PDA

View Full Version : P-38 in speed in game



bolillo_loco
06-27-2005, 12:14 AM
I've done some testing of all 3 P-38s. climbs were started with 75% fuel full ammo no external stores from a standing start with clock starting at break release. Top speeds were done via quick missions starting with 75% fuel, wind effects were disabled, engine over heat turned off, radiator was checked at various openings, down low the radiator appeared to have little effect, but as speeds increased at around 15,000 ft and up settings of 4 or less netted a few extra mph.

all speeds in TAS

P-38J
353 mph S.L. +8 mph
360 mph 5,000 ft no error
379 mph 10,000 ft +4 mph
384 mph 15,000 ft -6 mph
400 mph 20,000 ft -5 mph
409 mph 25,000 ft -13 mph
405 mph 30,000 ft -21 mph

WEP was used during the entire climb

climb rate
5,000 ft 1.75 min average 2,860 fpm - 1,040 fpm
10,000 ft 3.5 min average 2,860 fpm - 890 fpm
15,000 ft 5.0 min average 2,860 fpm - 740 fpm
20,000 ft 7.0 min average 2,500 fpm - 850 fpm



max map available in game

60" map @ 26,500 ft - 2,200 ft
50" map @ 30,000 ft -7" map
37" map @ 35,000 ft - 11" map
29" map @ 40,000 ft - 10" map

P-38L-1-LO

347 mph S.L. +2 mph
360 mph 5,000 ft no error
365 mph 10,000 ft - 10 mph
375 mph 15,000 ft - 15 mph
388 mph 20,000 ft - 17 mph
400 mph 25,000 ft - 22 mph
394 mph 30,000 ft - 30 mph

climb WEP during entire climb

5,000 ft 1.5 min 3,333 fpm average - 567 fpm
10,000 ft 3.0 min 3,333 fpm average - 417 fpm
15,000 ft 4.75 min 2,860 fpm average - 740 fpm
20,000 ft 6.25 min 3,330 fpm average - 20 fpm
25,000 ft 8.25 min 2,500 fpm average - 600 fpm

max available map in game

60" map @ 26,500 ft - 2,200 ft below critical altitude
50" map @ 30,000 ft - 7" map
38" map @ 35,000 ft - 10" map
31" map @ 40,000 ft - 8" map

P-38L-5-LO

speed errors based on 360 mph sea level and 440-443 mph figures in several books

363 mph S.L. + 3 mph
378 mph 5,000 ft
388 mph 10,000 ft
409 mph 15,000 ft
422 mph 20,000 ft
425 mph 25,000 ft - 15 mph
406 mph 30,000 ft - 20 mph (when reverting back to army aircrops restrictions)

climb rates

5,000 ft 1.25 min
10,000 ft 2.5 min
15,000 ft 3.75 min
20,000 ft 5.0 min
25,000 ft 6.5 min
30,000 ft 8.5 min

critical altitude of real P-38L-5-LO @ 1,725hp, I do not know of any so I reverted back to the restricted map settings of the flight manual which are 60" map @ 28,700 ft, 57" map @ 30,000 ft, 48" map @ 35,000 ft, and 39" map @ 40,000 ft

max available map in game

60" map @ 23,600 ft - 5,100 ft below critical altitude
44" map @ 30,000 ft - 13" map
34" map @ 35,000 ft - 14" map

I could not get the 38L-5-LO to 40,000 ft it lost too much power

just thought I would throw some numbers at you, I am sure my climb data contains the most errors. I found climbing at 170-180 ias down low and letting it drop to 150-160 mph ias at 25,000 ft gave the best climb rates. I believe this is why the 38J climbed too slowly because I only indicated 150 mph or less during the entire climb, further testing of the J needs to be done.

my tests show that the rate of climb is low at all altitudes for the 38J and 38L-1 (not sure about the L-5). they also show that at altitudes above 15,000 ft all 38s are too slow and that down low they are very close to real life numbers published in many books. My tests also show that all P-38s loose hp too soon and it drops off far too quickly than real life numbers published in many books.

I personally do not care if it gets fixed or not I was just bored and decided to dork about.

bolillo_loco
06-27-2005, 12:14 AM
I've done some testing of all 3 P-38s. climbs were started with 75% fuel full ammo no external stores from a standing start with clock starting at break release. Top speeds were done via quick missions starting with 75% fuel, wind effects were disabled, engine over heat turned off, radiator was checked at various openings, down low the radiator appeared to have little effect, but as speeds increased at around 15,000 ft and up settings of 4 or less netted a few extra mph.

all speeds in TAS

P-38J
353 mph S.L. +8 mph
360 mph 5,000 ft no error
379 mph 10,000 ft +4 mph
384 mph 15,000 ft -6 mph
400 mph 20,000 ft -5 mph
409 mph 25,000 ft -13 mph
405 mph 30,000 ft -21 mph

WEP was used during the entire climb

climb rate
5,000 ft 1.75 min average 2,860 fpm - 1,040 fpm
10,000 ft 3.5 min average 2,860 fpm - 890 fpm
15,000 ft 5.0 min average 2,860 fpm - 740 fpm
20,000 ft 7.0 min average 2,500 fpm - 850 fpm



max map available in game

60" map @ 26,500 ft - 2,200 ft
50" map @ 30,000 ft -7" map
37" map @ 35,000 ft - 11" map
29" map @ 40,000 ft - 10" map

P-38L-1-LO

347 mph S.L. +2 mph
360 mph 5,000 ft no error
365 mph 10,000 ft - 10 mph
375 mph 15,000 ft - 15 mph
388 mph 20,000 ft - 17 mph
400 mph 25,000 ft - 22 mph
394 mph 30,000 ft - 30 mph

climb WEP during entire climb

5,000 ft 1.5 min 3,333 fpm average - 567 fpm
10,000 ft 3.0 min 3,333 fpm average - 417 fpm
15,000 ft 4.75 min 2,860 fpm average - 740 fpm
20,000 ft 6.25 min 3,330 fpm average - 20 fpm
25,000 ft 8.25 min 2,500 fpm average - 600 fpm

max available map in game

60" map @ 26,500 ft - 2,200 ft below critical altitude
50" map @ 30,000 ft - 7" map
38" map @ 35,000 ft - 10" map
31" map @ 40,000 ft - 8" map

P-38L-5-LO

speed errors based on 360 mph sea level and 440-443 mph figures in several books

363 mph S.L. + 3 mph
378 mph 5,000 ft
388 mph 10,000 ft
409 mph 15,000 ft
422 mph 20,000 ft
425 mph 25,000 ft - 15 mph
406 mph 30,000 ft - 20 mph (when reverting back to army aircrops restrictions)

climb rates

5,000 ft 1.25 min
10,000 ft 2.5 min
15,000 ft 3.75 min
20,000 ft 5.0 min
25,000 ft 6.5 min
30,000 ft 8.5 min

critical altitude of real P-38L-5-LO @ 1,725hp, I do not know of any so I reverted back to the restricted map settings of the flight manual which are 60" map @ 28,700 ft, 57" map @ 30,000 ft, 48" map @ 35,000 ft, and 39" map @ 40,000 ft

max available map in game

60" map @ 23,600 ft - 5,100 ft below critical altitude
44" map @ 30,000 ft - 13" map
34" map @ 35,000 ft - 14" map

I could not get the 38L-5-LO to 40,000 ft it lost too much power

just thought I would throw some numbers at you, I am sure my climb data contains the most errors. I found climbing at 170-180 ias down low and letting it drop to 150-160 mph ias at 25,000 ft gave the best climb rates. I believe this is why the 38J climbed too slowly because I only indicated 150 mph or less during the entire climb, further testing of the J needs to be done.

my tests show that the rate of climb is low at all altitudes for the 38J and 38L-1 (not sure about the L-5). they also show that at altitudes above 15,000 ft all 38s are too slow and that down low they are very close to real life numbers published in many books. My tests also show that all P-38s loose hp too soon and it drops off far too quickly than real life numbers published in many books.

I personally do not care if it gets fixed or not I was just bored and decided to dork about.

AerialTarget
06-27-2005, 01:14 AM
The pilot's handbook has a chart with speed for best rate of climb at various altitudes, I think. Did you use that, or did you calculate a graph? I can dig up the chart, if you need it. However, I doubt that you are unable to produce it within a few minutes!

So, the P-38 is seriously undermodelled in terms of speed, climb, high altitude engine performance, and dive acceleration. We know that it suffers from compressibility too early. We also know that it is missing one of its greatest advantages, the ability to perform and hold an accellerated stall without dropping a wing (cloverleaf maneuver). And every real life P-38 pilot who has tried the one in the game has said that the real thing turned and rolled better. Lastly, one cannot use differential power to enhance roll and turn rate, as you could in real life.

I blame widespread misinformation, game engine limitations, and strong bias against it due to various reasons, one of which is the "it's big so it has to fly like a boat" mentality.

I'd like my P-38, please! I'm perfectly willing to pay a hundred dollars for any expansion which fixes the P-38's errors, even if no additional content is included.

bolillo_loco
06-27-2005, 01:38 AM
well I already know what the pilot's manual states is the best climb ias under military and max cont power (180 mph ias @ 5,000 ft, 178 mph ias @ 10,000 ft, 175 mph ias @ 15,000 ft, 170 mph ias @ 25,000 ft, and 165 mph ias at 35,000ft). jeff ethel states in his video that best climb speed is 140-200 mph ias. zeno's drive in training film on the P-38 states something along the lines of 140-180 mph ias will yield max climb rate, but in game the higher speed seems to work better.

in all fairness, all planes dive accelleration is not modeled correctly. paper weight planes will dive with heavy ones.

the 38's critical mach has been raised in 4.01 so that you can go over 420 mph ias at sea level and not auger in. I havent tested that to compair it with the dive chart. On the other hand up high you can achieve dive speeds far in excess of any WW II plane, but then again so can many other aircraft. I can get a lot of a/c in the game to go super sonic at 25,000 - 30,000 ft.

I havent tested every aircraft in the game so I do not know if there is an oleg conspiracy, although the Pope himself has spoken on the issue

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/devju88a.jpg thanks to leadspitter for the heads up on the popes speech

quote Hristos: "Faster P-38s? Great! now I dont have to wait so long to shoot them down!"
http://free-kc.t-com.hr/nino/sig03.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 02:14 AM
Under Oleg's conditions I got for the P-38L late:

-589 km/h (365 mph) at SL
-710 km/h (441 mph) at 25,000 feet (which matches your expectations almost exactly).

I didn't bother to check the rest. Remember test conditions should be:

-Crimea map, noon, over water, wind off, radiator closed, 100% fuel, default armament, no cockpit (TAS), max throttle, proper trim, boost enabled if avaialbe, proper fuel mix, proper supercharger setting. I also start every plane test as allies and go to heading 100.

The P-38J may be too fast (356 mph) at SL. As it is the Lightning is faster than the FW-190A-6 (352 mph) at SL. The A-6 can match it (almost exactly) but it has to use manual pitch with very fast overheat.

I saved the track of P-38L late doing 441 mph at 7,620m if you want it.

The good news is, there apparently is no conspiricy against U.S. aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

bolillo_loco
06-27-2005, 03:22 AM
I will test it, your speeds are 15 mph faster than what I could achieve.

climb still too low

hp at altitude exceptionally low.

AerialTarget
06-27-2005, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
The good news is, there apparently is no conspiricy against U.S. aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that the P-38 in the game can't turn for cr a p, unlike the real thing, which could easily outturn the One Oh Nine. Airbrake turning doesn't count, as that wasn't used in real life for the same reason that it isn't a great idea in the game. I want my cloverleaf!

Oh, and the climb rates are still way off, as are compression speeds (and it shouldn't happen at all under fifteen thousand feet) and the other things I mentioned.

By the way, Hunde, I want the track. I suspect your rate of climb was in the negative.

3.JG51_Stecher
06-27-2005, 04:00 AM
At 25,000 ft I'm holding 444 mph. Altitude +/- deviation never exceeds 5 meters. I was using 25% fuel, hence my slightly faster speed than Hunde's.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 05:12 AM
*Yawn*, another person accusing me of being a luftwhiner or having some hidden agenda when I am just presenting the facts. PM with your e-mail address and I'll send you the track. Or you could spend two minutes and try it yourself, anyone with minimal intellect can test it and see that my numbers are accurate. On second thought, maybe I should just send you the track. And my comment about no conspiracy was taken from bollio's post, I wasn't being a smart a$$.

I am not debating turn-rates, climb rates, compression, etc. Other people can test that stuff out.

Lixma
06-27-2005, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I blame widespread misinformation, game engine limitations, and strong bias against it due to various reasons, one of which is the "it's big so it has to fly like a boat" mentality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL.

You should put that in your chat-bar presets for when you get shot down.j/k.

Bolillo, get this stuff to Oleg ASAP (with proof to back it up). He won't spend much more time adjusting FB due to BoB.

bolillo_loco
06-27-2005, 05:50 AM
I cannot duplicate the 440 mph figures for the P-38L-5-LO. I am using 75% fuel and I test from sea level, climb test, climb test etc.

I keep getting 425 - 428 mph @ 25,000 ft.

I tested german aircraft

190A4 347 mph S.L
190A6 359 mph S.L.
190A8 369 mph S.L.
190A9 372 mph S.L.

there will be two sets of speed listed for the Bf 109 series, one for auto pitch and the second for manual pitch

G2 325/338 mph S.L. 400/413 mph 30,000 ft
G6 325/340 mph S.L. 388/406 mph 30,000 ft
G6A/S 366/375 mph S.L. 422/431 mph 30,000 ft
G10 359/369 mph S.L. 431/438 mph 30,000 ft
G14 356/365 mph S.L. 400/413 mph 30,000 ft
K4 369/375 mph S.L. 428/438 mph 30,000 ft

*Note, no matter how many times I tested the G14 and K4 I could not achieve better speeds??? anybody else?

P-47D27
356 mph S.L.
438 mph 30,000 ft

I will try the P-38L-5-LO again tomorrow. If you two can get 440 mph at 25,000 ft I must be doing something wrong.

I cannot get the 38J nor the 38L-1 above 355 mph on the deck so I do not understand how your are attaining a speed of 365 mph on the deck with the J. I keep getting 350-353 mph in the J and 345-347 mph in the 38L-1 which are very close to what is published in books while both aircraft are using 60" map @ 3,000 rpm for a net hp of 1,600 per engine.

the 440 mph figure for the 38L-5-LO is in question, however the following points are enough to hamper the already challened Lightning.

above 23,500 ft the 38L-5-LO begins to lose significant hp. much lower than what it is rated for in the pilots manual (which is for a derated F-30)

both the J and L-1 (the two early 38s) lose significant hp above 26,500 ft which is below their critical altitude and the higher it gets the more significant it is, as per pilots manual.

I have restested my speeds of the 38J and 38L-1 from my original post and I can reproduce them over and over again. at altitudes greater than 10,000 ft they both are 15 - 30 mph slower than data in a lot of publications.

both the J and L-1 climb 500-1000 fpm slower at wep than what many publications put them at.

under wep the in game 38J and 38L-1 cannot produce climb rates above 20,000 ft that are listed in the pilots manual. the figures in the pilots manual are obtained while using much less hp than wep.

I will again restate, I do not expect any changes to be made. I was just bored and began toying with aircraft speeds and climb rates. call it a whine if you must (not directed at anybody who posted in this thread) I am just presenting data for reasons of debate, boredum, and lack of anything better to do.

Hetzer_II
06-27-2005, 06:01 AM
P38 won the war and if noone realy knows it... it also won the vietnam war, desert storm and it would have wone the third world war if it would have only had the chance to....

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 06:07 AM
Bollio, I stated that I got 356 (573kph) for the "J" at SL. 365mph is for the P-38L Late at SL. For the P-38L I get 563kph at SL.

I'm not sure what you are doing wrong, again I'll gladly send you the track if you want.

With the P-38 testing is actually quite easy, just make sure throttle is max and make sure that your radiator is "closed", default is "auto" which will slow you down. Maybe you are leaving it on auto because you have overheat turned off? Maybe auto radiator still opens up and slows you down even though overheat is disabled. From your numbers that would be my guess. The fact that you have the 190A-6 as being faster than the P-38J at SL says you are doing something wrong, again this would point to radiator as the 190 default is closed and there is no auto.

The A-6 will be 1kph faster with manual pitch at 100%, but this causes fast overheat and actually the 190's have been too slow for as long as I can remember. When testing, most aircraft will reach their stated speeds in the object viewer, but on auto-pitch all 190A's are actually about 7kph slower. Using manual pitch gets them to their proper speed relative to other aircraft, but again at the cost of fast overheat. The exception is the A-4 which gets more of a boost than other Antons (+14km/h) when using manual pitch.

Gotta get some sleep, try it again when you get the chance, testing exactly under Oleg's conditions as I stated above.

Btw, I appreciate your passion for the P-38, and I don't consider your post a whine. I am just trying to show you that the speeds you are getting are too slow.

p1ngu666
06-27-2005, 06:53 AM
109's probably reach there best speeds at lower alts, id take a guess at 24000ft or less.

turbo in the american planes lost power after a critical alt because the turbo would haveto spin faster than what it was limited too. ie random made up figure of say 10,000rpm, above that it would start to disintergrate, overheat etc

JG7_Rall
06-27-2005, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
The good news is, there apparently is no conspiricy against U.S. aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that the P-38 in the game can't turn for cr a p, unlike the real thing, which could easily outturn the One Oh Nine. Airbrake turning doesn't count, as that wasn't used in real life for the same reason that it isn't a great idea in the game. I want my cloverleaf!

Oh, and the climb rates are still way off, as are compression speeds (and it shouldn't happen at all under fifteen thousand feet) and the other things I mentioned.

By the way, Hunde, I want the track. I suspect your rate of climb was in the negative. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awww, isn't this cute. Aerial Target is still throwing a tantrum because hristo shot him down in a 109! And we ALL know that German AC sucked in real life, and that the P38 was king! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

BSS_CUDA
06-27-2005, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
109's probably reach there best speeds at lower alts, id take a guess at 24000ft or less.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually everything that I've read about the 38's performance and the 109's is that at alt the 109 was a stellar performer, where below 15K ft the 38 would out perform it. to me its a moot point. I feel that the 38 is a more than capable aircraft in game now, once you learn its traits you'll find that it does just about everything well. it can BnZ very well, and it can TnB if needed. there are a few things I question about some of the 109 FM's, but I dont know enough about them to say if its accurate or not.

AerialTarget
06-27-2005, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Awww, isn't this cute. Aerial Target is still throwing a tantrum because hristo shot him down in a 109! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? Where have you been? I have been having my tantrum ever since the first grossly undermodelled version of the P-38 was given us in Aces Expansion Pack.

And you can laugh all you want at your incredible good fortune that the game defies historical fact. The Nazi pilots in the war would have loved this situation as much as you do. It's really too bad that they generally got their rears rent by Der Gabelschwanz Teufel on equal terms in real life, isn't it?

faustnik
06-27-2005, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And you can laugh all you want at your incredible good fortune that the game defies historical fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly where does it "defy historical fact" expert boy?

AVGWarhawk
06-27-2005, 12:22 PM
Its just a game.

faustnik
06-27-2005, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
Its just a game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not just a game, it is a historical simulation that Oleg and the rest of the crew at 1C have put a huge amount of effort into. It pisses me off when some **** posts here about how "biased" Oleg is. That's total cr4p. If you think that Oleg is "just in it for the money" or trying to make a "Soviet sim" you are flat out wrong.

LStarosta
06-27-2005, 12:30 PM
Aerial, have you ever considered the possibility that maybe you're just a sh!tty pilot? You're being chewed out by some great P38 pilots like Cuda for suggesting the P38 is porked. That's pretty embarassing.

I heart Prefontaine.

TAGERT.
06-27-2005, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I've done some testing of all 3 P-38s. climbs were started with 75% fuel full ammo no external stores from a standing start with clock starting at break release. Top speeds were done via quick missions starting with 75% fuel, wind effects were disabled, engine over heat turned off, radiator was checked at various openings, down low the radiator appeared to have little effect, but as speeds increased at around 15,000 ft and up settings of 4 or less netted a few extra mph.

all speeds in TAS *SNIP* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey bolillo_loco, looks like you did alot of hard work on this, and between you and others have some good data to compair the flight sim results to. Im all for fixing the 38 if she is broke, so, I will offer my services to you. Provide me your track files and Ill generate any and all the graphs of any or all of the DeviceLink variables you want to look at. Graphs have come in handy to *see* what is going on relitive to other variables. If your interested, let me know.

bolillo_loco
06-27-2005, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
109's probably reach there best speeds at lower alts, id take a guess at 24000ft or less.

turbo in the american planes lost power after a critical alt because the turbo would haveto spin faster than what it was limited too. ie random made up figure of say 10,000rpm, above that it would start to disintergrate, overheat etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes I am aware of critical altitude. I clearly stated what the army aircorps stated was the critical altitude and how many inches of map the pilots manual says you can use. the 38 reaches its critial altitude in the game much lower than what the pilots manual states is possible. after critical altitude in the game it falls off drastically. if you take another glance at my post I listed how much it falls off and what the pilot's manual states. at 30,000 ft the in game 38 is down to 2,200 hp (combined engine out put) where as the real life P-38J and L model running the derated army figures had 3,040 hp. -800 hp is a significant loss. at 35,000 ft it is even more drastic. the 38L-5-LO we have in the game is running the allision rating of 1,725 hp and this in game version loses hp much more quickly than the other two. critical altitude was 28,700 ft no 23,500 of our in game L-5 and 26,500 of the J and L-1. yes it was limited to the turbo speed which I believe is 26,500 rpms. I am not at home currently and cannot reference my books.

I sort of figured somebody would come along and turn this into a flame post and I care not to respond to them. however for those of you who care to duplicate my test go ahead. my speeds are in no way intended to be the last word. lets get some figures from other people. we need not only talk about the P-38. I plan on including other aircraft as well.

faustnik
06-27-2005, 01:11 PM
Bolillo,

What historical data are you comparing the PF test results to? Have you checked the rediator settings in the speed test you are comparing with? I just ask because RAF speed testing was done with radiators fixed shut.

As far as caring if it gets fixed, we should care. Oleg will fix this stuff if given convincing data. I'm hoping to get a patch in the near future to fix the Fw190DM, maybe the P-38 speeds could get an adjustment then???

bolillo_loco
06-27-2005, 01:22 PM
radiators are closed and wind/flutter/ not at home to check what it is called is turned off for every tested aircraft I mentioned. I was even thinking of testing the top speeds with radiators wide open just to see how individual aircraft suffer, ie if some lose more speed than others. If two other people (Stecher and Hunde) can achieve 440 mph then I need to try again. I do not expect another patch. I am sure oleg and his team are quite busy trying to earn money on new things so that they may continue to release new games. I am quite sure ubi doesnt make any money on patches. and if they looking into every complaint made....well

AerialTarget
06-27-2005, 01:52 PM
You have been led to water, yet you refuse to drink. And now you cry for water, even though the water still lies before you! I will waste no more time on you fools who prize your ignorance, wrapping it about you like a fine garment.

Bolillo Loco, I wish you the very best of luck in your endeaver to discover the truth of this matter and convince others of it. But I confess that I have absolutely no hope that you will ever convince, no matter how plain your evidence, the swine who I see here trampling pearls into their own excrement.

p1ngu666
06-27-2005, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
109's probably reach there best speeds at lower alts, id take a guess at 24000ft or less.

turbo in the american planes lost power after a critical alt because the turbo would haveto spin faster than what it was limited too. ie random made up figure of say 10,000rpm, above that it would start to disintergrate, overheat etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes I am aware of critical altitude. I clearly stated what the army aircorps stated was the critical altitude and how many inches of map the pilots manual says you can use. the 38 reaches its critial altitude in the game much lower than what the pilots manual states is possible. after critical altitude in the game it falls off drastically. if you take another glance at my post I listed how much it falls off and what the pilot's manual states. at 30,000 ft the in game 38 is down to 2,200 hp (combined engine out put) where as the real life P-38J and L model running the derated army figures had 3,040 hp. -800 hp is a significant loss. at 35,000 ft it is even more drastic. the 38L-5-LO we have in the game is running the allision rating of 1,725 hp and this in game version loses hp much more quickly than the other two. critical altitude was 28,700 ft no 23,500 of our in game L-5 and 26,500 of the J and L-1. yes it was limited to the turbo speed which I believe is 26,500 rpms. I am not at home currently and cannot reference my books.

I sort of figured somebody would come along and turn this into a flame post and I care not to respond to them. however for those of you who care to duplicate my test go ahead. my speeds are in no way intended to be the last word. lets get some figures from other people. we need not only talk about the P-38. I plan on including other aircraft as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

goodluck getting it fixed etc

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 02:29 PM
Just wanted to say again Bollio that I respect your passion for the P-38, and that I don't take your post as a whine at all. I just think you are doing something wrong, and getting low numbers in terms of speed. If your radiator was indeed closed and not auto then I don't know what you are doing wrong, but the "J" is clearly faster thant the A-6 at SL, and the 440mph is easily attainable at 25,000 feet. As for climb, turn, etc., someone else will have to check that out to compare with your results. I do alot of speed testing so that is why I commented/tested. In fact I have been testing and writing down all ETO aircraft speeds at SL and will post them eventually. I still have a long way to go (man there are alot of flyables http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

Again Bollio, I appreciate the effort that went into your testing, I am just discussing with you our differences in results and seeing where the test might differ.

Faustnik, could you or someone else who is not notorious for bias please test the P-38L Late at 7,620 meters under the conditions I described and let me know what you get. Remember to give it time to get to speed, the last 8-10 km/h always take awhile. Again, I have tracks if anyone wants them.

jessi1
06-27-2005, 02:29 PM
The 190dm...whats so wrong with it faustnik, so we dont spill fuel anymore, because thats the only minor thing thats wrong with it. We flew that plane with several bugs for a very long time and now its fixed except for a small dm in the fuel and you want a new patch to fix this, the plane goes down no problem when hit in all angles(pilot kills,cables snapped,no ailerons, wings ripped apart) I dont get it, this is not a stab at you at all im just curious as to what you mean about the dm. I and several others that fly this plane regularly on warclouds go down all the time due to hits so im just curious as to whats wrong. Salute

faustnik
06-27-2005, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Faustnik, could you or someone else who is not notorious for bias please test the P-38L Late at 7,620 meters under the conditions I described and let me know what you get. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'll try late tonight and post.

faustnik
06-27-2005, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jessi1:
The 190dm...whats so wrong with it faustnik, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fuel tanks will not catch fire in 4.01. That's a primary cause of a/c destruction, especially with .50 cal. The DM, all versions of Fw190, is bugged. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 02:40 PM
jessi1, while I agree that for FW-190 flyers its DM has been more of a hinderance than any sort of advantage as some would have us believe, the fact is it looks like there may be some issues with the 190 being unable to have a fuel leak inflicted upon it and it apparently no longer catches fire. If this is the case it needs to be fixed. I just hope that these issues are not over-fixed and we have another fuel leak bug and we become highly flammable again. I can count on my hands the number of times I have been set on fire online in my history of 190 flying, but offline I could set 190's alight and it always seemed easier with the .303's than the .50's. Also, even if the bugs in the 190's DM are fixed properly I don't think it will actually make much difference in how many go down. As I said, having planes go up in flames doesn't happen that often and if you are at the point where there should be a fire you are likely dead already. The fuel leak won't make much difference either, in planes where it is handled properly it may force you to run home, but unless you playing on a large map it shouldn't make much difference.

BigKahuna_GS
06-27-2005, 02:44 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Bollilo--I've done some testing of all 3 P-38s. climbs were started with 75% fuel full ammo no external stores from a standing start with clock starting at break release. Top speeds were done via quick missions starting with 75% fuel, wind effects were disabled, engine over heat turned off, radiator was checked at various openings, down low the radiator appeared to have little effect, but as speeds increased at around 15,000 ft and up settings of 4 or less netted a few extra mph.

all speeds in TAS

P-38J
353 mph S.L. +8 mph
360 mph 5,000 ft no error
379 mph 10,000 ft +4 mph
384 mph 15,000 ft -6 mph
400 mph 20,000 ft -5 mph
409 mph 25,000 ft -13 mph
405 mph 30,000 ft -21 mph

WEP was used during the entire climb

climb rate
5,000 ft 1.75 min average 2,860 fpm - 1,040 fpm
10,000 ft 3.5 min average 2,860 fpm - 890 fpm
15,000 ft 5.0 min average 2,860 fpm - 740 fpm
20,000 ft 7.0 min average 2,500 fpm - 850 fpm



max map available in game

60" map @ 26,500 ft - 2,200 ft
50" map @ 30,000 ft -7" map
37" map @ 35,000 ft - 11" map
29" map @ 40,000 ft - 10" map
__________________________________________________ _______________________


Thanks Bolillo for the effort you put into this mate !
It can seem thankless at times. Tagert offered to use devicelink to check speeds and climbs--that is a good idea in several ways and if there is a problem, the data will be in a format that Oleg will trust.

As for the P38J, I never felt it made specs especially climb rate. Max climb rate should be 4000fpm till 23,400ft not (2,860fpm)--even critical alt climb was better than that.

Every speed or climb test I have done has been on the Crimea Map with 100% fuel, WEP, radiator closed, all other settings left on.

Compare your test data to the Official USAAF P38J test:

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

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

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


___

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 02:45 PM
Thanks Faustnik, looking forward to your results. Also, I have a track with me goofing around in QMB where the Dora I am flying gets hit with about 3 .50 rounds and the whole tail section is removed. I can send you that along with my P-38L late speed test, but then again you can do the test yourself and the Dora thing may have been an isolated incident (but it does look silly).

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 03:01 PM
Kahuna, according to your data the P-38J is 11mph too fast at SL in FB/PF (345 vs. 356).

At 25,800 feet I get 668kph (415mph). This is below your data, but is higher than Bollio's results and matches the numbers usually seen for the "J" in less detailed reference books.

I have sources (FW-190 In Combat, FW-190 In Action, etc.) that say the FW-190A-4's (and A-3's) max speed was 416-418mph, but in-game it doesn't get anywhere near that speed. Some say we have a detuned A-4, but I thought Oleg stated that wasn't the case.

faustnik
06-27-2005, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some say we have a detuned A-4, but I thought Oleg stated that wasn't the case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our Fw190A4 is running 1.32ata which was standard for early '42. It was raised to 1.42 in Summer '42. Those high speed figures are probably at 1.42ata.

Grey_Mouser67
06-27-2005, 04:49 PM
Well I hope you all stay with it...there is no reason for rate of climb or speed to be off more than a few mph...it is the most quantitative absolute we have in game and the easiest to measure and test.

DM's, Weapons strenght are all subjective...not speed. There is loads of good information on the Lightning...just put it in front of Oleg and request a change....the top speeds and climb rates are woefully wrong if Bollillo's figures are correct and I have no reason to doubt him cause I've done sea level testing too and get figures similar.

Blackdog5555
06-27-2005, 04:53 PM
Those are basically the P38J numbers from the old patch. Its been well posted that the P38 numbers were bad. Instead of fixing the old P38J, the Devs gave us the Late P38L which is pretty close/ good FM (IMO). Close is good for government work. Its a simple FM...after all,

JG7_Rall
06-27-2005, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Awww, isn't this cute. Aerial Target is still throwing a tantrum because hristo shot him down in a 109! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? Where have you been? I have been having my tantrum ever since the first grossly undermodelled version of the P-38 was given us in Aces Expansion Pack.

And you can laugh all you want at your incredible good fortune that the game defies historical fact. The Nazi pilots in the war would have loved this situation as much as you do. It's really too bad that they generally got their rears rent by Der Gabelschwanz Teufel on equal terms in real life, isn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you mean German pilots.

And btw, I would agree with you that in past versions, the P38 was underperforming and didn't seem to reflect the image that history painted of it in IL2. But honestly, every plane in game is +/- in a few areas, and your claims that hte P38 is undermodelled are grossly exaggerated.

And btw, ANY country that had to face the allied forces in WWII would have gotten owned. Although I'm happy the Germans weren't victorious, I do give credit where it is due, and I think they did an incredible job (esp. in the air) of taking on the British, Russians, Americans, and the rest of the allied air forces. German planes were excellent in real life -- it's unfortunate that you wont remove your d4mn blinders and realize that just because they lost the war doesn't mean that their equipment was sh1t. I would explain why the Germans lost the air war in Europe on both fronts; however, besides the fact that it would be a waste of my time, I'm sure other people here could do a better job, and I *think* you're capable of reading a history book, so pick one up and give it a try.

TAGERT.
06-27-2005, 06:34 PM
Per the information provided by 609IAP_Kahuna and a request by bolillo_loco to do further testing I thought I would give it a try to see what all the hub bub is about with regards to the P38J

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
USAAF flight test results P38J-10 :
Maximum Sea Level speed --------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed -----------------421.5mph (WEP) (25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) -------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ---------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt -----------------------6.19 mins. (23,400ft)</pre>
As you can see the USAAF flight test state the Maximum Sea Level speed should be 345mph. I configured the P38J for such a test, and in such a way as to make it as easy as possible for the P38J to hit the numbers. Therefore I only took 50% fuel and no ammo. And here is a plot of the speeds I managed to obtain starting off slow, i.e. not DIVING INTO this speed but accelerating level up to it.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED.JPG
note time is in 1/2 seconds, i.e. the sample rate of my DeviceLink is set up to read all variables every 0.5 seconds

As you can see, the P38J is only a few mph off of 345mph, about 343mph or so. The suttle rise and fall in speed near the end was due to me not flying totally level, I went from 50ft, up to about 200ft and then dove down to the water again to see if I could hit 345mph for a short period, I didnt, but I did break past 340mph. But, the max level speed with out bouncing around was about 338mph as you can see just prior to my bouncing around. A +/-7mph or so.. nothing to loose any sleep over or let you blood come to a boil or put a curse on Oleg's family imho.. But, there have been changes made for less error for other planes, so, maybe Oleg would/could tweak it a little in the next patch. But, first someone needs to let him know! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SUMMARY
I think a lot of people don't realize that the little red text display in the bottom left hand corner of the cockpit is rounded down to the nearest 10mph. That is to say if your flying at 330 to 334mph, it will round down to display 330. So far so good, your all use to that kind of round off. But, as far as I can tell, if your flying at 336 to 339 it DOES NOT round up to 340mph, it still rounds down to 330mph! Therefore, if you didn't look at the Device Link data, you could be fooled into whining.

Here is a link to my trak file and corresponding Device Link data.
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/..._SEA_LEVEL_SPEED.zip (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED.zip)

BigKahuna_GS
06-27-2005, 06:55 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _______________________
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hunde
Kahuna,according to your data the P-38J is 11mph too fast at SL in FB/PF (345 vs. 356).
At 25,800 feet I get 668kph (415mph). This is below your data, but is higher than Bollio's results and matches the numbers usually seen for the "J" in less detailed reference books. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
__________________________________________________ _______________________


Rgr that Hunde. I am not sure what specs Oleg is using. I would say it's a tad to fast at sea level and more than that shy at altitude. The big thing to me is that the P38J is more than 1000fpm off in it's climb rate. This aircraft was built as an interceptor and had a very good climb rate, that should be reflected here. I'm sure being that far off in it's climb rate affects it's zoom climb also.


In game P38J AEP/PF Speed Specs
590kph @ 1500meters
672kph @ 8000meters (26,200ft)


I hit both these specs in speed tests. It apperas Oleg has the top speed at a higher alt. I could only hit 410-415mph at 25,800ft.

The planes that are really off in sea level speed are the Corsair and Hellcat--10-15mph too slow.

___

BigKahuna_GS
06-27-2005, 07:01 PM
S!


My speed tests were with 100% fuel & ammo, Crimea map. I hit the the posted in game specs for the P38J no problem.

What I am more concerened with is the climb rate. Tagert can you use the devicelink to test the P38J climb rate Please ?


___

TAGERT.
06-27-2005, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
My speed tests were with 100% fuel & ammo, Crimea map. I hit the the posted in game specs for the P38J no problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>On that note, what is the in game rated spec?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
What I am more concerened with is the climb rate. Tagert can you use the devicelink to test the P38J climb rate Please ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure, but, the long hard part is doing the flying, I can crank out a graph in a few min! So, if you got a track file done, just post the link and I can turn it around for you in a mater of min!

p1ngu666
06-27-2005, 07:21 PM
when me and oldman tested in 3.x p38 climbed abit better than p51 at some alts, think p51 was better tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

it was no spitfire but it should climb well

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 07:30 PM
"And here is a plot of the speeds I managed to obtain starting off slow, i.e. not DIVING INTO this speed but accelerating level up to it."

In my speed test I dive then slow down to 30km/h or so below expected speed, THEN apply full throttle, close radiator, etc. I go through this every time, every time people say I am diving and holding which is not the case. Tagert, if you are only getting 345mph at SL with the P-38J with devicelink or whatever it is, then it is giving you poor information. Turn your cockpit off and use the method I outlined (*AS PER OLEG*), and you will get 356mph.

Kahuna, I am glad someone is hitting the proper speed specs besides me and Stecher. As for the climb-rate, I don't do climb tests as there are too many variables. I'll let others with better methods test that stuff out. As I said speed tests have always been my thing as it is what I am most concerned about (along with actual combat/service entry dates). If the climb-rate is wrong I would send a track along with real life data to Oleg and crew, I have reported numerous bugs and inconsistencies in performance and they have benn rectified.

Bollio, also another note. You said you may try different aircraft with radiator open to see the differences. I started doing this a long time ago and found the planes to be pretty similar IIRC, at least down low. The only oddity I observed is with the Spitifre IX's automatic radiator. It can't be adjusted, but as heat increases there is no speed drop, as if it never opens. Someone may have explained why before, but I don't remember. I would be interested to see your results if you decide to try this out, particularly at altitude where differences may be more pronounced.

Edit, agree p1ngu666, P-38 should out-climb P-51 AFAIK. According to IL-2 compare the Mustang outclimbs the Lightning fairly easily which doesn't seem right (if that is the case).

Grey_Mouser67
06-27-2005, 07:42 PM
If the climb rate is off so far that would go a long ways to explaining why Lightnings can't e-fight with 109's the way I had read about! So many accounts of slow spiral climbs and counter rotating props helping tip the side to the lightning....I wouldn't dare do that against a 109 ingame no matter what the e advantage and I hesitate with a Fw unless I know I have a substantial e advantage or no other choice!

BigKahuna_GS
06-27-2005, 08:06 PM
S!


Tagert-On that note, what is the in game rated spec?


In game P38J AEP/PF Speed Specs
590kph @ 1500meters
672kph @ 8000meters (26,200ft)


I hit both these specs in speed tests. It apperas Oleg has the top speed at a higher alt. I could only hit 410-415mph at 25,800ft.

Sea level speed is not posted for either the P38J or P38L in game--not sure what Oleg used.

Can someone post the correct way to do climb rates--Oleg's way ?



__________________________________________________ _______________________
Grey_Mouser67--If the climb rate is off so far that would go a long ways to explaining why Lightnings can't e-fight with 109's the way I had read about! So many accounts of slow spiral climbs and counter rotating props helping tip the side to the lightning....I wouldn't dare do that against a 109 ingame no matter what the e advantage and I hesitate with a Fw unless I know I have a substantial e advantage or no other choice!
__________________________________________________ _______________________



There is some funny stuff going on with the 109 flight model. There is the manual prop pitch exploit giving immediate speed when going back and forth from auto to manual. No 109 would ever be doing that in real life combat for fear of burning up their engine. Also, I have heard that there is no damage modeling for slats. So if a slat is hit is is still provdiding lift instead of being a non-factor.

I have no problem mixing it up with 190s in P38J's or P38L's. The 38 does well against them. The P38L Late is a very competative aircraft.

__

TAGERT.
06-27-2005, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
What I am more concerened with is the climb rate. Tagert can you use the devicelink to test the P38J climb rate Please ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It appears your concerns are VALID!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_ROC_0ft_10kft_ROC.JPG

Note that the ROC got no where close to the rated 4000fpm. And, this was a BEST CASE senario! The way I did the test was to config the plane with 50% fule and NO ammo, thus she is running LIGHT relitive to a warbird on a mission.

As for the test itself, I dont know how *they* did it, but here is what I did. I stated at sea level, got her up to about 330mph then pulled into a about a 15? pich climb. Goal was to keep the pitch at about 15?. Here is the pitch plot

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_ROC_0ft_10kft_PITCH.JPG

And here is the altitude graph showing a climb from sea level to 10ft, which took about 2.3min to do.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_ROC_0ft_10kft_ALT.JPG

Now, maybe with a different test you could obtain 4000fpm, maybe with a large pitch and a not so sustained climb you could obtian that for a breif period of time? Does anyone have any info as to how the actul test was performed and the configuration of the plane? Im guessing they yanked it alot harder than I did and only obtained 4000fpm for a short period of time?

Here is a link to the track file and DeviceLink data
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/...8J_ROC_0FT_10KFT.zip (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_ROC_0FT_10KFT.zip)

TAGERT.
06-27-2005, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
when me and oldman tested in 3.x p38 climbed abit better than p51 at some alts, think p51 was better tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

it was no spitfire but it should climb well </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Better than a P51 and she is no Spit, well that is like saying my cell phone is smaller than a bread box. Without numbers to comp to, it really does not tell us much.

TAGERT.
06-27-2005, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
In my speed test I dive then slow down to 30km/h or so below expected speed, THEN apply full throttle, close radiator, etc. I go through this every time, every time people say I am diving and holding which is not the case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Dissagree 100%! You dont know the E state advantage you got stored up from diving down into level flight... Could take a few min to bleed that E advantage off. Which is why I took the worst case, and via level flight accelerated up to the max speed.. They dont call it max LEVEL speed for nothing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Tagert, if you are only getting 345mph at SL with the P-38J with devicelink or whatever it is, then it is giving you poor information. Turn your cockpit off and use the method I outlined (*AS PER OLEG*), and you will get 356mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well it is decision time.. Do I go with DeviceLink data or Hunde's method? Hmmmm such a hard choice to make.. NOT! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

wayno7777
06-27-2005, 08:33 PM
Just a shot at humor...
It is the best glider in game...


1. 16.89 km - 4'06" - 247 km/h - P-38J

2. 13.52 km - 5'59" - 136 km/h - Gladiator J8A

3. 12.63 km - 3'10" - 239 km/h - Bf-110G-2

4. 12.38 km - 3'26" - 216 km/h - Ki-84 Ia

5. 11.80 km - 3'20" - 212 km/h - P-47D-27

6. 11.77 km - 3'09" - 224 km/h - Bf-109F-2

7. 11.26 km - 3'03" - 221 km/h - Fw-190D-9

8. 11.21 km - 3'09" - 214 km/h - Ta-152H-1

9. 10.99 km - 3'26" - 192 km/h - Yak-9

10. 10.89 km - 3'03" - 214 km/h - Ki-61 I-Ko

11. 10.84 km - 3'04" - 212 km/h - Fw-190A-6

12. 10.66 km - 2'53" - 222 km/h - Bf-109G-6 Late

13. 10.59 km - 3'47" - 176 km/h - A6M2-21

14. 10.58 km - 3'03" - 208 km/h - P-51C

15. 10.54 km - 3'58" - 159 km/h - Ki-43 Ic

16. 10.43 km - 3'30" - 179 km/h - A6M5

17. 10.43 km - 3'36" - 174 km/h - Spitfire Mk.Vb CLP

18. 10.43 km - 3'11" - 197 km/h - Yak-1b

19. 10.40 km - 3'36" - 173 km/h - P-11c

20. 10.27 km - 3'06" - 199 km/h - Yak-7A

21. 10.09 km - 3'24" - 178 km/h - Siptfire Mk.VIII

22. 10.08 km - 2'38" - 230 km/h - Bf-109K-4

23. 10.06 km - 3'20" - 181 km/h - Siptfire Mk.IXe

24. 10.03 km - 2'57" - 204 km/h - Ki-100 I-Ko

25. 10.02 km - 3'14" - 186 km/h - Yak-3

26. 09.87 km - 3'21" - 177 km/h - Seafire Mk.III

27. 09.65 km - 2'40" - 207 km/h - Bf-109E-7Z

28. 09.06 km - 2'45" - 198 km/h - Yak-9U

29. 08.58 km - 3'00" - 172 km/h - Fiat G-50

30. 08.25 km - 3'24" - 146 km/h - I-153 M-62

31. 08.08 km - 3'18" - 147 km/h - Fiat Cr-42

32. 07.47 km - 2'31" - 178 km/h - I-16 Type 24

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

JG7_Rall
06-27-2005, 09:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Awww, isn't this cute. Aerial Target is still throwing a tantrum because hristo shot him down in a 109! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? Where have you been? I have been having my tantrum ever since the first grossly undermodelled version of the P-38 was given us in Aces Expansion Pack.

And you can laugh all you want at your incredible good fortune that the game defies historical fact. The Nazi pilots in the war would have loved this situation as much as you do. It's really too bad that they generally got their rears rent by Der Gabelschwanz Teufel on equal terms in real life, isn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you mean German pilots.

And btw, I would agree with you that in past versions, the P38 was underperforming and didn't seem to reflect the image that history painted of it in IL2. But honestly, every plane in game is +/- in a few areas, and your claims that hte P38 is undermodelled are grossly exaggerated.

And btw, ANY country that had to face the allied forces in WWII would have gotten owned. Although I'm happy the Germans weren't victorious, I do give credit where it is due, and I think they did an incredible job (esp. in the air) of taking on the British, Russians, Americans, and the rest of the allied air forces. German planes were excellent in real life -- it's unfortunate that you wont remove your d4mn blinders and realize that just because they lost the war doesn't mean that their equipment was sh1t. I would explain why the Germans lost the air war in Europe on both fronts; however, besides the fact that it would be a waste of my time, I'm sure other people here could do a better job, and I *think* you're capable of reading a history book, so pick one up and give it a try. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please excuse the tone and comments AT -- nice flying with you tonight.

TAGERT.
06-27-2005, 09:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
What I am more concerened with is the climb rate. Tagert can you use the devicelink to test the P38J climb rate Please ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>On 2nd thought! This baby may need to be toned down a bit! Same setup as before, except I closed the RAD this time and pulled a hard pitch of about 45? to 50?. And she hit well into the 5000fpm ROC! But for only about 5 seconds worth.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_ROC_AGGRESSIVE_ROC.JPG

Here is the alt

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_ROC_AGGRESSIVE_ALT.JPG

Here is the pitch

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_ROC_AGGRESSIVE_PITCH.JPG

So, did it gentel, was about half of what it should be, did it hard, and it exceeded what it should be. At this point, we can guess at what caused it to be so much beter than it should be. Which brings me back to my orginal question.. Does anyone have any more detail as to how these ROC tests were performed? The fuel load, Did it have ammo on board? Did they really pull that much pitch that close to the ground? How long did they sustain the max climb rate? Until we know those things within reason, it is hard to say, but from this test Oleg may need to clip here wings a bit! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here is the track file and DeviceLink data
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/...C_AGGRESSIVE.xls.zip (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_ROC_AGGRESSIVE.xls.zip)

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 09:30 PM
Tagert, you really are a simple ****.

And its not my method, it is OLEG'S method. Are you able to understand that or is that too difficult?

So it looks like it is decision time again; Oleg's method of determining aircraft speed, or Tagert's toy?

And wtf are you talking about? I dive, level out, allow aircraft to slow down to 30+km/h below expected speed, and then accelereate to top speed while flying LEVEL. Are you seriously going to argue this, that planes have some magical energy they call upon after they have already deccelerated and are flying level?

Instead of using fancy programs, take two minutes and try it yourself under **********************OLEGS'S********************* ** test conditions and see if you still only get 345mph at SL.

TAGERT.
06-27-2005, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Tagert, you really are a simple f***. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And and an easy f***, Need data? Ask you mom!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
And its not my method, it is OLEG'S method. Are you able to understand that or is that too difficult? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sorry, where you operating under the false impression that I give a rat a$$ about what you call your method?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
So it looks like it is decision time again; Oleg's method of determining aircraft speed, or Tagert's toy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, ask your mom! She should confirm that my toy is the choice!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
And wtf? are you talking about? I dive, level out, allow aircraft to slow down to 30+km/h below expected speed, and then accelereate to top speed while flying LEVEL. Are you seriously going to argue this, that planes have some magical energy they call upon after they have already deccelerated and are flying level? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of E do you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Instead of using fancy programs, take two minutes and try it yourself under **********************OLEGS'S********************* ** test conditions and see if you still only get 345mph at SL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sorry, you seem very upset? Will it make you feel beter if I give you a big hug?

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 09:52 PM
Still using "your mom" insults I see. Classic Tagert, your post says more about your intellectual ability and character than any comeback I could possibly formulate.

I guess you really do blow off Oleg's testing methods and believe in magical fairies that help aircraft exceed their maximum speed even after they have slowed down and continue flying level. At least we know your input is totally useless and that you consider yourself above Oleg in terms of testing.

TAGERT.
06-27-2005, 09:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Still using "your mom" insults I see. Classic Tagert, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I have been using moms for years.. Im a mother f*****

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
your post says more about your intellectual ability and character than any comeback I could possibly formulate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sorry, were you operating under the false impression that I give a rat a$$ about your inability to formulate a comback?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I guess you really do blow off Oleg's testing methods and believe in magical fairies that help aircraft exceed their maximum speed even after they have slowed down and continue flying level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If it makes you *feel* better to *belive* that be my guest

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
At least we know your input is totally useless and that you consider yourself above Oleg in terms of testing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But some moms love my input!

I love resorting to this 5th grade stuff.. makes me feel young.. Ok, call me a simple f*** again.. Oh.. no wait, how about the classic things kids like yourself do with people dont agree with them.. Say that "I know you are but what am I?" thing! That one makes me laugh hard! In short, if you dont want 5th grade respoces FROM people, simple, dont use 5th grade responce when you talk TO people. Or in a format you might understand, DONT START IT BUTT HEAD!

bolillo_loco
06-27-2005, 10:05 PM
if hunde and big K can achieve 350+ at sea level and 420 mph at 25,000 ft then it is obviously me. what about the 38L-1, the vanilla L? also test the speeds at 30,000 ft. the J and L (using derated F-30s) should be 426 mph aircraft at this altitude.

also test all three aircraft above 26,500 ft and see how quickly the power drops off, especially the 38L-5. the L-5 drops off so significantly above 23,500 ft that by 35,000 ft it can no longer climb and can barely sustain level flight.

the rates of climb for the J and L-1 are off and the higher you go the more significant it is. big kahuna apparently agrees with me on this, although I am not sure if he as any numbers from his test.

when testing the climb you must use the same methods used by those who documented real life aircraft. the clock starts as soon as you release the breaks. full ammunition should be taken and 75% to 100% fuel because this is how they tested them in real life.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 10:06 PM
You might want to recheck who started this.

I'm sorry people have to read this garbage, I am done. Hopefully Faustnik or someone else will test to show what speeds the P-38 is really capable of.

TAGERT.
06-27-2005, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
You might want to recheck who started this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I think you may want to re-check yourself! I know you feel threatened here with someone else doing speed tests now.. And doing them better than you data collection wise, but that is no excuse to call me a simple f****. I simply disagreed with your dive to alt method vs. level acceleration and your reply is to call me a simple f****? Step off son! I'm not here to steal your thunder! You can still think of yourself and call yourself the best top speed plane tester! I could care less! But, don't dish it out if you cant take it son! You should have learned that back in 1st grade let alone 5th! Ill take what ever you toss me and crank it up a notch and toss it back!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I'm sorry people have to read this garbage, I am done. Hopefully Faustnik or someone else will test to show what speeds the P-38 is really capable of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>By By!

Hunde_3.JG51
06-27-2005, 10:16 PM
Sorry Bollio didn't see your last post. A quick look at IL-2 compare shows the P-38 dropping off rapidly at 8,000m, is this incorrect? That is pretty high but in tests I have seen with the 190, the P-38 seems to be pretty strong even above 26,000 feet so maybe it is wrong. To me all planes feel pretty lousy at high altitude, I think in the next sim the high altitude modelling will be better and I will end up dodging P-47's, P-51's, and P-38's from above. Right now the high altitude model doesn't feel that great even though I am not a real pilot, and if aircraft visibility improves (which it should) then U.S. flyers will benefit even more. The U.S. built many great high altitude aircraft and the current online environment certainly doesn't help the previously mentioned aircraft, whereas the low to mid altitude performers like the 190 benefit. I expect this to change in the next sim.

TAGERT.
06-27-2005, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
the rates of climb for the J and L-1 are off and the higher you go the more significant it is. big kahuna apparently agrees with me on this, although I am not sure if he as any numbers from his test. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe, maybe not. I just did a BEST CASE test and the J exceeded the max ROC by a fair amout! But, I went into this thinking there was no way the J wuold obtain the numbers, so, I started with a BEST CASE, i.e. low fuel load and no ammo. That way no dweeb could accuse me of not hitting the numbers becuase I had the bird configured TOO HEAVY!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
when testing the climb you must use the same methods used by those who documented real life aircraft. the clock starts as soon as you release the breaks. full ammunition should be taken and 75% to 100% fuel because this is how they tested them in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting, do you have a link to that? Or can you cut-n-paste the actul report? I want my tests to match the RL data as close as posiable, up to now I have been guessing at it and using BEST CASE.. Which as you can see may be the reason it does not match up well. It would be nice to know the config, starting alt, pitch, time it took.. Then we could set up a real good test in the sim to see how it mathces up to the RL data. For example, something as simple as the RAD setting can have a big effect. I have seen some say they did it with the rad on auto and some said with it closed, does the test data your refering to say one way or another?

TAGERT.
06-28-2005, 12:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
As for the P38J, I never felt it made specs especially climb rate. Max climb rate should be 4000fpm till 23,400ft not (2,860fpm)--even critical alt climb was better than that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Until 23,400ft? WOW! I missed that the first time I read your post! So, your saying the P38J should be able to sustain a 4000fpm climb from sea level up to about 23Kft? If so, then it is way off! Beause the best I could get was about 5000fpm for about 5seconds! After that it dropped of quickly, as can be seen in the follwoing graph

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_ROC_AGGRESSIVE_ROC.JPG

Maybe I need to do one more and split the difference on the pitch? Initally I held a 15? pitch that fell short of the climb rate, then I tried a 45? pitch that exceeded it, but only for a few seocnds. Maybe a simular test with a pich of about 35? might get you up to 20Kft with a climb rate somewhere between 4000 and 3000?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Every speed or climb test I have done has been on the Crimea Map with 100% fuel, WEP, radiator closed, all other settings left on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Dang, rad closed, I missed that too the 1st time. So, I re-ran the sea level speed test. Using the same LEVEL ACCELERATION method I used before except with a fuel load of 75% and with ammo and with the rad closed. I hit the 345mph mark and got her up to 352mph (351.73) even for a short period of time, then she started to over heat and lost some ground.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_MAX_SEA_LVL_SPEED_RAD_CLOSED.jpg

Maybe Ill take another stab at that climb rate test.. Are you sure it was sustained all the way up to 25kft? That seems too good to be true?

Here is the track file and data
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/...SPEED_RAD_CLOSED.zip (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/MAX_SEA_LEVEL_SPEED/P38J_MAX_SEA_LVL_SPEED_RAD_CLOSED.zip)

3.JG51_Stecher
06-28-2005, 01:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
if hunde and big K can achieve 350+ at sea level and 420 mph at 25,000 ft then it is obviously me. what about the 38L-1, the vanilla L? also test the speeds at 30,000 ft. the J and L (using derated F-30s) should be 426 mph aircraft at this altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's what I can sustain in level flight. Crimea, 1200, wind OFF, radiator closed, 75% fuel, default loadout.

P-38J--------357 mph @SL---417 mph @25000 ft---408 mph @30000 ft
P-38L--------350 mph @SL---405 mph @25000 ft---398 mph @30000 ft
P-38L Late---366 mph @SL---441 mph @25000 ft---425 mph @30000 ft

ICDP
06-28-2005, 01:58 AM
Hi,

I did some testing myself in the P38J, Crimea, 12:00pm, 100% fuel and ammo, radiator closed.

SL speed TAS 582kph (362mph)
26,000 feet 673kph TAS (418mph)

I will test the climbrate later, I just need to get the proper procedures.

bolillo_loco
06-28-2005, 02:21 AM
stecher it is similar to what I get. do you see how the map falls off at 30,000 ft which causes the aircraft to lose its speed and climb. the 38L-5 is even worse, it begins losing its power at 23,500 ft.

tagert do you realize how impratical it is for real life people to test a 38 which burns 360 gallons per hour at full throttle to take off at 25% fuel or 50% fuel and being full throttle climbs? even when reducing to military power it still burns well over 300 gallons per hour. FYI the J10 and later 38s only carried 410 gallons of fuel internal. if you want to try and match real life data you must take ammo and 75% fuel and being the clock as soon as you begin to roll down the runway. that is just how they did it.

anarchy52
06-28-2005, 02:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
The good news is, there apparently is no conspiricy against U.S. aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that the P-38 in the game can't turn for cr a p, unlike the real thing, which could easily outturn the One Oh Nine. Airbrake turning doesn't count, as that wasn't used in real life for the same reason that it isn't a great idea in the game. I want my cloverleaf!

Oh, and the climb rates are still way off, as are compression speeds (and it shouldn't happen at all under fifteen thousand feet) and the other things I mentioned.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You guys are nuts!
P-38 Late is THE best red plane in the game and can match anything on blue side...as for turning - it can turn with 109! I was shot down in 38 only when outnumbered by 109s or bounced by 190.
It's a large, heavy aircraft with high wingloading can't really expect it to turn like a Spitfire, do you?

And I know what I'm talking about.
__
Riddler

AerialTarget
06-28-2005, 03:04 AM
Tagert, your objectivity is admirable. You have much respect from me for not "taking sides" on this issue.

Does anyone care to explain why I cannot reach anywhere near the three hundred and sixty miles per hour (http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/P-38%20J%20Sea%20Level%20Speed.ntrk) that people are saying here that they reach?

The track was made with seventy five percent fuel, on Crimea map, with clear weather and using default loadout. The radiators were closed and the aircraft was correctly trimmed (not that trim makes a difference in speed in real life).

3.JG51_Stecher
06-28-2005, 03:41 AM
P-38J--------400 mph @32500 ft---382 mph @35000 ft---40400 ft ceiling
P-38L--------389 mph @32500 ft---376 mph @35000 ft---40700 ft ceiling
P-38L Late---417 mph @32500 ft---407 mph @35000 ft---42700 ft ceiling

The ceilings take an insanely ridiculous amount of time to reach though. AerialTarget, I'll take a look.

3.JG51_Stecher
06-28-2005, 03:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Does anyone care to explain why I cannot reach anywhere near the three hundred and sixty miles per hour (http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/P-38%20J%20Sea%20Level%20Speed.ntrk) that people are saying here that they reach? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are getting the same speed. Right before you pull up towards the end, you reached 575 km/h TAS, which is 357 mph. That is EXACTLY what I am getting. You're not doing anything wrong or getting anything different. Perhaps you are looking at the gauge or speedbar? That is IAS.

AerialTarget
06-28-2005, 05:40 AM
Argh! Not again! This is the second time I've forgotten to adjust for true. At least this is more excuseable, as the difference on the deck is supposed to be negligible.

Say, isn't Crimea the map where, at sea level, your indicated airspeed is supposed to the same as true, barring wind?

Hunde_3.JG51
06-28-2005, 06:55 AM
AT, I thought that at one time also, but there is quite a difference even at SL concerning IAS vs. TAS. This holds true even on Crimea map. That is why speed tests have to be done with cockpit off, as it will give you exact TAS.

To others, remember, if you send a report to Oleg concerning the P-38, make sure you tell him that the "J" is too fast by about 11mph at SL. Just kidding.

faustnik
06-28-2005, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Thanks Faustnik, looking forward to your results. Also, I have a track with me goofing around in QMB where the Dora I am flying gets hit with about 3 .50 rounds and the whole tail section is removed. I can send you that along with my P-38L late speed test, but then again you can do the test yourself and the Dora thing may have been an isolated incident (but it does look silly). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hunde,

I couldn't come up with a test level enough to be accurate. I need to adjust trim sensitivity. I can't tell if my figures were too high due to the slight up and down motion from my trim adjustments. I will try to get a clean level run.

Did someone actually post that the P-38 doesn't turn well enough? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Anyone who thinks that, please check your wing loading figures and take anoth look. The P-38, all-versions, are very good at just about everything in 4.01.

As for climb rates, America's Hundred Thousand graphs the P-38J COMBAT power starting at 3750fpm at SL to 2500fpm at 25,000 ft.

TAGERT.
06-28-2005, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
tagert do you realize how impratical it is for real life people to test a 38 which burns 360 gallons per hour at full throttle to take off at 25% fuel or 50% fuel and being full throttle climbs? even when reducing to military power it still burns well over 300 gallons per hour. FYI the J10 and later 38s only carried 410 gallons of fuel internal. if you want to try and match real life data you must take ammo and 75% fuel and being the clock as soon as you begin to roll down the runway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of BEST CASE are you having trouble with? As I said, I came into this with the impression that the J was not able to obtain the rated SL speed. Therefore to HEAD OFF any anal A's who would have said

"take less fuel and no ammo as *they* would have during a state side *test*"

In that they would be as correct as you are, in that neither they nor you have provided any information in this thread that states they used 75% fuel and ammo. Dont get me wrong, I understand your *reasoning* but you seem to fail in understanding mine. I just wanted to head the nay sayers off at the pass and do the BEST CASE from the get go, then the nay saying have no leg to stand on and can not beeeyach about it. Also note, that when I re-did the SL test I used 609IAP_Kahuna setup with 75% fuel and ammo, in that after reading his post it appears that the SL speed was obtainable, so no NEED for the BEST CASE configuration anymore.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
that is just how they did it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. Maybe not, just know that you have not provided any information here to support that claim.

TAGERT.
06-28-2005, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Tagert, your objectivity is admirable. You have much respect from me for not "taking sides" on this issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks! Unlike some, I have no axe to gride, no fear of the 38J killing my 190 or 109, I just want it to be as real as it can be.. And hitting the numbers +/-5mph should be a doable thing, but, not something I would loose alot of sleep over. Unless all the allied planes were 5mph too fast/slow, and all the axis planes with 5mph too slow/fast, then you got a 10mph difference that could start adding up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Does anyone care to explain why I cannot reach anywhere near the three hundred and sixty miles per hour that people are saying here that they reach? The track was made with seventy five percent fuel, on Crimea map, with clear weather and using default loadout. The radiators were closed and the aircraft was correctly trimmed (not that trim makes a difference in speed in real life). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ill take a look at it tonight when I get home. I can not get close to 360 either! Not in a level acceleration top speed test, the only ones that hit those numbers use a *different* method. I can pull out the DeviceLink variables and *see* exactly what you were doing second by second.. I can check your trim setting, your rpm, your engine temp, every variable within DL and see what it is you did or did not do, but, from your post after this I get the impression that you were higher than 50ft off the deck? At which point you would/should take into consideration the difference between TAS and IAS. It is a simple equation that can be applied.

sunflower1
06-28-2005, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(not that trim makes a difference in speed in real life). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Trimming an airplane correctly doesn't affect speed in real life?

p1ngu666
06-28-2005, 10:43 AM
trimming produces less drag i think.

tagart, your doing a zoom climb there.

the climb rate will go down with height in a line or a curve with p38 as it keeps the same engine power upto critical alt (because of turbo)

the 4000, or 3750 or other figures u should be able to reach at best climb speed which someone else will haveto give you cos i dont know what it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

AVGWarhawk
06-28-2005, 11:55 AM
There is just one issue I have here concerning the performance, etc. etc. of any of these planes in the game. Do any of these "tests" consider other variables that affect engine performance? Has ambient air temperture played a roll? Is humidity factored in? What about mass air pressure at altitude. All these factors influence performance.

bolillo_loco
06-28-2005, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
tagert do you realize how impratical it is for real life people to test a 38 which burns 360 gallons per hour at full throttle to take off at 25% fuel or 50% fuel and being full throttle climbs? even when reducing to military power it still burns well over 300 gallons per hour. FYI the J10 and later 38s only carried 410 gallons of fuel internal. if you want to try and match real life data you must take ammo and 75% fuel and being the clock as soon as you begin to roll down the runway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of BEST CASE are you having trouble with? As I said, I came into this with the impression that the J was not able to obtain the rated SL speed. Therefore to HEAD OFF any anal A's who would have said

"take less fuel and no ammo as *they* would have during a state side *test*"

In that they would be as correct as you are, in that neither they nor you have provided any information in this thread that states they used 75% fuel and ammo. Dont get me wrong, I understand your *reasoning* but you seem to fail in understanding mine. I just wanted to head the nay sayers off at the pass and do the BEST CASE from the get go, then the nay saying have no leg to stand on and can not beeeyach about it. Also note, that when I re-did the SL test I used 609IAP_Kahuna setup with 75% fuel and ammo, in that after reading his post it appears that the SL speed was obtainable, so no NEED for the BEST CASE configuration anymore.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
that is just how they did it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. Maybe not, just know that you have not provided any information here to support that claim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tagert 3 books, americas hundred thousand, warren bodies the 38 lightning, and the pilots manual, pick up a copy of any and you will see that in real life they did not test climb rates in the manner in which you are.

america's hundred thousand, the 3,800 fpm figure for the 38j/l is at a take off weight of 17,500lbs

38 lightning warren bodie, 4000 fpm climb sea level, 2,900 fpm 23,400 feet, climb to 23,400 ft 6.19 minutes. the book states that take off weight was 16,597 lbs. I am not sure if it is a misprint or accurate, the 16,597 lb figure is what I mean. it states that full ammunition ballast was taken. 16,597lbs would be a 38J/L with about 50% fuel. take off and warm up burned about another 50 gallons, the climb would burn another 36-40 gallons of fuel (look it up in the pilot's manual for take off and climb). it sounds very dangerous to me to take off with an aircraft so low on fuel and climb to altitude at full power and not allow for any fuel reserve. its possible that is how they did it, the book isnt specific. FYI if the aircraft in bodies book was tested like that after the climb to 23,400 ft the 38 would have less than 25% fuel onboard.

now let me explain to you why the real life 38 was always tested with either full ammunition and armament or an equivalent ballast. The P-38 carried 700+ lbs of ammunition in its nose several feet ahead of the CG. w/o this weight it caused negative effects on the flight characteristics of the 38 because it became tail heavy. from what I read it wasnt difficult to control, its just that the pilot had to take into account that w/o ammo or ballast in the nose he had to be more careful in how he handled the aircraft. the photo recon lightings had to have ballast added to the nose to restore the center of gravity because the cameras were lighter than 4 50 cal, 1 20mm, 2000 rds 50 cal, 150 rds 20mm, and the installation equipement for said armament. so now you see why it is impractical to reduce the 38's weight by 700+ lbs by dropping the armament.

pick up any pilots manual on any american aircraft and you will see that the method for testing climb was, begin clock at release of breaks and maintain best IAS for climb. it was SOP for all aircraft and that is how the data was obtained. every american WWII fighter

I cannot post any pics from books nor will I copy any at presant because I am not willing to put up with my drunk sister. I was there last night and I wish I would have seen this post. I spent 8 hours making copys and listening to my sisters insanity and resentments the drunker she got.

ICDP
06-28-2005, 12:52 PM
This is a great thread, thanks to everyone for participating in a rational manner. I love the P38, it is my favourite US fighter (and possibly favourite ever) so I want it to be modelled as perfect as possible. Currently it still suffers from control lock up at to low airspeed, it is now a very capable turner (as it should be). Overall it is a big improvement over the 3.04 version IMHO.

Bollio thanks for the info on correct procedures for testing the climbrate of US fighters. Could you enlighten me further by telling me if the climb was done at COMBAT or MIL power?

I will test the P38 climbrate when I get more time.

Again thanks all for the excellent info on one of my favourite fighters.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-28-2005, 01:28 PM
No problem Faustnik, thanks for trying. I think most people are generally getting the same speed now with the max speed of the "J" being about 356 at SL and 415mph at 25,000, and the "L Late" being about 365mph at SL and 440mph at 25,000 feet. Not bad. It seems the "J" is too fast down low, but may fall away too quickly above 26,000 or so.

AVGWarhawk
06-28-2005, 01:30 PM
I still do not understand how a thread on a game can get so long when so many factors concerning speed and a particular aircraft are electronically recreated as opposed to actual physical test. There are too many variables concerning speed that supposed "tests" on a computer in your den warrants 4 pages of discussion. To what end is this discussion? What will you really obtain here?

Hunde_3.JG51
06-28-2005, 01:39 PM
Warhawk, I'm not sure what you mean. We are talking about the plane's speed In-game vs. real life data. There are specific guidelines when testing that ensure you get what Oleg and crew intended. As to "what end", I guess it is a simple matter of people being passionate about a certain aircraft and they want it modelled as accurately as possible (which I think is everyone's goal). Also, knowing the capabilities of your, and your opponents aircraft makes you more effective online.

Having said that, I normally wouldn't spend this much time on a thread, or the forum, but I tweaked my back pretty good and I am hopped up on painkillers right now so I am stationary/stagnant at the moment.

bolillo_loco
06-28-2005, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
No problem Faustnik, thanks for trying. I think most people are generally getting the same speed now with the max speed of the "J" being about 356 at SL and 415mph at 25,000, and the "L Late" being about 365mph at SL and 440mph at 25,000 feet. Not bad. It seems the "J" is too fast down low, but may fall away too quickly above 26,000 or so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will agree with that

I wanted to test some more aircraft, but just havent found the time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I tested the P-38J model climb today. I made an oline map and used crimea (spelling?)

P-38J radiator open engine over heat turned on 0 wind effects 100% fuel and ammo 54" map used during entire climb. I am trying to duplicate the pilot's manual. clock began at break release and I tried to maintain 150-170 mph ias

5,000 ft 2.25 minutes 15 seconds late
10,000 ft 4.5 minutes 30 seconds late
15,000 ft 6.75 minutes 1:45 seconds late
20,000 ft 9.5 minutes 2:30 seconds late

in order to match the Pilots manual I had to drop to 75% fuel and use WEP during the climb, then it matched the pilots manual.

warren bodies data from "the lockeed P-38 Lightning"

climb to 23,400 ft 6.19 minutes P-38J 16,500 ish lbs. I used 50% fuel 100% ammo to duplicate the weight of the Lightning in bodies book.

5,000 1.75 min
10,000 3.25 min
15,000 5.0 min
20,000 6.75 min
23,400 8.0 min 1.7 minutes too slow.

when dropping fuel in the 38 it doest impact the climb very much considering that at 75% fuel the 38 is 615 lbs/280 kg lighter, 50% fuel it is 1,230 lbs/558 kg lighter, and at 25% fuel it is 1,845 lbs/837 kg lighter. ammunition weighs about 720lbs

AerialTarget
06-28-2005, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Did someone actually post that the P-38 doesn't turn well enough? Anyone who thinks that, please check your wing loading figures and take anoth look. The P-38, all-versions, are very good at just about everything in 4.01. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I posted that. Aside from what we can clearly see in footage (watch the Roaring Glory video!), we have at least one (I think two or three) real life P-38 pilots who have tried the game's P-38 and said that it doesn't turn or roll as well as the real thing. You can talk about wingloading all you want; what you are forgetting is that the real life P-38 had nearly twice the climb rate. Climb rate is a great factor in turn fights.

It's like the roll intertia issue. People with no knowledge of the P-38 Lightning posted things like, "It's simple physics! Look at the weight of the thing; it's twice what other fighters had, so it simply had to have twice the delay in roll rate." Regardless of their logic and any mathematical figures that they can come up with (which, by the way, there were not any of), the fact remains that you can clearly see, in real life, Jeff roll it back and forth at cruise speed within a few seconds with absolutely no delay. I will see what I can do about ripping a few seconds worth of the video and posting it side by side with a track.

Don't get me wrong; I'm happier with the new, incorrect roll intertia than with the old, non-existent roll intertia, even though it means that the P-38 suffers from an unrealistic disadvantage. Overdone physics is better than no physics. But the fact is that the roll inertia, at least when going into the roll, is greatly overdone, to the detriment of the game's P-38.

As for how capable the P-38 is in the game, would you care to fly it against me in a One Oh Nine in Warclouds and prove it? I don't use the propeller pitch exploit or trim on a slider, so it should be even easier to fight me than the average One Oh Nine pilot on Warclouds.

p1ngu666
06-28-2005, 05:40 PM
wasnt it surposed to have more entia because of the engines in the wings?

faustnik
06-28-2005, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:

You can talk about wingloading all you want; what you are forgetting is that the real life P-38 had nearly twice the climb rate.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhh, where do you get this?

CUJO_1970
06-28-2005, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
stecher it is similar to what I get. do you see how the map falls off at 30,000 ft which causes the aircraft to lose its speed and climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


bolillo,


The problem you are having at or above 30,000ft may be a limitation of FB's physics engine. A lot of wierdness occurs in FB above 30,000.

Oleg has said himself that FB is not accurate above 30,000ft.

TAGERT.
06-28-2005, 09:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
tagert 3 books, americas hundred thousand, warren bodies the 38 lightning, and the pilots manual, pick up a copy of any and you will see that in real life they did not test climb rates in the manner in which you are.

america's hundred thousand, the 3,800 fpm figure for the 38j/l is at a take off weight of 17,500lbs

38 lightning warren bodie, 4000 fpm climb sea level, 2,900 fpm 23,400 feet, climb to 23,400 ft 6.19 minutes. the book states that take off weight was 16,597 lbs. I am not sure if it is a misprint or accurate, the 16,597 lb figure is what I mean. it states that full ammunition ballast was taken. 16,597lbs would be a 38J/L with about 50% fuel. take off and warm up burned about another 50 gallons, the climb would burn another 36-40 gallons of fuel (look it up in the pilot's manual for take off and climb). it sounds very dangerous to me to take off with an aircraft so low on fuel and climb to altitude at full power and not allow for any fuel reserve. its possible that is how they did it, the book isnt specific. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>50% fuel? Huh, not the 75% you initially stated? So in *that* manor they actually were doing it like I *was*. And just to be CRYSTAL, The *reasoning* behind trying it 1st with a BEST CASE (50% fuel and no-ammo) is if the BEST CASE did not work, there is no need in trying it with a more REALISTIC CASE. Problem with my 1st test was I didn't realize you guys were doing it with the RAD closed. Since then I have re-run the SL test with 75% fuel and Default ammo and RAD CLOSED and hit the 345mph mark with ease and got up to 352mph! That is a +7mph error (352-345) which is not a big deal imho.

On the subject of top SL speed, you show me someone getting 355mph+ and Ill show you one of 3 things:

1) Someone that does not have a track file of such an event.
2) Someone that has a track file that does not show the points leading up to that event or the points just after it.
3) Someone that has a track but didn't realise they were not flying level and were bouncing up and down, and on one of the down sides obtained 355+ for a few seconds but could not sustain it.

Which is why track files are so important, because each *claim* can be verified independly via Device Link! I would be very suspect of anyone that makes a claim and does not have a track file of it that shows a fair amount of time leading up to and past the event.

For example, if they don't show the points leading up to the tops speed, you don't know if hey dived down from the heavens, and then leveled out and then started recording the track file. That is why I always record well ahead and well after the event so anyone can see how the test was done and recreate it themselves.. aka the scientific method! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
FYI if the aircraft in bodies book was tested like that after the climb to 23,400 ft the 38 would have less than 25% fuel onboard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is a lot imho for state side testing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
now let me explain to you why the real life 38 was always tested with either full ammunition and armament or an equivalent ballast. The P-38 carried 700+ lbs of ammunition in its nose several feet ahead of the CG. w/o this weight it caused negative effects on the flight characteristics of the 38 because it became tail heavy. from what I read it wasn't difficult to control, its just that the pilot had to take into account that w/o ammo or ballast in the nose he had to be more careful in how he handled the aircraft. the photo recon lightings had to have ballast added to the nose to restore the center of gravity because the cameras were lighter than 4 50 cal, 1 20mm, 2000 rds 50 cal, 150 rds 20mm, and the installation equipement for said armament. so now you see why it is impractical to reduce the 38's weight by 700+ lbs by dropping the armament. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No need to explain, in that I knew that. But many a P38 managed to make it home after expending all of there ammo, unless your suggesting they did a mid flight ballast insertion? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Which leads me back again to my *initial* reasoning, if the BEST CASE could not hit the number than no need trying the REALISTIC CASE. I typically always do my testing starting with the BEST CASE and working towards the REALISTIC CASE. So, in summary, out of the 2 things *they* did for max speed testing I was actually right to use 50% and not 75% which you had said was the way *they* tested it in a previous post, but now say 50% but I was in error to use no ammo. Not too bad for not having any books on it and just using common since! Especially in light of my intentional BEST CASE method.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
pick up any pilots manual on any american aircraft and you will see that the method for testing climb was, begin clock at release of breaks and maintain best IAS for climb. it was SOP for all aircraft and that is how the data was obtained. every american WWII fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sounds reasonable, this once again goes back to my BEST CASE method.. If I can not obtain the correct climb rates starting from an air born status than there is no way I would hit the number starting from a stopped position on the ground. But, in light of your information I will do it that way next time! Thanks for the information! This does explain how I hit the 5000fpm numbers! That would not be possible to do if you start off from the runway and just start climbing!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I cannot post any pics from books nor will I copy any at present because I am not willing to put up with my drunk sister. I was there last night and I wish I would have seen this post. I spent 8 hours making copys and listening to my sisters insanity and resentments the drunker she got. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, no rush! You provided enough info I think to do the tests now. But, it would be cool if you could get the pics of the graphs too!

Gibbage1
06-28-2005, 10:50 PM
I see 5 pages of claims, but not a single track to back up anyones claims. Im not calling everyone a lier, just the ones with FW-190's in there sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

faustnik
06-28-2005, 10:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I see 5 pages of claims, but not a single track to back up anyones claims. Im not calling everyone a lier, just the ones with FW-190's in there sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

****.

3.JG51_Stecher
06-28-2005, 11:21 PM
I know you're joking about us, but there were tracks offered in this thread.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-28-2005, 11:28 PM
PM me with your e-mail address and I'll send you the track I was offering on page one. I'll even include a nifty FW-190 pic to use as your new sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Order within the next ten minutes and recieve a Kurt Tank teddy bear at no cost to you.

TAGERT.
06-28-2005, 11:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
PM me with your e-mail address and I'll send you the track I was offering on page one. I'll even include a nifty FW-190 pic to use as your new sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Order within the next ten minutes and recieve a Kurt Tank teddy bear at no cost to you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is that offer good to eveyone? If so, send me a copy at my new email address

ubi_forum_data@yahoo.com

Thanks! Ill let you know which of the 3 catogorys you fall in! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PS no joke on email addr, yahoo is neat like that!

Gibbage1
06-29-2005, 12:08 AM
I have my own web server and have offered to host tracks and small files for people and have done so many times even when its proof against my beliefs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But give it to Tag as he will be able to be more scientific with it. I dont know how to use that Device link stuff at all.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-29-2005, 12:08 AM
"Ill let you know which of the 3 catogorys you fall in!"

Obviously you think you are someone special to propose to judge me. Unfortunately I know what catagory you fall into so there is no way I am supplying you with my track so you can fabricate and twist what is there. After your long history of being one of/if not the most obnoxious, vulgar, and rude persons on the forum do you think I would give you another opportunity to pop off at the mouth. Your posts in this thread (and all of the threads you have posted in) tell what kind of person you are, so I will stay uninvolved where you are concerned.

Feel free to go on some sort of rant and break this post down sentence by sentence as you always do. Go ahead and say that I am trying to hide something. Feel free to imply that you are having sex with my mom, or whatever you see fit. In the end you are still one of the most hated people on this forum because of your attitude. People read your posts for a laugh, nothing more. But they are not laughing with you. You mean nothing to me, so you will get nothing from me. Not even the satisfaction of a debate or argument.

If anyone else with the exception of two others (who I will not name) would like to view the track just send me your e-mail address. Gibbage, Bollio, Faustnik, etc., just ask and I'll send it, as I respect your opinion and integrity.

TAGERT.
06-29-2005, 12:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Obviously you think you are someone special to propose to judge me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Judge? Not judge, categorize.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Unfortunately I know what category you fall into </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, ok, typical double standards, Ok for them to judge, but nobody else.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
so there is no way I am supplying you with my track so you can fabricate and twist what is there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry that your so ignorant about Device Link data! There is no way to fabricate and or twist the data, in that anyone can extract the same data. Thus if I did try to fabricate and or twist it, anyone with half a brain would be able to detect it by simply extracting the data and comparing it to mine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
After your long history of being one of/if not the most obnoxious, vulgar, and rude persons on the forum do you think I would give you another opportunity to pop off at the mouth. Your posts in this thread (and all of the threads you have posted in) tell what kind of person you are, so I will stay uninvolved where you are concerned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, you can dish it out but cant take it, but we already knew that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Feel free to go on some sort of rant and break this post down sentence by sentence as you always do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I can not tell you how happy it makes me to know that it bothers you so much! Thanks for the feedback!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Feel free to imply that you are having sex with my mom, or whatever you see fit. In the end you are still one of the most hated people on this forum because of your attitude. People read your posts for a laugh, nothing more. But they are not laughing with you. You mean nothing to me, so you will get nothing from me. Not even the satisfaction of a debate or argument. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey, that offer I made to you still stands! A big hug can do wonders!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
If anyone else with the exception of two others (who I will not name) would like to view the track just send me your e-mail address. Gibbage, Bollio, Faustnik, etc., just ask and I'll send it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok, so Ill have to add a 4th category:
4) someone that has a track file but will not provide it because in doing so would expose themselves for what they really are.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-29-2005, 12:36 AM
"Ok, so Ill have to add a 4th category:
4) someone that has a track file but will not provide it because in doing so would expose themselves for what they really are."

Almost everyone here is getting the exact same reults, so there is nothing to expose. And read again, I am not willing to provide the track to you specifically (for the reasons already stated). Btw, I am not bothered at all, I find you amusing like everyone else.

TAGERT.
06-29-2005, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Almost everyone here is getting the exact same reults, so there is nothing to expose </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Than nothing to worry about.. Right? Yet you are worried! Hmmm, that speaks volumes imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
And read again, I am not willing to provide the track to you specifically (for the reasons already stated). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Read again, it is my category, of which you fall into.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Btw, I am not bothered at all, I find you amusing like everyone else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So, in light of this little debate/argument we are having right now.. Does that mean you were lying when you said

"Not even the satisfaction of a debate or argument"

Just a few posts ago? What else are you lying about? The 355+ speeds? Do you lie alot, or a little? Or just when you trying to hide somthing?

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 12:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Uhh, where do you get this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am using Bolillo's figures compared with his and my own game data. To be honest, "nearly twice" is a bit of a stretch; it's about three fourths of what it should be at low altitude, by Bolillo's figures, and worse at altitude.

faustnik
06-29-2005, 12:50 AM
Oh, OK, I don't think Bolillo has come to a firm conclusion yet, maybe you should wait before making a judgement.

I will take you up on you P-38 vs. LW a/c offer. I been flying the P-38 a little lately and like it very much. It has a lot of advantages over the Fw190As in PF. You can take my Fw190A8/9 and I'll take the P-38L late. We can change planes and mix it up too, should be fun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 12:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
if you send a report to Oleg concerning the P-38, make sure you tell him that the "J" is too fast by about 11mph at SL. Just kidding. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am keeping this in mind, and if I find that it is true, I want the P-38 J in the game to be eleven miles per hour slower at sea level than it is now. I am more objective about this glorious machine than is readily apparent.

faustnik
06-29-2005, 12:54 AM
AT,

I'm on at HL now.

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 12:56 AM
Ah, ah! I said One Oh Nine! But still, I shall try my hand at the Focke Wulf. I'm not afraid of losing; in fact, I'm used to it! I'm currently going through a sort of identity crisis; I wish I had registered my name as Lawn Dart instead of Aerial Target. I think Lawn Dart is better.

I can't run Hyperlobby, but I join Warclouds by direct internet protocol. I'm heading there now. See you in the virtual skies!

TAGERT.
06-29-2005, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I am keeping this in mind, and if I find that it is true, I want the P-38 J in the game to be eleven miles per hour slower at sea level than it is now. I am more objective about this glorious machine than is readily apparent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You show me someone getting 355mph+ in a J and Ill show you one of 4 things:

1) Someone that does not have a track file of such an event.
2) Someone that has a track file that does not show the points leading up to that event or the points just after it.
3) Someone that has a track but didn't realise they were not flying level and were bouncing up and down, and on one of the down sides obtained 355+ for a few seconds but could not sustain it.
4) someone that has a track file but will not provide it because in doing so would expose themselves for what they really are.

faustnik
06-29-2005, 12:59 AM
Yes, 7/jg77_Faustnik on HL, please page me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
06-29-2005, 01:00 AM
AT, like I said I was just kidding. The P-38 has been riddled with many problems (early compression, ridiculous gun/nose-shake when firing, odd roll, etc), I think it deserves some sort of benefit no matter how small it is. If you want any tracks AT, let me know and I'll send them, but then again you got 357mph (with P-38J at SL) with the track you already provided on page 4 of this thread *HINT* *HINT* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 01:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I can't run Hyperlobby, but I join Warclouds by direct internet protocol. I'm heading there now. See you in the virtual skies! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Warclouds is having difficulty. If you can give me an address, I will join it.

faustnik
06-29-2005, 01:05 AM
Please go to PM.

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 01:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
You show me someone getting 355mph+ in a J </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert, I thought the same thing as you, but apparently I made an error in not calculating to find true airspeed on the deck. Look at my track (http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/P-38%20J%20Sea%20Level%20Speed.ntrk); Stecher and Hunde say that I got three hundred and fifty seven miles per hour true airspeed. I haven't done my own conversion calculation yet, but they're probably right. I made a really hard turn right before levelling out, to make sure that I had no residual energy. I now also have a better track, with less waffling up and down, if you want that.

Do you know what the barometric pressure in Crimea is?

TAGERT.
06-29-2005, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Tagert, I thought the same thing as you, but apparently I made an error in not calculating to find true airspeed on the deck. Look at my track; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>At that low of an alt it does not make much difference, yet, I still calculated it using the 2%/1000ft correction for TAS. And here are the corsponding plots from your test.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/AT/AT_TAS.JPG

As you can see, you never got past 350mph, your max at 348.53mph at 124sec.

As an added bones I plotted your alt so you can see how well you kept it level.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/AT/AT_ALT.JPG

Not bad! As you can see the initial shallow dive you did after the start about he time you closed the RAD, and you can see the pull up you did at the end just as the engines were overheating.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Stecher and Hunde say that I got three hundred and fifty seven miles per hour true airspeed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I don't know what to *say* other than some just *say* what they did/do and and others *show* what they did/do. Here is a link to the data file I extracted from Device Link and put into EXCEL.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/...38J_SL_MAX_SPEED.xls (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/AT/AT_P38J_SL_MAX_SPEED.xls)

The tab called "AT_P38J_SL_MAX_SPEED" is the original DL data in meters, kph, etc. The tab called "CALC" is where I do my conversions from meters, kph to feet, mph, IAS to TAS, etc. All the equations are there for anyone to look at, so, if you find a mistake, please let me know, but I verified a few of the IAS to TAS calcs via this web sight

http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html

They round off the alt to 1000ft where as I don't, thus, my TAS numbers are even larger than theirs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I haven't done my own conversion calculation yet, but they're probably right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>At this point I will have to disagree, unless *they* care to expand on their method of calculating IAS to TAS, which would have to be very different than mine to account for that much of an error. Keep in mind, at low alts IAS and TAS are almost equal, which my calculations show. But, I tested my calculations for higher alts and they match (actually better) than the Java script at that web sight I listed above.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I made a really hard turn right before levelling out, to make sure that I had no residual energy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Saw that, a very good *method* that some here wont agree with, but I fully agree with.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I now also have a better track, with less waffling up and down, if you want that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It wasn't too bad, at least you didn't rise up slowly and come down hard. Which is about the only way you could hit the numbers others are saying they are hitting imho. But, we will never know, because the *others* are very secretive about what and how they did it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Do you know what the barometric pressure in Crimea is? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, sorry.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-29-2005, 03:51 AM
"At this point I will have to disagree, unless *they* care to expand on their method of calculating IAS to TAS, which would have to be very different than mine to account for that much of an error."

Turn manual view control on before starting AT's track, start track, turn cockpit off (Ctl F1). TAS is presented there as a digital readout, no conversions needed. This was mentioned in my first post in this thread. You had to know about this already?

If you went through all of this, posting charts, links, etc., when all you had to do is hit Ctl F1 to turn off cockpit to get TAS, this will be the funniest thing I have ever seen on a forum.

bolillo_loco
06-29-2005, 04:31 AM
I was under the asumption that everybody was using the hud display with cockpit off which gives TAS in Km per hour?????? that is what I have been using. why would it be different from a/c to a/c? to try and calculate TAS from IAS??? why??

Blackdog5555
06-29-2005, 04:44 AM
Yes..And Tagerts chart shows he quit the tests while still accellerating. His speed never leveled off. But a scene shot with cockpit off works better. Anyway statistics dont lie.

bolillo_loco
06-29-2005, 05:09 AM
here is what I have found on the P-38J

rate of roll, I could not get accurate readings below 200 mph ias

P-38J

200 6 seconds 60 DPS + 13 DPS
250 6 seconds 60 DPS - 3 DPS
300 8 seconds 45 DPS - 35 DPS
350 10 seconds 36 DPS -17 DPS
400 12 seconds 30 DPS

P-38L-1-LO

200 6 seconds 60 DPS +7DPS
250 5.5 seconds 65 DPS -6 DPS
300 4.5 seconds 80 DPS -3 DPS
350 4 seconds 90 DPS +3 DPS
400 4 seconds 90 DPS

TOP SPEED

P-38J

572kmh/357mph +12 mph @ sea level
670kmh/419mph -3 mph @ 26,500 ft
630kmh/394mph -32 mph @ 30,000 ft

P-38L-1-LO

560kmh/350mph sea level +5 mph
654kmh/409mph 26,400 ft -13 mph
630kmh/394mph 30,000 ft -32 mph

CLIMB RATE

both the 38J and 38L-1 had nearly identical rates of climb, as they should since both aircraft have identical weights and the F-30 allisions in the 38L-1 were derated to the exact same H.P. as the F-17s in the 38J

DUPLICATION OF BODIE'S BOOK

IN GAME

38J take off weight 16,469 lbs 8 min to 23,400 ft. average ROC 2,925 fpm

BODIE

38J take off weight 16,597 lbs 6.19 min to 23,400 ft. average ROC 3,780 fpm

the in game 38J was on average 855 fpm slower than bodie's information

DUPLICATION OF PILOTS MANUAL

GAME

38J take off weight 100% fuel and ammo ie 17,400-17,699 lbs 54" map used/2850 total hp

9.5 min to 20,000 ft average ROC 2,105 fpm

PILOTS MANUAL

7.0 min to 20,000 ft average ROC 2,875 fpm

I could not duplicate the pilot manual's figures for ROC. in order to duplicate them I had to drop 615lbs off the 38J and use 350 more hp. the P-38 climbed on average 770 fpm slower than real life specifications.

I used a P-38J and L-1 to try and duplicate bodies information. all aircraft tested had a take off weight of 15,132 lbs (no ammo 25% fuel) which is 1,465 lbs lighter than the information in bodies book. during this test the 38's climb on average was 180 fpm slower than bodies information even thought it was 1,465 lbs lighter


conclusions:

38J at sea level has a moderate speed advantage, at 26,500ft it is close w/ a very slight disadvantage to many publications, and at 30,000 ft it is significantly slower than many publications. its rate of climb is on average 850 fpm too slow up to critical altitude. its rate of roll is close to published data below 250 mph ias, but above that speed it rolls significantly slower than published data

38L-1 at sea level has a very slight speed advantage, at critical altitude it is moderately slower than published data, and at 30,000 ft is significantly slower than published data. its rate of climb is on average 850 fpm too slow up to critical altitude. its rate of roll is so close to internet data as to make any errors of no importance. unfortunately I have never seen any published roll data for P-38s with boosted ailerons.

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 05:47 AM
Nice! I have one thing to add; Kahuna showed me last night that the P-38 in the game does not have the same best climb speed as the real P-38. The pilot's handbook says that the average best climb speed is one hundred and sixty miles per hour, and goes on to list climb speeds, all of them higher than one hundred and sixty miles per hour, at various altitudes.

In the game, however, the P-38's best climb speed is between a hundred and fifty miles per hour and a hundred miles per hour. So not only do we have this unrealistic problem (which may actually be an unrealistic advantage), but it may affect your climb rate figures, for better or for worse. Did you try climbing at those low speeds? I could not exceed a two thousand five hundred feet per minute sustained climb at war emergency power, but then I didn't try very methodically as I was trying to stay with Kahuna.

If it does turn out that the P-38 is, as your figures indicate, severely nerfed in the climb department, do you think that this might have an impact on its turn radius? What makes me think of this was Arthur Heiden's statement about the P-38's incredible rate of climb making it a very good turner, better than the P-51. Speaking of turning, have you done tests for sustained turn times?

I will do some more speed testing and some turn testing of my own tomorrow, but don't expect miracles - that track of my speed test shows just what kind of test pilot I'd make!

"The Thirty Eight was an interceptor and with both engines, you always knew you could outclimb any other airplane, and that's what wins dogfights. When you are in a dogfight below tree tops, it was way more comfortable in a Thirty Eight, with its power and stall characteristics and, for that matter at any altitude."

- Captain Arthur W. Heiden

3.JG51_Stecher
06-29-2005, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
You show me someone getting 355mph+ in a J and Ill show you one of 4 things:

1) Someone that does not have a track file of such an event.
2) Someone that has a track file that does not show the points leading up to that event or the points just after it.
3) Someone that has a track but didn't realise they were not flying level and were bouncing up and down, and on one of the down sides obtained 355+ for a few seconds but could not sustain it.
4) someone that has a track file but will not provide it because in doing so would expose themselves for what they really are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, this (http://flygirl.dnsalias.com:8080/jg51/P-38J%20going%20357%20mph%20@SL.ntrk) should put any doubt to rest. When the track starts, turn the cockpit off with Ctrl-F1 and hit F8 for the behind view. Then just look at the TAS read-out. As those who watch can clearly see, I reach the deck over 100 km/h slower than my eventual top speed. Once reaching 575 km/h, I then hold it in level flight just off the water for almost 2 minutes until I end recording. This shows the before/during/after of reaching 357 mph @SL with a P-38J. I'm sorry, I don't fit into one of your 4 categories Tagert.

TAGERT.
06-29-2005, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Yes..And Tagerts chart shows he quit the tests while still accellerating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>New Flash for you bright eyes! That last plot was not my track! Sorry, I know how badly you wanted to be right. As for still accellerating, no, sorry, take a look at the corsponding alt plot and note that near the 124sec mark he began a dive. The increase in speed just before he pulled out was due to the acceleration of gravity, not level flight! and yet he still didnt hit the numbers some people claime to be hitting!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
His speed never leveled off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, take a look at the alt, he was slightly bouncing. If you want to take passs judement on me and my flying, take a at my SL test a page or two back where the most I got was 352mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
But a scene shot with cockpit off works better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true! A sceen shot does not tell you what was happening just prior to the screen shot or what happned just after. For exaple, with a screen shot you wouldnt be able to see how his change in alt caused that incresse in speed that you missinterpted for still accelerating, as in level acceleration.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Anyway statistics dont lie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This aint statistics son!

And for the rest of you, I can not tell you how funny it is that AFTER I HAVE PROVE YOU WRONG is when you start to complaine about the use of DeviceLink data and sugest the WonderWoman view to read TAS. That speaks volumes imho! I dont know what is funnier, you all beating the ground with sticks and looking up in the sky as if IAS -&gt; TAS is some kind of black magic, or your excuse making band wagon to ignore DeviceLink data. Both are too funny imho! And just so you know, I think Oleg would laugh just as hard if you presented him with a screen shot instead of a track file where they themselfs have the ability to extract all the DeviceLink data and more!

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 09:29 AM
I think they're right about the Wonder Woman view. While I won't use it, and don't even have a key mapped to it, there's almost certainly something (barometric pressure?) that you are not accounting for in your conversion calculations (and that I probably will fail to account for if I ever get around to my own conversion calculations).

TAGERT.
06-29-2005, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I think they're right about the Wonder Woman view. While I won't use it, and don't even have a key mapped to it, there's almost certainly something (barometric pressure?) that you are not accounting for in your conversion calculations (and that I probably will fail to account for if I ever get around to my own conversion calculations). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There are more complex IAS to TAS equations, but at low alt it would be in the noise (less than 1 mph) and thus not account for a 5mph delta. At low alts like this (aka sea level) IAS and TAS are nerly equal, but, but I didnt assume that! I still applied the 2% per 1000ft rule. In light of the fact that the simple rule is blowing peoples minds I dont think doing the more complex conversion will help them either. Ill take a look at Stecher track tonight and figue out what catagory he falls into, or if I need to create a 5th one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 10:12 AM
Here's a chart from the pilot's handbook. I confess I can't quite grasp what I'm supposed to be doing with it.

http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/Airspeed%20and%20Altimeter%20Correction%20Table.gi f

Hmmm, after much perusal of this graph, I have come to the conclusion that whatever it is for, it's not for calculating true airspeed. I was sure that there was a graph in the pilot's handbook showing true airspeed at various indicated airspeeds and altitudes, but I don't see it in there.

faustnik
06-29-2005, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the game, however, the P-38's best climb speed is between a hundred and fifty miles per hour and a hundred miles per hour. So not only do we have this unrealistic problem (which may actually be an unrealistic advantage), but it may affect your climb rate figures, for better or for worse. Did you try climbing at those low speeds </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you will find a lot of a/c in PF can climb at very low speeds, it is not an advantage/problem limited to the P-38. The Bf109s can climb very fast at very low speeds. Even the Fw190s can do this to an extent in 4.01. As you are saying, this could have an effect on climb rate testing.

bolillo_loco
06-29-2005, 12:10 PM
aerial target, unless I am misunderstanding you.... I believe that you are complicating this more than needed. you must turn off the cockpit and use the hud display that has round guages to the left and right. look for the BIG round guage on the left. inside it will be a digital read out in Km per hour. this is true airspeed and it is what you want. divide km per hour by 1.6 to get mph.

the chart you posted is very simple. calibrated ias is the actual ias of the aircraft as measured by insturments on the ground (I guess) airplane ias is what the guage on the panel reads inside the aircraft. dropping flaps and gear further causes inaccurate measurements, thus another set of numbers is given so you can correctly figure out what your true ias is.

so ineffect, at 200 mph ias the guage in the plane was accurate at sea level. below 200 mph the airspeed indicator reported a speed slower than what you were actually going and above 200 mph ias it reported that you were actually going faster than what you were.


back to our game. I believe that the hud display only reports ias and tas in the same manner for all aircraft. anybody know if I am wrong about this? I mean why would oleg program each little red hud display and the cockpit off hud individualy for each aircrafts insturment errors. sounds like a lot work for something of little importance.

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 12:19 PM
I think that you are right about the no cockpit view being the quickest way to find true airspeed, but we have a problem; why are real life calculation methods and the no cockpit view method obtaining drastically different results? No cockpit view isn't a tool available in real life, so accurate mathematical methods are necessary to find out true airspeed. If they don't work in the game, then there is an even deeper problem than individual aircraft speed.

Of course, it is quite likely that the problem lies in our calculations; Tagert is using a two percent per thousand feet formula, while he might be needing to throw something in about barometric pressure. And I'm still trying to figure out how that graph can be used to find true airspeed, if at all possible.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-29-2005, 12:54 PM
This is absurd. When doing a speed test TAS is given to you. It is right there for you to see, yet this isn't good enough. Somehow this is faulty. I made my speed claims based on the TAS given in-game, which is easily attainable. So no matter what is determined, my own, Stecher's, Kahuna's, Bollio's, etc. results are just as I originally stated. If you want to try and prove that the TAS in-game is not accurate that is up to you, but that is not related to what I was stating, it is a completely different matter.

If the TAS provided in game is not accurate, then it is not accurate for all planes. But in an e-mail from Oleg he clearly outlined speed test procedures, and that is what I am going by, and will continue to go by.

*As a note I have to admit I am curious as to what a high altitude test would look like using your method, to see if the differences are even more pronounced, so I sent you an initial P-38L Late speed test at 7,620m. This was my first run but deviation is pretty small, and note even my dive from 10,000m to 7,620m my speed never passes what I ultimately achieve. Note that when the aircraft accelerates to 708 it does so while holding exact altitude with no deviation for several seconds prior. Also, make sure to play track through in its entirety. Holding exact altitudes at that height is very tough, at SL it is much easier to hold within tighter limits, but I believe the small deviation is certainly acceptable (Never more than 10m up or down once trimmed, and less as speed increases).

BigKahuna_GS
06-29-2005, 03:20 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Bolillo--conclusions:

38J at sea level has a moderate speed advantage, at 26,500ft it is close w/ a very slight disadvantage to many publications, and at 30,000 ft it is significantly slower than many publications. its rate of climb is on average 850 fpm too slow up to critical altitude. its rate of roll is close to published data below 250 mph ias, but above that speed it rolls significantly slower than published data

38L-1 at sea level has a very slight speed advantage, at critical altitude it is moderately slower than published data, and at 30,000 ft is significantly slower than published data. its rate of climb is on average 850 fpm too slow up to critical altitude. its rate of roll is so close to internet data as to make any errors of no importance. unfortunately I have never seen any published roll data for P-38s with boosted ailerons.
__________________________________________________ _______________________


Well done Bolillo.
I hope you send your findings into 1C.
I first noticed the P38J not climbing well in a PTO scenario vs japanese fighters. The 38 should have one of the best max climb rates out of all US aircraft.

__

Gibbage1
06-29-2005, 03:32 PM
After 7 pages, are we finally comming to a conclusion? So far the only big issue I see is climb. That would help the P-38's game a lot. As for speed, + or - 10MPH is not a big deal. Almost all aircraft in the game operate in this range since its impossible to program a game that will fit perfectly to reality. Too many factors involved, but you can come close.

And yes, IL2/FB/Aces/PF's high alt is FUBAR. Oleg said this many times. Since we never go up there anyways, I dont see THAT as a big issue since its simply a limitation of the engine. I hope BoB will fix this problem.

bolillo_loco
06-29-2005, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
After 7 pages, are we finally comming to a conclusion? So far the only big issue I see is climb. That would help the P-38's game a lot. As for speed, + or - 10MPH is not a big deal. Almost all aircraft in the game operate in this range since its impossible to program a game that will fit perfectly to reality. Too many factors involved, but you can come close.

And yes, IL2/FB/Aces/PF's high alt is FUBAR. Oleg said this many times. Since we never go up there anyways, I dont see THAT as a big issue since its simply a limitation of the engine. I hope BoB will fix this problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

below 25,000 ft the 38's speed is close at all altitides, but at 30,000 ft is is 25-30 mph too slow. I had no problem hitting published speeds in many other aircraft at that altitude.

out side of the climb the 38J's rate of roll above 250 mph ias at 10,000 ft is significantly slower than published figures.

while I really do not care about performance above that altitude I do manage to get to 30,000 feet quite often.

I never asked to have any of this fixed I was just making some observations.

BigKahuna_GS
06-29-2005, 04:00 PM
S!



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bolillo-I never asked to have any of this fixed I was just making some observations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You should report this to 1C !
Climb rate helps combat potential and zoom climb. Too slow a roll rate is a problem for the J also.

__

Gibbage1
06-29-2005, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:


I don't even want to go into the claim made at the end of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you wish to debate people's sigs, do it in another thread.

Slickun
06-29-2005, 04:52 PM
No problem. Post deleted and an edited version moved to "Hey Aerial Target".

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
This is absurd. When doing a speed test TAS is given to you. It is right there for you to see, yet this isn't good enough. Somehow this is faulty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I feel pretty sure that the discrepancy lies in something Tagert and I are forgetting. It just really, really bothers me that we can't figure it out without "cheating." You're right in that in game, the no cockpit view speed meter is the final word in speed, but I'm wondering how we would find out the true airspeed in real life, and why there is a discrepancy. Oh well... As you said, it shouldn't have an effect on one airplane relative to the others.

bolillo_loco
06-29-2005, 07:55 PM
tagert,

#1 stop following me around in war clouds mopping up my smoking german aircraft after a nasty turn fight I had with them

#2 at first I disregarded what hunde and his friend had to say about 357 mph 38Js on the deck because of their Fw 190A signatures, but then Big Kahuna duplicated their figures. So next time I tried I turned off 8x speed compression and did it on normal speed. crimea, 75% fuel, wind effects turned off, radiator closed, I was already using cockpit off with the digital display for TAS in Km per hour. I had no problem obtaining 357 mph on the deck with the 38J. The L-1 model is 7 mph slower at sea level for some reason. a bit strange that two identical aircraft should have differing speeds (from the game's point of view)

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 09:20 PM
That's strange; I thought that the J was at least fifteen miles per hour faster than the L-1 at sea level. I know that before the patch, at least, there was a thirty kilometer per hour indicated difference, which is roughly twenty miles per hour indicated. Or is this the true airspeed thing again?

Say, I've been under the impression that what the game calls the L model was actually a modified J, just one of the Js that received aileron boost and the dive recovery flap; what's the scoop? Was there really an early L that was unable to obtain the seven hundred and twenty five horsepower with one hundred and fifty grade fuel?

3.JG51_Stecher
06-29-2005, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
#2 at first I disregarded what hunde and his friend had to say about 357 mph 38Js on the deck because of their Fw 190A signatures, but then Big Kahuna duplicated their figures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Interesting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
The L-1 model is 7 mph slower at sea level for some reason. a bit strange that two identical aircraft should have differing speeds (from the game's point of view) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, for staters they aren't identical. The P-38J we have is either a J-10,15, or 20. It has the flat, bullet resistant glass in the windscreen, introduced with the J-10, but does not have the dive brakes or power-boosted ailerons of the J-25, which of course the Ls have too. Not to mention that the J and L have different engines. We need to be careful calling the P-38L (original) the L-1 and the P-38L Late the L-5, because I don't think that's the case. From what I can tell, the difference historically was the ordinance capabilities. The L-5 was able to carry 5 HVARs under each wing, outboard of the engines, and increase its bombload from a pair of 1,000 lb bombs to a pair of 2,000 lb bombs, inboard of the engines. Now in the sim, we have identical loadout options for the original and late. Both carry the HVARs, but not the 2,000 pounders. So it's kind of a cross between the two. Either way they are both the same in this respect. The difference, from what I understand is that the Late uses the uncleared overboosting that the F-30 engines were capable of, and the original uses the power that was cleared by the USAAF to use. But that wasn't something that happened between the L-1 and L-5.

3.JG51_Stecher
06-29-2005, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
That's strange; I thought that the L-1 was at least fifteen miles per hour faster than the J at sea level. I know that before the patch, at least, there was a thirty kilometer per hour indicated difference, which is roughly twenty miles per hour indicated. Or is this the true airspeed thing again? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 3.04m the J was always a little faster than the L at sea level, as it is now.

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_Stecher:
In 3.04m the J was always a little faster than the L at sea level, as it is now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoops! I meant to say, "I thought that the J was at least fifteen miles per hour faster than the L-1 at sea level." Bolillo says it's only seven miles per hour faster, but my memory tells me that the J is about twenty miles per hour faster.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_Stecher:
The P-38J we have is either a J-10,15, or 20. It has the flat, bullet resistant glass in the windscreen, introduced with the J-10, but does not have the dive brakes or power-boosted ailerons of the J-25, which of course the Ls have too. Not to mention that the J and L have different engines. We need to be careful calling the P-38L (original) the L-1 and the P-38L Late the L-5, because I don't think that's the case. From what I can tell, the difference historically was the ordinance capabilities. The L-5 was able to carry 5 HVARs under each wing, outboard of the engines, and increase its bombload from a pair of 1,000 lb bombs to a pair of 2,000 lb bombs, inboard of the engines. Now in the sim, we have identical loadout options for the original and late. Both carry the HVARs, but not the 2,000 pounders. So it's kind of a cross between the two. Either way they are both the same in this respect. The difference, from what I understand is that the Late uses the uncleared overboosting that the F-30 engines were capable of, and the original uses the power that was cleared by the USAAF to use. But that wasn't something that happened between the L-1 and L-5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is very interesting, and supports my statement that in the game, the P-38 L and the P-38 L Late are mislabeled. It seems to me that what the game calls the P-38 L should be the J-25, and what the game calls the P-38 L Late should be just the L.

bolillo_loco
06-29-2005, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_Stecher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
#2 at first I disregarded what hunde and his friend had to say about 357 mph 38Js on the deck because of their Fw 190A signatures, but then Big Kahuna duplicated their figures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Interesting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
The L-1 model is 7 mph slower at sea level for some reason. a bit strange that two identical aircraft should have differing speeds (from the game's point of view) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, for staters they aren't identical. The P-38J we have is either a J-10,15, or 20. It has the flat, bullet resistant glass in the windscreen, introduced with the J-10, but does not have the dive brakes or power-boosted ailerons of the J-25, which of course the Ls have too. Not to mention that the J and L have different engines. We need to be careful calling the P-38L (original) the L-1 and the P-38L Late the L-5, because I don't think that's the case. From what I can tell, the difference historically was the ordinance capabilities. The L-5 was able to carry 5 HVARs under each wing, outboard of the engines, and increase its bombload from a pair of 1,000 lb bombs to a pair of 2,000 lb bombs, inboard of the engines. Now in the sim, we have identical loadout options for the original and late. Both carry the HVARs, but not the 2,000 pounders. So it's kind of a cross between the two. Either way they are both the same in this respect. The difference, from what I understand is that the Late uses the uncleared overboosting that the F-30 engines were capable of, and the original uses the power that was cleared by the USAAF to use. But that wasn't something that happened between the L-1 and L-5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


if you are going to quote me, "#2 at first I disregarded what hunde and his friend had to say about 357 mph 38Js on the deck because of their Fw 190A signatures, but then Big Kahuna duplicated their figures." use the entire paragraph so it isnt taken out of context


the J could also carry 2 x 2,000 lb bombs and there are pleanty of pics of 38Js with 2x2000lb bombs, 4x300lb bombs for a 5,200lb bomb load, or any combo of 2x1,000 + 4x300.

the J and L lighting are identical. I know about the sub variants and what introduced what. My point is the 38J and 38L both have a take off weight of 17,699 full of gas, ammo, oil, and pilot. since the 38L-1-LO is using the same hp ratings as the J it is in essence a 38J-25-LO which oleg has created for us. they should both have identical performance since every part of the physical aircraft itself is the same. since the 38L-1 is unpainted it should be faster than the painted 38J. I also know that the engines were different, the 38J had the F-17s, the F-17s were allisions designation. the army aircorps called them v-1710 89/91. right engines could be converted into left engines etc etc. the F-30s were in 38L, which again was allisions designation, the army aircorps called them v 1710 111/113. the F-17s had 6 counter weight crankshafts while the F-30s had 12 counter weight crankshafts. there were also other subtle differences like turbo regulators and the like.

the main way to tell a 38L-1 from a 38L-5 is by looking underneath the wings. on the L-1 and earlier versions you can see the access panel for the fuel booster pumps. it is flush on the L-1 and earlier versions. the L-5 has 4 bumps for the fuel booster pumps because they are submerged into the tank. the L-5 also had tail warning radar (which doesnt function in the game)

the only ordinance difference between the L-1 and the L-5 was that lockheed fitted the x-mas tree rocket launchers at the factory. these could be fitted to any lighting. infact all the P-38s used the same airframe. so a P-38F-1-LO could be turned into a P-38L-5. the inner coolers unbolted from the leading edge of the a/c and new leading edges could be installed that had the fuel tank. engines are an easy swap, the radiators even unbolted and could be swapped.

which brings us back to my main point. the 38J and any P-38L that is running 1,600 hp, 3,000 rpm, 60" map should all have identical rates of climb and speed simply because they are in essance the same aircraft. both aircraft have the same identical weight and dimentions also. reasons why the 38L carries the same weight with more modern equipment like dive recovery flaps and boosted ailerons, the world may never know. systems were simplified and deleted as production models continued thus eliminating weight in one area while adding it else where with modifications. boosted ailerons...why should this add considerable weight? the 38 already had a hydraulic system, a pump on each engine. all lockheed did was to tap pressure off this already existing system, two small slave cylinders to move the ailerons wouldnt add a lot of weight. nor do the dive recovery flaps look very heavy.

and calling the 38L-1 and the 38L late, well no 38L late ever existed. there were two production blocks of P-38Ls. the 38L-1 and the 38L-5

and I did state "(from the games point of view)" which implys that yes there are differences in the aircraft's sub systems, but for max speed these sub systems have no impact on it so hence they are itentical.

3.JG51_Stecher
06-29-2005, 10:47 PM
I don't see how the part about your test changes that you disregarded our statements just because of our sig pics. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying? Anyway, about the speed difference of the J and L at sea level, I totally agree it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As the engines, although different ones, do produce the same 1,600 hp, the weight difference to slow the L down 7 mph @SL is simply not accounted for by the changes between the two. I don't know if the J is too fast, or if the L is too slow, or both, but it doesn't make sense to me either.

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 11:16 PM
If it's seven miles per hour slower true airspeed, then why does the gauge in the cockpit say that it's twenty miles per hour slower?

3.JG51_Stecher
06-29-2005, 11:50 PM
It doesn't on mine. The needle position difference is barely noticable when they are at their top speeds at sea level.

TAGERT.
06-29-2005, 11:54 PM
Well I processed 3.JG51_Stecher track file and here are the results

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/3JG51_Stecher/3JG51_Stecher.JPG

Once again, no where near the 357mph claimed, a max of 347.70mph! But, there is something fishie going on here. Allow me to explained.

First, here is the DeviceLink data from 3.JG51_Stecher flight, nice flying by the way! Very level!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/...8J_575TAS_550IAS.xls (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/3JG51_Stecher/P38J_575TAS_550IAS.xls)

From the max mph at 256seconds we have

ALT = 7.51 ft
IAS = 347.64 mph

The standard 2% per 1000ft conversion equation

TAS = [IAS x 2%] x [ALT/1,000 ft] + IAS

Using that equation and plugging in the numbers by hand I get

TAS = [347.64 mph x 2%] x [7.51 ft/1,000 ft] + 347.64 mph
TAS = [347.64 mph x 2%] x [7.51 ft/1,000 ft] + 347.64 mph
TAS = [6.9528 mph ] x [0.00751] + 347.64 mph
TAS = 0.052215528 mph + 347.64 mph
TAS = 347.69 mph

Using my spread sheet I get
TAS = 347.70 mph

But dont take my word for it, google it or try it out here.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html

Note in both cases the TAS nearly equal to IAS, i.e.

error = TAS - IAS
error = 347.69 mph - 347.64 mph
error = 0.05 mph

Which as most people know to be true for low altitude flying in typical air density, thus validating the math.

Therefore, you don't even need to convert IAS to TAS for low alt tests, in that it does not even account for 1mph of difference!

Which as most people know to be true for low altitude flying in typical air density, thus validating the math.

At extreme cold or heat this equation does not work as well, but, even in the north pole you would have a hard time trying to explain and error of 9.5mph. Which is the difference between the WonderWoman in game TAS display and the DeviceLink TAS data.

Just to get an idea of how far off the equation would have to be to get that kind of error lets solve for the 2% value using the IAS data from the DeviceLink data and the TAS from the in game WonderWoman display. So using a little high school algebra lets solve for the 2% and then plug in the numbers

TAS = [IAS x #/100] x [ALT/1,000 ft] + IAS
TAS - IAS = [IAS x #/100] x [ALT/1,000 ft]
#/100 = (TAS - IAS)/(IAS x (ALT/1,000 ft))
# = 100x(TAS - IAS)/(IAS x (ALT/1,000 ft))
# = 100x(357.00 mph - 347.64 mph)/(347.64 mph x (7.51 ft/1,000 ft))
# = 100x(9.36 mph)/(347.64 mph x (0.00751))
# = 100x(9.36 mph)/(2.6107764 mph)
# = 100x3.5851404202979619395977380521748
# = 358.5140420297961939597738052174
# = 358.51

As a check, lets use our new found number

TAS = [IAS x 358.51/100] x [ALT/1,000 ft] + IAS
TAS = [347.64 mph x 3.5851] x [7.51 ft/1,000 ft] + 347.64 mph
TAS = [347.64 mph x 3.5851] x [7.51 ft/1,000 ft] + 347.64 mph
TAS = [1246.34] x [0.00751] + 347.64 mph
TAS = 9.3600134 + 347.64 mph
TAS = 357.00

So, the 2% per 1000ft equation would have to be the 3.58% per 1000ft to get 357mph.

Which means the well understood concept of IAS being nearly equal to TAS at low altitudes.. something pilots have been using for about 80+ years, would have to be tossed out the window. Because the only way to get 357mph TAS with 347mph IAS at less than 10ft of alt would be to use 3.5% not 2.0%. Where as when you use the 2% you get what every pilot for the last 80+ years expects, an IAS of 347.64 mph and a TAS of 347.70 mph.

Another thing that indicates there is a problem with the WonderWoman TAS display is the "speed bar" IAS display, when converted to TAS and taking into account the +/-10mph resolution does not match the WonderWoman TAS display. Where as the "speed bar" display does match the DeviceLink data and the expected values of TAS nearly equal to IAS at low altitudes.

Last, but not least, Another thing that indicates there is a problem with the WonderWoman TAS display is those values don't match the expect P38J values, some are off by 12mph, where as the DeviceLink data matches the P38J values very nicely with only about a 5mph error on average.

So, it is decision time.

1) Use the WonderWoman TAS view that does not match the 80 year old calculation and expectations of IAS being nearly equal to TAS at low alts, nor the P38J rated values, nor does the WonderWoman TAS view value match the IAS "speed bar" value, even when you take into consideration the 10mph resolution.

Or

2) Use the DeviceLink method that matches the 80 year old calculation and expectations of IAS being nearly equal to TAS at low alts, and the P38J rated values, and it matches the IAS "speed bar" values when you take into consideration the 10mph resolution.

No real need to answer, I know what some of you are going to choose, because agreeing with me would be death to some of you! But, if you can not admit that the IAS and TAS SHOULD BE nearly equal at sea level.. Well I don't know what to say, other than I hope you never have to manually calculate how much fuel you need to fly across the ocean! but if you do, bring a raft and lots of sun tan locean! And while your doing the back stroke, remember that the DeviceLink data does match, the WonderWoman TAS values do not match.. As a mater of fact the WonderWoman TAS display does not match anything!!

3.JG51_Stecher
06-30-2005, 12:27 AM
Some one more knowledgeable on the subject should comment on it, but don't you need to know the barometric pressure and temperature to convert from IAS to TAS? These are two things we don't know. Tagert, if you think that there is a serious error in the way FB calculates TAS, it would be a good idea to send it to Oleg with the evidence that you are presenting here. If there is a bug in it, then it's pretty bad, and more importantly, this would mean that tons of aircraft have sizable errors in their sea level speeds.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-30-2005, 12:45 AM
If the TAS in wonder-woman view is faulty as you say, then a smart thing may be to input a track into devicelink with the FW-190A-6 on 100% manual pitch as it gets to the exact same indicated speed as the P-38J at SL (on wonder woman digital readout), maybe 1 kph faster. That way we could see if it applies to other planes as well. Also, I supplied you with a P-38L Late track at 7,620m, I would be interested to see how the wonder-woman TAS (max 710kph, or 441.17mph) differs from devicelink TAS.

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 01:23 AM
Im looking into my crystal ball, and I see no end to this debate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So if the Spedo in IL2 is broke, and devicelink is broke, how is anyone gonna test? I know!!! Wait.... I dont. Never mind.

NonWonderDog
06-30-2005, 01:32 AM
One thing, though. Are you *sure* that the IAS indicator really shows the IAS you'd find in a real plane? Are you sure that the pitot tube is modelled to that amount of complexity?

I would say that it's far more likely that the devicelink IAS readout shows something that would be closer to CAS (calibrated air speed) in a real plane. Having an IAS-&gt;CAS conversion chart for every plane and modelling that error into the indicator would be more than a little impressive. It might throw in some completely irrelevant installation error just to throw us off, though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

The indicator might even show something more akin to EAS (equivalent air speed), but the compressibility error should be easy enough to model. It should be *possible* to test for this, but it would be awfully hard. The basic procedure would be to compare stall speed at sea level and very high (&gt;10,000 m) altitude; they should differ by a couple km/hr IAS if stall speed's high enough. I can find stall speed within a couple km/hr by staring at real-time devicelink data, but I don't know if I can get it accurate enough to verify compressibility error at low speed.


Deriving TAS from IAS is hard. First you have to correct for installation error to get CAS (need a table). Then you need to correct for compressibility error to get EAS (the formula's insane (use a chart), but there's no error at sea level). Then you correct for density to get TAS (EAS x sqrt(standard air density/actual density)). Since we don't have temperatures or barometric pressures for the maps, there really isn't any way to do this accurately.

Of course, it's fairly easy for the sim to compute TAS. It just measures how fast you're moving and subtracts wind. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif This value should always be correct, but IAS might be a bit suspect.

Aaron_GT
06-30-2005, 03:23 AM
How about setting up a full mission builder mission to set a plane to fly from A to B (two points with known separation) at a specified speed and altitude, with player control an option. Start the mission, put on the autopilot, monitor the TAS, and time the transit from A to B. The TAS can then be computed from ground speed and we can check the Wonder Woman view and DeviceLink.

bolillo_loco
06-30-2005, 05:37 AM
is there some sort of error in reporting TAS with the cockpit off digital tas indicator from aircraft to aircraft??????

3.JG51_Stecher, I am not sure why you do not understand what I was driving at with my post to aerial target. I thought I made it clear that due to your name and signature it is obvious what aircraft you favor in the game. I was further trying to impress upon aerial target that this was not a case of fw 190 loving luftwhinners trying to nerf his beloved P-38 because I could also obtain the same speed as you, hunde, and big kahuna. I doubt that anybody will ever accuse me of being a luftwhinner or favoring german aircraft. I believe the same can be said of big kahuna. with that being said I felt that I was giving aerial target unbiased proof that yes the 38J is indeed 12 mph/18 kph too fast at sea level.

tagert, I do not know what to say. are you implying that tas in "wonder woman" view is off? is it off for every aircraft or just some?

TAGERT.
06-30-2005, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
One thing, though. Are you *sure* that the IAS indicator really shows the IAS you'd find in a real plane? Are you sure that the pitot tube is modelled to that amount of complexity? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Im late for work, so dont have time to get into the details of it, and Im planing on taking off Friday for a long 4th -O- July weekend in New Mexico, so I dont know if Ill be able to get back to this until next week. But to answer this question, the answer is YES! Im very sure that the IAS indicator data in DeviceLink is the IAS you'd find in a real plane. Why? Because keep in mind the inital and real purpose of DeviceLink! The inital and real pupose is NOT to validate the FM, but to use DeviceLink to control REAL LIFE guages in a home made cockpit. That is to say if you had the time and money to build up a REAL LIFE SIZE and LOOKING P38 (or what ever plane) and want the REAL LIFE guages in that cockpit to indicate what is going on in the game, then you could use DeviceLink to do it.

In short, something is not right here.. and as I noted, the temp and density aspects only come into play in extream hot or cold areas. It would be interesting to take those equations and solve for the temp. At this point, I think I will put this all into an email and send it off to Oleg to see if he can explain why they are off when they shouldnt be.

RedDeth
06-30-2005, 01:14 PM
final analysis...

STECHER O W N E D BY TAGERT.

hands down irrefutable

...say no more...

close this book and never open again!

this posting was the largest percentage ownage king of all posts ive seen on ubi in the last four years.

PWNED!!!

3.JG51_Stecher
06-30-2005, 01:45 PM
Bolillo Loco, I got it.

RedDeth, either you are joking, or you don't have a clue about what has gone on in the last few pages of this thread. Nobody has been PWNED by anyone else here. If anything, both sides have proven that they are truthfully reaching the speeds that they claimed to be getting. I was using the stardard FB testing method of going by FB's own TAS read-out. Tagert was using Devicelink's calculations. The difference was not from either of us doing anything different with the aircraft. We are both indeed reaching the same exact speeds. The problem is what speed is that? Is it the speed that Devicelink says, or is it the speed that FB says? If Devicelink is correct, then that means there are huge problems with sea level speeds for many many planes. If, and I repeat, if there is a bug with FB's TAS calculation it should be fixed. That's why I suggested Tagert send his evidence to Oleg, so that we can get some sort of answer on which one is right.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-30-2005, 01:49 PM
This forum is a joke. I make a claim based off Oleg's method which any normal person can reproduce, then I am accused of being a luftwhiner, then I am accused of making up my own method, and when I defend myself I am told by the same person that he is having sex with my mom, then I am told I was not initially trusted because I have a FW-190 in my sig...like I said this forum is a joke. All I was trying to do is to show that the P-38 is capable of speeds much higher than was posted and this is the result. I guess this is what you get when you try to help someone, or to show that their results are incorrect, who has an "opposing" aircraft in their sig. It's just not worth it, and it is the same reason I stopped posting before. I guess with the patch out, everyone has put their tinfoil hats back on and regressed back to childhood.

bolillo_loco
06-30-2005, 01:50 PM
I was under the impression that the cockpit off TAS digital indicator guage was the same for every aircraft. can anybody prove that this guage reads different speeds and favors some aircraft more than others? I think I am missing something here.

3.JG51_Stecher
06-30-2005, 01:56 PM
I'm sure that if it is wrong, it's wrong with every plane. And if it's right, it's right with every plane. As Hunde suggested to Tagert, this can be shown by putting tracks of other aircraft through Devicelink, with known FB TAS numbers and seeing what Devicelink TAS numbers say.

AerialTarget
06-30-2005, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I am told I was not initially trusted because I have a FW-190 in my sig... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have Hristo to thank for that. We P-38 Lightning fanatics have recently had to endure many unfounded, outrageous, and absolutely false claims about the Thirty Eight by one or two guys with Focke Wulf signatures. I, too, didn't believe that you guys were performing unbiased, accurate tests until other P-38 Lightning fanatics started getting the same results. I hope you can understand that it took some time to realize that you two are being objective about this. I apologize.

If the P-38 in the game really is faster at sea level than the real thing, then I wouldn't mind it being brought back to the real level (although I confess I would be livid if this were done without correcting any of the P-38's deficiencies, such as climb rate). The problem now is that which Tagert discovered - there's a chance that the game's given true airspeed for all aircraft is wrong.

As Stecher suggested, I think that someone with a reputation for unbiasedness (Tagert would be a good choice were it not for his, er, confrontational attitude) should mail Oleg with the problem. Perhaps he could clear it up. It may be that Crimea has unusually thin air or something.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-30-2005, 02:41 PM
No problem AT, good on you. I'm just frustrated that is all, the patch is out and everyone is defensive. The problem is that there are way too many biased people, so the ones that are fair are drowned out and buried by a mountain of BS. In short, too much bias and agenda serving posts have led to too much suspicion and defensiveness. It's a shame really, it is just a game and for those, like myself (and yourself from what I can tell), who just appreciate the historical nature of the sim are beaten down by gamers who want their plane to shoot others down just by looking at them.

Cheers.

3.JG51_Stecher
06-30-2005, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
You have Hristo to thank for that. We P-38 Lightning fanatics have recently had to endure many unfounded, outrageous, and absolutely false claims about the Thirty Eight by one or two guys with Focke Wulf signatures. I, too, didn't believe that you guys were performing unbiased, accurate tests until other P-38 Lightning fanatics started getting the same results. I hope you can understand that it took some time to realize that you two are being objective about this. I apologize. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough. I can understand why you might be cautious. It's just a bad idea to start lumping people together and judging credibility based on a sig pic, rather than actual evidence provided. As long as we're on the same page now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
If the P-38 in the game really is faster at sea level than the real thing, then I wouldn't mind it being brought back to the real level (although I confess I would be livid if this were done without correcting any of the P-38's deficiencies, such as climb rate). The problem now is that which Tagert discovered - there's a chance that the game's given true airspeed for all aircraft is wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
As Stecher suggested, I think that someone with a reputation for unbiasedness (Tagert would be a good choice were it not for his, er, confrontational attitude) should mail Oleg with the problem. Perhaps he could clear it up. It may be that Crimea has unusually thin air or something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt Crimea's conditions would be horribly off in any way. It was hand picked by Oleg himself for official testing of aircraft.

Aaron_GT
06-30-2005, 02:46 PM
Well there is a way to test (assuming we can be sure that the distances between points in the FMB are accurate) both DeviceLink and Wonder Woman View. Then we'll have a definite baseline to work from.

bolillo_loco
06-30-2005, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_Stecher:
I'm sure that if it is wrong, it's wrong with every plane. And if it's right, it's right with every plane. As Hunde suggested to Tagert, this can be shown by putting tracks of other aircraft through Devicelink, with known FB TAS numbers and seeing what Devicelink TAS numbers say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats what I would think as well.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-30-2005, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You have Hristo to thank for that. We P-38 Lightning fanatics have recently had to endure many unfounded, outrageous, and absolutely false claims about the Thirty Eight by one or two guys with Focke Wulf signatures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL - that brings new meaning to the term 'generalisation'. So, let me get this straight...if you have a 190 in your sig, you are automatically an untrustworthy source of information and/or a P38 hater?

Does this mean if you have a Lagg3 in your sig you are a lying commie or, maybe a P47 means you are a halfwitted redneck? ****, *I* have a P47 in my sig....does that mean I have to make someone 'squeal like a little piggy' ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

bolillo_loco
06-30-2005, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You have Hristo to thank for that. We P-38 Lightning fanatics have recently had to endure many unfounded, outrageous, and absolutely false claims about the Thirty Eight by one or two guys with Focke Wulf signatures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL - that brings new meaning to the term 'generalisation'. So, let me get this straight...if you have a 190 in your sig, you are automatically an untrustworthy source of information and/or a P38 hater?

Does this mean if you have a Lagg3 in your sig you are a lying commie or, maybe a P47 means you are a halfwitted redneck? ****, *I* have a P47 in my sig....does that mean I have to make someone 'squeal like a little piggy' ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

like it never happens norris. go back and look at the known luftwhinners, they usually have some german squad name and german a/c in their siggy. if they dont have this they usually have some name which implies that they like german a/c. insert american, british, russian, what have you. they are all the same just running under different colors.

p1ngu666
06-30-2005, 07:26 PM
ppl judge me by my sig, but its too good not to use isnt it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

in FP the ias/tas is same for all aircraft, but its equal at 0 (sea level), but we cant fly at sea level as are propellers moan about water like panies that they are.

irl various altitudes where used as the equal point, i think the raf used 2,000ft, and pilot maybe able to calibrate the altitude guage which ive forgotten its name http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

the various airspeed getting devices arent modeled differently to my knowledge. ie 300kph in a zero, 109, b25,p51 is 300kph.

tbh im tempted to actually patch my dads pf and do some testing myself, and come back off my surbatical to see wtf is going on. id be ignored so i wont http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

TAGERT.
06-30-2005, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
and when I defend myself I am told by the same person that he is having sex with my mom </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Defend yourself? That is too funny! Go back and look at the post just prior to the one in question and NOTE where you called me a "simple f***". If you dont like it when people reply to you with 5th grade pranks, then dont start off by replying to them with 5th grade pranks. It is that simple! Im like a mirror, I simply give back what I recive. Dont hate me for being more creative about it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
06-30-2005, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Well there is a way to test (assuming we can be sure that the distances between points in the FMB are accurate) both DeviceLink and Wonder Woman View. Then we'll have a definite baseline to work from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Several problems with that

1) no position data provided in DeviceLink.
2) no postition data provided Wonderwoman TAS view.
3) hard to get a good time start stop in WW TAS view.

Therefore you would have to eyeball the distance, which, the error in trying to do that could be larger than the error we are trying to determine.

I gues you could make a map and put alot of markers on the gnd.. But, we would need to know the units of the map grides, does anyone have that?

There is the x,y position data in the log file.. Not too sure if it is generated duing track play back.. That and I dont know if anyone knows what the corspodning uints are? But, if there was a way to sync up that x,y position and get the units you could do what your talking about.

Well, I got to start packing! Off to go do a little two-steppin and alot of drinkin!

Happy 4th yall!

p1ngu666
06-30-2005, 09:22 PM
tbh it should be urmum

"your mum" is wrong, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
06-30-2005, 11:43 PM
Tagert, I thought the FMB gave positional data? Basically with that and a stop watch we have some way of checking. It will need a flight from one side of the map to the other to get any level of accuracy and it will only reveal gross errors in TAS calculations but it will be better than nothing.

Aaron_GT
06-30-2005, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I gues you could make a map and put alot of markers on the gnd.. But, we would need to know the units of the map grides, does anyone have that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can presumably ask Oleg what scale the maps are and at worst use distances between towns on the Russian maps.

ICDP
07-01-2005, 02:25 AM
I tried a few climb tests and using Bollio's parameters I got on average to 20,000ft in 7:02 (mins:sec) and the best I got was 6:58

So as Bollio (and others) have already shown the climbrate is off by quite a margin. The Best time I have seen in a chart for the P38J is 5.9 minutes at 300 gallons of fuel and COMBAT power.

One question though, what way do the fuel gauges in the P38 work? It seems that 50% fuel is showing off the scale, how can I tell how much fuel 50% is in the game?

Hunde_3.JG51
07-01-2005, 03:30 AM
Tagert, before I said a single word to you, this is what you said:

"Well it is decision time.. Do I go with DeviceLink data or Hunde's method? Hmmmm such a hard choice to make.. NOT!"

That is what started it.

bolillo_loco
07-01-2005, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
I tried a few climb tests and using Bollio's parameters I got on average to 20,000ft in 7:02 (mins:sec) and the best I got was 6:58

So as Bollio (and others) have already shown the climbrate is off by quite a margin. The Best time I have seen in a chart for the P38J is 5.9 minutes at 300 gallons of fuel and COMBAT power.

One question though, what way do the fuel gauges in the P38 work? It seems that 50% fuel is showing off the scale, how can I tell how much fuel 50% is in the game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that the two out board leading edge wing tanks did not have any type of fuel guage. only the inboard main and reserve tanks had guages. do the in game guages read accurately? I havent a clue. I can tell you this, 50% fuel is about 205 gallons, which is the main and reserve tanks - 95 gallons. the main and reserve thanks (2 each) held 300 gallons and the leading edge tanks held 110 gallons (2 x 55, however I have read conflicting reports, some state 62 gallons each, but 410 total is what is in the pilots manual)

in game here is how it works, with 50% fuel both the main and reserve guage should both be pegged at 90. left needle left wing right needle right wing. at 25% the top guage reads 90 while the bottom guage reads 15. the only way I have of knowing exactly how much fuel I have is when the guages read 25% fuel left. btw at full throttle you have about 17 minutes of fuel left @ 25% fuel. the engines will take damage 4.5 minutes after you recieve the "over heat" warning. fuel remaining and engine damage were observations I made while climbing at full power, these could vary under different circumstances.

ICDP
07-01-2005, 09:14 AM
Thanks for the info Bollio.

I asked the question becuase I find it odd that the fuel gauges with 25% fuel read full front tanks and 15 gallons in the rear tanks. Lets take for example the rear tank reading 15 gallons, does this mean 15 gallons total or 30 gallons (15 gallons in each tank)?

TAGERT.
07-01-2005, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Tagert, before I said a single word to you, this is what you said:

"Well it is decision time.. Do I go with DeviceLink data or Hunde's method? Hmmmm such a hard choice to make.. NOT!"

That is what started it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your kidding me? That is what set you off? Is your ego that fragile? Or is calling someone a "simple f****" your typical response when someone does not agree with you? Sad, truly sad imho!

A couple of things to pay special attention to here, no where in that statement of my did I resort to calling you names or attacked your intellect, I simply disagreed with your method, which in your mind was justification for calling me a "simple f***"? Another interesting thing to notice here is you left off the smily face at the end of my statement of mine. Interesting?

In summary Hunde, I really don't care what motivates you, Just keep this in mind for future reference, I have no problem sinking to what ever level you want to sink to. I can take what I dish out, clearly you cant! So I suggest that you don't go there when dealing with me. Also know that I don't hold a grudge! Not because I'm a great guy mind you! Only because there isn't anyone here worth my time to hold a grudge with! That and I typically don't remember who I talked to today vs. last week! Except for a handful of people who's sigs stick out in my mind, and you are not one of them! So, a week or two from now I wont even remember that we had this little conversation. So, if you clean up your act, I will follow suit. Because I'm like a mirror, I turn it around on you good or bad and crank it up a notch!

bolillo_loco
07-01-2005, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
Thanks for the info Bollio.

I asked the question becuase I find it odd that the fuel gauges with 25% fuel read full front tanks and 15 gallons in the rear tanks. Lets take for example the rear tank reading 15 gallons, does this mean 15 gallons total or 30 gallons (15 gallons in each tank)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well there are two guages with give readings for two tanks each. the front guage is for the reserve tanks and the rear guages is for the mains. the front tanks held 60 gallons each while the rear tanks held 93 gallons each. I do not know why the rear guage always reads 60 and never 90. the only way of knowing exactly how much fuel you have is when your mains are down to 15, then you know you have 1/4 tank of fuel. does it mean 15 gallons in each tank? I would say yes for the following reasons. 410 total gallons - 110 (leading edge tanks 55x2) - 150 gallons (mains -75 gallons each) leaves you with 150 gallons of fuel onbard. of this 150 gallons 120 of it is in the reserve tanks (60x2) which leaves 30 gallons in your mains (15x2).

it had 6 tanks and it was SOP to burn the fuel off accordingly, leading edge tanks, mains, then reserve, hence the front tank reads full while the rear tank is being emptied.

Hunde_3.JG51
07-01-2005, 11:44 AM
No fragile ego, just tired of your arrogant, smart a$$ comments (which you conveniently ignore the fact that you initiated). If you disagreed with my method there is a mature, unabrasive way to do so as in;

"Using devicelink I found different results than Hunde, there must be something in our methods that explains the difference."

Then there is the Tagert way:

"Well it is decision time.. Do I go with DeviceLink data or Hunde's method? Hmmmm such a hard choice to make.. NOT!"

See the difference? You probably won't judging by your sad history of posting.

Yes I overreacted but it is only because, as I said, I am familiar with you and your name is pretty much assosciated with being obnoxious and rude. I have a couple thousand posts on this forum and the only time I have felt the need to confront someone is with you (twice), and with one other person. I can't stand people who the majority of the time only have ignorant comments to make.

As a note when you copy and paste I guess it leaves out the smiley, which in this case made no difference.

And the only thing you dish out is childish and rude comments, you've been this way since you came to this forum and it wears thin rather quickly. My comment was a bit harsh but it was just out of frustration of seeing post after post of your obnoxious, arrogant, and self righteous bull ****.

ICDP
07-01-2005, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
Thanks for the info Bollio.

I asked the question becuase I find it odd that the fuel gauges with 25% fuel read full front tanks and 15 gallons in the rear tanks. Lets take for example the rear tank reading 15 gallons, does this mean 15 gallons total or 30 gallons (15 gallons in each tank)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well there are two guages with give readings for two tanks each. the front guage is for the reserve tanks and the rear guages is for the mains. the front tanks held 60 gallons each while the rear tanks held 93 gallons each. I do not know why the rear guage always reads 60 and never 90. the only way of knowing exactly how much fuel you have is when your mains are down to 15, then you know you have 1/4 tank of fuel. does it mean 15 gallons in each tank? I would say yes for the following reasons. 410 total gallons - 110 (leading edge tanks 55x2) - 150 gallons (mains -75 gallons each) leaves you with 150 gallons of fuel onbard. of this 150 gallons 120 of it is in the reserve tanks (60x2) which leaves 30 gallons in your mains (15x2).

it had 6 tanks and it was SOP to burn the fuel off accordingly, leading edge tanks, mains, then reserve, hence the front tank reads full while the rear tank is being emptied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really know your stuff about the P38, thanks once again for the info and your patience http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If as you say the fuel load for 25% in the P38 is 150 gallons then that implies 600 gallons total then 50% must be 300!, why the discrepancy? I ask this because a chart I have shows a time to 20,000 of 5.9 minutes (5mins 54sec) with 300 gallons of fuel at combat power. So I would like to know how much fuel to take for the test (I'm guessing 75% due to 410 gallons onboard fuel at 100%) Even if I do use 50% fuel I am still out by 35 seconds to 20,000 so it is still out by not by as much. This of course all depends if my assumption regarding fuel load during the test is correct. I think these numbers rely on accurate test critera, ie. how was the real test conducted at at what fuel loads and power settnigs.

To emphasise this point I have seen other data which states 7 minutes to 20,000 ft for the P38 but it doesn't state test parameters, so I believe this figure is next to worthless.

S! I am not disputing your findings, on the contrary I agree with them. I am merely trying to ensure I am testing correctly.

TAGERT.
07-01-2005, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
No fragile ego, just tired of your arrogant, smart a$$ comments (which you conveniently ignore the fact that you initiated). If you disagreed with my method there is a mature, unabrasive way to do so as in;

"Using devicelink I found different results than Hunde, there must be something in our methods that explains the difference."

Then there is the Tagert way:

"Well it is decision time.. Do I go with DeviceLink data or Hunde's method? Hmmmm such a hard choice to make.. NOT!"

See the difference? You probably won't judging by your sad history of posting.

Yes I overreacted but it is only because, as I said, I am familiar with you and your name is pretty much assosciated with being obnoxious and rude. I have a couple thousand posts on this forum and the only time I have felt the need to confront someone is with you (twice), and with one other person. I can't stand people who the majority of the time only have ignorant comments to make.

As a note when you copy and paste I guess it leaves out the smiley, which in this case made no difference.

And the only thing you dish out is childish and rude comments, you've been this way since you came to this forum and it wears thing rather quickly. My comment was a bit harsh but it was just out of frustration of seeing post after post of your obnoxious, arrogant, and self righteous bull ****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok so let me see if I got this.. Your actions are excused because you harbor resentment with people who have disagreed with you in the past.. But that excuse is only good for you and nobody else? Huh, double standard, who knew! Hey if that works for you, knock yourself out, Oh, by the way, apology accepted!

TAGERT.
07-01-2005, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
P-38J radiator open engine over heat turned on 0 wind effects 100% fuel and ammo 54" map used during entire climb. I am trying to duplicate the pilot's manual. clock began at break release and I tried to maintain 150-170 mph ias

5,000 ft 2.25 minutes 15 seconds late
10,000 ft 4.5 minutes 30 seconds late
15,000 ft 6.75 minutes 1:45 seconds late
20,000 ft 9.5 minutes 2:30 seconds late

in order to match the Pilots manual I had to drop to 75% fuel and use WEP during the climb, then it matched the pilots manual.

warren bodies data from "the lockeed P-38 Lightning"

climb to 23,400 ft 6.19 minutes P-38J 16,500 ish lbs. I used 50% fuel 100% ammo to duplicate the weight of the Lightning in bodies book.

5,000 1.75 min
10,000 3.25 min
15,000 5.0 min
20,000 6.75 min
23,400 8.0 min 1.7 minutes too slow.

when dropping fuel in the 38 it doest impact the climb very much considering that at 75% fuel the 38 is 615 lbs/280 kg lighter, 50% fuel it is 1,230 lbs/558 kg lighter, and at 25% fuel it is 1,845 lbs/837 kg lighter. ammunition weighs about 720lbs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I took a stab at it, I used 100% fuel with ammo, rad open, but, I didnt limit the MP, I just firewalled it. Here is what I got

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/CLIMB/BODIES_VS_OTHERS.JPG

On the subject of MP, how are you adj for it? Are you limiting the throttle or a mix of throttle and prop pitch? Or something else? And, I assume you got the MP setting from some reference?

In summary, I dont see a big problem here with climb rate, in that I got pretty close to it on my 1st try. What seems odd to me is.. ploting my data I expected to see a steaper curve in the altitude graph at the start to account for at the better climb rate at lower altitues.. Yet I ended up with a pretty straight line from 0ft to 25kft, which implys a constant ROC not one that varrys with alt.. Should have seen a steep change at the start and slowly flaten out.. Yet the detla in my numbers and bodie's are pretty constant.. Which means their change in alt was simular to mine. Hmmm, Ill have to think about that some more.

Here is the data if your interested
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/...J_CLIMB_TO_25KFT.xls (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/CLIMB/P38J_CLIMB_TO_25KFT.xls)

bolillo_loco
07-01-2005, 01:34 PM
dont have much time, If I said 1/4 tank was 150 gallons I made an error. the J and L (barring the 38J-5-LO which only had 300 gallons total internal fuel) 1/4 tank would be 102.5 gallons according to the pilots manual. that would put about 52 gallons in each reserve and the mains would be empty. I am sorry, but I made a mistake. I do not know why the in game 38 reads 15 on the mains and 60 on the reserves when it has 1/4 of a tank of fuel left, but that is what it does.

I am basing this on, take 1/4 tank of fuel and look at what your guages read.

ok regarding the 7 min to 20,000 ft that is popular in a lot of books. this time I am not posting information out of my head. I am posting what is in the pilot's manual.

7 min to 20,000 ft is listed as "combat climb" in the pilots manual. the parameters are 17,400lbs at take off (full take of weight - 50 gallons of fuel burn for taxi, warm up, and preflight checks) 54", 3,000 rmp up to 26,600 ft then gradually reduce m.p. to 48.5" at 30,000 ft and 41" at 35,000 ft during the climb. the clock begins when you release your breaks

5,000 ft 2 min
10,000 ft 4 min
15,000 ft 5 min
25,000 ft 9 min
35,000 ft 15 min

no figure is given for 20,000 ft, but it is obvious that if it takes 5 min to 15,000 and 9 min to 25,000 ft then I see no reason not to believe that it takes 7 min to 20,000 ft. also I believe that below 15,000 ft there are errors in the time and they have rounded up and down. reasoning for this is obvious, 4 min to 10,000 ft and 5 min to 15,000 ft.......how did the lighting climb 5,000 ft in one minute using 54" 3,000 rpm?

TAGERT.
07-01-2005, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
ok regarding the 7 min to 20,000 ft that is popular in a lot of books. this time I am not posting information out of my head. I am posting what is in the pilot's manual.

7 min to 20,000 ft is listed as "combat climb" in the pilots manual. the parameters are 17,400lbs at take off (full take of weight - 50 gallons of fuel burn for taxi, warm up, and preflight checks) 54", 3,000 rmp up to 26,600 ft then gradually reduce m.p. to 48.5" at 30,000 ft and 41" at 35,000 ft during the climb. the clock begins when you release your breaks

5,000 ft 2 min
10,000 ft 4 min
15,000 ft 5 min
25,000 ft 9 min
35,000 ft 15 min
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Finally some data that seems to show the 4000ft/min ROC area! You said..

5kft to 10kft took 2 min to go 5kft
10kft to 15kft took 1 min to go 5kft
15kft to 25kft took 4 min to go 10kft
25kft to 35kft took 6 min to go 10kft

Note the climb between 10kft to 15kft that only took 1 min!

That is a ROC of

ROC = (15kft-10kft)/(5min-4min)
ROC = (5kft)/(1min)
ROC = 5000fpm

Which is off by 1000fpm, so, either you typed in something wrong, or the round off they did in that data is skewing it. Take a look at the graph with that data

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/CLIMB/BODIES_VS_OTHERS2.JPG

Note the steep step between 10 anf 15kft. That is where the P38 is hitting its max ROC per your data and not that flat line data that I was questioning before in my last post. This data matches wheat I was expecting to see, but was not seeing.

The only way to get close to that data in game is you would have to deviate away from the 150 to 170 IAS for that area, where you may be pulling harder and climbing harder, which will ruduce your IAS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
no figure is given for 20,000 ft, but it is obvious that if it takes 5 min to 15,000 and 9 min to 25,000 ft then I see no reason not to believe that it takes 7 min to 20,000 ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets see what we get if we assume a straight line between 25kft and 15kft than..

*find the slope of said straight line
y = mx
25kft = m(9min - 5min) + 15kft
25kft - 15kft = m(9min - 5min)
m = (25kft - 15kft)/(9min - 5min)
m = (10kft)/(4min)

*use the slope to find the time to get to 20kft
y = mx
20kft = (10kft)/(4min)x
x = 20kft/((10kft)/(4min))
x = (4min)(20kft/10kft)
x = (4min)(2)
x = 8min

A straight line would take you 8min to get to 20kft. So, to get 7min to 20kft it must not be a straight line.. Much like your new data shows between 10kft and 15kft. Kind of makes since, pilot does not climg too hard up to 10kft, then from 10 to 15 he pulls hard, then from 15 to 20 he would have to do it again, but not as long and hard. Then you might be able to hit the 7min mark at 20kft. But you would problly be real slow after that up to 25kft? Also, you woundnt be keeping that 150 to 170 IAS speed all the time, in game you would have to be more like 110 to 200 IAS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
also I believe that below 15,000 ft there are errors in the time and they have rounded up and down. reasoning for this is obvious, 4 min to 10,000 ft and 5 min to 15,000 ft.......how did the lighting climb 5,000 ft in one minute using 54" 3,000 rpm? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, the odds of hitting 15kft at exactaly 5min is silly! They must have rounded off, question is how much?

bolillo_loco
07-01-2005, 04:57 PM
I do not think that from 15 to 25 thousand feet that they rounded off those figures as drastically as they have from take off to 10,000 ft. I believe that they rounded off the figures up to 10,000 ft. the reasons I have come to this conclusion are, It will take the longest to reach the first 5,000 feet for one simple reason, the aircraft is at a standstill when the timer begins. after the first 5,000 ft it was timed while the aircraft was in a steady climb.

the pilots manual gives the rate of climb at 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 25,000, and 35,000 ft.

5,000 ft it is climbing steady at 3,200 fpm
10,000 ft it is climbing steady at 3,100 fpm
15,000 ft it is climbing steady at 2,900 fpm
25,000 ft it is climbing steady at 2,400 fpm
35,000 ft it is climbing steady at 1,000 fpm

up to 25,000 ft 54" map 3,000 rpm, 1,425 hp is used (this is not wep/full power)


*Note

4", 3,000 rmp up to 26,600 ft then gradually reduce m.p. to 48.5" at 30,000 ft and 41" at 35,000 ft during the climb.

**Note

the aircraft is at full take off weight 100% fuel and ammunition

I believe I have already posted climb data on the P-38 while using WEP which also gave the weight of the aircraft at take off.

here is the chart I am reading from tagert

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/38TOCL.gif

other charts like this can be found for other aircraft at

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/

BigKahuna_GS
07-01-2005, 05:49 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Tagert--In short, something is not right here.. and as I noted, the temp and density aspects only come into play in extream hot or cold areas. It would be interesting to take those equations and solve for the temp. At this point, I think I will put this all into an email and send it off to Oleg to see if he can explain why they are off when they shouldnt be.
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Thanks Tagert, that is excatly what is needed here---some clarifcation from Oleg. I thought climb tests like speeds tests, were always on the Crimea map with 100% fuel and ammo as the default loadout for the test. But I am not sure .

Happy 4th to All who celebrate it ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

__

bolillo_loco
07-01-2005, 06:18 PM
TAGERT,

I guess I am not making my posts clear enough for you. there are several charts that you produced which are incorrect.

in reference to the chart where you have warren bodies information about the P-38 climb. you made a chart using 8.0 minutes to 23,400 ft. that is incorrect. the numbers I have are what I achieved in the game.

this is what I posted

climb to 23,400 ft 6.19 minutes P-38J 16,500ish lbs. I used 50% fuel 100% ammo to duplicate the weight of the Lightning in bodies book.

5,000 1.75 min
10,000 3.25 min
15,000 5.0 min
20,000 6.75 min
23,400 8.0 min 1.7 minutes too slow.

let me explain these numbers for you. they are what the in game 38 achieved. none of these numbers can be found in bodies book. bodie states 6.19 minutes to 23,400 ft. as you can see the in game 38 took 8 full minutes. this means that it was 1.81 minutes too slow to 23,400 ft than the real lighting. the real lightning averaged 3,780 fpm to 23,400 ft and bodie states that at 23,400 feet it was still climbing at 2,900 fpm. the in game 38 had an average rate of climb to 23,400 ft of 2,925 feet per minute which means its average rate of climb was 855 fpm slower than the real lightning. do you understand these numbers now?


next I tried to duplicate the pilot's manual. I set the in game P-38's weight, manifold pressure, and prop rpm to the same exact settings as the real life lighting. as a result the in game lightning was 2.5 minutes too slow to 20,000 ft. the average rate of climb was 770 fpm slower than the real life lightning.

you said you see no error because you were able to get the 38 to 20,000 ft in 7 minutes, you are incorrect because you used full power. the real life 38 climb to 20,000 ft is not a full power climb. read the chart I posted and you can clearly see what I mean.

I personally think that you are not reading my post in its entirety. I felt I made it quite clear.

I was very exact in my findings and felt I was unbiased. I kept my favoritism for the 38 out of my findings. I tried to be as objective as possible. to restate what I found,



38J at sea level has a moderate speed advantage of +12 mph, at 26,500ft it is close w/ a very slight disadvantage, -2 to -6 mph according to many publications, and at 30,000 ft it is significantly slower, -28 to -32 mph than many publications. its rate of climb is on average 850 fpm too slow up to critical altitude while using WEP, 60" 3,000 rpm (3,200 hp) and it is 770 fpm too slow on average while using military power, 54" 3,000 rpm (2,850 hp). its rate of roll is close to published data below 250 mph ias, but above that speed it rolls significantly slower than published data, 35 degrees per second too slow at 300 mph, 17 degrees per second too slow at 350 mph, and about 12 degrees per second too slow at 400 mph.

38L-1 at sea level has a very slight speed advantage +5mph, at critical altitude it is moderately slower than published data, -13 to -15 mph , and at 30,000 ft is significantly slower than published data, -28 to -32 mph. its rate of climb is on average 850 fpm too slow up to critical altitude. its rate of roll is so close to internet data as to make any errors of no importance. unfortunately I have never seen any published roll data for P-38s with boosted ailerons.

38L late I do not have enough information on this aircraft to give number compairisons, however many people could reach the published figure of 440 mph at around 25,000 ft. I did however notice that in the game it reached critical altitude far too soon. in the game it was 23,500 feet when in real life it was 28,700 ft. at 30,000 ft since no data is available to me on this a/c running 1,725 hp I reverted back to the derated army aircorps standards which would mean that at high altitude its performance should be exactly the same as the J and L. like the other two lightnings its speed and rate of climb drastically fell off due to hp loss.

Slickun
07-01-2005, 06:26 PM
Fiddling around with bolillo loco's speed claims for the P-38. Let me try to lay out my question in an understandable fashion.

Using America's Hundred Thousand for the P-38G, bolillo loco's for the rest.

It appears that the P-38G, at a total of 2650 HP, achieved a speed of about 400 mph, give or take.

The P-38L-1-LO, at 3200 HP total, got up to about 422 or so mph.

550 more HP was required to increase the speed 22 mph. This is about 25 HP per MPH. Numbers are rounded off, not exact. Don't need to be.

We are told that the P-38L at 1725/3450 HP, an increase of 250 HP, boosted the top speed by another 20 mph or so. 12.5 HP per mph. In other words, as the plane got faster, closer to compression, it got more efficient. Twice as efficient, it appears.

If you use the 414 mph often quoted in many books for the P-38G, we need 550 HP to increase 8 mph, or over 68 HP per mph increase.

My point is that another 250 HP does NOT appear to be sufficient to push the P-38 from 422 to over 440 mph. That extra 18-20 mph appears to need something like 450-500 more HP. That's assuming the same efficiency for the increase from 400-417, and things didn't get even more difficult to increase MPH as you went faster.

At 25 HP per MPH, the P-38L-5 looks more like 432 mph to me.

Where am I going wrong?

bolillo_loco
07-01-2005, 07:01 PM
slick run the numbers I provided are not "bolillo locos numbers" they came out of several publications. I can provide several sources for L models running 1,725 hp per engine, 440 mph top speed. I can also provide several publications which give tops speeds of 421-426 mph for the J model while running 1,600 hp per engine. which means that the additional 250 hp boosted the top speed by 14 mph. BTW LeVier bought a P-38L after the war ended and he raced it. he ran the 1,725 hp rating and achieved 390-400 mph on the deck. the airframe was not chopped up like the racers you see today. he did delete a lot of weight, but weight does not have a drastic affect on top speed.

consider this, the L not only used different engines, but it also used different props

the 38G which has a listed top speed of 400 mph (1,325 hp x 2) is 10 mph faster than the 38F which also has 1,325 hp X 2. The 38H has a listed top speed of 405 mph at 25,000 feet which is 5 mph faster than the 38G, but the 38H has 2 1,600 hp engines. all of these aircraft shared the exact (EXACT SAME AIRFRAME) as each other. now lets move on to the 38J, it has the exact same engines as the 38H with the exact same hp, yet its speed is listed at 414 mph (the figure you seem to like) or 9 mph faster on the same HP in a J model which has slightly more drag than an H model. what does all this mean? I dont know.........the same a/c perform differently under the same circumstances??? the same a/c do not have the same performance? different pilots could achieve higher speeds than others in the same aircraft?? different weather conditions?? somebody cheated??? somebody lied?? well there are just too many variables. unless somebody states the condition of the a/c and the weather conditions it is hard to evaluate the data obtained.

lastly the way you calculated top speeds is incorrect. fish through your america's hundred thousand book. in the biginning and at the end it gives you formulas to calculate speed, acceleration, and turn ability.

BigKahuna_GS
07-01-2005, 07:06 PM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Slickrun--Where am I going wrong?
The P-38L-1-LO, at 3200 HP total, got up to about 422 or so mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hya Slick,

As previously posted in the uber P38 thread and many other P38 threads--from the very beginning the P38L had the Allison F-30 engine rated at 1,725hp installed from the factory.

That is 3450hp not 3200hp.

The wrong max speed posted in many books of tha P38L at 414mph was achieved with military power only, not WER. That is a difference of about 600hp.

I suggest you buy Warren Bodies book on the P38 it is very informative with honest apprasials of perfomance from combat pilots and Kelly Johnson himself.

Or I can give you Warren Bodie's email address for direct questioning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

__

Slickun
07-01-2005, 07:36 PM
Or, Kahuna, you can read my post a bit more carefully. I didn't mention military power, and the proper HP figures were used for the L. Speeds for the L were obtained from bolillo loco's posts. 414 for the L was not mentioned. AHT gives it as just short of 420, WEP, 3200 HP. I used loco's posted numbers instead.

The question, again, how does one square a 20 mph speed increase from 250 added HP when previous speed increases required much more horsepower per mph.

bolillo loco answered, I think, that props were the reason.

Did the L-1 have different props from the L-5?

From loco's posted figures there is a 20 mph or so increase. On 250 HP. 12.5 HP/MPH.

Kahuna posted:
The wrong max speed posted in many books of tha P38L at 414mph was achieved with military power only, not WER. That is a difference of about 600hp.

So, 600 HP is required for a 28 mph increase? From 414 to 442? 350 HP to go from 414 to 422 (8 mph), but 250 to go from 422-442 (20 mph)?

What am I doing wrong here? I'm sincere in asking. There doesn't appear to be enough added HP to push the P-38L another 20 mph, more like 10 (and again, I'm not a scientist)especially when one realises how it works...diminished returns and all. The faster you go, the more HP needed for each gain in speed.

bolillo_loco
07-01-2005, 07:40 PM
the answer slick run is, I do not know. I just post data that I have from books that I have bought. perhaps you should take up big Kahuna's offer and e-mail warren bodie. the guy isnt going to be around much longer he is already in his early 90s I believe.

Slickun
07-01-2005, 07:50 PM
Hey, bolillo_loco, I am sincere here. You have done yeoman duty in posting on this thread. I said "your figures" because I don't have any that look like them, not to cast doubt. I didn't mean to call you out, but this has been something I've wondered about for awhile.

As Kahuna says, most folks see the P-38 and think "414" for just about every late model. This thread has done a lot to dispell that.

We've been round and round on this P-38 vs P-51 thing for years. I remember you from many other threads, including the "Mustangs Mustangs" boards.

I like your passion for this bird. I don't know why you like it so much, but there it is.


Forgive me and my P-51 bias. My Dad flew it, I grew up on Air Force Bases listening to stories about it, and not just from my Dad.

I will buy Bodie's book. I think Barnes and Noble have a copy

bolillo_loco
07-01-2005, 08:18 PM
its simple slick run. I use to be a mustang fanatic and I suffered from "mustang mania" Janes WWII fighters was the first sim which got me interested into researching the aircraft. I couldnt understand why the laim P-38 out climbed my beloved P-51. then somebody told me that not only could it out climb it, but it could out turn it. the guns were better, bla bla bla bla bla. I didnt believe any of it. then I saw these P-38 lovin clowns over at another forum (warbirds I believe) posting similar lies about the 38 vs 51. so I saw them quoting from books and I bought the books just so I could show them that they were lying, the books really didnt say that. well I read caidens book first. I wasnt willing to spend any money on books about an aircraft that I absolutely disliked. well I thougth caidens book was a lot of b/s and it was just one book, so then somebody suggested bodies book, so I bought it. bodies book had pretty much the same story to tell as caidens (save for the allied pilot sleeping with the italian axis pilots woman), by this time I was only using the P-38 at janes simply because it was so laim and everybody said you couldnt do well in it. well one book led to another etc etc, I no longer like the mustang. I like the 38 simply because everybody thinks it is so laim. I am have a strong dislike for anything that is popular, I like the underdog. I no longer own a book written about a P-51 mustang. Hristo helped me burn them all

hristo quote "P-51 books? great! I have more 30mm ligher fluid!"

http://free-kc.t-com.hr/nino/sig03.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
07-01-2005, 11:40 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Bolillo--I like the 38 simply because everybody thinks it is so laim. I am have a strong dislike for anything that is popular, I like the underdog.
__________________________________________________ ______________________



I must admit, I am still a fan of the "Big 3". But I find myself sticking up for the Jug and P38 more simply because of the way they have been poorly modeled in this sim.

My gosh the 56th FG kicked **** in the Jug, shooting down more enemy A/C than any other Fighter Group. The 56th FG also had the highest scoring US Aces in the ETO. The P47 had high marks in speed, dive, roll and energy that have never been truely modeled right in this sim.

The soviets never needed or liked the Jug and that has been truely repersented in IL2. On the other hand the Jug was only voted "Best Allied Fighter above 25,000ft" at the RJFC, but hey what do pilots from the RAF, RCAF, USAAF, USN & USMC know ?

The P38L==P38L Late

According to Bodie the P38L could do 441-444 at critical alt. Bodie is only 82 years old.

From Bodie about P38 dive speeds and dive recovery flaps.

Howdy Keith,

Some things about the P-38L type, and a few others.

First of all, none of those J-25s, Ls or retrofitted P-38Js up to -25 had dive brakes. Those were never intended to be dive brakes, and they were never to be used for purpose for which the units were devised. (That does not mean that some pilots, too, thought they were brakes and used them for that. (It only means that they have not done any reading from the T.O.s. Those units were DIVE FLAPS. Their intended use was to prevent entry into compressibility during a dive from high altitudes. What occurs without them in a dive of more than M.= 0.81 (the figure I recall at old age with looking it up) from, say, 32,000 feet pitchover or roll into, is that when the limiting Mach No. is exceeded, the center of pressure for lift of the wing moves aft and the horizontal tailplane is unloaded. No elevator control is bad.

Heiden might very well confirm that from experience. The idea is to dump the Dive Flaps, and then push over. Changes in airflow means that the tailplane does not lose its effect. Without them, the pilot panics and jumps, as some certainly did, losing the plane and usually getting badly hurt. I made a real enemy at one time, pointing out that he deliberately went up "to see what Lockheed engineers loused up on the planes now." He made his first and last flight in the new J-25 that day. Lost control on the way down and jumped. I forget how he was injured but he did not get back into combat. Later, he was a BTO hotel exec in California. He referred to me as a "Ground Pounder".

I am proud of that, and I should have said this back, in print: Kelly Johnson was a ground pounder too, but could make you lose some teeth.

The retrofitted Js and J-25s and subs, plus all Ls also had revised landing lights and the leading edge fuel tanks that replaced the L.E. intercoolers in the L.E.s.

Just imagine a Lockheed P-38N without turbos, but with the same R-R Griffons used in some of the very late high-altitutde Spitfires and also using H-S wide-blade props as demonstrated on the XP-38K. Something over 2100 hp per engine. That is why I stated that I could envision that a pilot at full throttle at 33,000 feet might well get into compressibility in level flight unless he extend the dive flaps. They might well have had to go to multi-position flaps instead of just dumping them wide open.

See. I am not yet, quite, senile. Maybe I will have to drink some senile juice on my 82nd birthday.

Warren


____

TAGERT.
07-02-2005, 12:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
TAGERT,

I guess I am not making my posts clear enough for you. there are several charts that you produced which are incorrect.

in reference to the chart where you have warren bodies information about the P-38 climb. you made a chart using 8.0 minutes to 23,400 ft. that is incorrect. the numbers I have are what I achieved in the game.

this is what I posted

climb to 23,400 ft 6.19 minutes P-38J 16,500ish lbs. I used 50% fuel 100% ammo to duplicate the weight of the Lightning in bodies book.

5,000 1.75 min
10,000 3.25 min
15,000 5.0 min
20,000 6.75 min
23,400 8.0 min 1.7 minutes too slow.

let me explain these numbers for you. they are what the in game 38 achieved. none of these numbers can be found in bodies book. bodie states 6.19 minutes to 23,400 ft. as you can see the in game 38 took 8 full minutes. this means that it was 1.81 minutes too slow to 23,400 ft than the real lighting. the real lightning averaged 3,780 fpm to 23,400 ft and bodie states that at 23,400 feet it was still climbing at 2,900 fpm. the in game 38 had an average rate of climb to 23,400 ft of 2,925 feet per minute which means its average rate of climb was 855 fpm slower than the real lightning. do you understand these numbers now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah! Ok, my bad, first time I read that I thought those numbers were bodies! So, only numbers bodies gave was the 'one data point' time to 23,400ft of 6.19. And that is where you get your average climb rate of 3780fpm

m = y2-y1/x2-x1
m = 23,400ft-0ft/6.19min-0min
m = 23,400ft/6.19min
m = 37800ft/min

Average, which means, *if* it had a ROC of 2925fpm at 23,400ft the only way the 'average' could be higher is that somewhere between 0ft and 23,400ft it had to have a ROC much Much MUCH higher than 37800fpm!! And since the average 'in game' is off by 1.7min, it means our beloved P38 has a much lower ROC than it should. Now I *see* what your *saying*!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
next I tried to duplicate the pilot's manual. I set the in game P-38's weight, manifold pressure, and prop rpm to the same exact settings as the real life lighting. as a result the in game lightning was 2.5 minutes too slow to 20,000 ft. the average rate of climb was 770 fpm slower than the real life lightning.

you said you see no error because you were able to get the 38 to 20,000 ft in 7 minutes, you are incorrect because you used full power. the real life 38 climb to 20,000 ft is not a full power climb. read the chart I posted and you can clearly see what I mean. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, my statment was made when I thought those in game numbers of yours were the numbers you got from bodies book, ie real numbers not game numbers. I totally agree with you now that you cleared that up! Thanks!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I personally think that you are not reading my post in its entirety. I felt I made it quite clear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I was a bit rushed, was looking for data to plot to compare to mine. I read all of your post, just read it too fast! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I was very exact in my findings and felt I was unbiased. I kept my favoritism for the 38 out of my findings. I tried to be as objective as possible. to restate what I found,

38J at sea level has a moderate speed advantage of +12 mph, at 26,500ft it is close w/ a very slight disadvantage, -2 to -6 mph according to many publications, and at 30,000 ft it is significantly slower, -28 to -32 mph than many publications. its rate of climb is on average 850 fpm too slow up to critical altitude while using WEP, 60" 3,000 rpm (3,200 hp) and it is 770 fpm too slow on average while using military power, 54" 3,000 rpm (2,850 hp). its rate of roll is close to published data below 250 mph ias, but above that speed it rolls significantly slower than published data, 35 degrees per second too slow at 300 mph, 17 degrees per second too slow at 350 mph, and about 12 degrees per second too slow at 400 mph.

38L-1 at sea level has a very slight speed advantage +5mph, at critical altitude it is moderately slower than published data, -13 to -15 mph , and at 30,000 ft is significantly slower than published data, -28 to -32 mph. its rate of climb is on average 850 fpm too slow up to critical altitude. its rate of roll is so close to internet data as to make any errors of no importance. unfortunately I have never seen any published roll data for P-38s with boosted ailerons.

38L late I do not have enough information on this aircraft to give number compairisons, however many people could reach the published figure of 440 mph at around 25,000 ft. I did however notice that in the game it reached critical altitude far too soon. in the game it was 23,500 feet when in real life it was 28,700 ft. at 30,000 ft since no data is available to me on this a/c running 1,725 hp I reverted back to the derated army aircorps standards which would mean that at high altitude its performance should be exactly the same as the J and L. like the other two lightnings its speed and rate of climb drastically fell off due to hp loss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%!

AerialTarget
07-02-2005, 12:38 AM
Yes, I got confused with the numbers, too.

I've learned something about the dive recovery flaps today!

Aaron_GT
07-02-2005, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">next I tried to duplicate the pilot's manual. I set the in game P-38's weight, manifold pressure, and prop rpm to the same exact settings as the real life lighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be careful - some of the gauges in the game don't always read the correct values. I am not sure if this affects the P38 too. The gauge readings are only 'loosely coupled' to the sim it seems.

BSS_CUDA
07-02-2005, 07:54 AM
just out of curiosity checked out the top kill pilots on WC. in the top 20 in kills 9 fly red out of those 9, 1 flys prodominatly the P-63, 3 of us fly the 38 almost exclusivly, Aerial, Bollio, and Myself, the other 5 fly spits, I find a certain sort of Irony that not 1 of the top 10 reds in kills flys the Mustang, not even the MK III, is it the FM? I personally have gotten so comfortable with the 38 in game that sometimes I get over confident and neglect to keep my speed up, the only weakness that I have found with this plane is its size it does make a large target, the ONLY LW plane it will not turn inside of is the G2, it's as fast if not faster than allmost every LW plane, if there is a flight weakness of the 38 I cannot find it. and Bollio great K/D ratio with that many kills, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif we need to wing sometime so I can see what you do different than me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif maybe I can get some pointers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

bolillo_loco
07-02-2005, 11:40 AM
well I see tagert wasnt the only one confused by my posts. I will try and be more clear about my findings in the future. I have been trying to compile data on the Fw-190A series A6-A9 and the D9 series and make a compairison to real life a/c speeds and climbs vs in game speeds and climbs, similar to what I have done with the P-38. I have moved on to the Fw 190 mostly because I actually have some data on this aircraft. I would have liked to have done the P-47 next, but other than america's hundred thousand I have no data on this a/c. Hristo burned all my P-51 books so I do not have any data on that aircraft either, other than the old stand by America's Hundred Thousand.

regarding war clouds, I do not know what other guys were doing in the P-38 and I see they have reset the stats. I think I had 85 kills and a K/D ratio of 4.5 to 1. I only flew the P-38J, P-38L, and P-38L late. unfortunately I never shot down Hristos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif on a lighter note he never shot me down either :O

TAGERT.
07-02-2005, 11:42 AM
Given Bodies time to alt of 6.19min to 23,400ft gives us the average ROC of 3875fpm. But, Bodie also gives us the ROC at 23,400fpm at 23,400ft. We also know that some have quoted the P38J ROC hitting around 5000fpm. With those data points I ploted Bodies STRAIGHT LINE average to 23,400ft and I took the data points and tried to come up with a best fit curve that shows what the P38J ROC would have to be to obtain those data points. Keep in mind this is a bit of an ART fitting this curve to the data points and some WAG's had to be made. But the goal was to get an even steady flowing curve that hit all the given data points.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/CLIMB/BODIES_VS_P38_WAG.JPG

As a *check* of my curve I find the STRAIGHT LINE AVERAGE of my curve. If my straight line average has the same slop of Bodies straight line average, than it means I did a good job! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/CLIMB/BODIES_VS_P38_WAG_AN_WAG_AVG.JPG

As you can see, I have nearly the same slope, thus good job! Key thing to NOTE here is I had to take a guess at the time to 5kft. And the only way to get the smooth plot was to have a ROC of 5000fpm! I think I have seen some quotes of 4000ft, but dont recal if those were avg ROC's or peak ROC's?

Anyway, now take a look at those curvers vs. what we are getting in the game vs. the data from the flight manual

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/CLIMB/BODIES_VS_OTHERS3.JPG

As you can see the in game ROC of the P38 is not only lower than my best fit WAG curve, but lower than Bodies straight line average. Note the bolillo_loco2 is the data points from this chart

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/38TOCL.gif

Where they dont firewall it! The 17,400GW lbs at only 54inh mp, which is the best case off of this chart. My run (tagert) splits this data down the middle, but, I had to firewall it, i.e. exceed 54inc MP to do it. But as Aron pointed out, the MP guages dont seem to be all that accurate, on some planes they dont even work, so. But, the chart also notes 3000rpm, which is about what I was getting during my run. So, I dont know what #inc MP they were running to get to 23,400ft in 6.19min, but it had to be more than this charts shows, or a much lighter config of the P38? Im sure I could match chart data, almost did my 1st try, but, I wouldnt make it to 30kft at that pace.. I burned up the egines around 25kft.

In summary, the in game P38J has a much lower ROC than the 23,400ft in 6.19min but is pretty close to the chart, but, you have to push the 38J to the max to meet the chart numbers and stand no chance of meeting the 23,400 in 6.19min. I have not tried it with 25% fule yet, but doubt it would make it.

Here is the work sheet if your interested
MY EXCEL FILE (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/DEVICELINK/P38J/CLIMB/P38J_CLIMB_TO_25KFT.xls)

Cragger
07-02-2005, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
divide km per hour by 1.6 to get mph.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a quick FYI, 1 mile = 1.609344 kilometers

So you should divide it by 1.61 if you want to use a proper scientific weighted number.

BSS_CUDA
07-02-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:

regarding war clouds, I do not know what other guys were doing in the P-38 and I see they have reset the stats. I think I had 85 kills and a K/D ratio of 4.5 to 1. I only flew the P-38J, P-38L, and P-38L late. unfortunately I never shot down Hristos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif on a lighter note he never shot me down either :O </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


edit changed my mind didnt want to hijack or ruin a thread

bolillo_loco
07-02-2005, 06:29 PM
ATTENTION TAGERT,

once again you are making charts which are incorrect and misrepresenting the actual P-38s climb.

REAL LIFE LIGHTNING MAP SETTINGS AND HORSE POWER RATINGS

60" is wep (1,600 hp) 3,000 rpm
54" is military power (1,425 hp) 3,000 rpm
44" is maximum continuous (1,100 hp)

the in game P-38 does not match the chart from the pilots manual while running 54" you are skewing the P-38s climb by producing charts which say it's climb is spot on when you are really using 350 more hp @ 60"

in the game 60" is 100% power
in the game 54" is 85% power

in real life 54" is 90% of 60"
in real life 1425 hp is 90% of 1,600 hp

real life 54" lighting climbing is using nearly the exact same power setting as our in game lightning using 54".

the lighting in bodies book is using full power (WEP)

our in game lighting using 54" MAP climbed 770 fpm too slow to 20,000 ft when compaired to the real lightning
our in game lighting using 60" MAP climbed 855 fpm too slow to 23,400 ft when compaired to the real lightning

I only selected two sets of data using two different power settings to compair the lighting to and it did not match any. I have several more books which give max power climb rates similar to what bodie has written about. I saw no reason to list them because I felt data for wep climb and data for military power climb were sufficiant

do you understand now or do you need further explanation?

*Note: the symbol " is used for inches. inches of manifold pressure is how the americans measured power levels of engines during the war. MAP is an abbreviation for manifold pressure

**Note: WEP means War Emergency Power, it is full power or in your words "fire walled"

bolillo_loco
07-02-2005, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">next I tried to duplicate the pilot's manual. I set the in game P-38's weight, manifold pressure, and prop rpm to the same exact settings as the real life lighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be careful - some of the gauges in the game don't always read the correct values. I am not sure if this affects the P38 too. The gauge readings are only 'loosely coupled' to the sim it seems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it seems correct in the P-38. also my in game findings support the fact that both the climb under wep and the climb under military power are off by a similar margines would indicate that the mp guage in the in game lighting is close enough to the real one for testing purposes.

faustnik
07-02-2005, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have been trying to compile data on the Fw-190A series A6-A9 and the D9 series and make a compairison to real life a/c speeds and climbs vs in game speeds and climbs, similar to what I have done with the P-38. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bollilo,

Try here and here for a lot of Fw190 data.
FW190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)

Fw190 Consortium (old archive) (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=282)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TAGERT.
07-02-2005, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
ATTENTION TAGERT,

once again you are making charts which are incorrect and misrepresenting the actual P-38s climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Dissagree 100%.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
REAL LIFE LIGHTNING MAP SETTINGS AND HORSE POWER RATINGS

60" is wep (1,600 hp) 3,000 rpm
54" is military power (1,425 hp) 3,000 rpm
44" is maximum continuous (1,100 hp) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So? I never said it was or was not. Question, how do you maintain the same RPM but with different MP? I asked you about this before, but you never responded. Are you adj the prop pitch?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
the in game P-38 does not match the chart from the pilots manual while running 54" you are skewing the P-38s climb by producing charts which say it's climb is spot on when you are really using 350 more hp @ 60" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Now who is not reading the posts? Go back and read the part where I said something to the effect that to get close to the chart numbers I had to fire wall it, aka 100%. So no misrepresenting anything imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
in the game 60" is 100% power
in the game 54" is 85% power

in real life 54" is 90% of 60"
in real life 1425 hp is 90% of 1,600 hp

real life 54" lighting climbing is using nearly the exact same power setting as our in game lightning using 54".

the lighting in bodies book is using full power (WEP)

our in game lighting using 54" MAP climbed 770 fpm too slow to 20,000 ft when compaired to the real lightning
our in game lighting using 60" MAP climbed 855 fpm too slow to 23,400 ft when compaired to the real lightning </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, never siad it was or was not. I simply said that if I fire wall it I can get close to the *chart* numbers at 54"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I only selected two sets of data using two different power settings to compair the lighting to and it did not match any. I have several more books which give max power climb rates similar to what bodie has written about. I saw no reason to list them because I felt data for wep climb and data for military power climb were sufficiant </div></BLOCKQUOTE>When it comes to WWII aircraft data, too much is never a bad thing! I would post each along with the book page number so others can reference it and verify it. That is the only way you stand a chance of getting it fixed! Telling Oleg that "bolillo" said so wont cut it!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
do you understand now or do you need further explanation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont need more and didnt need last

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
*Note: the symbol " is used for inches. inches of manifold pressure is how the americans measured power levels of engines during the war. MAP is an abbreviation for manifold pressure </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, knew that, but note the chart says INC. MG, or INC. HG, hard to tell on that poor scan, but it clearly does not say MP or MAP.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
**Note: WEP means War Emergency Power, it is full power or in your words "fire walled" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo!

bolillo_loco
07-02-2005, 08:32 PM
arent you checking this in the game yourself?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/MAPandRPM.jpg

it is very easy to see what % of power I am using, what my map is, and what my prop rpm is

TAGERT.
07-02-2005, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
arent you checking this in the game yourself? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I must be in that I was refering to it several times. Re-read or read for the first time where I pointed out that Aron said these guages may not be that accurate

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
it is very easy to see what % of power I am using, what my map is, and what my prop rpm is </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, and, never said they were or were not, all I did was ask how you maitain a constant 3000rpm at 54inch mp and 60inch mp. PS DeviceLink captures the RPM and PPitch settings and MAP values

Aaron_GT
07-03-2005, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well I must be in that I was refering to it several times. Re-read or read for the first time where I pointed out that Aron said these guages may not be that accurate </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if they are correct or not for the P38, but I do remember on threads in ORR about 18 months ago there were some gauges in some planes that were producing obviously erroneous readings. I don't know what was fixed or what remains an issue, but given that apparently the gauges can possibly NOT show the right values, it is something we need to be aware of. Does DeviceLink dump out MAP figures?

Aaron_GT
07-03-2005, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Be careful - some of the gauges in the game don't always read the correct values. I am not sure if this affects the P38 too. The gauge readings are only 'loosely coupled' to the sim it seems.


it seems correct in the P-38. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


How are you testing? If you are putting the throttle to the firewall and the gauges are registering the right value, that's hopeful, but there is always the possibility that the engine is not developing the correct figure even if the gauge is. Devicelink might offer a test, but I don't know where it derives its figures from, or even how the game calculates MAP. If might use some system to determine HP/thrust from which MAP is somehow deduced, via some sort of fudge factor, so it is possible that HP can be correct and MAP wrong or vice versa. Without knowing how it is done it is hard to know. All I know is that it was revealed on the forums about 18 months ago that the relationship between in game internals and the gauges in loosely coupled, apparently. I;m not saying you are wrong - just that we need to eliminate all the possible systematic testing errors to reveal systematic game errors and it might be that some figures in the game aren't 100% certain, which makes it a pain-in-the-***.

Tagert seems to be doing some good work, although I don't really know what all the graphs represent!

FritzGryphon
07-03-2005, 07:20 AM
I remember testing the FW-190 compared to real RPM and boost values.

They don't correspond at all. In fact, most boosts on the charts I had, I couldn't even get in game, even with the later FWs with DB801. Virtually all of the boost/RPM combinations were impossible with any amount of fiddling with the throttle or pitch. When I could re-create the right boost and RPM, the speed and fuel consumption didn't match.

As far as I can tell, the engine gauges are just there for show.

bolillo_loco
07-03-2005, 08:22 AM
ATTENTION TAGERT,

I believe I have mis-understood what you were driving at. I made further errors for doing to you what I have been accusing you of doing to me, ie not reading your post throughly enough. I also became short and blunt with you. For this I am sorry.

ATTENTION FAUSTNIK,

the ULRs are duely noted and book marked. My three main sources for the Fw 190 series will be:

Focke-Wulf Ta-152

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764308602/qid=1.../002-8279652-6414462 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764308602/qid=1120397141/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8279652-6414462)

Fw 190 "Long Nose" An Illustrated History of the Fw 190D series by Dietmar Hermann ISBN 0764318764 Schiffer publishing

Kurt Tank: focke wulf's designer and test pilot by wolfgang wagner

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764306448/qid=1.../002-8279652-6414462 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764306448/qid=1120397528/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8279652-6414462)

ATTENTION ARON_GT & FITZGRYPHON

I provided a screen shot which clearly shows what the in cockpit guages read during my test climb to try and duplicate the figures in the Pilot's Manual.

54" map 3,000 rpm

further more at full throttle the J and L read 60" 3,000 rpm in the game.

I made a mistake in my subtraction during my duplication of the pilot's manual figures and I will correct them now and compair them to my full power climb findings.

I found the P-38J and P-38L (the P-38L running 60" map, 3,000 rpm) to climb too slowly.

REAL P-38J/L data from pilots manual 54" 3,000 rpm 100% fuel and ammo

7 minutes to 20,000 ft average rate of climb 2,857 feet per minute

IN GAME P-38J/L: 54" 3,000 rpm 100% fuel and ammo

9.5 minutes to 20,000 ft average rate of climb 2,105 feet per minute

WARREN BODIES rate of climb figures

6.19 minutes to 23,400 feet average rate of climb 3,780 feet per minute

rate of climb at sea level was 4,000 fpm and 2,900 fpm at 23,400 ft

IN GAME P-38J/L I duplicated the weight for the P-38 in bodies book

8 minutes to 23,400 feet average rate of climb 2,925 feet per minute

the error for both of these figures is exactly the same which to me indicates that 60" 3,000 rpm and 54" 3,000 rpm of our in game P-38 is in fact accurately displayed via in cockpit guages. I will provide simple math to show that both my climbs are off by similar numbers even though I used two different power settings

2105 is 74% of 2857
2925 is 77% of 3,780

74 is 96% of 77 which to me shows that the two figures are very close to each other in terms of error.



what is with the constant debate? I have proved that the P-38J/L climbs on average 855 fpm too slowly up to 23,400 feet. I provided data on less than full power climbs soley because I had data which gave the condition of the aircraft and it further supported my data that the climb rate was off. Even if you disregard my findings at 54" the findings at full throttle 60" are enough to show what I am driving at.

TAGERT

you have asked for more data I will no longer type out the title of the book as long as there is a ULR which gives a discription of the book

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/096293590...462?v=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0962935905/qid=1120399414/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8279652-6414462?v=glance&amp;s=books)

6.19 minutes to 23,400 ft climb sea level 4,000 fpm climb 23,400 ft 2,900 fpm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/076430561...462?v=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764305611/qid=1120399504/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8279652-6414462?v=glance&amp;s=books)

P-38J-25-LO speed, 345 mph sea level 422 mph 25,000 ft. climb, 4,000 fpm sea level 6.19 ft to critical altitude (looks like a reproduction of the same figures bodie used)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/071100772...462?v=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0711007721/qid=1120399642/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8279652-6414462?v=glance&amp;s=books)

38J speed, 420 mph @ 25,000 ft. climb, 3,900 fpm (no altitude given) which erroded less than 25% at 25,000 ft. that would be 2,925 fpm or better @ 25,000 ft.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/074341318...462?v=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743413180/qid=1120399824/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8279652-6414462?v=glance&amp;s=books)

caiden states that the P-38J-5 or J-10 w/o the leading edge tanks could turn 425 to 430 mph at 30,000 ft and 406 mph at 20,000 ft. I knew that J-5s came through w/o the leading edge tanks, but was unaware that some J-10s also did. My point for posting this is simple, w/ the leading edge tanks empty the weights of the two will be nearly identicle.

combat weight is stated for the speeds and climbs of the following lighting. no specific weight is given, but combat weight seems to vary between 16,500 lbs to 17,000 lbs in various books.

P-38J speeds,

360 mph 5,000 ft
390 mph 15,000 ft
421 mph 25,000 ft
426 mph 30,000 ft

P-38J climbs

3,900 fpm @ 5,000 ft
3,600 fpm @ 15,000 ft
3,100 fpm @ 25,000 ft

REGARDING Martin Caiden and his credibility. I have seen people bash both him and his book. while some of the stories are in fact stories not everything in his book is false. Data he provides is supported by data in other books.


these are the books I poked through and I am not willing to poke through any more. This entire post is beginning to get old to me.

I am not going to restate my findings, but in brief I will state my negative findings, I found the the 38J to roll drastically too slow at medium to high speeds

38J and 38L were drastically slow at altitudes above 25,000 ft and they were slow at 25,000 ft

the rates of climb were significantly slow at all altitudes

If you disagree with this then provide numbers which prove that you could do better than my figures.

TAGERT.
07-03-2005, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I don't know if they are correct or not for the P38, but I do remember on threads in ORR about 18 months ago there were some gauges in some planes that were producing obviously erroneous readings. I don't know what was fixed or what remains an issue, but given that apparently the gauges can possibly NOT show the right values, it is something we need to be aware of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, didnt mean to imply that you were saying one way or the other, I only pointed to my comment on your comment to show that I was indeed *looking* at those things in that I was refering to them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Does DeviceLink dump out MAP figures? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, it provides out RPM and MAP, and you can get it for EACH engine.

TAGERT.
07-03-2005, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
ATTENTION TAGERT,

I believe I have mis-understood what you were driving at. I made further errors for doing to you what I have been accusing you of doing to me, ie not reading your post throughly enough. I also became short and blunt with you. For this I am sorry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No Problem! We all read too fast sometimes! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And thanks for those book links!!!

AerialTarget
07-03-2005, 09:51 PM
So who is compiling this into an easily understood message for Oleg? Both Bolillo, Tagert, and I are obtaining roughly the same results and making the same conclusion, and yet all three of us initially misunderstood each other's results (except for mine, because I didn't provide anything to speak of). I think that some of the graphs need better labelling. I would be willing to compile the tests and results into a single message, but I certainly am not known for my objectivity about this airplane (regardless of whether this reputation is deserved or not), so I will not actually send the message.

By the way, Bolillo, Kahuna is sending Oleg the Roaring Glory warbird videos. He's sending him all of the ones available on disk, not just the P-38 Lightning one. Perhaps when Oleg actually sees the Lightning, he will see the obvious discrepancy in maneuverability (particularly roll and the mythical "roll intertia") between the one in the video and the one in the game.

Gibbage1
07-04-2005, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
By the way, Bolillo, Kahuna is sending Oleg the Roaring Glory warbird videos. He's sending him all of the ones available on disk, not just the P-38 Lightning one. Perhaps when Oleg actually sees the Lightning, he will see the obvious discrepancy in maneuverability (particularly roll and the mythical "roll intertia") between the one in the video and the one in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doubt it. ITs all propaganda anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BSS_CUDA
07-04-2005, 07:30 AM
Good flying yesterday Kahuna, first time I've got to wing up with you, and both of us with over 900 points, seemed like we RTB ever time we went up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

bolillo_loco
07-04-2005, 10:54 AM
I am not compiling any in game data or real life data for Oleg. None of my efforts are geared twards correcting inaccuracies in the flight model. There are two reasons for this, one I believe Oleg to be busy with other more important work (new games) and two I believe Oleg would just disregard my findings.

I was bored and decided to try the P-38 out and compair it to data that I have on that plane. As I have stated several times, the Fw 190 will be next. I hope to have a thread similar to this P-38 thread started by late this week (July 8th). the reason the Fw is next is because I have a lot of data on that aircraft.

AerialTarget
07-04-2005, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Doubt it. Its all propaganda anyways </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remembering this comment, I suddenly feel very foolish for actually believing, for a moment, that Oleg would listen to anything about the P-38 Lightning. Still, it's only fair to Kahuna, who has now spent money trying to convince Oleg by buying him the Roaring Glory warbird videos, to try to help out with text.

TAGERT.
07-04-2005, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I am not compiling any in game data or real life data for Oleg. None of my efforts are geared twards correcting inaccuracies in the flight model. There are two reasons for this, one I believe Oleg to be busy with other more important work (new games) and two I believe Oleg would just disregard my findings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! But you never know. So, I took the liberty of summing it all up and posting it in Oleg's Ready Room

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

I would really like it if you could review it to see if I made any mistakes and or miss-quotes! After which if we dont hear from Oleg in HIS ROOM Ill send it to his email address

AerialTarget
07-04-2005, 08:08 PM
Thank you very much, Tagert! This exceeds the post that I intended to make, by far.

Bah! While flying on Warclouds, I went to the blue side to even out the teams. While doing this, I overheard on Teamspeak the most abominable tripe about the P-38 L "Late" being so overmodelled and about how they're complaining to Oleg to tone it down. I hate clueless gamers. I almost hope that their favorite aircraft receive a seriously unrealistic nerf.

TAGERT.
07-04-2005, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Thank you very much, Tagert! This exceeds the post that I intended to make, by far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Bah! While flying on Warclouds, I went to the blue side to even out the teams. While doing this, I overheard on Teamspeak the most abominable tripe about the P-38 L "Late" being so overmodelled and about how they're complaining to Oleg to tone it down. I hate clueless gamers. I almost hope that their favorite aircraft receive a seriously unrealistic nerf. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! That is why it is so important to confront them with real data! If you were to just say that the P38J and P38L Early should be climbing like the P38L Late does now, and that the Late should climb even better.. Well, if they are whinning now, imagine the down right childish responces you would get after making such a claim. But, now instead of lowring ourselfs to that level, we can just point them to the link! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

fordfan25
07-04-2005, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
By the way, Bolillo, Kahuna is sending Oleg the Roaring Glory warbird videos. He's sending him all of the ones available on disk, not just the P-38 Lightning one. Perhaps when Oleg actually sees the Lightning, he will see the obvious discrepancy in maneuverability (particularly roll and the mythical "roll intertia") between the one in the video and the one in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doubt it. ITs all propaganda anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i know right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Daiichidoku
09-13-2006, 11:40 PM
the P 38 is still, in most respects, completely porked

Jaws2002
09-14-2006, 12:32 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/old_thread.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif