PDA

View Full Version : P-38L 'late' - the new fantasy plane ?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Kurfurst__
07-10-2005, 01:57 PM
It`s modelled with 1725 HP engines, and according to guessed-by-fans wishful graphs taken from the i-net.

Problem is, 1725 HP was never an accepted rating by the USAAF, and it doesn`t appear in any primary documents or USAAF sources. 1600 HP was it`s maximum power, just like the P-38J.

Of course this wasn`t enough for the fans. They wanted it uber. Simply to put, it was whining/pressure on Oleg by P-38 fans (you know who) who want it roll better... climb better... dive better.... better in every way. Powers it never had. No documentation of it of course, but it`s never needed, just pressure... crying... whining.

So we are getting another fantasy UFO. Sad isn`t it, historical accuracy is sacrificed if a few people cry loud enough...

DIRTY-MAC
07-10-2005, 02:04 PM
Hmmm.... something smells fishy!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Zyzbot
07-10-2005, 02:07 PM
Must be a slow day.

MEGILE
07-10-2005, 02:25 PM
Nah, BF-109Z still pips it at the post.
Either way, 09s are from venus, 38s are from Mars.

Hush, and fly your plane.

BSS_Vidar
07-10-2005, 03:20 PM
I'm no P-38 fan, and I try to avoid flying it very much just like the Spit 9's. Read PlaneEaters post about his Grandfather's -who was a P-38 pilot with at least 1000 hrs of combat, and instructor flight time- reflections about how the 38 flys in this game. In a nutt shell he claims roll and pitch rates are a little slow.

I agree with Megile here, just fly your nasty gunned, snappy rollrated, zippidy-do-da turn rated crate. You Luft-luvers still corner the market in Warclouds, so just be happy allready.

VF-152_Rider
07-10-2005, 03:21 PM
Some people speak as if we all own two different flight sims, made by 1C, on that note, all planes should be correct and not a €œUFO€ from any planet, regardless to who€s a fan of what..

Propaganda, went on during WWII, and it happens often if not daily here in the forums

Cheers, Rider

TAGERT.
07-10-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It`s modelled with 1725 HP engines, and according to guessed-by-fans wishful graphs taken from the i-net.

Problem is, 1725 HP was never an accepted rating by the USAAF, and it doesn`t appear in any primary documents or USAAF sources. 1600 HP was it`s maximum power, just like the P-38J.

Of course this wasn`t enough for the fans. They wanted it uber. Simply to put, it was whining/pressure on Oleg by P-38 fans (you know who) who want it roll better... climb better... dive better.... better in every way. Powers it never had. No documentation of it of course, but it`s never needed, just pressure... crying... whining.

So we are getting another fantasy UFO. Sad isn`t it, historical accuracy is sacrificed if a few people cry loud enough... LOL! You poor thing! For anyone interested in hard data instead of hurt feelings go here

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2761038533

lbhskier37
07-10-2005, 03:53 PM
UBI needs to start a new forum just for Kurfy, Hayatace, and the like.

Maple_Tiger
07-10-2005, 04:08 PM
Omg lol,

where did this guy come from. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

MEGILE
07-10-2005, 05:26 PM
What can you say about a dude who lives a sheltered life, in one plane.. you nice?

DIRTY-MAC
07-10-2005, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
UBI needs to start a new forum just for Kurfy, Hayatace, and the like.

he he
bulls eye

ElAurens
07-10-2005, 05:53 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Thanks Tagert for all the work on the P38. Even though it will make my life harder, I still want to see the aircraft we virtually fly modeled historically.

Now if we could get the field modified P40s that ran 75" of manifold pressure...

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

SeaFireLIV
07-10-2005, 06:00 PM
Where`s Aerial-Target? I thought he was the defender of the P38!

Anyway, I tend to stay away from particular abilities of individual planes (I`m still reading up on it). From my raw view it does appear to be the new `uber` aircraft. It certainly the easiest plane for me to fly - at least when I flew it in QMB. And I`ve flown the Spit, I16, LA5f-fn, LA7, Laggs, P51, P40, Hurri...

Yep with 4.01 the P38 is easiest to fly. It must be the no torque thing.

faustnik
07-10-2005, 06:16 PM
Where`s Aerial-Target? I thought he was the defender of the P38!

SeaFire,

I'll stand in for him until he gets here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
********************

Kurfurst,

A lot of data has already been shown on this forum confirming the use of 1725hp boost levels with the P-38L on 150 grade fuel. The USAAF had the fuel late war and ran the planes to full hp output. Just do a search on the P-38 in the GD, or PM Kahuna for the data.

The P-38L flew to full horsepower capacity in combat in the ETO, it's been shown already.

Hastatus
07-10-2005, 08:17 PM
What sort of "pressure" can players bring on Oleg about their favorite plane? Uberise the P-38 or what exactly? What would they do? What? Hold their breath till they turn blue?

You guys need to get real and stop with the crack-smoking-conspiracy-theories...

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

RING RING RING

"This is Oleg Maddox"

"We know where your family lives Oleg, perk up that P-38L...or else"

CLICK.

...Did you know since the release of IL-2 there has been a steady increase in the number of crop circles? THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!!! WHERE IS MY TIN FOIL HAT I NEED IT!!!

ElAurens
07-10-2005, 08:39 PM
Hastatus, it is not "pressure". It is simply presenting factual information. There is more and more data surfacing all the time about the aircraft we all love so much. And I don't just mean US aircraft either, but all WW2 military birds, from all the combatants.

What is so wrong with correcting an improper aspect of any of the aircraft in the sim?

BSS_CUDA
07-10-2005, 09:08 PM
oh boy here we go, its not enough that you have the 1 shot wonder guns, and the FW that doesnt die, but after VOLUMES of information about the 38 being incorrect we FINALLY get a semblemce of a real aircraft and the whinning starts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif its not enough that every Luft plane on WC is over .70 K/D ratio and every Allied plane is below a .70 K/D ratio, now they want to nuter a plane with a .50 K/D ratio. mabe you blue would be happy is all aliied planes were below .20 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Kurfy must be having a hard time out flying the 38.and is not liking it. we all know that Oleg wont change a FM without a lot of proof that its wrong, hrm just the kind of proof that Tagert and Bollio provided showing the 38 is undermodeled in its climb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif what ya gonna do if Oleg corrects the climb Kurfy, you gonna come over to the dark side? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BSS_CUDA
07-10-2005, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Hastatus:


RING RING RING

"This is Oleg Maddox"

"We know where your family lives Oleg, perk up that P-38L...or else"

CLICK.



O M G----- ROFL I think I snorted my milk up my nose on that one

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TAGERT.
07-10-2005, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Thanks Tagert for all the work on the P38. Even though it will make my life harder, I still want to see the aircraft we virtually fly modeled historically.

Now if we could get the field modified P40s that ran 75" of manifold pressure...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif No problem! It is nice to actully have some real data to compare to for once! On that note, if anybody has simular data for other birds.. even the 190 or 109 I would be more than happy to process thier trak files and data for them! But, you got to have data! I dont want to just process a trak file based on a *feeling*! Give me some data, then you go fly the test and send me the data and the track file and ill plot it for you.

AerialTarget
07-10-2005, 11:22 PM
Thanks for holding the line, Faustnik! As for all the other valiants, save your ammunition for real targets; this is a decoy.

As for you, Kurfurst, I will not address your claims. You know what you say is false, vermin, much like Hristo. Equally like Hristo, you fail to provide any data and ignore much existing data for the sake of a jab at Lightning fanatics. Your opinion is baseless and matters not a whit. I will not even make the slightest effort to parry your odious argument. No one is fooled. I see your game; it is quite obvious. You attempt to "get back at the reds" for posting in the Focke Wulf thread and decrying the propeller pitch exploit since there are no existing documents supporting it. Not only is your argument false and full of outright lies, but your analogy matches nothing, for the P-38 people actually provided proof of the extra power. Therefore, you can take your filth and swallow it again. One more time around won't matter!

On the other hand, good defenders, perhaps this thread could be ironically useful as yet another thread full of massive volumes of data on the P-38. Bolillo, Kahuna, Tagert! To arms!

Hristo_
07-11-2005, 12:02 AM
Oh, come on now !!

I admire the P-38.

It was a great design with many innovations and inspired many later designs. It was simply a great handgun.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/walther_p38_r.jpg

In fact, here it is shown as the most refined handgun of WW2:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_50/ai_112646121

AerialTarget
07-11-2005, 12:06 AM
Hristo, I amiably advise you to give it up; you no longer irk me. I don't know how I can best break it to you, so here goes. Recently, skilled irritation artists have demonstrated their skill to me, and I cannot view you as being competitive. I'm afraid that you've lost your touch.

Copperhead310th
07-11-2005, 12:28 AM
now now guys lets all just back off and leave poor lil Kurfe-wurfie alone. he can't help it....it's just "that time of the month" for him.
He's Pi$$ed off cause he's getting his @ss owned by an ALLIED plane for a change.
Same is comming from a lot of the luft@sses lately. they have lost a little of the edge they had so they b*itch, whine, p*ss moan & complain till they get thier way.
Sad thing is....that has worked very well for them in the past. I worry about the next patch and what the Luft-lobby has up it's sleave. getting the P-38/51's toned down seems to be on the top of thier AGENDA.

Badsight.
07-11-2005, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Nah, BF-109Z still pips it at the post.
Either way, 09s are from venus, 38s are from Mars.

Hush, and fly your plane. ill take a Late over the Z in every single match

its simply the superior DFer

faustnik
07-11-2005, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
ill take a Late over the Z in every single match

its simply the superior DFer

Well, that and it was a real plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tvrdi
07-11-2005, 01:02 AM
actually i killed a few of those late P38s...in my a6m3..I mastered that plane and they were flyin in their Lightnings so f selfconfidentaly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ..but it was a great plane..late P38..flown by an expert its a killing machine..just like the Corsair, bf109K4, Dora etc etc....I dont care how good iis the plane on the other side...its always a bigger chalenge and pleasure to kill a sucker in his better plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Xiolablu3
07-11-2005, 01:23 AM
I KNOW I am gonna get slated for this But I'm gonna tell it anyway...

There was a program on about the Mosquito a while back (I have also read about this in 2 books).

The USA wanted to buy some Mossies because its performance was superior to anything the US had in that area at the time, but the Air Ministry or whatever its called in the US wanted them to buy American rather than British and so they falsified some P38 performance figures and bribed some people to ensure that they bought American.

This also happened with the Starfighter which was an awful unstable plane but got the contract over the british made plane with a rocket booster allowing it to get up to height really fast, I forget what it was called now. Lockheed martin Bribed the European delegates to ensure they bought the Starfighter even tho it was the inferior plane. The British pkane ended up never being built because of too few orders.

This is totally true, look it up if you dont believe me.

TAGERT.
07-11-2005, 01:39 AM
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/luftwhiners.jpg

Zacast
07-11-2005, 02:07 AM
Threads like this just show that some can't stand the fact that the US was capable of building some fantastic late war equipment.

JG5_UnKle
07-11-2005, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I KNOW I am gonna get slated for this But I'm gonna tell it anyway...

There was a program on about the Mosquito a while back (I have also read about this in 2 books).

The USA wanted to buy some Mossies because its performance was superior to anything the US had in that area at the time, but the Air Ministry or whatever its called in the US wanted them to buy American rather than British and so they falsified some P38 performance figures and bribed some people to ensure that they bought American.

This also happened with the Starfighter which was an awful unstable plane but got the contract over the british made plane with a rocket booster allowing it to get up to height really fast, I forget what it was called now. Lockheed martin Bribed the European delegates to ensure they bought the Starfighter even tho it was the inferior plane. The British pkane ended up never being built because of too few orders.

This is totally true, look it up if you dont believe me.

True, but not limited to the U.S....

Would you have told Stalin the truth? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Hristo_
07-11-2005, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I KNOW I am gonna get slated for this But I'm gonna tell it anyway...

There was a program on about the Mosquito a while back (I have also read about this in 2 books).

The USA wanted to buy some Mossies because its performance was superior to anything the US had in that area at the time, but the Air Ministry or whatever its called in the US wanted them to buy American rather than British and so they falsified some P38 performance figures and bribed some people to ensure that they bought American.

This also happened with the Starfighter which was an awful unstable plane but got the contract over the british made plane with a rocket booster allowing it to get up to height really fast, I forget what it was called now. Lockheed martin Bribed the European delegates to ensure they bought the Starfighter even tho it was the inferior plane. The British pkane ended up never being built because of too few orders.

This is totally true, look it up if you dont believe me.

Yes, and this falsified info found its way into today's flight sims, misleading poor souls like AerialTarget, Kahuna and Cuda. Too bad it mislead Oleg too. IMO, they should sue the Lockheed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Lockheed - a company with history of falsification. First P-38, then F-104.

JG27_Dacripler
07-11-2005, 02:35 AM
IMO there is nothing wrong with that particular aircraft.. I primarily the Luft planes but have flown the P-38 and it feels sluggish during rolls; I believe it should roll better than it currently does in this game. However, climbing with it is a challenge for a 109 or 190 jock because most tend to forget to keep your ball centered while in a climb or banked turn loosing precious "E".

- Keep it in the middle and your performance might improve as much as that extra 5-10 % which will make it tougher for him, especially while climbing !! Keep it in the middle and he will not get out your sights for that matter an F-4 will handle one fine at intermediate altitudes..

Check it out on your own and you will be amazed.

Cajun76
07-11-2005, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It`s modelled with 1725 HP engines, and according to guessed-by-fans wishful graphs taken from the i-net.

Problem is, 1725 HP was never an accepted rating by the USAAF, and it doesn`t appear in any primary documents or USAAF sources. 1600 HP was it`s maximum power, just like the P-38J.

Of course this wasn`t enough for the fans. They wanted it uber. Simply to put, it was whining/pressure on Oleg by P-38 fans (you know who) who want it roll better... climb better... dive better.... better in every way. Powers it never had. No documentation of it of course, but it`s never needed, just pressure... crying... whining.

So we are getting another fantasy UFO. Sad isn`t it, historical accuracy is sacrificed if a few people cry loud enough...

You must be gettin' that from the same place you find some of those Bf-109 ideas...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/troll_picking_nose.gif

Keep digging....

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

Grue_
07-11-2005, 03:01 AM
they b*itch, whine, p*ss moan & complain till they get thier way

Well both 'sides' are guilty of this.

Any potentially interesting thread debating a flight model is always taken to the gutter by the usual people that substitute knowledge with straightforward abuse.

carguy_
07-11-2005, 03:11 AM
Hey,Kurfy - you and Locust should get toghether http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
07-11-2005, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I KNOW I am gonna get slated for this But I'm gonna tell it anyway...

There was a program on about the Mosquito a while back (I have also read about this in 2 books).

The USA wanted to buy some Mossies because its performance was superior to anything the US had in that area at the time, but the Air Ministry or whatever its called in the US wanted them to buy American rather than British and so they falsified some P38 performance figures and bribed some people to ensure that they bought American.

This also happened with the Starfighter which was an awful unstable plane but got the contract over the british made plane with a rocket booster allowing it to get up to height really fast, I forget what it was called now. Lockheed martin Bribed the European delegates to ensure they bought the Starfighter even tho it was the inferior plane. The British pkane ended up never being built because of too few orders.

This is totally true, look it up if you dont believe me.

Yes, and this falsified info found its way into today's flight sims, misleading poor souls like AerialTarget, Kahuna and Cuda. Too bad it mislead Oleg too. IMO, they should sue the Lockheed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Lockheed - a company with history of falsification. First P-38, then F-104. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol I'm not saying that this definitely found its way into the game, but maybe some of the figures which are printed and shown here are some of those figures? maybe?

alert_1
07-11-2005, 04:12 AM
There is no reason why this Allisons using 150octan fuel should't have 1725hp output. On the other side, IF LW had 150octan fuel then DB605 could esily had >2000 hp.
I'm only saying that those powerful engines are more of thing of chemistry then engineering..

Hristo_
07-11-2005, 04:43 AM
One side had 150 octane, the other side had jets.

So, here's a suggestion. Wherever there is P-38L or Mk.III available on server, there should also be Me 262. How about it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tvrdi
07-11-2005, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
One side had 150 octane, the other side had jets.

So, here's a suggestion. Wherever there is P-38L or Mk.III available on server, there should also be Me 262. How about it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


good point.....but imagine the whinings then...not to mention that for an IL2 vet pilot - there shouldnt be a problem to match with the me262 in late P38....actually you can do a lot in a mustang if the noob is in the jet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

alert_1
07-11-2005, 04:53 AM
Correct Hristo, he he. Fact is that while Alies devoted huge effort to improve their conventional fighters, LW, not having vast resources had to pursue revolutionary design more often. Me262 vs. P38L"ate" and Spit XIV - nice match http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hristo_
07-11-2005, 05:20 AM
Don't forget the Tempest. Afterall, it was Me 262's "main adversary" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F19_Olli72
07-11-2005, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
One side had 150 octane, the other side had jets.

So, here's a suggestion. Wherever there is P-38L or Mk.III available on server, there should also be Me 262. How about it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Heres another suggestion. If the 262 is present on a server, make historic ratio of allied vs axis...so on a 30 player server that would be something of two Me262s vs the rest allies? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ElAurens
07-11-2005, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Oh, come on now !!

I admire the P-38.

It was a great design with many innovations and inspired many later designs. It was simply a great handgun.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/walther_p38_r.jpg

In fact, here it is shown as the most refined handgun of WW2:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_50/ai_112646121

I have handled and fired several Walther P38 semi-automatic pistols. They are indeed refined, but, they are also overly large and heavy for their rather small caliber (9mm Parabellum) ammunition. Both in terms of it's lack of relative stopping power and the number of rounds that it carries in it's magazine.

Hristo_
07-11-2005, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
One side had 150 octane, the other side had jets.

So, here's a suggestion. Wherever there is P-38L or Mk.III available on server, there should also be Me 262. How about it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Heres another suggestion. If the 262 is present on a server, make historic ratio of allied vs axis...so on a 30 player server that would be something of two Me262s vs the rest allies? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great idea. And to keep it even more historical, put Red bases 500 miles away from target. That will make sure nobody flies with 25% fuel and needs couple of hours to target and back. Of course, bailing means death.

I'd take the 262.

F19_Olli72
07-11-2005, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
One side had 150 octane, the other side had jets.

So, here's a suggestion. Wherever there is P-38L or Mk.III available on server, there should also be Me 262. How about it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Heres another suggestion. If the 262 is present on a server, make historic ratio of allied vs axis...so on a 30 player server that would be something of two Me262s vs the rest allies? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great idea. And to keep it even more historical, put Red bases 500 miles away from target. That will make sure nobody flies with 25% fuel and needs couple of hours to target and back. Of course, bailing means death.

I'd take the 262. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Define target. Or do you believe there was nothing hostile at all within 500 miles? You is wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Are you talking about airfields?

Then someone please enlighten mr Hristo of Operation Bodenplatte.

Were the bases 500 miles away? If so, i find it odd that 109s took part of it. Specially since Bf 109s only has a range of a bit over 600 miles with droptanks. Fw 190s would barely make it back with droptanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Btw, heres some info that contradicts your LW fantasies about the real war:

"Runways to Victory: Belgian Airfields and Allied Tactical Fighter Operations, 1944-1945 by Peter Celis. MARHAV s.a. 11, Boulevard Prince Henri, BP 410, L-2014 Luxembourg; 362 pages; illustrated; ISBN 90 805 63927; order from the author at pcelis@worldonline.be; 49.95 Euro.

By September 1944, the battle of Normandy was over, and the battle for Germany was about to begin. As it transpired, the main drive was through Belgium, so it made sense to have as many tactical aircraft in close proximity to the frontlines as possible.

Airfields vacated by the Germans were repaired and new airfields were quickly constructed. Throughout the winter of 1944/45, tactical aircraft at these forward bases virtually ruled the skies over the European continent. When it came time to leave during March and April of 1945, the War in Europe was essentially over."

p1ngu666
07-11-2005, 07:12 AM
think closterman was stationed some 5 or 8minutes from the nearest german airbase http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

allies had jets coming, better than the 262 but u never hear about them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

262 wasnt that effective either, great potencial tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

isnt k4 best prop ingame?
in 3.x with me on the p38 109's with mw50 where better in turn, dive, climb, speed, and stall

MEGILE
07-11-2005, 07:22 AM
K4 new best? hmmmm Maybe D9 p1ngu

Hristo_
07-11-2005, 07:35 AM
Olli, your logic is wrong. You compare apples and oranges, or strategic vs tactical scenarios, which is trange for someone so knowledgeable.

If we are talking about 1000 bomber raids, then you get German planes vastly outnumbered. 1000 bombers with 200 escorts vs 10 jets, for example. Yet, Allied planes have to fly from England. In this scenario I'd still fly the jet.

On a tactical level the numbers were much more balanced and often shifted both ways. If we are talking tactical, then you have similar formation sizes. So, your "30 reds vs 2 Blue" doesn't hold. More like 40 Allies vs 8 jets and 30 Doras.

Example:
Typical task of III./JG54 in autumn 1944 was to protect Kommando Nowotny on take offs and landings. Usually the whole Gruppe (30-40 planes, all Fw 190D-9) would take off and protect 4-12 jets taking off. They were flying at altitudes from 2000-7000m. After Kommando Nowotny became JG7, the III./JG54 did the same to protect Ar 234s.

Operation Bodenplatte ? Where is your 30 vs 2 ? LW outnumbered Allies in the air that day.

ForkTailedDevil
07-11-2005, 07:38 AM
Well maybe there is a reason that the Luftwaffe reffered the P-38 as the ForkTailedDevil then. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Either way I am glad to have a "hotter" P-38 to fly. Bring on those jets my last online sortie I bagged two 262's.

Hristo_
07-11-2005, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by ForkTailedDevil:
Well maybe there is a reason that the Luftwaffe reffered the P-38 as the ForkTailedDevil then. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Either way I am glad to have a "hotter" P-38 to fly. Bring on those jets my last online sortie I bagged two 262's.

If only other Red flyers were like you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
07-11-2005, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Lol I'm not saying that this definitely found its way into the game, but maybe some of the figures which are printed and shown here are some of those figures? maybe? I dont know what numbers your basless statements are based on, but the majority of my numbers Im using in my analysis come from the pilot's flight manual.. And they are the lower of the two, and the ingame P38 can not even meet those numbers. That, and I feel confident that if those pilot manuals climb rate numbers were WAY OFF that 1 of the 1000+ P38 pilots would have noticed. But, nice try though! I see a few of YOU and YOURS got some traction out of that baseless bait.

anarchy52
07-11-2005, 08:09 AM
Oh c'mon Hristo...blues have 109Z and Go-229. Why should there be any problem with reds having a fantasy plane?

Tvrdi
07-11-2005, 08:17 AM
Hristo I would challenge any of those comfortable guys in their late lightnings vs you and me in me262...hell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif make my day...or a week http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Tvrdi
07-11-2005, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Oh c'mon Hristo...blues have 109Z and Go-229. Why should there be any problem with reds having a fantasy plane?

these planes are non-existable in online servers as u cant find a single me262 flyble there.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif so please....

zimbower1
07-11-2005, 08:54 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif The p-38 late its like fighting a spitfire extremly fast and outrolls fws at low speeds.People dont have time to learn to handle their favorite planes in disadvatages situations or respect the superior aircrafts compared to theirs, they want it to be in advatage in every situation and far more superior then other in everything,pity..
A plane for muppits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Ofcourse we have the Me 262http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif always prapared to take care of the wannabes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

wagsleadtom
07-11-2005, 09:06 AM
This also happened with the Starfighter which was an awful unstable plane but got the contract over the british made plane with a rocket booster allowing it to get up to height really fast, I forget what it was called now. Lockheed martin Bribed the European delegates to ensure they bought the Starfighter even tho it was the inferior plane. The British pkane ended up never being built because of too few orders.

I'l like to set the record straight on one point in this somewhat silly thread - the F-104 Starfighter was not "unstable". I have flown it - yes, the real a/c, not a virtual one. I'm a former military test pilot and, although I don't have many hours in the F-104, several of my friends do - one of my roommates in 'Nam came home and was assigned to instruct Lufftwaffe pilots ('72-'74) and he loved the 104.

The Starfighter had a lot of flaws - no legs (range), couldn't turn well, bad sink rate if you got behind the power curve, etc. - but it could climb like a homesick angel and was really fast. It flew very well in the hands of an experience pilot who didn't let it get slow coming across the fence to land (you needed at least 175 KIAS, depending on fuel). If you got slow in the landing pattern, it killed you (as many pilots found out too late).

Lockheed may have pulled strings to beat the British fighter you mentioned, but the F-104 was an excellent bird for its mission - intercepting high flying bombers!

Enough said...

S! Wagsleadtom

Kocur_
07-11-2005, 09:20 AM
...or to drop tactical emm ordnance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif in one fast pass...(G)

BigganD
07-11-2005, 09:27 AM
When this p38 late came to il2 everyone started to fly it, before it was only people that had skills that flew p38s. Now I avoid to turn fight a p38(SpitFire x2 engines).
This will be change be SURE it will, like the p51 (it was a turner some patches ago).
When p38 late get fixed most of does that flys it now will switch back to spits or something..end of story http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

tsisqua
07-11-2005, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Oh, come on now !!

I admire the P-38.

It was a great design with many innovations and inspired many later designs. It was simply a great handgun.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/walther_p38_r.jpg

In fact, here it is shown as the most refined handgun of WW2:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_50/ai_112646121

I have handled and fired several Walther P38 semi-automatic pistols. They are indeed refined, but, they are also overly large and heavy for their rather small caliber (9mm Parabellum) ammunition. Both in terms of it's lack of relative stopping power and the number of rounds that it carries in it's magazine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"I like Angelina Jolie!!!!!!" (shouting so as to make sure I'm heard) "She's got pretty lips!!!!!!"

I'm sure you've seen the video.

BigganD
07-11-2005, 09:31 AM
by the way every new aircraft gets first overmodeled or under..

F19_Olli72
07-11-2005, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Olli, your logic is wrong. You compare apples and oranges, or strategic vs tactical scenarios, which is trange for someone so knowledgeable.

If we are talking about 1000 bomber raids, then you get German planes vastly outnumbered. 1000 bombers with 200 escorts vs 10 jets, for example. Yet, Allied planes have to fly from England. In this scenario I'd still fly the jet.

On a tactical level the numbers were much more balanced and often shifted both ways. If we are talking tactical, then you have similar formation sizes. So, your "30 reds vs 2 Blue" doesn't hold. More like 40 Allies vs 8 jets and 30 Doras.

Example:
Typical task of III./JG54 in autumn 1944 was to protect Kommando Nowotny on take offs and landings. Usually the whole Gruppe (30-40 planes, all Fw 190D-9) would take off and protect 4-12 jets taking off. They were flying at altitudes from 2000-7000m. After Kommando Nowotny became JG7, the III./JG54 did the same to protect Ar 234s.

Operation Bodenplatte ? Where is your 30 vs 2 ? LW outnumbered Allies in the air that day.

So you claim with tactical scenarios in mind Luftwaffe had equal numbers as allies? Im sorry Hristos, your mad. To quote Blackadder:...madder than MadJack McMad who lost the election for village idiot.

Also to remind you that only two - three days after Bodenplatte most sqadrons were fully equppied and operational again with new planes. I doubt that was the case for the 200 planes that Luftwaffe lost, also lufwaffe lost many pilots including over 20 experienced leaders. The allies suffered only minor personel loss. A german pilot captured during Bodenplatte said he knew the war was over because of that.

You dont want strategic missions Hristos? Then scratch the 262 alltogether then. Because please tell me you dont seriously believe 262s were used for 'freie jagd' missions. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Its fine Hristos. Just make your own server where you can have 1000s of 262s ..vs one P-38. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BSS_CUDA
07-11-2005, 10:16 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/BABY.jpg I'm a Lufty and now I get my **** beat by a big twin.

go cry to Oleg then, and while your at it mention the 190 DM and the 109's incorrect elevators at speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F19_Olli72
07-11-2005, 10:21 AM
Not needed, i thought Kurfurst already did that....no wait! thats right, lufties only cry about allied planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ElAurens
07-11-2005, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:

In this scenario I'd still fly the jet.


And I'd shoot you on the ground before you could take off.

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


Originally posted by Hristo_:

Operation Bodenplatte ? Where is your 30 vs 2 ? LW outnumbered Allies in the air that day.


Hmm, even though the Allies were significantly outnumbered the Luftwaffe managed to loose 200 aircraft. So much for the Master Race.

anarchy52
07-11-2005, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/BABY.jpg I'm a Lufty and now I get my **** beat by a big twin.


IIRC it was the other way around http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
P-38 "Lame" drivers tend to get overconfident and burn energy like there's no tommorrow. But be sure 38 as it is now beats fw in dogfight scenario easily.

S!
Riddler

ElAurens
07-11-2005, 10:57 AM
The P38L Late is not much of a turner, be sure, but with careful energy management it is virtually untouchable. Especially in the Pacific.

MEGILE
07-11-2005, 11:17 AM
P-38L Late is doable in the ETO.... 38 pilots are like 109 pilots, turn turn turn! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BSS_CUDA
07-11-2005, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/BABY.jpg I'm a Lufty and now I get my **** beat by a big twin.


IIRC it was the other way around http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
P-38 "Lame" drivers tend to get overconfident and burn energy like there's no tommorrow. But be sure 38 as it is now beats fw in dogfight scenario easily.

S!
Riddler </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually it wasnt the other way around in RL, plenty of facts have been posted in the uber 38 thread, also the J would smoke a FW in 3.04 easily also, still does in the 43 maps, as for turning the 38 will turn with the G6 and later and turn inside the K, all tho its not adviseable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif good fight by the way on WC Riddler, if I had just a little more E I would have got ya, I was a bit slower to start and ya hung it out there a couple of time just askin me to shoot ya http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif with a little more E I would have, but next time I'll get you my pretty AND YOUR LITTLE DOG TOO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

darkhorizon11
07-11-2005, 11:39 AM
Fantasy plane??

Oh gawd, you guys have hmmmm... the Ta-152, Go-229, He-162, and the 109Z. God forbid the allies have an airplane that can possibly stand a chance at shooting down you and your Kurfurst.

Everyone knows were a bunch of cowboy-hat wearing drunk lunatics that had no concept of what a jet was prior to entering Germany in 1945.

For the record I'm still not to impressed by the new P-38, its not THAT good.

lbhskier37
07-11-2005, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Olli, your logic is wrong. You compare apples and oranges, or strategic vs tactical scenarios, which is trange for someone so knowledgeable.

If we are talking about 1000 bomber raids, then you get German planes vastly outnumbered. 1000 bombers with 200 escorts vs 10 jets, for example. Yet, Allied planes have to fly from England. In this scenario I'd still fly the jet.

On a tactical level the numbers were much more balanced and often shifted both ways. If we are talking tactical, then you have similar formation sizes. So, your "30 reds vs 2 Blue" doesn't hold. More like 40 Allies vs 8 jets and 30 Doras.

Example:
Typical task of III./JG54 in autumn 1944 was to protect Kommando Nowotny on take offs and landings. Usually the whole Gruppe (30-40 planes, all Fw 190D-9) would take off and protect 4-12 jets taking off. They were flying at altitudes from 2000-7000m. After Kommando Nowotny became JG7, the III./JG54 did the same to protect Ar 234s.

Operation Bodenplatte ? Where is your 30 vs 2 ? LW outnumbered Allies in the air that day.

So you claim with tactical scenarios in mind Luftwaffe had equal numbers as allies? Im sorry Hristos, your mad. To quote Blackadder:...madder than MadJack McMad who lost the election for village idiot.

Also to remind you that only two - three days after Bodenplatte most sqadrons were fully equppied and operational again with new planes. I doubt that was the case for the 200 planes that Luftwaffe lost, also lufwaffe lost many pilots including over 20 experienced leaders. The allies suffered only minor personel loss. A german pilot captured during Bodenplatte said he knew the war was over because of that.

You dont want strategic missions Hristos? Then scratch the 262 alltogether then. Because please tell me you dont seriously believe 262s were used for 'freie jagd' missions. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Its fine Hristos. Just make your own server where you can have 1000s of 262s ..vs one P-38. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When he talks about having 10 262s and 30 D9s vs 40 allies, I think he is meaning more local air superiority. The hundreds of allied fighters were spread out for miles along the huge bomber stream. The LW would concentrate all their attackers on one area of the bomber stream, therefore having parity with, or even air superiority in that particular location. You are right though, that 262s weren't used against fighters but they were used as Jabo, so in a dog server with ground targets their use is warranted.

Its too bad you can't limit numbers of a particular aircraft, but dog servers where they are allowed I have never seen the entire side convert to them. I think it would make for a very interesting server allowing 262s, D9s, and F8s go up against MkIIIs, L Lates, and P47s ( would be even cooler with Tempest and late Spits in there too). If the server was set up so the only way the blue side won was to destroy ground targets, and the only way red won was to destroy blue planes it could be very interesting, especially if blue started with a very limited number of planes, like 16-24.

geetarman
07-11-2005, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The P38L Late is not much of a turner, be sure, but with careful energy management it is virtually untouchable. Especially in the Pacific.

Rgr tht! The late 38 turns well at 110-120mph, but who wants to? It's one of the only planes that is controllable at that speed, but you're likely in for a quick death if someone else shows up. At 250 mph and above, I'll take a Mustang.

Hristo_
07-11-2005, 12:19 PM
Read my post carefully before calling me names.

What are your sources, F19_Olli72 ?

I repeat:

On a tactical level both sides flew in strength of anywhere between 8 and 50 planes. I own a copy of "Greenhearts - first in combat with Dora-9". It is a very detailed day-to-day book which describes every engagement of each day from Sep. 44 until May 45 of III./JG54.

On every occasion Germans flew together. The smallest formation was Staffel (nominally 12 planes). Very often the whole Gruppe flew (30-40 planes), especially when protecting Me 262s.

Random info from mentioned book:

2/11/44 near Achmer:
4 Fw 190D-9 scrambled against a single B-17 straggler at 5000m. B-17 shot down.

27/12/44 near Varrelbusch:
8 Tempests bounced a formation of 60 (!) III./JG54 Fw 190D-9 which was covering 8 KG76 Ar 234s landing. 5 Fw 190D-9s were shot down, while 1 was damaged. 1 Tempest loss has been admitted by British, while 3 were claimed by Germans. Ar 234s suffered no losses, even though they were landing in the middle of a dogfight. All 8 Ar 234s landed safely.

1/1/45 Bodenplatte:

JG26 and III./JG54 took off combined in a 63 plane formation. Many planes were lost during the mission, but only a handful to enemy fire. Majority of losses were due to friendly flak. The formastion encountered only odd enemy planes operating in very small groups.

And don't confuse tactical air combat with bomber interceptions. Two totally different matters.

As for Me 262 score against fighters, just look for kill record of Baer, Eder, Rudorffer or Welter. anything from Mosquitos, P-51s, P-47s to B-17s on that list.

IMHO, Olli is just afraid of Me 262.

BigKahuna_GS
07-11-2005, 12:32 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
BigganD--When this p38 late came to il2 everyone started to fly it, before it was only people that had skills that flew p38s. Now I avoid to turn fight a p38(SpitFire x2 engines).

zimbower1 Posted Mon July 11 2005 07:54
The p-38 late its like fighting a spitfire extremly fast and outrolls fws at low speeds
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Oh brother ! I thought I had heard it all--the P38L turns like a Spit now and out rolls a 190 at slow speed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

News flash ---dont fly a 190 at slow speed as most fighters in this sim will out turn it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Well whatever Lufties--dont bring up your "prop pitch exploit", "trim exploit", overmodeled 109K4 climb rate, or LACK of high speed control loss "elevator/airleron" (reduced effectiveness) that the 109 had in real life but not in this sim. Or the lack of prop torque on the 109 especially considering that it had NO rudder trim. Most people already know about the 190 damage model bug--enuff said on that.

Do try to remember the P38 elevator as it is the ONLY plane in the sim that truely compresses---and incorrectly at low alt. Real WW2 and military pilots have said the P38 Should Not compress at low altitudes. Also real WW2 P38 pilots said the roll rate and elevator should be a little better than what is in the sim. Oh boy think about that for awhile.

Also please try to remember that all models of the P38--P38J, P38L do not have the correct historical climb rates according to USAAF flight tests. Tagert's tests have confirmed this.

Guess some of you Lufty types dont like a P38 that is closer to real life and competative now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

I guess these same type of people wont be happy until every US Aircraft is porked like the P47--that is about 2 years worth of being porked now.



__________________________________________________ _________________________
ElAurens--Hmm, even though the Allies were significantly outnumbered the Luftwaffe managed to loose 200 aircraft. So much for the Master Race.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Hmm imagine a low altitude dogfight where the allies are out numbered in their Tempests, Spits, P51's & P47's and they still manage to shoot down over 200 german fighters and 20 experienced flight leaders.
How could that be ? The P51 and P47 are supposed to be outclassed at low altitude by the 109/190. Maybe because the real P51s and P47s had their historical strengths of dive speed acceleration and energy retention superiority over axis aircraft--unlike this sim(more so for the 47).


http://www.ww2awards.com/person/26963

http://www.ww2awards.com/images-person/{EADBC9E8-7273-41D6-9502-AD2FF9C1B42F}_dui-
January 1st, 1945, Specht and JG 11 were involved in Operation Bodenplatte (Ground plate). The objective was to destroy the Allied air forces on the ground so the Luftwaffe could regain air supremacy. Major Specht, flying a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-9, led his formation to the Allied airbase at Asch, Belgium for a hit-and-run attack.
JG 11 however, was virtually annihilated by American P-51 Mustangs of the 487th Fightersquadron/352nd Fighter Group and P-47 Thunderbolts of the 390th Fightersquadron/399th Fighter Group. At the start of the attack, the Thunderbolts were already airborne and the Mustangs were revving up to embark on a fighterbombermission. In the course of the attack, JG 11 lost 25 pilots, killed or missing, including Major Specht. He was probably hit by anti-aircraft fire. Specht was promoted posthumously to Oberstleutnant and nominated for the Eichenlaub (Oak Leaves) to his Eisernes Kreuz (Iron Cross). Major Günther Specht's number of kills during WW 2 has been established at 34.

http://www.oliversart.co.uk/acatalog/images/jpgs-lrg/trudgian/0139%20Operation%20Bodenplatte.jpg
As dawn broke on January 1, 1945 every serviceable Luftwaffe fighter scrambled from bases ranging across northern Germany. In the desperate effort to get 900 aircraft airborne many older experienced pilots, now retired from flying duties, were thrown into the fray.

The success of Operation Bodenplatte, a secretly planned maximum strength effort to cripple British and American air forces, was to be achieved by mass surprise attacks on their bases in France, Belgium and Holland. It was a battle fought at great cost to the Luftwaffe.

During the low-level attacks and aerial battles that raged throughout the day, some 300 Luftwaffe aircraft were lost. Though 200 Allied aircraft were destroyed, most on the ground, pilot losses were light.



___

bolillo_loco
07-11-2005, 12:34 PM
I can imagine the complaints if all P-38s could turn in compairison to other single engined aircraft at medium speeds and how well the 38 turned at low speeds. It turned as well as the P-63 according to army aircorps tests, according to the data recorded the 38 would be able to get on a P-51s tail in 3-4 turns and on a P-47s tail in 2 turns or less. another army aircorps test showed the 38 had an equal to or better than turn radius when compaired to the P-39, P-40, P-47, and P-51 at altitudes that were tested up to 15,000 feet.

I am very familiar with the captured Fw 190 test which put it up against a P-38F. in this test the only speed at which the 38 could out turn the Fw 190 (and remember the 190 was an early one which was very much lighter than later models) was at low speeds. It is obvious that the P-38F was not a P-38F-15-LO (first production series with combat flaps) simply by looking at the date of the test and the fact that it did not turn very well. Most tests which show the P-38 to not be much of a turner have either restricted the P-38 and not let it use combat flaps or that data is ommitted for one reason or another. this is also the test where it shows the 190 to accelerate better than the 38 and then all subsequent 38s are modeled like the F. I see no way that the 109 and 190 models would out accelerate the 38J and 38L. just look at the take off run of these three aircraft. the 190 takes 400+ meters to get off the ground, the 109K takes 380 meters, the P-38J and 38L use about 330 meters. acceleration is a bit more than a simple calculation of hp divided by weight just as turn performance is a bit more complicated than wing area divided by aircraft weight.

stalls and spins are still not modeled well here. planes rarely snap into a spin when stalled, yawed, at high power settings, and aggressively mishandled. they just do a couple of flicks and bam your out of it. It looks nothing like films of spinning planes that I have seen. spins which took 1-3 turns to stable out and another 1-3 turns to recover from with each spin losing about 1,000 ft in altitude. I frequently see people who are at very low speeds and altitude chop their power and go up into a loop to drop their airspeed down to 60-100 kmph then cram on full power all at once, try that in a real plane that has a 2,000 hp engine which is swinging a 200kg prop.

then there is elevator and rudder authority. the 38 lacks any which is odd for an aircraft that has such a great distance from the center of gravity to the tail control surfaces. this gives them a lot of mechanical advantage and also servers as a type of shock absorber during level flight, it dampens out turbulent air. pilots commented a lot about the 38 having very light and effective elevators and rudders, even at very low speeds.


yes i can imagine the complaining about the J and L model (not the Late) which are moderately slow at medium altitudes and significantly slow at high altitude, their rates of cimb on average to 23,000 ft are 855 feet per minute too slow, with single engine aircraft that flick into spins while trying to follow a lighting into low speed high angle of attack maneouvers, a 38 that can accelerate with german aircraft, a 38 that will turn with or out turn a G6 series 109 and out turn all the later model 109s, a 38 that will get onto the tail of all Fw 190s in 1 - 2 turns, give it elevator authority up to critical mach (which critical mach in this game is a useless topic because only the 38 suffers from it) give it an elevator that is effective for negative G maneouvers, and make it stable so that it doesnt mush around when you try and fire the guns. I do not think you want the 38 fixed because this would make it a very competitive aircraft, I think you want the current undermodeled version neutered back to its ace expansion days.

P/S there was data presented about the 38L late and it was from books not from the internet.

reverendkrv1972
07-11-2005, 01:05 PM
P-38 can fly inverted for as long as pilot pleases http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
It shouldn't be flown inverted for more than 10 seconds.

Rev

jeroen_R90S
07-11-2005, 01:15 PM
On Bodenplatte...


...including Major Specht. He was probably hit by anti-aircraft fire. (...)


There you have it. The occasion where there was fighter defence was rare, most of the time little or no fighter opposition was encountered.

The failure of Bodenplatte was, my personal opinion(!), largely an Intelligence failure; Geschwader were unable to form up, attack the right targets, were forced to make multiple attacks on fields (increasing losses -if they'd made one quick firing pass and gotten the hell out, losses would have been high, but at least less) and so on.

I can't remember which Geschwader it was, (have to look it up) but their path lead them right along a known V-1 Buzzbomb route where US forces had amassed a huge amount of AAA to counter.
That's not very smart...

Jeroen

Gibbage1
07-11-2005, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by reverendkrv1972:
P-38 can fly inverted for as long as pilot pleases http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
It shouldn't be flown inverted for more than 10 seconds.

Rev

The same can be said about many many many other aircraft in IL2. Why do you spacificly attribute this to only the P-38?

faustnik
07-11-2005, 01:38 PM
Jeroen,

There was plenty of air-to-air combat that morning and the LW got the worst of it.

The 336th and 352nd were in the air at Asch, the Canadian 126th wing at Eindhoven, RAF 126th wing at Paderborn, as well as several other US and UK units. The LW attack had a few veterans sprinkled amongst many raw recruits, they didn't have much chance against Allied veterans flying aircraft of equal or better quality.

horseback
07-11-2005, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
On Bodenplatte...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...including Major Specht. He was probably hit by anti-aircraft fire. (...)


There you have it. The occasion where there was fighter defence was rare, most of the time little or no fighter opposition was encountered.

The failure of Bodenplatte was, my personal opinion(!), largely an Intelligence failure; Geschwader were unable to form up, attack the right targets, were forced to make multiple attacks on fields (increasing losses -if they'd made one quick firing pass and gotten the hell out, losses would have been high, but at least less) and so on.

I can't remember which Geschwader it was, (have to look it up) but their path lead them right along a known V-1 Buzzbomb route where US forces had amassed a huge amount of AAA to counter.
That's not very smart...

Jeroen </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Piling on, I have to mention Johnny Johnson's opinion of the German pilots' performance in Bodenplatte, which he observed from the ground. His book Wing Commander says something to the effect that he and one of his squadron commanders watched the German attack with a professional eye and were disappointed and almost embarrassed for them...he clearly thought it was a pilot performance failure.

On another note, it may not be fair to compare the takeoff run of a tricycle geared P-38 to taildraggers like the 109 and 190. You get to start out at a much more efficient aerodynamic angle ...that said, we also can't just depend on bare figures like flatplate drag coefficients, combat weights and horsepower to determine things like accelleration in the absence of direct head to head testing. The relative efficiency of the different propellers also has to enter the mix.

After all, we don't see the warbirds that are used as racing planes using the stock props today, do we? I can only wonder if the props used by the various aircraft simulated here really had the ability to turn that engine's rated horsepower into its full potential thrust, and how much that affected the actual aircraft's performance.

cheers

horseback

faustnik
07-11-2005, 02:30 PM
"GREEN HEARTS - First in Combat with the Dora 9" was mentioned earlier. That book gives a very clear picture about the hopeless state of the LW by '45. Yes they had a very fast aircraft, maybe the fastest low level piston engined fighter, but, that did very little to help the LW pilots. Even when the Dora pilots met a equal force of Allied a/c, poor leadership and poor pilot experience led to heavy losses. Any numerical parity was also short lived as other group of Allied fighters would quickly reach the scene of the fight.

Basically it was a few men doing their best in a hopeless situation. The best they could hope for was that there Doras could escape by running full out on the deck.

LStarosta
07-11-2005, 02:33 PM
What would girls think if they saw you guys bickering over something as stupid as this? Your virginity factor would skyrocket.

BelaLvgosi
07-11-2005, 02:44 PM
On a side note,

Usually I fly blue, but it's good to see the allies with a super plane which I prefer to believe it was modeled by the available data, not bias, so I leave my thanks for those in the community that made it possible to include such a fine plane in a game that probably won't see much new stuff again (hope it also makes a big target for my bad aim!). Not to mention the future perspective for Tempest and Spit XIV, by then, the "machine" balance will probably be on the red side, and given the current better tactics among blue, things will be much more interesting. Still, it's a shame that currently there aren't plane type limits on teams, because the 262 deserves to be on late war theaters, but is always excluded from the plane list. A bad flown 262 is more of a duck than any other late war plane, and if we know how 109 are mostly used online, there would be plenty flaming 262s.

As a 109 fan, I have just a small complaint, given the new L and III 25lbs (a plane for a particular task) additions to this game which represent the less common high boost versions of those planes, IIRC the k4 that is being compared to these planes is the DB, as it way more common, not the 2000hp+ 605DC. Numbers aren't remotely comparable, but still would be a nice addition for those who simply like to fly in this game, never mind a vs b.

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-11-2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It`s modelled with 1725 HP engines, and according to guessed-by-fans wishful graphs taken from the i-net.

Problem is, 1725 HP was never an accepted rating by the USAAF, and it doesn`t appear in any primary documents or USAAF sources. 1600 HP was it`s maximum power, just like the P-38J.

Of course this wasn`t enough for the fans. They wanted it uber. Simply to put, it was whining/pressure on Oleg by P-38 fans (you know who) who want it roll better... climb better... dive better.... better in every way. Powers it never had. No documentation of it of course, but it`s never needed, just pressure... crying... whining.

So we are getting another fantasy UFO. Sad isn`t it, historical accuracy is sacrificed if a few people cry loud enough...

Doras and and 109Gs fly like overpowed Yaks and you cry about this? Where is your evidence that this plane wasnt used in combat? And what is wrong with the way it is modeled? You have data that proves otherwise? Its closer to real life specs now then ever was. The list of so called fantasy planes is far larger on LW side then anyother...yet you still whine.

Fact...if your poor LW aircraft is dieing to the hands of the P-38 then you are doing something wrong. IE Learn to fly brother.

If you would like me to prove it to you then look me up on HL and we can do a track recorded duel. I take 109 and you take P-38. If you dont get motor or pk on headon pass...you lose. Heck I'll take the Dora if you like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

HayateAce
07-11-2005, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
UBI needs to start a new forum just for Kurfy, Hayatace, and the like.

I see you haven't taken Fehler's advice on that grounding strap for your tinfoil hat.

n00b

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

geetarman
07-11-2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
On Bodenplatte...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...including Major Specht. He was probably hit by anti-aircraft fire. (...)


There you have it. The occasion where there was fighter defence was rare, most of the time little or no fighter opposition was encountered.

The failure of Bodenplatte was, my personal opinion(!), largely an Intelligence failure; Geschwader were unable to form up, attack the right targets, were forced to make multiple attacks on fields (increasing losses -if they'd made one quick firing pass and gotten the hell out, losses would have been high, but at least less) and so on.

I can't remember which Geschwader it was, (have to look it up) but their path lead them right along a known V-1 Buzzbomb route where US forces had amassed a huge amount of AAA to counter.
That's not very smart...

Jeroen </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute Jeroen - if you can read up on the attack on the Y2, you'll see that the overwhelming majority of the kills came at the hands of the Mustangs that were just taking off!
It truly was pretty impressive.

fordfan25
07-11-2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Thanks Tagert for all the work on the P38. Even though it will make my life harder, I still want to see the aircraft we virtually fly modeled historically.

Now if we could get the field modified P40s that ran 75" of manifold pressure...

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

STOP IT RIGHT NOW. im starting to gain a little respect for you....between you and tagert ill have no one left to hate on grrrrrrr. i already called of the hit i put out on Tag. if i pull the contract i got on you ill loose my wise guy free miles. "J/K......i still have no repect for eather of U" LMAO of course im jokeing with ya http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ki-84 C is still BS though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

fordfan25
07-11-2005, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It`s modelled with 1725 HP engines, and according to guessed-by-fans wishful graphs taken from the i-net.

Problem is, 1725 HP was never an accepted rating by the USAAF, and it doesn`t appear in any primary documents or USAAF sources. 1600 HP was it`s maximum power, just like the P-38J.

Of course this wasn`t enough for the fans. They wanted it uber. Simply to put, it was whining/pressure on Oleg by P-38 fans (you know who) who want it roll better... climb better... dive better.... better in every way. Powers it never had. No documentation of it of course, but it`s never needed, just pressure... crying... whining.

So we are getting another fantasy UFO. Sad isn`t it, historical accuracy is sacrificed if a few people cry loud enough...

Doras and and 109Gs fly like overpowed Yaks and you cry about this? Where is your evidence that this plane wasnt used in combat? And what is wrong with the way it is modeled? You have data that proves otherwise? Its closer to real life specs now then ever was. The list of so called fantasy planes is far larger on LW side then anyother...yet you still whine.

Fact...if your poor LW aircraft is dieing to the hands of the P-38 then you are doing something wrong. IE Learn to fly brother.

If you would like me to prove it to you then look me up on HL and we can do a track recorded duel. I take 109 and you take P-38. If you dont get motor or pk on headon pass...you lose. Heck I'll take the Dora if you like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ill take u up on that. only i take the p-38 and YOU take the 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

bolillo_loco
07-11-2005, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by reverendkrv1972:
P-38 can fly inverted for as long as pilot pleases http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
It shouldn't be flown inverted for more than 10 seconds.

Rev

that applies to every plane in this game that uses piston engines.

Gibbage1
07-11-2005, 06:40 PM
Have any of you mo-rans noticed that in the last 5 pages, your debating someone who has not even replied to his own thread? Yall been fished, BIG TIME!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Badsight.
07-11-2005, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by HayateAcehole:
I see you haven't taken Fehler's advice on that grounding strap for your tinfoil hat. lol thats lame attempt is the best troll effort you got ? come on your slipping HayateAcehole

whats really funny about this insult picture is the plane in the lower righthand corner

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/luftwhiners.jpg

VW-IceFire
07-11-2005, 07:19 PM
Honestly guys, if you see the name Kurfurst, HayateAce, or any of those folks that we all know and love/hate then you should probably just steer clear and let the darn thing die.

Let it die...

ElAurens
07-11-2005, 11:02 PM
Icefire, you are such a buzz killer....

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

Jagdklinger
07-12-2005, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Hastatus:
What sort of "pressure" can players bring on Oleg about their favorite plane? Uberise the P-38 or what exactly? What would they do? What? Hold their breath till they turn blue?

You guys need to get real and stop with the crack-smoking-conspiracy-theories...

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

RING RING RING

"This is Oleg Maddox"

"We know where your family lives Oleg, perk up that P-38L...or else"

CLICK.

...Did you know since the release of IL-2 there has been a steady increase in the number of crop circles? THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!!! WHERE IS MY TIN FOIL HAT I NEED IT!!!

This is my vote for post of the year http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

P-38 pussies... ...now where are the keys to my Bf109Z?

Kurfurst__
07-12-2005, 10:03 AM
Let`s see this thread as what it is.

I challanged the P-38 whiners who applied so much pressure on Oleg that he decided to give them their fantasy 'late' : http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif P-38L based on fantasy charts from the net, just so they would STFU at last. Of course we know that won`t please them, for now they are already crying for more climb rate.... crying for Death Star laser .50 capable of destroying a

But let`s see their answer.... FIVE pages of utter nonsense garba

They utterly failed providing the evidence for uprated P-38 engines that was asked for. Unsurprising, as it did not happen.

They shout : " I have got the proof but I won`t show you". Uhum, VERY convincing.

Let`s see the real facts... there was no P-38L engine uprate, there was no 'P-38L late', they had just as much power as the P-38J and the same performance : 1600HP.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121183759_p-38l_datasheet.jpg


http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121184060_resizeof503_1102467228_p38lsetup.jp g

Verdict : No P-38L 'late' in real life.

It`s a fantasy plane enforced into this simulation by arcade players by tons of whining.

faustnik
07-12-2005, 10:05 AM
Kurfurst,

It says right on that report that 100 grade fuel was used. Higher output was gained with 150 grade fuel.

Kurfurst__
07-12-2005, 10:17 AM
Show me evidence of 150 octane use with P-38L, and documentation of increased boost.

It looks like rather as wishful thinking from P-38 fans. It`s entirely speculated on their part, unfortunately.

BigganD
07-12-2005, 01:08 PM
609IAP_Kahuna what ever you say they will change it sooner or later http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

BigKahuna_GS
07-12-2005, 01:26 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
BigganD--When this p38 late came to il2 everyone started to fly it, before it was only people that had skills that flew p38s. Now I avoid to turn fight a p38(SpitFire x2 engines).

zimbower1 Posted Mon July 11 2005 07:54
The p-38 late its like fighting a spitfire extremly fast and outrolls fws at low speeds

BigganD Posted Tue July 12 2005 12:08
what ever you say they will change it sooner or later
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Which part will change biggan ?

The part of the P38 that turns like a Spit now or the part that out rolls a 190 at slow speed ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

It's time to put away the coloring books and crayons biggan and learn how to fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


__

AerialTarget
07-12-2005, 01:27 PM
Oh, it's that easy? If we were to show you the same evidence that convinced Oleg (convincing Oleg that American aircraft weren't boats is no easy task), you'd just give up and admit you're wrong? I think not. You'd just come up with another set of lies about how the evidence was specifically created for the argument by us the P-38 Lightning fanatics. I will not attempt to convince you of the P-38 L's abilities for several reasons. The first is that you know that what you say is a pack of lies. Another is that what you think does not matter; Oleg has been convinced (again, no small thing).

You are, sir, a deplorable liar. Your relationship with the Father of Lies is repulsive, not admirable. Your gross assumptions about a subject of which you know nothing - no, it is worse; your deliberate lies about a subject of which you know enough to twist truth only shed light on your complete lack of any sort of honor. You are, in fact, so vile that I hope I never encounter you in the virtual skies, unlike the other P-38 haters whom I cannot challenge fast enough.

Folks, he's right about one thing; there was no such thing as a late P-38 L with extra horsepower. All P-38 Ls had the same engine, and it was capable of one thousand seven hundred and twenty five horsepower when using one hundred and fifty grade fuel. I'm not sure why Oleg decided to say that there was a different engine in later models. But this is another subject.

Kahuna, why don't you just bury the rotten thing and its filthy lies with mounds of data?

lbhskier37
07-12-2005, 01:35 PM
Oh come on you guys need to learn to ignore Kurfy just like we've learned to ignore Hayatace. This thread needs to die.

MEGILE
07-12-2005, 01:44 PM
So aerial, is the P-38L Late, just a P-38L using 150 grade fuel? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

BigKahuna_GS
07-12-2005, 01:49 PM
S!


AerialTarget----dont waste your breath bud--it's not worth it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I quit responding to kurfy because he doesn't really want to hear the truth--he lost his ojectivity a long time ago and he feeds on his own propaganda to sustain his posts.

If kurfy had his way the 109 series would be as tough as a P47 or the damaged buged 190--LoL, roll as fast as a 190, turn as well as a zero-(hey it's close now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), be as fast as a 262, have the range of P51D with drop taks, carry as much bombs and rockets as a F4U-4, fly as high as a U2 Spyplane, dive as fast as a Tempest with jato assist, and fly underwater like SkyCaptain's P40. Nothing short of that will make kurfy happy with the 109.


__

faustnik
07-12-2005, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
So aerial, is the P-38L Late, just a P-38L using 150 grade fuel? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

That's the way I understand it from reading all the information posted and talking to AT about it.

Now, knowing that the USAAF did use 150 grade in some instances, it would be great to see P-51D and P-47s at the higher output levels in the sim.

DangerForward
07-12-2005, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
So aerial, is the P-38L Late, just a P-38L using 150 grade fuel? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

That's the way I understand it from reading all the information posted and talking to AT about it.

Now, knowing that the USAAF did use 150 grade in some instances, it would be great to see P-51D and P-47s at the higher output levels in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that's true then according to the "Manual of the 8th Airforce" the whole fighter complement of the 8th Airforce was using 150 octane by Sept 44. I think the British used higher octane fuel to get 25lbs boost on Spit IXs as well. Oleg could add late p51s, p47s, and Spit IXs with no modeling work. That sounds really cool, thanks for starting this thread Kurfurst! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
07-12-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
So aerial, is the P-38L Late, just a P-38L using 150 grade fuel? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

That's the way I understand it from reading all the information posted and talking to AT about it.

Now, knowing that the USAAF did use 150 grade in some instances, it would be great to see P-51D and P-47s at the higher output levels in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Faust.. so if I understand it correctly, the higher grade fuel allowed them to increase the boost on the engine.. like the Mustang MKIII @ 25, and our new P-38L Late?

faustnik
07-12-2005, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Megile:

Thanks Faust.. so if I understand it correctly, the higher grade fuel allowed them to increase the boost on the engine.. like the Mustang MKIII @ 25?

Yeah, just like that, as far as I understand it. I have no information on 9th AF 150 grade fuel supply, but, the 8th was getting it (and trying to get rid of it) by late '44. Maybe someone else has more info.

AerialTarget
07-12-2005, 03:32 PM
Now, to be perfectly honest, I know little about the high fuel grade war emergency power on the Lightning. What would happen if one firewalled the propeller levers and throttles when using one hundred grade fuel? Would the engines give up the ghost, or would they just put out the normal one thousand six hundred horsepower?

MEGILE
07-12-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:

Thanks Faust.. so if I understand it correctly, the higher grade fuel allowed them to increase the boost on the engine.. like the Mustang MKIII @ 25?

Yeah, just like that, as far as I understand it. I have no information on 9th AF 150 grade fuel supply, but, the 8th was getting it (and trying to get rid of it) by late '44. Maybe someone else has more info. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah that was my next question.. how common was it. If it was common practise in '44 then I have no problem with it being in game.

lbhskier37
07-12-2005, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Now, to be perfectly honest, I know little about the high fuel grade war emergency power on the Lightning. What would happen if one firewalled the propeller levers and throttles when using one hundred grade fuel? Would the engines give up the ghost, or would they just put out the normal one thousand six hundred horsepower?

You probably would get about the 1600hp, maybe not even that. The knocking and detonation that would occur would cancel out any power taht would've been gained by going to the higher boost. I know it sure wouldn't be good for the engines. Just think of it like putting 87 octane in a Corvette and trying to run it wide open, that LS1 sure wouldn't like that at the compression it runs.

Gustavflyer
07-12-2005, 05:03 PM
It makes no difference to me what engines a 38 has. Granted the late 38 is fast as he**, but it is still a 38, ONE BIG TARGET. I fly the G-2 with a single 20mm, and that will do it everytime.

p1ngu666
07-12-2005, 05:20 PM
ud get detination, ie the fuel/air will explode before its ment too.
if it happens at the wrong time, then ull break the engine.

Slick750
07-12-2005, 05:42 PM
"they b*itch, whine, p*ss moan & complain till they get thier way "

Lol just like my GF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Badsight.
07-12-2005, 06:24 PM
it doesnt hurt a motor thats tuned for lower octane fuel to recieve slightly higher octane

but the reverse isnt true

a motor set to run on high high octane will have bad running issues on much lower octane

Badsight.
07-12-2005, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Now, knowing that the USAAF did use 150 grade in some instances, it would be great to see P-51D and P-47s at the higher output levels in the sim.


Originally posted by DangerForward:
If that's true then according to the "Manual of the 8th Airforce" the whole fighter complement of the 8th Airforce was using 150 octane by Sept 44. I think the British used higher octane fuel to get 25lbs boost on Spit IXs as well. Oleg could add late p51s, p47s, and Spit IXs with no modeling work. That sounds really cool, thanks for starting this thread Kurfurst!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

SkyChimp
07-12-2005, 06:27 PM
I agree with Kurfurst. There was no "late" P-38L. The plane was tested by Lockheed with increased boost. But it was never approved for service by the USAAF, AFAIK. The only AF in the USAAF that used 100/150 grade fuel in the ETO was the 8th AF, and Lightnings were already on their way out of the 8th when it was introduced. There may have been a few photo-recce Lightnings flown by the 8th that were modified. As you know, some units (like the 56th FG) had no problems flying their planes at unofficial boosts. But it probably wasn't anything more than one here or there.

Kurfurst isn't very amiable sometimes. But he is right.

But I've got no problem with it being in the game. Fits right in with other overperforming planes like the Bf-109Z, Bf-109K, Spitfire, etc... The difference is the P-28L actually flew and achieved performance at the ratings modelled.

bolillo_loco
07-12-2005, 06:49 PM
I could provide 4-5 statements from books where pilots say something along these lines "we recieved some new P-38Ls today, they have more hp, are faster, climb and dive better than our current J models."

nothing has been mentioned of the 38J and regular 38L's inability to perform to published data nor does the aircraft turn as well as other aircraft in this game in which test data is available for.

SkyChimp
07-12-2005, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Yeah, just like that, as far as I understand it. I have no information on 9th AF 150 grade fuel supply, but, the 8th was getting it (and trying to get rid of it) by late '44. Maybe someone else has more info.

The 9th didn't get 100/150.

AerialTarget
07-12-2005, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The only AF in the USAAF that used 100/150 grade fuel in the ETO was the 8th AF, and Lightnings were already on their way out of the 8th when it was introduced. There may have been a few photo-recce Lightnings flown by the 8th that were modified. As you know, some units (like the 56th FG) had no problems flying their planes at unofficial boosts. But it probably wasn't anything more than one here or there.

Fits right in with other overperforming planes like the Bf-109Z, Bf-109K, Spitfire, etc... The difference is the P-38L actually flew and achieved performance at the ratings modelled.

That is not what Kurfurst said. He said that the P-38 L could not ever run at more than one thousand six hundred horsepower, and that what we have in the game is a fantasy version made up by Lightning fanatics like me. It is a blatant lie, and he knows it. The words "historical accuracy" coming from his mouth are like the word "love" coming from the lips of a *****.

CUJO_1970
07-12-2005, 07:20 PM
I never knew the 9th AF didn't get 100/150 grade aviation fuel.

Roger Freeman talks about the problems the 8th AF had with hydrobromic acid attacking the valve seats in the Mustang's V-1650 while 100/150 grade fuel was in use, as well as units requesting a return to 100/130.

Apparently, both the British and the 8th AF continued to use 100/150 grade in at least some quantities after lowering the ethyline dibromide content.

By the time the 8th AF was experimenting with 100/150 grade, the P-38 was being phased out.

p1ngu666
07-12-2005, 07:53 PM
actully, did the p38 late need 150 fuel to run at 1700 or whatever?

could get 1700+ from a merlin with 100/whatever and +18lb boost

AerialTarget
07-12-2005, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
actully, did the p38 late need 150 fuel to run at 1700 or whatever?

could get 1700+ from a merlin with 100/whatever and +18lb boost

Why do you keep calling the P-38 L the "late"? I thought we'd already established that the game's designation is incorrect, and that all Ls had the same engine and were capable of the additional one hundred and twenty five horsepower.

SkyChimp
07-12-2005, 09:39 PM
Kurfurst Said:


Problem is, 1725 HP was never an accepted rating by the USAAF, and it doesn`t appear in any primary documents or USAAF sources. 1600 HP was it`s maximum power, just like the P-38J.


I'm sure he means maximum rated power. And AFAIK, he's correct. I don't think he would imply that there was no way it could achieve a higher power, that would be plain silly. Of course it could achieve 1,700 hp. It could have achieve far more than that.

But from all I've read and seen, the chart he posted was the highest rating officially permitted during the war.

AerialTarget
07-12-2005, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It`s modelled with 1725 HP engines, and according to guessed-by-fans wishful graphs taken from the i-net.

Problem is, 1725 HP was never an accepted rating by the USAAF, and it doesn`t appear in any primary documents or USAAF sources. 1600 HP was it`s maximum power, just like the P-38J.

Of course this wasn`t enough for the fans. They wanted it uber. Simply to put, it was whining/pressure on Oleg by P-38 fans (you know who) who want it roll better... climb better... dive better.... better in every way. Powers it never had. No documentation of it of course, but it`s never needed, just pressure... crying... whining.

So we are getting another fantasy UFO. Sad isn`t it, historical accuracy is sacrificed if a few people cry loud enough...

No, Skychimp, he is saying exactly what he's saying. He is saying that the P-38 L never had the horsepower it has in the game. I don't see how you can, after reading the quoted post, honestly say that "he means maximum rated power." Morever, he is making the massively untrue accusation that all evidence used to convince Oleg Maddox that the real P-38 L was capable of more horsepower than the old version, or was better in any way, was fabricated by P-38 Lightning fanatics like myself, which is slander. It is outrageous and insulting, and an accusation of that magnitude has never before at this forum been leveled at so many respectable sources of data.

Skychimp, it is fairly obvious that he is attempting to "get back" at "us reds" for decrying the blues' propeller pitch exploit and demanding its removal or equalization. You see, in that other thread, several red players said that since there was absolutely zero documentation about using manual propeller pitch to boost level speed and climb rate, the speed and climb boost is unrealistic and therefore must be removed. For the record, I am of the opinion that it should either be removed or given to all airplanes that could switch to manual in real life, depending on which is realistic.

Now, Kurfursk is trying to "get back" by saying that since there is no documentation about the extra horsepower in the Lightning, that it must be removed. The difference between the propeller pitch exploit and the extra horsepower is, of course, obvious. After many pages of propeller pitch arguing, the blues failed to find a single source, pilot account or otherwise, stating that manual propeller pitch could be used to boost level speed and climb rate. P-38 Lightning fanatics, however, have found and posted pages and pages of proof from reputable books by test pilots, fighter pilots, and others, and even e-mails from a living P-38 test pilot. Moreover, the research has shown that the current P-38 is actually lower than specifications in several areas.

faustnik
07-12-2005, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:


The 9th didn't get 100/150.

Chimp,

Why didn't the 9th get 150 grade? Is this a known fact? Everybody else was getting 150, the 8th and the 2nd TAF, why not the 9th?

Hristo_
07-12-2005, 11:18 PM
Interesting.

So, the P-38L late we have in the game actually never officially saw service ?

AerialTarget
07-12-2005, 11:42 PM
Officially? Nope! However, every one of the three thousand plus P-38 Ls produced could run one thousand seven hundred twenty five horsepower with a hundred and fifty grade fuel. The engines were right out of the factory, although I believe a mechanic had to fiddle with a governor (similarly to how some modern cars have a governor at eighty miles per hour which the owners often remove). Not all of them did run at the higher rating, but all of them could and many of them did (over two thousand of them, according to Oleg). I'm not sure just how many, but I'm sure Kahuna or Bolillo could tell you! I'm happy to hear that you're interested in learning about the P-38 Lightning, Hristo. I think you'll come to love this beautiful aircraft. Eh?

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 12:04 AM
"could" and "did" is a world of difference. What do you think would happen if Fw 190D-9 used 100/150. It didn't but it surely could. How about 2500 hp Doras ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So, inclusion of our P-38L Late in any 1944/45 ETO matchup is actually unhistorical ?

By the time 100/150 became available, P-38L was already being phased out. Right ?

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 12:32 AM
Nope! "Being phased out" does not mean "not present." In addition, we are currently doing research to see whether or not Skychimp's unsupported statements about only the Eighth getting the cool fuel are true. The P-38 Lighting L was used at the one thousand seven hundred twenty five rating in real life, unlike your hypothetical Focke Wulf Dora.

At any rate, I think that the L "Late" is necessary regardless of whether or not the usage of the extra horsepower in the European theatre is historical, since what is labelled the L in the game is about thirty miles per hour slower than the J on the deck (and it wasn't, in real life) and none of the P-38s even meet the J's climb rates, (the L should be even better than the J with the extra horsepower). Don't you? It's hardly historical to take away an airplane that was really there, if in "small numbers," and leave us only with an airplane that is below even the average specifications.

And shall we discuss the presence of what I hear is a "hybrid" Me-109? I speak of the G-6 with the AS engine, which according to some Luftwaffe players here has about two hundred horsepower too much. And then there is the ahistorical propeller pitch exploit, which, quite unlike the P-38's horsepower, has not been backed up by a single document or pilot account.

What a slippery bunch you Luftliars are! You should all become lawyers; you'd make a lot of money. Who knows? Maybe you could even get a simulator developer or two shut down over trademark disputes. It seems I spoke too soon, Hristo - you haven't lost your touch after all, scumbag! You really will do anything to get out of facing the still-undermodelled P-38 L "Late," won't you? There's something you haven't thought of. What would you do if I suddenly decided that flying the P-38 Lightning wasn't worth the hassle, and started flying a Spitfire instead? Hmm? I will tell you what you would do. You would die! If I can manage to be the second highest scoring virtual pilot on Warclouds while flying the P-38 Lightning, do you have any idea what I could do to you in the Spitfire? I would fear the One Oh Nine no longer. You still smart from our duel, and tremble to meet me on equal terms in my undermodelled P-38! Ha, ha!

Gibbage1
07-13-2005, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
So, inclusion of our P-38L Late in any 1944/45 ETO matchup is actually unhistorical ?

By the time 100/150 became available, P-38L was already being phased out. Right ?

Every P-38 L has a 1725HP engine. Alison's docs clearly shows that the -111 and -113 engines are made spacificly for this power output and differ from the -89 amd -91 engines in the J models. The reason why this added HP is not stated in the manual is a mistery and I think it was just an oversight. Maybe the pilots manual was printed before the L was final? Like how PF box was printed before the game was final and it said flyable Betty? Ever think of that?

There are odd things that the military does. Stupid things. Like the freakin mast ballance on the tail elivator of the P-38. Its simply not needed!!! You know why? The P-38 already had one installed inside the booms in front of the rudder! Clean and aerodynamic. Cleaver hay? Kelly Johnson nearly had a FIT when the air force REQUIRED the external ones because THEY think its what fixed the flutter problems. Those are just cosmetic! Serv no function, but the military required them. Ask any current military pilot, and they will tell you that TODAY they still do stupid SH just like that. The exclusion of the 1725HP rating from the manual may be something similar.

But the fact is, the F30 could produce 1725HP stated from Allison.

Also. The P-38 manual on page 36A states the HP using Grade 91 fuel as
3000RPM at 1325HP max.
100/130 grade
3000RPM at 1600HP max.

So yes, fuel grade does effect HP. Manual DOES NOT SPECIFY 100/150 grade. Thats why it only list's 1600HP for the F30 engines in the L! Not because it was not an option, its because the manual does not have the engine running 100/150 fuel.

P-38 L Late is NO DIFFERANT from the P-38 L, other then the use of 100/150 fuel THAT WAS AVAILABLE in 1944 in Europ. Maybe not many L's were flying with it, but its more L's then Ta-152's flying in 1944, since the prototype flew on Dec 11 1944.

faustnik
07-13-2005, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:


By the time 100/150 became available, P-38L was already being phased out. Right ?

No, units of the 9th AF still flew the P-38L.

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:


By the time 100/150 became available, P-38L was already being phased out. Right ?

No, units of the 9th AF still flew the P-38L. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't it said above that 9th never received 100/150 ?

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 01:31 AM
Yes, it was said by Skychimp, who did not give any source, and who has cast doubt upon his credibility by suggesting that Kurfursk did not claim that the P-38 L did not use one thousand seven hundred twenty five horsepower - something which Kurfursk did indeed flatly state. Not even you're that stupid, Hristo. Or are you? Do you deny that the P-38 L used one thousand seven hundred twenty five horsepower? In combat?

Gibbage1
07-13-2005, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
"could" and "did" is a world of difference. What do you think would happen if Fw 190D-9 used 100/150. It didn't but it surely could. How about 2500 hp Doras ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
?

Dont they already have Dora's with two differant fuel types? D9 1944 and D9 1945 use B4 and C3, do they not?

Badsight.
07-13-2005, 01:46 AM
yeah & the B4 running with MW50 performs just about as well

thing is AerialTarget both Skychimp & Kurfurst is right

you need to take it easy because ranting away with the nationalistic comments isnt going to change facts

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 01:54 AM
Oh? You're joining the crowd of audacious fools who claim that since the official documents don't rate it, the P-38 Lightning did not have one thousand seven hundred twenty five horsepower? The fools who claim that it didn't, with zero proof, and not only without proof but in the face of a small mountain of proof, including the word of a living (and not yet senile, in his own words) test pilot directly to Kahuna?

You say that they are right. This means that you are joining them in their atrocious accusation toward Kahuna, Gibbage, Bolillo, myself, and others. Or are you unaware that in the very first post in this thread, that he accused us of fabricating evidence, of bringing falsified data and made up figures to Oleg Maddox? And by extension, called the actual test pilot, who repeatedly risked his life in the actual, physical machine the virtual representation over which we argue, a liar? Hmm? I think we have every right to call you filthy liars.

And why do you mention nationalistic comments? I've none in this thread yet.

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 02:00 AM
To make things clear - I have nothing against inclusion of P-38 Late in this sim. Just as I don't have anything against any other plane, be it a Fokker Dr.I or an F-15.

It is just that I'd like to make things straight regarding its historical use. If P-38L Late wasn't used historically, then be a man and say it. Nobody is going to take it away from you. We already have planes like Bf 109Z, Ta 152, Go 229 or Bi-1. They are still here, regardless if they were used or not.

So, a clear and honest answer would do. Thanks.

Badsight.
07-13-2005, 02:01 AM
those sort of "proofs" dont cut it for a CFS

you have to go on the hard provable running records , or else you could allow all sorts of "optimum conditions" to be moddeled

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 02:07 AM
Once more you deliberately use the erroneous term in an attempt to imply that it is a fantastical aircraft. There was no P-38 L "Late," because all Ls were capable of the extra horsepower. We already went over this.

Yes, the P-38 L was used extensively in combat with the one thousand seven hundred twenty five horsepower (as if you cared)! This, too has been stated, many times, and backed up with very, very good sources, including the aforementioned real life test pilot. And I'll say something else that I already told you. I'm not exactly sure how many of them used the high rating, but Oleg Maddox says that the number is over two thousand.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
those sort of "proofs" dont cut it for a CFS


So you do call Warren Bodie a liar. I am glad that you will never have the opportunity of doing him the incredible dishonor of telling him that in the face of all that he has risked. Badsight, I once flew with you and liked you, but I now tell you that I hope I never see you in the virtual skies again.

Badsight.
07-13-2005, 03:44 AM
im not calling him a liar

but you got to recognise the kind of test data that DOES get used to base these planes on

that requirement set by maddox Games was strictly applied in the FW-190s case especially

but then again they added planes such as the Bf-Z & the Go-229 so it does make you go hmmmm

either way your waaay too touchy to get involved in P-38 discussions

i mean you cant deny that the motors were capable of the power setting , but you can you say 100% that the 38 pilots in the WTO got the fuel needed during the war ?


its not like the 38-Late going to get taken out of the game , the extra power is exactly what the 38 needed

is ultra fun to fly & fight in , competative even

Badsight.
07-13-2005, 03:59 AM
because planes in FB dont get moddeled to "best case" conditions

they are set like they have just left the factory in stock standard condition

do you get that point ?

because its important , because if it wasnt like that then you would have seen overboosted P-47s & P-51s LONG AGO

this has since reversed itself with the inclusion of the MkIII Mustang & the Late-38 (albeit based on accurate data)

if you been around since 2001 , you would have seen this exact same point helping all sides in different plane debates , their exists better performance data for all major fighters if you want to dig , but the standard was really set before FB got released

you dont see operating troubles moddeled either , which is especially helpfull for the VVS planes as well as the LW fighters (late war)

understanding this should help you to see why bias against an over-boosted P-38 MIGHT exist

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 04:22 AM
No, quite a few field modifications shipped with Forgotten Battles, including a field modified P-40 and a field modified IL-2. There's the field modified Hurricane and the Yak-9K. Half of the Me-109s and Focke-Wulfs seem to include field modifications, too, with guns and gunpods being switched around like crazy. Does the Me-109 G-6 with AS ring a bell? Even some of the Luftwaffe players are saying that this airplane has an extra two hundred horsepower or something like that.

But the P-38 L "Late" isn't a "best case" thing. The P-38 K would be that, since it was never used in combat. The P-38 L's extra horsepower was used very extensively in combat (more did than didn't, according to Oleg). That is why it is modelled! And the only modification needed for the P-38 L was an adjustment of a governor. Any other aircraft which had modifications and such used as widely as this would already be have it when the airplane was introduced into the game, and wouldn't have needed several years to get in a patch!

And this "bias an over-boosted P-38" which "MIGHT exist" is taking the form of direct accusations of fabricated evidence (leveled at several very respectable forum members and myself), lying test pilots, and bribed officials. Moreover, it is manifesting in the form of flat statements that "it didn't happen, ever." It is these deplorable statements and the equally despicable persons making them whom I am attacking, not those who question whether or not the boosted version was used in certain times and places.

One last thing - remember that the P-38 L "Late" still barely brushes the real life J's climb rate, and the P-38 "L" is twenty miles per hour slower than the J even though the real life speed was the same and the L was only twenty pounds heavier than the J!

csThor
07-13-2005, 04:41 AM
Uhmm ... the G-6/AS we have is far from being a "field modification". In fact we have a G-14/AS mislabeled as G-6/AS. And the G-14/AS was a factory-produced plane - no modification done in the field http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 04:42 AM
So, can anyone actually present some of this mysterious evidence that P-38L Late with 100/150 octane flew operationally ?

I see it being mentioned in context "we have plenty of evidence" and all, but actually I haven't seen anything yet.

So, gentlemen, please, back up your statements with evidence.

Operational P-38L late with 100/150 octane fuel :

A. who ?
B. where ?
C. when ?

thank you

carguy_
07-13-2005, 04:47 AM
Aaaaaaah now I get it!This is another "Lufties got their stuff now we want ours!" thread.Enjoy it then.

By calling names those that are trying to understand the whole P38 issue,you labeled yourself as Luftwaffle hater.

Congratulations,another ahole with agenda on here boards.Aaand may I say ,genius,than no one said the persons are liars.How can I take your words for granted if you spit with venom at every guy who asks you if you`re sure what you posted.No credibility.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

A little kid that is somehow afraid his favorite toy might be taken away.

So here.No you got what you asked for.Feel my superiority over you!Hahah! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Badsight.
07-13-2005, 04:49 AM
the feild mods you said , were accurate to a standard russian alteration

ask yourself why the gunner postion isnt available on the "Feild Mod" IL2

because that is one "Feild Mod" where it was a hack job in service & no provable standard existed

if you wont grasp the factory data standard then i cant help you
.

for sure P-47s were over-boosted , & by large amounts - not just slight mods to the tune but massive increase in MP

we dont have them , they wernt factory standard planes

again this is an issue that was raised over & over ever since IL2 , had you been around then you would understand the resistace at "best data" for any plane

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 04:53 AM
I was around since the original IL-2 Sturmovik.


Originally posted by Badsight.:
the feild mods you said , were accurate to a standard russian alteration

And the "field modification" on the P-38 L - no more than a quick tweak of an engine control and a high fuel grade - is accurate to a standard American alteration. Actually, it's a bit below, but I'll save that for the climb rates thread!

Carguy, while I won't label you a Luftliar as I've not seen any lies in your post (I've only seen three or four people in this place actually make outright, deliberate lies, all about the P-38 no less), I do find you truly inconsiderate. You are very selective in your insult reading, are you not? I would like to call your attention on the post that started this thread. It was insulting, slanderous, and full of lies. If you don't understand why I get my hackles raised when called a liar who fabricates data about my favorite airplane and when false statements are made about my favorite airplane, then I won't try to communicate with you any more.

DangerForward
07-13-2005, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:


The 9th didn't get 100/150.

Chimp,

Why didn't the 9th get 150 grade? Is this a known fact? Everybody else was getting 150, the 8th and the 2nd TAF, why not the 9th? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if 9th did, afterall the high octane fuel provided the most benefit at sub-20000 feet from the British tests I've seen.

Badsight.
07-13-2005, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
And the "field modification" on the P-38 L - no more than a quick tweak of an engine control and a high fuel grade - is accurate to a standard American alteration. Actually, it's a bit below, but I'll save that for the climb rates thread!.

no motor tune mods at all were needed to run the higher octane gas ?

thats quite a jump in octane & MP for the same spark plugs alone !

jessi1
07-13-2005, 06:02 AM
I swear Oleg must be laughing his *** off reading all this **** going on back and forth. Hey aerial target dont go boasting about what you could do in a spit if you so choose you sound really stupid saying such ****. Stick to your history on the p-38 but you dont fool anyone with this look at me im number 2 on stats just think if i wanted to fly a spit you all would be dead goodknight attitude. You are a good pilot no doubt but you should not let these arguements get the better of ya and start saying things like our old freind goodknight used to do, there are several here that no what i mean and quickly loose respect on anything he said or did with that kind of attitude. Salute

MEGILE
07-13-2005, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
So, can anyone actually present some of this mysterious evidence that P-38L Late with 100/150 octane flew operationally ?

I see it being mentioned in context "we have plenty of evidence" and all, but actually I haven't seen anything yet.

So, gentlemen, please, back up your statements with evidence.

Operational P-38L late with 100/150 octane fuel :

A. who ?
B. where ?
C. when ?

thank you

BUMP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slickun
07-13-2005, 07:42 AM
WITHOUT any name calling. May we continue the discussion.

Several points have been brought up, questions asked, points made, with no one replying to them in a civil manner.

Specifically:

1. Did the 9th have access to 100/150 grade fuel?

2. If not, were there any P-38L's in 8th AF units that recieved 100/150 grade fuel? Before they were shipped to the 9th AF?

If these two questions can be answered, we can then infer whether any P-38's operated at 3450 HP in the ETO.

There are places on the internet that list every plane that 8th AF fighter Groups recieved, when they arrived, and what happened to the plane. Shouldn't be too tough.

May I say, that if the 9th AF didn't ever recieve "purple passion" or "pep", it really narrows the time frame for any P-38L's to have flown with the added HP. From memory, I think the P-38's were basically gone before 100/150 came onto the scene in the 8th. I freely admit that I could be wrong on this.

I wonder how this question plays out in the MTO. Did any units with P-38L's have access to 100/150 grade fuel?

How 'bout the PTO? Where and when was 145 octane available to P-38 groups?

It is an interesting question.

We may be looking at a scenario where P-38L's pulling 3450 HP should not fly against LW A/C, only PTO types, to be historically accurate.

Slickun
07-13-2005, 08:10 AM
A quick look at little friends' data base
http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/index.html

for the 20th and 55th squadrons shows no P-38's identified as L models. A LOT of J models.

There are a few P-38's in the 55th that show no model number.

Which photo recon model of the P-38 was the L?

Hoarmurath
07-13-2005, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:


Which photo recon model of the P-38 was the L?

F-5E-4-LO converted from P-38L-1-LO
F-5F-3-LO converted from P-38L-5-LO
F-5G-6-LO converted from P-38L-5

bolillo_loco
07-13-2005, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
So, can anyone actually present some of this mysterious evidence that P-38L Late with 100/150 octane flew operationally ?

I see it being mentioned in context "we have plenty of evidence" and all, but actually I haven't seen anything yet.

So, gentlemen, please, back up your statements with evidence.

Operational P-38L late with 100/150 octane fuel :

A. who ?
B. where ?
C. when ?

thank you

when you find out hristo let me know because allision tested the F-30s at 2,000 hp on this fuel. they tried passing the 7 1/2 hour army test (7 1/2 hours at wep power) but after 4 1/2 hours of running at 2,000 hp the engine failed. 4 1/2 hours is well with in the 5 - 10 minutes this game limits you to, it was on 150 grade fuel.

the allision f 30 passed the 7 1/2 hour test running at the 1725 rating

allison tried to qualify the F-17 (used by the 38J) by running it at 65" on 130 grade fuel but after 45 minutes the engine failed. 45 minutes is well with in the 5 - 10 minutes this game gives you.

allision determined that you could run 70 inches on 130 grade fuel as long as the engine had an inner cooler (which the P-38 did) and that 70" was the limit with the allision and grade 130 fuel.
60" is the map used for 1600 hp.

why does everybody think that only the 9th airforce used the P-38 against the germans after october 1944? are we again forgetting about P-38s based in floggia italy flying against the germans?

BigganD
07-13-2005, 10:08 AM
609IAP_Kahuna I still havent meet any good p38 players http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Kurfurst__
07-13-2005, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Kurfurst Said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Problem is, 1725 HP was never an accepted rating by the USAAF, and it doesn`t appear in any primary documents or USAAF sources. 1600 HP was it`s maximum power, just like the P-38J.


I'm sure he means maximum rated power. And AFAIK, he's correct. I don't think he would imply that there was no way it could achieve a higher power, that would be plain silly. Of course it could achieve 1,700 hp. It could have achieve far more than that.

But from all I've read and seen, the chart he posted was the highest rating officially permitted during the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly and 100% agreed.
If there`s ANY evidence shown about the operational use of 1725 HP... fire away and let`s have it!

But the fact is that even others sim developers like Aces High II refused to model it at that rating because there was no concinving evidence for it.

p1ngu666
07-13-2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
So, can anyone actually present some of this mysterious evidence that P-38L Late with 100/150 octane flew operationally ?

I see it being mentioned in context "we have plenty of evidence" and all, but actually I haven't seen anything yet.

So, gentlemen, please, back up your statements with evidence.

Operational P-38L late with 100/150 octane fuel :

A. who ?
B. where ?
C. when ?

thank you

when you find out hristo let me know because allision tested the F-30s at 2,000 hp on this fuel. they tried passing the 7 1/2 hour army test (7 1/2 hours at wep power) but after 4 1/2 hours of running at 2,000 hp the engine failed. 4 1/2 hours is well with in the 5 - 10 minutes this game limits you to, it was on 150 grade fuel.

the allision f 30 passed the 7 1/2 hour test running at the 1725 rating

allison tried to qualify the F-17 (used by the 38J) by running it at 65" on 130 grade fuel but after 45 minutes the engine failed. 45 minutes is well with in the 5 - 10 minutes this game gives you.

allision determined that you could run 70 inches on 130 grade fuel as long as the engine had an inner cooler (which the P-38 did) and that 70" was the limit with the allision and grade 130 fuel.
60" is the map used for 1600 hp.

why does everybody think that only the 9th airforce used the P-38 against the germans after october 1944? are we again forgetting about P-38s based in floggia italy flying against the germans? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks for that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

btw the higher octane fuel means u get extra power from higher MP, not the potency of the fuel itself.

so u could use for example, crappy ww1 fuel with 50octane, but ud be in trouble if u used more than 20-30" MP.

because its MP related, thats why its more effective at low alt, at higher alts the supercharger or turbo cant maintain the higher pressure

Kurfurst__
07-13-2005, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


AerialTarget----dont waste your breath bud--it's not worth it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I quit responding to kurfy because he doesn't really want to hear the truth--he lost his ojectivity a long time ago and he feeds on his own propaganda to sustain his posts.

If kurfy had his way the 109 series would be as tough as a P47 or the damaged buged 190--LoL, roll as fast as a 190, turn as well as a zero-(hey it's close now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), be as fast as a 262, have the range of P51D with drop taks, carry as much bombs and rockets as a F4U-4, fly as high as a U2 Spyplane, dive as fast as a Tempest with jato assist, and fly underwater like SkyCaptain's P40. Nothing short of that will make kurfy happy with the 109.


__


Lot`s of talk.

No evidence to operational use of 1725HP P-38s in WW2.

You should take Skychimp as an example. Nobody can accuse him of not trying to make the US planes as best as possible, but he respects the historical facts and stays withing those borders. He asks for the best performance US planes ACTUALLY HAD in WW2, unlike you, who ask for something that falls into the wishful thinking category.

So, lot`s of talk, no facts = 609IAP_Kahuna
Try to change that perception on yourself.

Kurfurst__
07-13-2005, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Interesting.

So, the P-38L late we have in the game actually never officially saw service ?

Correct. Whatever Allison thinkered at home, experiencing with higher boost is quite irrevelant if it did not see service and the power was not cleared for operations at all.

It`s like asking for a 2700 HP Bf 109 Emil just because Daimler Benz worked up experimental DB 601s to such powers in 1939... test-running and achieving a level of reliability that would - taking into account varying production tolerances - safely allow the operation of higher boost are entirely different matters.

faustnik
07-13-2005, 11:03 AM
It`s like asking for a 2700 HP Bf 109 Emil just because Daimler Benz worked up experimental DB 601s to such powers in 1939...

Didn't you do that last week? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BSS_CUDA
07-13-2005, 12:13 PM
I fail to see what difference it makes anyways. even with the current Late model it still doesnt meet the factory spec's in most importantly climb as Tagert has proved in another thread. so go ahead and do away with the Late L, just get the 38-L up to specs and then when you whine becuase I beat you like the ugly step-child with it we can go right back to what you really are.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/BABY.jpg

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 12:20 PM
Name calling, name calling and some more name calling.

Here's my simple question again:

Who, when and where flew the P-38L Late with 100/150 octane fuel in combat ?

So far this question is unanswered. Come on, guys. Nobody is taking the plane out of the game - it naver happened and it never will. All we want to know is if the plane flew operationally. A simple proof is enough, nothing more.

We already have planes that never even flew, not to mention operationally. Why so sensitive about P-38L Late ?

lbhskier37
07-13-2005, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
I fail to see what difference it makes anyways. even with the current Late model it still doesnt meet the factory spec's in most importantly climb as Tagert has proved in another thread. so go ahead and do away with the Late L, just get the 38-L up to specs and then when you whine becuase I beat you like the ugly step-child with it we can go right back to what you really are.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/BABY.jpg

At least IMHO it matters in where it should be used for historical mission building. If it was used in Italy, great, if only Japan, fine, but no one in here is giving any info about where it was used. The climbrate issue is a separate issue altogether and has nothing to do with the question of where and when was the higher boosted L used.

And on the off topic that keeps being brought up about no accounts being shown of the LW using manual pitch to get more speed, I posted a pilot account in that thread and it proceeded to die right afterwords with very few comments by those crying for manual pitchs removal.

Hoarmurath
07-13-2005, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
I fail to see what difference it makes anyways. even with the current Late model it still doesnt meet the factory spec's in most importantly climb as Tagert has proved in another thread. so go ahead and do away with the Late L, just get the 38-L up to specs and then when you whine becuase I beat you like the ugly step-child with it we can go right back to what you really are.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/BABY.jpg

go reread the thread about tagert bug in p38 roc, the only thing tagert have proved is that he know nothing about how to read the official charts, and the normal testing procedures. The so colled bug was, once more, between the chair and the keyboard. The P-38 you are speaking about can certainly have its place in "secret weapons over normandy", but certainly not in FB.

BSS_CUDA
07-13-2005, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
I fail to see what difference it makes anyways. even with the current Late model it still doesnt meet the factory spec's in most importantly climb as Tagert has proved in another thread. so go ahead and do away with the Late L, just get the 38-L up to specs and then when you whine becuase I beat you like the ugly step-child with it we can go right back to what you really are.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/BABY.jpg

go reread the thread about tagert bug in p38 roc, the only thing tagert have proved is that he know nothing about how to read the official charts, and the normal testing procedures. The so colled bug was, once more, between the chair and the keyboard. The P-38 you are speaking about can certainly have its place in "secret weapons over normandy", but certainly not in FB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ah yes and your EVIDENCE to dispute Tagerts findings is where?

back on topic OBIVIOUSLY Oleg found enough proof to support the 38Late in game and the OBVIOUS whining and crying about it will not remove it, SO just like the lufty TA 152 the BF 109Z the Go, the KI-100..... should I go on? it is here to stay, so just get used to crying about the L-Late because you will be getting shot down by it more and more, beside I prefer the 43 plansets anyways, where the J outclasses the 190's and holds its own + with the 109's better than the L-Late does in the 45 planeset

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Here's my simple question again:

Who, when and where flew the P-38L Late with 100/150 octane fuel in combat ?

So far this question is unanswered.

On the contrary, the question has been answered repeatedly. I know the data, you've seen the data, just about everyone involved has seen the data. Your pretense of not seeing it so that we can waste more time posting it for you so that you can once more ignore it is not a good reason for us to waste time on you.

Gibbage1
07-13-2005, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:

Who, when and where flew the P-38L Late with 100/150 octane fuel in combat ?


Who, when and where flew the Go-229 or the 109Z with any sort of fuel in combat? It does not matter much does it? But the two cant be compaired. Why? P-38L with 1725HP engines existed. That much has been proven. P-38L has been used in Europ. That much has been proven. 100/150 octane fuel has been in Europ. That much has been proven. Weather anyone can find any proof that the P-38L was used in the ETO with 100/150 grade fuel is rather a moot point in a game that has the 109Z or the Go-229 flying. If your concerned about its legality in servers like Warclouds, how many Ta-152's were flying in 1944? There sure as hell are a lot flying in Warclouds in 1944!

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
And on the off topic that keeps being brought up about no accounts being shown of the LW using manual pitch to get more speed, I posted a pilot account in that thread and it proceeded to die right afterwords with very few comments by those crying for manual pitchs removal.

You posted one pilot account that might have been talking about manual propeller pitch. Even if it were, it did not give any details at all.

Regardless, I have never said, "Manual propeller pitch was not used to gain extra performance. The advantage must be removed." I am not so stupid as some people (Kurfursk) who assume that because they've never heard of something, it absolutely did not exist. I have only said that there is an unrealistic tilt towards the Axis since they can use their manual propeller pitch to gain an advantage (realistic or not), but the Allied aircraft that had manual propeller pitch in real life cannot use it in the game. But, as you said, that is off topic. The point of this thread is to level base slander and libel at respectable players who have done their research. In that, I would like to join in, but unfortunately Kurfursk is not a respectable player and has not done his research. Anyway, I seem to have have a moral issue with stating deliberate lies. For those two reasons, I shall refrain from staying on topic and shall continue to debunk myths and counter lies.

MEGILE
07-13-2005, 01:48 PM
I guess they won't let us in on the big secret hristo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 01:49 PM
Well said, Gibbage! There are a lot of Me-109 G-2s flying in Warclouds Forty Four, too.

No, Megile, you Luftwhiners aren't nearly one three three seven enough.

MEGILE
07-13-2005, 01:52 PM
w00t I made the rank of Luftwhiner.
No AT you are wrong.

I'm just wondering if you could present any data.. so sue me. If you can't, then that kind of says a lot, no? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It must have been pretty convincing to get Oleg on side.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 01:57 PM
Actually, to be honest with you, I'm still waiting for Warren Bodie's book to arrive in the mail. Currently I get most of my information regarding the boost from two or three members here who have the book and several others. It's the one area of the P-38 Lighnting that I have not extensively researched myself (call me a parrot and I'll ask you for a cracker). But, unless it just so happens that Kahuna has made up all of these references, I will soon be able to give you as many as you like. The reason he does not do so is because he already has, several times. These guys have seen the references, Megile. They just are putting off the ineviteable - running out of arguments and quietly slinking away as usual - for as long as they can by screaming for data (data which, of course, has been posted many times before).

If you, quite unlike Hristo and Kurfursk, really wish to have the data, then I suggest privately messaging Kahuna or Bolillo. While they have grown weary of digging up their findings for an intentionally blind mob to ignore, I'm sure they won't mind doing it for someone who is actually willing to learn. If you still don't have the references by the time the book arrives, I'll send you them myself. Deal? So, no, I actually can't provide any hard data at the moment. Kahuna can, though.

lbhskier37
07-13-2005, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
And on the off topic that keeps being brought up about no accounts being shown of the LW using manual pitch to get more speed, I posted a pilot account in that thread and it proceeded to die right afterwords with very few comments by those crying for manual pitchs removal.

You posted one pilot account that might have been talking about manual propeller pitch. Even if it were, it did not give any details at all.

Regardless, I have never said, "Manual propeller pitch was not used to gain extra performance. The advantage must be removed." I am not so stupid as some people (Kurfursk) who assume that because they've never heard of something, it absolutely did not exist. I have only said that there is an unrealistic tilt towards the Axis since they can use their manual propeller pitch to gain an advantage (realistic or not), but the Allied aircraft that had manual propeller pitch in real life cannot use it in the game. But, as you said, that is off topic. The point of this thread is to level base slander and libel at respectable players who have done their research. In that, I would like to join in, but unfortunately Kurfursk is not a respectable player and has not done his research. Anyway, I seem to have have a moral issue with stating deliberate lies. For those two reasons, I shall refrain from staying on topic and shall continue to debunk myths and counter lies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I posted it because I don't do much reading at all and happened upon that quote that day, I figure there must be more. Maybe not though. About the allied use of manual pitch I am all for putting it in if it was possible too.

I still would like to know the historical use of the 1750hp L as it is important for historic mission building and such. All the luft fantasy planes and even TA152 keep getting brought up when all many of us are asking for is when and where. Many here are only interested in historical matchups. I wouldn't want to fly missions where 190 A4s are fighting in spring of 1942 eastern front because they weren't there then, just like I wouldn't want to fly missions where P38 Ls were running at 1750hp in locations and times where they really weren't. Please you guys just ignore the trolls and throw us who really care about the information a bone.

MEGILE
07-13-2005, 02:07 PM
That sounds like a good deal Aerial http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I was actually interested in the data, to see if and when the increased power was used in Europe, so I would know if to include the P-38L Late in my dogfight missions and COOPs.
Don't group me with the Luftwhiners, even if we were asking the same question http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Gibbage1
07-13-2005, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
w00t I made the rank of Luftwhiner.
No AT you are wrong.

I'm just wondering if you could present any data.. so sue me. If you can't, then that kind of says a lot, no? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It must have been pretty convincing to get Oleg on side.

About 5 pages of threads back, Bolillo posted a thread full of scanned docs that show the P-38 L was used in the ETO, but was limited and mixed in squads of P-38 J-20 and J-25's. But it was there, and had photo's to prove it. Weather or not it got 100/150 fuel, there may not be proof available since it was not a big deal, but it was in Europ in 1944. Is that not how the Mustang III is getting its boost?

Im going through my referances to try and find proof of 100/150 fuel being used by L's. I doubt that even if I find it, it will satisfy the nay-sayers. They will just find something else to harp about. I can regurgitate proof till the world ends and it wont shut them up. They just keep demanding more and more and more or deny'ing any proof we bring forward.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
I think that if the P38J and P38L just had the correct WEP brake horsepower ratings, correct max climb rates and speed; 90% of the problem would be solved. The P38J was retro fitted with hydraulic boosted airlerons.


This information is from "Vee's for Victory" by Daniel Whitney. Whitney's background as a Mechanical and Nuclear engineer is quite impressive. Whitney is not affiliated with either Lockheed or Allison but his study is the result of years of independent research on Allison aircraft engines during WW2. Whitney's book is considered the definitive book on this subject.

I am waiting for an email back from Daniel Whitney on this matter. According to Whitney, Allison engine techs were in the ETO always monitoring the P38 engine performance. It was Allison engine techs that told Whitney that operating the F-30 engines at 1725bhp was a routine matter. In other words everybody was flying the P38L this way.

P38L :
"The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17's but incorperated many internal improvements, most notably the 12-counterweight crankshaft. As a consquence it could be operated up to 3200rpm. Using 150 fuel it could deliver 1,725bhp under WER conditions."
Directly from Allison Aircraft engines.
Vee's for Victory pg145


Here is an email response from Warren Bodie on this subject :

Using 3200rpm and 1,725bhp during combat :

"And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. "

The USAAF played it safe and told the pilots not to go over the 3,000rpm setting. If you had another 200rpm & 250bhp avaialble during air combat manuevering would you use it ? Bet your butt you would.


-----Original Message-----
From: Keith
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 12:18 PM
To: widewing@dnet.net
Subject: P38L WEP rating of 1,725hp



Hello Keith,

What in the world is going on outside of my small enclave of residents here on the shore of beautiful Lake Chatuge?
I am being deluged this week by all sorts of people wanting to know if I can provide the best possible accurate info on several related and unrelated av subjects. What will happen when the new Special Edition of FLIGHT JOURNAL gets into circulation in the next couple of weeks. I have a feature story in there on the subject of Supermarine Spitfires.
They only used half of what I submitted, but they are constrained by top management to about 7 or 8 pages for any one story. Umpteen thousands of Spitfires in more models and modified models than anyone can believe were in the fight during WWII.

First of all, let me advise you that with my 43 years of experience in various engineering jobs in the manufacturing industry, and having been on very friendly basis with people from Kelly Johnson and Gen. Ben Kelsey to Jack Northrop and a host of others (I have been a senior service engineer specialist, technical publications supervisor, structural repair designer, etc.,), there are no two engines or no to airplanes that perform to exactly the same level anywhere in the world. Too many manufacturing, rigging, adjusting, etc. factors involved, not to mention what each flight hour does to different airframes and engines of the same model, for any two engine-airplane combinations to perform in the same, exact way. I suspect that even two identical appearing cement blocks might not give exactly the same results. Airplanes are subjected to too many different actions and material combinations to work anywhere near exactt standards.

The really most definitive book on the subject that you have forwarded to me is the great study and product from my friend, Daniel D. Whitney. Published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd. with ISBN: 0-7643-0561-1; try your local bookstores first, then, if unsuccessful, e-mail to schifferbk@aol.com for info.

But, meantime get this single fact: Allison Engineering qualified the F-30 engine WER at 1,725 bhp at 3200 rpm. However, the USAAF NEVER authorized that rating, with ATSC preferring to stick with a 3000 rpm limitation. These engines were in Lockheed P-38L, F-5G and P-38M airplanes. Aircraft installation, maintenance, rigging, supercharger performance, propeller performance, etc. all affected individulal engine and airplane performance. And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. If you did it right and if you were lucky enough to have a top-quality PRODUCTION engine set, you won the game. Ben Kelsey would be among the first to agree with me on that assessment. (Just think of how many things can affect friction in an operating engine, with detonation being the most fierce ingredient and fuel being high on the list as well.

No matter who throws other figures at you, with little to fall back on (maybe even Martin Caidin's pitiful Lightning book as a reference), you will not find a better reference source than Dan's book. He pursued facts for years, maybe decades. I never asked. Read the back, inside dust jacket of the book, before you read it. You will learn about Dan's background. When I did my P-38 book, I had already retired from 40 years in the aerospace industry, several years (decades), in fact, of writing for magazines as a side effort. Dan focused on one primary subject out of several millions that could have attracted his attention. His coverage is indisputable. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Cordially, Warren Bodie

__


P38J Max climb rate (WEP) 4000fpm at sea level and 2900fpm at 23,400ft.

Here are official performance numbers of an USAAF fighter evaluation of the P38J-10, P47D-10, P39Q-5 and P51B. The P38J-10 serial number AC42-67869 was flown by 3 pilots during a 30hour accelerated flight test on December 2, 1943.

Maximum horsepower at 60.8 inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm was listed at 1,612 brake horse power (WEP) per F-17 Allison engines. (P38 J10-LO) pg.213 "The Lockheed P38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie Lockheed engineer/historian.

USAAF flight test results P38J-10 :
Maximum Sea Level speed -----------------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed --------------------421.5mph (WEP) (25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) ----------------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ------------------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt --------------------------------6.19 mins. (23,400ft)
Service ceiling -------------------------------------40,000ft

The P38L had from the very beginning the high-output F30 Allison engine installed and it was able to do 3200rpm but the USAAF official recommendation to the pilots was only to use 3000rpm. According to Allison techs & pilot reports when 150 octane aviation fuel arrived in March 1944 in the ETO, P38L pilots were pulling maximum WEP ratings of 1,725bhp at 3200rpm.

MEGILE
07-13-2005, 02:20 PM
Would it be possible to whittle it down to a month in 1944 when the P-38s began to use 100/150 fuel? This would greatly aid me, because at the moment I am not aware of when the P-38L Late should be included in the planeset, and it is a plane I would like to include http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 02:23 PM
Notice that, according to Warren Bodie, the J had a top speed of four hundred and twenty one miles per hour. The J! The top speed of four hundred and fourteen so popularly published is wrong.

Ask and receive, Megile. Kahuna's post which I just quoted gives a reference to P-38 Ls using the extra horspower in the European Theatre.

MEGILE
07-13-2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:

The P38L had from the very beginning the high-output F30 Allison engine installed and it was able to do 3200rpm but the USAAF official recommendation to the pilots was only to use 3000rpm. According to Allison techs & pilot reports when 150 octane aviation fuel arrived in March 1944 in the ETO, P38L pilots were pulling maximum WEP ratings of 1,725bhp at 3200rpm.

So around March of 1944? Earlier than I had expected http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jessi1
07-13-2005, 02:25 PM
There's something you haven't thought of. What would you do if I suddenly decided that flying the P-38 Lightning wasn't worth the hassle, and started flying a Spitfire instead? Hmm? I will tell you what you would do. You would die! If I can manage to be the second highest scoring virtual pilot on Warclouds while flying the P-38 Lightning, do you have any idea what I could do to you in the Spitfire? I would fear the One Oh Nine no longer. You still smart from our duel, and tremble to meet me on equal terms in my undermodelled P-38! Ha, ha!

LOL you and GOODKNIGHT should wing together.

Gibbage1
07-13-2005, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:

I posted it because I don't do much reading at all and happened upon that quote that day, I figure there must be more. Maybe not though. About the allied use of manual pitch I am all for putting it in if it was possible too.

I still would like to know the historical use of the 1750hp L as it is important for historic mission building and such. All the luft fantasy planes and even TA152 keep getting brought up when all many of us are asking for is when and where. Many here are only interested in historical matchups. I wouldn't want to fly missions where 190 A4s are fighting in spring of 1942 eastern front because they weren't there then, just like I wouldn't want to fly missions where P38 Ls were running at 1750hp in locations and times where they really weren't. Please you guys just ignore the trolls and throw us who really care about the information a bone.

I will be honest here. IF there were P-38 L's using 100/150 fuel at 1725HP, it would be rare. P-38's in ETO is already rare, and 100/150 was not given to every squad but the best. Almost all L model P-38's in the ETO were in squads of J's and I dont think the J's could use 100/150 so why should they have two differant fuel's? Logistics. In historical mission building, I would find it hard to place P-38 L's in at all, let alone L's with 100/150 fuel. You cant mix squads like have 20 J's and 5 L's. That would be more historical.

Also, by late 1944, almost all J's were upgraded to the L's specification of the dive flap and aileron boost, but we dont have J-25's, so the L (not the late) will fit in for the J's in late ETO maps. The only differance between J-25 and L-5 is the engines (L early has the same as the J anyways), the placement of the landing light on the wing (texture) and the placement of the guncam from the nose to the left bomb pylon. So L's are suitable for J-25's in late ETO.

So for historical missions, L Late would be very very rare, but very possible since 100/150 was available in the ETO.

MEGILE
07-13-2005, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Notice that, according to Warren Bodie, the J had a top speed of four hundred and twenty one miles per hour. The J! The top speed of four hundred and fourteen so popularly published is wrong.

Ask and receive, Megile. Kahuna's post which I just quoted gives a reference to P-38 Ls using the extra horspower in the European Theatre.

Yeah thanks, I guess I posted the question at the same time you posted the answer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Also, by late 1944, almost all J's were upgraded to the L's specification of the dive flap and aileron boost, but we dont have J-25's, so the L (not the late) will fit in for the J's in late ETO maps. The only differance between J-25 and L-5 is the engines (L early has the same as the J anyways), the placement of the landing light on the wing (texture) and the placement of the guncam from the nose to the left bomb pylon.

Well, in real life that was the only difference. In the game, however, the L is somehow inexplicably thirty miles per hour slower on the deck, even though the real thing was only twenty pounds heavier!

MEGILE
07-13-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:


I will be honest here. IF there were P-38 L's using 100/150 fuel at 1725HP, it would be rare. P-38's in ETO is already rare, and 100/150 was not given to every squad but the best. Almost all L model P-38's in the ETO were in squads of J's and I dont think the J's could use 100/150 so why should they have two differant fuel's? Logistics. In historical mission building, I would find it hard to place P-38 L's in at all, let alone L's with 100/150 fuel. You cant mix squads like have 20 J's and 5 L's. That would be more historical.

Also, by late 1944, almost all J's were upgraded to the L's specification of the dive flap and aileron boost, but we dont have J-25's, so the L (not the late) will fit in for the J's in late ETO maps. The only differance between J-25 and L-5 is the engines (L early has the same as the J anyways), the placement of the landing light on the wing (texture) and the placement of the guncam from the nose to the left bomb pylon. So L's are suitable for J-25's in late ETO.

So for historical missions, L Late would be very very rare, but very possible since 100/150 was available in the ETO.

That was my dilema.. which versions to use during 1944.
I can go edit my missions now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 02:34 PM
One more thing - remember that Lighntings were not removed once the Mustang took over the bomber escorting. They were relocated to ground attack, were they not? So they should still be present, but reduced to ground pounding.

Gibbage1
07-13-2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:

Well, in real life that was the only difference. In the game, however, the L is somehow inexplicably thirty miles per hour slower on the deck, even though the real thing was only twenty pounds heavier!

The dive flaps did add SOME parasite drag in a critical area of the wing, but not much since it was almost flush with the wings. There SHOULD be SOME loss in speed due to them. Im not sure about 30MPH. Also, the little bumps for the fuel pumps did not help, but those may of killed 1/2 of a MPH at top speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif They were rather clean. But the flaps are another story.

bolillo_loco
07-13-2005, 02:50 PM
all anybody has done is imply that 150 octain fuel wasnt available to P-38 units. People have said it wasnt, but none include any sources with prove it was never used. can anybody provide proof that this grade fuel was never available to 9th airforce P-38 units? many are also forgetting about P-38 units which operated out of italy and flew against the germans. In fact MTO units were fighting against the germans a lot longer than ETO based units were.

Vee's for Victory by schiffer publishing has allision tests. These tests are not special prepped engines, but regular run of the mill P-38 units. On grade 100/130 fuel allision determined that providing the aircraft had an inner cooler (which P-38s did) 70" map was max with the F-17s. 70" map is the 1725 hp rating. With the F-30s and 150 grade fuel they ran 2,000 hp and finished the 7 1/2 hour test running at WEP the entire time. so apparently you could pull 70" on the P-38 engines even with 100/130 fuel. several references of ETO and MTO pilots stating that "we got our new P-38Ls today and they have more hp, faster, climb and dive better than our old J models" corroberates the allision data.

I flipped through one book written specificaly on a 9th airforce P-38 unit. The 429th F/S in WWII, the books name is "The geyser gang" on page 140 one pilot is noted as saying "we recieved the new P-38L and it has more hp than the J model."

and in reference to aces high, you will not find any german aircraft running manual pitch with the ability to over boost their engines. The bf 109 does not have the ability to perform bat turns at high speed due to slider trim, nor can you cake the 109 roll fast at high speed due to slider trim, it also doesnt roll or turn like our bf 109 does at low to medium speeds. anybody with a copy of americas hundred thousand can easily flick through the book to the propeller controls section for the P-38, P-39, P-47, and P-51 and you will see that all these aircraft had manual prop pitch control even though it isnt modeled in the game.

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 02:59 PM
P-38L with 100/150 octane in March 1944 ? Hmmm

Was there P-38L in March 1944 in the first place, not to mention 100/150 octane available to frontline units ?

Anyway, don't jump to Go 229 or Bf 109Z. These are not seen on WarClouds. But P-38L Late, which seems to be in the same category, is in the planeset. Double standards, gentlemen ?

P-38L Late in this game is fine. But it seems not belong to historical scenarios. Instead, it is another what-if plane, just as Go 229 and Bf 109Z are.

faustnik
07-13-2005, 03:03 PM
P-38L Late in this game is fine. But it seems not belong to historical scenarios. Instead, it is another what-if plane, just as Go 229 and Bf 109Z are.

How can you put it in the same catagory with those true "what-ifs"? The P-38 L was produced in big numbers, the other two were never produced.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 03:06 PM
And the high altitude Focke-Wulf? One which I recently shot you up in? What about the Me-109 G-2? You are a hypocrite, Hristo.

Hristo, as I've told you three times already, and you already know, the P-38 L "Late" is not at all in the same category as the Gotha jet and the twin Me-109. Those planes never flew, let alone saw combat. The P-38 L, however, was extensively used in combat, and with the extra horsepower. Or are you trying to deny that, too? Are you going to answer me this time, or will you once again creep into your shell, only to emerge the next time you see an opportunity for a straw man argument?

Do you see, Megile? Do you see why most of the P-38 Lightning fanatics have taken to ignoring demands for repeated posting of data? When we finally are weary of triumphant shouts of "see you can't produce anything ha ha ha," we post it, and it is once more ignored.

bolillo_loco
07-13-2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
One more thing - remember that Lighntings were not removed once the Mustang took over the bomber escorting. They were relocated to ground attack, were they not? So they should still be present, but reduced to ground pounding.

target once again your forgetting about high altitude bomber escort missions flown by italian based P-38s to german targets in northern europe up to and including berlin itself. I am not sure where everybody is getting the idea that the 9th a/f only performed ground attack. two books, one on the 428th F/S, 474th F/G and the other on the 370th F/G lists every mission flown and usually has a discription, with exception to a few that do not have a discription or were rather obsure with the discription or the mission was out of the ordinary like leaflet drops or photo recon escort.

the 428th F/S 474th F/G flew about 430 missions finished the war with P-38s

134 armed recon
80 dive bombing
69 bomber escort
66 area patrol
28 fighter sweeps

almost half of the missions flown had nothing to do with "ground pounding" I did not include missions like leaflet drops, or photo recon escort, and several others which which individually tallied less than 5 missions or less.

the 370th F/G operated P-38s unil march 25th 1945 and it flew about 413 missions

202 armed recon
94 dive bombing
65 bomber escort
27 area patrol
25 fighter sweeps

about 1/3 rd had nothing to do with "ground pounding." I did not include missions like leaflet drops, or photo recon escort, and several others which which individually tallied less than 5 missions or less.

bolillo_loco
07-13-2005, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
P-38L with 100/150 octane in March 1944 ? Hmmm

Was there P-38L in March 1944 in the first place, not to mention 100/150 octane available to frontline units ?

Anyway, don't jump to Go 229 or Bf 109Z. These are not seen on WarClouds. But P-38L Late, which seems to be in the same category, is in the planeset. Double standards, gentlemen ?

P-38L Late in this game is fine. But it seems not belong to historical scenarios. Instead, it is another what-if plane, just as Go 229 and Bf 109Z are.

this is a general discussion forum, if you wish to debate whether or not the P-38 belongs in the game this is the place for it, if you wish to discuss whether or not the P-38L late belongs in war clouds either start a new thread on whether or not it belongs in war clouds or continue on with your discussion over at the war clouds forum on this same subject.

and in all fairness all bf 109s and fw 190s should be excluded from war clouds because they can over boost their engines by using manual prop pitch. this isnt historically accurate so remove them from war clouds. barring the manual prop pitch exploit, what are 190A6s, bf 109G2s, Fw 190D9 45, and ta 152H-1 doing in a 1944 server? the 44 dora doesnt have mw 50, but in this game it does. G6as and K4s make up the bulk of 109s flown in a 44 server, etc etc etc. you see hristo for every allied arguement you have there are 10 which can be pointed tward the luftwaffe planeset.

VW-IceFire
07-13-2005, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
P-38L with 100/150 octane in March 1944 ? Hmmm

Was there P-38L in March 1944 in the first place, not to mention 100/150 octane available to frontline units ?

Anyway, don't jump to Go 229 or Bf 109Z. These are not seen on WarClouds. But P-38L Late, which seems to be in the same category, is in the planeset. Double standards, gentlemen ?

P-38L Late in this game is fine. But it seems not belong to historical scenarios. Instead, it is another what-if plane, just as Go 229 and Bf 109Z are.

this is a general discussion forum, if you wish to debate whether or not the P-38 belongs in the game this is the place for it, if you wish to discuss whether or not the P-38L late belongs in war clouds either start a new thread on whether or not it belongs in war clouds or continue on with your discussion over at the war clouds forum on this same subject.

and in all fairness all bf 109s and fw 190s should be excluded from war clouds because they can over boost their engines by using manual prop pitch. this isnt historically accurate so remove them from war clouds. barring the manual prop pitch exploit, what are 190A6s, bf 109G2s, Fw 190D9 45, and ta 152H-1 doing in a 1944 server? the 44 dora doesnt have mw 50, but in this game it does. G6as and K4s make up the bulk of 109s flown in a 44 server, etc etc etc. you see hristo for every allied arguement you have there are 10 which can be pointed tward the luftwaffe planeset. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're absolutely correct except for one minor detail. The 1944 FW190D-9 does not have MW50. It does have engine boost. As far as I know, that is historical. The FW190D-9 1945 does have MW50...but I find this to be only a minor advantage at some altitudes and a disadvantage at others.

As for the P-38L Late...fine plane, excellent performance, but I don't see what the big deal is.

faustnik
07-13-2005, 03:22 PM
all fairness all bf 109s and fw 190s should be excluded from war clouds because they can over boost their engines by using manual prop pitch.

Fighting garbage with garbage eh?

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

Once again, many of the Fw190s can only achieve historical performance with manual pitch so they have no unfair advantage. Why bring that up in this conversation and put yourself at Kurfurst's level? This P-38 bashing thread can be squashed with simple facts alone.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 03:23 PM
Hey Bolillo, want to join me in a campaign for Oleg to model the K? I'm sure Gibbage could whip up the paddle propellers in a matter of minutes. That way we'd both be happy - we P-38 Lightning fanatics would have a real superplane, and the Luftliars wouldn't have to lie about a "what if" P-38. Of course, they wouldn't be completely happy, since they'd be losing on a major scale. But for the most part Luftwhiners are happy even when they're losing, as long as they get to loudly blather about how bad American aircraft were in real life. Ah, the P-38 K! Oh, such sweet music would be the sound of the Luftwaffe lamenting. Ha ha ha!

Bolillo, Faustnik is the Focke-Wulf's equivalent of Kahuna. He is both knowledgeable and very objective about the Focke-Wulf. If he says something about the Focke-Wulf's real life capabilities, then he is probably, although of course not certainly, correct.

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 03:37 PM
Still waiting for the proof of P-38L late 100/150 octane operational use.

Who ?

Where ?

When ?

And don't try to hide behind accusations and insults, just present the proof you all talk so much about.

bolillo_loco
07-13-2005, 03:44 PM
No way would I join such a campain target. I am at my end with ubi forums and will probably disappear for a few months again.

faustnik
07-13-2005, 03:44 PM
Hristo,

Are you looking for a picture of a guy pouring a big can labeled "150 Octane" into a P-38? We know that 150 ocatane was prevalent in USAAF ETO units in '45 and several USAAF units flew the P-38L.

Now I understand how O.J. got aquitted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

bolillo_loco
07-13-2005, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Still waiting for the proof of P-38L late 100/150 octane operational use.

Who ?

Where ?

When ?

And don't try to hide behind accusations and insults, just present the proof you all talk so much about.

the burden of proof is on you hristo. prove that it wasnt used. and its clear that you could run 70" map 1725 on 130 fuel available in quantity everywhere the USAAF could be found abroad.

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Still waiting for the proof of P-38L late 100/150 octane operational use.

Who ?

Where ?

When ?

And don't try to hide behind accusations and insults, just present the proof you all talk so much about.

the burden of proof is on you hristo. prove that it wasnt used. and its clear that you could run 70" map 1725 on 130 fuel available in quantity everywhere the USAAF could be found abroad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


OK, that's easy.

P-38 L Late with 100/150 octane fuel wasn't used operationally. There is not a single document stating the operational use of the mentioned plane, which justifies my point.

Of course, you are welcome to dispute my proven statement.

LStarosta
07-13-2005, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Hristo,

Are you looking for a picture of a guy pouring a big can labeled "150 Octane" into a P-38? We know that 150 ocatane was prevalent in USAAF ETO units in '45 and several USAAF units flew the P-38L.

Now I understand how O.J. got aquitted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


LOLOLOLOLOL PWND

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 03:56 PM
YOU BLOODY MORON, WE JUST DID!

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Hristo,

Are you looking for a picture of a guy pouring a big can labeled "150 Octane" into a P-38? We know that 150 ocatane was prevalent in USAAF ETO units in '45 and several USAAF units flew the P-38L.

Now I understand how O.J. got aquitted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

For starters. A photo like that would remove most doubts. Or a scan of a particular document or similar. Or an order of large amount of 100/150 octane fuel by the unit using P-38 at the time.

But documents like "...P-38 was used by XXXX unit in YYYY month of ZZZZ year..." along with "...100/150 octane fuel was used by XXXX unit in YYYY month of ZZZZ year...". Or "....P-38 of XXXX unit used 100/150 octane fuel to achieve....".

Best proof would be an instruction sheet on which fuel to use with a certain plane. AFAIK, pouring anything with lower octane number into an engine tweaked for 100/150 octane is a big no no - the engine would be damaged. So, I guess they made sure no mistakes like that could be made. For example, Germans had symbols like "C3" and "B4" on their planes, clearly stating which fuel they used. Is there anything similar on USAAF planes ?

You get my point.

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
YOU BLOODY MORON, WE JUST DID!

Did what, my friend ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 03:59 PM
We did provide proof! Then you said, "I'm still waiting on the proof." After you ask for proof, we give it to you, then you ask for proof, and we give it to you, then you ask for - good grief! We've given you some very good proof, and you have given none whatsoever, but are claiming absense of proof equals proof of absense, which is not only a logical fallacy in itself but is also not applicable because there's no absense of proof! Moron!

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 04:01 PM
You didn't provide the proof of 100/150 octane fuel operational use with P-38 units.

You provided "could"s and "possibly"s with some "maybe"s.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
But documents like "...P-38 was used by XXXX unit in YYYY month of ZZZZ year..." along with "...100/150 octane fuel was used by XXXX unit in YYYY month of ZZZZ year...". Or "....P-38 of XXXX unit used 100/150 octane fuel to achieve....".

...Were just provided to you. If you don't believe Kahuna, you can spend the same fifteen dollars I just spent and see for yourself.


Originally posted by Hristo_:
Best proof would be an instruction sheet on which fuel to use with a certain plane. AFAIK, pouring anything with lower octane number into an engine tweaked for 100/150 octane is a big no no - the engine would be damaged. So, I guess they made sure no mistakes like that could be made. For example, Germans had symbols like "C3" and "B4" on their planes, clearly stating which fuel they used. Is there anything similar on USAAF planes ?

Bolillo already posted Allison's engine tests. Your assumptions are wrong.

faustnik
07-13-2005, 04:04 PM
Hristos,

I don't think it was the same with 100 vs. 150 Allied avgas. Please check this link:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
You didn't provide the proof of 100/150 octane fuel operational use with P-38 units.

You provided "could"s and "possibly"s with some "maybe"s.

No, we provided "did"s and "did"s with some "did"s! What part about "did" do you not understand? Bolillo, would you do me a huge favor, for me, not for this jerk, and write down, word for word, what your books said about the Allison technicians saw in the European theatre?

Slickun
07-13-2005, 04:05 PM
Gents, I truly don't care if P-38L's flew with 3000 HP.

What I'm after is the truth. The historical truth.

Proving a negative, that something NEVER happened, is nearly impossible. Its much easier to prove a positive. I think the burden of proof is on the folks claiming the P-38L flew in the ETO at higher boosts.

It should be easy.

Come up with something, other than a testimonial, that shows an 8th AF unit with P-38L's after the dates it is known 150 octane fuel was available.

Show that the 9th AF had access to 150 octane fuel during times P-38L's are KNOWN to be in the inventory.

Do the same with MTO P-38 units....show something wherein 150 octane fuel was available to a unit that P-38l's can be shown to have been in their inventory.

If I've missed it in a previous post, I apologize.

mynameisroland
07-13-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
w00t I made the rank of Luftwhiner.
No AT you are wrong.

I'm just wondering if you could present any data.. so sue me. If you can't, then that kind of says a lot, no? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It must have been pretty convincing to get Oleg on side.

About 5 pages of threads back, Bolillo posted a thread full of scanned docs that show the P-38 L was used in the ETO, but was limited and mixed in squads of P-38 J-20 and J-25's. But it was there, and had photo's to prove it. Weather or not it got 100/150 fuel, there may not be proof available since it was not a big deal, but it was in Europ in 1944. Is that not how the Mustang III is getting its boost?

Im going through my referances to try and find proof of 100/150 fuel being used by L's. I doubt that even if I find it, it will satisfy the nay-sayers. They will just find something else to harp about. I can regurgitate proof till the world ends and it wont shut them up. They just keep demanding more and more and more or deny'ing any proof we bring forward. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gib , did the Mustang III not get its boost because it flew in RAF service? I read somewhere that the USAAF Mustangs did not use 150 oct in ETO as they thought it would damage the engines and reduce servicability. If thats correct then I imagine the same would apply to the P38 L and 150 octane?

Slickun
07-13-2005, 04:09 PM
F-5E-4-LO converted from P-38L-1-LO
F-5F-3-LO converted from P-38L-5-LO
F-5G-6-LO converted from P-38L-5

Thanks Hoarmurath

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Come up with something, other than a testimonial, that shows an 8th AF unit with P-38L's after the dates it is known 150 octane fuel was available.

Show that the 9th AF had access to 150 octane fuel during times P-38L's are KNOWN to be in the inventory.

Do the same with MTO P-38 units....show something wherein 150 octane fuel was available to a unit that P-38l's can be shown to have been in their inventory.


The ability to show what you ask for ("show that the Ninth had access to one hundred fifty octane fuel during times P-38 Ls are known to be in the inventory") would be very nice. I'm not sure we can do that, though. But, I fail to see why you should dismiss the many testimonials by test pilot, combat pilots, and mechanics that the fuel and extra horsepower was used. There are several aspects of combat in this game that there is no documentation for, that are modelled according to repeated testimonials. Why should this be any different?

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I read somewhere that the USAAF Mustangs did not use 150 oct in ETO as they thought it would damage the engines and reduce servicability. If thats correct then I imagine the same would apply to the P38 L and 150 octane?

You "read somewhere"? You "imagine"? You imagine wrong! Our data says otherwise. I am going to post the following post until you Luftliars stop ignoring it.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
I think that if the P38J and P38L just had the correct WEP brake horsepower ratings, correct max climb rates and speed; 90% of the problem would be solved. The P38J was retro fitted with hydraulic boosted airlerons.


This information is from "Vee's for Victory" by Daniel Whitney. Whitney's background as a Mechanical and Nuclear engineer is quite impressive. Whitney is not affiliated with either Lockheed or Allison but his study is the result of years of independent research on Allison aircraft engines during WW2. Whitney's book is considered the definitive book on this subject.

I am waiting for an email back from Daniel Whitney on this matter. According to Whitney, Allison engine techs were in the ETO always monitoring the P38 engine performance. It was Allison engine techs that told Whitney that operating the F-30 engines at 1725bhp was a routine matter. In other words everybody was flying the P38L this way.

P38L :
"The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17's but incorperated many internal improvements, most notably the 12-counterweight crankshaft. As a consquence it could be operated up to 3200rpm. Using 150 fuel it could deliver 1,725bhp under WER conditions."
Directly from Allison Aircraft engines.
Vee's for Victory pg145


Here is an email response from Warren Bodie on this subject :

Using 3200rpm and 1,725bhp during combat :

"And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. "

The USAAF played it safe and told the pilots not to go over the 3,000rpm setting. If you had another 200rpm & 250bhp avaialble during air combat manuevering would you use it ? Bet your butt you would.


-----Original Message-----
From: Keith
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 12:18 PM
To: widewing@dnet.net
Subject: P38L WEP rating of 1,725hp



Hello Keith,

What in the world is going on outside of my small enclave of residents here on the shore of beautiful Lake Chatuge?
I am being deluged this week by all sorts of people wanting to know if I can provide the best possible accurate info on several related and unrelated av subjects. What will happen when the new Special Edition of FLIGHT JOURNAL gets into circulation in the next couple of weeks. I have a feature story in there on the subject of Supermarine Spitfires.
They only used half of what I submitted, but they are constrained by top management to about 7 or 8 pages for any one story. Umpteen thousands of Spitfires in more models and modified models than anyone can believe were in the fight during WWII.

First of all, let me advise you that with my 43 years of experience in various engineering jobs in the manufacturing industry, and having been on very friendly basis with people from Kelly Johnson and Gen. Ben Kelsey to Jack Northrop and a host of others (I have been a senior service engineer specialist, technical publications supervisor, structural repair designer, etc.,), there are no two engines or no to airplanes that perform to exactly the same level anywhere in the world. Too many manufacturing, rigging, adjusting, etc. factors involved, not to mention what each flight hour does to different airframes and engines of the same model, for any two engine-airplane combinations to perform in the same, exact way. I suspect that even two identical appearing cement blocks might not give exactly the same results. Airplanes are subjected to too many different actions and material combinations to work anywhere near exactt standards.

The really most definitive book on the subject that you have forwarded to me is the great study and product from my friend, Daniel D. Whitney. Published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd. with ISBN: 0-7643-0561-1; try your local bookstores first, then, if unsuccessful, e-mail to schifferbk@aol.com for info.

But, meantime get this single fact: Allison Engineering qualified the F-30 engine WER at 1,725 bhp at 3200 rpm. However, the USAAF NEVER authorized that rating, with ATSC preferring to stick with a 3000 rpm limitation. These engines were in Lockheed P-38L, F-5G and P-38M airplanes. Aircraft installation, maintenance, rigging, supercharger performance, propeller performance, etc. all affected individulal engine and airplane performance. And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. If you did it right and if you were lucky enough to have a top-quality PRODUCTION engine set, you won the game. Ben Kelsey would be among the first to agree with me on that assessment. (Just think of how many things can affect friction in an operating engine, with detonation being the most fierce ingredient and fuel being high on the list as well.

No matter who throws other figures at you, with little to fall back on (maybe even Martin Caidin's pitiful Lightning book as a reference), you will not find a better reference source than Dan's book. He pursued facts for years, maybe decades. I never asked. Read the back, inside dust jacket of the book, before you read it. You will learn about Dan's background. When I did my P-38 book, I had already retired from 40 years in the aerospace industry, several years (decades), in fact, of writing for magazines as a side effort. Dan focused on one primary subject out of several millions that could have attracted his attention. His coverage is indisputable. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Cordially, Warren Bodie

__


P38J Max climb rate (WEP) 4000fpm at sea level and 2900fpm at 23,400ft.

Here are official performance numbers of an USAAF fighter evaluation of the P38J-10, P47D-10, P39Q-5 and P51B. The P38J-10 serial number AC42-67869 was flown by 3 pilots during a 30hour accelerated flight test on December 2, 1943.

Maximum horsepower at 60.8 inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm was listed at 1,612 brake horse power (WEP) per F-17 Allison engines. (P38 J10-LO) pg.213 "The Lockheed P38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie Lockheed engineer/historian.

USAAF flight test results P38J-10 :
Maximum Sea Level speed -----------------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed --------------------421.5mph (WEP) (25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) ----------------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ------------------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt --------------------------------6.19 mins. (23,400ft)
Service ceiling -------------------------------------40,000ft

The P38L had from the very beginning the high-output F30 Allison engine installed and it was able to do 3200rpm but the USAAF official recommendation to the pilots was only to use 3000rpm. According to Allison techs & pilot reports when 150 octane aviation fuel arrived in March 1944 in the ETO, P38L pilots were pulling maximum WEP ratings of 1,725bhp at 3200rpm.

mynameisroland
07-13-2005, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
P-38L with 100/150 octane in March 1944 ? Hmmm

Was there P-38L in March 1944 in the first place, not to mention 100/150 octane available to frontline units ?

Anyway, don't jump to Go 229 or Bf 109Z. These are not seen on WarClouds. But P-38L Late, which seems to be in the same category, is in the planeset. Double standards, gentlemen ?

P-38L Late in this game is fine. But it seems not belong to historical scenarios. Instead, it is another what-if plane, just as Go 229 and Bf 109Z are.

this is a general discussion forum, if you wish to debate whether or not the P-38 belongs in the game this is the place for it, if you wish to discuss whether or not the P-38L late belongs in war clouds either start a new thread on whether or not it belongs in war clouds or continue on with your discussion over at the war clouds forum on this same subject.

and in all fairness all bf 109s and fw 190s should be excluded from war clouds because they can over boost their engines by using manual prop pitch. this isnt historically accurate so remove them from war clouds. barring the manual prop pitch exploit, what are 190A6s, bf 109G2s, Fw 190D9 45, and ta 152H-1 doing in a 1944 server? the 44 dora doesnt have mw 50, but in this game it does. G6as and K4s make up the bulk of 109s flown in a 44 server, etc etc etc. you see hristo for every allied arguement you have there are 10 which can be pointed tward the luftwaffe planeset. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bolio , an expert like yourself should be aware that the Dora 9 44 does not carry MW50 pleaseexplore the aircraft you are criticising first.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 04:18 PM
Okay, scratch that point and he still has a fine argument. The Luftwaffe planeset is hardly historical, and this isn't the thread for it anyway. Nice attempt at a sidetrack, though!

mynameisroland
07-13-2005, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I read somewhere that the USAAF Mustangs did not use 150 oct in ETO as they thought it would damage the engines and reduce servicability. If thats correct then I imagine the same would apply to the P38 L and 150 octane?

You "read somewhere"? You "imagine"? You imagine wrong! Our data says otherwise. I am going to post the following post until you Luftliars stop ignoring it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your full of hot air - please shut up and post this 'DATA'

Which USAAF squadrons used Mustang III with same boost as RAF? Tell me as you seem to have an answer to everything - oh except for straight questions

Slickun
07-13-2005, 04:23 PM
AT posted:

The ability to show what you ask for ("show that the Ninth had access to one hundred fifty octane fuel during times P-38 Ls are known to be in the inventory") would be very nice.

OT, if we can't come up with documentation that P-38L's were present in units that had access to 150 octane fuel, or we DO prove that negative (anybody been to that site I listed and found a P-38L in the 8th AF inventory?) and there doesn't apear to be a possibility that it happened, than we have a really cool historical mystery.

We then ask the question....what really went on?

Don't fear the truth, my friend.

I have a couple of friends on this board that have posted that the 9th AF did not have access to 150 octane fuel. All it would take to put all this aside would be to show that it did.

Or find a reference to an 8th AF unit with P-38L's. it would almost be a certainty that it was in the unit after 150 octane was available.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:Which USAAF squadrons used Mustang III with same boost as RAF?

I said nothing about the Mustang. I don't care about the Mustang. I said your assumption that "the same would apply to the P-38 L and one fifty octane" was wrong.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Your full of hot air - please shut up and post this 'DATA'

Gladly! See my following post.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
I think that if the P38J and P38L just had the correct WEP brake horsepower ratings, correct max climb rates and speed; 90% of the problem would be solved. The P38J was retro fitted with hydraulic boosted airlerons.


This information is from "Vee's for Victory" by Daniel Whitney. Whitney's background as a Mechanical and Nuclear engineer is quite impressive. Whitney is not affiliated with either Lockheed or Allison but his study is the result of years of independent research on Allison aircraft engines during WW2. Whitney's book is considered the definitive book on this subject.

I am waiting for an email back from Daniel Whitney on this matter. According to Whitney, Allison engine techs were in the ETO always monitoring the P38 engine performance. It was Allison engine techs that told Whitney that operating the F-30 engines at 1725bhp was a routine matter. In other words everybody was flying the P38L this way.

P38L :
"The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17's but incorperated many internal improvements, most notably the 12-counterweight crankshaft. As a consquence it could be operated up to 3200rpm. Using 150 fuel it could deliver 1,725bhp under WER conditions."
Directly from Allison Aircraft engines.
Vee's for Victory pg145


Here is an email response from Warren Bodie on this subject :

Using 3200rpm and 1,725bhp during combat :

"And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. "

The USAAF played it safe and told the pilots not to go over the 3,000rpm setting. If you had another 200rpm & 250bhp avaialble during air combat manuevering would you use it ? Bet your butt you would.


-----Original Message-----
From: Keith
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 12:18 PM
To: widewing@dnet.net
Subject: P38L WEP rating of 1,725hp



Hello Keith,

What in the world is going on outside of my small enclave of residents here on the shore of beautiful Lake Chatuge?
I am being deluged this week by all sorts of people wanting to know if I can provide the best possible accurate info on several related and unrelated av subjects. What will happen when the new Special Edition of FLIGHT JOURNAL gets into circulation in the next couple of weeks. I have a feature story in there on the subject of Supermarine Spitfires.
They only used half of what I submitted, but they are constrained by top management to about 7 or 8 pages for any one story. Umpteen thousands of Spitfires in more models and modified models than anyone can believe were in the fight during WWII.

First of all, let me advise you that with my 43 years of experience in various engineering jobs in the manufacturing industry, and having been on very friendly basis with people from Kelly Johnson and Gen. Ben Kelsey to Jack Northrop and a host of others (I have been a senior service engineer specialist, technical publications supervisor, structural repair designer, etc.,), there are no two engines or no to airplanes that perform to exactly the same level anywhere in the world. Too many manufacturing, rigging, adjusting, etc. factors involved, not to mention what each flight hour does to different airframes and engines of the same model, for any two engine-airplane combinations to perform in the same, exact way. I suspect that even two identical appearing cement blocks might not give exactly the same results. Airplanes are subjected to too many different actions and material combinations to work anywhere near exactt standards.

The really most definitive book on the subject that you have forwarded to me is the great study and product from my friend, Daniel D. Whitney. Published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd. with ISBN: 0-7643-0561-1; try your local bookstores first, then, if unsuccessful, e-mail to schifferbk@aol.com for info.

But, meantime get this single fact: Allison Engineering qualified the F-30 engine WER at 1,725 bhp at 3200 rpm. However, the USAAF NEVER authorized that rating, with ATSC preferring to stick with a 3000 rpm limitation. These engines were in Lockheed P-38L, F-5G and P-38M airplanes. Aircraft installation, maintenance, rigging, supercharger performance, propeller performance, etc. all affected individulal engine and airplane performance. And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. If you did it right and if you were lucky enough to have a top-quality PRODUCTION engine set, you won the game. Ben Kelsey would be among the first to agree with me on that assessment. (Just think of how many things can affect friction in an operating engine, with detonation being the most fierce ingredient and fuel being high on the list as well.

No matter who throws other figures at you, with little to fall back on (maybe even Martin Caidin's pitiful Lightning book as a reference), you will not find a better reference source than Dan's book. He pursued facts for years, maybe decades. I never asked. Read the back, inside dust jacket of the book, before you read it. You will learn about Dan's background. When I did my P-38 book, I had already retired from 40 years in the aerospace industry, several years (decades), in fact, of writing for magazines as a side effort. Dan focused on one primary subject out of several millions that could have attracted his attention. His coverage is indisputable. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Cordially, Warren Bodie

__


P38J Max climb rate (WEP) 4000fpm at sea level and 2900fpm at 23,400ft.

Here are official performance numbers of an USAAF fighter evaluation of the P38J-10, P47D-10, P39Q-5 and P51B. The P38J-10 serial number AC42-67869 was flown by 3 pilots during a 30hour accelerated flight test on December 2, 1943.

Maximum horsepower at 60.8 inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm was listed at 1,612 brake horse power (WEP) per F-17 Allison engines. (P38 J10-LO) pg.213 "The Lockheed P38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie Lockheed engineer/historian.

USAAF flight test results P38J-10 :
Maximum Sea Level speed -----------------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed --------------------421.5mph (WEP) (25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) ----------------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ------------------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt --------------------------------6.19 mins. (23,400ft)
Service ceiling -------------------------------------40,000ft

The P38L had from the very beginning the high-output F30 Allison engine installed and it was able to do 3200rpm but the USAAF official recommendation to the pilots was only to use 3000rpm. According to Allison techs & pilot reports when 150 octane aviation fuel arrived in March 1944 in the ETO, P38L pilots were pulling maximum WEP ratings of 1,725 bhp at 3200rpm.

Slickun
07-13-2005, 04:38 PM
There were many versions of the Mustang in the ETO.

1. As far as I know, the Mustangs (B, C, III) with the -3 only operated at 18 lbs boost. The speed and acceleration numbers you see for them in virtually every book, the ones used to compare to other A/C, are correct.

2. The Mustangs with the -7 engine (B, C, III) operating at 25 lbs boost (82" hg). That 2050+ HP at 4000 feet makes it a completely different animal.

3. Mustangs (B, C) with the -7 engine operating at 72" hg, that the US operated on 150 octane. More than the 68", but less than the 82" the Brits screamed around at. By wars end there were only a few B models with the -3 engine still running at 68" hg.

4. Mustang IV operating at 25 lbs boost (82" hg), run by the Brits. Not that many, but mixed in units with Mustang III's. Like their lighter III brothers, a totally different animal from the US versions.

5. P-51D's the US operated at 72 " hg.

6. US P-51D's that were still operating at 68" hg (18 lbs boost).

7. Allison Mustangs with their original Allison engines.

All of the above were to be found, in numbers, at VE day. VERY few from the ETO were still running 68" hg.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 04:45 PM
This thread has nothing to do with Mustangs. One of the Luftliars brought them up to hint that since the United States didn't use their Mustangs' full horsepower, they must not have used their Lightnings' full horsepower (ridiculous).


Originally posted by Slickun:
if we can't come up with documentation that P-38L's were present in units that had access to 150 octane fuel, or we DO prove that negative (anybody been to that site I listed and found a P-38L in the 8th AF inventory?) and there doesn't apear to be a possibility that it happened, than we have a really cool historical mystery.

Don't fear the truth, my friend.

As I already said, official documentation is not necessary in light of the circumstances which dictated that official documentation would not exist (you know, the part about the United States Army Air Force not approving of the pilots' regular usage of the extra horsepower), and because of the massive amount of testimonials that flatly state that it was used. There isn't room for "pilots' opinions" or "it was a long time ago, maybe they don't remember it well."

As I also stated, other things in the game have been modelled in the absense of offical documentation (since sometimes there is none). Why should you set this higher standard for the P-38 L?

I don't fear the truth. I long for it to be realized. An accurate P-38 J would be a much deadlier airplane than the game's P-38 L "Late."

MOH_MADMAN
07-13-2005, 04:49 PM
whiner, i can offer a rag to stuff in that bleeding hole of yours

MAD

MOH_MADMAN
07-13-2005, 04:51 PM
but seriously, the only reason it has new fame is, drum role plz.


no friggin torque effects to keep your writs twisted while trying to fight.

that was too easy..

Slickun
07-13-2005, 04:53 PM
Well, I looked at the site

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk

and there were NO P-38L's listed as ever having served with the 20, 55, 364 or 479th FG.

Interesting. Obviously, someone is mistaken.

Slickun
07-13-2005, 04:57 PM
There were 65+ F5E's that operated with the 7th Photo Recon Group, up to the end of the waqr it appears.

Interesting.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 05:02 PM
Madman, are you addressing me? If this is the case, then I can only throw up my hands and confess that I am abashed and intimidated by your astounding intellect. You have persuaded me with withdraw both my arguments and my presence from this thread.

P.S. Sir, if your wrists are twisted while you are trying to fight, then there is something wrong with your stick or yoke.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
there were NO P-38L's listed as ever having served with the 20, 55, 364 or 479th FG

Forgive my ignorance of squadron and group designations, but what is special about these? Do these groups comprise the Ninth, or what?

Slickun
07-13-2005, 05:09 PM
Not about Mustangs, hmmm?

I guess I'll post about them if I want to.

Nyaaah.

Again. This ain't got nothing to do with me not wanting the L(ate) IN THE GAME.

It has everything to do with me wanting to know the real deal.

Plenty of testimonials, but AT, the only ones i've seen are very vague. If one of those heroic SOB's had said, "we started getting the L models in May of 1944. We went ahead and ran them at 70" MAP, higher boost levels than the AAF wanted us to, but none of us cared." It would have a bit more bite for us.

One lil 'ol document that

a. P-38L's operated with 8th AF units (not the F5E).

b. 150 octane fuel was available to 9th AF units with P-38L's

would put the stake through this heart, huh?

Looks like there were photo recon P-38L's operating. Wonder if the 8th AF let them have 150 octane fuel?

See, instead of taking this personally, I see it as an really cool historical question, and a real reason that I come to forums like this one. I wanna know, how many P-38L's operated with 150 octane fuel over the skies of Europe?

Slickun
07-13-2005, 05:11 PM
Sorry I wasn't clearer. They were the Groups that operated the P-38 in the 8th AF. The 7th Recon group was also in the 8th.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
I think that if the P38J and P38L just had the correct WEP brake horsepower ratings, correct max climb rates and speed; 90% of the problem would be solved. The P38J was retro fitted with hydraulic boosted airlerons.


This information is from "Vee's for Victory" by Daniel Whitney. Whitney's background as a Mechanical and Nuclear engineer is quite impressive. Whitney is not affiliated with either Lockheed or Allison but his study is the result of years of independent research on Allison aircraft engines during WW2. Whitney's book is considered the definitive book on this subject.

I am waiting for an email back from Daniel Whitney on this matter. According to Whitney, Allison engine techs were in the ETO always monitoring the P38 engine performance. It was Allison engine techs that told Whitney that operating the F-30 engines at 1725bhp was a routine matter. In other words everybody was flying the P38L this way.

P38L :
"The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17's but incorperated many internal improvements, most notably the 12-counterweight crankshaft. As a consquence it could be operated up to 3200rpm. Using 150 fuel it could deliver 1,725bhp under WER conditions."
Directly from Allison Aircraft engines.
Vee's for Victory pg145


Here is an email response from Warren Bodie on this subject :

Using 3200rpm and 1,725bhp during combat :

"And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. "

The USAAF played it safe and told the pilots not to go over the 3,000rpm setting. If you had another 200rpm & 250bhp avaialble during air combat manuevering would you use it ? Bet your butt you would.


-----Original Message-----
From: Keith
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 12:18 PM
To: widewing@dnet.net
Subject: P38L WEP rating of 1,725hp



Hello Keith,

What in the world is going on outside of my small enclave of residents here on the shore of beautiful Lake Chatuge?
I am being deluged this week by all sorts of people wanting to know if I can provide the best possible accurate info on several related and unrelated av subjects. What will happen when the new Special Edition of FLIGHT JOURNAL gets into circulation in the next couple of weeks. I have a feature story in there on the subject of Supermarine Spitfires.
They only used half of what I submitted, but they are constrained by top management to about 7 or 8 pages for any one story. Umpteen thousands of Spitfires in more models and modified models than anyone can believe were in the fight during WWII.

First of all, let me advise you that with my 43 years of experience in various engineering jobs in the manufacturing industry, and having been on very friendly basis with people from Kelly Johnson and Gen. Ben Kelsey to Jack Northrop and a host of others (I have been a senior service engineer specialist, technical publications supervisor, structural repair designer, etc.,), there are no two engines or no to airplanes that perform to exactly the same level anywhere in the world. Too many manufacturing, rigging, adjusting, etc. factors involved, not to mention what each flight hour does to different airframes and engines of the same model, for any two engine-airplane combinations to perform in the same, exact way. I suspect that even two identical appearing cement blocks might not give exactly the same results. Airplanes are subjected to too many different actions and material combinations to work anywhere near exactt standards.

The really most definitive book on the subject that you have forwarded to me is the great study and product from my friend, Daniel D. Whitney. Published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd. with ISBN: 0-7643-0561-1; try your local bookstores first, then, if unsuccessful, e-mail to schifferbk@aol.com for info.

But, meantime get this single fact: Allison Engineering qualified the F-30 engine WER at 1,725 bhp at 3200 rpm. However, the USAAF NEVER authorized that rating, with ATSC preferring to stick with a 3000 rpm limitation. These engines were in Lockheed P-38L, F-5G and P-38M airplanes. Aircraft installation, maintenance, rigging, supercharger performance, propeller performance, etc. all affected individulal engine and airplane performance. And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. If you did it right and if you were lucky enough to have a top-quality PRODUCTION engine set, you won the game. Ben Kelsey would be among the first to agree with me on that assessment. (Just think of how many things can affect friction in an operating engine, with detonation being the most fierce ingredient and fuel being high on the list as well.

No matter who throws other figures at you, with little to fall back on (maybe even Martin Caidin's pitiful Lightning book as a reference), you will not find a better reference source than Dan's book. He pursued facts for years, maybe decades. I never asked. Read the back, inside dust jacket of the book, before you read it. You will learn about Dan's background. When I did my P-38 book, I had already retired from 40 years in the aerospace industry, several years (decades), in fact, of writing for magazines as a side effort. Dan focused on one primary subject out of several millions that could have attracted his attention. His coverage is indisputable. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Cordially, Warren Bodie

__


P38J Max climb rate (WEP) 4000fpm at sea level and 2900fpm at 23,400ft.

Here are official performance numbers of an USAAF fighter evaluation of the P38J-10, P47D-10, P39Q-5 and P51B. The P38J-10 serial number AC42-67869 was flown by 3 pilots during a 30hour accelerated flight test on December 2, 1943.

Maximum horsepower at 60.8 inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm was listed at 1,612 brake horse power (WEP) per F-17 Allison engines. (P38 J10-LO) pg.213 "The Lockheed P38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie Lockheed engineer/historian.

USAAF flight test results P38J-10 :
Maximum Sea Level speed -----------------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed --------------------421.5mph (WEP) (25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) ----------------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ------------------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt --------------------------------6.19 mins. (23,400ft)
Service ceiling -------------------------------------40,000ft

The P38L had from the very beginning the high-output F30 Allison engine installed and it was able to do 3200rpm but the USAAF official recommendation to the pilots was only to use 3000rpm. According to Allison techs & pilot reports when 150 octane aviation fuel arrived in March 1944 in the ETO, P38L pilots were pulling maximum WEP ratings of 1,725bhp at 3200rpm.

What part about this do you not understand? Or did you, like the Luftliars, not read the post because it was too informative?

p1ngu666
07-13-2005, 05:15 PM
150 is a moot point, it could run on 130.

Slickun
07-13-2005, 05:16 PM
The P38L had from the very beginning the high-output F30 Allison engine installed and it was able to do 3200rpm but the USAAF official recommendation to the pilots was only to use 3000rpm. According to Allison techs & pilot reports when 150 octane aviation fuel arrived in March 1944 in the ETO, P38L pilots were pulling maximum WEP ratings of 1,725bhp at 3200rpm.

This part, because it appears, from at least one source, there were no P-38L's operating with the 8th AF, and it appears that there is a feeling that there was no 150 octane fuel available for the 9th.

If Bodie had given a date, unit etc, it would mean more than that generic claim.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 05:17 PM
That, too, Pingu! Thank you.

Kahuna, can you elaborate with lengthy quotes from your book by Daniel Whitney? I don't wish to buy another book so soon after buying Warren Bodie's.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
from at least one source, there were no P-38L's operating with the 8th AF

That is quite wrong. Bolillo's post showed many pages and pictures of P-38 Ls in the Eighth. When he gets here, he can argue the point better than me (if he hasn't already given you up as a lost defiler).

HeinzBar
07-13-2005, 05:21 PM
S!,
Interesting debate gentlemen. I just wanted to make a correction about WarClouds and the planeset associated w/ Warclouds_WF. As far as I know, the planeset has never been limited to 1944 on the majority of the maps. So, in those maps w/o a specified year, those maps will contain the planes that most pilots wish to fly. This is one of the reasons Warclouds is so popular.

The way Warclouds works is that the planesets are limited by years. So, a 1943 map will contain those western front planes available up to 1943 and earlier. Those maps stated to be 1944 will contain planes up to 1944, and finally, the open planeset which contains any plane from any year from the western front. The planeset is based on popularity and demand of the regulars according to the year limitation.

I hope this clears up any confusion on WC's planeset.

Sincerely,
HB

SkyChimp
07-13-2005, 05:50 PM
I've got the latest manuals on the P-38s and F-5s. And nowhere in them is there a Specific Engine Chart that shows a manifold pressure in excess of 60" hg. You'd think that if a greater rating were permitted, some evidence of it would be present somewhere.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 05:56 PM
You can do better than that, Luftliar! It is very well known to even the lesser informed in this matter that the extra horsepower, while widely used in combat, was never officially approved by the United States Army Air Force officials. Therefore, it did not appear in the manuals. And the "some evidence" which "would be present somewhere" is very present, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread.

Honestly, this was already gone over at least three times in this thread. Can't you come up with a better one than that? Maybe you should take lessons from Kurfursk, ape. It's a good thing you're trying, though, because my joystick is broken and I have nothing else to do on my day off!

Hoarmurath
07-13-2005, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
You can do better than that, Luftliar! It is very well known to even the lesser informed in this matter that the extra horsepower, while widely used in combat, was never officially approved by the United States Army Air Force officials. Therefore, it did not appear in the manuals. And the "some evidence" which you "would be present somewhere" is very present.

Honestly, this was already gone over at least three times in this thread. Can't you come up with a better one than that? Maybe you should take lessons from Kurfursk, ape. It's a good thing you're trying, though, because my joystick is broken and I have nothing else to do on my day off!

Insults, quite typical of someone who is out of arguments... This kid is not going to admit anything, even if you put the evidence right under its nose.

SkyChimp
07-13-2005, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
That is quite wrong. Bolillo's post showed many pages and pictures of P-38 Ls in the Eighth. When he gets here, he can argue the point better than me (if he hasn't already given you up as a lost defiler).


Probably nobody knows more about the 8th AF than Roger Freeman. In his book The Mighty Eighth War Manual he writes:

In late July 1944 the first P-38Ls arrived in the UK. The only significant difference between this model and late P-38Js was improved V-1710-111/113 engines, incorporating refinements to overcome the weaknesses highlighted in the previous winter. For all practical purposes, its performance was the same as the J. When the model became available for combat units in August, only the 479th Group still retained fighter P-38s in the 8th AF and replacements it received were mostly low-hours P-38Js turned in by units recently converted to P-51s. The few P-38Ls received by the 8th AF included one for evaluation by Operational Engineering at Bovingdon, and those fitted out for photographic or special radar work.

It appears no fighter P-38Ls served with the 8th.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 06:09 PM
You may be right in that no P-38 Ls were used in the Eighth. You may be wrong. That is not the topic of the thread, and it is not what I just called you out for.

THE THIRTY EIGHT L COULD AND DID USE ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE HORSEPOWER IN COMBAT!

The liar who started this thread is contradicting this, not only without a shred of evidence, not only using a logical fallacy to try to use a non-existent lack of evidence as evidence, but in the face of no small amount of evidence.

*****murath, you haven't put any evidence under my nose. In fact, the only evidence posted has been, as usual, by those in favor of the P-38 L's extra horsepower.

SkyChimp
07-13-2005, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
You can do better than that, Luftliar! It is very well known to even the lesser informed in this matter that the extra horsepower, while widely used in combat, was never officially approved by the United States Army Air Force officials. Therefore, it did not appear in the manuals. And the "some evidence" which "would be present somewhere" is very present, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread.

Honestly, this was already gone over at least three times in this thread. Can't you come up with a better one than that? Maybe you should take lessons from Kurfursk, ape. It's a good thing you're trying, though, because my joystick is broken and I have nothing else to do on my day off!

Apparently this is directed at me. If you knew me, you would know how foolish you look calling ME, of all people, a Luftliar. That's almost too good to be true.

At any rate, you are wrong. There has been absolutely NO evidence presented in the ump-teen pages of this thread that supports the P-38 used the boost you claim. None, nada, zero, zilch.

However, if you can present some credible, verifiable evidence, by all means, do so. I'd love to see it. Because no one likes proving Kurfurst wrong more than me. But I will give Kurfurst credit when he deserves it. He's right about the "late" P-38L. There was no such thing, and higher boosts were not approved, and probably never used. And even if they were used "unofficially," they were used by phgoto-recce P-38Ls, and not fighter P-38Ls. Because the 8th AF, the only US AF to use 100/150 grade fuel, didn't have any fighter P-38Ls.

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 06:19 PM
Oh, really? And since the Eighth never got the L, that means that the thousands of Ls in the Pacific must never have used it, too? Good logic! And you, like the others, are ignoring Bolillo's post which demonstrated that it was able to be boosted even using the lower grade fuel.

And I suppose you share Slickun's opinion that the only acceptable evidence is an official document? For much other reliable evidence has been posted repeatedly.

I may be wrong about the Luft part, but you're still a liar. No evidence, indeed...

Gibbage1
07-13-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I've got the latest manuals on the P-38s and F-5s. And nowhere in them is there a Specific Engine Chart that shows a manifold pressure in excess of 60" hg. You'd think that if a greater rating were permitted, some evidence of it would be present somewhere.

Better fuel allows for better HG. The 60" at 3000RPM is using 100/130 fuel. The Allison F-30 engine is differant from the J's engine that it was balanced better to run at higher HG and RPM. The reason that 1725HP is not listed in the manual is because 100/150 fuel is not listed.

SC. Do you have the Mustange manual? Does it list 100/150 fuel engine rating? We have the Mustang III that uses it.

SkyChimp
07-13-2005, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Oh, really? And since the Eighth never got the L, that means that the thousands of Ls in the Pacific must never have used it, too? Good logic! And you, like the others, are ignoring Bolillo's post which demonstrated that it was able to be boosted even using the lower grade fuel.

And I suppose you share Slickun's opinion that the only acceptable evidence is an official document? For much other reliable evidence has been posted repeatedly.

I may be wrong about the Luft part, but you're still a liar. No evidence, indeed...

If the P-38L could be safely boosted on 100/130 to manifold pressures in excess of those recommended in Specific Engine Charts, so that it could be used in combat, why didn't they do it?

You can boost the hell out of an engine on 97 or 100 grade fuel if you dump enough ADI fluid into it. But it's not practical.

If the P-38L was to fly in combat at higher boosts, then it would have done it as a result of using higher octane fuel which could tolerate higher boosts without detonation. And no US AF used 100/150 grade fuel except the 8th, which got no fighter P-38Ls.

100/150 wasn't used in Italy, it wasn't used on the continent, except by the British 2nd TAF, and it wasn't used in the Pacific.

There were limitied quantities of 115/145 grade fuel available in the Pacific for P-51s on escort duty, and some naval squadrons in response to kamikaze threat. But there simply was not enought 115/145 grade fuel available for general use.

Now, about your personal attacks: You don't bother me. Given what you've written, the general knowledge you've shown, and your retorts, I've concluded you are a mental lightweight. I've debated issues with people far more knowledgable than you, Slickun and Kurfust being among them. So lay off. You are accomplishing nothing, except to show you are not worthy of a response. Nobody in this thread has been more wrong, more often, or more loudly than you.

LStarosta
07-13-2005, 06:46 PM
Oooo man... You ladies gonna throw the gloves off and give us a show?

SkyChimp
07-13-2005, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I've got the latest manuals on the P-38s and F-5s. And nowhere in them is there a Specific Engine Chart that shows a manifold pressure in excess of 60" hg. You'd think that if a greater rating were permitted, some evidence of it would be present somewhere.

Better fuel allows for better HG. The 60" at 3000RPM is using 100/130 fuel. The Allison F-30 engine is differant from the J's engine that it was balanced better to run at higher HG and RPM. The reason that 1725HP is not listed in the manual is because 100/150 fuel is not listed.

SC. Do you have the Mustange manual? Does it list 100/150 fuel engine rating? We have the Mustang III that uses it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep in mind that the US produced NO 100/150 grade fuel. It produced 100/130 grade fuel, and very limited quantities of 115/145 grade fuel. Great Britain was the sole producer of 100/150 grade fuel. It supplied it to the 8th which was based in England. And even then, AFAIK, there was shortages of it in the 8th.

I have several manuals for the P-51D. And none have a SEC listing boosts with 100/150 grade fuel. That's not unusual. P-51s served all over the world. But only the ones in England, in the 8th, and then only the ones that had access to 100/150, used the increased boost. My understanding was the 100/150 was never possessed in really sufficient quantities. IIRC, even 100/130 was in short supply until Germany surrendered.

I know what you are getting at: if the P-51D used higher boosts with 150 grade and there are no SEC showing ratings on 150, then why couldn't the P-38L have used increased boost on 150 and have no SECs showing increased ratings on 150? The answer, of course, is: Only P-51D in the 8th used the higher boost. There weren't any fighter P-38L in the 8th.

Gibbage1
07-13-2005, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif



AT. Please cool down. SC is one of the most respected pilots in this forum and has almost always been on the Allied side of debates unless he seens something is wrong. If he says no other units other then the 8th AF got 100/150 fuel, and they did not have P-38 L's, then I am more willing to trust him then anyone else on this forum.

I know that the F-30 was rated at 1725HP, but it looks like it did not get the fuel to properly use the full power of its engines. You as a P-38 fan should know that this is not the first time a P-38 would not be able to use its full engines. The early models F and G's could not use WEP because the Intercoolers were not capable enough to handle the heat.

So what we have here is an aircraft with 1725HP engines that did not get to use them. I guess what we can consider is the L Late is a "What if" aircraft, just like many of the other aircraft in the game. Im still happy with the L Late being in the game since that it did exist, if it only got the right fuel as apposed to something like the 109Z that never ever flew. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif