PDA

View Full Version : Does the P-38 accelerate too slowly??



mortoma
03-05-2005, 01:04 PM
I'm no expert, nor have I ever flown a P-38 and no, I don't have any data either. But my impression of the P-38 in this game is that maybe it accelerates too slowly. I may be wrong though. Just seems like maybe with the small frontal area ( for a twin ) and those two powerful engines, that just maybe it should pick up speed better than it does. It seems to pick up speed almost painfully slowly, even if you dive it slightly, say maybe 1,000 FPM down. Like I said I may be wrong so what the heck. Seems like it's one of the slower accelerators in the game for the mid to late war period. Does anyone have any data on it's acceleration???

Blackdog5555
03-05-2005, 01:20 PM
The P38 was the dragster of the allied planes. I saw some data once on its acceleration. Im looking for the file /web again. At sea level the P51 gained about 1.7 mph/sec when the P38 gained about 2.5 mph/sec. I agree that it seem a bit slow on the go. I was interested in doin a drag race with a P51 to prove my "feelings".

VW-IceFire
03-05-2005, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I'm no expert, nor have I ever flown a P-38 and no, I don't have any data either. But my impression of the P-38 in this game is that maybe it accelerates too slowly. I may be wrong though. Just seems like maybe with the small frontal area ( for a twin ) and those two powerful engines, that just maybe it should pick up speed better than it does. It seems to pick up speed almost painfully slowly, even if you dive it slightly, say maybe 1,000 FPM down. Like I said I may be wrong so what the heck. Seems like it's one of the slower accelerators in the game for the mid to late war period. Does anyone have any data on it's acceleration??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No data but just questioning: Do you not get that feel from stop to engine start to takeoff and climb to altitude that the plane just picks up and goes very nicely without any difficulty?

Even in the Spitfire I find myself leveling out after the initial takeoff climb to get speed up before climbing. In the P-38...I just point the nose upwards and she goes. I really am starting to love the plane...something about the Glacier Girl calendar with that lovely early P-38 design.

pourshot
03-05-2005, 03:16 PM
Americas Hundred Thousand says the following (starting at 250mph@SL and applying full COMBAT power)

P38F___2.30 ft/sec/sec
P38L___4.13 ft/sec/sec

BSS_CUDA
03-05-2005, 03:27 PM
everything I've read says the acceleration should be better, 3200HP on twin props has to have some perks even at 16,000 lbs. in game just point the nose and keep the speed at 170-180 at 110% and it climbs all day. she'll run @ 100% throttle and never overheat with the rad open. its a shame really with just some minor fixes and this plane would be perfect. just follow Tommy McGuires rules for her and you'll do just fine.

1. never get below 250
2. never fly with tanks on
3. never turn more than 90% with a zero.

IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif McGuire was a better pilot then Bong, even tho Bong had more kills, they actually grounded McGuire for a period of time so he wouldn't pass Bongs record. sadly he died trying to save a wingman from an Oscar, breaking 2 of his 3 rules, he got below 250 and tried to fight with his tanks on when he stalled it and crashed into the jungle, funny thing is eyewitness accounts said he recovered from his stall but didnt have enough alt to pull out of the dive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
this plane is really perplexing me, I read so many acounts of how good a fighter it was ( it got a bad rep from mechanical problem that were fixed with the late J and L version ) but when you fly it in game it doesnt perform as pilot accounts say it did. I know that pilots can be biased, and IRL it took a skilled pilot to accel in the 38 as it was a complicated aircraft to fly. but when you compare it to other aircraft in game it loses on almost all counts. its speed is OK, its dive speed it severly limited because of the false compressability, its turn radius is really only better than a 190, 110 and nothing else. its climb is slower than ALL 109's. too bad we cant RL fly one of these http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif what a thrill that would be. I love http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif this plane its my main ride

Bull_dog_
03-05-2005, 05:05 PM
Yes

Recon_609IAP
03-05-2005, 05:23 PM
keeping fingers that the p38 gets some attention on the patch http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
03-05-2005, 05:30 PM
the acceloration off the runway is supurb, i hadto pile on brakes to not run into a p47 in a coop...

but at speed, shes sluggish, and doesnt really turn well

vs a g6, then u may well have the better plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I'm no expert, nor have I ever flown a P-38 and no, I don't have any data either. But my impression of the P-38 in this game is that maybe it accelerates too slowly. I may be wrong though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you have NO DATA to go by.. Then where did this impression (feeling) come from?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Just seems like maybe with the small frontal area ( for a twin ) and those two powerful engines, that just maybe it should pick up speed better than it does. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Relitve to what? Have you done any tests? Dont base it off what you see in a DF in HL! In that the difference you see there are most likly due to pilot skill difference not aircraft difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
It seems to pick up speed almost painfully slowly, even if you dive it slightly, say maybe 1,000 FPM down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont get that *feeling* from it.. As a mater of fact off the runway it seems to jump off the ground imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Like I said I may be wrong so what the heck. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You dont need to be an expert to get a buddy, set up a mission in HL for only two people with a password and then do some side by side *visual* tests to calibrate your *feelings*. And if you want to go one step further, you can record the track files and analise them afterwards to see what the actual numbers were during the tests.. And the pilots inputs that resulted in said numbers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Seems like it's one of the slower accelerators in the game for the mid to late war period. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not to me, but that is just my *feeling* on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Does anyone have any data on it's acceleration??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not handy

3.JG51_BigBear
03-05-2005, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I'm no expert, nor have I ever flown a P-38 and no, I don't have any data either. But my impression of the P-38 in this game is that maybe it accelerates too slowly. I may be wrong though. Just seems like maybe with the small frontal area ( for a twin ) and those two powerful engines, that just maybe it should pick up speed better than it does. It seems to pick up speed almost painfully slowly, even if you dive it slightly, say maybe 1,000 FPM down. Like I said I may be wrong so what the heck. Seems like it's one of the slower accelerators in the game for the mid to late war period. Does anyone have any data on it's acceleration??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No data but just questioning: Do you not get that feel from stop to engine start to takeoff and climb to altitude that the plane just picks up and goes very nicely without any difficulty?

Even in the Spitfire I find myself leveling out after the initial takeoff climb to get speed up before climbing. In the P-38...I just point the nose upwards and she goes. I really am starting to love the plane...something about the Glacier Girl calendar with that lovely early P-38 design. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100%. After PF came out this plane picked up a lot of great performance characterisitics. Right from takeoff I find that its able to sustain a decently steep climb angle without the need for a lot of trim. The thrust from the dual engines also allows for a failry steep climb at a lower power setting so the engines are less likely to overheat. It also seems to have less problems with compressability, or I might just be compensating more I'm not entirely sure.

Its a very fun plane to fly and I think in time it will be like the Focke Wulf. Over the past four years the proper tactics for the Wulf have been discussed time and again on these forums and many virtual pilots have become quite proficient with it. I think if the same amount of study and discussion went into the P-38 the plane would enjoy greater success.

p1ngu666
03-05-2005, 10:36 PM
its a fun plane to fly, probably because isnt that great. imo a mw50 109 is better.

it has great acceloration on the runway, but once u get going, it really isnt that good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

it does cruise very well tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VF-29_Sandman
03-05-2005, 11:50 PM
cuda, i think u should put a 38 in yer pic instead of a corsair now haha http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
u could always try this..in a fmb, try puttin in a bi-plane that's flyin at 90mph level (use friendly). now fly in formation in the 38 along side it, then firewall it. it should pull away with ease and have drastic pickup like it was shown in zeno's warbirds film; but the plane we got here, i doubt it will happen. in fact, u might even need 1 or 2 notches of flap just to keep her steady.

OldMan____
03-06-2005, 06:51 AM
My tests put P38 acceleartion around 2.4 mph/second between 250 and 350 kph .. so quite close to historical data.

VW-IceFire
03-06-2005, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
My tests put P38 acceleartion around 2.4 mph/second between 250 and 350 kph .. so quite close to historical data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats good to know. How'd you do the test?

And yes, the onset of compressability seems to have been backed off on a bit. Thats definately a benefit.

mortoma
03-06-2005, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
My tests put P38 acceleartion around 2.4 mph/second between 250 and 350 kph .. so quite close to historical data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is the kind of thing I wanted to hear, someone with data to either prove or disprove my gut feelings. Not just someone like Tagert who only wants to troll, flame and just cause a lot of ill feelings in the forums. The guy is not making a lot of friends in here!!!

OldMan____
03-06-2005, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
My tests put P38 acceleartion around 2.4 mph/second between 250 and 350 kph .. so quite close to historical data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats good to know. How'd you do the test?

And yes, the onset of compressability seems to have been backed off on a bit. Thats definately a benefit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

just went to level flight (I made this tests at 1k on crimeia wiht 50% fuel..since p38 has too much fuel and 100% is not combat setting for it) I considered this a reasonable setting for air combat both on alt and fuel load. P38 J if anyone wanna know.

went stable at 250 kph.. than firewalled.. using trimm kept most leveled I could till reached 350 kph (speed where most figters start loosing acceleration) than just did math. Did twice and took the average. At very high speeds it does not accelerate so well..

I must still do the test.. but think Later 109 still outaccelerate P38 J (and any other prop plane)

3.JG51_BigBear
03-06-2005, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
My tests put P38 acceleartion around 2.4 mph/second between 250 and 350 kph .. so quite close to historical data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats good to know. How'd you do the test?

And yes, the onset of compressability seems to have been backed off on a bit. Thats definately a benefit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

just went to level flight (I made this tests at 1k on crimeia wiht 50% fuel..since p38 has too much fuel and 100% is not combat setting for it) I considered this a reasonable setting for air combat both on alt and fuel load. P38 J if anyone wanna know.

went stable at 250 kph.. than firewalled.. using trimm kept most leveled I could till reached 350 kph (speed where most figters start loosing acceleration) than just did math. Did twice and took the average. At very high speeds it does not accelerate so well..

I must still do the test.. but think Later 109 still outaccelerate P38 J (and any other prop plane) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of pure curiosity, do you know what altitude the real life acceleration tests were conducted at?

p1ngu666
03-06-2005, 02:14 PM
good test oldman http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

would like to see or do a comparison with p51, specialy at 250mph+

i can host on HL a test map so if anyone wants, ill do that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ugly_Kid
03-06-2005, 02:47 PM
As long as plane A climbs at better rate than plane B at a given speed and at the following speeds it has more excessive horsepower (over aerodynamic drag) it will also thus outaccelerate the plane B. You will notice that 109 for instance will and should outaccelerate almost anything out there from moderate to high speed. This outaccelerating applies to initial dive as well.

Somewhere at significantly much higher speed a faster fighter would pull away. Let's say FW, which is faster than 109 will start pulling away at higher speed. It's easy to see from IL-2 Compare (for tendency not for exact data) - after 350 km/h FW-190A-9 outclimbs Bf-109K-4 at SL and it will thus outaccelerate it from this point on too...(ROC vs. TAS seems to be given for 100% power though with boosts it is a bit different)

Knowing this you'll realize that P-38, allthough being a really good climber for US aircraft, is still nothing particular in world wide comparison and will not really outaccelerate many others.

Blackdog5555
03-06-2005, 03:28 PM
good to hear the P38 accelerates accurately.
I did some speed test too.

Olegs data says the: P38J at 1500meters goes 590km/h..and @8000m does 672Km/h.

My test: P38J with 25% fuel, clean, Crimea map, level trim;
Results P38J at 1500 meters tops out at 560Km/h;
.............at 8000 meters tops out at 650Km/h

So its real close. About 20-30km/h too slow at all altitudes. Close enough for Government work. Lockheed has the P38J going faster but that is manufacturer reports. Lockheed has the 38 as fast as the 51D at all altitudes. I saved the tracks. I did test to 25,000 ft. The only big problem seems to be the stall/spin thing. I found a couple of sites with the P38 pilots manual. The P38 did not stall spin. It would stall and drop in a turn with easy recovery. The game has it spinning in an unrecoverable flat spin like the P39. he is the site to the manual
http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=001027;p=

hope it get fixed. Still very fun to fly. NACA has the the P38L going to 25,000ft in 9 minutes @ 14,000lbs. I could do it in 7 min. 15 sec. so it seemto to climb better than NACA. Cheers!

BTW. I did a P38L compare with the P51D offline at SL the 38L=338mph and 51D=350mph. At 15,000ft the 38L=360mph and P51D=390mph; then lastly at 25,000ft the P38L=397mph and the P51D=403. this is TAS. so pretty close...

Aaron_GT
03-06-2005, 03:42 PM
The AHT figures for the 38L indicates an acceleration of 2.8 mph/s (at what speed?). OldMan's test indicate 2.4 mph/s. So it is fairly close, with some wild variables on the way the tests (by the USAAF and OldMan) were conducted.

Blackdog5555
03-06-2005, 05:35 PM
Accept for the stall/spin, I like what the Devs did for the P38. But its all relative though. For example I was Playing "T. McQuire's last mission" against 4 Oscars offline. Man, the Oscar's chased me through a 500mph dive. I really had a hard time accelerating away from them. Even at high speed. That needs fixing too. LOL.

pourshot
03-06-2005, 07:53 PM
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/table1.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/table2.jpg

Bull_dog_
03-06-2005, 08:19 PM
gee...it went from 2.3 on the F model with military power all the way to 4.13 with "combat" power...one might think that it had some sort of boost????

The Lightning was the best in the US aresenal in terms of accleration...that in combination with its lack of torque and gentle stall characteristics made its turn radius very small for a big plane and made manuevers like the cloverleaf possible...if only Oleg respected it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Ratsack
03-06-2005, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
...I read so many acounts of how good a fighter it was ( it got a bad rep from mechanical problem that were fixed with the late J and L version ) but when you fly it in game it doesnt perform as pilot accounts say it did. I know that pilots can be biased, and IRL it took a skilled pilot to accel in the 38 as it was a complicated aircraft to fly. but when you compare it to other aircraft in game it loses on almost all counts. its speed is OK, its dive speed it severly limited because of the false compressability, its turn radius is really only better than a 190, 110 and nothing else... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have a read of the comparative tests between Faber's captured Fw-190A-3 and a P-38F flown by an experienced USAAF pilot. The Lightning was on a hiding to nothing.

Admittedly, this is an earlier model of P-38, but it€s also an earlier model of Wurger.

I€m at work right now, so I can€t quote it for you, but it€s in Alfred Price, FW190 In Action. The report also compares a few other Allied planes (Typhoon, Spits, Mustang€¦)

Put simply, IRL I€d rather be flying nearly any other fighter. In game, I love it. It€s fast and all the guns are where they should be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif€¦what more do you need? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

VW-IceFire
03-06-2005, 08:42 PM
I've made it my mission to start using the P-38 in online dogfight servers. Spent about 3 hours flying it on and off.

Its quite good actually. I usually managed to get two bandits down before I was shot down...the problem generally being terrible teamwork rather than anything wrong with the plane.

It seems the FW190 and P-38 tend to get prioritized as "easy targets" by the mediocre dogfighter crowd who will risk everything to go after the "easy target". Its BS but it means you get far more attention.

ImpStarDuece
03-06-2005, 09:16 PM
Interesting chart pourshot.

IF you notice that the first table refers to applying full MILLITARY power and the second applied to applying full COMBAT power.

In my understanding MILITARY power refers to maximum power without boost, while COMBAT power includes boost.

So the P-51 in the first table only has a rated Hp of 1150, while the D model (albiet with a better PAckard Merlin in it) is rated at 1720hp.

Similarly, unless i'm mistaken (and i may well be) the P-47D had a COMBAT power rating of 2300hp while its full military power was only 2000. Meaning that while the tests may be applicable for MILITARY power they are not representative of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">absolute</span> acceleration. If those extra 300hp of power (15%) are added then the P-47D may of well out accelerated the P-38 early in the war!

It raises the question of just how well some of those aircraft would of tested out in terms of acceleration if full COMBAT power was to be included as well. Afterall, if I was a pilot in trouble I would be praying for every spare Hp and inch of acceleration that came my way.

The drag ratios are also fascinating. I had no idea that the Corsair had more drag than the P-47D and that the Hellcat has a drag coefficient of 1673 while the twin engined P-38L has a drag coefficent of 1676 and the '38F actually less than the Hellcat at 1640!

Does anyone out there have drag ratings for German, Japanese, British and Soviet fighters? Given the relatively large size of US made aircraft I wouldexpect them to be somewhat lower (with the possible exception of monsters like the Typhoon and Tempest)

VW-IceFire
03-06-2005, 10:45 PM
Interesting numbers.

I knew the P-47 was a relatively clean aircraft but that puts it in there nicely. Despite its size.

I think those acceleration numbers seem to very closely match our in-game performance. The Hellcat in particular seemed slow to get to speed and this shows us that exactly.

Blackdog5555
03-06-2005, 11:35 PM
nice charts! now to calculate ft per sec per sec...ok lets see 60x60 is sec in hour x 5280ftper mile..ok. hmmm or divide...ok x4.2???????

Blackdog5555
03-06-2005, 11:36 PM
BTW.. how do you post charts..its not a copy and paste thing is it...I used to know how..Thanks

Blackdog5555
03-06-2005, 11:50 PM
ok, so the P38L does 4.13 ft/sec/sec = 2.81 mph. The J is supposed to be faster because it is lighter. So the P38L is in FB is .4 mph/sec too slow in the game. To some it seem Close but when you have a zero shooting at you... Actually its alot. So the final answer is "yes". Not enough to whine about but Should e-mail Oleg! also the P38J is 30 km/ph too slow at 1500meters per his own data. good post!

pourshot
03-07-2005, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
BTW.. how do you post charts..its not a copy and paste thing is it...I used to know how..Thanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I host them on my web space and link them via the display image button at the top of the message window.

pourshot
03-07-2005, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
ok, so the P38L does 4.13 ft/sec/sec = 2.81 mph. The J is supposed to be faster because it is lighter. So the P38L is in FB is .4 mph/sec too slow in the game. To some it seem Close but when you have a zero shooting at you... Actually its alot. So the final answer is "yes". Not enough to whine about but Should e-mail Oleg! also the P38J is 30 km/ph too slow at 1500meters per his own data. good post! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have always felt that the absolute in game numbers matter less than how they compare relative to each other, so even if the p38 is a little slow as long as the zero/109/yak is also a little slow by the same amount it all balances out.(I have no idea if it does or not lol)

Anyway I think we have what we have and if we want something more accurate we will need to wait until BoB,

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 02:58 AM
S!

Posted this in a PF thread and hoping for little help with with official speed and climb curves.

--

While we are talking hard numbers here, I doubt the AEP/PF P38J climbs at 4000fpm at sea level or 2900fpm at 23,400ft with War Emergency Power (WEP/boost).


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

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

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



The P38L was fitted with high-output Allison F-30 engines capable of 1,725hp (WEP) rating. (See scan ---remarks below P38J performance tests results). Bodie posts this 1,725hp WEP rating about 5 times in his book. This WEP rating coincided with an order from General Jimmy Doolittle commander of the 8th Air Force for a special fuel blend for P38 operations. This letter is dated early March 1944. (Poor Brit fuel quality was considered to be the source of earlier Allison engine problems)
Bodie also says that the P38L max speed of 414mph listed in many books was actualy a military power rating and not a WEP power rating, that is a difference of 600hp.

The basic performance figures for the P-38L are as follows (from Lockheed
factory test logbooks):

Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.

The P-38L, continued

Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.


Warren Bodie lists official USAAF flight test results but unfortunately does not list the actual test curves in his book. I have contacted the USAF Archives trying to get the actual copy of this P38J-10-LO test inclulding test curves dated December 2nd, 1943. If anyone already has this information please send it to Oleg. Also if anyone has contacts at Lockheed Martin there is an identical solo test of the P38L at 60inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm with 1,725bhp (WEP).

Warren M. Bodie was an engineer at Lockheed and an aircraft historian. He had in his possesion information directly from Kelly Johnson and Allison engine specs from the ETO. I got this information from Lockheed but I am unable to obtain any copys of the actual test curves themselves.

Help?


____

F19_Ob
03-07-2005, 07:15 AM
The p38 had some success with F model in Afrika,
especially when the luftwaffe were retreating, and many 109's were shot down by the p38.
That did however not repeat itself over europe and usuaally not 1 on 1. Apparently the engines caused a lot of problems on high altitudes in europe and the germans werent retreating.
It also was a difficult plane to fly and many had no training with 2 engines. It took too long to be an expert in it and for the cost of one p38 one could get two and a half p51 and also the longer maintenance with two engines.
---------------------


Several german aces said they were unimpressed with the performance of both p38 and p47 and meant that they generally had no trouble with it.
Günther Rall was one and he flew them and the p51 wich he thought was the best of the three.
Also Heinz knoke thought that he had the upperhand even the first time he ever encountered one.
The finnish ace Ilmari juutilainen shot down one of the two p38's sent to russia and he found it easy to turn inside it in his 109.

It was another matter when they came in force.
Knoke once had 8 p47's chasing him and got shot down after taking one with him.

--------------------------------
In the game a p38 should have a hard time, especially against later german fighters.
1 on 1 the p38 cant do much against the 109 but have slighty better chance against the fw190 although I think the fw have the upperhand in roll and guns. When chased a fw simply can turn and roll the other way and the p38 cant follow.
Against japanese zeros and other slower planes it can do well since it can leave at will.
Against later Ki84 the hardship begins again.

A tip for the p38.
Use clouds to reverse the fight or to escape. Its highly unlikely that u can do that in the open without extreem luck.
Its not as fast as the 109 but u can disengage and put enough separation and it should take a while for the 109 to catch up. With enough separation I have climbed from the ground and straight up into clouds and escaped.
U can only do this with very few planes in PF.

Its in my opinion one of the hardest fighters to fly in the sim withcontemporary fighters.

bolillo_loco
03-07-2005, 10:38 AM
S! Kahuna from eaw I think. bodies book is a great read I have had a copy for years.

Vees for victory has some more data on the 38 that you might like.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764305611/qid=1110216869/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7395956-5515864?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I have around 40 books on the P-38 or units that flew them. I could shoot you a list of them if you like. Many are out of print and unless you know the isbn number web searches will usually not find them.

this is one of the few I have not purchased yet

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764320564

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 11:27 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ _______________________
F19_Ob
Its in my opinion one of the hardest fighters to fly in the sim withcontemporary fighters.
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Rgr that. But it would help if the P38's true performance is modeled in AEP/PF (see above your post). A P38L had the performance to handle any late model luftwaffe prop fighter. In the hands of an ace it was a deadly weapon.

In summary a valuable pool of tactical experience and engine handling experience for the Merlin equipped P-51B existed in the 4th FG, and this experience could be directly applied to the P-51B.

No such experience existed for the turbocharged Allison powered twin engined P-38 in theatre. The valuable tactical and handling experience of the SWPA FGs was a theatre away. Only a limited number of MTO pilots were made available for the 20th and 55th, and both units had taken heavy losses during the early escort missions, impacting both morale and the rate at which experience could be accumulated in these FGs.

Many of the P-38 handling techniques developed in the SWPA to counter the highly manoeuvrable and skilled Japanese opposition, such as differential throttle and rudder assisted roll entries, were never practiced widely in the ETO.


Some of the reason were pilot training. Generally the pilots that flew the P38 in the PTO had been better prepared than the ETO pilots. The same altitudes were being flown in both theaters, yet the ETO planes were suffering more engine problems. Altitude is altitude and cold is cold- PTO vs ETO.

Several factors in ETO problems; poor pilot training, pilot error in engine/radiator operations, poor fuel quality, cold soaked batteries/engine parts, design flaws.
Late model P38Js retrofitted with dive flaps and boosted airlerons to the P38L gave a very good accounting of themselves.


By that time though, the P51 was in favor for deep escorting duties for all the reasons and more that you mentioned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


For trained pilots that truley knew how to fly the P38, I think these staements are more applicable.

Luftwaffe pilot comments:

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

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

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...."


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

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


As for the P38L vs late model japanese fighters like the Ki84 Frank and George. Many pilots perferred the P38 vs these more manuverable fighters than the P51D or P47N. The P38L performed very well against these late model japanese fighters that generally speaking were more manueverable than the late model german fighters.


_____

horseback
03-07-2005, 12:05 PM
I've spent a lot of time working the P-38J lately, and what I've found is that the accelleration is not bad, but less than advertised by RL reports. .4 may not seem like much, but it's a huge chunk when the total is 2.8. That's one seventh less than it should have, and we all know that the FMs are uneven, favoring some aircraft over others.

Climb is not in the same class as the real thing. Better than most American fighters, but barely in the 2500fpm class, not the 4000 fpm class, just looking at my climb indicator and the clock as I claw for altitude.

It's way too nose heavy, and the elevator trim just seems erratic to me--it's almost impossible to get right as you accellerate, and the result is a nose that bounces all over the place when you try to line up your shot. That bogus extra Headshake just makes things worse when you fire your guns.

That brings us to elevator authority/response: there seems to me to be a narrow speed band where there's much too much elevator response, and below and above that band, there's next to no elevator authority. The main thing that the P-38 had was elevator authority; LW fighter pilots in N. Africa commented at some length about the ability of the Lightning to go from level flight to a steep climb almost instantaneously (another side feature to that accelleration). They learned the hard way that with a P-38, you couldn't pull straight up and away after the bounce-you had to either roll away sharply and down or pass down and below, and keep going, because if you didn't disable the P-38 on that first pass, he or his buddies'd pop right up and be on your six immediately.

I get over 300mph or under 200mph indicated, and there's NO elevator, regardless of trim. That is simply not right.

American fighters were universally recognized and noted for having well balanced or 'harmonized' controls at all speeds, meaning that the movement of the stick in any direction resulted in a similar change of attitude. Move the stick a certain distance to the right, and you rolled right forty degrees. Pull back the same distance and the aircraft would be climbing at near forty degrees. This was kind of an American standard, like the larger size of our fighters.

By contrast, a Spitfire required much less pull on the stick for the elevators to have an effect, compared to the travel needed to have a similar change in roll. As a result, Spitfires had a pronounced (and predictable) tendency to climb through their turns. British pilots evaluating American fighters were always complimentary about, and noted, this aspect of our aircraft because it was different from what they were used to. The Lightning was no exception to the American rule, with the elevator response still a bit better than the hydraulically boosted aileron response of the J/L models.

When I pull back on the yoke, something should happen right now, unless I'm in compression (well over 450mph indicated below 20,000 ft). As it stands now, the P-47 has a much better pullout than a Lightning at all speeds, and it should be the other way around, without penalizing the Jug.

That first click of the flaps should also have a marked effect on your maneuverability, coupled with those elevators, but it appears to me to be just like everything else's combat flaps. The game apparently makes no allowances for the differences between a Fowler/butterfly flap like those found on the Lightning, the Oscar, or the Frank, and the run of the mill combat flap setting, even though that flap extending several inches back as well as a bit down was what made those fighters exceptional in a dogfight.

cheers

horseback

OldMan____
03-07-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
I've spent a lot of time working the P-38J lately, and what I've found is that the accelleration is not bad, but less than advertised by RL reports. .4 may not seem like much, but it's a huge chunk when the total is 2.8. That's one seventh less than it should have, and we all know that the FMs are uneven, favoring some aircraft over others.

Climb is not in the same class as the real thing. Better than most American fighters, but barely in the 2500fpm class, not the 4000 fpm class, just looking at my climb indicator and the clock as I claw for altitude.

It's way too nose heavy, and the elevator trim just seems erratic to me--it's almost impossible to get right as you accellerate, and the result is a nose that bounces all over the place when you try to line up your shot. That bogus extra Headshake just makes things worse when you fire your guns.

That brings us to elevator authority/response: there seems to me to be a narrow speed band where there's much too much elevator response, and below and above that band, there's next to _no_ elevator authority. The main thing that the P-38 had was elevator authority; LW fighter pilots in N. Africa commented at some length about the ability of the Lightning to go from level flight to a steep climb almost instantaneously (another side feature to that accelleration). They learned the hard way that with a P-38, you couldn't pull straight up and away after the bounce-you had to either roll away sharply and down or pass down and below, and keep going, because if you didn't disable the P-38 on that first pass, he or his buddies'd pop right up and be on your six _immediately_.

I get over 300mph or under 200mph indicated, and there's NO elevator, regardless of trim. That is simply not right.

American fighters were universally recognized and noted for having well balanced or 'harmonized' controls at all speeds, meaning that the movement of the stick in any direction resulted in a similar change of attitude. Move the stick a certain distance to the right, and you rolled right forty degrees. Pull back the same distance and the aircraft would be climbing at near forty degrees. This was kind of an American standard, like the larger size of our fighters.

By contrast, a Spitfire required much less pull on the stick for the elevators to have an effect, compared to the travel needed to have a similar change in roll. As a result, Spitfires had a pronounced (and predictable) tendency to climb through their turns. British pilots evaluating American fighters were always complimentary about, and noted, this aspect of our aircraft because it was different from what they were used to. The Lightning was no exception to the American rule, with the elevator response still a bit better than the hydraulically boosted aileron response of the J/L models.

When I pull back on the yoke, something should happen _right now_, unless I'm in compression (well over 450mph indicated below 20,000 ft). As it stands now, the P-47 has a much better pullout than a Lightning at all speeds, and it should be the other way around, without penalizing the Jug.

That first click of the flaps should also have a marked effect on your maneuverability, coupled with those elevators, but it appears to me to be just like everything else's combat flaps. The game apparently makes no allowances for the differences between a Fowler/butterfly flap like those found on the Lightning, the Oscar, or the Frank, and the run of the mill combat flap setting, even though that flap extending several inches back as well as a bit down was what made those fighters exceptional in a dogfight.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


not true.. using solely trimm I recover from 700 kph dives rather commonly in p38 J. If you have not enough space.. just add flaps..

The only problem with elevators in P38 is aim at very high speeds. Crashing at ground is a problem much more related to pilot than plane.


Also if you need to dive too long.. you have a huge parachute on that 2 proppeler.. just adust pitch and you will NOT pass 650 on dive.

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 01:15 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _______________________
bolillo_loco posted Mon March 07 2005 09:38

S! Kahuna from eaw I think. bodies book is a great read I have had a copy for years.
Vees for victory has some more data on the 38 that you might like.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764305611/qid=1110216869/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7395956-5515864?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I have around 40 books on the P-38 or units that flew them. I could shoot you a list of them if you like. Many are out of print and unless you know the isbn number web searches will usually not find them.
__________________________________________________ ______________________


S! B-Loco

Yes it is me from EAW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Do you have any of the official technical speed and climb curve tests for both the P38J @ 1,600hp boost and P38L @ 1,725hp boost ?
(See the USAAF test below)

Could you PM me with your email address and I will update you with what has been told to me about the P38 F/M situation.

I forgot to mention the first USAAF test shows 1612bhp (WEP/boost)for the P38J-10-LO, that is not the rated boost used for the P38J in AEP/PF.

The AEP/PF P38L is given 1600hp while in (WEP/boost-110% throttle) when in fact it had 1,725bhp per Allison F-30 engine.

Both the P38J and P38L have the wrong climb specs and WEP brake horsepower ratings. The P38L has the wrong speed at several altitudes including max speed.

See the P38J USAAF test below, the test was conducted from a random seletion of factory delivered planes with no special preperations.

I wish I could post the scan I have of this page.


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

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

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



The P38L was fitted with high-output Allison F-30 engines capable of 1,725hp (WEP) rating. (See scan ---remarks below P38J performance tests results). Bodie posts this 1,725hp WEP rating about 5 times in his book. This WEP rating coincided with an order from General Jimmy Doolittle commander of the 8th Air Force for a special fuel blend for P38 operations. This letter is dated early March 1944. (Poor Brit fuel quality was considered to be the source of earlier Allison engine problems)
Bodie also says that the P38L max speed of 414mph listed in many books was actualy a military power rating and not a WEP power rating, that is a difference of 600hp.

The basic performance figures for the P-38L are as follows (from Lockheed
factory test logbooks):

Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.

The P-38L, continued

Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.


Warren Bodie lists official USAAF flight test results but unfortunately does not list the actual test curves in his book. I have contacted the USAF Archives trying to get the actual copy of this P38J-10-LO test inclulding test curves dated December 2nd, 1943. If anyone already has this information please send it to Oleg. Also if anyone has contacts at Lockheed Martin there is an identical solo test of the P38L at 60inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm with 1,725bhp (WEP).

Warren M. Bodie was an engineer at Lockheed and an aircraft historian. He had in his possesion information directly from Kelly Johnson and Allison engine specs from the ETO. I got this information from Lockheed but I am unable to obtain any copys of the actual test curves themselves.

Help?



_____


"Aggressiveness was fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting."
Cmdr. David McCampbell, USN

McCampbell's nine kills in 90 minutes set a record in aerial warfare history for a single mission that is believed to stand today. He is the nation's top Navy ace and fourth-leading ace, behind three Army Air Force pilots.
_______

"Angels of Okinawa"




Posts: 550 | Registered: Wed January 30 2002



609IAP_Kahuna


posted Mon March 07 2005 11:50
S!

Once again:

While we are talking hard numbers here, I doubt the AEP/PF P38J climbs at 4000fpm at sea level or 2900fpm at 23,400ft with War Emergency Power (WEP).


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

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

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



The P38L was fitted with high-output Allison F-30 engines capable of 1,725hp (WEP) rating. (See scan ---remarks below P38J performance tests results). Bodie posts this 1,725hp WEP rating about 5 times in his book. This WEP rating coincided with an order from General Jimmy Doolittle commander of the 8th Air Force for a special fuel blend for P38 operations. This letter is dated early March 1944. (Poor Brit fuel quality was considered to be the source of earlier Allison engine problems)
Bodie also says that the P38L max speed of 414mph listed in many books was actualy a military power rating and not a WEP power rating, that is a difference of 600hp.

The basic performance figures for the P-38L are as follows (from Lockheed
factory test logbooks):

Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.

The P-38L, continued

Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.


Warren Bodie lists official USAAF flight test results but unfortunately does not list the actual test curves in his book. I have contacted the USAF Archives trying to get the actual copy of this P38J-10-LO test inclulding test curves dated December 2nd, 1943. If anyone already has this information please send it to Oleg. Also if anyone has contacts at Lockheed Martin there is an identical solo test of the P38L at 60inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm with 1,725bhp (WEP).

Warren M. Bodie was an engineer at Lockheed and an aircraft historian. He had in his possesion information directly from Kelly Johnson and Allison engine specs from the ETO. I got this information from Lockheed but I am unable to obtain any copys of the actual test curves themselves.

Help?

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 01:49 PM
S!

I think that if we had the right WEP ratings and climbs rates :

Official USAAF flight test results:

1600hp-boost per engine for the P38J
Max climb sea level-------------4000fpm
Max climb at critical alt-------2900fpm


Official Lockheed Martin Flight tests:

1,725hp-boost per engine for the P38L
Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.

The P-38L, continued

Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.


I think this would cure 90%+ plus of what's missing in the P38 flight model and the rest could maybe take care of itself.

The P38 would climb like the true interceptor it was designed to be, it would be fast/accelerate better and it would have a terrific dive/zoom climb ability.



Does anybody have the official technical speed and climb curves of these tests above ?


______

horseback
03-07-2005, 01:56 PM
Most pilots' recollections as well as contemporary reports (to eliminate that "...well, you can't expect 80-90 year old men to really remember clearly how their airplane flew..." song and dance) of the P-38 from that time is that the Lightning could pull up very sharply without 'mushing', even at higher speeds. It was particularly described as superior to the 109 and 190 in pulling up at high speeds and low altitudes by more than one source, including the book by Jeffrey Ethell from which Kahuna quoted Steinhoff and Steigler, who both made note of the evident elevator authority from an opponent's perspective.

It's not a matter of pilot control when your elevator quits working in a 300+mph IAS dive, and there's not even a change of attitude- much less direction, regardless of prop pitch, trim or flap position settings. Interestingly, I find that the roll is unaffected at these speeds. Dammit, the Lightning was designed to be a high-speed fighter, with excellent control characteristics at speeds over 450 mph.

According to Oleg, the AI have the same FM as the players' aircraft of the same type, yet aircraft that had inferior performance and maneuverability in RL, like the Me-110G consistently pull up much more sharply than the P-38, even at nearly the same speeds. I simply can't gauge how fast the other aircraft is going except by how quickly the range is opening or closing; if the AI SOB is pulling away from me in the dive, and then suddenly pulls level or into a climb while I shoot past with the yoke pulled all the way back, after dumping prop pitch to 0%, dropping the combat flaps and dialing in as much noseup trim as I can by joystick button, something is definitely wrong.

Trying it against 109s or 190s is even worse, and that is simply not how it should be.

I haven't even bothered with the four clicks of left rudder trim required to center the ball (regardless of throttle setting or RPM), or the constant wingover and spin stall, which in RL was practically nonexistant for this bird, or the cockpit framing blocking my horizontal POV, or the lack of some means to 'track' my trim settings (a little HUD text telling me that my elevator or rudder trim is at +10 or -5 would be MUCH more useful than what percentage my throttle is set for - I have my bloody hand on that, & if I can't feel it, I can tell where it is at a glance-just like a pilot could in a real aircraft for his throttle and trim).

The whole 'trim delay' issue is a real pain for those of us who have to use buttons for trim instead of an extra axis, and the P-38's porked elevator response raises it to an extreme level.

Maybe I'm just not holding my mouth right or something, but I'm not exactly a debutante at this sim, and I simply don't see the FM relative to other aircraft for the P-38 that I see described in every book, website and magazine article I've ever read about it over the last thirty plus years.

Frankly, even with all the recent improvements, it's still about where the P-47D was in FB 1.0, with a much better looking cockpit. Too fragile, hard to see anything out of the cockpit, and lacking its greatest RL virtues: high speed performance & handling, and firepower.

cheers

horseback

Blackdog5555
03-07-2005, 02:14 PM
I agree 100% horseback. Using prop pitch (drop it to 40 or less) does help in a dive but not SOP. Using dive recovery is the best when your past 800km/h but it causes the plane pull up so hard you cant shoot straight. What i found in the game is to use the dive recovery instead of the fowler flaps to get better turn radius. Still not SOP. Darn. The (official) pilots manual says not to deploy flaps over 250mph. They do Jam. But i agree with the previos post,, the Developer doesnt do a good job on the superb fowler flaps on the 38L. Its the stall/spin problem that really, really bugs me. Kelly johnson did a good job making this thing (J25 LO) not spin but where is he when you need him. LOL. Has anyone e-mailed Oleg. PF@1c.ru or ??. Cheers..

OldMan____
03-07-2005, 02:20 PM
Of course trimm on axis help. But there is other options. There are a few programs in net thta let you remap keys to combo keystrokes (or you can use a programable joystick button). So you map lets say uparrow to 80 trimm up strokes and another key for centering it.

An axis is much better. But this is enough to avoid any ground collision.

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-07-2005, 02:50 PM
Is not so much its speed or acceleration that bothers most. Its the fact that the turning radius, stall speed, and overdone compression in a dive are wrong according to data and many pilot accounts. Showing such "proof" does no good here though. You option is to email Oleg on the matter. Im sure he is aware of the numbers and the great effect the P-38 had in WW2. Its not hard to find. Perhaps he will tweak the FM to be more accurate. Maybe the new FM modication we might get will change everything. Who knows? My feeling is that if he didnt alter anything by now with the patch in final beta testing, he wont do so. Since we will not see any futher US aircraft maybe he will spend sometime on the P-38. I know it has been repeated many times and many have emailed him the correct data.

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-07-2005, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

I think that if we had the right WEP ratings and climbs rates :

Official USAAF flight test results:

1600hp-boost per engine for the P38J
Max climb sea level-------------4000fpm
Max climb at critical alt-------2900fpm


Official Lockheed Martin Flight tests:

1,725hp-boost per engine for the P38L
Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.

The P-38L, continued

Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.


I think this would cure 90%+ plus of what's missing in the P38 flight model and the rest could maybe take care of itself.

The P38 would climb like the true interceptor it was designed to be, it would be fast/accelerate better and it would have a terrific dive/zoom climb ability.



Does anybody have the official technical speed and climb curves of these tests above ?


______ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those look almost like 109K4 numbers. This is not the lightning we have in the game...be sure

jagdmailer
03-07-2005, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
everything I've read says the acceleration should be better, 3200HP on twin props has to have some perks even at 16,000 lbs. in game just point the nose and keep the speed at 170-180 at 110% and it climbs all day. she'll run @ 100% throttle and never overheat with the rad open. its a shame really with just some minor fixes and this plane would be perfect. just follow Tommy McGuires rules for her and you'll do just fine.

1. never get below 250
2. never fly with tanks on
3. never turn more than 90% with a zero.

IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif McGuire was a better pilot then Bong, even tho Bong had more kills, they actually grounded McGuire for a period of time so he wouldn't pass Bongs record. sadly he died trying to save a wingman from an Oscar, breaking 2 of his 3 rules, he got below 250 and tried to fight with his tanks on when he stalled it and crashed into the jungle, funny thing is eyewitness accounts said he recovered from his stall but didnt have enough alt to pull out of the dive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
this plane is really perplexing me, I read so many acounts of how good a fighter it was ( it got a bad rep from mechanical problem that were fixed with the late J and L version ) but when you fly it in game it doesnt perform as pilot accounts say it did. I know that pilots can be biased, and IRL it took a skilled pilot to accel in the 38 as it was a complicated aircraft to fly. but when you compare it to other aircraft in game it loses on almost all counts. its speed is OK, its dive speed it severly limited because of the false compressability, its turn radius is really only better than a 190, 110 and nothing else. its climb is slower than ALL 109's. too bad we cant RL fly one of these http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif what a thrill that would be. I love http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif this plane its my main ride <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Similar issue with the Bf 110G-2. 2950hp and operational weight of about 16,000 lbs. Sure not as aerodynamic but it is a real dog for acceleration & it looses its preciously acquired "E" like it's going out of style if you are not cautious with the stick.

Jagd

Blackdog5555
03-07-2005, 04:32 PM
Actual P38 Pilot OP. INST. (pg 16+17 only)
Expalins the ease of stall and ease of stall recovery nicely.---

PILOT OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS (Page 7 of 16 pages)

//////////////////////////////////////////////////
e. The following maximum manifold pressures are to be used for "War Emergency"
ONLY:
"Never exceed 60 in Hg. in a climb above 25,000 feet.
GENERAL FLYING CHARACTERISTICS
a. Due to the counter-rotating propellers, there is no noticeable torque effect in any two engine flying with this airplane. Rudder and aileron trim tab settings do not require adjustment as a result of changes in airspeed and power.
b. TO INCREASE POWER IN FLIGHT
1. Move throttles to the new manifold pressure.
2. Move propeller controls to the new RPM.
3. Move the throttles to the new manifold pressure.
c. TO DECREASE POWER IN FLIGHT
1. Move the throttles to the new manifold pressure.
2. Move prop controls to the new RPM.
3. Re-adjust the throttles
4. Move mixture controls to AUTO LEAN is permissible.
d. The turbo superchargers are controlled by the same levers which operate the throttles. Rated supercharger speed is 24000 rpm allowable for five minutes and overspeed is 26400 rpm. The warning lights start to flicker at 25,600 rpm and burn continuously at 26,400 rpm.
e. On P-38J aircraft the intercooler flap should be open for take-off and climbs and nearly closed at all other times. Carburetor air temperature should not be allowed to exceed 45 degrees cent.
f. The airplane is stable at all normal speeds. The airplane becomes slightly nose heavy when the flaps and landing gear are extended. Release of drop tanks causes no noticeable change. Two-engine cruising below 170 mph i.a.s. is not recommended because the airplane requires more attention and ranges not increased.
STALLS
a. With power off., the airplane stalls at the following air speeds and gross weights noted.
15,000 lbs 17,000 lbs 19.000 lbs
Flaps and landing gear up 94 mph 100 mph 105 mph
Flaps and landing gear DOWN 69 mph 74 mph 78 mph
b. As stalling speed is approached, the centre section stalls first with noticeable shaking of the airplane, however the ailerons remain effective.
c. In either power ON or power OFF stalls with flaps and landing gear up the airplane rushes straight forward in a well controlled stall. With flaps and landing gear down there appears to be a slight tendency for one wing to drop. There is however
c. (Cont€d)
no tendency to spin. Under these conditions, the nose drops slightly and as the speed increases, the wing will come up.
d. On airplanes equipped with rocket installation the stall characteristics are the same.
SPINS
a. Spin Characteristics
The spin is fast, but recovery is prompt and easy if the proper technique is used.
b. Recovery
The airplane can be brought out of the spin any time by kicking full rudder against the spin for a minimum of half a turn then easing forward the control column. The procedure is as follows:
1. Close throttles.
2. If flaps are down pull them up.
3. KICK FULL RUDDER AGAINST THE SPIN AS BRISKLY AS POSSIBLE, WAIT AT LEAST HALF A TURN BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO PUSH THE WHEEL FORWARD. Recovery is slower by one turn with flaps down. If the flaps are down or on their way up the rudder should be held against the spin for at least one full turn before pushing the column forward.
4. After half a turn, with rudder full over the control wheel may be eased forward as the rotation stops. Recovery can be accomplished in one-and-a-half turns under any condition except with flaps down when two turns will be required. The airplane will come out of the spin in a vertical dive and recovery from the dive should be made slowly in order to avoid a highspeed stall which may cause a spin in the opposite direction. Any attempt to push the wheel forward before kicking full opposite rudder will immediately increase the speed rotation and the acceleration to which the pilot is subjected. If this is encountered pull the wheel full back and hold full rudder against the spin for a minimum of half a turn. Then push the control column forward.
DIVE RECOVERY FLAPS
The airplane without these flaps becomes very nose heavy and starts to buffet above diagram dive speeds (Dia.2.). The dive recovery flaps which are installed under the wings between the booms and tile ailerons restore the lift to this portion of the wing and thus cause the uncontrollable nose heaviness to occur at a higher speed. The flaps also add some drag to the airplane which in conjunction with the higher allowable dive speed permits safer dives at a much steeper diving angle. The dive recovery flaps should be extended before starting the dive or immediately after the dive is started before a buffeting speed has been reached. If the airplane is buffeting before the dive recovery flaps are extended the buffeting will momentarily increase and then diminish. With these flaps extended, the nose heaviness is definitely reduced but the diving speed should never be allowed to exceed the placard by more than 15 or 20 mph. With the dive recovery flaps extended before entering the dive, angles of dive up to 45 degrees may be safely accomplished. Without dive recovery flaps extended the maximum angle for extending dives is 15 degrees. Diving characteristics are better with power off than power on.

Blackdog5555
03-07-2005, 04:43 PM
The Bong story is interesting. Because, ive read that he had become a celebrity of sorts State side, so they didnt want his PR to be damaged. Doesn't make sense. But, Ive read that he was given several "milk runs" to shoot down transports to help his numbers. My understanding that kill numbers were low in NG because there werent many targets in at that time. Pilots would go weeks without seeing an e/a. (i've read). Both excellant flyers. Bong was Quoted as saying he wasnt a good aim but he knew how to get his plane in the right position. perfect SA I quess. Cheers BD

horseback
03-07-2005, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Similar issue with the Bf 110G-2. 2950hp and operational weight of about 16,000 lbs. Sure not as aerodynamic but it is a real dog for acceleration & it looses its preciously acquired "E" like it's going out of style if you are not cautious with the stick. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jagdmailer-at least some of that extra weight translates into an AI Davy Crockett in the backseat who can shoot the eye out of a squirrel at 750m while you're doing a split-S, and your elevator gets a comparatively immediate response.

Even though the LW put some of their best fighter pilots into the 110, it was usually easy meat for single engine fighters and the P-38. That's why it disappeared from over Germany in daylight once the escorts started making it all the way there.

cheers

horseback

jagdmailer
03-07-2005, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Similar issue with the Bf 110G-2. 2950hp and operational weight of about 16,000 lbs. Sure not as aerodynamic but it is a real dog for acceleration & it looses its preciously acquired "E" like it's going out of style if you are not cautious with the stick. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jagdmailer-at least some of that extra weight translates into an AI Davy Crockett in the backseat who can shoot the eye out of a squirrel at 750m while you're doing a split-S, and your elevator gets a comparatively immediate response.

Even though the LW put some of their best fighter pilots into the 110, it was usually easy meat for single engine fighters and the P-38. That's why it disappeared from over Germany in daylight once the escorts started making it all the way there.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree the aerodynamic & counter-rotating props to name those 2 plays in favour of the P-38 but still not much difference in operational weights and power between a late P-38 and a Bf 110G-2 with default weapons though.

Jagd

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 05:18 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _______________________
OldMan____ posted Mon March 07 2005 13:20
Of course trimm on axis help. But there is other options. There are a few programs in net thta let you remap keys to combo keystrokes (or you can use a programable joystick button). So you map lets say uparrow to 80 trimm up strokes and another key for centering it.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Trim is another area where that needs to be revamped. Please tell me what combat pilot would ever utilize 80% nose up pitch trim during a dogfight?----NO ONE not one fighter pilot would ever do that in reaal life.

If it were up to me there would be limitations on the amount of trim applied and NO instant back to nuetral key. Those who use maximum amounts of trim would pay a stiff manueverability penalty as the pitch up trim would return to center very very very slowly.


___________


__________________________________________________ ________________________
Jagmailer--Similar issue with the Bf 110G-2. 2950hp and operational weight of about 16,000 lbs. Sure not as aerodynamic but it is a real dog for acceleration & it looses its preciously acquired "E" like it's going out of style if you are not cautious with the stick.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



The Me110 was dog in real life. It was a complete failure as a long range fighter and usually got shot down as fast as they went up by allied planes.

What is not similar to the Me110 is that the P38 accelerated very well "out of the hole". The P38 was superior in every way possible to the Me110.


____


__________________________________________________ _______________________
Blackdog--Bong was Quoted as saying he wasnt a good aim but he knew how to get his plane in the right position.
__________________________________________________ _______________________



That's true Bong said he wasnt a good shot. Bong also said that if he and the other P38 pilots would of had a couple of weeks of gunnery practice before deployment that he would of shot down another 40 japanese planes !



___

|CoB|_Spectre
03-07-2005, 06:28 PM
On the subject of Richard Bong, it has been suggested by someone that Tommy McGuire was the better pilot and was hosed by the military hierarchy by not letting him fly and overtake Bong's record. As to what makes "the better pilot", that's a whole different enchilada, but the record for victories speaks for itself. When Bong and McGuire were both in-theater, McGuire was always 6 to 8 victories behind Bong. It must've been very frustrating for McGuire, but for whatever reason, he could never seem to close the gap. Bong was always able to maintain the distance. When the decision was made to bring Bong back stateside, it's true that McGuire was ordered to stand-down until Bong was medalled. The reason was, it would have seemed somewhat ridiculous to be citing Bong as the US's #2 ace if McGuire had been able to surpass him in the interim of travel back to the states. It's too bad McGuire met his end, it's possible he might have surpassed Bong given enough time.