PDA

View Full Version : A bit about the p38



ZG77_Nagual
02-20-2004, 04:39 PM
The P-38 did not want to roll at all when aileron force was first applied
(inertial resistance), so there was a heartbeat of hesitation, then the
plane would very sluggishly begin to roll. This sluggishness persisted
through about 10 degrees of roll, after which the rate of roll became very
good; in fact, with the aileron boost of the later J and L models, the
faster the plane was going, the faster the rate of roll, giving the plane a
terrific advantage in high-speed maneuver combat.
The initial reluctance of the P-38 to enter a roll was easily
counteracted: throttle back the inside engine briefly as as you turn the
wheel, then bring power back up. The plane would snap into a roll so fast
it might knock your head against the canopy. The trick was not to let the
plane get away from you when doing this. It took praciice to get it right
and make it an automatic action, especially during the heat of combat.
The P-38 was splendidly maneuverable and had an excellent rate of climb
and rapid rate of acceleration. And, of course, its concentrated nose
armament was a distinct advantage. A good case could be made for the later
versions being not only the best American fighter of the war, but the best
piston-engine fighter, period. It flew the longest escort missions of the
war (2200 miles round trip to the Borneo oil fields from bases in New
Guinea), successfully battling such very capable fighters as the Ki-44 over
the target. A P-38 fighter group (the 1FG in the MTO) was the only USAAF
fighter unit to win two Presidential Unit Citations within the space of 5
days (one PUC was for a long-range low level attack against Axis airfields
at Foggia, Italy flown from bases in North Africa, the other was for a
bomber escort mission during which some 30 P-38s fought off about 125
German fighters, not letting a single bomber be shot down).
The P-38's Achilles Heel was its high cost: the Army could buy two P-51s
for the price of one P-38. Lockheed had never expected to mass-produce the
design and did not engineer it for easy assembly, unlike the P-51, one of
the chief unsung virtues of which was its ease of manufacture. The P-38
was also more expensive and time-consuming to maintain than single-engine
fighters.

AND:

>> Besides, my point is that the Americans would eventually have developped a
>> long-range fighter (and the P-38 could have gained air superiority over
>> Germany if the United States had had to produce it instead of the P-51
>> P-47).
>
> In his book"The First and the Last" Adolf Galland, who fought
>against
>them said that the P-38 was no better than the ME-110
>so called fighter.
> If P-38s with better performance had been built they may
>have had a better chance.
>
>

We have had some exhausting debates on the merits of the P-38; both
here and over at rec.military.aviation. Much of the effort in these debates
has been to overcome the post war myth that the P-51 was best fighter
to emerge from WWII. Let's establish a few undisputed facts. Undisputed
by those who have done the research. Frequently disputed by those who have
not. I'll provide ten reasons why Galland's comments should be dismissed
as mere piss and wind.

1) Adolf Galland has never been accused of being the standard of objective
writing, or public speaking. A fine pilot and tactician, Galland frequent wrote
and spoke about things, of which, he had minimal firsthand knowledge and
understanding. About 15 years ago he got into a discussion with several
former P-38 pilots about his comments in the First and the Last. Pressed,
he admitted that his comments were not so much his own, but those of
some of his pilots. He also admitted that a well flown P-38 was a very
dangerous foe. One of the P-38 pilots involved in this discussion is still alive
today and a personal friend.

2) Any P-38 pilot was eager to encounter an Me 110. They were very easy
kills for the Lightning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9) Unreliable turbocharger regulators in early models.

10) Poor rear vision, especially below .

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



From here:

P38 (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html)

ZG77_Nagual
02-20-2004, 04:39 PM
The P-38 did not want to roll at all when aileron force was first applied
(inertial resistance), so there was a heartbeat of hesitation, then the
plane would very sluggishly begin to roll. This sluggishness persisted
through about 10 degrees of roll, after which the rate of roll became very
good; in fact, with the aileron boost of the later J and L models, the
faster the plane was going, the faster the rate of roll, giving the plane a
terrific advantage in high-speed maneuver combat.
The initial reluctance of the P-38 to enter a roll was easily
counteracted: throttle back the inside engine briefly as as you turn the
wheel, then bring power back up. The plane would snap into a roll so fast
it might knock your head against the canopy. The trick was not to let the
plane get away from you when doing this. It took praciice to get it right
and make it an automatic action, especially during the heat of combat.
The P-38 was splendidly maneuverable and had an excellent rate of climb
and rapid rate of acceleration. And, of course, its concentrated nose
armament was a distinct advantage. A good case could be made for the later
versions being not only the best American fighter of the war, but the best
piston-engine fighter, period. It flew the longest escort missions of the
war (2200 miles round trip to the Borneo oil fields from bases in New
Guinea), successfully battling such very capable fighters as the Ki-44 over
the target. A P-38 fighter group (the 1FG in the MTO) was the only USAAF
fighter unit to win two Presidential Unit Citations within the space of 5
days (one PUC was for a long-range low level attack against Axis airfields
at Foggia, Italy flown from bases in North Africa, the other was for a
bomber escort mission during which some 30 P-38s fought off about 125
German fighters, not letting a single bomber be shot down).
The P-38's Achilles Heel was its high cost: the Army could buy two P-51s
for the price of one P-38. Lockheed had never expected to mass-produce the
design and did not engineer it for easy assembly, unlike the P-51, one of
the chief unsung virtues of which was its ease of manufacture. The P-38
was also more expensive and time-consuming to maintain than single-engine
fighters.

AND:

>> Besides, my point is that the Americans would eventually have developped a
>> long-range fighter (and the P-38 could have gained air superiority over
>> Germany if the United States had had to produce it instead of the P-51
>> P-47).
>
> In his book"The First and the Last" Adolf Galland, who fought
>against
>them said that the P-38 was no better than the ME-110
>so called fighter.
> If P-38s with better performance had been built they may
>have had a better chance.
>
>

We have had some exhausting debates on the merits of the P-38; both
here and over at rec.military.aviation. Much of the effort in these debates
has been to overcome the post war myth that the P-51 was best fighter
to emerge from WWII. Let's establish a few undisputed facts. Undisputed
by those who have done the research. Frequently disputed by those who have
not. I'll provide ten reasons why Galland's comments should be dismissed
as mere piss and wind.

1) Adolf Galland has never been accused of being the standard of objective
writing, or public speaking. A fine pilot and tactician, Galland frequent wrote
and spoke about things, of which, he had minimal firsthand knowledge and
understanding. About 15 years ago he got into a discussion with several
former P-38 pilots about his comments in the First and the Last. Pressed,
he admitted that his comments were not so much his own, but those of
some of his pilots. He also admitted that a well flown P-38 was a very
dangerous foe. One of the P-38 pilots involved in this discussion is still alive
today and a personal friend.

2) Any P-38 pilot was eager to encounter an Me 110. They were very easy
kills for the Lightning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9) Unreliable turbocharger regulators in early models.

10) Poor rear vision, especially below .

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



From here:

P38 (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html)

VW-IceFire
02-20-2004, 04:49 PM
Should be one heck of a fighter. I expect it will not appeal to the average fighter pilot but that anyone who likes to spend time learning their aircraft will have a blast after they figure out how to make the P-38 deadly.

I can predict a few people complain that the P-38 isn't the amazing do everything super awesome fighter but I think if its been modeled correctly it'll be a very versatile platform. I actually can't wait to take it up against some ground targets with HVAR rockets and bombs.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

ZG77_Nagual
02-20-2004, 05:07 PM
I'm thinkin it may supplant the 190 as my online fav - by being even more difficult but rewarding

Skalgrim
02-20-2004, 05:18 PM
oleg has say p38l was not so good maneuver plane like many think,

me-410 is little better turner as p38l.

sometime was naca turn time post, p63 was good but p38l was similar p47.

aileron boost improve not the rollrate by typically doghfight speed.

http://www.mudmovers.com/adorante/il2_oleg_07.1.htm#[entries added 05 Nov 2002]

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri February 20 2004 at 04:35 PM.]

Korolov
02-20-2004, 05:31 PM
WITHOUT combat flaps. With combat flaps, the P-38 stayed with the P-63.

Given Oleg's opinions on American planes (and russians as whole) I think we can afford to ignore him and look to other references.

Irregardless, I believe Oleg has said that the P-38 is better than the P-47. And in most cases, turning capability comes dead last in required fighter attributes.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

SkyChimp
02-20-2004, 06:34 PM
Well, when Oleg says what he says, we can expect the plane to be screwed, regardless of the actual facts.

Wonder which Soviet pilots he is relying on that the P-38 was not so good?



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

VW-IceFire
02-20-2004, 06:36 PM
Unlike when the P-47 first entered the IL2 FB scene...I think its pretty guaranteed that the P-38 will have the firepower to ensure that in any high speed hit and run attacks that a couple of seconds on target will be sufficient to bring anything down. The P-47 is much the same now...although the P-38 will be more precise in this respect.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

SkyChimp
02-20-2004, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
oleg has say p38l was not so good maneuver plane like many think,

me-410 is little better turner as p38l.

sometime was naca turn time post, p63 was good but p38l was similar p47.

aileron boost improve not the rollrate by typically doghfight speed.

http://www.mudmovers.com/adorante/il2_oleg_07.1.htm#[entries added 05 Nov 2002]

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri February 20 2004 at 04:35 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, that does it for me. Yaks and Las rolled as good or better than Fw-190As.

And I'm glad he cleared up all that stuff about the P-38. And there I was believing that facsimilie in the back of Stalin's Eagles. I guess a bunch of bullets and cannon shells does cause engine trouble.

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

ZG77_Nagual
02-20-2004, 06:48 PM
Gibbage has said he's satisfied, based on his corresponance with Oleg. Awhile ago he started a thread and we made alot of info available - which he took into account. It will be a tricky plane to model - but I'm quite sure it will be done with unprecedented accuracy.

chris455
02-20-2004, 11:42 PM
I really enjoyed yor post Nagual. Thank you.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

clint-ruin
02-21-2004, 12:08 AM
Someone can come up with the exact figures, I'm sure, but I wouldn't take it too hard that Oleg doesn't think the 38 can turn with the 410.

The 110/210, as far as I know, were reknown for having an extremely tight turning circle - just that their rate of roll let them down in hard turnfights.

edit: second of all, I thought Skychimp and others here had quite freely admitted that the aileron boosting only improved rolling at high speeds rather than increase the onset or low speed rate of a rolling move.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Boandlgramer
02-21-2004, 01:26 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
[/8) The P-38L could out-climb the P-51D and Fw-190D by better than 30%.QUOTE]

according FB database the dora climbs in 5, 8 min to 4800 meters
if i understand you right , the P38 has to climb to 4800 meters in 4, 06 min ?

just a note:
according to "American Warplanes of WW2"
Lookheed P 38 L-5 LO,
allison engines with 1622 hp,
climbs to 6095 meters in 7 minutes .



Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:negrFY2J26MJ:www.thienemann.de/img/rauber_5.jpg
Wachtmeister Dimpfelmoser in Verfolgung von R√¬§uber Hotzenplotz, der auf sch√¬§ndliche Weise Oma‚¬īs Kaffeem√ľhle in seinen Besitz brachte.
Gut, dass es Wachtmeister gibt , unbestechlich und tapfer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

[This message was edited by Boandlgramer on Sat February 21 2004 at 12:36 AM.]

Skalgrim
02-21-2004, 01:51 AM
5,8min 4800m is without boost (erh√¬∂hten ladedruck or wm50),

but mw50 or erh√¬∂hten ladedruck climb she better,

dora could use both boost system 10min with automatik raditor too for climb.

but most other plane overheat few min, when she use wep by climb, because radiator cooling works bad by 270-300km/h,

other dora with mw50, mw50 has good cooling performance additionally to radiator cooling performance, so she overheat not so fast.

boost system use dora

erh√¬∂hten ladedruck 44
oldenburg mw50 dezember 44
mw50 45.

f4-u4 without water injection could too not so good climb, but with water injection very good.

look of the powerloading and you know which plane climb better,

but you must powerloading compare in all altitude,

la-7 very good initialclimb, because very good powerloading at sealevel,

but she loss 300ps already 2000m,

at 3000 has la-7 1400ps and k4 has 1900ps,

at sealevel had la-7 and k4 similar powerloading and therefore too similar climb,

but 3000m has k4 much better powerloading and therefore much better climb,

powerloading need plane for

sustain turn,
zoomclimb,
level acceleration ,
dive acceleration
and climb.

interesting engine is db605a,

at sealevel 1475ps
2000m 1550
4000m almost same as sealevel

that is reason, that g2 is so good 5000m climber,

she get 2000m 75ps more power and la-7 loss 300ps

and 4000m has she almost same power like sealevel,

that is perfectly for 4000m climb and for 5000m climb is this engine too very good.

Many compare only the power output from sealevel for climb to 5000m, that is mistake,

especially when the engine loss fast power, like ash-82fn engine.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat February 21 2004 at 02:25 AM.]

MandMs
02-21-2004, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
WITHOUT combat flaps. With combat flaps, the P-38 stayed with the P-63.

Given Oleg's opinions on American planes (and russians as whole) I think we can afford to ignore him and look to other references.

Irregardless, I believe Oleg has said that the P-38 is better than the P-47. And in most cases, turning capability comes dead last in required fighter attributes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That brings back the memory of some famous words.

American data is American a/c manufacturers advertizing data



I eat the red ones last.

SkyChimp
02-21-2004, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:

sometime was naca turn time post, p63 was good but p38l was similar p47.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those comparisons were from America's Hundred Thousand and they were a comparison of minimum turn radius "indexes", not actual turn times or turn radii.

But if you want to believe those comparisons, which is ok, then bear this in mind: the P-38 turned better than the P-47. The P-47 turned better than the F4U. And according to the the US Navy doc on the F4U versus Fw-190A, the F4U turned MUCH better than the Fw-190A.

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

ZG77_Nagual
02-21-2004, 06:51 AM
Now I'm completely confused.

It is, however - reasonable to assume that anyone testing a P38 who wasn't really familiar with the type - would not be able to get the best performance out of it - seems there was quite a learning curve.

Also, the difference between a skillfully flown p38 and a not-so-skillfully flown one was pretty big - perhaps bigger than most planes.

02-21-2004, 07:17 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skalgrim:
oleg has say p38l was not so good maneuver plane like many think, me-410 is little better turner as p38l.[QUOTE]

Interesting, I wouldn`t excepted the 410 being that good, the 110 yes, pilots said the 110 was more tighter turnign than the 410. However it is also correct the P-38 was not an especially good turner either. It`s main strenght will be in the vertical axis for diving attacks, utilizing it`s strenghts : firepower, good climb and zoom, and dive. Manourvering fight, especially because the "lazy" initial roll (as Skalgrim said, boosters of P-38L only reduced stick forces, which don`t play at most combat speeds) and avarage turning abilities, it not such a good idea. At high speed even the FW 190A could outturn it, which gives some idea about it`s turning abilities, at low speeds, the P-38 had the edge. Improving turn rate by fully extending flaps and dive breaks is possible, however it will mean the plane will get slow and loose the initiative - something a more experienced pilot will not risk in multi-plane enviroment. Overall, it`s definietely not a newbie plane, and in real life it was even less of a one. As said, however, with lots of practice the P-38 pilots can use their advantages effectively. Those who except the usual "US plane does everything better than anything" will crawl the forums in outrage, just like in case of the P-40, P-51, P-47 up to now. I think those who have realistic expectations however, will be pleased with it`s limits and peak figures.

I hope this will prove interesting as well:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/AFDU-P-38Fvs190A-3.jpg

Skalgrim
02-21-2004, 08:31 AM
ok, it depent from speed, that must indicate when plane will compare

very low speed is f4u much better (250km/h) as 190

f4u has very good low speed turn,

190 are bad under 300km/h, no chance for 190 with 250km/h to match f4u turn,


but 350km/h had 190 22-23sec turn, that almost so good like 109g,

and 109g turn better as p51 under 400km/h, at least according to opinion mark hanna.

so it seem 190 turn with 350km/h similar p51.

turn f4u better as p51 with 350km/h?

we mix up,

low speed, middle and high speed turns, that is the problem.



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

sometime was naca turn time post, p63 was good but p38l was similar p47.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those comparisons were from _America's Hundred Thousand_ and they were a comparison of minimum turn radius "indexes", not actual turn times or turn radii.

But if you want to believe those comparisons, which is ok, then bear this in mind: the P-38 turned better than the P-47. The P-47 turned better than the F4U. And according to the the US Navy doc on the F4U versus Fw-190A, the F4U turned MUCH better than the Fw-190A.

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

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat February 21 2004 at 08:12 AM.]

SkyChimp
02-21-2004, 10:33 AM
Skalgrim, have you seen the Navy comparison between the F4U and the Fw-190A? It's been posted here many times. The F4U was everywhere more manuverable than the Fw-190A.

The F4U was also compared to the P-51B and was found everywhere more mauverable than that plane, too.

And I like to point oput to V101 that if we are disappointed in the performance of the P-38, ti will be as a result of Oleg modelling it to Oleg statndards, not historical standards.

And BTW, we are not getting a P-38F, we are getting a P-38J and a P-38L. So comparisons between the P-38F and the Fw-190A seem a little irrelevant.

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

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sat February 21 2004 at 09:43 AM.]

clint-ruin
02-21-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And I like to point oput to V101 that if we are disappointed in the performance of the P-38, ti will be as a result of Oleg modelling it to Oleg statndards, not historical standards.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the BF109 does not destroy 5 enemy aircraft before it reaches the end of the runway and Huckles gets mad as a result, is that Olegs fault too? Or not?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

SkyChimp
02-21-2004, 10:44 AM
Yes, because according to those guys, the Bf-109 could destroy 10 planes before it even started its engine.

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

Korolov
02-21-2004, 10:52 AM
I think that, like anyone else, Oleg has a hard time understanding how big, heavy, unmanuverable aircraft can still be good. I can even see it being harder to believe a big twin engined fighter like the P-38 or Me-110 could be more agile than a B-17.

But pilot acounts, specifications and tests suggest that these aircraft were capable of such feats.

Not everything has to be lightweight like a Yak-3 to fly well.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Recon_609IAP
02-21-2004, 10:55 AM
very true.

I think same applies to the p47.

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

P-51_Mustang
02-21-2004, 10:59 AM
If the P-38's performance and durability were exaggerated as much as some Russian AC(notibly the IL-2), nothing would touch it!
No, I fully expect P-38 to have a flat performance curve. My hopes for IL-2 to be a serious nonbias WWII combat flight sim were shot down a couple of patches back. Perhaps someday we'll see this, but it won't be IL-2.

clint-ruin
02-21-2004, 11:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
I think that, like anyone else, Oleg has a hard time understanding how big, heavy, unmanuverable aircraft can still be good. I can even see it being harder to believe a big twin engined fighter like the P-38 or Me-110 could be more agile than a B-17.

But pilot acounts, specifications and tests suggest that these aircraft were capable of such feats.

Not everything has to be lightweight like a Yak-3 to fly well.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the thing that stands out most from the accounts of the P-38 is the skill level required to get the most out of it - in some cases the skill to make it competative in certain flight regimes at all. Chopping the throttle on one side and turning into it is, in particular, is something that I think would give newbie pilots the shi.. vvers. Once you put that much pilot skill into the mix of determining "how good is this plane" I think it muddies comparisons with other types, especially combat comparisons. It hints at having pilots who are very confident in their aircraft and who are using all the tricks to get the most out of it.

I think the 47 D10/D22 in FB play very well to their strengths - I can't recall the last long range, high altitude escort mission I did in a Yak 3, nor the last time I went screaming around at ground level killing AA and trains and tanks in one. What realm of the envelope should the P-47 rule over the Yak 3? Do you think it does in FB? Certainly it seems to me that around where the 47 shines - high alt, high speed fights - aircraft with La or Yak in front of their number have spluttering engines and very unresponsive controls.

Combat capabilities wise I would boil down the text in the first message of the thread to:

P-38 can turn with all German and most Japanese A/C, as long as you know exactly what your energy state is, the enemies energy state is, and the difference between the two, and are prepared to pull out all the stops to make your turns tighter.

Rolls pretty well, eventually.

Dives pretty well, but past a certain IAS you must pull the dive flaps and be content with holding your current speed rather than chasing down an enemy.

Good climb.

Good firepower.

If that is what we get in FB then I think it will be a damned good contender. But what does not come out from the text in the first post is "This plane should be called the P-38 Newbie Acemaker and is impossible to do anything wrong in".

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

JethroT
02-21-2004, 11:22 AM
&gt; The F4U was everywhere more manuverable than &gt; the Fw-190A.

Eric Brown didn't share your enthusiasm about the corsair:

Corsair II vs. Me-109G6. "A battle between
the Corsair and the Me-109G-6 would be a contest between two fo the
world's greatest engines, each superlative but differing from the
other in ways that could determine the result of combat. The Double
Wasp gave the Corsair a slight speed advantage over the German
fighter at medium altitudes, while the in-line engine gave the
Me-109G-6 a performance advantage at low level, particularly in rate
of climb and acceleration in a dive. The Double Wasp was less
vulnerable to combat damage than the liquid-cooled DB605, and this
was accentuated by the greater firepower of the Corsair.

"The Corsair's best tactic would be to take on the Me-109G-6 in the
horizontal plane. The German would favor vertical maneuvers."

"Verdict: Since carrier air battles usually take place at low
altitudes, the Me-109G-6 should be favored in this encounter.
However, the Me-109G-6, not as good a dogfighter as its predecessor,
the Me-109F, would find itself unable to afford tactical errors
against the powerful American fighter."

Corsair II vs. FW-190A-4. "This would be a contest between a
heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with virtually all the
advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both aircraft a
lot, i have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The FW-190A-4
could not be bested by the Corsair.

"Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter
of World War II. it is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair."

SkyChimp
02-21-2004, 11:28 AM
So Eric Brown didn't. He didn't conduct a side by side test, the US Navy did.

Versus the Fw-190A-5, the F4U-1D was only inferior in climb **at certain altitudes**, and speed **at certain altitudes**. It was grossly more manueverable than the Fw and was preferred to the Fw, as was the F6F, in actual combat operations.


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

ZG77_Nagual
02-21-2004, 11:44 AM
P-51_Mustang

I definitely don't share your view on the 'oleg bias' legend. I regularly fly one of the alleged underdogs in this simm - the 190 - and I think it's relative performance to vvs birds is very good. Likewise the much allegedly victimized american planes - the p40 rules and is an amazing dogfighter, the p39 we don't even need to mention, and the mustang is one of the most authentic feeling planes in the simm - and very formidable when kept fast.

My only hope for the p38 is that it's potential can be modeled - it really may come down to the physics engine.

JethroT
02-21-2004, 11:52 AM
&gt; He didn't conduct a side by side test, the US Navy did.

Typical kind of "my plane is better than yours"-test.

The outcome was certain before the test even started.

SkyChimp
02-21-2004, 12:02 PM
Typical response from the "all-things German are superior" crowd. Anytime a tests shows a German plane less than first, it must be flawed.

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

F19_Olli72
02-21-2004, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Typical response from the "all-things German are superior" crowd. Anytime a tests shows a German plane less than first, it must be flawed.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As opposed to the "all amercian planes was better than anything else" crowd? . Im sick of this whining in ORR. And even more disgusting to see this allied planewhining about a plane thats not even in fb yet. Everyones is an expert about "their" plane...ya right. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Can you ppl at least wait with the whining until AEP is released??????

ZG77_Nagual
02-21-2004, 12:35 PM
Be sure and check out the Ta-152 whining thread - americans don't have any corner on the market. Also - I think this thread has been pretty moderate - in fact most of it doesn't really fit the 'whining' profile. The p38 is an unusually complex plane - that got vastly different reviews in different theatres - like the p39 - you see americans on here whining more than anybody that the p39 is too good - because they believed the 'party line' about this plane. vvs aces proved them wrong decades ago - but they still can't believe it.

02-21-2004, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JethroT:
The outcome was certain before the test even started.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sweet about truth is, that it can be described with so few words. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif The thing that is interesting about that it gives a balanced view in the tests - 190 better in this, worser in that, but the end conclusion is from a totally different, 'USN rule in everything'. I guess the conclusion was written for the Top Dogs who they knew wont bother to read the details. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As for the P-38s, I think it will be the only US plane I will really enjoy flying, knowing its limits. It will be very similiar to my 109 in use, the idea behind its armament is the same (centerline, cannon included). Plus the plane has this unique looks. But I will never be as foolish as trying to mix it up with 109s, or even worser, Soviet planes in dogfight. Maybe vs. 190s.

[This message was edited by VO101_Kurfurst on Sat February 21 2004 at 12:00 PM.]

JethroT
02-21-2004, 12:57 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Typical response from the "all-things German are superior" crowd. Anytime a tests shows a German plane less than first, it must be flawed.

I'm just a bit suspicious about a test concluding that a plane that is widely regarded as ONE of the best of ww2 being virtually inferior to anything else.

I'd be equally suspicious if the plane was a Mustang, a Spitfire or a La7.

ZG77_Nagual
02-21-2004, 02:23 PM
I agree Kurfurst - except I won't fly the 109k - it's just too good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif sometimes I fly the p39 - but I allways feel guilty..
My current online fav is the dora. anyway - the p38 will be a challenge - and alot of fun -the p63 will be pure indulgence http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My uncle was a navy/marine pilot - flew f9fs, f8f, f6f, corsairs and f4fs - you are right - USN rules everything - if it doesn't land on a boat it's not a real airplane.

Korolov
02-21-2004, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
I think the thing that stands out most from the accounts of the P-38 is the skill level required to get the most out of it - in some cases the skill to make it competative in certain flight regimes at all. Chopping the throttle on one side and turning into it is, in particular, is something that I think would give newbie pilots the shi.. vvers. Once you put _that_ much pilot skill into the mix of determining "how good is this plane" I think it muddies comparisons with other types, especially combat comparisons. It hints at having pilots who are very confident in their aircraft and who are using all the tricks to get the most out of it.

I think the 47 D10/D22 in FB play very well to their strengths - I can't recall the last long range, high altitude escort mission I did in a Yak 3, nor the last time I went screaming around at ground level killing AA and trains and tanks in one. What realm of the envelope should the P-47 rule over the Yak 3? Do you think it does in FB? Certainly it seems to me that around where the 47 shines - high alt, high speed fights - aircraft with La or Yak in front of their number have spluttering engines and very unresponsive controls.

Combat capabilities wise I would boil down the text in the first message of the thread to:

P-38 can turn with all German and most Japanese A/C, as long as you know exactly what your energy state is, the enemies energy state is, and the difference between the two, and are prepared to pull out all the stops to make your turns tighter.

Rolls pretty well, eventually.

Dives pretty well, but past a certain IAS you must pull the dive flaps and be content with holding your current speed rather than chasing down an enemy.

Good climb.

Good firepower.

If that is what we get in FB then I think it will be a damned good contender. But what does not come out from the text in the first post is "This plane should be called the P-38 Newbie Acemaker and is impossible to do anything wrong in".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're blowing what I said out of context. I'm not arguing about the P-47; IMO that one is already modeled quite well, and probably the best Tbolt modeled.

But since you asked, yes I think the P-47 rules over the Yak-3 in FB. Why?

- Multipurpose capability
- Durability
- Dive speed and light controls
- High altitude performance
- Armanent
- Range

My point is that even though there are 5 ton or 10 ton fighters, doesn't mean that they are any less worse than a 2 ton fighter.

The P-38 will probably be like a 109 in most cases - easy to get a critical hit on, but excellent climb, altitude, dive speed and firepower. I expect it to be a little bit less agile than a 109G-6. But unlike the 109, it will have two engines to bring it home on, and will have a couple extra guns.

In terms of experience, I definately agree; from what I've read, it took at least 200 hours in the P-38 to become experienced with it, compared to how you could just jump in and fly a single engine fighter.

Oh, and I trust it DEFINATELY will not be a newbie ace maker. I wouldn't fly it if that were the case. Let the Pony pilots have the newbies with the K-14 gunsight and all those goodies. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

clint-ruin
02-21-2004, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:

You're blowing what I said out of context. I'm not arguing about the P-47; IMO that one is already modeled quite well, and probably the best Tbolt modeled.

But since you asked, yes I think the P-47 rules over the Yak-3 in FB. Why?

- Multipurpose capability
- Durability
- Dive speed and light controls
- High altitude performance
- Armanent
- Range

My point is that even though there are 5 ton or 10 ton fighters, doesn't mean that they are any less worse than a 2 ton fighter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry about that - I was in a grumpy mood when I wrote it - wasn't meaning to slam you at all :&gt;

But - what I still don't understand is this. If we take into account that our FB P-47 seems to match anecdotes and test results [even exceeding them by some ways in terms of climb] - Olegs opinion on what makes a good dogfighter would seem .. irrelevant? Pilots who first clapped their eyes on the 47 and got told they had to fly them didn't think much of it as a dogfighter either - the solution was simply not to play the low speed, low alt, stick yanking dogfighting game against planes that did it better.

Just swoop down on someone and take their lunch money without breaking a sweat, roll out and zoom climb back up. Probably not that glamorous but it damned well worked, and seems to work pretty good in FB too. This will probably be the P-38s game as well, unless you really, really want to play with your throttles and flaps continuously.

And yes, I think we are definitely going to see a lot of crying from people who have get 1/400th into their 200 hours recommended training time in the '38, and complain that they don't have **** Bongs kill tally :&gt;

That aside, I am sure that if what we get as a P-38 does not match Skychimps expectations, we will all hear about it with the documents to prove it. Much rather listen to Chimp b1tch about a plane than almost anyone else here, at least the guy is likely to come out with something scanned in support of it.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

edit: that's nice how I can't say abreviate Richard, but I can say "Bong" :&gt;

faustnik
02-21-2004, 05:11 PM
SkyChimp,

Your behavior in this thread is nothing short of rude. You're trying to put down the "all-things German are superior" crowd, but, you are just as bad as they are. Any info that indicates any American a/c is not absolutely superior you attack as biased and incorrect.

I have always looked to your posts for good info, but, now I'll have to disregard them as sadly biased info along with some of the pro-LW posts. You have found ONE legitimate complaint about Oleg's modeling of ONE version of the P-47. So, now Oleg is biased and blind because he has not listened to you on this issue? Don't let us down and become a bitter, biased whiner. This forum does not need another close-minded fool who thinks that any opinion but his own must be wrong.

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

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Korolov
02-21-2004, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Sorry about that - I was in a grumpy mood when I wrote it - wasn't meaning to slam you at all :&gt;

But - what I still don't understand is this. If we take into account that our FB P-47 seems to match anecdotes and test results [even exceeding them by some ways in terms of climb] - Olegs opinion on what makes a good dogfighter would seem .. irrelevant? Pilots who first clapped their eyes on the 47 and got told they had to fly them didn't think much of it as a dogfighter either - the solution was simply not to play the low speed, low alt, stick yanking dogfighting game against planes that did it better.

Just swoop down on someone and take their lunch money without breaking a sweat, roll out and zoom climb back up. Probably not that glamorous but it damned well worked, and seems to work pretty good in FB too. This will probably be the P-38s game as well, unless you really, really want to play with your throttles and flaps continuously.

And yes, I think we are definitely going to see a lot of crying from people who have get 1/400th into their 200 hours recommended training time in the '38, and complain that they don't have **** Bongs kill tally :&gt;

That aside, I am sure that if what we get as a P-38 does not match Skychimps expectations, we will all hear about it with the documents to prove it. Much rather listen to Chimp b1tch about a plane than almost anyone else here, at least the guy is likely to come out with something scanned in support of it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No big deal, we all have times like that.

I don't know much about Oleg's flight experiences nor his amount of flight time, but I really can't trust his opinion on a fighter because AFAIK he's never flown one, much less in combat.

And yes, many pilots didn't like the P-47 at first. Those who didn't fly it their whole career, like many others who fly other types, didn't think much of it either. I'm sure if the Russians were given P-47s instead of P-39s, they'd like it all the same.

Not trying to bash Oleg here or anything, just stating what I think. It's a lot like looking at a helicopter and wondering how the heck it flies, but the answer is just simple physics.

faustnik - I'd have to agree with you. Skychimp seems generally knowledgeable on the subject of aircraft, but his attitude sure as hell doesn't make me like him any better.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

SkyChimp
02-21-2004, 08:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
SkyChimp,

Your behavior in this thread is nothing short of rude...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh please, Faustik. I get sick of the crowd that gets their undies in knots when anything suggests a German planes wasn't superior in all categories. It's almost if some insulted a family member. Folks need to get over it. The Fw-190A was just a plane, with good points and bad, just like another plane. Just a plane.

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

ZG77_Nagual
02-21-2004, 10:35 PM
Korolov - I think they had the choice - the vvs tested p47s - and thought them unsuitable as fighters. My impression is they actually requested the p39 over other types available to them. On no account does it appear to be something they settled for, or made do with - but an actual preference. They worked actively with bell to improve the type. I believe they also tested allison and merlin mustangs. Though I don't know if these latter were made available lend-lease. They also snatched up the P-63 as soon as it came off the shelf. This says they really liked them - better than the spit, p40 and p47 at least.
The beauty of the ef as a simm environment is we are really talking about low level dogfighting - which, lets face it, is the most fun in a simm environment (don't get me wrong - I use bnz alot!) The P47 is by nobodies reconing suited to low level dogfighting. In fact both the merlin mustang and the '47 are planes that thrived coming in high - with plenty of air under them. The p38 does appear to be a machine that could adapt itself to very slow circle fights - at least that's what the accounts say - as well as being a very good e fighter - but for gaining speed to fast in dives - which again mitigates toward relatively thick air at lower alts as being a bit more accomodating.

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Sat February 21 2004 at 09:45 PM.]

CARBONFREEZE
02-21-2004, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Just swoop down on someone and take their lunch money without breaking a sweat, roll out and zoom climb back up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sounds like something I would do in the Focke Wulf

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

If guns are responsible for crime, my keyboard must be responsible for my spelling!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

http://www.pbase.com/image/25987401/medium.jpg
P-38 "Little Butch" Shemya, Alaska

Korolov
02-21-2004, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Korolov - I think they had the choice - the vvs tested p47s - and thought them unsuitable as fighters. My impression is they actually requested the p39 over other types available to them. On no account does it appear to be something they settled for, or made do with - but an actual preference. They worked actively with bell to improve the type. I believe they also tested allison and merlin mustangs. Though I don't know if these latter were made available lend-lease. They also snatched up the P-63 as soon as it came off the shelf. This says they really liked them - better than the spit, p40 and p47 at least.
The beauty of the ef as a simm environment is we are really talking about low level dogfighting - which, lets face it, is the most fun in a simm environment (don't get me wrong - I use bnz alot!) The P47 is by nobodies reconing suited to low level dogfighting. In fact both the merlin mustang and the '47 are planes that thrived coming in high - with plenty of air under them. The p38 does appear to be a machine that could adapt itself to very slow circle fights - at least that's what the accounts say - as well as being a very good e fighter - but for gaining speed to fast in dives - which again mitigates toward relatively thick air at lower alts as being a bit more accomodating.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the people in command had the choice, but the pilots AFAIK really didn't. After flying I-16s and shoddy fighters for some time, I bet that most pilots wouldn't care if you gave them a P-39 or a P-47.

Point being, if a pilot is given a P-47 and flies it for some time, he'll grow into it like anything else. Likewise with the P-39 - they grew into it and used its strengths.

This is probably why Oleg doesn't like to rely on pilot recollations, because they tend to think of their favorite ride as the best plane ever to grace the face of the earth.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

faustnik
02-22-2004, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
SkyChimp,

Your behavior in this thread is nothing short of rude...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh please, Faustik. I get sick of the crowd that gets their undies in knots when anything suggests a German planes wasn't superior in all categories. It's almost if some insulted a family member. Folks need to get over it. The Fw-190A was just a plane, with good points and bad, just like another plane. Just a plane.

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


I'm talking about the way you address Oleg SkyChimp.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Skalgrim
02-22-2004, 06:57 AM
ace are not prove, how good is plane,


that would means, g6 much better plane as p39,

look g6 ace,

one g6 ace had 70 victory with 70 mission that is much better as Kozhedub ,

g6 was then too better as la-7.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sun February 22 2004 at 09:21 AM.]

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
02-23-2004, 08:05 AM
I think P38 will be my fav...



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



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


we will see.
I will remind you on the "Komandoger√¬§t" in FW190 and how much every1 was thinking the LW will have a big advantage over the VVS Fighters you see what happend....
Just remember:
"First it went the over way
and secend as you think....."

[This message was edited by ToP_BlackSheep on Mon February 23 2004 at 07:25 AM.]

CHDT
02-23-2004, 09:57 AM
Look here how a real P-38 fly:

http://p38whitelightnin.com/gallery/

roll rate and climb seem not so bad to me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,