PDA

View Full Version : P38J: Will the climb rate be improved?



Pages : [1] 2

HayateAce
12-21-2005, 03:28 PM
After seeing the testing done here, do we know when the climb rate will be corrected for the J model P38?

BSS_CUDA
12-21-2005, 04:17 PM
uhm the term "when HeII freezes over" comes to mind

Grey_Mouser67
12-21-2005, 04:26 PM
After He11 freezes over we'll have to start up a new torch to get the regular P-38L brought up to specification in terms of speed and overall elevator authority addressed and then test stall speed....first he11 must freeze.

Badsight.
12-21-2005, 05:00 PM
its obviously underperforming

cannot match RL climb-to-time even using just 25% fuel + airstart

Scen
12-21-2005, 05:27 PM
and JATO

bolillo_loco
12-21-2005, 05:43 PM
KC and the Sunshine Band said it best:"Na-Na-Na-Na-Na-Now, give it up, give it up, baby give it up."

Keep trying you just may convince Oleg and company to make the needed changes.

Tachyon1000
12-21-2005, 05:47 PM
It depends if the climb rate is actually flawed or merely the pilot performing the climb. I am currently compiling some data for military power climb rates on the P-38J. If someone can hook me up with pilot's manual data for 54" MAP, I can present something soon, otherwise I'll have to interpolate from other sources.

bolillo_loco
12-21-2005, 06:07 PM
I haven't done any testing with the 4.02m version of this game. All my testing was done more than six months ago while we were using the 4.01m version. I presented a lot of data using both 54" (military power) and 60" (WEP). I also included four different sources, although I could have included more. Several other people challenged my findings and we all tested and retested until we came up with a common solution. I believe that Tagert is either using data that we gathered back then or he has retested using 4.02m. I found all the 38s to fall well under common data that is in several books. Its rate of turn is also very low. The turn comparison data wasn't anecdotal evidence either. I pulled the data from "America's Hundred Thousand," in the section on the P-63. I see that people frequently use the 190 vs. P-38F to show that it only turned marginally better than the Fw-190A at low speeds, but what is frequently over looked is the fact that the date of the test precedes P-38F-15-LO production. Also if one is to give the Fw-190 vs. P-38F credibility I think that they should also consider these facts:

Total P-38F production was 393 aircraft; the F-15 series only represents 30% of the total F production run. Only the F-15 had the maneuvering flaps. My source for F production is "The Lockheed P-38" by Warren Bodie.

Tachyon1000 this topic has been extensively researched by several different people, but feel free to collect any data you wish, I'm sure that Tagert would accept any additional data.

P-38F-1-LO 143
P-38F-5-LO 100
P-38F-13-LO 29
P-38F-15-LO 121

With out the maneuvering flap the P-38 had a similar rate of turn at low to medium speeds as the P-47, but with the maneuvering flap the P-38 could get onto the tail of a P-47D in two turns or less and onto the tail of a P-51D in three to four turns.

Tachyon1000, you will find a copy of the needed data at the link I will post following this paragraph. I thought that you had alread seen this chart because you posted it in another thread. It gives the rates of climb at various weights and power settings. Keep in mind that I am unaware of any charts for WEP other than the one in "America's Hundred Thousand." What I mean is the chart I am directing you to only gives figures for Military power (54") and Maximum Continuous (44"). Also keep in mind that this data was collected from a standing start. The SOP for American aircraft's pilot's manuals was to collect all data from a standing start. The clock begins as soon as the brakes are released. All the data presented with in the chart corroberates this statement, ie fuel burned, time to altitude, etc. I have seen many people who do not believe this, but this was the standard method that was used by American Armed Forces.

Here is the link for the chart you requested. http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m...201032453#4201032453 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5221080943/r/4201032453#4201032453)

Tachyon1000
12-21-2005, 07:20 PM
Actually what I showed in the thread you referenced is that the P-38L performs close to spec for altitudes of 15,000 ft and below. To me that is hardly inconsequential as it demonstrate that the FM for the L performs well for some altitude ranges and not others. It is not merely a case of more power being needed as the model produces sufficient power at certain altitudes to demonstrate correct climb performance. There is a more systematic problem at work.

Also, you seem to imply that the J is supposed to perform exactly the same as the L which I find hard to believe. Tagert has also posted this chart which suggests the J performs worse in a climb than the L.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P38J/P38J_ROC_TAGERT.JPG

So at this point I am not sure what the J is supposed to do.

I have not tested turn performance nor will I nor is this thread about turn performance.

Gibbage1
12-21-2005, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:

With out the maneuvering flap the P-38 had a similar rate of turn at low to medium speeds as the P-47, but with the maneuvering flap the P-38 could get onto the tail of a P-47D in two turns or less and onto the tail of a P-51D in three to four turns.


Question. What is your source for the P-38 out-turning the P-51? I have not seen any comparitive data between those two. I have heard a lot of anicdotal pilot quotes from both the German and American side that it could turn with the 109, but no real testing.

bolillo_loco
12-21-2005, 09:50 PM
Tachyon1000, which L are you testing? The pilot's manual chart is for the 38J and 38L while using 1,425hp and 54" of manifold pressure. I haven't a clue what the 38J, 38L, and 38L-late do in 4.02m, but I found in 4.01m that the rates of climb were well below published data. Also, there should be absolutely no difference between the 38J and 38L while using the 1,600 hp rating. The pilot's manual treats both these aircraft as if they were the same, reason? simple, they were indeed nearly identical in terms of range, speed, climb, etc. The empty weight for a 38J is 12,780lbs while the empty weight for the 38L is 12,800. Yes, that's right, the J model was only 20lbs lighter than the L model. There is no significant difference in weight, thus the Army Air Corps treated both aircraft the same. How can this be? Most people seem to harp on the fact that dive recovery flaps and boosted ailerons adding some significant amount of weight. How heavy do they think two small hydralic cylinders and one pair of sheet metal dive recovery flaps are? Items were deleted on the L that the J had and things were simplified, thus any weight picked up by new equipment was cancelled out by items that were deleted. I have about 40 books written specifically on the P-38 and units that used them. In my original thread I used data from several different books all of which are higher than the frequently published 3,800 fpm rate of climb. I'm sure Tagert still has my reference data. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to invest several hours of reasearching my books only to have some troll come along and tell me it isn't so because his general reference book or something he has read in some forum is more accurate. Again this is for the in game 38J and 38L. The 38L-Late is a totally different subject due to increased horse power. None of the three P-38s that I tested came close to making the published rate of climb. The 38L-Late I believe was very close to making published data for the 38J and 38L, which by the way is around 4,000 fpm at sea level according to the highest data I have seen.

Gibbage, "America's Hundred Thousand" by Francis Dean, P-63 maneuvering on page 417:

"Army testing of an early P-63A at Eglin Field,' skipping unimportant text, 'Turning tests against other US fighters showed the P-63 to be relatively good. It was better than a P-38J if the latter did not use a maneuver flap setting, and about the same if the P-38 did. Against a P-51B the P-63 could get on the Mustang's tail in three to four turns and the P-63's performance got relatively better with increasing turning speed. Against a P-47D the P-63 could get into a stern shot position after two turns." Does this answer your question?

Gibbage1
12-21-2005, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Gibbage, "America's Hundred Thousand" by Francis Dean, P-63 maneuvering on page 417:

"Army testing of an early P-63A at Eglin Field,' skipping unimportant text, 'Turning tests against other US fighters showed the P-63 to be relatively good. It was better than a P-38J if the latter did not use a maneuver flap setting, and about the same if the P-38 did. Against a P-51B the P-63 could get on the Mustang's tail in three to four turns and the P-63's performance got relatively better with increasing turning speed. Against a P-47D the P-63 could get into a stern shot position after two turns." Does this answer your question?

Thanks! Thats a good find! I have not found any comparitive data on the P-38 at all. The P-38 in-game definitly does not represent the P-38 they flew with that P-63A in WWII, thats for sure! A P-51 can get on me in two turns easy.

HayateAce
12-22-2005, 02:27 AM
Doesn't seem like the J can do a high-speed shallow climb to escape a zero, etc. Thank you for posting this chart.

<S>

JG53Frankyboy
12-22-2005, 02:51 AM
i dont say the performance in PFm is correct !

but i could escape easily in P-38Js from A6M3s in a shallow climb , and couldnt follow P-38Js in a A6M3 (not to speak in a Ki61) in the same manouver in the VOW2 oline missions.
it was always a massacre for the japanese fighting the P38 there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - like it should http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Grey_Mouser67
12-22-2005, 08:18 AM
Well that is good to read about the turn rate...I always suspected the Lightning wasn't performing as it should but turn rates are so subjective and so affected by the tactical situation.

I always felt that the Lightning could out turn any European aircraft at super slow speeds and even some of the later Japanese aircraft but I saw the climb rate and elevator authority to be the bigger issue.

If these few things would be addressed I believe the Lightning would become a formidable opponent without being uber. A little better turn rate, better climb and some elevator authority for B&Z work would be just the ticket.

I hope Oleg pays attention...I believe based on the number of people I see flying in the US these days that some things need to be addressed soon because he is losing some of his following....these things are falsehoods either...just look at the documentation provided on the Lightning.

The J model should have the climb rate of the current L at least and the L aught to get the J's speed and both aught to turn a bit better and have good elevator authority like the jug up to mach .68 then it decreases rapidly along with buffeting and full compressibility and control lock along with downward pitching of nose commences at mach .72

anarchy52
12-22-2005, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:

I always felt that the Lightning could out turn any European aircraft at super slow speeds and even some of the later Japanese aircraft but I saw the climb rate and elevator authority to be the bigger issue.

@Gibbage: I dunno, I was under the impression that P-38 in the game could outturn a P-51 without too much trouble...

According to this http://www.il2.ru/document9.htm document P-38F could outturn FW-190A3 if the turning speed was below 225km/h. 225km/h is dangerously close to stall speed for a FW-190.
Here is the paragraph on overall manuverability:

The Fw 190 is superior to that of the P-38F, particularly in the rolling plane. Although at high speed the Fw 190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces its speed to about 140 mph (225 km/h), at which speed it can carry out a very tight turn, which the Fw 190 cannot follow. The acceleration of the two aircraft was compared and the Fw 190 was found to be better in all respects. When the Fw 190 'bounced' the P-38F and was seen when over 1,000 yards away, the pilot's best manoeuvre was to go into a diving turn and, if it found the Fw 190 was catching it up, to pull up into a spiral climb, flying at its lowest possible speed.

BSS_CUDA
12-22-2005, 09:10 AM
the compressability issue on the 38 in game is a total farce and not only unrealistic but not historical, in game you start to lose elevator control at around 380MPH and lose it completely at 400 MPH, that would mean that in level flight for the 38 at a top speed of 421MPH for the J you would be flying in elevator compression http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif at .68 mach where you should START to buffet but not yet tuck under your nose you should be traveling at approx 520MPH this is about correct as the 38 ingame will start shaking around the 520 to 540 MPH range. but in NO streach of the imagination should a plane lose elevator control BELOW its top rated speed.

I would like confirmation Bollio/Gib that the 38 didnt even lose elevator control below 20,000ft. I'm sure I read it in one of my 38 books but I dont want to dig through them to look it up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

as far as the turn radius I cant say it its correct or not, it seems that it should be better as we still cannot perform the cloverleaf in game. but I dont have the documentaion to back it up. as it is now I can outfly most anything German 1-1 so it doesnt bother me that much, but additional turning would be nice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tagert has already done testing on the 38 ROC so Oleg should have that documentation.

My biggest concern is the almost 100% boom failure. this cannot be accurate. the only plane in game that will comeapart easier than the 38 seems to be the Zero. I dont know if its a DM issue or if the damage box is too large, but it borders on rediculous. this seems to be a 4.02 issue I dont remember having this problem with earlier patches

BSS_CUDA
12-22-2005, 09:17 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 Grey_Mouser67:

I always felt that the Lightning could out turn any European aircraft at super slow speeds and even some of the later Japanese aircraft but I saw the climb rate and elevator authority to be the bigger issue.

@Gibbage: I dunno, I was under the impression that P-38 in the game could outturn a P-51 without too much trouble...

According to this http://www.il2.ru/document9.htm document P-38F could outturn FW-190A3 if the turning speed was below 225km/h. 225km/h is dangerously close to stall speed for a FW-190.
Here is the paragraph on overall manuverability:

The Fw 190 is superior to that of the P-38F, particularly in the rolling plane. Although at high speed the Fw 190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces its speed to about 140 mph (225 km/h), at which speed it can carry out a very tight turn, which the Fw 190 cannot follow. The acceleration of the two aircraft was compared and the Fw 190 was found to be better in all respects. When the Fw 190 'bounced' the P-38F and was seen when over 1,000 yards away, the pilot's best manoeuvre was to go into a diving turn and, if it found the Fw 190 was catching it up, to pull up into a spiral climb, flying at its lowest possible speed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well since the 38F is not in game then those figures do not matter to the game. and what was the source of thier Info? I would be curious if the was a comparision between the 38J / L and the 190 tho

Buzzsaw-
12-22-2005, 09:42 AM
Salute

We already have mid and late war P-38's, which are the aircraft to improve if we need performance.

Better to keep the early model at the low manifold pressure performance level, so we can create scenarios based on events in 1943 and early '44.

p1ngu666
12-22-2005, 09:46 AM
the controls on the zero stiffen up way too soon aswell..

anarchy52
12-22-2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
well since the 38F is not in game then those figures do not matter to the game. and what was the source of thier Info? I would be curious if the was a comparision between the 38J / L and the 190 tho

I'm pretty sure I saw the Spitfire comparison part of that document...I'll search a bit more. What is the aerodynamical difference between F and J/L models (apart from dive recovery flaps)?
I know they got more powerfull engines.

Gibbage1
12-22-2005, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:

I'm pretty sure I saw the Spitfire comparison part of that document...I'll search a bit more. What is the aerodynamical difference between F and J/L models (apart from dive recovery flaps)?
I know they got more powerfull engines.

The big differances was the intercoolers moved to the chin for that big mouth look, armored glass was now part of the canopy, and other minor improvements. The F and earlier were not that good. Capable yes, but the H, J and L were FAR superior in every way.

BSS_CUDA
12-22-2005, 10:41 AM
originally posted by Bollio:

I found all the 38s to fall well under common data that is in several books. Its rate of turn is also very low. The turn comparison data wasn't anecdotal evidence either. I pulled the data from "America's Hundred Thousand," in the section on the P-63. I see that people frequently use the 190 vs. P-38F to show that it only turned marginally better than the Fw-190A at low speeds, but what is frequently over looked is the fact that the date of the test precedes P-38F-15-LO production. Also if one is to give the Fw-190 vs. P-38F credibility I think that they should also consider these facts:

Total P-38F production was 393 aircraft; the F-15 series only represents 30% of the total F production run. Only the F-15 had the maneuvering flaps. My source for F production is "The Lockheed P-38" by Warren Bodie.

according to Bollio's info and I also have Bodie's book so I could confrim it if neccesary, it would seem that they probably took their info on the early 38F and not the ones with manouvering flaps, which would increase the turn rate substantially. plus as Gib said the H,J + L were better aircraft in every way

GR142_Astro
12-22-2005, 12:00 PM
Some anecdotes:

During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground.

The cloverleaf was a horizontal maneuver that took advantage of the P-38's exceptionally gentle stall characteristics. It was a low-speed maneuver. The pilot would tighten his turn until he actually stalled out, ease off and let the plane unstall itself, then tighten back up into a stall, ease up....Viewed from above, the pattern the airplane flew through the air looked something like a cloverleaf, and this simile was used in teaching the maneuver.

No German fighter could stay with the P-38 in a turn.
Of course, this manuever was useless against Japanese fighters like the Ki-43 and Zero, because they stalled out something like 30 mph slower than the best theP-38 could do. In Europe, the first quadruple kill in one combat by the 8AF was scored by 2Lt. James Morris of the 55FG on Feb. 8, 1944. He traded head-on passes with a pair of FW 190s then turned and got on their tails while they were turning trying to get on his. He easily outturned them and shot them down. Another FWs 190 broke away and tried to run. Morris overtook him and shot him down. Then he tangled with an Me 109 which tried to outdive him. Morris fell on him like a cast-iron stove. Capt. Robin Olds while flying alone when he was bounced by two FW 190s. He outturned them and shot both down.

The good news is that the FB P38 is much improved over what we began with. Many things are matching up with historical accounts:

- It does out turn a Fw190
- zoom cllimb seems very good (someone may differ)
- It takes lots of stick time before you know what to do with the thing
- Unbeatable against most Japanese types

Things that don't match up with historical accounts:

- Can't do a cloverleaf (or can some of youse guys do one?)
- Can't out turn 109 much less a spit
- Compressibility onset too early
- And the biggie, the boom damage bug


Regardless, I recently went 1 v 1 with one of the bet Russian 109G2 pilots in the online community and shot him down 2 - 0 with the P38J. These weren't drive bys, but good ol' 1 v 1, high-speed mixers. So, as someone mentioned, with a few tweaks, the P38 is more capable than ever, EXCEPT for the boom damage bug.

BSS_CUDA
12-22-2005, 12:55 PM
- Can't do a cloverleaf (or can some of youse guys do one?)
- Can't out turn 109 much less a spit
- Compressibility onset too early
- And the biggie, the boom damage bug


I have never been able to do a cloverleaf, you will drop a wing everytime

depends on the 109, G2 never, K4 with ease, all other 109's equal

compressabiliy is flat wrong

damage bug just chafs my hide http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-22-2005, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
It depends if the climb rate is actually flawed or merely the pilot performing the climb. That logic might fly had only one person preformed these tests, but many more than one have, and all got simular results +/-% differences for expected pilot errors, but nothing that would account or explane the LARGE difference between those and the real world data, thus your logic is flawed.


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
I am currently compiling some data for military power climb rates on the P-38J. If someone can hook me up with pilot's manual data for 54" MAP, I can present something soon, otherwise I'll have to interpolate from other sources. That info is posted in many topic in this very forum, many that you yourself have replied to, it is also aval at my sight where you got the ROC chart from.


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Actually what I showed in the thread you referenced is that the P-38L performs close to spec for altitudes of 15,000 ft and below. Close.. if you consider using an air start, only 25% fuel, and burning up the engines, and still falling short of the mark close.


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Also, you seem to imply that the J is supposed to perform exactly the same as the L which I find hard to believe. Why would you find that hard to belive? As bollio pointed out long ago, the myth of the L being alot heavier than the J is just that.. a myth


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Tagert has also posted this chart which suggests the J performs worse in a climb than the L.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P38J/P38J_ROC_TAGERT.JPG Your ignorace of the chart legend has caused you to make an error. The red line is in-game data, the other lines are real world data. Thus the in-game J and the L both have about the same ingame ROC/TTC.


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
So at this point I am not sure what the J is supposed to do. It is supose to do the non red ROC per MP/HP.

PS that chart is from 4.01 testing, for a 4.02 test of the P38J go here

AIRWARFARE: v4.02m RATE of CLIMB TESTING: P-38J (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=825&sid=405370911fde5d930f377dd4d08730cf)

Where all your questions here, where answered there days ago.. under your other name.

And just as a comparsion, just so you know it is not a high altitude FM problem or limitation like *some* where trying to sugest, take a look at the Ki61 analysis.

AIRWARFARE: v4.02m RATE of CLIMB TESTING: Ki-61 (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=834&sid=0fcf157278849fd76fe240db51ca56c8)

NOTE it hit it's ROC/TTC numbers perfectly using the GROUND start method and a FULL (100%) tank of gas and was able to do it all with way up to 30ft and not burn up at 25kft like the P38 did.

anarchy52
12-22-2005, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
[QUOTE]- Can't do a cloverleaf (or can some of youse guys do one?)
- Can't out turn 109 much less a spit
- Compressibility onset too early
- And the biggie, the boom damage bug

P-38 should be outturning spitfires?!? That's ridiculous.
P-38 could turn very well at VERY low speed because of gentle stall (counter-rotating props) not because it was some miracle turning machine.
It had very high wingloading, be sure. In game it turns way too good, but is unable to exploit it's historical advantage of turning on the edge of the stall because of lack of torque modelling on ALL planes (if you don't believe me fly a corsair with 50% throttle to the edge of the stall and then slam the throttle to emergency power).

Except for that pilot account which means very little (Griffon spits didn't handle nearly as good as earlier models due to weight and torque, P-38 pilot was probably willing to risk his life more then the brit) everything else says that P-38 wasn't good except in high speed roll (later models) and very slow speed turn riding the edge of the stall.

Id didn't earn it's "glory" in Europe, but on Pacific fighting inferior Japaneese planes and poorly trained pilots. However stall turning didn't work on the Pacific (illustration: McGuire vs Sugita)

BSS_CUDA
12-22-2005, 02:39 PM
first off I never said it could out turn a spit, I quoted Astro on that one. as far as the 38 turning too good I would have to disagree, I have read MANY pilot acounts from both sides US and LW (yes I know about pilot accounts) that stated the 38 was a devil of a turn fighter and that it could EASILY stay with a 109, and speaking of the 109 why doesnt it suffer from the same compressibility as the 38. it was know for being almost impossible do pull out af a dive at 400+ MPH. in game over 400 MPH the 38 elevator DOES NOT FUNCTION. unlike the 109 where it only gets heavy about 400, people seem to think that just because the 38 was a big bird that it wasnt agile. that is far from the truth. one must remember that the 38's elevator and rudders are more than twice the surface area of most fighters.

contrary to popular belief the 38 is not twice the size of a 109, twice the weight yes

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/evergreen/DSCN3906.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/evergreen/DSCN3904.jpg

some people would like to belive that its not possible for a twin engine plane to be a good fighter. that is the same kind of thinking that hurt the 38 in the ETO

faustnik
12-22-2005, 02:46 PM
Cuda,

I just got Bodie's P-38 book yesterday and one of the first pictures that I noticed was a color shot of a P-38 next to a Spifire. I was a little surprised that the P-38 was not all that much bigger than the Spit. Maybe someone has that shot handy?

I couldn't wait to read a couple chapters last night. Bodie must be quite a character. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Tex-Hill-AVG
12-22-2005, 03:03 PM
Guys,

I know a WWII veteran who actually flew the P-38 with the 8th Fighter Group, (80th and 35th FS) and later 418th Night Figher Squadron. I don't remember exactly which model he flew, but can find out.

I'd be more than happy to have him answer any questions or review any data that you may have.

Just email your questions to tex_hill1222@yahoo.com

BSS_CUDA
12-22-2005, 03:13 PM
here is one 109 pilot account of his encounter with a 38



Here's an excerpt of a Luftwaffe experte's (Heinz Knoke, 52 kills, all in
the West) description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):
"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."

Tachyon1000
12-22-2005, 03:39 PM
TAGERT,

You talk so much you can't even read your own charts. If you compare values interpolated from that graph that I posted from your site to values in the pilots manual for the L you will see that they are different hence my confusion. So if the graph is wrong, it certainly has nothing to do with the way I am reading it.

berg417448
12-22-2005, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:


Id didn't earn it's "glory" in Europe, but on Pacific fighting inferior Japaneese planes and poorly trained pilots. However stall turning didn't work on the Pacific (illustration: McGuire vs Sugita)


Japanese pilots were hardly poorly trained. That's just a biased statement. As for Mcguire...few planes can turn fight with their external fuel tanks still attached. Bonehead move. And I believe the Japanese pilot's name was Sugimoto.

BSS_CUDA
12-22-2005, 03:49 PM
agreed Mcguire killed himself by being cocky and over confident. he broke 2 of his 3 rules during the engagement

AKA_TAGERT
12-22-2005, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
TAGERT,

You talk so much you can't even read your own charts. Tachyon1000,

You read so little you can't even begin to understand my chart.

Just what part of..

60" Vought Data
54" Pilot's Manual Data
1725HP Lockheed Data

and

in-game DeviceLink data

Did you not understand?

If you would have read the ledgend before you started drawing conclusions that the chart is.. how did you say it?

"Tagert has also posted this chart which suggests the J performs worse in a climb than the L."

Maybe, just maybe you would have realisd this is not a comp between the in-game J and the in-game L, it is a comp between the in-game J and several real world data points of a J and L at different MP/HP settings.. HENCE the difference between the graphs.


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
If you compare values interpolated from that graph that I posted from your site to values in the pilots manual for the L you will see that they are different Dissagree 100%


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
hence my confusion. IMHO your confusion is independ of this or any other graph, why? Because you feel the need to open your pie hole before you read! HENCE the souce of your confusion!


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
So if the graph is wrong, it certainly has nothing to do with the way I am reading it. The graph is not wrong, just you!

BSS_CUDA
12-22-2005, 03:58 PM
I had to scan it Faust but here it is. if anyone has a better quality pic feel free to post it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/scan0029.jpg

faustnik
12-22-2005, 04:36 PM
Thanks Cuda! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Oh, I love the look of the early P-38s with the more streamlined intakes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

anarchy52
12-22-2005, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:


Id didn't earn it's "glory" in Europe, but on Pacific fighting inferior Japaneese planes and poorly trained pilots. However stall turning didn't work on the Pacific (illustration: McGuire vs Sugita)


Japanese pilots were hardly poorly trained. That's just a biased statement. As for Mcguire...few planes can turn fight with their external fuel tanks still attached. Bonehead move. And I believe the Japanese pilot's name was Sugimoto. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 1941, without much doubt, the Japanese navy pilots were the best trained pilots in the world, however later, quality fell of due to high losses.

Japanese Navy lost too many good pilots because they didn't replace Zero in time and that their obsession with manuverability at all cost did cost too much: aircraft can be easily replaced, pilot can not. Japanese army was a bit more flexible IMHO and recognized the need for more speed, armour and heavier weapons sooner.

References that I read state that the pilot's name was Soichi Sugita, and yes, McGuire was overconfident, however it was 4 P-38s on single Zero, on the other hand he couldn't have known that the Zero was flown by such an ace pilot. Result was 2 P-38s down and 2 damaged...

berg417448
12-22-2005, 04:47 PM
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 berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:


Id didn't earn it's "glory" in Europe, but on Pacific fighting inferior Japaneese planes and poorly trained pilots. However stall turning didn't work on the Pacific (illustration: McGuire vs Sugita)


Japanese pilots were hardly poorly trained. That's just a biased statement. As for Mcguire...few planes can turn fight with their external fuel tanks still attached. Bonehead move. And I believe the Japanese pilot's name was Sugimoto. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 1941, without much doubt, the Japanese navy pilots were the best trained pilots in the world, however later, quality fell of due to high losses.

Japanese Navy lost too many good pilots because they didn't replace Zero in time and that their obsession with manuverability at all cost did cost too much: aircraft can be easily replaced, pilot can not. Japanese army was a bit more flexible IMHO and recognized the need for more speed, armour and heavier weapons sooner.

References that I read state that the pilot's name was Soichi Sugita, and yes, McGuire was overconfident, however it was 4 P-38s on single Zero, on the other hand he couldn't have known that the Zero was flown by such an ace pilot. Result was 2 P-38s down and 2 damaged... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm....I'll check further but all the sources I found say it was Warrant Officer Akira Sugimoto.... Flying a Ki-43 not a Zero...later assisted by a Ki-84.

anarchy52
12-22-2005, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
... and speaking of the 109 why doesnt it suffer from the same compressibility as the 38. it was know for being almost impossible do pull out af a dive at 400+ MPH.


109's imposibility to pull out is a myth simple as that. The difference between for example P-51 and 109 wasn't so extreme as it is in game.



in game over 400 MPH the 38 elevator DOES NOT FUNCTION. unlike the 109 where it only gets heavy about 400, people seem to think that just because the 38 was a big bird that it wasnt agile. that is far from the truth. one must remember that the 38's elevator and rudders are more than twice the surface area of most fighters.

109 elevator heaviness and P-38 loss of elevator authority are two completely different phenomena. The wing is what's giving lift not elevator. P-38 did have high wingloading (for a WWII fighter).

Size does not matter (take modern fighter like Su-27 or Su-27 - they are HUGE), but weight, powerloading and to some extent wingloading are better describing aircraft performance.


some people would like to belive that its not possible for a twin engine plane to be a good fighter. that is the same kind of thinking that hurt the 38 in the ETO

The reason for less then stellar combat record of P-38 in ETO wasn't because someone thought that twin can not be a good fighter, rather the other way around. P-38 was a good fighter, I know it's your favourite but it just wasn't best thing since sliced bread.
The oposition P-38s met over Europe was much different then PTO. Even the game simulates that pretty well: P-38 totally dominates Zeros, while in ETO it is competitive but far from "dominant".

I personaly find poor search view out of the cockpit to be the dominant disadvantage. Most P-38s I shot down were bounces due to large blind zones.

BSS_CUDA
12-22-2005, 05:26 PM
109 elevator heaviness and P-38 loss of elevator authority are two completely different phenomena. The wing is what's giving lift not elevator. P-38 did have high wingloading (for a WWII fighter).



HUH?????? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif WTH are you talking about????? and whats this got to do with elevator control???


The reason for less then stellar combat record of P-38 in ETO wasn't because someone thought that twin can not be a good fighter, rather the other way around. P-38 was a good fighter, I know it's your favourite but it just wasn't best thing since sliced bread.
The oposition P-38s met over Europe was much different then PTO. Even the game simulates that pretty well: P-38 totally dominates Zeros, while in ETO it is competitive but far from "dominant".


uhm I would tend to disagree with this statment as the 38 in the early part of the war had an A2A kill ratio of 4-1, hardly less than stellar

GR142_Astro
12-22-2005, 05:53 PM
And I poorly worded my turning statement. In a flat out sustained turn fight vs a spitfire, the P38 should lose. Against the 109s, I do not know. I'm not in for some turning campaign, I think it turns pretty darn good as it is now.

Tachyon1000
12-22-2005, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
TAGERT,

You talk so much you can't even read your own charts. Tachyon1000,

You read so little you can't even begin to understand my chart.

Just what part of..

60" Vought Data
54" Pilot's Manual Data
1725HP Lockheed Data

and

in-game DeviceLink data

Did you not understand?

If you would have read the ledgend before you started drawing conclusions that the chart is.. how did you say it?

"Tagert has also posted this chart which suggests the J performs worse in a climb than the L."

Maybe, just maybe you would have realisd this is not a comp between the in-game J and the in-game L, it is a comp between the in-game J and several real world data points of a J and L at different MP/HP settings.. HENCE the difference between the graphs.


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
If you compare values interpolated from that graph that I posted from your site to values in the pilots manual for the L you will see that they are different Dissagree 100%


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
hence my confusion. IMHO your confusion is independ of this or any other graph, why? Because you feel the need to open your pie hole before you read! HENCE the souce of your confusion!


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
So if the graph is wrong, it certainly has nothing to do with the way I am reading it. The graph is not wrong, just you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAGERT's drunk again. Can't read his own chart. Throw the bum out.

Tachyon1000
12-22-2005, 06:25 PM
Let me spell it out for you:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P38J/P38J_ROC_TAGERT.JPG

54" Pilots Manual Data from graph:

5000ft ROC 3000 ft/min
10000ft ROC 2800 ft/min
15000ft ROC 2600 ft/min
25000ft ROC 2100 ft/min
35000ft ROC 1250 ft/min

Bilillo and others say J should perform like this:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/P38/ROC/TEST01/p0.JPG

Those are different numbers.

AKA_TAGERT
12-22-2005, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
TAGERT's drunk again. Can't read his own chart. Throw the bum out. You poor thing.


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Let me spell it out for you:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P38J/P38J_ROC_TAGERT.JPG

54" Pilots Manual Data from graph:

5000ft ROC 3000 ft/min
10000ft ROC 2800 ft/min
15000ft ROC 2600 ft/min
25000ft ROC 2100 ft/min
35000ft ROC 1250 ft/min

Bilillo and others say J should perform like this:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/P38/ROC/TEST01/p0.JPG

Those are different numbers. Hey, math wize, news flash for you, the ROC graphs in my chart are from the dv/dt of the TTC data, the conservtive method. You would think that a math wiz like yourself could figure that out on his own by simply counting the number of data points and realising they dont match up. Note my chart has 24 data points (red boxes) and the pilots manul only has 5!

That is what you get for poking around in my sight and pulling up pictures that are than taking out of context from the orginal post they were used in.

But look at the bright side, YOU'RE LEARNING! In that I have not heard you chime in with your ignorant statments since I set you straight, i.e.

1) The error might be due to the pilot, once I pointed out that many pilots did it and got similar results.
2) The P38 performs close to the spec for altitudes below 15k, once I pointed out the in-game test was done via an air start with only 25% fuel and it damaged the engines by the time you reached 20kft.
3) You find it hard to believe the J and L should perform the same, once I reminded you about the weight myth.

Now the only hurtle left for you to clear is the one that allows you to count beyond 5 and up to at least 24!

Good Luck!

Tachyon1000
12-22-2005, 07:57 PM
Finally, a straight answer.

I'm sure you'll be so glad to know then that, in my testing, the J exceeds your conservative estimate of ROC based on dv/dt of TTC data.

AKA_TAGERT
12-22-2005, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Finally, a straight answer.

I'm sure you'll be so glad to know then that, in my testing, the J exceeds your conservative estimate of ROC based on dv/dt of TTC data. And at what point did you have to stop before the engines stated smoking? 25kft? Oh, wait, scratch that.. 24kft?

bolillo_loco
12-22-2005, 10:12 PM
I've been waiting for somebody to say "The P-38 did horrible in the ETO because it fought German aircraft. It was ok for the PTO when fighting Japanese aircraft."

If this is the case could you explain these figures from the Army Air Corps?

MTO fighting German aircraft

P-47 263 air to air claims against the Germans
P-51 991 air to air claims against the Germans
P-38 1,431 air to air claims against the Germans

lrrp22
12-22-2005, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:

If this is the case could you explain these figures from the Army Air Corps?



An 18-month headstart? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The first P-38 units arived in the MTO in November of '42. The first Merlin Mustangs in April of '44.

LRRP

Xiolablu3
12-22-2005, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Some anecdotes:

During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground.

The cloverleaf was a horizontal maneuver that took advantage of the P-38's exceptionally gentle stall characteristics. It was a low-speed maneuver. The pilot would tighten his turn until he actually stalled out, ease off and let the plane unstall itself, then tighten back up into a stall, ease up....Viewed from above, the pattern the airplane flew through the air looked something like a cloverleaf, and this simile was used in teaching the maneuver.

No German fighter could stay with the P-38 in a turn.
Of course, this manuever was useless against Japanese fighters like the Ki-43 and Zero, because they stalled out something like 30 mph slower than the best theP-38 could do. In Europe, the first quadruple kill in one combat by the 8AF was scored by 2Lt. James Morris of the 55FG on Feb. 8, 1944. He traded head-on passes with a pair of FW 190s then turned and got on their tails while they were turning trying to get on his. He easily outturned them and shot them down. Another FWs 190 broke away and tried to run. Morris overtook him and shot him down. Then he tangled with an Me 109 which tried to outdive him. Morris fell on him like a cast-iron stove. Capt. Robin Olds while flying alone when he was bounced by two FW 190s. He outturned them and shot both down.

The good news is that the FB P38 is much improved over what we began with. Many things are matching up with historical accounts:

- It does out turn a Fw190
- zoom cllimb seems very good (someone may differ)
- It takes lots of stick time before you know what to do with the thing
- Unbeatable against most Japanese types

Things that don't match up with historical accounts:

- Can't do a cloverleaf (or can some of youse guys do one?)
- Can't out turn 109 much less a spit
- Compressibility onset too early
- And the biggie, the boom damage bug


Regardless, I recently went 1 v 1 with one of the bet Russian 109G2 pilots in the online community and shot him down 2 - 0 with the P38J. These weren't drive bys, but good ol' 1 v 1, high-speed mixers. So, as someone mentioned, with a few tweaks, the P38 is more capable than ever, EXCEPT for the boom damage bug.


This just sounds ridiculous. Don't push it, otherwise you just cloud the picture even more. P38's out turning Spits?

Daiichidoku
12-22-2005, 11:56 PM
the McGuire fight was vs an Oscar, assisted by a Frank


Someone wanted a certain pic?

here ya go:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/5746516.jpg


here's a bonus, just cuz ya like the best combat aircraft of WWII

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/102008733.jpg

extra bonus, just cuz

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/65645654.jpg

anarchy52
12-23-2005, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
the McGuire fight was vs an Oscar, assisted by a Frank


I really wonder what really happened. Going 4 vs 1 in P-38 vs Oscar or Zeke and losing 2 and 2 damaged...sounds much better if it was Oscar assisted by Frank (Hayate). None of the participants of that combat survived the war.

anarchy52
12-23-2005, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I've been waiting for somebody to say "The P-38 did horrible in the ETO because it fought German aircraft. It was ok for the PTO when fighting Japanese aircraft."

If this is the case could you explain these figures from the Army Air Corps?

MTO fighting German aircraft

P-47 263 air to air claims against the Germans
P-51 991 air to air claims against the Germans
P-38 1,431 air to air claims against the Germans

1) head start
2) overclaiming, hard to verify kills
3) counting strafed aircraft on the ground as airkills
4) fighting Italians in MTO

And P-38 did do MUCH better in PTO then ETO.

BSS_CUDA
12-23-2005, 08:17 AM
I hate to say this Anarchy, but do you ever read a post before replying to it???

its says "MTO fighting against GERMAN aircraft", this is not PTO numbers or ETO numbers it is MTO we all know the 38 scored higher in the PTO, and it was not because of "inferior" japanese aircraft

1) head start without a doubt but the numbers speak for themselves. the 38 was not there much before the 47 and yet it still outkilled BOTH the 47 and the 51 combined A2A

2) overclaiming? possibly but the same would need to be said about the 51 kills and the 47 kills, so once again in the MTO the 38 out killed the other 2 A2A

3) counting strafed aircraft. [see #2] and pure speculation by the way

4) fighting Italians
MTO fighting German aircraft



originaly posted by anarchy52:

109's imposibility to pull out is a myth simple as that. The difference between for example P-51 and 109 wasn't so extreme as it is in game.

no myth. it is fact. there are multiple pilot accounts of the elevator control loss in the 109 at speed. there was a 20 page tread on it a while back. I could dig up pilot accounts if you'd like.


I personaly find poor search view out of the cockpit to be the dominant disadvantage. Most P-38s I shot down were bounces due to large blind zones.

this is common for all kills, they get bounced. the 38 in game gets defeated more because of 2 main reasons.

1. Pilot familiarity, most only fly it for jabo attacks, they have no idea what it is capable of A2A. just like in realife the 38 is difficult to learn and master. it is not a Spitfire or a 109 where any Noob can jumpin and get kills with and its not a 190 or a 51 where you can BnZ your opponent to death. the 38 is a tweener ingame good at everything, great at nothing.

2. while flying jabo they fly it in a straight line, not evading, intent on their target. then after they strike a target what do they do?? they hang around trying to get every last ground target they can instead of being smart and RTB and coming back again. they are sitting ducks. easy pickings


back on the original topic, the 38 needs but 2 things to be a spectacular plane in game.

1. the boom damage bug needs fixed.
2. the TOTALY incorrect elevator control loss

AKA_TAGERT
12-23-2005, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
1) head start
2) overclaiming, hard to verify kills
3) counting strafed aircraft on the ground as airkills
4) fighting Italians in MTO
Which also explains Erich Hartmann's high kill count

Except you have to adj the head start to 4+ years not a few months and you would also have to point out the RnD head start advantage of the German aircraft had over the World War One style aircraft they were going up against in those early years (aka EZ pickins).

And don€t forget that the when the 51 and 47 where coming on line the 38 was removed from allot of those rolls.. Thus it had a head start, but the time it spent relative to the 47 and 51 was shorter.. That and the 38 pilots were noobs going up against veterans with 4+ years of experience.

So, in summary, the P38 did it, did it in less time, and did it against the best of the best the Germans had.


Originally posted by anarchy52:
And P-38 did do MUCH better in PTO then ETO. But the counts that Billio poster were just from the ETO.

Aaron_GT
12-23-2005, 09:04 AM
Here's an excerpt of a Luftwaffe experte's (Heinz Knoke, 52 kills, all in
the West) description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):
"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."

This seems to suggest that at the very least an experienced LW pilot flying a German plane could keep on the tail of a P38. It doesn't necessarily imply either could outturn by much as pilot skill, thinking in 3 dimensions, initiative, and so on, are also a factor, but it does mean that the turn rates might be comparable. The 109 had a pretty good turning circle at low speeds, as did the P38, so I doubt there was much in it. The 190 was built for straight line flying. What was Knocke flying?

Aaron_GT
12-23-2005, 09:12 AM
Which also explains Erich Hartmann's high kill count

Absolutely, many factors. You need to calculate kills per equivalent sortie. Equivalent sorties will depend on role, and also target opportunity. Hartman had the advantage of many sorties, and many targets. Some of the USAAF aces flew comparatively few sorties (compared to Hartman) and did not see an enemy every time, whereas Hartman pretty much always had enemy contact.

Aaron_GT
12-23-2005, 09:13 AM
So, in summary, the P38 did it, did it in less time, and did it against the best of the best the Germans had.

I don't think that is clear until the numbers have been crunched.

AKA_TAGERT
12-23-2005, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Absolutely, many factors. Exactally


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
You need to calculate kills per equivalent sortie. Disagee 100% see next reply


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Equivalent sorties will depend on role, and also target opportunity. Key word is equivlent, A sortie of a 109 with cutting edge tech in 1938 buzzing around WWI style aircraft and picking them off at will should not and could not be considered equivlent to 109s and P38s going at it in 1942.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Hartman had the advantage of many sorties, and many targets. True, him and Rall are some of the few that lived to tell about it, which is cool because they have described how the tide turned for the Lw, they started off with an RnD advantage that allowed the to own the skys, only to see the same thing happen to them.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Some of the USAAF aces flew comparatively few sorties (compared to Hartman) and did not see an enemy every time, whereas Hartman pretty much always had enemy contact. Exactally.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I don't think that is clear until the numbers have been crunched. Clear to me, as clear as anarchy52 statment anyways.. well actully even clearer, in that anarchy52 didnt even seem to realise that Billio pointed out those numbers were just from the ETO not ETO and PTO. He should really slow down and read it at least once before hitting send.

PS You do know there is an edit button here right? So when you get a another thought a second later after you hit send, you could just edit your last and add it in instead of making two posts back to back to the same person. Just a thought.

BSS_CUDA
12-23-2005, 09:24 AM
he flew the 109 exclusivly

http://www.heinzknokewebsite.com/My-Site/The_planes.htm

Aaron_GT
12-23-2005, 09:47 AM
Disagee 100% see next reply

Bizzare, since you go on to agree with me!


Clear to me

So you have the stats on kills per equivalent sortie then? What are they then?

Aaron_GT
12-23-2005, 09:50 AM
he flew the 109 exclusivly

That makes sense - he would likely have a much harder time turning to keep on the tail of a P38 in a 190. It's not clear from a short quote what manoevers he might have used to keep on its tail, though - it might have been thinking in 3D rather than relative maneover abililties of the aircraft. Plus the relative edge of one aircraft over another will vary with speed and altitude. You'd need either a detailed AFDU-type assessment, charts, or even power loadings at various altitudes to give more detail. With the P38's supercharging I would expect the P38 to gain more of a powerloading edge as altitude increases.

faustnik
12-23-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:


1. the boom damage bug needs fixed.


Cuda,

Please check PMs.

Thanks.

berg417448
12-23-2005, 10:26 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 Daiichidoku:
the McGuire fight was vs an Oscar, assisted by a Frank


I really wonder what really happened. Going 4 vs 1 in P-38 vs Oscar or Zeke and losing 2 and 2 damaged...sounds much better if it was Oscar assisted by Frank (Hayate). None of the participants of that combat survived the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is a detailed account:

"On Jan. 7, 1945, Tommy McGuire led a flight of four planes on an early morning fighter sweep over the Japanese airdrome on Negros Island. Flying McGuire's wing was Capt. Edwin Weaver, whom McGuire had given demerits to when they were cadets in San Antonio. Major Jack Rittmayer and Lt. Douglas Thropp formed the second element. All were veteran combat pilots. The P-38's each carried two 160 gallon external fuel tanks. They spotted a single Jap fighter coming right at them. They departed Marsten Strip around 0615 and leveled off at 10,000 feet, but in the vicinity of Negros the weather forced their descent to 6,000 feet. McGuire led Daddy Flight to an airdrome over Fabrica Strip and made a futile attempt at provoking an enemy response by circling the area for approximately ten minutes. They were now flying at 1,700 feet.

When this effort failed, McGuire proceeded to another airdrome on the western coast of the island. En route, Rittmayer throttled back while breaking through the clouds and became temporarily separated from the rest of the flight. McGuire ordered his pilots to regroup, but learned that Rittmayer's aircraft encountered engine trouble. Thropp, therefore, moved into the number-three position.

Suddenly, Weaver spotted a Japanese fighter heading in their direction, 500 feet below and 1,000 yards ahead. The Ki-43 Oscar, piloted by Warrant Officer Akira Sugimoto, passed below McGuire's P-38 before either pilot could react. Meanwhile, Sergeant Mixunori Fukuda, piloting a Ki-84 Frank, was attempting to land and noticed his comrade's plight. Sugimoto fired into Thropp's aircraft, destroying one of the turbo-chargers. The Lieutenant's first thought was to drop his belly tank, but McGuire anticipated his intention and ordered his pilots to refrain from doing this. It is assumed he issued this order to avoid an early return to Leyte, thereby scrubbing the mission.

Rittmayer, meanwhile, had rejoined the flight and maneuvered his malfunctioning fighter to an advantageous position. He fired into Sugimoto's Oscar, frightening the Warrant Officer off Thropp's tail, but the enemy pilot didn't flee as anticipated. Instead, he turned his fighter tightly and fired several long bursts into Weaver's P-38. Weaver summoned McGuire's assistance.

McGuire's response was immediate as he turned sharply to the left, but something went wrong as his Lightning shuddered and threatened to stall. He sharply increased his turn in an attempt to get a shot at the enemy fighter, but his plane lost momentum and snap-rolled to the left. It was last seen in an inverted position with the nose down about 30-degrees.

Weaver momentarily lost sight of McGuire's fighter, but a second later witnessed an explosion. Sugimoto broke off his attack against Weaver just before McGuire's plane crashed. Rittmayer and Thropp pursued the damaged Oscar as it climbed to the north, and the young Lieutenant managed to deliver one last burst into Sugimoto's aircraft before it crash-landed in the jungle. He died shortly thereafter from six bullet wounds to the chest. Now Sergeant Fukuda arrived on scene and charged head-on at Thropp's P-38, but Weaver recovered from his ordeal in time to fire at the Frank. Rittmayer turned his aircraft to assist, but Fukuda caught the Major in a vulnerable position and fired a burst into his aircraft. The bullets struck the P-38 with telling effect, and it exploded outside the village of Pinanamaan. McGuire had crashed near this area a few minutes earlier.

Thropp's aircraft bellowed smoke from its engine, while Fukuda tried to advance on Weaver. When this failed, Fukuda chased Thropp and discharged a burst from his guns, but the lieutenant escaped to the relative safety of a cloudbank. Weaver sought to locate the Frank, but could not; he and Thropp returned to Dulag about ten minutes apart. They gave their combat reports, which disagreed on several points; and it wasn't until after the war that it became known that two, not just one, Jap planes were involved. "

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mcguire.html

faustnik
12-23-2005, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
And I poorly worded my turning statement. In a flat out sustained turn fight vs a spitfire, the P38 should lose.

I would still question this. If a P-38 can hang on its counter-rotating props at full power with no torque, maybe it could hold a full power, low speed turn where torque at full power would force a Spitfire to roll out?

Oh, and wouldn't the same apply for steep, high power low speed climbs?


From my point of usual point of view (from a Fw190 pit), the p-38s in PF turn really well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Daiichidoku
12-23-2005, 10:58 AM
@berg

tx for posing that account

but i seem to recall that at least Thropp was pretty new, at least in regards to actual combat exp

not that it matters, Mcquire got overconfident, and greedy

faustnik
12-23-2005, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
the McGuire fight was vs an Oscar, assisted by a Frank


Someone wanted a certain pic?

here ya go:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/5746516.jpg


here's a bonus, just cuz ya like the best combat aircraft of WWII

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/102008733.jpg



Thanks Daiichidoku, that's the one.

(Sorry for quoting pic, but, it's a good one.)

Gibbage1
12-23-2005, 11:08 AM
McGuire never dropped his tanks during combat. Very bad move. The location of the tanks between the body and engine boom under the wing caused a LOT of disturbance and made the aircraft unstable. Thats why he lost controle during the turn. If he had dropped his tanks, he would of been fince since McGuire has done that manuver many times. He loved to turn with the Japanese fighters and did it on many of his 38 kills.

anarchy52
12-23-2005, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by anarchy52:
1) head start
2) overclaiming, hard to verify kills
3) counting strafed aircraft on the ground as airkills
4) fighting Italians in MTO[QUOTE]
Which also explains Erich Hartmann's high kill count

FYI, Hartmann scored his first kill december 1942. Hardly a head start.

On the McGuire's death...I just can't believe that such an experienced pilot, an ace would do something so stupid as fight with droptanks still attached.

About P-38 turning - in game it turns very well, I think it turns much too good for an aircraft with such high wingloading, HOWEVER with combat flaps and slow speed it should be very good indeed. But not like it's modelled in game (beefed up liftloading I presume), but due to ability to manuever at slow speed and full power. In that respect P-38 IS undermodelled or more precisely - all other planes are overmodelled in low speed high power handling.

From what I read P-38 elevator problem caused the elevator to be ineffective (in adition to heaviness like all planes), while on 109 elevator became too heavy to deflect to enable recovery from high speed dives without using trim. P-38's elevator wasn't the only cause of the problem it was more of a combination of severall effects. Nasa has an article on that:
http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/P-38/HTML/E95-43116-2.html

faustnik
12-23-2005, 11:16 AM
Anytime the discussion turns to kill claims, you might as well shut the thread down. Kill claims are so different from actual losses as to be almost irrelevant.

BSS_CUDA
12-23-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Oh, and wouldn't the same apply for steep, high power low speed climbs?

yes it did. check out Zenos P-38 training film sometime, they demonstrate that exact thing in the film


P.S. didnt recieve any PM from ya faust

GR142_Astro
12-23-2005, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
P38's out turning Spits?

....and if you would have bothered to read about 7 posts up, you needn't have gotten all worked up.

Btw, anyone else notice the P38 still has torque, it just pulls the ship straight up. Comes in handy when doing the all-too-common no elevator landing.

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



http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/Aircraft/images/p-38-19.jpg

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/Aircraft/images/p38-10.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
12-23-2005, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Bizzare, since you go on to agree with me! Than you misunderstood what I said, I did not agree with you, hence the disagree statement with the qualifier following it. Reason I disagree is that you made it sound as if there were equivalent scenarios to compare, my point is there are none, and even if there were there is not enough data to analysis it as is or statistically.



Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So you have the stats on kills per equivalent sortie then? What are they then? Read it again, slowly, your not understanding what I said. Don€t take it out of context as you did above, read all of it.

AKA_TAGERT
12-23-2005, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
FYI, Hartmann scored his first kill december 1942. Hardly a head start. Roger, my bad, I was thinking Galland and saying Hartmann, sorry for the confusion.

So, what do you think of all the P38 ETO kills?

berg417448
12-23-2005, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Which also explains Erich Hartmann's high kill count

Absolutely, many factors. You need to calculate kills per equivalent sortie. Equivalent sorties will depend on role, and also target opportunity. Hartman had the advantage of many sorties, and many targets. Some of the USAAF aces flew comparatively few sorties (compared to Hartman) and did not see an enemy every time, whereas Hartman pretty much always had enemy contact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find the "kills per sortie" quite interesting. I've had some information on this for a while:

Erich Hartmann 352 victories, 1,404 combat sorties, 1 kill per 3.98 missions

USAF Robert Johnson 27 victories in 92 missions. 1 kill per 3.4 missions

Ivan Kozhedub flew 326 combat missions, 62 kills. 1 kill per 5.2 missions

George Preddy. 26.83 aerial victories in 143 missions. 1 kill per 5.3 missions


Richard Bong: More than 500 combat hours and 40 kills. 1 kill per 12.5 HOURs. (I don't have his number of missions)


Sorry, I do not have mission information on RAF aces.

BSS_CUDA
12-23-2005, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
P38's out turning Spits?

....and if you would have bothered to read about 7 posts up, you needn't have gotten all worked up.

Btw, anyone else notice the P38 still has torque, it just pulls the ship straight up. Comes in handy when doing the all-too-common no elevator landing.

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



http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/Aircraft/images/p-38-19.jpg

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/Aircraft/images/p38-10.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

without question it still has torque, try pulling a hard continuous turn and watch what happens, you will depart a wing. I've snap stalled maytimes while in a DF with a 109 when the 109 flew like it was on rails. at least it appeared that way.



By the way where and when on the crash site?

berg417448
12-23-2005, 12:00 PM
Check here:

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/Aircraft/html/p-38-recovered.htm

anarchy52
12-23-2005, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
without question it still has torque, try pulling a hard continuous turn and watch what happens, you will depart a wing. I've snap stalled maytimes while in a DF with a 109 when the 109 flew like it was on rails. at least it appeared that way.


I don't think it's caused by torque. One wing will depart sooner then the other in turn under load because of different airflow and lift due to plane's position.

I still think torque is not moddeled convincingly. 4.0 earlier betas were close.

GR142_Astro
12-23-2005, 12:52 PM
Not to derail the original poster about climb rate, but has anyone noticed the tail boom bug on liftoff.

On one sortie I did an experiment and pulled back on the stick enough to drag the tails on takeoff....the tail booms snapped like dry kindling wood. Hardly seems realistic. This was in the P38L Late. This doesn't seem to happen with the J.

The tail booms sure seem to be bugged.

BSS_CUDA
12-23-2005, 01:01 PM
but it shouldnt happen in a 38!!!! thats what the cloverleaf is. its a controlled induced stall turn. it should not depart a wing.

BSS_CUDA
12-23-2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Not to derail the original poster about climb rate, but has anyone noticed the tail boom bug on liftoff.

On one sortie I did an experiment and pulled back on the stick enough to drag the tails on takeoff....the tail booms snapped like dry kindling wood. Hardly seems realistic. This was in the P38L Late. This doesn't seem to happen with the J.

The tail booms sure seem to be bugged.


didnt notice that, but to be honest I gave up fly taildraggers when I went to the 38 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Aaron_GT
12-23-2005, 01:04 PM
Read it again, slowly, your not understanding what I said. Don€t take it out of context as you did above, read all of it.

I did read it all. What you said added no additional information over and above what I said about needing to look at comparable mission profiles.

Aaron_GT
12-23-2005, 01:07 PM
I find the "kills per sortie" quite interesting. I've had some information on this for a while:

Erich Hartmann 352 victories, 1,404 combat sorties, 1 kill per 3.98 missions

USAF Robert Johnson 27 victories in 92 missions. 1 kill per 3.4 missions

That's good information! If it could also be adjusted for mission profile and likelihood of meeting a target it might indicate that Johnson was more likely to shoot down an enemy aircraft encountered than Hartman. There are so many factors it would be hard to adjust for mission profile, though. Even things like morale, standing orders, etc., will be a factor, let alone aircraft.

Aaron_GT
12-23-2005, 01:09 PM
On one sortie I did an experiment and pulled back on the stick enough to drag the tails on takeoff....the tail booms snapped like dry kindling wood

Ground damage modelling is very simplistic. All sorts of odd damage modelling abound. I can see why it wouldn't be prioritised though - hitting the ground is generally the end of the mission and you'll be hitting refly anyway.

AKA_TAGERT
12-23-2005, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I did read it all. What you said added no additional information over and above what I said about needing to look at comparable mission profiles. Disagree 100%

Aaron_GT
12-23-2005, 02:50 PM
Disagree 100%

Isn't it about time for a new catch phrase?

Badsight.
12-23-2005, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
[That's good information! If it could also be adjusted for mission profile and likelihood of meeting a target it might indicate that Johnson was more likely to shoot down an enemy aircraft encountered than Hartman. There are so many factors it would be hard to adjust for mission profile, though. Even things like morale, standing orders, etc., will be a factor, let alone aircraft. IIRC Eric Hartmann didnt make a "kill" untill he had been flying combat sorties for over 3 months

his first 3 months were like wasted time if you are looking at his record with a view to stats

anarchy52
12-23-2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
On one sortie I did an experiment and pulled back on the stick enough to drag the tails on takeoff....the tail booms snapped like dry kindling wood. Hardly seems realistic. This was in the P38L Late. This doesn't seem to happen with the J.

The game doesn't model detailed colisions. Try to "touch" an aircraft while taxying and your wing will fall off. Any plane will do. Sorry, you is wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Cuda: Nope, not aerodynamicaly (or physicaly) possible. Even a slight bank will create asymetry (the wings have different airflow) or any sort of difference in geometry, drag or slight thrust asymetry.

From what I understood cloverleaf took advantage of 2 things: gentle low speed handling (no torque) and excellent acceleration. stall would be a bad idea in any plane because it means loss of alt, control and speed.

AKA_TAGERT
12-23-2005, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Isn't it about time for a new catch phrase? Agreed 100%

Daiichidoku
12-23-2005, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Isn't it about time for a new catch phrase? Agreed 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

pwned 100%

BSS_CUDA
12-23-2005, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:


@Cuda: Nope, not aerodynamicaly (or physicaly) possible. Even a slight bank will create asymetry (the wings have different airflow) or any sort of difference in geometry, drag or slight thrust asymetry.

From what I understood cloverleaf took advantage of 2 things: gentle low speed handling (no torque) and excellent acceleration. stall would be a bad idea in any plane because it means loss of alt, control and speed.

ok regurding the cloverleaf you are mistaken. the following is an email response written by CC,Jordan one of the more versed people regarding the P-38 and its abilities


From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: Radial Engines
Date: 25 Mar 1998
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii

>Finally, the P-38 pilot executed something he refers to as a
>"cloverleaf" turn (which I assume is some form of Yo-Yo).

The cloverleaf was a horizontal maneuver that took advantage of the P-38's
exceptionally gentle stall characteristics. It was a low-speed maneuver. The
pilot would tighten his turn until he actually stalled out, ease off and let
the plane unstall itself, then tighten back up into a stall, ease up....
Viewed from above, the pattern the airplane flew through the air looked
something like a cloverleaf, and this simile was used in teaching the maneuver.
No German fighter could stay with the P-38 in a turn.
Of course, this manuever was useless against Japanese fighters like the Ki-43
and Zero, because they stalled out something like 30 mph slower than the best
theP-38 could do.
In Europe, the first quadruple kill in one combat by the 8AF was scored by 2Lt.
James Morris of the 55FG on Feb. 8, 1944. He traded head-on passes with a pair
of FW 190s then turned and got on their tails while they were turning trying to
get on his. He easily outturned them and shot them down. Another FWs 190
broke away and tried to run. Morris overtook him and shot him down. Then he
tangled with an Me 109 which tried to outdive him. Morris fell on him like a
cast-iron stove.
Capt. Robin Olds while flying alone when he was bounced by two FW 190s. He
outturned them and shot both down.
In a scrape with the vaunted II/J.G. 6, Capt. Lawrence Blummer of the 367FG
shot down five FW 190s. He was part of a melee that began when 40 FW 190s
bounced 12 P-38s straffing an airfield and the Lightnings' top cover of 12
bounced them in turn. The German pilots claimed 11 Lightnings (seven actually
went down) and the Americans claimed 20 FWs (16 actually went down). The
German unit was so badly mauled that it was withdrawn from combat.
The P-38 was a complex aircraft, and required time in the cockpit to learn to
operate it well, but in the hands of a skilled pilot, there was very little it
could not do.

here is the site http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
try reading it you could learn a few things regarding this plane and its aviation history.

plus as I'm no aviation expert, but if I'm not mistaken the "snap stall" as it is called is cause by the Engine torque wanting to pull the plane in one direction while its in a turn, its the rotation of the prop that causes the wing to depart, not so much the angle of attack of the wings

Tator_Totts
12-23-2005, 09:32 PM
No German fighter could stay with the P-38 in a turn.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Can we do this in this game.

GR142_Astro
12-23-2005, 10:47 PM
Cuda will have more experience on this, but yes it will out turn the Fw190 and I believe the K4 109, but as for the Gustavs I don't think so.

Gibbage1
12-24-2005, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Cuda will have more experience on this, but yes it will out turn the Fw190 and I believe the K4 109, but as for the Gustavs I don't think so.

In the game, no. The G2-G6 will be on you like stink on you know what. The G-14 will just take a little more time getting on your 6. K4's you can turn with. TA-152's you can turn with, and sometimes out turn if you manage your energy. D9 and A series 190's I tent to eat for lunch. D9's give me more trouble then A's.

Anything on the Japanese side, you dont even contemplate turning with. Just firewall it and leave them in the dust.

anarchy52
12-24-2005, 05:57 AM
I had an interesting experience recently flying a 109 (not sure if it was F4 or G2) vs P-40M. P-40 turned sharply in a left hand circle and I turned after him, but he pulled even sharper and started pulling away, instead of tightening the my turn, I refused to let my speed drop below 300km/h and eased on the stick. P-40 pilot bled of his speed because of the sharp turn, I had more speed and tightened mine. This lasted for several cycles until P-40 pilot made a mistake - he unintentionally raised his nose a bit in a tight turn and bled a bit more energy. I pointed my nose a few degrees lower, tightened my turn and got into an excellent fireing position and P-40 was too slow to evade (his instinctive reaction was to tighten his turn even further making things worse since his nose was pointing upwards) and that was the end of it. It was all about using powerloading advantage.

P-38 tactics should probably be similar to this:
On defensive you reduce your speed and tighten your turn which single props cant follow because they can't keep high power while doing tight extremely low speed turns. As the bandit overshoots you slam the throttle (because you can do that at low speed, unlike singles) and owing to your excellent acceleration regain energy faster then single which can not afford to do the same (torque). Congrats, you reversed the situation.

On the offense it should probably be similar to what I described my combat with P-40, but stalling in a high loaded turn and low speed would be a stupid thing to do. You would lose precious altitude and seconds, or worse...

I tried to draw my trajectory in that event I described and it did look like a cloverleaf http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I'll post the picture

Was CC Jordan P-38 pilot? Or pilot at all?

BSS_CUDA
12-24-2005, 07:09 AM
As per the performance aspects of the P-38,
you will find few who are more aware of this aircraft's performance (short
of an actual P-38 pilot) than me. I have well over 1,000 hours in powerful
radial powered military twins. As a result, I also have more than a passing
understanding of the skills required to extract maximum performance from
such a platform.



I would say that this makes him qualified to speak on the 38, at least more qualified than 99% of us on this board.
as for your ingame P-40 doing a cloverleaf, you obviously do not understand what a cloverleaf is. it is FACT that the ONLY prop aircraft that could perform the cloverleaf was the P-38 thats one of the things that made it so special

BSS_CUDA
12-24-2005, 07:42 AM
From: C.C.Jordan@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan)

The Fw-190 is up against a faster machine. The P-38J-25-LO or the P-38L-5-LO
can out-run, out-climb and out-turn the 190. The old split-s doesn't work very
well against these P-38's either. They can and will follow. The P-38 can beat
the 190 at whatever game the German wants to play. BnZ, stall fighting, either
way the German is in serious danger.

Even the 190's faster roll rate, in a turn or even a split-s, the P-38 will be,
what, 1/2 second behind in a 180 roll? That isn't anything to crow about.
Why? Because, the Lightning accelerates very quickly in a dive. Or if the
190 rolls to some other vector, the P-38, while beginning in a lag pursuit
postion, will quickly pull through to a lead pursuit. About all the 190 driver
can hope to do is roll and pull, roll and pull, hoping that the P-38 pilot loses
sight long enough to allow the 190 to extend away. Note also that all this
rolling and pulling will be downhill. Uphill, the P-38 will eat him alive.

it appears the at least this comparison of FM is correct with the exception of the BnZ, which if they corrected the compressibility issue that would take care of it.

and Gib hit the nail on the head with turn comparison, a G2 forget about it, the G6 I can hang with if I low yo yo with them in a flat turn your in trouble if you stay with it too long. but you might not have a choice if up against the G6AS because they can out turn and out run you

anarchy52
12-24-2005, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As per the performance aspects of the P-38,
you will find few who are more aware of this aircraft's performance (short
of an actual P-38 pilot) than me. I have well over 1,000 hours in powerful
radial powered military twins. As a result, I also have more than a passing
understanding of the skills required to extract maximum performance from
such a platform.



I would say that this makes him qualified to speak on the 38, at least more qualified than 99% of us on this board.
as for your ingame P-40 doing a cloverleaf, you obviously do not understand what a cloverleaf is. it is FACT that the ONLY prop aircraft that could perform the cloverleaf was the P-38 thats one of the things that made it so special </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Powerful military radial twins...a freaking cargo pilot which never actually flew P-38 much less in combat talks of such generalizations as :"no german fighter could stay with P-38".

And if you leave aside your P-38 obsession, and read what I wrote you'll se that I was the one doing the cloverleaf in 109, in fact it's nothing more then tightening and easing the turn. P-38 could do it better in real life with more power on and lower speed. In game it cannot because single engined planes don't suffer from torque effects. P-38 is compensated for that by more then generous sustaing turn rate.

P-38 didn't turn good, but could do it better at low speed high power settings. Of course FW-190 couldn't hang with P-38 at 225km/h. It was close to it's 1G clean stall speed.

Cloverleaf stalling in high G low speed turn should be put in the same category with "Tiger killing .50s" and "Mustang won the war".

Anyway the topic was P-38 climb rate and we went OT.

Merry X-Mas

BSS_CUDA
12-24-2005, 08:12 AM
"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from
a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."

I see your "opinions" on Mr Jordan's abilities has clouded your judgement, and either your Ignorance or disregard to what has been presented has done the same.

Powerful military radial twins...a freaking cargo pilot which never actually flew P-38 much less in combat talks of such generalizations as :"no german fighter could stay with P-38".
and as we can see your MUCH more quailfied to comment on the 38 than Mr Jordan. and please inform us of your experiences in a 38 or any twin engine aircraft that would make you qualified. it is obvious that you do not understand what a cloverleaf is and what is required to perform the manouver. so I bid you farewell, and recommend that you read some of the books that Jordan recommends in his news group post, you might overcome some of your ignorance of the P-38

Brain32
12-24-2005, 09:30 AM
In the game, no. The G2-G6 will be on you like stink on you know what. The G-14 will just take a little more time getting on your 6. K4's you can turn with. TA-152's you can turn with, and sometimes out turn if you manage your energy. D9 and A series 190's I tent to eat for lunch. D9's give me more trouble then A's.


And I really don't see the problem here isn't that the way it supposed to be? I mean what do you guys wan't? The auto-outturn button? According to what Gibbage said, no late German plane can outturn the P38 in the game so what are we talking about?

BSS_CUDA
12-24-2005, 10:00 AM
Brain maybe you should read the whole thread before responding. start with the section entitled "CLOVERLEAF"

anarchy52
12-24-2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
And I really don't see the problem here isn't that the way it supposed to be? I mean what do you guys wan't? The auto-outturn button? According to what Gibbage said, no late German plane can outturn the P38 in the game so what are we talking about?

They still get their asses kicked, that's the problem. Fly La-7.

P.S. They do have auto-outturn button - it's just mislabeled as dive recovery brake.

Brain32
12-24-2005, 10:11 AM
I did read it, but maybe I missunderstanded it. Isn't the coverleaf very low speed horizontal turning to say it simply?

anarchy52
12-24-2005, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I did read it, but maybe I missunderstanded it. Isn't the coverleaf very low speed horizontal turning to say it simply?

No it's an UFO like manouever that only the allmighty P-38, the best fighter of WWII could do.

Brain32
12-24-2005, 10:22 AM
No it's an UFO like manouever that only the allmighty P-38, the best fighter of WWII could do.

LOL, you see I reall don't understand why they wan't better turning Red planes, I never turn with them anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I say let them have it, they will just bleed speed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BSS_CUDA
12-24-2005, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I did read it, but maybe I missunderstanded it. Isn't the coverleaf very low speed horizontal turning to say it simply?

simply it is a low speed manouver not necc very low speed, as most engagements happen in the 250 - 300 MPH range, they occur right in the 38's comfort range, and as the fight progresses it usually slows down even more, which is to the advantage of the 38. with the 38's Turn, stall and acceleration abilities IRL not in the sim it was a handfull for ANYTHING below 15,000ft. again most 109 pilots dont want to believe that a twin engine fighter can out manouver a single engine fighter of roughly the same size,(as pictures have shown) but that manouver allows the 38 to turn inside any 109 IRL, but not in this sim. read Jordans posts, he pulls his information from many MANY sources, including but not limited to first hand pilot accounts, he quotes approx 20 books as resource material. he is not a 38 rah rah man he does touch on the flaws of the aircraft and there were several. he touches on combat records and deployment records also. he is not the end all be all on the 38. I believe Bodie is. but Jordan uses alot of bodies sources

BSS_CUDA
12-24-2005, 10:30 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 Brain32:
I did read it, but maybe I missunderstanded it. Isn't the coverleaf very low speed horizontal turning to say it simply?

No it's an UFO like manouever that only the allmighty P-38, the best fighter of WWII could do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

anarchy again I ask you PLEASE inform us of your mighty RL flight abilities. I would really like to know. since you declare yourself such an expert on the matter. just blowing off a man with over 1000hrs of RL stick time, and with 10's of thousands of hours of research on the subject. and where did we call the 38 the "best" fighter of WW2. making up stuff again I can see

BSS_CUDA
12-24-2005, 10:34 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 Brain32:
I did read it, but maybe I missunderstanded it. Isn't the coverleaf very low speed horizontal turning to say it simply?

No it's an UFO like manouever that only the allmighty P-38, the best fighter of WWII could do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

heh here we go again lose a discussion resort to the UFO thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Brain32
12-24-2005, 10:49 AM
Wait, so essential problem(with turning) is P38 stall characteristics? And about comparing it with 109 in size, aren't we forgetting the weight of a P38. Also, I wan't to ask YOU because I know you are a dedicated P38 flyer, is it correct that even the way things are now P38 still outturns late 109?

anarchy52
12-24-2005, 10:54 AM
Basically it's this:

Cuda and I disagree on whether p-38 getting into accelerated stall is a part of "mystical" cloverleaf manuever.

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/cloverleaf.jpg

Red part is riding the edge of the stall, prop hanging on low speed, blue part is easing up on the stick and full power which in the case of P-38 can be applied at low speed. That's the way I see it, and that makes sense.

BSS_CUDA
12-24-2005, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Basically it's this:

Cuda and I disagree on whether p-38 getting into accelerated stall is a part of "mystical" cloverleaf manuever.

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/cloverleaf.jpg

Red part is riding the edge of the stall, prop hanging on low speed, blue part is easing up on the stick and full power which in the case of P-38 can be applied at low speed. That's the way I see it, and that makes sense.

as I stated earlier you do not understand the cloverleaf. explain to me how the manover you discribed will allow me to turn inside ANY aircraft!!!! it does not in anyway shape or form minimize your turn radius.

This is the cloverleaf. if you notice it allows you to cut the turn radius smaller than a flat turn, crossing inside your initial starting point. the blue areas are the accelerated stall areas, then you let off the stick and regain some speed than do it again. the P38 was the ONLY WW2 prop drivin aircraft that could perform this
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/cloverleaf.jpg



Brain the ONLY 109 that the 38 can out turn is the K, the G2 will eat your lunch as well as the G6, if you catch an inexperienced pilot you can low yoyo on the later G models and give him a run for his money

BSS_CUDA
12-24-2005, 11:55 AM
Brain maybe this will explain the weight and size issue better


From: C.C.Jordan@Worldnet.att.net
This P-38 debate is endless, but some things about the P-38 that made it such
an marvelous design haven't been brought up that probably should be:
To achieve high-speed capability, an airplane will have high wing-loading
(gross weight to wing area) and low power loading (gross weight to horsepower).
The P-38 had very high wing loading (which provides other benefits, such as
when penetrating weather, etc.), higher than anything other than one-off
record-breaking and racing planes when it was introduced. And it also had
unusually low power loading; in fact it had the lowest power loading of any US
design (maybe any design) of WWII. Turbocharging ensured this power loading
would remain constant to very high altitudes.
This meant the airplane would be fast. But high wing loading would normally
degrade turning, climb and ceiling. With such high wing-loading, the P-38
should have been a dog in all but top speed. It wasn't because of two other
factors.
One is its aspect ratio (span to chord ratio; that is, the relationship of the
length of the wing to its width). Another, related, factor is its span loading
(ratio of airplane weight to wingspan).
In turns or climbs, a plane's drag tends to increase and its speed to decrease.
A way to counter this is to increase the wingspan. For any given wing area,
increasing the span decreases the chord, providing a higher aspect ratio. For
structural and other reasons, most WWII-era fighters had aspect ratios of 6 or
less. The P-38 had an amazing aspect ratio of 8, meaning that it could gain
the advantage of high wing loading for speed and still not lose in
maneuverability, climb or ceiling.
A large wingspan, however, generally degrades a plane's rate of roll because
the wing surface is so far out from the fuselage and center of gravity. Making
the wing tips narrower by tapering the plan form does a lot to counter this.
Normal fighter configurations had a taper ratio of about 2 (the wing tip being
only about half as wide as the wing root). The P-38 had a taper ratio of 3.
So, you had an airplane that was fast yet a good climber, a good turner and
good roller.
But wait--there's more:
Power has to be converted to thrust thru a propeller. Big powerful engines
need big propellers to handle that power, but the diameter of a prop is limited
by tip speed. So power has to be absorbed by adding blades or increasing their
width. But a prop working harder on a given volume of air has inherent
aerodynamic inefficiencies requiring performance compromises. Bottom line
being that propeller inefficiency limits the value of engine power.
But because the P-38's power was in two "sections" (engines), each with its own
propeller, it was able to use its power as efficiently as a much lower-powered
airplane operating at lower speeds. And the increased propeller disc area of
the two props ensured that the plane's power and thrust would be maximized
throughout the maneuver range.
This thrust efficiency made for an airplane that leaped into the sky on
take-off and could accelerate in the air like a drag racer.
Pretty neat, huh?
But wait--there's more:
Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing
chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces)
of between 2 and 2.5. This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car. A
shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride. The P-38's tail
length ratio was a whopping 4. This means it had excellent damping, or the
tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position. This made it a
great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for
instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs.
The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area
because of the increased arm at which the surface worked. This reduced drag
and made for a truly excellent flying airplane.
Not bad, huh?
But wait--there's more:
The width of the horizontal tail surface was determined by the spacing of the
booms. The result was a very high aspect ratio for the tail plane. The
endplate effect of the two vertical fins and rudder surfaces on the end of the
booms produced an aerodynamic apparent aspect ratio that was even higher. This
had the effect of providing very rapid changes in force with small changes in
the aircraft's angle of attack. This great sensitivity, combined with superb
damping, meant that less trimming force was necessary for stability and that
there was a wide range of CG position or stability available without
degradation of flying characteristics.
Like, wow, man!
But wait--there's more:
The high aspect ratio of the horizontal tail also produced narrow chord
elevators, which in a turn meant light control forces for maneuver. Ditto for
the vertical tail surfaces and rudders. Net effect, the pilot could dance the
airplane all over the sky without breaking a sweat, while bellowing out the
latest tunes from "Oklahoma!" to drown out the curses in his headphones of any
other pilot in some lesser machine that he chose to sky-wrassle with.
Because the engines rotated in opposite directions, they produced a symetrical
slip stream flow which eliminated the need the carry rudder displacement, thus
reducing a source of drag. And there was no change in trim with changes in
speed, which was a pure blessing in maneuver combat, er, dogfight.
Then there is the Fowler flap system which actually increases wing area,
tricycle landing gear, centerline fire guns, plenty of internal fuel, a roomy
cockpit....
The P-38 also had an amazing degree of detail refinement compared to other
planes. All its external surfaces were smooth with no distrubances from rivets
or lap joints, for example.
One negative was necessarily small ailerons because of the wing taper, meaning
large aileron displacement would be necessary to initiate a roll. That meant
high aileron forces. That's why the control wheel was used, and why the later
models had aileron boost. Savvy pilots would blip the inside throttle when
they wanted a smart roll ASAP. Less savvy pilots did lots of pushups. And
there was the cockpit heating and defrosting thing (by the way, it's just as
cold at 25,000 ft. in the tropics as in Europe), which did get solved about as
soon as it became apparent. Cooling was never as effectively solved.
But, all in all, a pretty ****ed good flying machine.

anarchy52
12-24-2005, 01:09 PM
Cuda please, my intention is not a flame war. That guy is talking like a used car salesman...
Some things he is saying are ridiculous and untrue. He isn't credible, and is clearly biased (P-38 fanboi if you like).

The picture you posted is from AH forums IIRC, and is not necessarily correct in proportions/or shape. Basically it's the same thing I drew but different proportions between tight and relaxed part of the curve. It is not possible for a plane to increase it's turn rate in accelerated stall, stall = loss of lift, airflow separation, lift < weight. Not counting fly by wire, thrust vectoring miracles with thrust:weight > 1.

Let's just agree that we disagree, OK? We got totally OT.

bolillo_loco
12-24-2005, 01:32 PM
The figures I posted earlier were for the MTO and were air-to-air kills only. The P-38 and P-51 had similar amounts of total time in the MTO. Even though the P-38 arrived on the scene much earlier than the Mustang, it served in very limited numbers. Remember, the P-38 was the only aircraft that the Americans had that could get to the fight. Early in the war, limited P-38 production and the fact that it was needed in every theater of operation meant that it flew in very limited numbers. It wasn't until the P-51B came along that the Americans had another fighter with range. By the time 1944 rolled along P-47s and P-51s began to significantly out number P-38 units in the MTO. The P-38 did quite well in the MTO fighting the same Germans that the 8th Air Force did. The idea that all of the Lightning's claims were Italian is silly. The Italians played a very insignificant part in both North Africa and the Italian campaign. To those that think the P-38 did so much better fighting the Japanese than the Germans, do you realize that just over half of the total air to air claims that the P-38 had were German?

More over, when one looks at 8th Air Force units that converted over to the P-51, you will find that they didn't do much better as is often stated in both this forum and many general reference books. The units that suffered the greatest problems with the P-38 were the 20th and 55th F/Gs. The problems were due to the P-38J-5-LO and early P-38J-10-LO having serious problems with turbo regulators and the new cooling system was too effective; it cooled the oil so well that it often congealed in the radiators and plugged them. The problems that these two fighter groups had were not limited to the problems with the early P-38s. Ineffective tactics, being significantly out numbered by the Germans, being tied to the bombers and not able to range out ahead of the bomber formations, and a list of others. Both the 20th and 55th fighter groups would finish the war with less than stellar performance. All the other units in the 8th Air Force out performed them by a significant margin. As was seen in the MTO, when a unit is forced to use what it is given and accepts it, the results are usually good. The 8th Air Force seemed to be full of complainers that used the P-38 as their scapegoat. When one considers that the P-38 did well in every other theater that it fought in, including units of the 8th Air Force, and 9th Air Force, the people bashing the P-38 haven't any substantial facts to back up their statements.

For those of you who are unaware of just how reliable the P-38 was in other units, and was to become during the last year and a half of the war, consider this. According to Army Air Corps records, the Allision in the P-38 would go on to log twice as many hours before needing overhauled when comparing it to the Merline engined Mustang. It also took half as many man hours to overhaul an Allision as it did a Merline. Had it not been for the fact that the allies landing in Europe and establishing air bases, a lot of Mustangs would have been lost due to mechanical failure. I've all the statistics for the 8th Air Force fighter units in two volumes appropriately named "Fighter Units & Pilots of the 8th Air Force." These two books are not reading material, but reference data. They simply list all the factual data that was reported by the fighter units during their entire tour of duty in WWII. I've seen a few books and many people state how unreliable the P-38 was and how the P-51 was a mechanically sound aircraft. This is interesting because the in the two volumes of statistics I have on the 8th Air Force, the units in question lost more Mustangs due to mechanical failures than they did Lightings. I've yet to read a book on a fighter pilot who flew Mustangs that didn't at least speak about an engine going rough on him and he had to land at a forward base for repairs. My source of data on the Allison being more reliable than the Merline is "Vee's for Victory."

I've seen quite a few people who hang onto the "high wing loading" theory and the P-38's ability to turn. I would like to point out that wing loading is only one part of the big picture. There are several things to consider when looking at an aircraft's ability to turn. The fowler flaps play a significant part in making the Lighting turn much tighter than aircraft that have a lower wing loading. With out the fowler flaps, the P-38 has a similar rate of turn to the Fw-190A8 and P-47D. This alone should give the doubters a hint that it's not all about wing loading because both the Fw-190A8 and P-47D have a lower wing loading, yet with out the aid of fowler flaps the P-38 is able to out turn them. Imagine what happens when the fowler flaps are deployed. I'm not sure how many people realize this, but only the P-38, P-51D, F4U-1D, and a couple of Japanese types have "combat flaps." I'm not sure about Russian types that had "combat flaps," but I wouldn't be surprised if a few had them. I am pretty sure that neither the Bf-109 nor the Fw-190A had "combat flaps."

faustnik
12-24-2005, 03:14 PM
From the Fw190A8 manual:

The flaps can be set to three positions: flight, take-off, and landing. Retraction and extension are controlled by push buttons on the left instrument console.

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

In regards to turning, the arguement from many Bf109 fans has always been that the Bf109 has a high lift wing in relation to many of its oponents. Doesn't the P-38 wing have a high lift co-efficient?

bolillo_loco
12-24-2005, 04:13 PM
Say, what does the "flight setting" on the flaps mean? Does it give a maximum speed at which they may be deployed?

To answer the question on the lift coefficient of the P-38's wing, yes it had a very high one. Deploying the fowler flaps gave it a significant boost to the lift coefficient to the P-38's already high lift coefficient. Excluding the "butterfly flaps" that some Japanese aircraft used, there were three basic flap types used on WWII aircraft. Split flaps provide the most amount of drag and the least amount of lift. For example, split flaps are the type that you see on P-40s, Fw-190s, and Spitfires. Then there is the standard type most people think of, hinged flaps that are part of the wing surface. This type of flap provides a little less drag than the split flap and a little more life. Examples of this type of flap type can be found on the Bf-109, P-51, and F4U Corsair. The Fowler flap on fighter types was pretty much an exclusive feature on the P-38. I believe the Ki-84 may have had them, but I'm unaware of any other American, German, or British fighter that used them. The Fowler flap provides the most amount of lift while creating the least amount of drag when compared to the other two types of flaps. With out the Fowler flap the P-38 is a poor turning aircraft when comparing it to other WWII types at anything but very low speeds, below 150 mph IAS.

By the way Faustnik, that's a big step for a 190 fan to purchase Warren Bodie's P-38 Lighting book. I know it can be hard to purchase books on aircraft that one really isn't interested in. I'm sure you've already read how I began to purchase P-38 books. Becareful, I hated the P-38 and somebody suggested that I purchase bodies book. It was actually the second P-38 book I bought with Caiden's being the first. I didn't want to waste money on books about an aircraft that I didn't even like so I cheaped out and bought Caiden's book first. Bodie's book only confirmed what I read in Caiden's book so I had to purchase another in order to find some credible source to debunk what Caiden and Bodie had written. Well, it took another book, and another, etc. 40 books later, I'm still purchasing and reading P-38 books and I actually like the plane now.

Grey_Mouser67
12-24-2005, 05:22 PM
Another indication of the efficiency of the counter rotating props and flaps combined with high wingloading is the Lightnings extremely slow stall speed.

I can't find the exact speed, but in landing configuration it is less than 80mph...closer to 70 IIRC...maybe one of the lightning experts can clarify.

By contrast, the Bf109G6/U2 has a stall speed in landing configuration of 99mph...according to Capt Eric Brown's book on Luftwaffe aircraft.

Another reason the Lightning could pull such amazing low speed stall turns, spiral climbs and had such a small turn radius...it could flat out turn at lower speeds and climb at lower speeds than any other single engined aicraft it faced except the Zeke and Oscar.

It was a B&Z type plane and a slow speed knife fighter too...an energy fighter extrodinaire...I believe, based on what I read, that it was probably the least effective in the high speed range in terms of rate of roll and there was a limit in terms of speed that the fowler flaps could not be deployed...thinking like 180mph so if you kept the plane fast, it couldn't utilize those things...but slow down too much and below 20,000 ft. and you won't shake it....in real life that is.

The whole combat flap thing is really messed up and I'm suprised the community has not come forward on it more. I don't know enough about all the planes to know which ones are in error, but I do know a few and that could be a whole thread in and of itself...probably why we see such a discrepency in some of the combat reports and testing...Capt. Brown stated a P-51B could out turn that same Bf109G6/U2...it had gunpods so I'd expect it to be less able to turn, but maybe the mustang had combat flaps and the 109 didn't.

bolillo_loco
12-24-2005, 05:33 PM
There has been much debate about what the power on stall speed of the P-38 is. The pilot's manual lists 69 mph IAS, but it has been pointed out that there is an error correction chart to correct this figure. I'm unsure of what the exact figure is. I believe that the Pilot tube was placed too close to the flaps and propeller wash, causing erroneous figures to be reported. No matter what the correct figure, the P-38 still had a lower stall speed with flaps down than did the Mustang or Thunderbolt even though the latter two had lower wing loadings.

P-38J wing loading 54lbs per square foot.
P-47D wing loading 48lbs per square foot.
P-51D wing loading 43lbs per square foot.

anarchy52
12-24-2005, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Another indication of the efficiency of the counter rotating props and flaps combined with high wingloading is the Lightnings extremely slow stall speed.

I can't find the exact speed, but in landing configuration it is less than 80mph...closer to 70 IIRC...maybe one of the lightning experts can clarify.


Actually, having high wingloading has negative effect on turn performance, also flaps reduce stall speed (increased lift) but they also reduce critical AoA unlike slats which increase critical AoA but not lift.

So, flaps in combat would help you turn better but also stall easier. Of course the best case would be to have both slats and combat flaps.

Stall speed is given as 1G stall speed in full landing configuration. That is very different from combat situation.

bolillo_loco
12-24-2005, 08:22 PM
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 Grey_Mouser67:
Another indication of the efficiency of the counter rotating props and flaps combined with high wingloading is the Lightnings extremely slow stall speed.

I can't find the exact speed, but in landing configuration it is less than 80mph...closer to 70 IIRC...maybe one of the lightning experts can clarify.


Actually, having high wingloading has negative effect on turn performance, also flaps reduce stall speed (increased lift) but they also reduce critical AoA unlike slats which increase critical AoA but not lift.

So, flaps in combat would help you turn better but also stall easier. Of course the best case would be to have both slats and combat flaps.

Stall speed is given as 1G stall speed in full landing configuration. That is very different from combat situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting, but I would like to point out a chart from "America's Hundred Thousand" that shows the Angle of Attack when the wing stalls to be slightly higher for the P-38 with flaps extended than with the flaps retracted. I would hope that somebody else who has the book could verify that I'm not making this up. The Chart for the P-38 is on page 115, graph 13. It looks as though the AOA in clean configuration to be slightly under 15 degrees, while the AOA for flaps extended looks to be slightly over 15 degrees when the wing stalls. It could be possible that it varies for different NACA airfoils and flap types. Meaning that your statement could very well be true for different airfoils and flap types.

You are correct when you state how the 1G stall is measured, but it's still one of many factors that will give you some idea of how well two aircraft will perform against each other in terms of turning radius.

Gibbage1
12-25-2005, 01:15 AM
P-38 had one of the best stall speeds of any WWII fighter except the light Japanese fighters and the F4F. Whats the dirty stall speed of a FW-190? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

One thing to note about the P-38's wing loading. The wings were very efficiant for high lift. They produced more lift per square foot. Also, the wings were DIRECTLY in front of the prop. The propwash passing over the wing gave more lift. Then!!! The flaps were also all directly behind the props, adding even more lift when the flaps are down. The low speed handling was amazing with the P-38 due to all these factors.

Just a little comparison

FW-190 stall = 95 full flaps
BF-190 stall = 75 full flaps
P-51 stall = 90 full flaps
P-38 stall = 69 full flaps

As you can see, the wings were VERY efficiant with the added bonus of no torque, prop wash, and flaps. Much better then aircraft 1/3 its weight!!!

Badsight.
12-25-2005, 06:05 AM
you dont need to have a high wingload for a wing to be considered "high speed"

high wing-load is simply small wing area (m2) for the weight

OTOH a high-lift wing creates more drag the faster you go .............. compared to a low lift wing

pretty basic i know but the definition of a high speed wing isnt having your plane heavy

bolillo_loco
12-25-2005, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
you dont need to have a high wingload for a wing to be considered "high speed"

high wing-load is simply small wing area (m2) for the weight

OTOH a high-lift wing creates more drag the faster you go .............. compared to a low lift wing

pretty basic i know but the definition of a high speed wing isnt having your plane heavy

This is "generally" true, but like most "general" statements there are always exceptions to the rule. The P-38 had a wing that provided quite a bit more lift than the typical design of WWII, but it didn't suffer an excessive amount of drag because of it. Due to it's long span and narrow chord it had a very good drag profile unlike the spitfire for example, which had a short stubby wing and a wide chord.

anarchy52
12-25-2005, 02:31 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 Badsight.:
you dont need to have a high wingload for a wing to be considered "high speed"

high wing-load is simply small wing area (m2) for the weight

OTOH a high-lift wing creates more drag the faster you go .............. compared to a low lift wing

pretty basic i know but the definition of a high speed wing isnt having your plane heavy

This is "generally" true, but like most "general" statements there are always exceptions to the rule. The P-38 had a wing that provided quite a bit more lift than the typical design of WWII, but it didn't suffer an excessive amount of drag because of it. Due to it's long span and narrow chord it had a very good drag profile unlike the spitfire for example, which had a short stubby wing and a wide chord. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...what about Ta-152H then?

Badsight.
12-25-2005, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
This is "generally" true, but like most "general" statements there are always exceptions to the rule. The P-38 had a wing that provided quite a bit more lift than the typical design of WWII, but it didn't suffer an excessive amount of drag because of it. Due to it's long span and narrow chord it had a very good drag profile unlike the spitfire for example, which had a short stubby wing and a wide chord. im not trying to knock the P-38 at all

but sometimes people say a plane has a high wing-load so it must have been built for high speed

thats only kind of true

a highly loaded wing is one that is supporting a lot of weight on a small wing area % wise

that doesnt mean its a high speed wing - as you imply its low drag wings that are high speed designs

& this is where wing design gets into complicated aerodynamics , you can generate drag for a low lift factor thru poor shape/design & then you can have the ideal - high lift for a low induced drag figure

the Spitfire had probably the best compromise of any WW2 plane - its downside was a high amount of flex . for its wing area (which was large) it has a low amount of induced & direct drag

faustnik
12-26-2005, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:By the way Faustnik, that's a big step for a 190 fan to purchase Warren Bodie's P-38 Lighting book. I know it can be hard to purchase books on aircraft that one really isn't interested in. I'm sure you've already read how I began to purchase P-38 books. Becareful, I hated the P-38 and somebody suggested that I purchase bodies book.

No need to worry, I never hated the P-38, it's one of the most unique and interesting plane of the war. I do admit to having some favorites, Fw-190, P-39, P-47 and IL-2 but, I'm interested in all WW2 a/c.

Bodie's book is like nothing I've ever read before. His writing is almost "defensive" as if he has heard far too much criticism of his favorite plane. I have never heard many negative opinions of the P-38, so his attitude is surprising. Like any other a/c, the P-38 had its limitations, but, you can't deny that it was the only twin to compete with single engined fighters in the war. That fact alone makes the P-38 special.

BSS_Vidar
12-26-2005, 07:50 PM
Well, if we're gonna be debating in historical facts, none of the versions of the P-38 should be astoundingly effective if the plane is placed in an ETO environment. Due to performance issues in that theater of operations, the 38 was all but pulled from the theater. Where its clamed-o-fame lyes is in the PTO... Where it's hot and humid.

There was a statement by someone that said the Zero becomes sluggish too soon. I disagree. I (as well as others) use Boom-n-Zoom tactics with it in-game. This should not be possible in an airframe made of "bamboo and rice paper" (an exageration of course)http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The Zeke was not a diver, and it had very bad performance rolling right at any speed due to its light weight airframe and heavy engine torque. This is not modeled into the FM.

AKA_TAGERT
12-26-2005, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
No need to worry, I never hated the P-38, it's one of the most unique and interesting plane of the war. I do admit to having some favorites, Fw-190, P-39, P-47 and IL-2 but, I'm interested in all WW2 a/c.

Bodie's book is like nothing I've ever read before. His writing is almost "defensive" as if he has heard far too much criticism of his favorite plane. I have never heard many negative opinions of the P-38, so his attitude is surprising. Like any other a/c, the P-38 had its limitations, but, you can't deny that it was the only twin to compete with single engined fighters in the war. That fact alone makes the P-38 special. The purpose of Bodies book was to clear up allot of the bogus misconceptions of the P38 that occurred during and after the war. In that the P38 got a raw deal and blamed for allot of things that were no fault of the design, thus what you precise as a defensive tone, I see as an up hill battle to set the record straight.

AKA_TAGERT
12-26-2005, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Well, if we're gonna be debating in historical facts, none of the versions of the P-38 should be astoundingly effective if the plane is placed in an ETO environment. Due to performance issues in that theater of operations, the 38 was all but pulled from the theater. Where its clamed-o-fame lyes is in the PTO... Where it's hot and humid. Well, every plane is simulated in it's nominal best.. If your going to simulate bad gas (low octane), bad maintenance, teething problem, etc, than the P38 wont be the only plane that is effected, in that all planes had similar problems during the course of the war. So why should the P38 be the only one?

bolillo_loco
12-26-2005, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Well, if we're gonna be debating in historical facts, none of the versions of the P-38 should be astoundingly effective if the plane is placed in an ETO environment. Due to performance issues in that theater of operations, the 38 was all but pulled from the theater. Where its clamed-o-fame lyes is in the PTO... Where it's hot and humid.

That's interesting, why would you say that? I would like to point out that this mysterious condition (mythical cold weather) that only plagued the ETO at 30,000 feet is rather strange when one considers the following: The temperature of the earth's atmosphere at 30,000 feet is pretty much universal. This means that the air temperature at 30,000 feet over Berlin Germany will most likely be nearly the same as the air temperature over some hot humid place such as New Guinea. I would like to point out that I have extensively read about the P-38 and it flew high altitude mission in the PTO and MTO. High altitude missions were not something exclusive to the ETO. Also, if it was such a dud due to fighting German aircraft in the ETO, could you explain why it did so well in the MTO? I mean the MTO was just as cold, conditions were in fact harsher, and it flew the exact same missions against the exact same Germans as did ETO units. Hub Zemke is often quoted in these forums as saying "The 479th did so much better once it switched from Lightnings to Mustangs.€ I can easily provide the needed information from the 479th F/G's statistical record to prove that Hub is either misquoted or mistaken.

You've made the statement "performance issues." Could you explain this? Do you mean every single sub-type of P-38 produced?

GR142-Pipper
12-27-2005, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Well, if we're gonna be debating in historical facts, none of the versions of the P-38 should be astoundingly effective if the plane is placed in an ETO environment. Due to performance issues in that theater of operations, the 38 was all but pulled from the theater. Where its clamed-o-fame lyes is in the PTO... Where it's hot and humid.

There was a statement by someone that said the Zero becomes sluggish too soon. I disagree. I (as well as others) use Boom-n-Zoom tactics with it in-game. This should not be possible in an airframe made of "bamboo and rice paper" (an exageration of course)http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The Zeke was not a diver, and it had very bad performance rolling right at any speed due to its light weight airframe and heavy engine torque. This is not modeled into the FM. Vidar, have you also noticed a rather high Ps associated with the Zero? It's like they're on energy steroids.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-27-2005, 03:56 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 BSS_Vidar:
Well, if we're gonna be debating in historical facts, none of the versions of the P-38 should be astoundingly effective if the plane is placed in an ETO environment. Due to performance issues in that theater of operations, the 38 was all but pulled from the theater. Where its clamed-o-fame lyes is in the PTO... Where it's hot and humid.

That's interesting, why would you say that? I would like to point out that this mysterious condition (mythical cold weather) that only plagued the ETO at 30,000 feet is rather strange when one considers the following: The temperature of the earth's atmosphere at 30,000 feet is pretty much universal. This means that the air temperature at 30,000 feet over Berlin Germany will most likely be nearly the same as the air temperature over some hot humid place such as New Guinea. I would like to point out that I have extensively read about the P-38 and it flew high altitude mission in the PTO and MTO. High altitude missions were not something exclusive to the ETO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's true however, the missions in the PTO which involved P-38's were rarely in the 30,000 ft. range. Most were much lower which reinforces Vidar's comments.

GR142-Pipper

BSS_CUDA
12-27-2005, 07:54 AM
the P38 performance issue was not so much because of the Plane, it was a stellar performer in the MTO + PTO. what killed the 38 in the ETO was a combination of things,

1. Lockheed never intended to mass produce the aircraft so it was limited in the numbers available. the plane was virtually hand built, in the same lines as a Rolls or a Bentley http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
2. cost the 38 cost $115,000, where the 51 cost only $54,000. they could buy 2 51's for the price of a 38. mass production would have solved this issue somewhat.
3. Pilot training was poor in the ETO compared to the other theaters. this was a complex plane to fly and with little or no cockpit time before missions it probably killed a few pilors because of that.
4. poor gas in the ETO compared to the other theaters caused detonation problems and engine failure, this was not a problem in the MTO and PTO because of the different methods of mixing gas. unlike today they had to add the lead to the gas.
4a. over efficient radiators added to the detonation and bad gas problem. engine operating temp was too low.
5. Command ineptitude in the ETO, and not using the FIRST long-range fighter that could goto Berlin and back to the best of its abilites. and the mindset as some on this board have that a twin engine cannot compete with a single engine fighter.

these are just some of the issues that killed the 38, and most of it was theater command not the plane it self.

many here do not know the story of the P38K it was not killed by theater command but it was killed by the War Production Board. MORONS



The Story Of The Best Performing Variant Of The P-38 Lightning


The Lockheed P-38K-1-LO is now nearly forgotten. No photographs of the aircraft are known to exist today. Only the original test mule was photographed. It has been relegated to that part of history where one off prototypes and special test aircraft usually go. This is rather unfortunate for this aircraft as it was the benchmark against which all other variants of the P-38 Lightning must be compared. Simply said, it was the best performing Lightning ever to take to the sky.

From the very beginning of America€s involvement in World War Two, Lockheed was looking for ways to improve the performance of the P-38. The installation of Rolls Royce XX Merlins was seriously considered. Lockheed went as far as designing the installation package. The advantages of the Merlin engine were numerous. First and foremost was the elimination of the complex turbocharger system. This would also result in a much cleaner engine nacelle. The turbo intercoolers could be removed. That would have allowed for a for more aerodynamic package, closer in shape to that of the original XP-38. Another option was to remove the Prestone radiators and place them under the engine as in the P-40. This location had the additional advantage of reducing the length of the cooling system plumbing. This, in turn, reduced the risk of battle damage to the system. Either option would result in a significant reduction in drag and weight. A further benefit would be gained by the removal of intercooler ducting in the front portion of the outer wings. This volume could be utilized for increased fuel capacity. In fact, that is what was done when the P-38J was designed with revised intercooler cores that eliminated the ducting. This increased internal fuel capacity by 110 gallons.

There were some performance areas that would suffer. While a gain in speed at medium altitudes was expected, the rate of climb would be reduced by as much as 400 feet per minute. Service ceiling would also be reduced as the Packard Merlin XX made considerably less power above 30,000 feet than did the Allison V1710. At the time, no one anticipated the engine and turbocharger problems that developed at high altitude over Europe. Unfortunately, the War Production Board was unwilling to shut down the production line for several months to retool for major design changes required for the engine swap. As a result, the Merlin project was shelved. No P-38 ever flew fitted with Rolls Royce Merlin or Packard engines. The idea of retro-fitting Merlin 61 engines was bantered about 8th Air Force Fighter Command, however there is no evidence that any such conversion ever took place. The prospect of such a modification would have been daunting. This was no simple engine swap, it required large portions of the airframe to be completely redesigned. Stories of Merlin powered Lightnings are, without much doubt, myth.

This, however, did not put an end to seeking greater performance. Lockheed paid close attention to the performance gains achieved with the P-47 when the new "high activity" Hamilton Standard propellers where first fitted on a Republic P-47C in mid 1942 (later, in mid 1943, these propellers were retro-fitted in Britain). The new "paddle" blade prop had significantly increased the rate of climb and acceleration of the "Jug". Lockheed decided that they would install the Hamilton Standard hydraulic propellers on one of the factory test "mules". Thus, was the XP-38K born. The "mule" was an extensively modified P-38E. The original intercoolers were replaced with the newer type introduced on the J model. The initial test results were very encouraging and a P-38G service test airframe (422-81, AFF serial number 42-13558) was selected to be modified.

The new propellers were not the only design changes made in the search for greater performance. This airframe was configured for the Allison V1710F-15 powerplants which were rated at over 1,875 bhp in War Emergency Power (as compared to 1,725 bhp for the V1710F-17 in the P-38L). This was the only P-38 so configured. The potent combination of the engine/propeller promised excellent performance.


There were still other modifications that were necessary. The Hamilton Standard props required a spinner of greater diameter, and the thrust line was slightly higher as well. This in turn, required that new cowlings be manufactured to properly blend the spinners into the engine nacelles. These were hand made and the fit was less than perfect. The new propellers necessitated a change to the reduction gear ratio. The Curtiss Electric props had a normal ratio of 2.00 to 1. The ratio was changed to 2.36 to 1.

Flight tests were conducted from late February through the end of April 1943. Performance was better than hoped for. Maximum speed at critical altitude (29,600 ft) was 432 mph (Military Power). At 40,000 feet, the "K" zipped along at a speed that was 40 mph faster than the current production P-38J could attain at this same height. Maximum speed in War Emergency Power, at critical altitude, was expected to exceed 450 mph. The increase in ceiling was just as remarkable. Flown to 45,000 ft on an extremely hot and humid day, Lockheed engineers predicted a "standard day" service ceiling in excess of 48,000 ft! Improvement of the cowling fit and the elimination of the heavy coat of paint would have gained even more performance. Due to the added efficiency of the new propellers, range was expected to increase by 10 to 15 %. Lockheed appeared to have a world-beater on their hands.

The plane, now designated the P-38K-1-LO was flown to Elgin Field for evaluation by the USAAF. Flown against the P-51B and the P-47D, this Lightning proved to be vastly superior to both in every category of measured performance. What astounded the evaluation team was the incredible rate of climb demonstrated by the P-38K. From a standing start on the runway, the aircraft could take off and climb to 20,000 feet in 5 minutes flat! The "K", fully loaded, had an initial rate of climb of 4,800 fpm in Military Power. In War Emergency Power, over 5,000 fpm was predicted.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/Xp-38k.jpg

In light of this incredible level of performance, you would certainly expect that the Government would be falling all over themselves to quickly get the P-38K into production. Yet, this was not the case. The War Production Board was unwilling to allow a short production suspension in order to get new tooling on line for the required change to the engine cowling. Even when Lockheed promised that the stoppage would only be for 2 or 3 weeks, their request was turned down.


48,000 ft ceiling and 450 MPH http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
WTF was the war board thinking about when then stopped this?!?!?!?!

bolillo_loco
12-27-2005, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 BSS_Vidar:
Well, if we're gonna be debating in historical facts, none of the versions of the P-38 should be astoundingly effective if the plane is placed in an ETO environment. Due to performance issues in that theater of operations, the 38 was all but pulled from the theater. Where its clamed-o-fame lyes is in the PTO... Where it's hot and humid.

That's interesting, why would you say that? I would like to point out that this mysterious condition (mythical cold weather) that only plagued the ETO at 30,000 feet is rather strange when one considers the following: The temperature of the earth's atmosphere at 30,000 feet is pretty much universal. This means that the air temperature at 30,000 feet over Berlin Germany will most likely be nearly the same as the air temperature over some hot humid place such as New Guinea. I would like to point out that I have extensively read about the P-38 and it flew high altitude mission in the PTO and MTO. High altitude missions were not something exclusive to the ETO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's true however, the missions in the PTO which involved P-38's were rarely in the 30,000 ft. range. Most were much lower which reinforces Vidar's comments.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is your source of data and Vidar's for that matter? I picked up the last book that I've read on units and pilots that flew P-38s in the PTO and I had no problem finding references to bomber escort missions that saw P-38s operating at 25,000, 30,000, and 35,000 ft. I've seen it quite often as a matter of fact in several books writtin on P-38 pilots and units that flew in the PTO. I'm not saying that they all were at these altitudes, but many people keep implying that the P-38 only operated at low altitudes. Hasn't anybody ever heard Marine Corsair pilots complain that the P-38 was the Army Air Corps "flying foxhole?" Marine pilots flew at 20,000 to 25,000 feet with the B-24s, while the P-38s flew top cover. The one book I quickly picked up to find data to support my statement was, "Bill A Pilot's Story" by Brooklyn Harris.

Aaron_GT
12-27-2005, 08:24 AM
48,000 ft ceiling and 450 MPH
WTF was the war board thinking about when then stopped this?!?!?!?!

A ceiling that high would only be useful against very high altitude raiders (e.g. Ju86P), not for escort of bombers which lacked that ceiling. Very few very high altitude aircraft were required. Plus whilst the plane may be able to get up to that altitude, high altitude versions of the Spitfire and Mosquito operating at that altitude had plenty of problems, notably heating for the pilot, which was already a problem in the P38, and also windscreen icing.

The speed wasn't much more than that anticipated for the P51B for half the cost. So the answer probably is it didn't seem worth disrupting the production line to produce an expensive plane to do what they were planning to be done by a cheaper one.

This doesn't mean the P38 was a bad plane, just that the P38K probably wasn't justifiable on the basis of economics, and economics and volume production is one of the huge advantages the USA had over the Axis powers.

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
That's interesting, why would you say that? I would like to point out that this mysterious condition (mythical cold weather) that only plagued the ETO at 30,000 feet is rather strange when one considers the following: The temperature of the earth's atmosphere at 30,000 feet is pretty much universal. This means that the air temperature at 30,000 feet over Berlin Germany will most likely be nearly the same as the air temperature over some hot humid place such as New Guinea. I would like to point out that I have extensively read about the P-38 and it flew high altitude mission in the PTO and MTO. High altitude missions were not something exclusive to the ETO. Very Good Point!


Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Also, if it was such a dud due to fighting German aircraft in the ETO, could you explain why it did so well in the MTO? I mean the MTO was just as cold, conditions were in fact harsher, and it flew the exact same missions against the exact same Germans as did ETO units. Another good point!


Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Hub Zemke is often quoted in these forums as saying "The 479th did so much better once it switched from Lightnings to Mustangs.€ I can easily provide the needed information from the 479th F/G's statistical record to prove that Hub is either misquoted or mistaken. Agreed 100%


Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
You've made the statement "performance issues." Could you explain this? Do you mean every single sub-type of P-38 produced? Yes, was wondering that myself, this is why Bodie's book may sound defence to *some* because *some* have the pre-concevd notion that has to be over come first before the truth can be heard.

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
4. poor gas in the ETO compared to the other theaters caused detonation problems and engine failure, this was not a problem in the MTO and PTO because of the different methods of mixing gas. unlike today they had to add the lead to the gas.
4a. over efficient radiators added to the detonation and bad gas problem. engine operating temp was too low.



Cuda,

The 'bad fuel' argument doesn't hold. Until the introduction 100/150 grade fuel in the ETO, the RAF and USAAF used the same 100/130 grade avgas in the MTO as they did the ETO.

Also, the superior training of MTO pilots was limited to the first batch sent to North Africa from the UK at the end of 1942. Those groups had ample opportunity to train on the type prior to combat. After that initial batch, MTO P-38 pilots had the same amount of type training as their ETO (and PTO) counterparts.

LRRP

Other than

|CoB|_Spectre
12-27-2005, 09:28 AM
Another factor often overlooked was the Luftwaffe's almost "standard" procedure of Split-S/Dive Away when the going got rough. This often left the early P-38 unable to pursue due to the compressibility issues. Now, consider the Japanese Zero's famed maneuverability was seriously hampered at speeds above 300 mph, the speed at which Lightning virtuosos like Thomas McGuire regarded as the minimum combat speed to engage the Zero, and you can quickly see how even the same model of P-38 could have differing effectiveness in the ETO and PTO.

You can't ignore the effects of modifications applied to newer models and block numbers. The redesign of the intercooler system doubtlessly contributed to greater reliability and decreased maintenance hours per flight hour...a logistical reality just as crucial to the strategic success as destroying enemy targets. P-38 detractors paint a picture of a failed aircraft, but you'd never know it by the demand for them in North Africa and the Italian campaigns. PTO forces were often frustrated by their inability to get sufficient numbers of Lightnings due to the "Europe first" policy of the U.S. leadership.

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
5. Command ineptitude in the ETO, and not using the FIRST long-range fighter that could goto Berlin and back to the best of its abilites. and the mindset as some on this board have that a twin engine cannot compete with a single engine fighter.

these are just some of the issues that killed the 38, and most of it was theater command not the plane it self.

many here do not know the story of the P38K it was not killed by theater command but it was killed by the War Production Board. MORONS




How did VIII Fighter Command *not* use the P-38 to its best abilitites? The P-38H's and J's available to the command early-on had some problems that weren't easily overcome.

Also, I fail to see how purchasing twice the number of P-51's as they could have P-38J/L/K's for equal or better performance makes the War Production Board morons...

LRRP

Aaron_GT
12-27-2005, 10:07 AM
Also, I fail to see how purchasing twice the number of P-51's as they could have P-38J/L/K's for equal or better performance makes the War Production Board morons...

Also a single engined type meant lower total fuel consumption over the same missions and less maintenance required. These are important considerations when in anything other than a short war. Again, this does not mean that as an aircraft the P38 was bad, but there are other considerations in a war, i.e. the total system which includes production, logistics, and maintenance for weapons systems.

BSS_CUDA
12-27-2005, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
4. poor gas in the ETO compared to the other theaters caused detonation problems and engine failure, this was not a problem in the MTO and PTO because of the different methods of mixing gas. unlike today they had to add the lead to the gas.
4a. over efficient radiators added to the detonation and bad gas problem. engine operating temp was too low.



Cuda,

The 'bad fuel' argument doesn't hold. Until the introduction 100/150 grade fuel in the ETO, the RAF and USAAF used the same 100/130 grade avgas in the MTO as they did the ETO.

Also, the superior training of MTO pilots was limited to the first batch sent to North Africa from the UK at the end of 1942. Those groups had ample opportunity to train on the type prior to combat. After that initial batch, MTO P-38 pilots had the same amount of type training as their ETO (and PTO) counterparts.

LRRP

Other than </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this is a Quote from CC Jordan, who by many is considered one expert on the P-38, the fuel was not shipped to england it was mixed ON SITE, they did not have the same issues in the MTO or PTO with the feul mixing as they did in the ETO


Problems that surfaced with the P-38 in northern European theatre included
its poor performance above 30,000 ft compared to the Me-109, caused by its
lack of high activity propellers able to make use of the power the engines
were delivering at that altitude. The F models used also had insufficient
intercooler capacity. Some indication that TEL anti-knock compound was
not being properly mixed into avgas as well (at this time TEL was still
blended by hand into fuel shortly before use rather than being blended
when produced. This was because in those days the compound tended to
precipitate out if left standing too long. This problem later corrected.
Others believed either too much (leading to plug fouling) or not enough
(detonation) TEL was being added, causing engine problems.
Another problem that was revealed by the Nov. actions was that 55FG pilots
were attempting to dogfight e/a. Their airplane may have been up to the
job, but the pilots weren't (many had as little of 20 hours total time on
the P-38, and little or no air to air gunnery training, and were
especially lacking in deflection shooting skills. Many after-action
contact reports tell of repeated bursts of fire at deflection angles with
no results. Most kills were the result of dead-astern shots). An 8th AF
report examining the failures of the 55FG noted one main problem was that
the P-38 as an airplane was simply too complicated and too demanding for a
low-time service pilot to fly skillfully, let alone dogfight in. It noted
that many pilots were afraid of the P-38. 55FG lost 17 P-38s in combat in
Nov., while being credited with 23 e/a destroyed in the air.
Morale in 55FG plummeted, and numerous pilots aborted missions claiming
mechanical problems--giving the a/c type a bad rep for mechanical
unreliability, although u/s reports reveal that in most cases the ground
crew could find nothing wrong with the aircraft. In many instances the
ground crews hinted that the pilots were merely cowards. In one u/s
report, the pilot had aborted the mission because he claimed the piss tube
was too short and he could not use it. The ground crew chief wrote in his
report: "Piss tube to spec. Problem is pilot's **** is too short." you need to remember that most pilots were transistion from P-40 and had no twin experience

BSS_CUDA
12-27-2005, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
5. Command ineptitude in the ETO, and not using the FIRST long-range fighter that could goto Berlin and back to the best of its abilites. and the mindset as some on this board have that a twin engine cannot compete with a single engine fighter.

these are just some of the issues that killed the 38, and most of it was theater command not the plane it self.

many here do not know the story of the P38K it was not killed by theater command but it was killed by the War Production Board. MORONS




How did VIII Fighter Command *not* use the P-38 to its best abilitites? The P-38H's and J's available to the command early-on had some problems that weren't easily overcome.

Also, I fail to see how purchasing twice the number of P-51's as they could have P-38J/L/K's for equal or better performance makes the War Production Board morons...

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The success of SWPA army pilots against the Japanese was a result of good
tactics. From the get-go, they flew free bomber escort, and ran fighter sweeps
ahead of bomber formations to break up intercepting fighter formations. In
combat areas, they flew "loose goose" formations with 1,000 ft. between planes,
the element leader and wingman free to exchange positions as the tactical
situation warranted.
In Europe, tactics were much poorer. In the MTO, throughout the war, pilots
were required to "beehive" around bombers, and were required to fly in units no
smaller than the four-ship flight, which did not break up into two-ship
elements. This meant one shooter and three wingmen, the No 4 man being like
the last kid in a crack-the-whip game. Once maneuvering began he could not
possibly maintain station and thus was frequently shot down.
In the ETO, while the two-ship element was allowed, the formation was very
tight, thus limiting ACM options. And, especially in the early days of
long-range fighter escort, they were forced to stick very close to the
bomers--75 ft. at one time.
It's astonishing army pilots had any success in Europe at all employing such
poor tactics. Had army pilots fighting the Japanese used such poor tactics, the
Japanese would have mopped the floor with them.


The 8th Air Force was controlled by strategic bomber advocates who had
spent their careers developing the concepts of long-range heavy bombardment.
They were eager for a chance to prove their concepts, including their belief
that heavily armed unescorted bombers could penetrate enemy airspace with
acceptable losses.

1. Unescorted bombers, no matter how heavily armed, suffered catastrophic
losses. 1a. A whole generation of general officers who had successfully
career- tracked based on their theories vis-a-vis unescorted strategic bombing
now had the task of explaining to America's mothers--and the politicians they
voted for-- why the War Dept. was having to send out all those "We regret to
inform you...." telegrams thanks to those theories.
2. The chosen main US fighter in the theater did not have the range to provide
escort.
2a. All those general officers who signed off on that particular fighter now
looked criminally incompetent.
3. Should anyone care to notice, while unescorted B-17s were being destroyed
by the score over Germany because no fighter was available that could escort
them to and from their targets, in the Med P-38 fighters were flying
thousand-mile fighter sweeps from North Africa to Italy as part of a major
effort in an irrelevant theater of war.

Enter the P-38.
It finally begins bomber escort operations out of England in November 1943. US
heavy bomber losses to fighters drop dramatically when escorted by the
fighters. This fact is demonstrated when on some raids the fighters fail to
meet up with their bomber charges. The unescorted bombers are butchered as
before.
Why is the P-38 effective at cutting bomber losses?
Against unescorted bombers:
1. The Luftwaffe uses twin engine fighters and even twin engine bombers as
very effective anti-bomber weapons.
2. The Luftwaffe single engine fighers are equipped with extra guns that
degrade flying performance but increase hitting power.
2a. The single engine fighers are able to form up into large formations
ahead of the bombers and execute devastating head-on attacks unmolested.

When the American bombers have fighter escort:
1. The twin engine German fighters and bombers become extremely vulnerable and
lose much of their usefulness.
2. The single engine German fighters are no longer able to position themselves
ahead of the bomber formation and arrange themselves for attack unmolested,
losing much of their effectiveness.
2a. The additional gun packs the German single engine fighters carry make
them vulnerable to attack by the American escort fighters, limiting their
usefulness.
2b. Some single-engine fighters have to be stripped of these weapons and
directed to protect the anti-bomber fighters from the American escorts
fighters, reducing the total number of German fighters sent against the
American bombers.

The P-38 proves effective at protecting American bombers. Is this good? For
bomber crews, yes. For certain career military professionals, no.
It's bad enough that they are forced to acknowledge that the theory of
unescorted bombers sucessfully fighting their way to the target is wrong. But
to admit that they had a fighter available that could have, from the beginning
of European bombing operations, been escorting those bombers and thus helped
prevent those losses--but they shipped it off to an unimportant theatre....
Well, can you spell "senate investigating committee"?

Far better to waffle and say that, yes, the P-38 was, technically, available
when needed, and yes, theoretically, could have been escorting bombers all
through 1943, reducing bomber losses substantially. But, look at all these
problems it had. Look how the pilots complained about about it. In practice,
it really couldn't have done the job, so there is no blame to allocate. Our
hands are clean. There was nothing we could have done until the P-51 became
available, and as soon as it was, we used it. We are innocent of errors of
judgement that killed thousands of our own aircrew.
(Never mind that both the P-47 and P-51 had their own teething problems, some
quite severe. Never mind that many pilots positively loathed the army's chosen
fighter, the P-47, and that RAF types ridiculed it.)

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:

this is a Quote from CC Jordan, who by many is considered one expert on the P-38, the fuel was not shipped to england it was mixed ON SITE, they did not have the same issues in the MTO or PTO with the feul mixing as they did in the ETO



Cuda,

I don't believe the fuel was 'Mixed' on-site- it was British-refined and supplied in both the ETO and MTO. It was the same product in both theaters, almost certainly from exactly the same refineries.

P-38's may well have had problems with British-refined 100/130 grade, but if it did, those problems would have been experienced in both the ETO and MTO. On the other hand, fuel supplied to the PTO came from U.S. stocks and may well have been more compatible with the Lightning's Allisons.

LRRP

BSS_CUDA
12-27-2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:

this is a Quote from CC Jordan, who by many is considered one expert on the P-38, the fuel was not shipped to england it was mixed ON SITE, they did not have the same issues in the MTO or PTO with the feul mixing as they did in the ETO



Cuda,

I don't believe the fuel was 'Mixed' on-site- it was British-refined and supplied in both the ETO and MTO. It was the same product in both theaters, almost certainly from exactly the same refineries.

P-38's may well have had problems with British-refined 100/130 grade, but if it did, those problems would have been experienced in both the ETO and MTO. On the other hand, fuel supplied to the PTO came from U.S. stocks and may well have been more compatible with the Lightning's Allisons.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
but you just contradicted yourself, on one hand you say the fuel is not a problem on the other hand you say it is. how can there be fuel related engine problems in the ETO but not the PTO when they both flew high alt scirmished regularly


The only place and time the P-38 encountered serious engine problems was when
flying out England in the fall of 1943. Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey, who was
chief of the Fighter Project Branch at Wright Field (and the first person to
fly the P-38) and deputy chief of staff of the 9th Fighter Command in England,
then chief of the Operational Engineering Section of the 8th Air Force, looked
into the Allison engine problem in that theater and reported that the problem
lay with the "poor aromatic fuels" available in England at the time. Once the
cause was known, the problem was corrected, the troubles ended.
Problems with the turbosupercharges encountered in that theater were another
matter. These were solved with the introduction of the core-type intercooler
on the J models.



The P-38 also did lots of high altitude interception work in the SWPA; on one
April, 1943 raid on Port Moresby, 45 G4M bombers came over at 30,000 ft., their
A6M high escort at 33,000 ft. The P-38 CAP was stooging around at 21,000 ft.
when the visitors were spotted and "Tanks Off!" was called and the Lightnings
shot skyward like the proverbial homesick angels to extend greetings.
Air combat above 20,000 ft. was, in fact, routine for P-38 pilots in the SWPA.
As was combat at medium altitudes, low altitudes and at altitudes that were, as
the saying went, "lower than the shortest tree in New Guinea."
P-38s didn't fly ground interdiction missions until after the Japanese air
strength was vitiated. That job was mostly handled by P-40s and P-47s, as well
as A-20s and B-25s.
It's worth noting that when the FEAF began receiving P-51s in the fall of 1944,
they used them to replace P-40s and P-39s in Tactical Reconnaissance
units--they did not use them to replace P-38s in Fighter Groups.

anarchy52
12-27-2005, 10:52 AM
CC Jordan...which book did he write?

It seems that Mr. Jordan is desperately trying to defend the P-38 with questionable arguments which simply do not hold. Bad fuel, cold weather, bad pilots, bad maintenance etc. while his selling point is that P-38 was best thing since sliced bread and that only idiots would chose P-47 or P-51 over P-38.
One of the arguments was that P-38 was fighting in the period of war when luftwaffe still had anough fuel and pilots to put up a fight, but the truth is that LW was focused on bombers and most of the luftwaffe strength was in the east or Reich defense since mid 1943, so P-38's job wasn't that much harder.

The truth IMHO is that although the most successfull twin engined fighter of the WWII it still wasn't as effective as singles, and suffered disproportionate losses when faced with opposition of better performing enemy aircraft in ETO (as opposed to PTO). There was an interesting article in Flight Journal about Ploesti raid by P-38s. That mission describes it well: partly bad luck, partly bad planning, partly too much self-confidence, partly bad tactics, partly strong fighter opposition and finally lack of decesive performance edge over enemy led to heavy losses while failing to inflict anything more then token damage to the enemy.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/vizanti/vizanti.htm

also note the large discrepancy between P-38 pilot's claims and actual victories (more then 5:1)

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 10:54 AM
Well.. I guess it is time to choose.. Irrp22 or BSS_CUDA.

Let see, Irrp22 presented the following proof


Originally posted by lrrp22:
I don't believe the fuel was 'Mixed' on-site- it was British-refined and supplied in both the ETO and MTO. It was the same product in both theaters, almost certainly from exactly the same refineries.
Ok, so Irrp22 proof is based on his *belief*, hmm.. Nothing but a *feeling*? Kind of thin imho.

Now lets take a look at what BSS_CUDA's presented as proof, a quote from CC Jordan

Originally posted by BSS_CUDA a quote from CC Jordan:
Some indication that TEL anti-knock compound was not being properly mixed into avgas as well (at this time TEL was still blended by hand into fuel shortly before use rather than being blended when produced. This was because in those days the compound tended to precipitate out if left standing too long. This problem later corrected. Others believed either too much (leading to plug fouling) or not enough (detonation) TEL was being added, causing engine problems.
Hmmm, so something as simple as mixing in TEL to rich or to thin can cause problems, interesting.

Ok, so now it is decision time, Irrp22 or BSS_CUDA.. Me, Ill have to go with CUDA's supporting quote over Irrp's *feelings*

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
The truth IMHO is that although the most successfull twin engined fighter of the WWII it still wasn't as effective as singles Truth? I guess you missed the kill ratios that Bollio posted on the previous pages, of the twin vs. the singles! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PS what book did you write?

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:

but you just contradicted yourself, on one hand you say the fuel is not a problem on the other hand you say it is. how can there be fuel related engine problems in the ETO but not the PTO when they both flew high alt scirmished regularly



No contradiction at all, Cuda. I pointed out that the fuel used in the PTO was different than that used in the ETO/MTO. It was you that claimed that fuel was only a problem in the ETO- I pointed out that the same fuel was used in the ETO and MTO.

LRRP

BSS_CUDA
12-27-2005, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
CC Jordan...which book did he write?

It seems that Mr. Jordan is desperately trying to defend the P-38 with questionable arguments which simply do not hold. Bad fuel, cold weather, bad pilots, bad maintenance etc. while his selling point is that P-38 was best thing since sliced bread and that only idiots would chose P-47 or P-51 over P-38.
One of the arguments was that P-38 was fighting in the period of war when luftwaffe still had anough fuel and pilots to put up a fight, but the truth is that LW was focused on bombers and most of the luftwaffe strength was in the east or Reich defense since mid 1943, so P-38's job wasn't that much harder.

The truth IMHO is that although the most successfull twin engined fighter of the WWII it still wasn't as effective as singles, and suffered disproportionate losses when faced with opposition of better performing enemy aircraft in ETO (as opposed to PTO). There was an interesting article in Flight Journal about Ploesti raid by P-38s. That mission describes it well: partly bad luck, partly bad planning, partly too much self-confidence, partly bad tactics, partly strong fighter opposition led to heavy losses while failing to inflict anything more then token damage to the enemy.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/vizanti/vizanti.htm

also note the large discrepancy between P-38 pilot's claims and actual victories (more then 5:1)

anarchy no offense but have you even read 1 book on the P38 just 1 ??? you are so quick to dismiss EVERYTHING I have posted in this thread but you back it up with nothing. I mention the cloverleaf and you post a pic that is NOTHING like the cloverleaf IRL, then you try to insist its the same thing, you call Mr Jordan a "fanboy" in a different post yet you again do NOTHING to refute his claims.

"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from
a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."
I will conceede that kills were overstated, how many of Hartman's or Galland's kills were overinflated, or is it just the allies that did it. I could dig up more Information of the 38's combat record but I'm afraid it would be lost on you. <SALUTE>

BSS_CUDA
12-27-2005, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:

but you just contradicted yourself, on one hand you say the fuel is not a problem on the other hand you say it is. how can there be fuel related engine problems in the ETO but not the PTO when they both flew high alt scirmished regularly



No contradiction at all, Cuda. I pointed out that the fuel used in the PTO was different than that used in the ETO/MTO. It was you that claimed that fuel was only a problem in the ETO- I pointed out that the same fuel was used in the ETO and MTO.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


originally posted by me
The only place and time the P-38 encountered serious engine problems was when
flying out England in the fall of 1943. Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey, who was
chief of the Fighter Project Branch at Wright Field (and the first person to
fly the P-38) and deputy chief of staff of the 9th Fighter Command in England,
then chief of the Operational Engineering Section of the 8th Air Force, looked
into the Allison engine problem in that theater and reported that the problem
lay with the "poor aromatic fuels" available in England at the time. Once the
cause was known, the problem was corrected, the troubles ended.
Problems with the turbosupercharges encountered in that theater were another
matter. These were solved with the introduction of the core-type intercooler
on the J models.

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 11:24 AM
Tagert,

CC Jordan's view on fuel is as much a 'belief' as mine- probably more so. He has a 'feeling' that the P-38 got the shaft in the ETO and, in fact, the problems it experienced there were completely unrelated to the airplane's capabilities.

I'd like to see your, or anyone else's, proof that 100/130 grade was improperly 'mixed' in the ETO as opposed to proper 'mixing' used in the MTO.

LRRP


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Well.. I guess it is time to choose.. Irrp22 or BSS_CUDA.

Let see, Irrp22 presented the following proof

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
I don't believe the fuel was 'Mixed' on-site- it was British-refined and supplied in both the ETO and MTO. It was the same product in both theaters, almost certainly from exactly the same refineries.
Ok, so Irrp22 proof is based on his *belief*, hmm.. Nothing but a *feeling*? Kind of thin imho.

Now lets take a look at what BSS_CUDA's presented as proof, a quote from CC Jordan

Originally posted by BSS_CUDA a quote from CC Jordan:
Some indication that TEL anti-knock compound was not being properly mixed into avgas as well (at this time TEL was still blended by hand into fuel shortly before use rather than being blended when produced. This was because in those days the compound tended to precipitate out if left standing too long. This problem later corrected. Others believed either too much (leading to plug fouling) or not enough (detonation) TEL was being added, causing engine problems.
Hmmm, so something as simple as mixing in TEL to rich or to thin can cause problems, interesting.

Ok, so now it is decision time, Irrp22 or BSS_CUDA.. Me, Ill have to go with CUDA's supporting quote over Irrp's *feelings* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Tagert,

CC Jordan's view on fuel is as much a 'belief' as mine- probably more so. I beg to differ, in that CC Jordan's 'belief' is supported by Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey's quote.


Originally posted by Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey's quote:
The only place and time the P-38 encountered serious engine problems was when flying out England in the fall of 1943. Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey, who was chief of the Fighter Project Branch at Wright Field (and the first person to fly the P-38) and deputy chief of staff of the 9th Fighter Command in England, then chief of the Operational Engineering Section of the 8th Air Force, looked into the Allison engine problem in that theater and reported that the problem lay with the "poor aromatic fuels" available in England at the time. Once the cause was known, the problem was corrected, the troubles ended.

Therefore there was a problem, it was fixxed, and CC Jordon just gave us more detail on the problem that was fixed.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
He has a 'feeling' that the P-38 got the shaft in the ETO and, in fact, the problems it experienced there were completely unrelated to the airplane's capabilities. As do many others, like Bodie.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
I'd like to see your, or anyone else's, proof that 100/130 grade was improperly 'mixed' in the ETO as opposed to proper 'mixing' used in the MTO. My proof? Allready posted it.. But if you need a re-cap, read CC Jordon's quote in conjunction with Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey quote and keep in mind the FACT that the P38 did NOT have this 'problem' in the MTO, now connect the dots and you too might see the light.

anarchy52
12-27-2005, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
The truth IMHO is that although the most successfull twin engined fighter of the WWII it still wasn't as effective as singles Truth? I guess you missed the kill ratios that Bollio posted on the previous pages, of the twin vs. the singles! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

O V E R C L A I M I N G
- lack of hard intelligence (combat over enemy territory)
- boosting the moral of demoralized P-38 crews

example, perhaps an extreme one: Ploesti, June 10th:
losses:
23 P-38
1 Bf-109 G-6 (JG53), 1 crash landed
3 IAR-80/81 (two lost in collision), 1 heavily damaged
one Bf-110, Me-210 and He-111 was claimed by P-38s. but I couldn't find confirmation nor denial of those losses

USAF "confirmed" kills:
P-38s were given 32 confirmed kills

@Cuda: "My" cloverleaf is just the same as one from that Internet board drawn by a gamer just like us not a P-38 pilot, only it shows much tighter turns.

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
O V E R C L A I M I N G
- lack of hard intelligence (combat over enemy territory
- boosting the moral of demoralized P-38 crews

example: Ploesti, June 10th:
losses:
23 P-38
1 Bf-109 G-6 (JG53), 1 crash landed
3 IAR-80/81 (two lost in collision), 1 heavily damaged
one Bf-110, Me-210 and He-111 was claimed by P-38s. but I couldn't find confirmation nor denial of those losses

USAF "confirmed" kills:
P-38s were given 32 confirmed kills Keep in mind that nobody is claiming the USAAF or any other AF didnt make mistakes in kill counts. Therefore it was true of all plane types (P51, P47, Bf109, etc).

Now let me see if I got this right.. You want us to belive that these demoralized pilots were lying to thier commanders, who in turn lyed back to them tell them what a great job they did, and, you would have us belive that only the P38 pilots did this?

Please!

Nice try, big gold star for effort, but no sale. Try again.

PS still no word on that book you wrote.. what is the ISBN #?

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:

originally posted by me
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The only place and time the P-38 encountered serious engine problems was when
flying out England in the fall of 1943. Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey, who was
chief of the Fighter Project Branch at Wright Field (and the first person to
fly the P-38) and deputy chief of staff of the 9th Fighter Command in England,
then chief of the Operational Engineering Section of the 8th Air Force, looked
into the Allison engine problem in that theater and reported that the problem
lay with the "poor aromatic fuels" available in England at the time. Once the
cause was known, the problem was corrected, the troubles ended.
Problems with the turbosupercharges encountered in that theater were another
matter. These were solved with the introduction of the core-type intercooler
on the J models.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How was the problem corrected? Why wasn't it experienced in the MTO which was using the same 'poor aromatic fuel'? If it was the fuel's fault, why didn't the Spitfire, Thunderbolt, Allison Mustang, Merlin Mustang, Typhoon, Tempest, etc. experience the same or similar problems?

The fact is that the P-38H and early J's used in late '43/early '44 had problems with engines, superchargers, and cockpit heating that limited their effectiveness. Performance wise, the poor roll rate and early compressibilty allowed the Luftwaffe to dictate terms of the fight at the higher altitudes. Granted, many of those problems were overcome by the summer of '44, but at that point, the P-51 had fully matured as an outstanding escort fighter (it wasn't without its own problems) and most of what the later P-38's could offer was 'catching up' with the Mustang's capabililties- at twice the price and complexity.

Again, the P-38 was an excellent fighter- it just wasn't the uber "misunderstood genius" that some of us would like to believe it was.

LRRP

LRRP

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
How was the problem corrected? Why wasn't it experienced in the MTO which was using the same 'poor aromatic fuel'? If it was the fuel's fault, why didn't the Spitfire, Thunderbolt, Allison Mustang, Merlin Mustang, Typhoon, Tempest, etc. experience the same or similar problems?

The fact is that the P-38H and early J's used in late '43/early '44 had problems with engines, superchargers, and cockpit heating that limited their effectiveness. Performance wise, the poor roll rate and early compressibilty allowed the Luftwaffe to dictate terms of the fight at the higher altitudes. Granted, many of those problems were overcome by the summer of '44, but at that point, the P-51 had fully matured as an outstanding escort fighter (it wasn't without its own problems) and most of what the later P-38's could offer was 'catching up' with the Mustang's capabililties- at twice the price and complexity.

Again, the P-38 was an excellent fighter- it just wasn't the uber "misunderstood genius" that some of us would like to believe it was.

LRRP

LRRP Note, you used your sig twice.. your starting to miss-fire and stutter.. maybe your milk to sugar ratio mix in your coffie is too rich? Try less sugar! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HayateAce
12-27-2005, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
Another factor often overlooked was the Luftwaffe's almost "standard" procedure of Split-S/Dive Away when the going got rough. This often left the early P-38 unable to pursue due to the compressibility issues. .

and this is the kind of bogus, un-resourced statement that keeps perpetuating myths and lies. The P38 was one of the first US fighters to demonstrate compressibility, NOT the only fighter to suffer from it. In FACT, it was one of the first if not THE first to come up with a workaround (fillets and later dive flaps/breaks).

US pilots watched numerous 109s and 190s roll over and eventually auger straight into the dirt as a result of trying escape them. Hmm, they must have encoutered.....you guessed it, compressibilty.

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
and this is the kind of bogus, un-resourced statement that keeps perpetuating myths and lies. The P38 was one of the first US fighters to demonstrate compressibility, NOT the only fighter to suffer from it. In FACT, it was one of the first if not THE first to come up with a workaround (fillets and later dive flaps/breaks).

US pilots watched numerous 109s and 190s roll over and eventually auger straight into the dirt as a result of trying escape them. Hmm, they must have encoutered.....you guessed it, compressibilty. Good Point!

anarchy52
12-27-2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
O V E R C L A I M I N G
- lack of hard intelligence (combat over enemy territory
- boosting the moral of demoralized P-38 crews

example: Ploesti, June 10th:
losses:
23 P-38
1 Bf-109 G-6 (JG53), 1 crash landed
3 IAR-80/81 (two lost in collision), 1 heavily damaged
one Bf-110, Me-210 and He-111 was claimed by P-38s. but I couldn't find confirmation nor denial of those losses

USAF "confirmed" kills:
P-38s were given 32 confirmed kills Keep in mind that nobody is claiming the USAAF or any other AF didnt make mistakes in kill counts. Therefore it was true of all plane types (P51, P47, Bf109, etc). Yet you want us to belive that the P38 pilots did this more than any other pilots? Please! Nice try, big gold star for effort, but no sale. Try again.

PS still no word on that book you wrote.. what is the ISBN #? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, all made mistakes, but USAF was the champion of overclaiming as bomber crews alone wiped out luftwaffe 2 times over during late 1943 to mid 1944. I'm not saying that USAF always "cheated", some of it was a "honest" mistake, because they couldn't verify kills over enemy territory without guncams.

What I'm saying is correct those kill claims for P-38's (divide by 3, we won't assume that overclaiming was so large as in case of the confusing low level furball over Romania) and the numbers won't be pretty any more.

As for my book, it's on the same Amazon page as Yours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Tagert,

CC Jordan's view on fuel is as much a 'belief' as mine- probably more so. I beg to differ, in that CC Jordan's 'belief' is supported by Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey's quote.


Originally posted by Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey's quote:
The only place and time the P-38 encountered serious engine problems was when flying out England in the fall of 1943. Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey, who was chief of the Fighter Project Branch at Wright Field (and the first person to fly the P-38) and deputy chief of staff of the 9th Fighter Command in England, then chief of the Operational Engineering Section of the 8th Air Force, looked into the Allison engine problem in that theater and reported that the problem lay with the "poor aromatic fuels" available in England at the time. Once the cause was known, the problem was corrected, the troubles ended.

Therefore there was a problem, it was fixxed, and CC Jordon just gave us more detail on the problem that was fixed.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
He has a 'feeling' that the P-38 got the shaft in the ETO and, in fact, the problems it experienced there were completely unrelated to the airplane's capabilities. As do many others, like Bodie.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
I'd like to see your, or anyone else's, proof that 100/130 grade was improperly 'mixed' in the ETO as opposed to proper 'mixing' used in the MTO. My proof? Allready posted it.. But if you need a re-cap, read CC Jordon's quote in conjunction with Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey quote and keep in mind the FACT that the P38 did NOT have this 'problem' in the MTO, now connect the dots and you too might see the light. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert,

I would submit that the 'poor aromatic fuels' had more to do with the P-38's engines than the actual quality of the fuel. Since none of the other primary RAF and USAAF fighters in the ETO had problems to the same extent as the P-38, that seems to be the case.

Again, that's not proof that different fuels were used in the MTO and ETO, just that the way the P-38 used that fuel was different in the ETO than the MTO.

LRRP

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
No, all made mistakes, but USAF was the champion of overclaiming as bomber crews alone wiped out luftwaffe 2 times over during late 1943 to mid 1944. I'm not saying that USAF always "cheated", some of it was a "honest" mistake, because they couldn't verify kills over enemy territory without guncams.

What I'm saying is correct those kill claims for P-38's (divide by 3, we won't assume that overclaiming was so large as in case of the confusing low level furball over Romania) and the numbers won't be pretty any more. So, why just divide the P38s? If you divide all by the same factor then the P38 kill ratio is still better than the P51 and P47, thus just as pretty. But, nice try, still no sale though.


Originally posted by anarchy52:
As for my book, it's on the same Amazon page as Yours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif roger, thought so, just found it odd that someone would dig someone for not having a book, then trun around and do the same thing they were dinging the other guy for when they dont have a book either.

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:

and this is the kind of bogus, un-resourced statement that keeps perpetuating myths and lies. The P38 was one of the first US fighters to demonstrate compressibility, NOT the only fighter to suffer from it. In FACT, it was one of the first if not THE first to come up with a workaround (fillets and later dive flaps/breaks).

US pilots watched numerous 109s and 190s roll over and eventually auger straight into the dirt as a result of trying escape them. Hmm, they must have encoutered.....you guessed it, compressibilty.

Unfortunately, the P-38 experienced compressibiltiy at much lower speeds than other fighters in the theater- especially at high altitude. Dive flaps simply allowed the fighter to safely and easily recover from compressibility, it did not increase max dive speed by any substantial margin.

LRRP

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Tagert,

I would submit that the 'poor aromatic fuels' had more to do with the P-38's engines than the actual quality of the fuel. Since none of the other primary RAF and USAAF fighters in the ETO had problems to the same extent as the P-38, that seems to be the case. That is a cute feeling to have.. but not much to suport it. For example, I can shoot down your theory in one sentence..

The P38's super-turbo charger system was like no other.

Therefore, it may have been more sesptable to little changes that others were not. That and your theroy does not explaine away Gen. Benjamin Kelsey and CC Jordons statements, where as thier do explaine away yours.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
Again, that's not proof that different fuels were used in the MTO and ETO, just that the way the P-38 used that fuel was different in the ETO than the MTO.

LRRP Disagree 100%

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Tagert,

I would submit that the 'poor aromatic fuels' had more to do with the P-38's engines than the actual quality of the fuel. Since none of the other primary RAF and USAAF fighters in the ETO had problems to the same extent as the P-38, that seems to be the case. That is a cute feeling to have.. but not much to suport it. For example, I can shoot down your theory in one sentence..

The P38's super-turbo charger system was like no other.

Therefore, it may have been more sesptable to little changes that others were not. That and your theroy does not explaine away Gen. Benjamin Kelsey and CC Jordons statements, where as thier do explaine away yours.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
Again, that's not proof that different fuels were used in the MTO and ETO, just that the way the P-38 used that fuel was different in the ETO than the MTO.

LRRP Disagree 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that what I just said? The P-38 was more sensitive to fuels than were all other fighters in the theater. That sounds like a design difficiency to me- one that was apparently overcome at a later date. Likewise, the Allison V-1710 ran much smoother at very low rpm/boost than did the R-R Merlin. In that case, the Merlin had a design difficiency relative to the Allison- just like the P-38's fuel sensitivity.

No matter how you slice it- in late 1943/early '44 the P-38 was flying mission profiles in the ETO that it wasn't in the MTO. Hence, different problems with the same fuel type could arise in the ETO but not the MTO.

LRRP

BSS_CUDA
12-27-2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Again, the P-38 was an excellent fighter- it just wasn't the uber "misunderstood genius" that some of us would like to believe it was.

Q; can the ingame 38 perform the cloverleaf?
A: NO

Q: can the ingame 38 climb at documented rates?
A: NO

Q: does the ingame 38 suffer from un-realistic compressibility at speed?
A: YES


as for how the problem was corrected that is OBVIOUS. they fixed the mixture problems. NONE of those Aircraft used the same engine setup as the Lightning. now this is only my opinion, but I would assume that it had to do more with the turbosetup and the higher boost. detonation has a couple of factors High compression and poor fuel (low octane). since the problem was solved with the mixture correction I would venture to say the problem was fuel

anarchy52
12-27-2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
So, why just divide the P38s? If you divide all by the same factor then the P38 kill ratio is still better than the P51 and P47, thus just as pretty. But, nice try, still no sale though.

Kill ratio = kills/losses
You are talking about kill totals. Having more total kills doesn't imply better K/D.

I know someone posted totals for ETO, I have only Navy combat statistics report.

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Again, the P-38 was an excellent fighter- it just wasn't the uber "misunderstood genius" that some of us would like to believe it was.

Q; can the ingame 38 perform the cloverleaf?
A: NO

Q: can the ingame 38 climb at documented rates?
A: NO

Q: does the ingame 38 suffer from un-realistic compressibility at speed?
A: YES


as for how the problem was corrected that is OBVIOUS. they fixed the mixture problems. NONE of those Aircraft used the same engine setup as the Lightning. now this is only my opinion, but I would assume that it had to do more with the turbosetup and the higher boost. detonation has a couple of factors High compression and poor fuel (low octane). since the problem was solved with the mixture correction I would venture to say the problem was fuel </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is about the in-game P-38? I thought we were discussing the Real Deal here (at least right now). If not, why are we discussing fuel problems and RL ETO/MTO/PTO combat performance differences?

The fuel used in the ETO was not low octane- it was 100/130 grade, the same as that used in the MTO.

LRRP

BSS_CUDA
12-27-2005, 12:28 PM
you statement said

it just wasn't the uber "misunderstood genius" that some of us would like to believe it was.

Obviously it is. I will give Oleg the Benifit with the torque being a game engine limitation, but the other 2 are not acceptable. everytime we post evidence of the 38's abilities, from pilot accounts to documents we are called fanboys or we want the 38 to be a UFO. the majority of us that post pro's about the 38 do so with something to back us up. (Bollio,Kahuna,Gibbage,Myself, and a couple of others) then there are those that have never read a book on the 38 or done ANY research at all that try to contradict us. they use feeling or opinions or predjudices to say thats not how it happened, yet they cannot back it up with any written documentation. we try to enlighten and inform with our documents and attempt to make the 38 the uber "misunderstood genius" that some of us would like to believe it wasnt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Isn't that what I just said? The P-38 was more sensitive to fuels than were all other fighters in the theater. Nope, what you *were* saying is the fuel in the ETO and the MTO were the same, CC Jordan pointed out that manual mixing of the TEL anti-knock made a big difference.. to the P38. Now your admiting that a different blend is posable, I wish I could play both sides of the fence like that.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
That sounds like a design difficiency to me- Too you, but to others it sounds more like a TEL anti-knock mix problem.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
one that was apparently overcome at a later date. Yes, Gen. Benjamin Kelsey noted, ie.


Originally posted by Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey's quote:
The only place and time the P-38 encountered serious engine problems was when flying out England in the fall of 1943. Brig. Gen. Benjamin Kelsey, who was chief of the Fighter Project Branch at Wright Field (and the first person to fly the P-38) and deputy chief of staff of the 9th Fighter Command in England, then chief of the Operational Engineering Section of the 8th Air Force, looked into the Allison engine problem in that theater and reported that the problem lay with the "poor aromatic fuels" available in England at the time. Once the cause was known, the problem was corrected, the troubles ended.

To which CC Jordon indicated the "problem" was the TEL anti-knock mix


Originally posted by lrrp22:
No matter how you slice it- in late 1943/early '44 the P-38 was flying mission profiles in the ETO that it wasn't in the MTO. Hence, different problems with the same fuel type could arise in the ETO but not the MTO.

LRRP Yes, I think the P38 had a larger kill ration in the ETO than the MTO, even with it's "problems" that were due to different fuel mixtures.

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Kill ratio = kills/losses
You are talking about kill totals. Having more total kills doesn't imply better K/D.
No, sorry, Im talking about the kill ration between the P38 and P51 and P47 that bollio posted. Kills per plane type. With regards to your statment that only the P38 should have it's kill totals divided by 3, as if the P38 was the only plane exagerating thier kills.

So, if you were to be fare and divide all plane types by 3, the *ratio* between types would reamin the same. The kill totals would be lower, by a factor of 3, but the *ratio* between types would remain the same, where the P38 has a larger kill count than the P51 and P47 combined!

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
you statement said
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it just wasn't the uber "misunderstood genius" that some of us would like to believe it was.

Obviously it is. I will give Oleg the Benifit with the torque being a game engine limitation, but the other 2 are not acceptable. everytime we post evidence of the 38's abilities, from pilot accounts to documents we are called fanboys or we want the 38 to be a UFO. the majority of us that post pro's about the 38 do so with something to back us up. (Bollio,Kahuna,Gibbage,Myself, and a couple of others) then there are those that have never read a book on the 38 or done ANY research at all that try to contradict us. they use feeling or opinions or predjudices to say thats not how it happened, yet they cannot back it up with any written documentation. we try to enlighten and inform with our documents and attempt to make the 38 the uber "misunderstood genius" that some of us would like to believe it wasnt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So it *is* your contention that the P-38 was some kind of super fighter that, if flown and maintained properly, was superior to all others? Are you serious? Hmmm...I think you had better be careful who you speak for when you make that claim.

LRRP

BSS_CUDA
12-27-2005, 12:36 PM
wow way to read into a statement, see the smily at the end http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Kill ratio = kills/losses
You are talking about kill totals. Having more total kills doesn't imply better K/D.
No, sorry, Im talking about the kill ration between the P38 and P51 and P47 that bollio posted. Kills per plane type. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then that ratio is not remotley representative of their relative merits. Three full groups of P-38's (1st, 14th, and 82nd) fought in the MTO from November of 1942 until VE-Day. There weren't three Merlin Mustang FG's in the MTO until the spring of 1944- an 18+ month head start. By summer of '44, there were four P-51 FG's in the 15th AAF- the most that would ever be assigned to the MTO.

LRRP

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
wow way to read into a statement, see the smily at the end http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Ooops, my bad...sorry! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif I didn't think that was what you were arguing.

Likewise, don't get me wrong, I think that the later P-38's were fully competitive in all theaters. It had advantages and disadvantages like all airframes, I just don't believe that its very real problems were just a matter of improper use. It was a very unique (and complicated) design that faced some relatively unique challenges.

LRRP

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:Nope, what you *were* saying is the fuel in the ETO and the MTO were the same, CC Jordan pointed out that manual mixing of the TEL anti-knock made a big difference.. to the P38. Now your admiting that a different blend is posable, I wish I could play both sides of the fence like that.



Nope. I do not believe that the 100/130 grade fuel used in the MTO was 'mixed' any differently than in the ETO. I believe that the fuel was mixed at the same refineries and in the same way prior to delivery to either command. I could be wrong, but so could CC Jordan.

I believe that the problems experienced in the ETO were due to the kind of high-altitude, long-range escort missions that UK-based P-38H/J's were tasked with at that time. MTO P-38's were not flying that mission profile at that time.


LRRP

hop2002
12-27-2005, 01:16 PM
Neil Sterling posted some documents on the fuel changes in late summer 1943. I can't repost them at the moment, but what they said was:


As of 10th August, US refineries changed the formulation of 100/130 fuel. TEL content went from 4.8 cc per imp gallon to 5.5 cc.

That got the British worried as it was done without consultation or warning. They tested various engines with the new formulation and found:

"The position regarding the utilisation of 5.5 cc fuel by the RAF is therefore:

a: British engines are OK

b: Allison engines cannot use it and tests so far conducted indicate that the engine itself cannot digest 5.5 cc fuel. Considerable further test data is therefore required both on engine and plugs.

c: Wright and P&W engines - no decision can be taken until flight tests are completed. In view of the encouraging preliminary results on british plugs, adequate production of these types should be provided"

So there was a problem with US supplied fuel in late summer/autumn 1943. But it was only a major problem for Allison engines.

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Then that ratio is not remotley representative of their relative merits. Three full groups of P-38's (1st, 14th, and 82nd) fought in the MTO from November of 1942 until VE-Day. There weren't three Merlin Mustang FG's in the MTO until the spring of 1944- an 18+ month head start. By summer of '44, there were four P-51 FG's in the 15th AAF- the most that would ever be assigned to the MTO.

LRRP I would agree with you 100% if I was talking about the MTO, but I was not, therefore I dont.

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Nope. I do not believe that the 100/130 grade fuel used in the MTO was 'mixed' any differently than in the ETO. I believe that the fuel was mixed at the same refineries and in the same way prior to delivery to either command. I could be wrong, but so could CC Jordan. True, but, keep in mind that Gen. Benjamin Kelsey statment agrees with CC Jordans and not yours, thus I go with CC Jordan over you.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
I believe that the problems experienced in the ETO were due to the kind of high-altitude, long-range escort missions that UK-based P-38H/J's were tasked with at that time. MTO P-38's were not flying that mission profile at that time.

LRRP Thus ignoring what bollio pointed out, that at 30kft, anywhere in the world, the temps are about the same. Yet PTO and MTO did not report the same problems, that agrees with what CC Jordan and Gen. Benjamin Kelsey and is in conflick with yours.

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

I would agree with you 100% if I was talking about the MTO, but I was not, therefore I dont.


What are you talking about then? The numbers bolillo posted were for the MTO. They certainly weren't for the ETO- the P-51 and P-47 had a vastly higher number of kills than the P-38 there.



I've been waiting for somebody to say "The P-38 did horrible in the ETO because it fought German aircraft. It was ok for the PTO when fighting Japanese aircraft."

If this is the case could you explain these figures from the Army Air Corps?

MTO fighting German aircraft

P-47 263 air to air claims against the Germans
P-51 991 air to air claims against the Germans
P-38 1,431 air to air claims against the Germans





LRRP

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Thus ignoring what bollio pointed out, that at 30kft, anywhere in the world, the temps are about the same. Yet PTO and MTO did not report the same problems, that agrees with what CC Jordan and Gen. Benjamin Kelsey and is in conflick with yours.

How often did the P-38 fly at 30,000 ft in the MTO and PTO before the spring of 1944?


LRRP

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
How often did the P-38 fly at 30,000 ft in the MTO and PTO before the spring of 1944?

LRRP You say that as if you have some kind of sorti count from the ETO to compare to. Eitherway, my guess, like yours, is it was not often, but that it was done from time to time, yet no problems reported like the ones in the ETO. Thus the problem was local to the ETO, where they also had that TEL mix problem, connect the dots and keep in mind that now all missions in the ETO were at 30kft either.

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
What are you talking about then? The numbers bolillo posted were for the MTO. They certainly weren't for the ETO- the P-51 and P-47 had a vastly higher number of kills than the P-38 there. I was talking about how the ratio between types remains the same if you apply the same scale factor to all types instead of just the P38 like anarchy52 wanted to do.

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
How often did the P-38 fly at 30,000 ft in the MTO and PTO before the spring of 1944?

LRRP You say that as if you have some kind of sorti count from the ETO to compare to. Eitherway, my guess, like yours, is it was not often, but that it was done from time to time, yet no problems reported like the ones in the ETO. Thus the problem was local to the ETO, where they also had that TEL mix problem, connect the dots and keep in mind that now all missions in the ETO were at 30kft either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't connect the dots between CC Jordan's theory and what Kelsley said. He said nothing regarding fuel type used in the MTO- or the type of missions flown there. He was concerned with the P-38's ability to fly the missions required of it in VIII Fighter Command, not in the MTO's 12th AAF. Like I said, they were flying different missions at that time so it shouldn't be suprising that they might experience different problems with the same fuel- TEL and all.

While I don't have a sortie-by-sortie count of mission profiles, you can bet that virtually every VIII FC mission flown by the P-38 in late '43/early '44 was a high-altitude, long-range escort. That isn't true for any other theater at that time.

LRRP

Aaron_GT
12-27-2005, 03:32 PM
[edit: try to phase it better...]

Other planes ran fine on UK production 100/130 fuels. The fault may or may not have been a problem with UK mixing, but it seems to have been a problem even from the earliest trials for Allison engines, but only Allison engines. Irrespective of what was at fault it means the weapons system (plane, plus fuel, for a given mission profile) was problematic, which meant something had to be fixed. Given that the P38 intercooler design was changed it would seem that either (a) the fuel mix problem was unknown at the time or (b) it was seen as more economic to fix the weapons system (plane plus fuel) by changing the plane rather than fuel mix technique. So either you have to posit that the technicians testing the new TEL mix repeatedly fail to mix test batches correctly and that Lockheed and Allison technicians failed to notice this and made uncessary changes, or the fuel was mixed correctly and the changes were required in the Allison and P38 to make it function correctly with correctly mixed fuel that was, however, not really suitable for the engines, but which for reasons of ease of logistics (since everything else ran on it ok) it was required to run on.

So it doesn't mean the P38 was deficient per se, but that given the logistical realities meant that special fuel just for the P38 wasn't viable, then the P38 had to be changed.

Now AFAIK there weren't actually any mix issues with 100/130, but there were for early batches of 100/150.

GR142_Astro
12-27-2005, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Basically it's this:

Cuda and I disagree on whether p-38 getting into accelerated stall is a part of "mystical" cloverleaf manuever.

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/cloverleaf.jpg

Red part is riding the edge of the stall, prop hanging on low speed, blue part is easing up on the stick and full power which in the case of P-38 can be applied at low speed. That's the way I see it, and that makes sense.

as I stated earlier you do not understand the cloverleaf. explain to me how the manover you discribed will allow me to turn inside ANY aircraft!!!! it does not in anyway shape or form minimize your turn radius.

This is the cloverleaf. if you notice it allows you to cut the turn radius smaller than a flat turn, crossing inside your initial starting point. the blue areas are the accelerated stall areas, then you let off the stick and regain some speed than do it again. the P38 was the ONLY WW2 prop drivin aircraft that could perform this
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/cloverleaf.jpg



Brain the ONLY 109 that the 38 can out turn is the K, the G2 will eat your lunch as well as the G6, if you catch an inexperienced pilot you can low yoyo on the later G models and give him a run for his money </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I posted this in GD, but this what I understand a cloverleaf to look like:

http://members.cox.net/kinetic/P38Cloverleaf.jpg

bolillo_loco
12-27-2005, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
4. poor gas in the ETO compared to the other theaters caused detonation problems and engine failure, this was not a problem in the MTO and PTO because of the different methods of mixing gas. unlike today they had to add the lead to the gas.
4a. over efficient radiators added to the detonation and bad gas problem. engine operating temp was too low.



Cuda,

The 'bad fuel' argument doesn't hold. Until the introduction 100/150 grade fuel in the ETO, the RAF and USAAF used the same 100/130 grade avgas in the MTO as they did the ETO.

Also, the superior training of MTO pilots was limited to the first batch sent to North Africa from the UK at the end of 1942. Those groups had ample opportunity to train on the type prior to combat. After that initial batch, MTO P-38 pilots had the same amount of type training as their ETO (and PTO) counterparts.

LRRP

Other than </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 8th Air Force did in fact use different 100/130 aviation gasoline than units in the other theaters. The British mixed the 100/130 aviation gasoline used by the 8th Air Force, while units in the every other theater used American mixed 100/130 aviation gas. The British did not use the same methods as did the Americans and as a result their 100/130 aviation gas wasn't up to American standards. As a result of this lower quality British fuel, the compound that raised the "anti-knock" quality of the fuel would separate at high altitude. The results were disastrous for the Allison engine. The reason why this was more critical in the lightning than in other aircraft is simple. The Allison could operate at much higher MAP at high altitudes than could the R-2800 and the Merlin. The fuel is one of many problems that researchers discovered both during and after the war. This has been well researched by professional people who knew what they were doing; people such as, Lockheed technicians, Army Air Corps personal, credible authors, historians, editors, and publishers. May I ask why you find this hard to believe?

I would also like to point out that training of new pilots could be a bit more involved than "stateside" training. When new pilots reported to PTO units such as the 475th F/G or to MTO P-38 units in the 12th and 15th Air Force, they were greeted by seasoned combat veterans who knew how to fight the Germans and Japanese with their Lightnings. Also, mechanics arriving on the scene were greeted by very experienced Allison mechanics who could show them how to properly maintain a Allison engine. These two factors gave a new P-38 pilot arriving in the MTO or PTO a great advantage over a pilot who was reporting to an 8th Air Force unit. There were P-38 units outside of the 8th Air Force that went so far as to make a short book for new pilots on how to operate their P-38s, and how to use the P-38's advantages to combat the enemy. So in conclusion, new P-38 pilots reporting for duty in the PTO or MTO theater of operations had a significant advantage over a new P-38 pilot reporting to the 8th Air Force.

bolillo_loco
12-27-2005, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
How often did the P-38 fly at 30,000 ft in the MTO and PTO before the spring of 1944?

LRRP You say that as if you have some kind of sorti count from the ETO to compare to. Eitherway, my guess, like yours, is it was not often, but that it was done from time to time, yet no problems reported like the ones in the ETO. Thus the problem was local to the ETO, where they also had that TEL mix problem, connect the dots and keep in mind that now all missions in the ETO were at 30kft either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't connect the dots between CC Jordan's theory and what Kelsley said. He said nothing regarding fuel type used in the MTO- or the type of missions flown there. He was concerned with the P-38's ability to fly the missions required of it in VIII Fighter Command, not in the MTO's 12th AAF. Like I said, they were flying different missions at that time so it shouldn't be suprising that they might experience different problems with the same fuel- TEL and all.

While I don't have a sortie-by-sortie count of mission profiles, you can bet that virtually every VIII FC mission flown by the P-38 in late '43/early '44 was a high-altitude, long-range escort. That isn't true for any other theater at that time.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to point out that not every 8th AF mission was high altitude, long-range bomber escort. There were also ground attack and fighter sweep missions. If you had statistical information on this subject you would see that the 8th did not exclusively fly "long range bomber escort." The 12th and 15th AF, which extensively operated P-38s during the entire war, performed its lion's share of "long range high altitude bomber escort. The same is true for PTO units; many performed a lot of high altitude long-range bomber escort. On the other hand many people seem to believe that the 9th AF (dedicated ground attack unit in the ETO) only flew "ground attack." I would like to point out that this was not the case. In the 370th F/G, 9th AF (which happened to be a P-38 unit until 3/25/45) mission list saw it flying 50% armed reconnaissance, about 15% dive bombing, and the remaining 25% was bomber escort and or fighter sweeps. I do not have the complete list, but I've several sources of data that gives figures for 90% of the missions flown by several 9th AF P-38 squadrons. I believe there were a total of nine P-38 squadrons in the 9th AF. So in conclusion, with your statement that €œonly the 8th AF flew high altitude long-range bomber escort,€ might I suggest picking up statistical information on the 8th AF that lists €œsortie to sortie€ information. Also, a few books on 12th and 15th AF P-38 units to find out that the actually flew identical missions as you have described that the 8th AF performed. Lastly, I would suggest a few books on PTO P-38 units to see that €œhigh altitude long-range bomber escort€ was also something that they frequently did. Might I add that this took place all during the time frame, both before and after, you have stated.

Sources I consulted:

Fighter Units & Pilots of the 8th Air Force September 1942 - May 1945: Volume 1 Day-to-Day Operations - Fighter Group Histories (Hardcover)
by Kent D. Miller

Fighter Units & Pilots of the 8th Air Force September 1942 - May 1945: Volume 2 Airial Victories and Ace Data - Fighter Group Histories (Hardcover)
by Kent D. Miller

Possum, Clover, & Hades: The 475th fighter Group In WWII by John Stanaway

Attack & Conquer: The 8th Fighter Group in WWII by John Stanaway

Protect & Avenge: The 49th Fighter Group in WWII by S.W. Ferguson and William K. Pascalis

MTO 12th and 15th AF sources:

Statistical analysis as provide by the USAF (sorry I€ve forgotten the link, but maybe Sky Chimp will come along and provide it).

P-38 MTO book sources:

Adorimini: The 82nd Fighter Group in WWII by Steve Blake

An Escort of P-38s: The 1st Fighter Group In WWII by John Mullins

9th AF sources for P-38 information

The Geyser Gang: The 428th Fighter Group in WWII by Steinko

The 370th Fighter Group in WWII by Jay Jones

The Dynamite Gang: The 367th Fighter Group in WWII by Richard Groh

And might I add this only represents a small portion of my research material on the P-38 and the men who maintained and flew it.

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 05:55 PM
Bolillo,

I am almost certain that the 100/130 grade fuel used in the ETO *and* MTO was all British refined and supplied. The P-38's of the 1st, 14th and 82nd FG's were using the same fuel as the P-38 groups of VIII Fighter Command, as were XIX FC's P-38s. Not so the PTO, all 100/130 grade supplied there was the lower-aromatics formulation refined in the U.S.

Your explanation of much higher MAP at high altitude for the P-38 is simply wrong. The R-2800 operated at 64" Hg on 100/130 to well over 26,000 ft. The V-1650-3 in the P-51B operated at 67" Hg to around 29,000 ft. The later B/C's and P-51D's V-1650-7 ran 67" Hg to just below 25,000 ft. The P-38 operated at around 60" Hg at critical altitude on 100/130 grade fuel. Neither the P-47 or P-51 had anywhere near the problems the P-38 did in the ETO. The fact is that the P-38 had problems with a fuel formulation that other types operated on without difficulty.

As for training, all pilots received some kind of in-theater training. "Clobber Colleges" were common in all theaters. How do you explain the 354th FG's immediate success in the ETO? As the 'Pioneer Mustang' group they had to introduce a brand new type into the hottest of all air combat theaters.



Originally posted by bolillo_loco:


The 8th Air Force did in fact use different 100/130 aviation gasoline than units in the other theaters. The British mixed the 100/130 aviation gasoline used by the 8th Air Force, while units in the every other theater used American mixed 100/130 aviation gas. The British did not use the same methods as did the Americans and as a result their 100/130 aviation gas wasn't up to American standards. As a result of this lower quality British fuel, the compound that raised the "anti-knock" quality of the fuel would separate at high altitude. The results were disastrous for the Allison engine. The reason why this was more critical in the lightning than in other aircraft is simple. The Allison could operate at much higher MAP at high altitudes than could the R-2800 and the Merlin. The fuel is one of many problems that researchers discovered both during and after the war. This has been well researched by professional people who knew what they were doing; people such as, Lockheed technicians, Army Air Corps personal, credible authors, historians, editors, and publishers. May I ask why you find this hard to believe?

I would also like to point out that training of new pilots could be a bit more involved than "stateside" training. When new pilots reported to PTO units such as the 475th F/G or to MTO P-38 units in the 12th and 15th Air Force, they were greeted by seasoned combat veterans who knew how to fight the Germans and Japanese with their Lightnings. Also, mechanics arriving on the scene were greeted by very experienced Allison mechanics who could show them how to properly maintain a Allison engine. These two factors gave a new P-38 pilot arriving in the MTO or PTO a great advantage over a pilot who was reporting to an 8th Air Force unit. There were P-38 units outside of the 8th Air Force that went so far as to make a short book for new pilots on how to operate their P-38s, and how to use the P-38's advantages to combat the enemy. So in conclusion, new P-38 pilots reporting for duty in the PTO or MTO theater of operations had a significant advantage over a new P-38 pilot reporting to the 8th Air Force.

lrrp22
12-27-2005, 06:03 PM
bolillo,

The vast majority of VIII FC missions flown in late '43/early '44, the period of the P-38's malaise, were bomber escorts at 20,000+ ft. That wasn't the case in other theaters.



Originally posted by bolillo_loco:


I would like to point out that not every 8th AF mission was high altitude, long-range bomber escort. There were also ground attack and fighter sweep missions. If you had statistical information on this subject you would see that the 8th did not exclusively fly "long range bomber escort." The 12th and 15th AF, which extensively operated P-38s during the entire war, performed its lion's share of "long range high altitude bomber escort. The same is true for PTO units; many performed a lot of high altitude long-range bomber escort. On the other hand many people seem to believe that the 9th AF (dedicated ground attack unit in the ETO) only flew "ground attack." I would like to point out that this was not the case. In the 370th F/G, 9th AF (which happened to be a P-38 unit until 3/25/45) mission list saw it flying 50% armed reconnaissance, about 15% dive bombing, and the remaining 25% was bomber escort and or fighter sweeps. I do not have the complete list, but I've several sources of data that gives figures for 90% of the missions flown by several 9th AF P-38 squadrons. I believe there were a total of nine P-38 squadrons in the 9th AF. So in conclusion, with your statement that €œonly the 8th AF flew high altitude long-range bomber escort,€ might I suggest picking up statistical information on the 8th AF that lists €œsortie to sortie€ information. Also, a few books on 12th and 15th AF P-38 units to find out that the actually flew identical missions as you have described that the 8th AF performed. Lastly, I would suggest a few books on PTO P-38 units to see that €œhigh altitude long-range bomber escort€ was also something that they frequently did. Might I add that this took place all during the time frame, both before and after, you have stated.

Sources I consulted:

Fighter Units & Pilots of the 8th Air Force September 1942 - May 1945: Volume 1 Day-to-Day Operations - Fighter Group Histories (Hardcover)
by Kent D. Miller

Fighter Units & Pilots of the 8th Air Force September 1942 - May 1945: Volume 2 Airial Victories and Ace Data - Fighter Group Histories (Hardcover)
by Kent D. Miller

Possum, Clover, & Hades: The 475th fighter Group In WWII by John Stanaway

Attack & Conquer: The 8th Fighter Group in WWII by John Stanaway

Protect & Avenge: The 49th Fighter Group in WWII by S.W. Ferguson and William K. Pascalis

MTO 12th and 15th AF sources:

Statistical analysis as provide by the USAF (sorry I€ve forgotten the link, but maybe Sky Chimp will come along and provide it).

P-38 MTO book sources:

Adorimini: The 82nd Fighter Group in WWII by Steve Blake

An Escort of P-38s: The 1st Fighter Group In WWII by John Mullins

9th AF sources for P-38 information

The Geyser Gang: The 428th Fighter Group in WWII by Steinko

The 370th Fighter Group in WWII by Jay Jones

The Dynamite Gang: The 367th Fighter Group in WWII by Richard Groh

And might I add this only represents a small portion of my research material on the P-38 and the men who maintained and flew it.

faustnik
12-27-2005, 06:22 PM
I think what might put some people off in these P-38 discussions is the attitude that the P-38 was superior to everything else. That might not be intendend, but, some posters end up sounding that way. I also don't understand how some might ignore the obvious strengths of the P-38, putting it down for no logical reason ? I have some basic questions on the posts in this thread:

I fail to see how some can deny that the P-38 might have problems dealing with some of the LW fighters? As Spectre tried to mention before, the German fighters had two strenghts that helped them evade the P-38, roll rate and dive speed. Roll rate was probably more important IRL than we see in PF. The Fw-190 could change directions much faster than the P-38 until boosted aelerons were introduced. The Fw-190 could also outdive the P-38, especially before the dive brake was introduced. In addition the P-38 had no speed advantage over the Fw-190 at low-mid level altitudes. The Bf109 had the same advantages as the Fw-190 just to a lesser extent. How could these factors not influence the P-38's success against LW fighters?

The P-38 certainly held some big advantages too. In a low-speed turn fight, the P-38's low stall speed and torque would be a huge advantage. When the Fw-190 or Bf109 could no longer fight due to lack of fuel, the P-38 had plenty of gas. The Fw-190 was a great fighter under 20,000 feet but, it lacked the P-38s turbo power at high altitude. In the MTO, the P-38 was the only Allied a/c that could match the Fw-190 and Bf-109 for speed, giving it the ability to bounce the fast LW fighters and jabos. The P-38 could RTB with an engine shot out. That would be an interesting trick in any single engined fighter. Can anyone deny that the P-38 held those strengths?

In the PTO, the P-38 was not faced with enemy fighters that could outdive, outroll or match it in speed. This meant that the P-38 completely dictated any fight. Why wouldn't the P-38 have more success against the Japanese fighters than the LW fighters?

Pretty much all of the P-38s issues in the ETO were solved in the P-38L. This is also true in PF 4.02. Our P-38L Late is an excellent fighter, easily the equal of anything it might face. I appreciate the fixes that the P-38J still needs in DM and FM, but, it is by no means a weak fighter in PF. I wouldn't go too far in declaring the P-38 undermodeled.

P-38 threads need some middle ground. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
You can't connect the dots between CC Jordan's theory and what Kelsley said. Nor can you not connect them, but in light of what Kelsley said and what Jordan said it makes more since than what your trying to sell/say.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
He said nothing regarding fuel type used in the MTO- or the type of missions flown there. He was concerned with the P-38's ability to fly the missions required of it in VIII Fighter Command, not in the MTO's 12th AAF. Roger, and note, I never said he did, all I pointed out is there was a problem in the ETO that Kelsley said was fixxed, CC Jordon said the problem was the TEL mixture. Now you can say I can not connect the dots, but at least those are two dots, two more than you have provided.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
Like I said, they were flying different missions at that time so it shouldn't be suprising that they might experience different problems with the same fuel- TEL and all. Not true, they all flew high and low missions, but only the ETO experanced problems at high alt missions.


Originally posted by lrrp22:
While I don't have a sortie-by-sortie count of mission profiles, you can bet that virtually every VIII FC mission flown by the P-38 in late '43/early '44 was a high-altitude, long-range escort. That isn't true for any other theater at that time. I agree that most might have been, but that is just a guess on my part, just like yours is a guess that it was virtually every!

The FACT is the ETO, MTO, PTO all had high and low alt missions.. Some had more than others yes, but, only in the ETO did they report problems. The MTO and PTO did not, therefore the only way your theory holds water is if your willing to state that NO MISSIONS in the MTO or PTO went over 20kft.. Are you willing to go on the record to make such a claim?

bolillo_loco
12-27-2005, 06:44 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:
Bolillo,

I am almost certain that the 100/130 grade fuel used in the ETO *and* MTO was all British refined and supplied. The P-38's of the 1st, 14th and 82nd FG's used the same fuel as the P-38's of VIII Fighter Command. Not so the PTO, all 100/130 grade supplied there was the lower-aromatics formulation refined in the U.S.

Your explanation of much higher MAP at high altitude for the P-38 is simply wrong. The R-2800 operated at 64" Hg on 100/130 to well over 26,000 ft. The V-1650-3 in the P-51 operated at 67" Hg to around 29,000 ft. The P-38 operated at around 60" Hg at critical altitude on 100/130 grade fuel. Neither the P-47 or P-51 had anywhere near the problems the P-38 did in the ETO. The fact is that the P-38 had problems with a fuel formulation that other types operated on without difficulty.

As for training, all pilots received some kind of in-theater training. "Clobber Colleges" were common in all theaters. How do you explain the 354th FG's immediate success in the ETO? As the 'Pioneer Mustang' group they had to introduce a brand new type into the hottest of all air combat theaters.


[QUOTE]

Consult the pilot's manual for the Mustang and you will see that the 1650-7 was far below its rated 1,725hp sea level rating at 30,000 feet, it only produced about 900 hp at that altitude. The P-38 could pull a lot more hp at 30,000 ft than the Merlin.

The early P-47s (operating during the time frame when using British mixed fuel) couldn't pull the MAP you described at 30,000 feet. Let us not forget that water injection was also added to the P-47D and also that the fuel problem was corrected by mid 1944. The P-38 was more reliable by spring of 1944 than P-51D was. Unit statistics prove this to be true because the units that operated both the P-38 and P-51 (20th F/G, 55th F/G, 364th F/G, and 479th F/G) lost more Mustangs than Lightnings to "mechanical failure." This problem wasn't only limited to fuel. It has been pointed out time and time again that the fuel was one of a dozen problems that were faced by early 8th AF units. By the time the 8th AF came up to speed in mid 1944 the 8th AF units operating the P-38 did as well as they could regardless of the aircraft in question. Unit statistic prove that during the time just prior to the transition from Lightnings to Mustangs that the four fighter groups in question did no better with the Mustangs than they did with the Lightning. In fact, three of the fighter groups actually did better with the Lightnings than the Mustangs. during the last month of exclusive Lightning use, the interim month where each unit used both and equal amount of Lightinings and Mustangs, and the first month of exclusive Mustang use, each unit actually did better with the Lightning than the Mustang. To compare what the 20th AF could do in December of 43 while it was operating P-38s to what it was capable of doing in December of 44 is hardly a fair comparison. This is completely disregarding how powerful the 8th AF had become, improved leadership, pilot skill, and the failing Luftwaffe all spell a field day for 8th AF pilots. It is in fact the exact opposite of what the Germans were doing to the 8th AF only a year earlier.

Your term "clobber colleges" is not what I am speaking about. I have pointed out that many new pilots reporting to P-38 in the MTO and PTO were taken aside and given real world instruction on how to fight and operate their Lightnings against the enemy. A P-38 pilot reporting to an 8th AF P-38 unit in late 1943 or early 1944 was told he was going to fly the worst aircraft in the world. The very same people he was going to fly with demoralized him. Tony LeVier speaks about this in his book. LeVier states that at the one base LeVier reported to the CO point blank stated in the officer's club (in the company of many pilots) that the P-38 was a dud. How many units took the time to write a book for new pilots reporting to duty? I know the 475th did. LeVier also points out that none of the P-38 pilots even knew the proper rpm and MAP settings to maintain proper cruise and climb. He states that, "They used whatever setting they saw fit to maintain formation. Frequently it was a MAP and rpm setting that created a 'time bomb' just waiting to explode." He also points out that many mechanics weren't even trained on the Allison, but were trained state side to service the R-2800 or Merlin.

As for the 354th that you've stated, who is the 354th? It's not a fighter group of the 8th AF. Keep in mind that the truly successful 8th AF units that began their road to victory did so under the leadership of excellent men. It wasn't uncommon for new units to be created by tapping very experienced and capable men from other units. Again, I feel that you are comparing mid 1944 thru the end of hostilities success to what actually happened to the 8th AF from late 1943 thru February 1944. The early P-47 units were no help to other 8th AF P-38 units because they lacked range. In January of 1944 the only aircraft that the 8th AF could field in mass were early P-47D models with either 305 or 370 gallons of internal fuel.

bolillo_loco
12-27-2005, 06:46 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:
bolillo,

The vast majority of VIII FC missions flown in late '43/early '44, the period of the P-38's malaise, were bomber escorts at 20,000+ ft. That wasn't the case in other theaters.


[QUOTE] where is your proof? I've provided sources for my data, consult them and you will see that your statement is "misinformation."

BSS_CUDA
12-27-2005, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Faust:
I fail to see how some can deny that the P-38 might have problems dealing with some of the LW fighters? As Spectre tried to mention before, the German fighters had two strenghts that helped them evade the P-38, roll rate and dive speed. Roll rate was probably more important IRL than we see in PF. The Fw-190 could change directions much faster than the P-38 until boosted aelerons were introduced. The Fw-190 could also outdive the P-38, especially before the dive brake was introduced. In addition the P-38 had no speed advantage over the Fw-190 at low-mid level altitudes. The Bf109 had the same advantages as the Fw-190 just to a lesser extent. How could these factors not influence the P-38's success against LW fighters?

I dont think anyone that knows the history of the 38 is sujesting that Faust. some of the band waggoners might be.

IRL the 190's roll rate was an advantage. to a point! granted the 38 was not the whirling dirvish the 190 was, but with proper engine management you could accelerate the roll onset. the 38's roll was not bad it was the initial roll that hurt it. and the boosted ailerons only gave it 38 an advantage over 380 MPH. also above 20,000 the 190 was sucking wind, and most enganements took place between 200 and 300 MPH the 190's did not have any advantages over the 38 all it could do was roll into a split S and dive for the deck.


CC Jordan:
Even the 190's faster roll rate, in a turn or even a split-s, the P-38 will be,
what, 1/2 second behind in a 180 roll? That isn't anything to crow about.
Why? Because, the Lightning accelerates very quickly in a dive. Or if the
190 rolls to some other vector, the P-38, while beginning in a lag pursuit
postion, will quickly pull through to a lead pursuit. About all the 190 driver
can hope to do is roll and pull, roll and pull, hoping that the P-38 pilot loses
sight long enough to allow the 190 to extend away. Note also that all this
rolling and pulling will be downhill. Uphill, the P-38 will eat him alive.

I find this to be correctly modeled in game I see it happen all the time.

Jordan only has accounts of the 38F againt the 109F, where he states the 38 generally outclassed the 109F in speed, climb, + stall. easly dictating the fight. he has no comaprisons of the G or later 109's against the J/L 38's

BSS_CUDA
12-27-2005, 08:11 PM
this again is more of Jordans research




First off, let's look at the facts before we start making unsupportable claims.
1) When used in the Pacific and MTO, the Allison engine proved to be at
least as reliable as the Merlin 61 used in the P-51B, C, D, and K.

2) It is just as cold at 30,000 feet over Leyte as it is at 30,000 feet over
Germany in the dead of winter. So why weren't they having problems
at altitude anywhere but the ETO?. Two big reasons. Low grade fuel.
Turbocharged engines cannot survive long on 87 octane dishwater. Once
the problem was traced to poor fuel, detonation failures were non-existent.
The second problem was turbocharger/oilcooler related. It seems that the
turbos require consistant oiling or the bearings fail very quickly. Earlier
model Lighnings were mostly afflicted with this type of failure. I spoke to
a crewchief of a P-38 about a year ago. He claims that up to half of the
turbo failures were due to pilots flying at cruise setting with the cooler doors
wide open. The oil temperature would drop below recommended levels
and the viscosity would rise significantly. Worse, the pilots normally cruised
at very low MAP and relatively high RPM. This would reduce cylinder head
temps to the operational minimum. The combination of the two would almost
always lead to turbo failure. Had the pilots used high MAP / low RPM cruise
settings, cylinder head temps would have remained in the center of the gauge
and would have kept much more heat in the engine, and by extension, the oil.
Add to this the relative crudeness of 1940's turbocharger technology.
Turbocharger overspeeding was one problem that would occur. Spin too fast,
and it will eventually come apart.

this again points to a fuel issue in the ETO only. and to the fact that they flew high alt missions in both the MTO, PTO and had no failures. he points out the 38 mechanical issues to 2 things in general, first poor fuel in the ETO, second poor pilot training in the ETO, 2 things that did not seem to be a problem in the MTO or PTO

AKA_TAGERT
12-27-2005, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
this again is more of Jordans research

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

First off, let's look at the facts before we start making unsupportable claims.
1) When used in the Pacific and MTO, the Allison engine proved to be at
least as reliable as the Merlin 61 used in the P-51B, C, D, and K.

2) It is just as cold at 30,000 feet over Leyte as it is at 30,000 feet over
Germany in the dead of winter. So why weren't they having problems
at altitude anywhere but the ETO?. Two big reasons. Low grade fuel.
Turbocharged engines cannot survive long on 87 octane dishwater. Once
the problem was traced to poor fuel, detonation failures were non-existent.
The second problem was turbocharger/oilcooler related. It seems that the
turbos require consistant oiling or the bearings fail very quickly. Earlier
model Lighnings were mostly afflicted with this type of failure. I spoke to
a crewchief of a P-38 about a year ago. He claims that up to half of the
turbo failures were due to pilots flying at cruise setting with the cooler doors
wide open. The oil temperature would drop below recommended levels
and the viscosity would rise significantly. Worse, the pilots normally cruised
at very low MAP and relatively high RPM. This would reduce cylinder head
temps to the operational minimum. The combination of the two would almost
always lead to turbo failure. Had the pilots used high MAP / low RPM cruise
settings, cylinder head temps would have remained in the center of the gauge
and would have kept much more heat in the engine, and by extension, the oil.
Add to this the relative crudeness of 1940's turbocharger technology.
Turbocharger overspeeding was one problem that would occur. Spin too fast,
and it will eventually come apart.

this again points to a fuel issue in the ETO only. and to the fact that they flew high alt missions in both the MTO, PTO and had no failures. he points out the 38 mechanical issues to 2 things in general, first poor fuel in the ETO, second poor pilot training in the ETO, 2 things that did not seem to be a problem in the MTO or PTO </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nice! I seem to recall Bodie saying pretty much the same thing.. Only I can not quote him now because all my books are in storage. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

So.. now that taht is settled.. When is Oleg going to correct the ROC for the J and L?

faustnik
12-27-2005, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:

also above 20,000 the 190 was sucking wind, and most enganements took place between 200 and 300 MPH the 190's did not have any advantages over the 38 all it could do was roll into a split S and dive for the deck.

High altitude performance was a problem for the Fw190A throughout it's development. The P-38 evidently had issues too (as I have just been reading in Bodie's very interesting book. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )with its intercoolers at high alititudes until the P-38J with revised intakes. While you may quote American sources that state the Fw190s roll rate advantage was not that severe, there are German sources that state otherwise. Climb rates between the two aircraft were also similar throughout their development. As Bodie points out several times, with these aircraft it is the pilot that makes the difference. Both aircraft represented top notch fighter performance. Of course, the P-38 managed to do this with the safety factor of two engines, very heavy payload and long range ability too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
12-28-2005, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:

Consult the pilot's manual for the Mustang and you will see that the 1650-7 was far below its rated 1,725hp sea level rating at 30,000 feet, it only produced about 900 hp at that altitude. The P-38 could pull a lot more hp at 30,000 ft than the Merlin.



Which Merlin? Rammed or unrammed? During the period of Dec €43 to Feb €44 that you seem to be talking about, the P-38J€s contemporary was the P-51B-1 and B-5-NA with the V-1650-3 engine. The -3 produced 1330 HP at its 67€ Hg critical altitude of 28-29,000 ft, at which it attained 450 mph clean. I doubt the P-38J was pulling much more than that at that altitude- it certainly wasn't going that fast!

The P-38J€s V-1710-89/90 pulled around 1600 HP at its 60€ Hg WER critical altitude of 25,000 ft. The P-51B-15-NA and P-51D used the V-1650-7 which developed ~1500 HP rammed at just under 25,000 ft. Don't let static BHP ratings fool you, the P-51 had excellent RAM recovery which raised critical altitudes by nearly 5,000 ft at high speeds.

Contrary to your claim, the P-38 did not produce much more MAP at high altitude than the Mustang. Quite the opposite, in fact. Changing that claim from MAP to HP doesn€t work either- if you compare contemporaries. Either way, both the P-51 and P-47's engines operated under conditions and loads that were just as trying as the P-38's, yet both held up better.



The early P-47s (operating during the time frame when using British mixed fuel) couldn't pull the MAP you described at 30,000 feet. Let us not forget that water injection was also added to the P-47D and also that the fuel problem was corrected by mid 1944.



No ETO P-47 (or P-38 or P-51) ever operated on anything BUT British €˜mixed€ fuel. Whether in December of €43 or May of €45. Whether it was 100/130 grade or 100/150 grade, every last drop came from British stocks and British refineries. Every drop.

The P-47C/D of 1943 could pull 2,000 HP to 30,000 ft at 52€ Hg. No P-38 Allison engine could come anywhere near that.



The P-38 was more reliable by spring of 1944 than P-51D was. Unit statistics prove this to be true because the units that operated both the P-38 and P-51 (20th F/G, 55th F/G, 364th F/G, and 479th F/G) lost more Mustangs than Lightnings to "mechanical failure."


Numbers? You€re going to have to do better than just make the claim. It wouldn€t surprise me if there was a brief period of higher unservicibility after transition from the P-38 to the P-51. That€˜s a common occurrence whenever crews are learning new equipment. However, you can be sure that transitioning from P-51s to the very complex P-38s would have been far more trying for the ground crews. Then again, no P-51 unit ever transitioned to P-38s either.



This problem wasn't only limited to fuel. It has been pointed out time and time again that the fuel was one of a dozen problems that were faced by early 8th AF units. By the time the 8th AF came up to speed in mid 1944 the 8th AF units operating the P-38 did as well as they could regardless of the aircraft in question.


Early 8th AAF units? Don€t you mean early P-38 AAF units? This €˜fuel problem€ scenario seems designed to prove that in fact it was the British and their dirty fuel that ruined the P-38 in the ETO, not a P-38 design deficiency. Besides plug fouling, the Mustang and Thunderbolt units of VIII FC did quite well with the British 100/130 grade.

By the time the 8th AF came up to speed in mid 1944? Let me tell you something that should already be patently clear to you- by mid 1944 the 8th AAF had already broken the back of the Luftwaffe. Mid €44 may have been when the P-38 was brought up to speed in VIII FC, but the P-47 and P-51 groups had been scoring like crazy against the Jagdwaffe for months.



Unit statistic prove that during the time just prior to the transition from Lightnings to Mustangs that the four fighter groups in question did no better with the Mustangs than they did with the Lightning. In fact, three of the fighter groups actually did better with the Lightnings than the Mustangs. during the last month of exclusive Lightning use, the interim month where each unit used both and equal amount of Lightnings and Mustangs, and the first month of exclusive Mustang use, each unit actually did better with the Lightning than the Mustang.


Well, let€s see the goods then. The proof is in the pudding, as it were. The first month on a new mount is hardly definitive proof. Ask 479th ace Robin Olds which mount he preferred.



To compare what the 20th AF could do in December of 43 while it was operating P-38s to what it was capable of doing in December of 44 is hardly a fair comparison. This is completely disregarding how powerful the 8th AF had become, improved leadership, pilot skill, and the failing Luftwaffe all spell a field day for 8th AF pilots. It is in fact the exact opposite of what the Germans were doing to the 8th AF only a year earlier.


If you mean the 8th AAF in December of €43, how do you explain the veritable scoring orgy enjoyed by the 354th and its P-51Bs beginning in late €43 and early €44? In only 17 months the 354th scored more aerial victories (700+) than any other fighter group in either the ETO or MTO, regardless of operational time in-theater. How about the 357th FG? Its first mission was on 7 Feb 44 and it went on to score more aerial victories (609 ) in the following 15 months than any other fighter group in the 8th AAF. By Mid-44 several P-51 groups had been scoring like crazy for months.



Your term "clobber colleges" is not what I am speaking about. I have pointed out that many new pilots reporting to P-38 in the MTO and PTO were taken aside and given real world instruction on how to fight and operate their Lightnings against the enemy. A P-38 pilot reporting to an 8th AF P-38 unit in late 1943 or early 1944 was told he was going to fly the worst aircraft in the world. The very same people he was going to fly with demoralized him. Tony LeVier speaks about this in his book. LeVier states that at the one base LeVier reported to the CO point blank stated in the officer's club (in the company of many pilots) that the P-38 was a dud. How many units took the time to write a book for new pilots reporting to duty? I know the 475th did. LeVier also points out that none of the P-38 pilots even knew the proper rpm and MAP settings to maintain proper cruise and climb. He states that, "They used whatever setting they saw fit to maintain formation. Frequently it was a MAP and rpm setting that created a 'time bomb' just waiting to explode." He also points out that many mechanics weren't even trained on the Allison, but were trained state side to service the R-2800 or Merlin.



€˜Clobber College€ is not my term, it€s the USAAF€s term for the in-theater combat training received by newly assigned pilots.

Where were the above mentioned Mustang groups getting this training? After all, by Dec €43 the P-38 had been in combat for more than a year. The P-51B was a brand new airplane with no combat record whatsoever. Yet, despite substantial teething problems, it began to amass huge scores almost immediately. The same cannot be said for VIII Fighter Command€s P-38s. Writing that off to bad fuel and bad pilots is a bit disingenuous. Hell, the 354th and 357th had both been flying the *P-39* exclusively until thrown into combat on the brand new P-51B. But more on that below€¦



As for the 354th that you've stated, who is the 354th? It's not a fighter group of the 8th AF. Keep in mind that the truly successful 8th AF units that began their road to victory did so under the leadership of excellent men. It wasn't uncommon for new units to be created by tapping very experienced and capable men from other units. Again, I feel that you are comparing mid 1944 thru the end of hostilities success to what actually happened to the 8th AF from late 1943 thru February 1944. The early P-47 units were no help to other 8th AF P-38 units because they lacked range. In January of 1944 the only aircraft that the 8th AF could field in mass were early P-47D models with either 305 or 370 gallons of internal fuel.

You€re lecturing me about references (I've got plenty, thank you) yet you don€t know what the 354th FG was? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The 354th was the Pioneer Mustang Group that introduced the P-51B to combat on December 1st, 1943. While officially assigned to 9th AAF, it did 8th AAF bomber escort exclusively until the late spring of €44. Like I mentioned above, it scored more aerial victories, more quickly than any other Fighter Group in Europe- ETO and MTO. Again, the 354th was a Stateside P-39 group when it arrived in the UK on November 3rd, 1943. The unit received its first P-51B on November 11th. Twenty days later, on Dec 1st 1943, the Pioneer Mustang Group flew its first combat mission over France.

The 357th FG€s introduction to combat occurred two months later under almost identical circumstances, and like the 354th, the 357th went on to score at a prodigious rate from the get-go.

As you can see, the complaint that 8th AAF P-38 pilots were inadequately trained rings pretty hollow when compared to the first couple of Mustang groups . Likewise, the 354th €˜s ground crews had to learn the Merlin from the ground up in less than a month.


LRRP

JtD
12-28-2005, 12:38 AM
I'd just like to point out that the L (no, not that funny Late thing) model is capable of reaching 6000 meters within 6 minutes with a full fuel tank. J model will need 45 seconds more.

Makes me wonder what the deviclink figures for the plane weight are.

GR142-Pipper
12-28-2005, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Where is your source of data and Vidar's for that matter? I picked up the last book that I've read on units and pilots that flew P-38s in the PTO and I had no problem finding references to bomber escort missions that saw P-38s operating at 25,000, 30,000, and 35,000 ft. I've seen it quite often as a matter of fact in several books writtin on P-38 pilots and units that flew in the PTO. I'm not saying that they all were at these altitudes, but many people keep implying that the P-38 only operated at low altitudes. Hasn't anybody ever heard Marine Corsair pilots complain that the P-38 was the Army Air Corps "flying foxhole?" Marine pilots flew at 20,000 to 25,000 feet with the B-24s, while the P-38s flew top cover. The one book I quickly picked up to find data to support my statement was, "Bill A Pilot's Story" by Brooklyn Harris. Here's a source for you: http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_pto_aces.html Have a look at the kill record for the P-38 in the PTO. Specifically, look at the types of aircraft that the P-38 shot down. Many were Zeros, Vals, Oscars, Nells, Bettys, etc. Many are low/medium flying aircraft (say up to about 20k but more often in the 10K-12K foot range). Yes, the P-38 did do some higher altitude work but performed a great deal in the 5k-20k range as well as its kill record attests.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-28-2005, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
....everytime we post evidence of the 38's abilities, from pilot accounts to documents we are called fanboys or we want the 38 to be a UFO.... True. The same can be said regarding issues with the P-47, P-51, and F4U...all nearly the very same story, just different aircraft.

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
12-28-2005, 01:40 AM
IRL the 190's roll rate was an advantage. to a point! granted the 38 was not the whirling dirvish the 190 was, but with proper engine management you could accelerate the roll onset. the 38's roll was not bad it was the initial roll that hurt it.

If you read AFDU reports and other reports initial roll rate is considered to be critical. Using engine management to achieve a higher roll rate is an over complicated fix, hence the use of boosted ailerons to make it easier to get a higher initial roll rate in combat. Ease-of-use in a stressful situation like combat is extremely important (hence the advantage of Kommandogerat in the 190).


he points out the 38 mechanical issues to 2 things in general, first poor fuel in the ETO

If the fuel quality was so poor or easily fixable and if it had been economic to fix it it would have been fixed. [Anyone know where the base supplies of oil to be refined were coming from for the UK and USA? UK oil was not domestic production at the time]. Instead it seems to have been considered more economic to change the P38.


Low grade fuel.
Turbocharged engines cannot survive long on 87 octane dishwater.

The UK hadn't been using 87 octane for fighters since 1940.


He claims that up to half of the
turbo failures were due to pilots flying at cruise setting with the cooler doors
wide open.

This sounds like a pilot training, procedures and systems issue, not a fuel issue per se.

lrrp22 wrote:

If you mean the 8th AAF in December of €43, how do you explain the veritable scoring orgy enjoyed by the 354th and its P-51Bs beginning in late €43 and early €44?

I agree with 90% of what you say, but here there may be a difference in mission profile. In 1943 the LW was often able to wait until the escorts turned back to opportunity for engaging for the escorts was lower per sortie than in 1944 when escort range was improved.

Ugly_Kid
12-28-2005, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
Q; can the ingame 38 perform the cloverleaf?
A: NO

Sorry to pee on your parade. CLoverleaf in purest form is just a series of four hammerheads with 90? direction change at the bottom. It's no speciality of P-38, even a glider can do it. Perhaps one of the guys here who flies Extras can explain it better than I.

Here is a track of P-38 performing cloverleaf (or a loose interpretation of it):

Cloverleaf Quick Track (http://koti.mbnet.fi/hausberg/sim_stuff/quick0318.ntrk)

In game P-38 is actually pretty delightful in aerobatics due to lack of torque, so perhaps the fault is behind the stick.

Repeat, almost any aircraft in the sim can perform cloverleaf - it just needs practising and in the first place an idea what the manouver is all about. P-38 has an advantage in hammerhead or in cloverleaf (which is just a series of those) because one can cut the throttle and get a more rapid turn about the wingtip. I didn't play with this since I don't have a throttle quadrant but it's there. The theories here about "accelerated stalls" sound pretty wrong to me - I would first consult a book about aerobatics rather than internet.

JG53Harti
12-28-2005, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
is actually pretty delightful in aerobatics due to lack of torque, so perhaps the fault is behind the stick.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Aaron_GT
12-28-2005, 02:52 AM
Perhaps one of the guys here who flies Extras can explain it better than I.

I don't but someone at work does sometimes so I could ask.

AKA_TAGERT
12-28-2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted JtD :
I'd just like to point out that the L (no, not that funny Late thing) model is capable of reaching 6000 meters within 6 minutes with a full fuel tank. J model will need 45 seconds more. Got Track? "

Reason I ask is Ill make a little prediction. *IF* you made it to 20kft in 5.9min in a J or an L @ 100% fuel it would have resulted/required the following...

1) Use a larger manifold pressure (i.e. 60.74"MP instead of 60.00"MP)
2) Use the air start method instead of the NACA ground start method (saves ~40sec at each point)
3) Use a lower than recommended best-clmib schedule speed (i.e. climb harder). Which in turn resulted in less air flow, which in turn over heated the engines, which in turn damaged the engines, which in turn made it impossible to continue the test flight beyond ~20kft up to ~30kft like they did in the real world data. Which also means you would have fallen short of the AAF TTA time of 23,400ft in 6.49min.

Note that none of this was necessary and/or happened during the real life test that was conducted from a ground start (sea level) to 35kft.

These three basic items would have to be checked along with a check of the inital alt and inital speed of the air start in that those two things can make a big difference. For example a zoom climb is not allowed, nor can you begin the test at 800ft, if using an air start it has to begin at sea level (~100ft) and at the recommended best-clmib schedule speed. Those two potential errors is why the military aircraft tests used the NASA/NACA method, in that it removes the potential of making errors in those two variables.

As for the L being better than the J, if true, than Oleg has made a change since 4.01. In that in previous testing the L and the J had a much closer ROC (both too low). But, if true, the silver lining here is Oleg is paying att, the bad news is the J and the L should not be so different. Eitherway I hope your right and Im wrong, because that means Oleg is paying att and that only the J model still needs fixing in 4.02. Where as the J and L both needed fixing in 4.01. But, that is assuming your L and J flights were the same, that we won't know until we see the track files.

As a side note to the OT topic, several of these TTA/ROC tests were conducted stateside using stateside fuel and none of them reported the problems seen at high alt in the ETO.


Originally posted JtD :
Makes me wonder what the deviclink figures for the plane weight are. Got Track? " if so, send it to naca_testing@yahoo.com

BSS_CUDA
12-28-2005, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
Q; can the ingame 38 perform the cloverleaf?
A: NO

Sorry to pee on your parade. CLoverleaf in purest form is just a series of four hammerheads with 90? direction change at the bottom. It's no speciality of P-38, even a glider can do it. Perhaps one of the guys here who flies Extras can explain it better than I.

Here is a track of P-38 performing cloverleaf (or a loose interpretation of it):

Cloverleaf Quick Track (http://koti.mbnet.fi/hausberg/sim_stuff/quick0318.ntrk)

In game P-38 is actually pretty delightful in aerobatics due to lack of torque, so perhaps the fault is behind the stick.

Repeat, almost any aircraft in the sim can perform cloverleaf - it just needs practising and in the first place an idea what the manouver is all about. P-38 has an advantage in hammerhead or in cloverleaf (which is just a series of those) because one can cut the throttle and get a more rapid turn about the wingtip. I didn't play with this since I don't have a throttle quadrant but it's there. The theories here about "accelerated stalls" sound pretty wrong to me - I would first consult a book about aerobatics rather than internet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


sorry to pee on your Parade but the cloverleaf in purest form is a horizontal manouver, if it was a series of hammerheads then it would be called a hammerhead, so no glider could perform it, you OBVIOUSLY have no idea as to what you speak
/me hands Ugly_Kid a towel to wipe off the pee
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif



>Or is it that the turn was all in horizontal plane with no
>vertical maneauvering ?

Your understanding of the manuever seems spot on.
It was not a common maneuver, but a sort of last ditch hole card. Gerry
Johnson, ops exec of the 49FG used it to break contact with a Ki-44 he was in a
rough one-on-one with on a mission to the oil refineries of the DEI in the fall
of 1944. As he told it, he had fought the Tojo from 24,000 ft. down to the
deck, where it had latched onto his tail. He didn't dare straighten out and
try to run, because it was too close. He couldn't dive. He was forced to try
to <span class="ev_code_RED">out-turn</span> it because he didn't have anything else to try. He started
<span class="ev_code_RED">clover-leafing</span> and, to his great relief, the Tojo was unable to stay with him
and broke off contact, whereupon Johnson, master fighter pilot that he was,
turned the tables on the Tojo and shot him down.

notice the OUT-TURN and CLOVERLEAF, it was a Horizontal turning manouver, Nothing vertical about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


In game P-38 is actually pretty delightful in aerobatics due to lack of torque, so perhaps the fault is behind the stick.
In game P-38 is actually pretty delightful in aerobatics due to lack of torque, yet it still cannot perform the cloverleaf, so perhaps the problem is between your ears. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Repeat, almost any aircraft in the sim can perform cloverleaf - it just needs practising and in the first place an idea what the manouver is all about. P-38 has an advantage in hammerhead or in cloverleaf (which is just a series of those) because one can cut the throttle and get a more rapid turn about the wingtip. I didn't play with this since I don't have a throttle quadrant but it's there. The theories here about "accelerated stalls" sound pretty wrong to me - I would first consult a book about aerobatics rather than internet.

since no aircraft in this game can perform the cloverleaf and since you obviously have NO IDEA what the manouver is, I would recommend that you first consult an Aviation History book before posting on the internet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



P.S. "In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from
a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."

BSS_CUDA
12-28-2005, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by JG53Harti:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
is actually pretty delightful in aerobatics due to lack of torque, so perhaps the fault is behind the stick.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


heh truly a case of the blind leading the blind eh Harti maybe you should know what your saluting before posting also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-28-2005, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
heh truly a case of the blind leading the blind eh Harti maybe you should know what your saluting before posting also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif ROTFL!

BSS_CUDA
12-28-2005, 11:23 AM
it just annoys the h3ll out of me when someone comes in here and intentionally insults me and call's me stupid, uninformed and a bad pilot, when I probably know more about the 38 than he does about sex

AKA_TAGERT
12-28-2005, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
it just annoys the h3ll out of me when someone comes in here and intentionally insults me and call's me stupid, uninformed and a bad pilot, when I probably know more about the 38 than he does about sex Roger, I hear yah. I don€t know if it is sad or funny that some people feel the need to chime in on something so adamantly and with such authority on something they clearly know nothing about.

Now, I must admit, when you set ugly kid straight, I got a good laugh at him and his lap dog harti. Yet at the same time I felt kind of guilty for laughing at them, because it is kind of sad too.

So maybe it can be both, funny and sad? Is it wrong of me to get so much enjoyment out of other peoples misfortunes? I know alot of people get a good laugh out of my spellin and gramer.. but the difference there is I never claimed to be an English major! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VF-29_Sandman
12-28-2005, 03:13 PM
cuda i remember back in the cfs2 days. tried like hell to convert u to the dark side of the 38 and u just wouldnt get outta that corsair. now it seems that the tables are reversed, and we've somehow 'switched'. told ya waaaaaay back then that a 38 in the hands of a master can walk the dog and kick the kitty kat.

Ugly_Kid
12-28-2005, 04:00 PM
Only horizontal cloverleaf I know takes place on the floor of an irish pub approximately after 12th ******ss - it is usually continued with series of Lomchevaks towards the toilets.

Your quote (is it from Boy's own?) doesn't say anything about restricting to horizontal plane.

There is also another way to perform the cloverleaf. The one that I explained series of four hammerheads each combined with 90? rotation at the vertical dive is a variant you rather perform with a glider. (and glider can perform a hammerhead FYI, in case you were trying to indicate something opposite - or is it also one of 'em horizontal manouvers?)

Another definition, probably even more common one (and unfortunately just as little horizontal as the previous one) is as follows:

cloverleaf - The cloverleaf is composed of four identical maneuvers, each begun
in a vertical plane rotated 90 degrees from the preceding one. One enters the
cloverleaf by performing a loop and executing a 90 degree roll in either direction.
This patter continues until the original flight path is resumed.

This one is more difficult with a glider since you need to perform the 90? rotation once you're shooting vertically upwards and you loose speed pretty rapidly (which makes the consequent half-looping a bit sloppy).

Again both variants employ vertical plane and once looked dircetly from above draw a cloverleaf pattern. The difficulty in the aerobatics is to get the exact coordinated direction changes and end up in the starting point (therefore four coordinated hammerheads with a rotation in a row isn't just called "a hammerhead" but the series has a name of its own). Probably, someone like Tx-EcoDragon can add something valuable to it. You can believe or disbelieve what I wrote - I don't give a d@mn. I don't post to try to change opinions of somebody screaming a bloody murder here - I try to offer an alternative for a casual reader who can then USE BRAINS and make up his own mind. I reckon you lot will anyway continue moaning for a new God'S own hun-killing handbraketurn specially tailormade for P-38. For that discussion I have no interest (and be sure Oleg or anyone important/influential neither). This was my second and last post on this so called discussion.

AKA_TAGERT
12-28-2005, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I try to offer an alternative for a casual reader who can then USE BRAINS and make up his own mind. Really? So, in the future, when ever we see you start off by saying..

"Sorry to pee on your parade"

That should be the que for everyone that you are about to use your brain? Huh? Kind of brings a whole new meanig to the "thinking with the little head".


Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I reckon you lot will anyway continue moaning for a new God'S own hun-killing handbraketurn specially tailormade for P-38. For that discussion I have no interest (and be sure Oleg or anyone important/influential neither). If what JtD says is true, not so, in that Oleg did make a change from 4.01 to 4.02


Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
This was my second and last post on this so called discussion. Funny, you say that as if you had made some meaningful contribution to this post.. As if there would be some loss to you not participating further.. As if there would be some void that would need to be filled. Huh, I didn€t know there were people that held pee in such high regard.

BSS_CUDA
12-28-2005, 04:56 PM
well the alternative would have been to come in here and not intentionally insult me like some 6 year old screaming to get his point across. the Cloverleaf manouver is a last ditch HORIZONTAL manouver always done at low speed. 95% of the board knows this. if you had wanted to discuss this then the wise thing to do would not have been to say things like.

Sorry to pee on your parade
or

so perhaps the fault is behind the stick.
or

I would first consult a book about aerobatics rather than internet.

but no you continue by posting this


Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I reckon you lot will anyway continue moaning for a new God'S own hun-killing handbraketurn specially tailormade for P-38.

typical you jump into a conversation which you know nothing about. and when I prove you wrong, you start with all we want is a UFO 38 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
maybe you should try reading from the start of the thread, we have provided several references in which to educate your self on the 38's abilities. you have offer what? your opinion?


In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from
a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter.

BSS_CUDA
12-28-2005, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
cuda i remember back in the cfs2 days. tried like hell to convert u to the dark side of the 38 and u just wouldnt get outta that corsair. now it seems that the tables are reversed, and we've somehow 'switched'. told ya waaaaaay back then that a 38 in the hands of a master can walk the dog and kick the kitty kat.

thats cuz the CFS2 Lightning flew like an HE111 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif carried as much ammo too 5000 rounds http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Gibbage1
12-28-2005, 05:47 PM
I have been gone for a few days. Anything happen or are we just still beating the same dead horse?

AKA_TAGERT
12-28-2005, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I have been gone for a few days. Anything happen or are we just still beating the same dead horse? Pffffffft! Name one topic that isnt! As a mater of fact.. If JtD is correct, the L model has been changed since 4.01! If true, this horse is far from dead.

GR142-Pipper
12-29-2005, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
In game P-38 is actually pretty delightful in aerobatics due to lack of torque, yet it still cannot perform the cloverleaf Given the rather weak performance of most of the late-war U.S. fighters, do you think the problem with the P-38's inability to perform the cloverleaf in game is really a Ps issue (i.e. the P-38 code represents it as being underpowered and/or overly "draggy")? IMHO it seems that the Ps data in general is WAY off. If true, it would account for a lot of the observed behaviors of several of the aircraft in question.

GR142-Pipper

Ugly_Kid
12-29-2005, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Funny, you say that as if you had made some meaningful contribution to this post.. As if there would be some loss to you not participating further.. As if there would be some void that would need to be filled. Huh, I didn€t know there were people that held pee in such high regard.

Indeed, it probably was not a meaningful contribution since it did not contribute to the american dream. Let's see: I posted two definitions of cloverleaf manouver - passable aerobatic competitions definitions. I posted a track to illustrate one, here's another one according to the second definition:

Another Cloverleaf (http://koti.mbnet.fi/hausberg/sim_stuff/cloverleaf_2.TRK)

That is IMHO way more contribution than your moronic rhetorics. "Agree 100%, disagree 100%", You call that a contribution, your highness? I don't give a rats bollocks about your agreeing or disagreeing.

Cuda decides that I am offering only my opinion - nope - I wrote two pretty common descriptions of cloverleaf figure in aerobatics, not my opinion. That is something noone did up to now on 11 pages.

On the other hand:

BSS_Cuda wrote: "plus as I'm no aviation expert, but if I'm not mistaken the "snap stall" as it is called is cause by the Engine torque wanting to pull the plane in one direction while its in a turn, its the rotation of the prop that causes the wing to depart, not so much the angle of attack of the wings"

Mmmm, here we are quessing a bit, aren't we. Reaching for a convincing physical explanation but not quite getting there, are we? (Nevermind he of course got quickly convinced of his expertise, since apparently it tops my copulation skills).

He picks up stuff from usenet - that's a piece of solid evidence? - sounds like a good bit, makes his own interpretation out of it and voila this must be - what:


BSS_Cuda wrote: "it is FACT that the ONLY prop aircraft that could perform the cloverleaf was the P-38 thats one of the things that made it so special"

FACT? ONLY? (A band is blowing Dixie double four time, You feel all right when you hear that music ring) Indeed, it is your patriotic duty to believe it, reality should not be an objection.


BSS_Cuda wrote:"typical you jump into a conversation which you know nothing about. and when I prove you wrong, you start with all we want is a UFO 38"

ROTFL - after reading your bit it's your knowing I doubt.

Oh no we do not want UFOs mr Maddox but a horizontal Cobra would do for starters...

Now you want a effing sudden increase in the turn rate - due to an accelerated stall on horizontal plane. Stall? Are you serious? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif The governing force that keeps the aircraft performing a turn and finally continue to another direction is the lift acting as the centrifugal force. You stall - there's no lift no circular trajectory - no turn rate.

Sure thing, it was possible turning on the spot, continue a good bit backwards until 'em mighty props got a grip of air and of it went 180? direction change in no time. Oleg, phluush. Good luck trying to establish even a remote hint of physics behind that one. With something like Extra you might try with the insane control authority and thrust to weight to match - with a heavy twin with mediocre thrust to weight - yeah, right. I don't see 95% buying that sh!te. Except for the second track where I inserted smokes and balloons for reference so that even a blind one can see the cloverleafs I have nothing further to add.

anarchy52
12-29-2005, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Given the rather weak performance of most of the late-war U.S. fighters, do you think the problem with the P-38's inability to perform the cloverleaf in game is really a Ps issue (i.e. the P-38 code represents it as being underpowered and/or overly "draggy")? IMHO it seems that the Ps data in general is WAY off. If true, it would account for a lot of the observed behaviors of several of the aircraft in question.

GR142-Pipper

US planes have weak performance in game only in the hands of weak pilots and/or flying in non-historical environment combined with simplified DM we have in game.

You are correct about torque, it's way undermodelled ESPECIALLY in late war monster planes.

I was flying offline yesterday practicing carrier landing. I took a Corsair. full dirty at 190km/h and engine ~30%, then I slammed the throttle to 110% + WEP. Effect: barelly noticable. Then I did a tight turn, full dirty just above stall speed while cycling throttle from idle to full emergency power. No problems.

In game P-38 can not use it's historical "last ditch" tactics, be sure but it is compensated to an extent by enhanced sustained turn rate and DM (which is OK).

Brain32
12-29-2005, 03:55 AM
US planes have weak performance in game only in the hands of weak pilots and/or flying in non-historical environment combined with simplified DM we have in game.

Agree 100%

Gibbage1
12-29-2005, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
In game P-38 can not use it's historical "last ditch" tactics, be sure but it is compensated to an extent by enhanced sustained turn rate and DM (which is OK).

Lol. You dont fly the P-38 online much do you? IF you did, you would know the P-38's DM is a huge weak point. 1-2 20MM's into any of the booms and you will #1, loose 2 out of 3 controle surfaces or #2, loose the entire boom. The tail is extreamly weak, and controle lines very vulnerable. Also its good sustained turn rates dont help in a sim that is full of turn fighters. VS 109 or anything not a P-47 or FW-190 turning is a loosing battle in a P-38.

anarchy52
12-29-2005, 07:46 AM
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 anarchy52:
In game P-38 can not use it's historical "last ditch" tactics, be sure but it is compensated to an extent by enhanced sustained turn rate and DM (which is OK).

Lol. You dont fly the P-38 online much do you? IF you did, you would know the P-38's DM is a huge weak point. 1-2 20MM's into any of the booms and you will #1, loose 2 out of 3 controle surfaces or #2, loose the entire boom. The tail is extreamly weak, and controle lines very vulnerable. Also its good sustained turn rates dont help in a sim that is full of turn fighters. VS 109 or anything not a P-47 or FW-190 turning is a loosing battle in a P-38. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I shot up a lot of P-38s, and I disagree on the DM, it can take more damage then any other US aircraft (except maybe P-39/P-63 but those two obviously have russian delta wood laminated add on armour and fall in the same joke category as LaGG-3). It is possible that it has a "sweet spot", but so do other planes.
Examples:
1) Ridiculously strong LaGG-3 with virtually indestructible engine will fall apart if hit in specific small area in the wing root.
2) Bf-109 will get oil smear, engine damage if hit anywhere except wingtips or fuselage from the side.
3) FW-190 will leak fuel like a firehose if hit from 6 O'clock by small/medium caliber MG. FW-190's protection from rear hemisphere hits is well documented. Couriously Yak-1 exhibited the same behaviour in one of the previous patches. Now it can not get unsealable leaks.
4) P-51's engine gets instant catastrophic damage even by rifle caliber hits. Compared to russian inline engines it's ridiculous.
5) FW-190 will lose performance enormously and become virtualy unflyable after just a few MG hits on the wings which is silly.
6) Zero will drop a wing and lose the ability to turn like it's missing half a wing after a single MG hit.

I could go on, but I don't think it's necessary.


P.S. There was a lot of complaining on CoT forum by certaing group of P-38 jocks which got their asses handed to them on a regular basis. Something on the lines of single-shot losing booms, mk108 overusage etc. However, logs and tracks showed completely different picture. For example the guy complaining about one shot kill recieved 50 hits by quad 20mm armed FW-190 before his plane fell apart.


And about turning battle being a lost cause...so? It's not a Spitfire is it?
If You want P-38 to be another La-7 or I-185 which can do everything better then any other plane, then you have to disconnect from reality. Each plane has it's good and bad points. P-38 is missing some good points (low speed stability and turn rate) due to lack of torque modelling, but has some compensation (in terms of sustained turn rate).

AKA_TAGERT
12-29-2005, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Indeed, it probably was not a meaningful contribution since it did not contribute to the american dream. IYHO, not IMHO, and when you consider the fact that your initial entry into this thread begins with your fascination of bodily fluids, who really cares about YHO?


Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Let's see: I posted two definitions of cloverleaf manouver - passable aerobatic competitions definitions. Let's see..

The first definition you posted had nothing to do with the topic at hand, i.e. we have all been talking about the horizontal cloverleaf and you felt the need to chime in with a vertical definition.. Sorry, but I don€t see much of a contribution there.

The second definition you posted wasn€t until after BSS_CUDA set you straight, thus you defined something we already knew about.. Sorry, but I don€t see much of a contribution there.

But, who am I to judge? I€m sure that someone like yourself that holds things like pee in such high regard would consider them as a major contribution to the topic at hand.


Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I posted a track to illustrate one, here's another one according to the second definition:

Another Cloverleaf (http://koti.mbnet.fi/hausberg/sim_stuff/cloverleaf_2.TRK) Again, where the first, had nothing to do with the topic at hand, and the second, told us something we allready knew.


Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
That is IMHO way more contribution than your moronic rhetorics. Again, IYHO, not IMHO, and when you consider the fact that your initial entry into this thread begins with your fascination of bodily fluids, who really cares about YHO?


Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
"Agree 100%, disagree 100%", You call that a contribution, your highness? Sorry, would it make you feel better if I said "100% pee-pee" and/or "100% poopie" instead? Would that be more meaningful to you?


Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I don't give a rats bollocks about your agreeing or disagreeing. I don't give a rats bollocks about you not giving a rats bollocks.


Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Cuda decides that I am offering only my opinion - nope - I wrote two pretty common descriptions of cloverleaf figure in aerobatics, not my opinion. That is something noone did up to now on 11 pages. Again, where the first, had nothing to do with the topic at hand, and the second, told us something we allready knew.. Sorry, but I don€t see much of a contribution there.

AKA_TAGERT
12-29-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
This was my second and last post on this so called discussion. Then, in his NEXT post after his LAST post he said..


Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I have nothing further to add. Huh, didn€t he say that in his LAST LAST post? A real man of his word!

So, I guess we can expect him to chime in yet again.. But, let's keep our fingers crossed and hope he does not feel the need to make another "contribution" where he tells us about his bodily fluids, or talks about something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or tells us something we already knew.

Ugly_Kid
12-29-2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
The first definition you posted had nothing to do with the topic at hand, i.e. we have all been talking about the horizontal cloverleaf and you felt the need to chime in with a vertical definition.. Sorry, but I don€t see much of a contribution there.

The second definition you posted wasn€t until after BSS_CUDA set you straight, thus you defined something we already knew about.. Sorry, but I don€t see much of a contribution there.


The second one is just as much a vertical one as the first one, read again (using half looping and rolling instead of hammerhead and rolling). Neither has been mentioned in your tiresome discussion before as far as I've read it. So what do you think you knew before?

AKA_TAGERT
12-29-2005, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
The second one is just as much a vertical one as the first one, read again (using half looping and rolling instead of hammerhead and rolling). Neither has been mentioned in your tiresome discussion before as far as I've read it. 100% pee-pee

PS Is this your last, Last, LAST post? If not, you may want to read this Just for Ugly Kid (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=last)

Grey_Mouser67
12-29-2005, 10:30 AM
Back to the discussion at hand...I did some dive testing amongst planes...can't remember if it was 4.01 or 4.02.

Basically I was comparing dive rates between planes at a given angle power on and power off. I was measuring terminal dive speed to get a gauge of acceleration...

Anyways, not sure what it is telling me exactly, but the J model accelarated much faster than the L and L late....this led me to believe that the FM's of the L and J are either completely different or there is an error in one of them...the L late seemed to be a deviation of the L's FM as they dove very similar with power off but different with power on.

I would have thought Oleg would have used the exact same FM on the L as the J, only change the roll rate and add airbrakes...they had similar engine output etc...but I don't know what data he is using.

AKA_TAGERT
12-29-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Back to the discussion at hand... Fingers Crossed!


Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I did some dive testing amongst planes...can't remember if it was 4.01 or 4.02.

Basically I was comparing dive rates between planes at a given angle power on and power off. I was measuring terminal dive speed to get a gauge of acceleration...

Anyways, not sure what it is telling me exactly, but the J model accelarated much faster than the L and L late....this led me to believe that the FM's of the L and J are either completely different or there is an error in one of them...the L late seemed to be a deviation of the L's FM as they dove very similar with power off but different with power on. From what I remember, the J and the L had the same TTA/ROC in 4.01, but JtD said he did a test in 4.02 that shows the L getting to 20kft 40sec faster than the J. I have not see those track files yet, but assuming that is true my guess would be your tests were in 4.02


Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I would have thought Oleg would have used the exact same FM on the L as the J, only change the roll rate and add airbrakes...they had similar engine output etc...but I don't know what data he is using. Off hand I would think the same thing too.. but.. it must not be that simple to just up the roll variable and the power variable. Also note the J version in this game has the boosted alierons, so they should both have the same roll rates, the only difference is the dive breaks and some weight. Remember the ealy Me262 problems.. Oleg did a lot of tweaking on that plane.. when the engines went out they acted like air breaks.. He later tweak it so they didnt.. So, all Im getting at is there is more than one variable that needs to be tweaked, several play toghter, so, when he made the L LATE from the L he may have had to do more than just up the power.. But, if your correct that they both have the same power off numbers than maybe that is all he had to do?

BSS_CUDA
12-29-2005, 11:45 AM
it might just be me as I have not tested it but it seems to me the J is more nimble in its roll rate also. I dont fly it that much anymore since the L-Late, I might have to go do some testing to see

VF-29_Sandman
12-29-2005, 01:27 PM
ur so right about the 38 in cfs2 having rediculously high ammo. ooo the lufties would really scream if we had that much. as far as it turning like a heinkel, looking back, it turned real well at about 180 indicated, even better at slightly less. but the biggest thing about that 1 back in the day, it was very very twitchy. would like to see some gun tracks tho. u know where i'm at. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aviar
12-29-2005, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Back to the discussion at hand...I did some dive testing amongst planes...can't remember if it was 4.01 or 4.02.

Basically I was comparing dive rates between planes at a given angle power on and power off. I was measuring terminal dive speed to get a gauge of acceleration...

Anyways, not sure what it is telling me exactly, but the J model accelarated much faster than the L and L late....this led me to believe that the FM's of the L and J are either completely different or there is an error in one of them...the L late seemed to be a deviation of the L's FM as they dove very similar with power off but different with power on.

I would have thought Oleg would have used the exact same FM on the L as the J, only change the roll rate and add airbrakes...they had similar engine output etc...but I don't know what data he is using.


I believe in real life the 'L' was heavier and slightly slower than the 'J'. In-game, this also seems to be the case. In low altitude level flight, the 'L' is about 10kp\h slower than the 'J'. (Obviously, not talking about the 'L_Late' here.)

Aviar

AKA_TAGERT
12-29-2005, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Aviar:
I believe in real life the 'L' was heavier and slightly slower than the 'J'. In-game, this also seems to be the case. In low altitude level flight, the 'L' is about 10kp\h slower than the 'J'. (Obviously, not talking about the 'L_Late' here.)

Aviar I recall Bollio addressing that issue way back when.. He pointed out that the weight thing is a myth.. That the L was not all that much heavier than the J. Yes, the dive flaps were added, but, other things were removed or optimised.. like armor and such. All in all, if I remember right, bollio said it was pretty much a wash and the two planes were about the same weight. If true, there is no real reason why the J should be faster than an L or have a better roll rate or climb rate.

Grey_Mouser67
12-29-2005, 03:25 PM
Yes, there is so much info out there....my current understanding is that the J and L both had 1600 hp/engine and both topped out at 421mph.

There is a commonly printed 414mph figure out there, but that is military power I believe. The L late is, as far as I know, the P-38L-5-LO. There were 2200 delivered and they began delivery in October 44. They had the same engine as teh -1-LO but were allowed to run at 1725hp and attained a max speed of 441 mph....as soon as the engine was cleared to run at the higher ratings, all the -1's could be ran there. Pretty likely they ran at those settings prior to Oct. 44. There was an increase in climb rate as well from 4000 ft/min at SL to a figure of like 4800ft/min...I couldn't find my source on that so I could be mistaken there. The J model ran with different engines, the V-1710F-17 so they were not cleared to run the higher power ratings.

Now what I have not been clear on is whether the J's had water injection. The L's did for sure...if the J's did not and the L's did and the weight was similar there might be an error. One of my sources has the J running with water injection/WEP so that would make sense.

I'm probably rehashing stuff that has already been said though...

Just don't forget the elevator authority! Would love to see the climb rate restored, but I'd like the Lightning to take its place as a proper B&Z aircraft and it needs elevators to do that with.

Gibbage1
12-29-2005, 03:36 PM
The weight between the J and L was about 40-60lb. Nothing significant at all. Aerodynamicly, the dive flaps were rather flush on the wings, so again nothing significant. The L should roll a LOT better then the J at high speeds due to its boosted ailerons. The J I modeled in-game did not have them. I know in earlier versions of the game, the J did roll better then the L, but I dont know if that was corrected. If the J was better then the L in speed or climb, it would be by 1-2%, nothing enough to register.

AKA_TAGERT
12-29-2005, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Yes, there is so much info out there....my current understanding is that the J and L both had 1600 hp/engine and both topped out at 421mph.

There is a commonly printed 414mph figure out there, but that is military power I believe. The L late is, as far as I know, the P-38L-5-LO. There were 2200 delivered and they began delivery in October 44. They had the same engine as teh -1-LO but were allowed to run at 1725hp and attained a max speed of 441 mph....as soon as the engine was cleared to run at the higher ratings, all the -1's could be ran there. Pretty likely they ran at those settings prior to Oct. 44. There was an increase in climb rate as well from 4000 ft/min at SL to a figure of like 4800ft/min...I couldn't find my source on that so I could be mistaken there. The J model ran with different engines, the V-1710F-17 so they were not cleared to run the higher power ratings.

Now what I have not been clear on is whether the J's had water injection. The L's did for sure...if the J's did not and the L's did and the weight was similar there might be an error. One of my sources has the J running with water injection/WEP so that would make sense.

I'm probably rehashing stuff that has already been said though... Allways good to hear that others come up with the same info, so keep it comming. Also, if you find those sources, please pass them along in that Im trying to build a case for them.. Not to convice Oleg, he clearly understands the fact that the P38L was cleared for 1725hp, it is more for my benifit to get the nay-sayers to stfu.. in that once source is never enough for them.


Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Just don't forget the elevator authority! Would love to see the climb rate restored, but I'd like the Lightning to take its place as a proper B&Z aircraft and it needs elevators to do that with. If you can come up with some data.. Some kind of real world test that we could re-create in the game to show that the in-game 38 does not pull out like the real life version.. Than please do! I just can not find any data or come up with a test to prove that it is a problem. Basically, at low alt there should be no loss in el authority at any speed.. yet there seems to be. But I got nothing to comp to but my *feelings* and that is not good enough for me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aviar
12-29-2005, 03:41 PM
Just a quick internet search. Both sites show the Empty Weight of the 'L' being heavier than the 'J'. Also both indicate the 'L' being slightly slower in top speed than the 'J'.

P-38J: Empty Weight(12,780lbs) Max Speed: 420mph (At 26,500ft)
P-38L: Empty Weight(14,100lbs) Max Speed: 414mph (At 25,000ft)
http://www.ww2guide.com/p38.shtml


P-38J: Empty Weight(5,787kg) Max Speed: 676kph
P-38L: Empty Weight(6,396kg) Max Speed: 666kph
http://www.lemaire.happyhost.org/avion/avion1/17.html

In all honesty, I don't know how accurate these numbers are. I'm just posting them for the sake of discussion. Just be aware of the actual in-game numbers.

Aviar

AKA_TAGERT
12-29-2005, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The J I modeled in-game did not have them. Huh? So, are you saying there is an exterior art difference? If so, I dont see it, what is it?

And just to be crystal, your 3D art has nothing to do with the way the plane flys, only the FM math does. That is to say you could draw bigger ailerons and it would not effect the roll rate.. ie what is see is not what you get.. what the FM is *is* what you get. Put another way, if you apply the P38 FM to the Pe8 the Pe8 will fly like a P38.

Also, the last time I check, the in-game P38J is the later production model that has the booster ailerons..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROLL_RATES/402/P38J/ingameP38Jstats.JPG

And the earlier models got field mods to add the boosters.. So the roll rate of a J and L should be the same.. If not, than just which variant is Oleg modeling?

Gibbage1
12-29-2005, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Huh? So, are you saying there is an exterior art difference? If so, I dont see it, what is it?


Not in the model, but in the texture. I dont think it was done in the texture. The J's without the boosted ailerons in real life dont have 4 booster pumps on the underside of the wing close to the leading edge. 2 on each wing. I told Oleg to model the early J's that DONT have the aileron booster (J-10 or J-15) so there at least would be a differance between the J and L. With them, there is no differance. Also the J-25's were shipping at the same time as the L's anyways. That way we have some distinction between models.



And just to be crystal, your 3D art has nothing to do with the way the plane flys, only the FM math does.


Not 100% true. Yes, the game does not take in account whats in the model, but Oleg and his team DOES. If I modeled the P-38F, Oleg and his team would change the FM to match what they think the F model should fly like. I did not model in the dive flaps for the J, so Oleg and his team did not model dive flaps in the FM. Comprende? So yes, what I model does have relivence in the FM. I told Oleg the J was an early J without aileron boost, so it should (and did before 4.01) drop roll rate above 350MPH as the L keeps gaining roll rate.



Also, the last time I check, the in-game P38J is the later production model that has the booster ailerons..


So according to your screenshot and your theries, we also have a P-38J Droop Snoot with Glass nose and Norden bombsight? WOW! Please tell me how to select that!!!!!!! I also dont remember being able to fly the F-5B recon. Please, in all your infinate wisdome, dont be so ignorant to think that the list represents every type of J model in the game. We only have 1 J model in that list, and I asked Oleg that it could be an early model without aileron boost. He said yes. That red circle does not exist in game and is your own creation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



And the earlier models got field mods to add the boosters.. So the roll rate of a J and L should be the same.. If not, than just which variant is Oleg modeling?

The early models DID get the mods, but only in 1944 after the L's were delivered. The Brits shot down a DC-3 that was delivering the mod kits to England and the upgrades were delayed till after the L was in production and being delivered, in 1944. As stated in the object list, we have a 1943 P-38, and both the kits and P-38 J-25 was made in 1944. Do a little research next time.

AKA_TAGERT
12-29-2005, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Not in the model, but in the texture. texture.. model.. It's all 3D art.


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont think it was done in the texture. Ok, let me know when you make up your mind


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The J's without the boosted ailerons in real life dont have 4 booster pumps on the underside of the wing close to the leading edge. 2 on each wing. I told Oleg to model the early J's that DONT have the aileron booster (J-10 or J-15) so there at least would be a differance between the J and L. With them, there is no differance. Also the J-25's were shipping at the same time as the L's anyways. That way we have some distinction between models. Ok, let me see if I got this right.. You told Oleg what to do? Why does that just sound funny to me?


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Not 100% true. Wrong, it is 100% true, you can try and twist it Clinton like, but the fact remains the 3D art (texture or model) has no effect on how the plane flies.. none.. nada.. zip.


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Yes, the game does not take in account whats in the model, but Oleg and his team DOES. Roger, you didn€t inhale, got it.


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If I modeled the P-38F, Oleg and his team would change the FM to match what they think the F model should fly like. I did not model in the dive flaps for the J, so Oleg and his team did not model dive flaps in the FM. Comprende? I also understand that Oleg and his team had to make allot of changes to your 3D art to bring it up to standards.. At which point they could have easily removed or ignored the boosters on the textures and modeled a late J without dive flaps. Wouldn€t be the first time the 3D art did not match the FM completely.. Take the Ki61 for example.. Billfish can talk your ear off about how the 3D art does not match the FM. SAVVY?


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So yes, what I model does have relivence in the FM. In a round about way in that a P38 is a P38, but that does not change the FACT of my original statement.. The 3D art in no way shape or form effect the way the plane flies, only the FM associated with the 3D art does, period.


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I told Oleg the J was an early J without aileron boost, so it should (and did before 4.01) drop roll rate above 350MPH as the L keeps gaining roll rate. Well that is good to know.. As you know, I never got around to doing the roll rate testing of the P38s, that and most of the dog fights don€t happen at the 350mph range, so I never really noticed.


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So according to your screenshot and your theries, we also have a P-38J Droop Snoot with Glass nose and Norden bombsight? WOW! Please tell me how to select that!!!!!!! I also dont remember being able to fly the F-5B recon. Please, in all your infinate wisdome, dont be so ignorant to think that the list represents every type of J model in the game. So, what part of me asking "If not, than just which variant is Oleg modeling?" did you not understand?


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
We only have 1 J model in that list, and I asked Oleg that it could be an early model without aileron boost. He said yes. That red circle does not exist in game and is your own creation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Not my creation, Oleg's. Don€t be so ignorant to think that this wouldn€t be the first time that Oleg ignored you and did what he wanted to do, in spite of your infinite wisdom.


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The early models DID get the mods, but only in 1944 after the L's were delivered. Is what I€m saying.


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The Brits shot down a DC-3 that was delivering the mod kits to England and the upgrades were delayed till after the L was in production and being delivered, in 1944. As stated in the object list, we have a 1943 P-38, and both the kits and P-38 J-25 was made in 1944. Do a little research next time. Again, what part of me asking "If not, than just which variant is Oleg modeling?" did you not understand?

PS.. Didn't you say the following in this very thread a page or two back, i.e.


Originally posted by Gibbage1 a page or two back:
I have been gone for a few days. Anything happen or are we just still beating the same dead horse? I don€t know what is sadder..

Someone who chimes in with nothing to add except to take a swipe at people for kicking a dead horse..

or

Someone who chimes in with nothing to add except to take a swipe at people for kicking a dead horse.. and then kick the horse.

I would have to go with the latter.. Seek help my friend!

Aviar
12-29-2005, 05:40 PM
TAG, your responses, at times, can be quite childish.

Gib...personal insults can only get you insults in return.

Aren't we on the same side here? I think we are. This kind of silly in-fighting cannot lead to anything positive. Who is going to help us when they see these kind of posts?

Let's get our act together and work as a team. If we are serious about these P-38 issues, we need to act accordingly. Otherwise, it just looks like we are a bunch of kids fighting on the playground.

Aviar

AKA_TAGERT
12-29-2005, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Aviar:
TAG, your responses, at times, can be quite childish. I give what I get, don€t hate me for being better at it.

As for the rest, Gib has already declared this thread a dead horse.. and Gib tells Oleg what he can cannot do, therefore they might as well close all the forums.. Gib has spoken.

GR142-Pipper
12-29-2005, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
US planes have weak performance in game only in the hands of weak pilots and/or flying in non-historical environment combined with simplified DM we have in game. Disagree. Energy retention is subpar, wings sheer (P-51), R-2800's are way too vulnerable, weak 50's, etc. This has nothing to do with piloting and is quite contrary to real life accounts.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-29-2005, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
...It's not a Spitfire is it?
If You want P-38 to be another La-7 or I-185 which can do everything better then any other plane, then you have to disconnect from reality. Each plane has it's good and bad points. P-38 is missing some good points (low speed stability and turn rate) due to lack of torque modelling, but has some compensation (in terms of sustained turn rate). Respectfully I have to ask Anarchy, are you playing the same game everyone else is because it sure doesn't sound like it. I don't see your name on-line. Do you use a different name? The people that have been commenting on the P-38 are familiar, capable and know what they're talking about (to wit: Tagart, Vidar, Cuda, and others). No knock here but your comments are very much at variance with many very experienced on-line players.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-29-2005, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
...Basically, at low alt there should be no loss in el authority at any speed.. yet there seems to be. But I got nothing to comp to but my *feelings* and that is not good enough for me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif A lot of these discussions become one of semantics. Just to clarify, what do you consider "low" altitude? Below 5k feet?

GR142-Pipper

Grey_Mouser67
12-29-2005, 06:46 PM
@ Target:

regarding the elevator authority...I don't have any test data...in fact, I've never seen test data on any aircraft that indicates pounds of force required for a certain level of control surface deflection.

Most of what I have garnered about the Lightning and other planes for that matter has come from books. I do have an interesting book called "New Guniea Skies" written by a P-38 pilot. He's not one of the guys who racks up bunches of kills...seems to me he got one, maybe two kills during the war. He does write about a power dive in which his airspeed indicator hits 500 mph and he has to ride the plane down to thicker air and pulls out, nearly blacking out, at around 10,000 ft. I think the Lightning he was flying was a G model. He was beyond compressibility but low enough to ride it down to denser air and pull out.

Most of the elevator authority stuff is anecdotal and actually very easy to find. The Lightning was used in PTO for dive bombing, B&Z and other vertical manuevers and was considered safe under 18,000 ft. There is tons of info out there on compressibility and I not only posted a bunch of it a long time ago, but I sent some stuff to Oleg's gang too.

I never got the impression that Oleg thought the plane was right or wrong, only that he didn't want to rework it...it needs some rework no doubt.

IMHO, I think the burden is on Oleg in this case. I don't know how to test it, but I'd say the Lighting has one of the most, if not the most, heavy elevator in the game. It really aught to be at least middle of the road unless there is some specific evidence saying it is good or bad...I can only find accounts of elevator authority being very good up to compressibility and it goes from being good to locked up like the stick was in concrete. In addition, the designers used a yoke to counter the heavy aileron forces which had the wonderful side effect of allowing a pilot to exert more force on the elevators too!

Don't know where to go from here...I think this is a case where we not only need to provide Oleg with data and evidence warrenting a change but also a good reason to change...I've been noting where possible the notable decline in Americans on Hyperlobby in the evening....I hope that gets his attention. Most players don't want uber planes, but I do want stable gun platforms, I do want proper climb rates, I do want my heavy B&Z aircraft to stand up to the punishment they really took and dive like they really did and have control surfaces like they really did.

Gibbage1
12-29-2005, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I give what I get, don€t hate me for being better at it.

As for the rest, Gib has already declared this thread a dead horse.. and Gib tells Oleg what he can cannot do, therefore they might as well close all the forums.. Gib has spoken.

This is a great example of you being childish. Lets debate facts here, and not quibble like this.

I asked Oleg that the J model be an early model so it can be under the 1943 year, and so the two models fly differant. He said yes. J-25 and aileron assist is 1944, and we have a 1943 P-38. So that it conclusive. No debate needed. The J has no aileron boost in game.

Gibbage1
12-29-2005, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:

Most of what I have garnered about the Lightning and other planes for that matter has come from books. I do have an interesting book called "New Guniea Skies" written by a P-38 pilot. He's not one of the guys who racks up bunches of kills...seems to me he got one, maybe two kills during the war. He does write about a power dive in which his airspeed indicator hits 500 mph and he has to ride the plane down to thicker air and pulls out, nearly blacking out, at around 10,000 ft. I think the Lightning he was flying was a G model. He was beyond compressibility but low enough to ride it down to denser air and pull out.


I have seen many pilot quotes about this. 1 P-38 recon pilot was chased by Me-262's and he dove away from them. He was in full compressability till he hit cloud layers at lower alt and was then able to pull up, minus the 2 Me-262's. On a later mission he tried the same thing, but his aircraft started comming appart before he could get low enough. He pulled the canopy release and was sucked out the canopy at 500MPH+! He woke up in a German hospital. Luckly it was a few months before the war ended. I also read about P-38's doing dive bombing vs shipping in the pacific and they encountered NO compressability once below 10,000 feet.

The problem is, from what I gather from my talks with Oleg, that compressability is sort of an "on off" switch in IL2. Eather the aircraft has it, or it dont. Its not altitude spacific, but speed spacific. He cant make compressability go away at low alt. It would take a LOT of programming, and thats something he cant afford to do for 1 aircraft.

AKA_TAGERT
12-29-2005, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This is a great example of you being childish. Childish? Ok, now watch as I show you pitty.. Only I dont know who to pitty more..

Someone who chimes in with nothing to add except to take a swipe at people for kicking a dead horse..

or

Someone who chimes in with nothing to add except to take a swipe at people for kicking a dead horse.. and then kick the horse.

Im thinking the later, what do you think?


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Lets debate facts here, and not quibble like this. Ok, I promise not to come in here and take a swipe at everyon and imply they are tards for beating a dead horse, and then turn around and beat the horse.. If you promise to do the same. Deal?


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I asked Oleg that the J model be an early model so it can be under the 1943 year, and so the two models fly differant. He said yes. J-25 and aileron assist is 1944, and we have a 1943 P-38. So that it conclusive. No debate needed. The J has no aileron boost in game. Agreed 100%! The FACT remains that the 3D art has nothing to do with the way the planes fly.