PDA

View Full Version : P-38L Top Speed



barfo1983
05-07-2009, 08:31 AM
Hello all,

How fast was the P-38L?

All the refererences that I can find list 414 MPH for any P-38 from export models without turbos all the way through to the P-38L.

I remeber seeing one source years ago that said the L was good for 457 MPH, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Thanks

barfo1983
05-07-2009, 08:31 AM
Hello all,

How fast was the P-38L?

All the refererences that I can find list 414 MPH for any P-38 from export models without turbos all the way through to the P-38L.

I remeber seeing one source years ago that said the L was good for 457 MPH, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Thanks

DKoor
05-07-2009, 10:55 AM
Just a quick hint... we should differentiate P-38LATE from vanilla P-38L.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Numbers are different.

AllorNothing117
05-07-2009, 10:57 AM
Check this link out,

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com...hp/Image:P38lspd.jpg (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Image:P38lspd.jpg)

As you can see it's top speed is about 414 lke you said flying straight and level at 25000 feet. Remember top speeds are measured at straight and level not in a dive or anything it would be way higher other wise. Of course at that altitude and at that speed the controls would begin to fail abit, not responding corectly so I wouldn't recomend it... Unless your diveing on an enemy and preparing to hit the airbrake. Also remember that this loss of control due to compression is not acuratly modeled in game as it only accoured high altitude. As an answer to your question the P-38 L had a top speed of around 414mph like you said, though with wep it's more like 420 and without more like 410 maybe 414 was like a middle number or summik. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway thats my 2 cents others will proably provide much more complex answers... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

staticline1
05-07-2009, 11:01 AM
Sounds like you may have mixed the top speed of the P-38K witht the L models. As far as I knwo however the K never saw combat.

JtD
05-07-2009, 12:02 PM
Hi, below there is a good resource on P-38 performance. All I'd want to know is that there were quite a few changes inside the L series, so there isn't really "the" L.

Check this out! (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html)

barfo1983
05-07-2009, 12:18 PM
Staticline might be correct in that I may have mistaken the K performance for the L's

I found this link for the K and I belive that the author is super reliable

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html (http://home.att.net/%7EC.C.Jordan/P-38K.html)

I hope someone has performance figures for the the P-38L LATE that DKoor mentioned

Thanks

Gibbage1
05-07-2009, 01:54 PM
The L "Late" is really what the L should be. The L's engines were cleared for a lot more HP, thus the "late".

The biggest problem is Oleg's programmed compressibility starts locking up the P-38's controls at 380MPH, and this was NOT the case in REAL LIFE. The pilots manual states that the "dive limit" was 440MPH TAS at 30,000ft, and 460MPH at 20,000ft. The dive limit means you still had control of your aircraft. Also, the dive limit ended at 10,000ft since compressibility DID NOT EFFECT the P-38 BELOW 10,000ft. On the other hand, IL2's P-38 locks solid at 400MPH on the deck. Its not realistic at all.

DKoor
05-07-2009, 02:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ElAurens
05-07-2009, 06:08 PM
Our "J" has the performance of very early models as well.

Oh well.

Waiting for SOW so I can uninstall this old girl and never look back.

Daiichidoku
05-07-2009, 07:12 PM
414 was the speed for the J at MILITARY POWER, not WAR EMERGENCY POWER

BigKahuna_GS
05-07-2009, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AllorNothing117--As you can see it's top speed is about 414 lke you said flying straight and level at 25000 feet. Remember top speeds are measured at straight and level not in a dive or anything it would be way higher other wise. Of course at that altitude and at that speed the controls would begin to fail abit, not responding corectly so I wouldn't recomend it... Unless your diveing on an enemy and preparing to hit the airbrake. Also remember that this loss of control due to compression is not acuratly modeled in game as it only accoured high altitude. As an answer to your question the P-38 L had a top speed of around 414mph like you said, though with wep it's more like 420 and without more like 410 maybe 414 was like a middle number or summik. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There should be no difference between the posted speeds of the P38J & P38L. If you look at the 150grade fuel tests with the P38J it was between 420-430mph. The lone P38L flight test posted at Spitfireperformance was performed very late in WW2. As P38s were being considered as a future planned phased out due to cost there was no reason to push the flight envelope. In this flight test 60"MP was not used in some of the flight parameters tested and no flight testing with overboosting/150grade fuel was performed.

Warren Bodie who worked at Lockheed and had direct access to flight tests told me via email that several P38L model flight tests went 435-443mph at altitude. I think these models did not have pylons which would knock off 8-10mph due to drag. The P38L Late in the sim does 430mph at alt.

There are many after action combat reports by P38L pilots that chased and caught Ki84s in level flight and then shot them down.


The P38 video is a pre J & L model by looking at the radiators.


-

Gibbage1
05-08-2009, 12:27 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:
The P38 video is a pre J & L model by looking at the radiators.
- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya. The video is an early F G or H model. Hard to tell.

P.S. I have spoken with TWO P-51 vets, and BOTH said there is NO WAY they could out turn a P-38. Having a pilot say HIS aircraft could do it is one thing, having the pilot of other aircraft agree, thats something!!!

AllorNothing117
05-08-2009, 06:16 AM
<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 609IAP_Kahuna:
The P38 video is a pre J & L model by looking at the radiators.
- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya. The video is an early F G or H model. Hard to tell.

P.S. I have spoken with TWO P-51 vets, and BOTH said there is NO WAY they could out turn a P-38. Having a pilot say HIS aircraft could do it is one thing, having the pilot of other aircraft agree, thats something!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wow, so is that anther way in which the P-38 is not modled correctly? I wish there was a way to make it work propaly, it's my fav plane by a long way. If only...

JtD
05-08-2009, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AllorNothing117:

Wow, so is that anther way in which the P-38 is not modled correctly? I wish there was a way to make it work propaly, it's my fav plane by a long way. If only... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If anything, it's another way the P-51 isn't modeled correctly.

Daiichidoku
05-08-2009, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AllorNothing117:
Wow, so is that anther way in which the P-38 is not modled correctly? I wish there was a way to make it work propaly, it's my fav plane by a long way. If only... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

low speed "somersault" with power on is pretty da mn silly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

weight difference between Js and Ls are about 14 lbs, but Oleg has it around 400 lbs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

climb for Js and Ls are off signifigantly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

38s could and did IRL carry 2x2000 lb bombs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

despite having redundant control runs for rudder and evelvators in the two booms, the game treats it as one only, thus leaving you without these controls where IRL they would be unaffected in most cases http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

AllorNothing117
05-08-2009, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AllorNothing117:
Wow, so is that anther way in which the P-38 is not modled correctly? I wish there was a way to make it work propaly, it's my fav plane by a long way. If only... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

low speed "somersault" with power on is pretty da mn silly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

weight difference between Js and Ls are about 14 lbs, but Oleg has it around 400 lbs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


climb for Js and Ls are off signifigantly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

38s could and did IRL carry 2x2000 lb bombs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

despite having redundant control runs for rudder and evelvators in the two booms, the game treats it as one only, thus leaving you without these controls where IRL they would be unaffected in most cases http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I'd heard about the control cable thing but 2 2000 lb bombs? Didn't know that...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif This is a truely depressing subject, I love my 38!

Gibbage1
05-08-2009, 12:35 PM
The max bomb load a P-38 could carry was 3200lb. 2x2000lb I dont think was "official", but its hefted quite a bit of weight in its career. Including 2 torps.

Daiichidoku
05-08-2009, 02:00 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/bombextra.jpg

AllorNothing117
05-08-2009, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/bombextra.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Love the pic! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

staticline1
05-08-2009, 03:01 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 609IAP_Kahuna:
The P38 video is a pre J & L model by looking at the radiators.
- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P.S. I have spoken with TWO P-51 vets, and BOTH said there is NO WAY they could out turn a P-38. Having a pilot say HIS aircraft could do it is one thing, having the pilot of other aircraft agree, thats something!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not suprised. Don't let either this sim or its RL size fool you. That thing was a heck of a lot more manuverable than people will typically figure it to be. In the hands of someone that knows how to handle it and use it to its fullest potential baring its speed difference it can hang with most any fighter. If you ever get a chance to see it fly at an airshow you'll probably notice the same thing I did. It doesn't really fly, it effortlessly glides through the air, its weird and cool at the same time. Something I haven't noticed on other WWII fighters.

Edit: Sorry Gibbage1, I didn't notice who I was responding to, I'm sure you're very aware of everything I just posted.

BigKahuna_GS
05-08-2009, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">low speed "somersault" with power on is pretty da mn silly

weight difference between Js and Ls are about 14 lbs, but Oleg has it around 400 lbs

climb for Js and Ls are off signifigantly

38s could and did IRL carry 2x2000 lb bombs

despite having redundant control runs for rudder and evelvators in the two booms, the game treats it as one only, thus leaving you without these controls where IRL they would be unaffected in most cases </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



+1

They also trimmed the energy retention too much and gave the P38 some weird CoG.

I talked to 1C about being able to perform a "Cloverleaf Manuever" because the P38 would stall
straight ahead in a mush without dipping either wing or losing very little altitude. 1c said it could be done---NOT, espcially after the heavy trim job and improper stall qualities.

I wonder if asymetrical power inputs will be possible in BoB ?

-

BigKahuna_GS
05-08-2009, 05:53 PM
S!

Three generations of Lightnings:

http://www.kelleycows.com/images/p38.jpg
P38

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/299/yourfile6ff.jpg
English Electric Lightning


http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2186/yourfile5fs.jpg
Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II

BigKahuna_GS
05-08-2009, 06:11 PM
http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/photos/planes/capp38.jpg
New Luft Fighter -- Der Gabelschwanz Teufel



-

danjama
05-08-2009, 06:12 PM
This thread is thus far just full of ****** who THINK they flew and THINK they knew how the P38 flew!!! Come on man you prople know nothing! Did you fly the P38 in combat? NO! So STFU until you know something....

BigKahuna_GS
05-08-2009, 06:15 PM
Ok try again

http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/photos/planes/capp38.jpg
New Luft Fighter -- Der Gabelschwanz Teufel

BigKahuna_GS
05-08-2009, 06:41 PM
S!

http://www.airventure.de/oshkosh05/preview/kosh05_glaciergirls_0319.jpg
Glacier Girls



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dajama-This thread is thus far just full of ****** who THINK they flew and THINK they knew how the P38 flew!!! Come on man you prople know nothing! Did you fly the P38 in combat? NO! So STFU until you know something....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not sure pal....but I think you just crossed the line.
Time to remove the pole out of your keyster and move along.

Most of the people here have researched the P38 extensively, talked to many combat P38 pilots in person, have seen training films of how the P38 flew especially stall charectoristics, have been beta testers for this sim and generally have a pretty good idea of what they are talking about.

Daiichidoku
05-08-2009, 07:22 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/lightningp-38.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/p3819.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/p-38h.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/p_38_87.jpg

Daiichidoku
05-08-2009, 07:31 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/aero/P38sAlaskaColor.jpg

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

BigKahuna_GS
05-08-2009, 07:34 PM
http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/4385/abw4kt.jpg
New Luft Fighter -- Der Gabelschwanz Teufel



--

Gibbage1
05-08-2009, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
This thread is thus far just full of ****** who THINK they flew and THINK they knew how the P38 flew!!! Come on man you prople know nothing! Did you fly the P38 in combat? NO! So STFU until you know something.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um. I have interviewed about 5 former P-38 pilots, 1 test pilot, 2 P-51 pilots. I think I have a better understanding of how the P-38 "should" fly then you from the people who not only flew it, but flew against it.

P.S. That test pilot? Flew out of March AFB in WWII, testing almost every aircraft in the war, there's and ours. Someone (not me) asked him out of ALL the aircraft, what was his fave, and he said "Even though I only got about 2 flights in it, by far, the P-38".

BSS_CUDA
05-08-2009, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
This thread is thus far just full of ****** who THINK they flew and THINK they knew how the P38 flew!!! Come on man you prople know nothing! Did you fly the P38 in combat? NO! So STFU until you know something.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/diehard982734.jpg
WELCOME TO THE PARTY PAL

and since you know even less about the 38 thanks for offering your worthless opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BSS_CUDA
05-08-2009, 07:50 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/misc%20evergreen/DSC08734.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/misc%20evergreen/DSC08731.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/misc%20evergreen/DSC08732.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/misc%20evergreen/DSC08733.jpg

Tillamook Air Museum


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/misc%20evergreen/DSCN3904.jpg

Evergreen Aviation Museum

Daiichidoku
05-08-2009, 07:58 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/aero/p38-25.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/aero/p38-30.jpg

Gibbage1
05-08-2009, 07:58 PM
Hay Cuda. You in Oregon? Just moved to Seattle myself and passed through Evergreen on the way up.

julian265
05-08-2009, 08:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
This thread is thus far just full of ****** who THINK they flew and THINK they knew how the P38 flew!!! Come on man you prople know nothing! Did you fly the P38 in combat? NO! So STFU until you know something.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By that logic, there are a handful of people on this forum that are allowed to post any opinions.

**** off, troll.

BSS_CUDA
05-08-2009, 08:03 PM
out side Portland, Oregon city to be exact

BigKahuna_GS
05-08-2009, 08:10 PM
http://www.aviationart.nl/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning_2.jpg
Fighting Franks

Lockheed P-38 LIghtning of Col. Charles MacDonald (28 kills). HQ 475 FG New Guinea.
Flew five different P- 38s, all named Putt Putt Maru.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2882207079_6dea98e349.jpg?v=0

http://fertigmodelle.ch/standmodelle-kunststoff/flugzeuge/21st-century/CEN_10128-S3.jpg I have the large scale model P38 Putt Putt Maru


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2882207079_6dea98e349.jpg?v=0



-

mortoma
05-08-2009, 08:27 PM
I didn't know the Germans had a captured E or F model! I've seen photos of all sorts of aircraft they captured but never one of a P-38. Too bad we don't have early P-38s in this sim.

The E and were about as fast as the J up until they got to 24,000 feet. In the Pacific side, I have to fly the J and pretend it's a F. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Daiichidoku
05-08-2009, 08:52 PM
you MUST czech the gold Snautzer dug up at CWOS

http://www.acompletewasteofspa...le=viewtopic&t=18492 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=18492)

http://www.acompletewasteofspa...le=viewtopic&t=18491 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=18491)


apologies for the hotlinks Snautzer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii228/Snautzer/p38/Clipboard11.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii228/Snautzer/p38/Clipboard19.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
05-08-2009, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by danjama:
This thread is thus far just full of ****** who THINK they flew and THINK they knew how the P38 flew!!! Come on man you prople know nothing! Did you fly the P38 in combat? NO! So STFU until you know something....


By that logic, there are a handful of people on this forum that are allowed to post any opinions.

**** off, troll. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually there is no one in this forum that can comment.
Not one person here has flown any WW2 aircraft in actual combat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
So I'll trust the P38 combat pilots that did, the many refrence books, training films
and test pilot comments.


Nice pics Cuda !
Gib--(moved)I guess you missed P38 day at Planes of Fame Chino?

http://www.ethell.com/jethell/jeffethell/p38_ocean.jpg
A great shot of Jeff in Jack Erickson's, P-38L soaring over the Oregon coastline.

(Asymetrical Power Manuever)
Without much thought, I was entering his preferred combat maneuver; power up, I pictured a 109 on my tail and began an increasingly steep right-hand climbing turn. In turning and twisting with 109s and 190s, Dad never got a bullet hole in Tangerine, his P-38F. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">As the speed dropped below 150mph, I flipped the flap handle to the maneuver stop (which can be used up to 250mph) and steepened the turn. At this point, the 109 pilot, at full power with the right rudder all the way down, would have snap-rolled into a vicious stall if he had chosen to follow.</span> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I pulled the power back on the inside (right) engine, pushed the power up on the outside (left) engine, shoved right rudder pedal, and the Lightning smoothly swapped ends. Not only did it turn on a dime, but it actually rotated around its vertical axis as if spinning on a pole running through the top of the canopy and out the bottom of the cockpit. </span> The maneuver was absolutely comfortable with no heavy G-loading. As the nose came through 180 degrees, I threw the flap lever back to full up, evened the throttles and headed downhill going through 300mph in less time than it takes to tell it. The 109 would have been a sitting duck.



Here are some Germans opinions:

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

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

3. (Heinz Knoke description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):

"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."


http://www.flightjournal.com/Media/E-CommerceProductCatalog/BSFG-1_0.jpg
Flying the P-38 Lightening
A Dream Comes True
Jeffrey L. Ethell



-

uppurrz
05-08-2009, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
I didn't know the Germans had a captured E or F model! I've seen photos of all sorts of aircraft they captured but never one of a P-38. Too bad we don't have early P-38s in this sim.

The E and were about as fast as the J up until they got to 24,000 feet. In the Pacific side, I have to fly the J and pretend it's a F. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans even got a P-38 from a deserter.

F-5E s/n 44-23725 of the 354th Air Services Squadron (T9+MK) was not actually captured in the traditional sense. Lt. Martin J. Monti, who had very strong political views went AWOL from his unit, the 126th Replacement Depot in India, while awaiting assignment to a P-38. He made his was to Italy and tried to join up with the 82nd FG but the commander, Col Edwinson refused his request.

Lt. Monti then went to Pommigliano Airfield on October 13, 1944 and stole an F-5E by presenting himself as a test pilot. The F-5E he stole was scheduled for evaluation after repairs and thus Lt. Monti was able to take control of the aircraft without arousing any suspicions. He flew the F-5E in the direction of the front but became lost and landed near Milan at a German held fighter strip.

Lt. Monti is the only member of the USAAF to defect to the Germans. His aircraft was taken over by Zirkus Rosarius and was finally flown to Schongau in Austria, May 1945.

Lt. Monti survived the war and was court martialled for stealing the F-5E and was released from prison in 1948 with the rank of sergeant. However, he was re-arrested by the FBI on charges of treason because he had apparently assisted the Germans with radio propaganda broadcasts. He served 28 years in prison and was released in 1977.

http://www.luftwaffe-experten....ex.php?showtopic=382 (http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=382)

Gibbage1
05-08-2009, 09:39 PM
Ya, I missed P-38 day at Chino, but I nearly grew up at Chino for the first 30 years of my life. Im friends with Steve Hinton, and even worked with him on the filming of "Showdown, Air Combat" for the military Channel. Great guy. Wish I was him... His son, who personally helped me on the YP-80 for FB, is now flying with his dad! It was great to see him take up the Mig-15 at last years air show.

Kettenhunde
05-08-2009, 10:22 PM
The P38 fans might enjoy this report. It is from a Lockheed engineer discussing the history of the companies fighter designs. It has some great information on the P38 for you all to enjoy. A remarkable airplane in many ways.

&lt; link will not work for you guys&gt;

All the best,

Crumpp

Gibbage1
05-08-2009, 10:49 PM
Its asking for a user name and pass. Any extra information is always a help, thanks!

Kettenhunde
05-08-2009, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its asking for a user name and pass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Darn, I thought it might. Sorry, you have to be a student attending an approved aeronautical engineering or science curriculum, faculty, or licensed engineer then.

It is too much to copy and post.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
05-08-2009, 11:22 PM
The paper covers the development and service from the POV of the design team. It talks about the various problems they encountered and solutions they developed in overcoming some of the design's difficulties. Lockheed Martins labor on the P38 really bore fruit in the coming jet age. It helped to set them up for success and launch them into position as one of the leading firms in the fields of jet propulsion and high speed flight.

YP-38 Dive testing:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8657/yp38divespeeds.jpg (http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=yp38divespeeds.jpg)


Landing gear test trolley the engineers devised to investigate shimmy:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9260/p38landinggeartrolley.jpg (http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p38landinggeartrolley.jpg)

Wing filets added to reduce high speed buffet:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9205/wingfilet.jpg (http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wingfilet.jpg)

Dive brakes:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/894/diveflap.jpg (http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=diveflap.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

barfo1983
05-09-2009, 05:40 AM
Thank you all for all this great info on the P-38

If the performance envelop of the P-38 platform was pushed and developed to its maximum, maybe with some version of a boosted K, how do you think it would compare with the Do-335?

Seems like a logical comparison :-)

Bremspropeller
05-09-2009, 05:55 AM
It wouldn't compare to the Do 335 at all because it was built for an entirely different purpose.

BigKahuna_GS
05-09-2009, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ya, I missed P-38 day at Chino, but I nearly grew up at Chino for the first 30 years of my life. Im friends with Steve Hinton, and even worked with him on the filming of "Showdown, Air Combat" for the military Channel. Great guy. Wish I was him... His son, who personally helped me on the YP-80 for FB, is now flying with his dad! It was great to see him take up the Mig-15 at last years air show. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Rgr that Gib
Good times! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Seems like everytime a warbird goes up Steve Hinton is there. There was about 12 P38 pilots there this time. I ended up talking to a couple of P38 North African Vets and another P38 pilot stationed in Italy.

Planes of Fame flew their J model P38. It was interesting listening to the P38 Vets as the P38 flew overhead--"he (the pilot) is only using about 20"MP", "He's really babying that thing", "I hope he does a manuever flap break turn", "I wish I was flying that bueatiful bird".

Ok ---"I hope he does a manuever flap break turn" was my comment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kettenhunde--Dive brakes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cool Dive Chart
But author and Lockheed Engineer Warren Bodie would be very upset that you called "Dive Recovery Flaps" -- dive brakes. These flaps were never designed to slow the plane but to correct washout and return control of the elevator.

John Stack -- "The flap was not a conventional dive flap intended to reduce the speed."


Corky Meyer flight tested the P38 at the JFC

Quote:
http://findarticles.com/p/arti...307/ai_n9283659/pg_2 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200307/ai_n9283659/pg_2)


Flight testing the P-38 disclosed that whenever the airflow over the wing exceeded Mach 1.0, compressibility effects were encountered. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">This result was soon predictable when this slippery fighter accelerated in excess of 0.65 Mach in dive angles greater than 45 degrees at altitudes above 15,000 feet.</span> Cockpit-installed Mach meters had yet to be invented. George W. Grey, in his history of NACA, departed from strict engineering terms when he described compressibility effects in the P-38, saying, "The behavior of the P-38 was new to pilots, terrifying, baffling. Several men putting this two-engine fighter through its diving maneuvers experienced a sudden violent buffeting of the tail accompanied by a lunging and thrashing about of the airplane, as though it was trying to free itself of invisible bonds, and then the maddening immobility of the controls, the refusal of the elevators to respond to the wheel control." The only element he left out was the most horrifying: the nose-down pitching. Even a strongly applied aft wheel force couldn't stop the problem.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The NACA High Speed Wind Tunnel team under John Stack's direction had been working on this problem and had devised a small pair of 6x40-- inch, electrically operated dive-recovery flaps to be installed on the P-38 wing's underside and outboard of the engine nacelles; they could be extended to 40 degrees. That action would rapidly pitch the aircraft up to 4G and enable the pilot to regain full control</span>. Although Lt. Kelsey evaluated and approved this dive-recovery flap in February 1943, Lockheed did not incorporate it into production for another 14 months! By that time, 5,300 P-38s-more than half the number eventually produced-had been delivered to the USAAF.

To outfit all of the P-38s in the European theater with dive-recovery flaps, a C-54 transport loaded with 425 sets of them was dispatched to England. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Unfortunately, this plane was mistakenly identified as a four-engine German Focke-Wulf 200 Condor patrol aircraft and was shot down by a British fighter pilot just short of its goal. Another load of dive-recovery flaps was lost when the ship that carried this cargo was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat. </span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">In 1943, I experienced compressibility in a Hellcat</span>; I wonder how many of those P-38 pilots in the pursuit of the enemy dived too steeply-well beyond the critical Mach limit and into compressibility-in the heat of combat and disappeared into oblivion. At the Joint Army/Navy Fighter Conference on October 16, 1944, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I tested the P-38L dive-recovery flap well in excess of its 0.65 Mach-number limit. Upon actuation, they instantly provided a smooth, 4G recovery without pilot effort. Immediately after I evaluated these "jewels," they were installed on all Grumman 17817-1 Bearcat fighters. </span>
MEYER'S P-38 EVALUATION

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">On September 12, 1943, a P-38G was delivered to Grumman as part of a program to "cross-pollinate" USAAF aircraft with Navy contractors. Naval fighters were also sent to Army contractors for their evaluations.</span> Only Bud Gillies, vice president of flight operations, and I were cleared to fly the aircraft (I was scheduled to be the project pilot of the twin-engine Tigercat that was to fly two months later).

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Counter-rotating propellers canceled the massive torque of the engines. This made takeoff and climb-out simple tasks and required very little use of the rudder and none of the usual continuous directional trimming with speed variations. It was a great asset in fighter tactics, for which great changes in speed are required.</span> In single-engine fighters, the pilot is either continuously working the directional trim tab or shooting very poorly because of constant searching for zero yaw angle during combat maneuvers. Sitting so near the wing and so far behind its leading edge required 90 degrees of bank angle to get any view of the ground below the aircraft. Combined with the P-38's high aileron forces, this would be a noticeable and tiring maneuver for visual cross-country navigation and when checking for the presence of enemy aircraft below the aircraft. Except for the high aileron forces that made rolling aerobatics require two hands on the wheel control, all other aerobatics were a pleasure with the P-38's fast airspeed acceleration and otherwise well-balanced maneuvering control forces.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Where the aircraft really came into its own was in performing stalls. The counter-rotating propellers kept the aircraft pointing straight ahead, so there was no torque effect to require rudder input as the speed decreased. Stalls demonstrated a good, early buffet warning, and no wing dropping occurred at the stall, even with small, pilot-applied aileron and rudder inputs to try to irritate its lateral and/or directional attitudes near the stall. </span> It was even more impressive to me when I performed single-engine stalls with one engine either windmilling or feathered. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">With one of the P-38's dual fins and rudders always in the slipstream of a live engine, a stall could be performed with little or no wing drop. </span> It was a pilot's dream under the trying conditions of a single-engine approach and landing.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Probably the most amazing P-38 flight characteristic was that it had such uniform and gentle landing-pattern stalls and accelerated stalls during very tight combat turns from its cruise-type high aspect ratio wing planform. </span> I estimated that its span-to-chord ratio was about 7:1. Most fighters have a stubbier wing than the P-38. I also believe that its counterrotating propellers had a bit to do with this phenomenon. The P-38 wing was a designer's dream and a pilot's delight.

Once it was fully developed, the P-38 inspired universal loyalty and praise from its pilots. The dive-recovery flaps had eliminated its compressibility problems at high dive speeds. Control-wheel forces had been reduced by 80 percent, and the hydraulically boosted ailerons had doubled rolling performance. Its exhilarating high-speed performance could then be used without complications. Despite its stodgy transport-style control column and its much less than perfect cockpit visibility, the P-38 was any pilot's must-have fighter.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html

FROM ENGINEERING SCIENCE TO BIG SCIENCE 83

The general aeronautics community was suddenly awakened to the realities of the unknown flight regime in November 1941, when Lockheed test pilot Ralph Virden could not pull the new, high-performance P-38 out of a high-speed dive, and crashed. Virden was the first human fatality due to adverse compressibility effects, and the P-38, shown below, was the first airplane to Suffer from these effects. The P-38 exceeded its critical Mach number in an operational dive, and penetrated well into the regime of the compressibility burble at its terminal dive speed, as shown by the bar chart on page 80 .35 The problem encountered by Virden, and many other P-38 pilots at that time, was that beyond a certain speed in a dive, the elevator controls suddenly felt as if they were locked. And to make things worse, the tail suddenly produced more lift, pulling the P-38 into an even


http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/4219-083.jpg

Lockheed P-38, the first airplane to encounter severe compressibility problems.
35. This chart is taken from the figure on page 78 of the article by R. L. Foss, "From Propellers to Jets in Fighter Aircraft Design," in Jay D. Pinson, ed., Diamond Jubilee of Powered Flight: The Evolution of Aircrafeet Design (New York, NY: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1978), pp. 51-64.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/4219-084.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/4219-084.jpg
Bar chart showing the magnitude of how much the P-38 penetrated the compressibility regime.

steeper dive. This was called the "tuck-under" problem. It is important to note that the NACA soon solved this problem, using its expertise in compressibility effects. Although Lockheed consulted various aerodynamicists, including Theodore Von Karman at Caltech, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">it turned out that John Stack at NACA Langley, with his accumulated experience in compressibility effects, was the only one to properly diagnose the problem. </span> The wing of the P-38 lost lift when it encountered the compressibility burble. As a result, the downwash angle of the flow behind the wing was reduced. This in turn increased the effective angle of attack of the flow encountered by the horizontal tail, increasing the lift on the tail, and pitching the P-38 to a progressively steepening dive totally beyond the control of the pilot. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Stack's solution was to place a special flap under the wing, to be employed only when these compressibility effects were encountered. The flap was not a conventional dive flap intended to reduce the speed. Rather, Stack's idea was to use the flap to maintain lift in the face of the compressibility burble, hence eliminating the change in the downwash angle, and therefore allowing the horizontal tail to function properly.</span> This is a graphic example of how, in the early days of high-speed flight, the NACA compressibility research was found to be vital as real airplanes began to sneak up on Mach one.36

Indeed, it was time for real airplanes to be used to probe the mysteries of the unknown transonic gap. It was time for the high-speed research airplane to become a reality. The earliest concrete proposal along these lines was made by Ezra Kotcher, a senior instructor at the Army Air Corps Engineering School at Wright Field (a forerunner of today's Air Force Institute of Technology). Kotcher was a 1928 graduate of the University of California,



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

36. The "tuck-under" problem, and its technical Solution, is described in John D. Anderson, Jr., Introduction to Flight (New York, NY. McGraw-Hill Book Co., 3rd ed., 1989), pp. 406-08.


According to the chart it looks like the terminal dive speed of structeral failure was well beyond .80mach for the P38.



-

Gibbage1
05-09-2009, 04:23 PM
Just a note. All airliners today suffer from the same thing, called Mac tuck now. They fixed this by having all moving elevator that adjusts the pitch of the elevator to keep the nose up when the tuck starts to set it.

Also, late model P-47's had these dive flaps installed, along with the F8F, so the P-38 was not the only aircraft to suffer from compressibility in real life, just the only one in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
05-09-2009, 05:17 PM
NO airliner cruises in Mach tuck conditions.
That only happens above Mne.

Mach tuck in an airliner, and you're in deep sh*t!

But you're right, they're having an "all flying tail" (stab trim) similar to the 109/ 190/ 262.

uppurrz
05-09-2009, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
NO airliner cruises in Mach tuck conditions.
That only happens above Mne.

Mach tuck in an airliner, and you're in deep sh*t!

But you're right, they're having an "all flying tail" (stab trim) similar to the 109/ 190/ 262. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the SE5a and Sopwith Camel.

BigKahuna_GS
05-09-2009, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, late model P-47's had these dive flaps installed, along with the F8F, so the P-38 was not the only aircraft to suffer from compressibility in real life, just the only one in IL2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Rgr that.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Corky Meyer--In 1943, I experienced compressibility in a Hellcat.</span>

Pretty much any high performance prop fighter could find itself in compressibility in a
steep power dive. The trick was being able to regain control at lower alt where the air was denser and the speed of sound increased.

The optimal tool for any high speed aircraft caught in compressibility was the dive recovery flap system.

Robert Johnson said he witnessed many 190's pancaking into the ground from steep power dives
while trying to escape from P47's.

-

Gibbage1
05-09-2009, 06:35 PM
Also, a note on dive recovery on a P-38 below 15,000ft. Like noted above, compressibility WAS NOT a factor below 15,000ft. I spoke to two P-38 pilots, and BOTH blacked out after pulling hard out of a steep dive below 15,000ft, since they "thought" they were still in compressibility. The P-38 BELOW 15,000ft has SO MUCH elevator authority, it almost instantly blacked out TWO different pilots. In IL2, thats not possible.

Kettenhunde
05-09-2009, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> These flaps were never designed to slow the plane but to correct washout and return control of the elevator.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sure Mr Bodie did not say this as it is a fact they do create drag and do slow the airplane. The consequences of that is a return of control surface authority.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> According to the chart it looks like the terminal dive speed of structeral failure was well beyond .80mach for the P38.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you talking about the wing or the airplane? I would suspect that mach .8 is pretty close just because the P38 is a propeller aircraft but you can’t make that determination off a chart that only tells us what the wing is capable of doing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This chart is taken from the figure on page 78 of the article </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the theoretical performance of the wing and not the performance of the airplane.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gibbage1
05-09-2009, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I am sure Mr Bodie did not say this as it is a fact they do create drag and do slow the airplane. The consequences of that is a return of control surface authority.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your correct it that it WILL slow down the aircraft some, but anything put into the airstream will. What he means that, unlike the flaps on something like a Stuka, who's main use is to slow the aircraft down, the main goal of the P-38 flaps is to break up the shockwave thats holding on the elevator, and return the center of lift forward on the wing.

The proof in this is #1, the size. 6" x 40" is not all that big. Also, #2, its angle. Its extended 45 degrees, not 90 degrees like the Stuka.

So yes, it will slow down the aircraft, but should not effect it greatly.

uppurrz
05-09-2009, 10:34 PM
Gibbage, I would say Crumpp has a problem differentiating between primary and secondary.

That is the primary is as you state and the secondary of drag is a bonus effect.

Kettenhunde
05-10-2009, 12:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the main goal of the P-38 flaps is to break up the shockwave thats holding on the elevator, and return the center of lift forward on the wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Normal shock forms and moves based on velocity.

If you want to move the normal shock so the aerodynamic surfaces are not located in the stagnation point, then you have to change the velocity.

In steady flight, thrust equals drag. If we increase our drag and not our thrust, then we MUST slow down.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The proof in this is #1, the size. 6" x 40" is not all that big. Also, #2, its angle. Its extended 45 degrees, not 90 degrees like the Stuka. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Size is determined by dynamic pressure which again has a relationship to velocity.

A aircraft going 250mph is going to require more surface area than one traveling 400mph( +) to reach the same force.

The majority of our drag effects have been realized by the time we reach 45 degrees!

10 square feet * sin45 = 7 square feet

10 square feet * sin4 = 10 squared feet

70 percent of the area is present in a 45 degree dive.

Of course our drag due to lift has increased considerably too with the majority of our lift coefficient gains being realized in the first few degrees of flap movement. At the dynamic pressure we are designing the dive brakes we can realize our drag goals without the structural issues of a 90 degree mechanism for deployment.

Pretty damn good design work, IMHO.

Kind of neat isn't it?

All the best,

Crumpp

Gibbage1
05-10-2009, 02:05 AM
Crumpp. Use some logic, please. If the primary goal for the P-38 flaps was to SLOW it down, dont you think they would of made a more simple system to do it, that extended 90 degrees?

Again, we are not saying it DIDNT slow you down. We are just saying that was not the intended goal! It was MORE then JUST slowing an aircraft down!!!

Gibbage1
05-10-2009, 02:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kahuna </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hay. You may find this interesting. Log it under "interesting P-38 info from pilots". One of the times I was asking about compressability with a WWII P-38 ace, he said he never used the dive flaps, but had to get out a few times before they were installed. He said there was 2 things that you could do, to get out. I dont think these "tips" were widely known, but he swore by them.

Tip #1, 1 notch of flaps.

Tip #2, turn on your hand hydrolic pump to the landing gear, and give it 1 good pump. This would "crack" the wheel well doors on the mains about 2", and give you the elevator back.

When he was telling me these tips, a B-29 navigator from WWII was with us, and asked "But wont that damage your aircraft?" and the P-38 pilot said "Not as much as hitting the ground at 500mph." Classic. Basically yes, it will damage your aircraft, but youll live. I asked "So it worked?" and his reply was something to the order "Well im able to tell YOU about it!" so I guess he had to do it himself to get out of a scrape or two.

Kettenhunde
05-10-2009, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp. Use some logic, please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don’t consider it my job to convince you. I laid out how the physics works.

The exact mechanism Lockheed chose is to change our normal shock to an oblique shock. By placing a wedge in front of the normal shock the flow turns a corner and the shock stays the same but now is an oblique shock. An oblique shock effect is too lower velocity and Mach number as well as increase the pressure in front of the oblique shock pushing the nose up thereby aiding in recovery.

Only certain things will alter a shock. Why do you think many jet engines have an adjustable mach cone at the inlet? Normal shock is a function of velocity. If your speed remains the same you must physically move the point of shock formation. No mechanism is present on the P-38 to move the shock.

The purpose of the dive flap was to aid in recovery, it was not an improvement in mach limits, q-limits, or stability. The dive flap is an improvement in control alone.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 10 square feet * sin45 = 7 square feet

10 square feet * sin4 = 10 squared feet
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typo and should read sin90.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> dont you think they would of made a more simple system to do it, that extended 90 degrees?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is actually harder to do on the hinging than a simple flap.

Once again it comes down to angle and force.

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
05-10-2009, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The optimal tool for any high speed aircraft caught in compressibility was the dive recovery flap system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's an all flying tail as that one will give you control of the input, whereas popping out a board into the airstream has nothing to do with controllability. It just punches up the nose and gets your speed down below Mcomp at the same time.

You can't control the rate of change.
It works as well but won't give you the amount of control as a stab-trim will give you.

Kettenhunde
05-10-2009, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> whereas popping out a board into the airstream has nothing to do with controllability </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct Brems but let’s caveat this part.

It is a control feature in that it allows the pilot to safely transition from a condition of flight in which he has no control back to a condition of flight he can control the aircraft.

It is not the same nor does it have the degree of control offered by a stabilator in transonic flight. In relation to the flosse system found on German aircraft, it is much easier to over control with the flosse than the P-38 Dive flap recovery system. From a pilot safety viewpoint, Lockheed’s solution is excellent. Sort of like Mtt’s stability and control has some pilot safety features which make it uncomfortable to some pilot's.

Facts are most of these aircraft had very similar mach limits and our ability to even measure performance in the transonic realm was simply not accurate at this time. I don’t think many flight sim players appreciate the dangers of flight in the transonic realm. The “measured performance” has as much to do with the pilot’s courage as the aircraft’s performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

eACE
05-10-2009, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AllorNothing117:
Check this link out,

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com...hp/Image:P38lspd.jpg (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Image:P38lspd.jpg)

As you can see it's top speed is about 414 lke you said flying straight and level at 25000 feet. Remember top speeds are measured at straight and level not in a dive or anything it would be way higher other wise. Of course at that altitude and at that speed the controls would begin to fail abit, not responding corectly so I wouldn't recomend it... Unless your diveing on an enemy and preparing to hit the airbrake. Also remember that this loss of control due to compression is not acuratly modeled in game as it only accoured high altitude. As an answer to your question the P-38 L had a top speed of around 414mph like you said, though with wep it's more like 420 and without more like 410 maybe 414 was like a middle number or summik. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway thats my 2 cents others will proably provide much more complex answers... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Has anyone actually done a similar formal speed test per altitude for the IL2 P38Ls? Or is it safe to assume all the references to top speed thus far are based on something they did/saw once in a non-test scenario? If so who in their right mind would consider that as proof?