest natural pilot he ever met. There was no way he could keep Bong from not getting on his tail, even though he was flying an AT-6, a very slow airplane." In January of 1942, just after Pearl Harbor, **** earned his Army Air Corps commission and his coveted pilot's wings. He promptly became a "plow-back," staying on at Luke to teach gunnery. But after a few months he got the chance to train in Lockheed's big new fighter, the P-38. While mastering the twin-engine craft at Hamilton Field, San Francisco, he first attracted the attention of General George Kenney, his future mentor and head of the Fifth Air Force.
In a famous story, Bong was high-hatting all over San Francisco Bay, flying under the bridges, buzzing Market Street, and blowing wash off clothes lines. One harried housewife complained. Kenney called Bong on the carpet and told him,

"Monday morning you check this address out in Oakland and if the woman has any washing to be hung out on the line, you do it for her. Then you hang around being useful - mowing the lawn or something - and when the clothes are dry, take them off the line and bring them into the house. And don't drop any of them on the ground or you will have to wash them all over again. I want this woman to think we are good for something else besides annoying people. Now get out of here before I get mad and change my mind. That's all!"
To War in the Pacific
When General Kenney went to the Pacific in September, 1942, Bong was one of the pilots he tapped to join the 49th Fighter Group. 2nd Lieutenant Bong was assigned to the 9th Fighter Squadron, the "Flying Knights," and was sent to Australia to "hurry up and wait." While waiting for P-38s to be delivered, Bong flew with Captain Thomas Lynch, 39th FS of the 35th FG, operating out of Port Moresby, New Guinea. On December 27, 1942, while flying with the 35th, Bong scored his first aerial victories, a Zero and an Oscar, for this he earned a Silver Star.

Bong began shooting down Japanese planes at a rapid rate. Here's a summary of his action:

Date Kills Location/Comment
December 27, 1942 2 over Buna
January 7, 1943 2 Oscars over Lae
January 8 1 over Lae Harbor, made 'ace'
February 3 back with 9th FS, at Schwimmer
March 3 1 Zero during Battle of the Bismarck Sea
March 11 2 Zeroes
March 29 1 Betty? bomber; promoted to 1st Lt.
April 14 1 bomber, defending against Jap attack on Milne Bay. 'Double Ace'. Awarded Air Medal
June 12 1 Zero, over Bena Bena
July 26 4 fighters, on escort over Lae; awarded DSC
Except for this July 26 engagement, Bong never had any hugely successful single mission such as McGuire or Shubin. Bong's kills were evenly spread out throughout his time flying combat. Also, most of Bong's victories were in the earlier stages of the war against very experienced Japanese pilots. Bong also was considered extremely lucky in finding the enemy. Some pilots hardly saw any enemy fighters in all their time flying combat.
July 28 1 Oscar, on B-25 escort over New Britain. Bong's plane damaged.
August 24 promoted to Captain, R&R in Australia
September 6 0 claimed two bombers, but wins were not confirmed; crash-landed at Mailinan airstrip
October 2 1 Dinah, while leading Green Flight over Gasmata
October 29 2 Zeros, over enemy airfield at Rabaul
November 5 2 Zeros, over enemy airfield at Rabaul; total of 21 kills
Dec. 1943 - Jan. 1944 - On leave at home in Wisconsin, met Marge Vattendahl
Feb. 1944 - assigned to V Fighter Command HQ, allowed to 'free-lance'
February 15 1 Tony off Cape Hoskins, New Britain, first vistory in 'Marge'
February 28 0 destroyed a Japanese transport full of officers on the runway at Wewak
March 3 2 Sally bombers, over Tadji, New Guinea
March 8 Friend & mentor Tom Lynch killed
April 3 1 fighter over Hollandia, 25th win
April 12 3 surpassed Rickenbacker's WWI record of 26
General Kenney took him out of action again and promoted him to Major. When Rickenbacker heard about it, he sent a message of congratulations reading, "Just received the good news that you are the first one to break my record in World War I by bringing down 27 planes in combat, as well as your promotion, so justly deserved. I hasten to offer my sincere congratulations with the hope that you will double or triple this number. But in trying, use the same calculating techniques that has brought you results to date, for we will need your kind back home after this war is over. My promise of a case of Scotch still holds. So be on the lookout for it." General Kenney also sent Bong a case of champagne.
Word that liquor was being supplied to the famous, clean-cut, young pilot caused a mild uproar in certain circles. In response General Arnold dispatched two cases of Coca Cola with the message: "I understand you prefer this type of refreshment to others. You thoroughly deserve to have the kind you want. The Army Air Forces are proud of you and your splendid record. Congratulations!" When word of this reached other squadrons, those pilots let it be known that they would be glad to take Bong's "unwanted" booze off his hands.

May-July, 1944 - On leave in U.S., made publicity tours
Bong returned to the Southwest Pacific on September 10, reporting to Gen. Kenney at Hollandia. Bong's latest HQ assignment was 'advanced gunnery instructor', and while allowed to go on combat missions, he had orders to only defend himself, and not seek out the enemy.
October 10 2 On raid over Borneo oil refineries; subsequently grounded by Kenney
October 27 1 The 9th FS had set up at Tacloban, in support of the Leyte landings. Bong successfully lobbied to get back in action for this crucial phase.
During this time, the other high-scoring P-38 ace, Thomas McGuire began to approach Bong's combat record. Read McGuire's story here.
October 28 2 Oscars off Leyte, total of 33
November 10 1 Oscar over Ormoc Bay
November 11 2 Bong recommended for Medal of Honor. (Read about other aces who won the MoH.)
December 7 2 Sally and Tojo, while covering American landings at Ormoc
December 15 1 Oscar
December 16? 1 Oscar over Mindoro. Total of 40 wins; finally grounded and sent home by General Kenney. He was the most successful U.S. fighter pilot of WW2




General MacArthur presented the medal to Bong on the Tacloban airfield on December 12, 1944. He tossed away his written remarks and said, "Major Richard Ira Bong, who has ruled the air from New Guinea to the Philippines, I now induct you into the society of the bravest of the brave, the wearers of the Congressional Medal of Honor of the United States." Then he pinned the medal on Bong, they shook hands and saluted.

RICHARD I. BONG - Medal of Honor Citation:
(Air Mission)

Rank and organization: Major, U.S. Army Air Corps. Place and date: Over Borneo and Leyte, 10 October to 15 November 1944. Entered service at: Poplar, Wis. Birth: Poplar, Wis. G.O. No.: 90, 8 December 1944.


For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action above and beyond the call of duty in the Southwest Pacific area from 10 October to 15 November 1944. Though assigned to duty as gunnery instructor and neither required nor expected to perform combat duty, Maj. Bong voluntarily and at his own urgent request engaged in repeated combat missions, including unusually hazardous sorties over Balikpapan, Borneo, and in the Leyte area of the Philippines. His aggressiveness and daring resulted in his shooting down 8 enemy airplanes during this period.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

pinche_bolillo
01-05-2004, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Suckerpunch11:
Hey Pinche, I think you might have it backwards. I believe the 38 was in fact the highest scoring plane in the PTO, with the Hellcat being the highest-scoring Navy plane. The Hellcat had 5168 total victories (according to the offical Naval history website). I am still looking for the official 38 kill total, but I have seen two sources mention that it was the leading PTO killer. Feel free to prove me wrong...



(Maybe we can get our buddy goodknight to come in and straighten this out for us. He seems to know everything).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1,708.33 japanese planes were shot down by the P-38 in the pto, this does not include the cbi. like I said before the 38 was the high scoring army aircorps plane, while the hellcat was the highest with 5,000+ total.

like I said before you cannot really base whether a plane was any good solely on how many planes it shot down. the hellcat was in the combat much more than any other plane. the 38s got by passed, after mid 1944 the 38 had already scored almost all its kills.

a good example of how one cannot base total kills on wheter a plane was any good can be seen in the cbi theater, the P-40 I believe scored more kills than the 38,47, and 51b/c/&d combined. this is because once the p-40 was replaced there were no longer any japanese a/c encountered. the 38,47, and 51 flew unopposed in the cbi.

Copperhead310th
01-05-2004, 04:18 AM
AS did most all USAAF planes. Acording to my grandfather....the B-24's in the CBI were so unoposed by 1944 that there were taking the guns out of them & using them as transport planes. (he should know, he was a flight enginier on one such Liberator)

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

Copperhead310th
01-05-2004, 05:19 AM
now this is a nice read. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This is from rec.aviaition.miliatry board from a 38/51 pilot in the ETO.

Date: 1 Dec 1998 19:06:39 GMT

Regarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more.

Full power all the time was wanted because maneuvering bled off so much speed and altitude. What you wanted was more power and more power. All the prop fighters were underpowered and the only way to keep them turning was to keep them descending. The more power you had available, the slower the descent and the easier the recovery. The 38 seemed to have plenty of power for a prop job and certainly below 15,000 ft. no German fighter could get away from it.

That may sound pretty low, but if you initiated an engagement at 27,000 ft. going into a shallow dive and making a few parring turns, you could easily lose 10,000 ft. Certainly in a 38 without dive flaps you would not want to drop the nose too sharply above 20,000 ft. As krauts got to know the 38 they would tend to dive sharply away from it, convinced it would not follow. But that was just fine, because the 38's job was to protect the bombers. If a gaggle of 109s approached the bombers, escorting P-38s turned to engage them and the 109s bugged out for the deck, the 38's job was done. Those 109s wouldn't have enough gas to climb back up to altitude, chase the bombers and position for an attack. And if they did, the 38s would turn in to them and the process would repeat.

The krauts figured this out pretty soon and knew they had to hit the 38s. They would climb very high (109s, the 190s weren't seen at very high altitudes)and bounce the 38s, who would be cruising at around 220 or so if they hadn't spotted the krauts. Most losses were the result of surprise bounces, the krauts keeping on moving so there was no chance for retaliation. The 38 formation would be broken up, with guys turning looking for the enemy, leaving a way open for other German fighters to hit the bombers.

The only solution to the surprise bounce was to open up the escort fighter formation, have high cover several thousand feet above the bombers and close escort, and keep your head on a swivel. Of course, simply having MORE escorts also helped. (I would wager that was a big problem for the two early 38 groups. They just didn't have enough people to play both the infield and the outfield.) The trick was to spot the Germans as they maneuvered into position for a bounce. That's where having outstanding eyesight mattered, mattered a LOT more than dive flaps or a few more horsepower. One man in a squadron with exceptional eyesight was a real lifesaver. If a high group of krauts was spotted, some of the escort would be tapped to go after them. They didn't have to shoot them down to succeed. All they needed to do was break up their party and force them to dive away.

The 51 could operate at altitudes higher than we usually encountered krauts so had less trouble with being bounced, although, of course, you had to fly at the altitude dictated by the bombers. It had a trickier stall than the 38 so that it was not at all unusual to snap out a tight turn curving in after a kraut.

The first time I lost a 51 in a high speed stall I lost 13,000 ft. before I was able to recover and thought I was going to have to bail out. Man, at that point I HATED that airplane. But by about the third or fourth time that happened, I could recover losing less than 500 ft. and wasn't afraid to push

the plane till it snapped. I'd just get it right back under control and keep going. I got so I could catch it just as it departed and it would only wiggle a bit before getting back down to business. I knew what the airplane was going to do before the airplane did and was ready for it. I didn't even have to consciously think about it. What I had thought was a very big deal was, after a while, no problem at all. The airplane was OK. The pilot just had to learn how to handle it. Stick time does make a difference. To those who have said the 38 was a more complicated airplane than the 51 and so pilots needed more time to master it, I would answer that the 51 could be a contrary beast and a pilot needed time to learn to master IT.

If I was to differentiate between the 38 and the 51, I would say the 38's qualities shone best when it was low and slow. Even a pilot with limited hours in the cockpit could have absolute confidence in it and so push it right into the stall with no fear, even at treetop height. The 51's qualities shone best when it was high and fast. In the upper air at well over 300 per, the German fighters were sitting ducks for a 51. They couldn't outmaneuver it and they couldn't out run it and they couldn't out dive it. That's why you hear these stories about a German pilot simply bailing out as soon as a 51 locked on to him. He knew he had no chance so why hang around for the bullets to hit.

Once the 51 was available in numbers it made sense to shift the 38s to the 9th air force and ground attack. It could easily outfight any Luftwaffe opposition at mid and low altitudes, could carry plenty of bombs and survive ground fire that would have killed the 51 very quickly. The only time I wished I was in a 38 when flying the 51 was attacking ground targets. It wouldn't take much to bring a 51 down, and unlike in an air to air encounter, whether you went down or got home was just a matter of your luck that day. Pilot skill was largely irrelevent, as long as you were good enough to keep the airplane at grass cutting height and didn't fly it into the ground because your reactions were too slow. A 38 on the deck was very stable at speed, and hard to bring down by triple A.

My personal situation was such that I had to lean forward slightly to reach all the controls on the 38 and get a good grip on the control wheel. Because of my body's position, I would tend toward gray out and tunnel vision fairly quicky in hard turns. With the 51, I was able to reach all the controls and have a good grip on the stick while leaning back slightly, so gray out and tunnel vision didn't hit me as quickly. That was one big reason I preferred the 51. Other reasons were that I preferred the high sky for my war, and if I had wanted to follow the 38 thru its war career (assuming I had a choice in the matter) I would have had to have spent it in the 9th shooting up airfields.

No thank you.

George

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

Bremspropeller
01-05-2004, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Faustnik - I never said the Fw-190 wasn't a good fighter. I just said that the VVS didn't think much of it. Their funeral. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. Thinking of Maj. Erich Rudorffer who killed 136 VVS planes on eastern front - all with Fw190. The soviets called him "fighter of Libau" and knew about the incident when he shot down 13 Yak-7s in one mission or downed 9 IL-2s in another one.


As for the P-38: I'd like to have a map of southern Germany for some train-busting with the Lightning.



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Bogun
01-05-2004, 07:25 AM
Erich â"Paratrooperâ"ť Rudorffer was the biggest BS-ter (probably after Franz Von Werra).
His claims and stories illustrate nicely the absence of claim verification procedures by Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front.....

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

Bogun
01-05-2004, 07:37 AM
Copperhead, thank you for the excellent read.
It is great to read about how real pilots of WWII were flying their planes.

I would like to repost a little peace from another excellent article from Flight Journal magazine "Flying P-38" by Jeff Ethell covering just the issue we are discussing - the P-38 performance.
Just read those two paragraphs:

'...Without much thought, I was entering his preferred combat maneuver; power up, I pictured a 109 on my tail and began an increasingly steep right-hand climbing turn. In turning and twisting with 109s and 190s, Dad never got a bullet hole in Tangerine, his P-38F. As the speed dropped below 150mph, I flipped the flap handle to the maneuver stop (which can be used up to 250mph) and steepened the turn. At this point, the 109 pilot, at full power with the right rudder all the way down, would have snap-rolled into a vicious stall if he had chosen to follow. I pulled the power back on the inside (right) engine, pushed the power up on the outside (left) engine, shoved right rudder pedal, and the Lightning smoothly swapped ends. Not only did it turn on a dime, but it actually rotated around its vertical axis as if spinning on a pole running through the top of the canopy and out the bottom of the cockpit. The maneuver was absolutely comfortable with no heavy G-loading. As the nose came through 180 degrees, I threw the flap lever back to full up, evened the throttles and headed downhill going through 300mph in less time than it takes to tell it. The 109 would have been a sitting duck.

This transitional performance is what made the Lightning great in a dogfight; it gave it far more versatility than a single-engine fighter. No doubt, if it were flown like a single-engine fighter, it would come out on the short end, but when a pilot learned to use everything available to him, it was stunningly dangerous to the enemy. One final characteristic made all this worthwhile: there was no converging fire from the wings. A P-38 pilot could get all of his guns on target whether it was 10 feet or 1,000 yards away. Convinced they were flying the finest fighter of the War, Bong and McGuire were sold on this combination. They had no hesitation at going round and round with Zeros and Oscars, which were supposedly more maneuverable...'

This adwantage will be really hard/impossible to realize without having separate throttle tor each engine. Article also shows how diiferent is the point of interrest of the reall pilot from us, 'virtual pilots'....

Here is a link to a whole article:
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/p-38_lightning/p-38_lightning_1.asp

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

joeschmoe22nd
01-05-2004, 07:47 AM
Gib,

I'd love a copy of the p38 void to play with..could you send me a copy via email?

(joe at the22nd.com)

I am Joe!

Boandlgramer
01-05-2004, 08:12 AM
comm on Bogun, you are angry, calm down a bit .
if i would have my roots in the former sovietunion, i would think like you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

btw. is there not a single VVs ace, who like to talk BS ?
.

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Bogun
01-05-2004, 11:15 AM
Obviously you have your roots somewhere else, so you think like you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There was a lot of overclaiming on a Russian side too, especially at the beginning of the war, before strict claim confirmation procedure were enforced some time in the end of 43. Sure Russians overclaimed lake everyone else, but not like Hartman or Rudorfferâ...

Just for your reference – Pokryshkin is credited with 59 victories, submitted claimes for over 70 and in his book described shooting down about 90 planes.

Now, can you please give me a number of the planes NOT credited to Hartman or Rudorffer? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

Boandlgramer
01-05-2004, 11:53 AM
Bogun,
i did not claim anything , you did.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
you wasnâ´t there and i wasnâ´t there,none of us were sitting in hartmanns or pokryshins aircraft, to count their claims.
as i said already, calm down, open a window, if you have one, and enjoy the fresh air.
thats never an error.

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
01-05-2004, 12:14 PM
Bogun - you are forgetting Pokryshkin flew a P-39. No successful p-39 pilot EVER overclaimed. Overclaiming upset the center of gravity of the P-39, while honesty and virtue greatly enhanced it's performance. In fact, most russian p39 aces underclaimed in order to avoid having their beautiful airacobras vandalized with kill markings.

Bogun
01-05-2004, 12:32 PM
ZG77_Nagual, I love your sense of humor ever since your relentless self-flaming posts - something I tied but failed to emulate. Keep it up!

Boandlgramer, I am at work, in a high rise – all windows are shut and I am sitting practically on top of the radiator. I am constantly near the boiling point even without some of the posts on this forumâ... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

Boandlgramer
01-05-2004, 12:48 PM
ok Bogun, then do it ASAP , for your own health.
you see, i take care for you , if nobody else, Yourself included , does it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Korolov
01-05-2004, 01:22 PM
IL-2 Skins is supposed to have the P-38 skin on it? Never noticed it there, and can't find it either.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

Copperhead310th
01-05-2004, 01:45 PM
Korolov
I 've looked for the void but it's not there.
i havn't given out what Gib gave me to any one.
I wouldn't do that with out his Expressed permission. But if he ok's it i'll post what i have on skins.com.

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

Bremspropeller
01-05-2004, 03:42 PM
FNEB Bogun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Suckerpunch11
01-05-2004, 06:38 PM
Good post Copperhead.

"...38's qualities shone best when it was low and slow. Even a pilot with limited hours in the cockpit could have absolute confidence in it and so push it right into the stall with no fear, even at treetop height."

This is why the 38 might be a good online fighter in FB: Most of the fighting is done down in the weeds. If you sucker a 190 jock, like, say, Goodknight for instance, down into a very low turning fight, it should be fairly easy to dispose of him.

***********************

And Pinche, what is your source on that kill total? I would like to see, since it contradicts much of what I have read.

And I do agree with you that kill total alone does not a great plane make, but the P-38 did happen to be a very good plane. Its speed and firepower were used to full advantage to overwhelm the Japanese opposition--their light and fragile planes and angles-fighting tactics were exposed as obsolete by big, tough, and fast American fighters that could roar in, tear them to pieces, then speed away.

Gibbage1
01-05-2004, 06:45 PM
I will see if I can whip up a quick void tonight. If I gave you a .PSD file then dont hand it out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If its a tga file then feel free.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Korolov
I 've looked for the void but it's not there.
i havn't given out what Gib gave me to any one.
I wouldn't do that with out his Expressed permission. But if he ok's it i'll post what i have on skins.com.

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire
01-05-2004, 07:10 PM
It'd be nice if we had some more no markings skins for the aircraft representing "typical" paint schemes (olive drab and then bare aluminum with D-Day stripes, etc.). It'd be nice if the P-51's come with that too. Here's hoping for the expansion! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

pinche_bolillo
01-05-2004, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Suckerpunch11:
Good post Copperhead.

"...38's qualities shone best when it was low and slow. Even a pilot with limited hours in the cockpit could have absolute confidence in it and so push it right into the stall with no fear, even at treetop height."

This is why the 38 might be a good online fighter in FB: Most of the fighting is done down in the weeds. If you sucker a 190 jock, like, say, Goodknight for instance, down into a very low turning fight, it should be fairly easy to dispose of him.

***********************

And Pinche, what is your source on that kill total? I would like to see, since it contradicts much of what I have read.

And I do agree with you that kill total alone does not a great plane make, but the P-38 did happen to be a very good plane. Its speed and firepower were used to full advantage to overwhelm the Japanese opposition--their light and fragile planes and angles-fighting tactics were exposed as obsolete by big, tough, and fast American fighters that could roar in, tear them to pieces, then speed away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, I am by no means a 38 basher. the ability of single engine a/c in fb to pull high angles of attack at full power, while in a stall with out the worry of entering as spin negates the 38s low speed handling qualitites.

I am quite lazy and I poked through "victory roll" by william wolf, "fighter aces of the usa" by raymond f toliver and trevor j constable and I cannot believe I couldnt find a source for my 1,700 japanese planes downed by the 38 in the pto, I did however find that in pamela reynolds' book "the P-38 lightning" isbn 0938021354, it states that the P-38 downed 1,700 japanese planes. in the pto it states 1,708.33 total japanese a/c downed and if you add the japanese a/c downed in the cbi it gives the 38 a total of 1865.08 japanese a/c total

Korolov
01-05-2004, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I will see if I can whip up a quick void tonight. If I gave you a .PSD file then dont hand it out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If its a tga file then feel free.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give it out and let the pro's make the voids. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

horseback
01-05-2004, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Suckerpunch11:
Hey Pinche, I think you might have it backwards. I believe the 38 was in fact the highest scoring plane in the PTO, with the Hellcat being the highest-scoring Navy plane. The Hellcat had 5168 total victories (according to the offical Naval history website). I am still looking for the official 38 kill total, but I have seen two sources mention that it was the leading PTO killer. Feel free to prove me wrong...



(Maybe we can get our buddy goodknight to come in and straighten this out for us. He seems to know everything).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1,708.33 japanese planes were shot down by the P-38 in the pto, this does not include the cbi. like I said before the 38 was the high scoring army aircorps plane, while the hellcat was the highest with 5,000+ total.

like I said before you cannot really base whether a plane was any good solely on how many planes it shot down. the hellcat was in the combat much more than any other plane. the 38s got by passed, after mid 1944 the 38 had already scored almost all its kills.

a good example of how one cannot base total kills on wheter a plane was any good can be seen in the cbi theater, the P-40 I believe scored more kills than the 38,47, and 51b/c/&d combined. this is because once the p-40 was replaced there were no longer any japanese a/c encountered. the 38,47, and 51 flew unopposed in the cbi.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces #14 quotes a figure of "over 1,800 Japanese aircraft" for both theaters (CBI & Pacific).

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

pinche_bolillo
01-05-2004, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Suckerpunch11:
Hey Pinche, I think you might have it backwards. I believe the 38 was in fact the highest scoring plane in the PTO, with the Hellcat being the highest-scoring Navy plane. The Hellcat had 5168 total victories (according to the offical Naval history website). I am still looking for the official 38 kill total, but I have seen two sources mention that it was the leading PTO killer. Feel free to prove me wrong...



(Maybe we can get our buddy goodknight to come in and straighten this out for us. He seems to know everything).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1,708.33 japanese planes were shot down by the P-38 in the pto, this does not include the cbi. like I said before the 38 was the high scoring army aircorps plane, while the hellcat was the highest with 5,000+ total.

like I said before you cannot really base whether a plane was any good solely on how many planes it shot down. the hellcat was in the combat much more than any other plane. the 38s got by passed, after mid 1944 the 38 had already scored almost all its kills.

a good example of how one cannot base total kills on wheter a plane was any good can be seen in the cbi theater, the P-40 I believe scored more kills than the 38,47, and 51b/c/&d combined. this is because once the p-40 was replaced there were no longer any japanese a/c encountered. the 38,47, and 51 flew unopposed in the cbi.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces #14 quotes a figure of "over 1,800 Japanese aircraft" for both theaters (CBI & Pacific).

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you go to the bottom of page 9 you will see that I posted totals for the pto and cbi combined, its 1,865 and some change.

WhiskeyRiver
01-05-2004, 11:27 PM
Here's my take on the FTD:

#1 Excellent acceleration. 6 props, slippery shape, and 3,000 horsepower(roughly)

#2 good climb(zoom and sustained). heavy, slippery, powerful, and no torque

#3 big, accurate guns 4 50's and 1 20mm all in the nose

#4 Excellent high altitude performance. Turbochargers as opposed to superchargers do not lose boost pressure as altitude increases. At least until the compressor wheel flies apart. Poor cockpit heaters aren't modeled in FB and neither is bad gasoline. (heaters were fixed in the L model anyway)

#5 LOTS of WEP time before overheat. The -38's cooling system was overbuilt. All the historical problems with overcooling should mean the converse is also true. It should be hard to overheat the engines.

#6 Great Range. longer than any of the single engine fighters.

#7 Good high speed roll rate. (L model) boosted ailerons plus the control wheel allows more force to be exerted on the ailerons.

#8 Outstanding vertical. big flaps, big elevator leverage, big power and no torque should allow the Lighting to take the fight up at low airspeeds.

And now the bad news:

#1 poor dive. compressibilty effects over the inner wing sections make steep dives dangerous

#2 poor low speed roll. big plane, long wings.

#3 poor visibility. Engines and wings block down and side view

#4 easy to hit. The FTD makes a big target.

#5 poor stallfighter. like all the other US fighters low speed, low alt idiot circles are not a good place to be.

I love the Lightning. I believe most of it's historical weak points(heaters, bad gas, defective turbo's, and maintenance issues) will not apply in FB. Using proper tactics it should be a nasty customer in the right hands. Used improperly, well at least it's got 2 engines.

PS All BUFF drivers are officially on notice. This baby was designed to chop bombers into confetti. I suspect Kelly Johnson did good job of designing it to do just that.

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

Gibbage1
01-05-2004, 11:30 PM
Here is the void.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/p-38void.jpg

Gibbage1
01-05-2004, 11:32 PM
Also here are some missions I found in North Africa of P-38's doin there job.

April 5th, 1943

26 NAAF P-38's pounced on a mixed bag of trimotor transports, six Stuka's, 24 Bf-109's, and a single Focke-Wulf FW 187A. The lightning pilots shot down the FW-187? (some places say FW-187, some dont list it), eleven Ju 52's, two 109's and two Stuka's.

A pair of P-38's were lost.

Just 5 days later, on April 10th, P-38's destroyed another twenty German transports and 8 German and Italian fighters.

On April 11th , the Lightnings located and destroyed another twenty six Ju-52 transports and 5 Bf-109 fighters did not return to their airfields that evening.

Each one of these missions, the P-38's did not have numerical superiority, and very few were lost.

Gib

WhiskeyRiver
01-05-2004, 11:45 PM
Gib next time you're in Phoenix I owe you a bottle of your favorite for building this baby for us.

With all the what if German and Russian aircraft how about doin a P-38K. All you would need to change would be the nacelles and props. Everything else was the same as the L model I believe.

BTW I heard you got a new job doin 3D. I hope thats working out for you.

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

Korolov
01-06-2004, 02:12 AM
Thanks a bunch for the void, Gib!

Now combined with "Aces of the Southwest" pacific, can start making some P-38 skins...

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

joeschmoe22nd
01-06-2004, 02:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Here is the void.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Gib, greatly appreciated.

Korolov, do you have a schematic of the p38? It would come in handy when building a template.

I am Joe!

Blottogg
01-06-2004, 05:37 AM
Copperhead, thanks for the excellent read. Aside from the altitude comment, it is what I expected for both aircraft. Given the turbosuperchargers, I'm surprised the pilot wasn't more inclined to give the P-38 points for the ability to fight up high. Stallfighting on the deck in the '38 would no doubt be less nerve-wracking than in the '51, but I would have thought the '38 would start shining above ~20,000 ft. I obviously have more reading to do.

WhiskeyRiver, excellent summary.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

zodicus1
01-06-2004, 02:49 PM
god i love this planehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG26Red
01-06-2004, 03:43 PM
I love how all posts turn into ***** fests lol... anyways i love the P38, love flying it in the old aces over pacific game... its my 2nd fav plane of WW2 and will fly it a bit when its out... anyways later...

Korolov
01-06-2004, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeschmoe22nd:
Thanks Gib, greatly appreciated.

Korolov, do you have a schematic of the p38? It would come in handy when building a template.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can get a set of high rez schematics here: http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/p38.html

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

noshens
01-06-2004, 04:49 PM
sorry Gib couldn't help it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/p-38-60.jpg


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Here is the void.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Suckerpunch11
01-07-2004, 12:45 AM
Pinche, I've read this several times but still don't know what it means:

(from your post)
"the ability of single engine a/c in fb to pull high angles of attack at full power, while in a stall with out the worry of entering as spin negates the 38s low speed handling qualitites."


Meanwhile, I will refer you back to Copperhead's post:

"If I was to differentiate between the 38 and the 51, I would say the 38's qualities shone best when it was low and slow."

That was a real P-38 pilot talking. Now, if the 38 modeling is decent, we should expect the same attribute in FB.

joeschmoe22nd
01-07-2004, 01:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
You can get a set of high rez schematics here: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just what I was after. Thanks duder!

I am Joe!

WhiskeyRiver
01-07-2004, 02:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Suckerpunch11:
Pinche, I've read this several times but still don't know what it means:

(from your post)
"the ability of single engine a/c in fb to pull high angles of attack at full power, while in a stall with out the worry of entering as spin negates the 38s low speed handling qualitites."


Meanwhile, I will refer you back to Copperhead's post:

"If I was to differentiate between the 38 and the 51, I would say the 38's qualities shone best when it was low and slow."

That was a real P-38 pilot talking. Now, if the 38 modeling is decent, we should expect the same attribute in FB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In real life a single engine aircraft would have to reduce power in a stall because of engine torque. At full throttle, high AOA and low airspeed the torque generated will cause one wing to drop thus causing the aircraft to go into a spin.

The Corsair was notorious for this. It had a big prop, lots of power and was forced to land at very low speeds on carriers. A new pilot would slam the throttle wide open when the LSO gave him the waveoff causing a rapid roll-stall-spin-crash. The Corsair earned it's nickname "Ensign Eliminator" from this very trait. All single prop aircraft are susceptible to this to this in varying amounts.

The P-38's counter rotating propellors cancelled each other's torque out allowing it to literally hang on it's nose in a steep climb at very low airspeeds.

The 38 could turn tighter than the Mustang at low speeds. This was due to the laminar flow airfoil of the P-51. Laminar flow wings drastically lose lift at low airspeeds. The upside is they ar very fast. Compressibilty, i.e. "mach tuck", onset is delayed greatly over conventional airfoils. Below 250 mph the -38 could deploy it's maneuver flaps to generate a lot more lift with little increase in drag. At this same speed the -51's wings were rapidly losing lift thus giving the -38 the advantage in a stallfight.

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

pinche_bolillo
01-07-2004, 08:17 AM
when I was refering to the ability of high powered single engined a/c to pull high aoa while in a stall at low airspeed negates the 38s low speed handling qualities, I mean in the game.

I have a limited basic understanding of how the a/c acted inflight. the swirling prop wash strikes the wings differently, this causes one wing to have slightly more lift than the other. at very slow speeds and high aoa the this is more pronounced. so once the a/c is in a stall at a high aoa with the engine at full power one wing stalls first causing one wing to drop, then the torque of the spinning propeller magnifies this, its highly possible for the a/c to enter a spin, if the a/c is forced to pull more aoa it will spin. this rarely happens at fb.

some a/c had very poor stall characteristics. I have read that the fw 190 had little to no warning of an impending stall. the entire wing stalled at once and that it usually entered a spin. it is said that the 51 also lacked good stall warning. when the 38 stalled, the wing lost lift in the center section first and as the stall progressed it worked its way out to the wingtips. it also gave a lot of shudder and warning before it stalled. so when compairing the 38 to the fw 190 (from pilots comments I have read) the 190 had a higher stall speed than did the 38, also the 190 lacked proper stall warning while the 38 gave a lot of warning. so it is easy for me to see why the 38 could easily out turn a 190. the 190 pilot didnt exactly know how far he could push the 190 before it stalled thus he may not push the a/c to its limits for fear of a spin that could be fatal. where as the 38 pilot always knew when the 38 was going to stall and even if it did stall there was no need to fear a spin as long as both engines were operating at the same power.